When the occasional coverage regarding the potential connection between cell phones and cancer crosses my radar, one thing I have noticed that these stories are almost universally short on is actionable information. One says there is a connection. One says there isn't a connection. Another says the jury is out.  So what? Given my options, what am I supposed to do with this information? Although it's my opinion, I'm about to tell you what I'm going to do with it.  What you do is, of course, up to you.

 

One thing I learned in the course of researching this blog is that you have to be careful about who you present that question to.  Some will automatically read between the lines and assume that you might be basing your purchase decisions on this information and they'll more or less tell you that doing so is a dumb idea. So, before I continue, let me make three things absolutely clear about the connection between cell phone radiation and cancer — three facts that, for the foreseeable future, will guide my decision-making about handset purchases and, hopefully, yours as well.

 

The first important fact about the connection between cell phone radiation and cancer is that there's a group of people who, based on the research they've seen, will emphatically say that the results prove that there's no connection between cell phones and brain cancer.  You don't have to think too hard about who some of these people must be (the ones with a business to protect). As best as I can tell, the basis of their claims is a deduction. Since there is no body of research to have conclusively proven a connection between cell phone radiation and cancer, we can make the deduction that the connection doesn't exist. That's how a lot of cause-and-effect science works and it's fair to say that on a case-by-case basis (for example, whether the research is about the connection between cell phones and cancer or  the effectiveness of the color red  in signaling motorists to stop at a stop sign),  we can be hypocrites when it comes to putting our faith in some deductions, but not others.

 

The second important fact about the connection between cell phone radiation and cancer is that there's another group of people, who, based on the research they've seen, will emphatically say that more research needs to be done.  Some in this group are more prepared to lean in the direction of a connection than others, but virtually all agree that, at the very least,  the results so far are too inconclusive to rule the connection out.   Many researchers and scientists are in this group.

 

The third fact is that before a cell phone can be put on the U.S. market, it has to live up to a lot of federal regulations and one of them is the maximum SAR level.  Virtually everyone I've spoken regarding this issue cites the 1.6 W/kg maximum, and that fact is confirmed by a page on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site that says "The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg)." 

 

Given these three facts — the existence of two groups and the FCC regulations — I'm not prepared to go out on a limb and warn you that cell phones cause cancer, or that I even suspect they do. But, in my opinion, if you're a person that would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to your personal safety (as I am), this is enough information to affect how you buy cell phones.

 

First and foremost in my mind is that the jury is clearly still out.   Though hardly anybody will unequivocally tell you that cell phones cause cancer, there are enough respected voices on the topic that say it's too early to unequivocally say they don't.

 

Via a telephone interview, one such researcher — The University of Washington's Henry Lai — even said (verbatim)  "the jury is still out."  We talked about a number of scientific reasons,  unresearched scenarios, and newer studies which proved to me that, at the very least, there are plenty of bases left to cover before anyone can begin to conclusively swing in either direction. On the scientific front, Lai talked about how there are differences in opinion over testing methodology.  For example, Lai thinks it's fair to question how much brain tissue should be involved in a radiation test.  "Should it be 10 grams or one gram?" asked Lai.  "With 10 grams, the radiation is much more diluted than with one gram. Why not seek to minimize the dilution by going with one gram or even less.  One gram of brain tissue has over a billion brain cells in it. All you need is one cell to be damaged to become cancerous."  Lai advocates tests that seek to maximize the exposure of each cell, rather than to dilute it.  Makes sense to me.  Worst-case-scenario testing is common in many other things us humans do. Why not this? Says Lai, "The cell phone companies advocate the 10-gram approach." I'm sure they have their reasons.  Does it matter? What's more important is that there are  enough smart people who don't agree.

I asked Lai about different common scenarios.  At first Lai talked about testing phones while people are talking on them because that's when they're transmitting.  But what about when people aren't talking on them? Today's digital phones, some of which are also e-mail devices,  are constantly in contact with the network.  What's the difference between the radiation we're getting when the phone isn't "in use," when it's ringing, and when we're talking on it? Marry those three to where the phone is at any given point. Just before my old Nextel phones use to ring, the speakers in my car made a funny noise.  If the phone was lying near the electrical socket by the sink — the one with the built-in circuit breaker — the circuit breaker would pop just before it rang.  Clearly, the phone is emitting something in the process of ringing. (Did any brain cells pop?)  "What do you think that was about?" I asked Lai. If you're using some sort of headset but the phone is still on your belt or in your pocket, and it's idle, ringing or in use,  then what? Or, what if you're using a speaker phone?  Given a phone with a particular SAR rating, what are the effects of distance on the radiation levels?   Lai responded that  that these questions were all great ones to ask and that it's quite simple: more work needs to be done. (Citing a very recent study that explored the connection between cell phone-like radiation and sperm damage, Lai also suggested that men might want to think twice before putting a cell phone in their pockets.)

 

Here's one question that you almost never see asked when the experts like Lai are interviewed in the press about the cell phone-cancer connection: What are their best practices when it comes to cell phones? It's like asking the mechanic in your family about what car he or she would  buy. Said Lai, "I don't have a cell phone." But Lai cautioned not to read too far into that answer.  Lai also said he doesn't need one.  But if he had one, Lai said he'd probably use a headset (but also admitted that the jury was out on headset effectiveness as well) with the idea being to keep the antennae as far away from your head has possible.

 

The jury may not be out for some, but the jury looks out to me.  While I may not be willing to give up my cell phone altogether, I still feel as though there are some practical things that I can do to minimize any potential risk while we wait for mo' betta conclusions.  If, ten years from now, it turns out I was overprotective of myself, or my family members, so be it.  What will I have lost?  Actually, that's a good question when it comes to what you should think about when buying a handset in the context of the radiation issue.

 

As it turns out, there's more to getting FCC approval than just coming below the 1.6 W/kg maximum.  Cell phone manufacturers must have their devices independently tested and the results are made available to the FCC, which in turn makes the actual results available through an online database on its Web site.   In other words, it's not a pass/fail test.  We have access to the actual ratings.  So, if we just buy phones because the FCC allowed them onto the market as opposed to comparing SAR ratings, aren't we selling ourselves short?   Given two phones with the same features and the same price, shouldn't we be considering the one with the lower SAR rating?  Or, how much is your peace of mind worth?  In true better-safe-than-sorry fashion, would you pay an extra $25, $50, or even $100 to have a phone with the same features as another, but with a 33 or 50 percent lower SAR rating?  OK, maybe not for yourself.  Maybe you're 50 years old and you're thinking cell phone-induced brain cancer isn't what's going to arrange your meeting with your maker.  But what about your kids?  I'll bet there are a lot of parents out there who are on serious guilt trips about exposing their kids to second hand smoke. (Something almost no one stopped to think about 30 years ago when they were driving the kids to Grandma's with the car windows rolled up.)