Cell Phone Radiation Revelations Coming

December 13, 2000 / 10:54 PM EST / AP

Scientist Kwok Chan switches on a cell phone held against a model of the human head and gently lowers a radiation probe into the honey-colored goopy liquid simulating the blood and brain tissue inside a person's skull.

Chan's computers in this Federal Communications Commission laboratory then measure how much radiation people absorb when they talk on their cell phones.

Now, amid the Christmas sales rush, manufacturers in the United States are about to disclose for the first time the radiation levels of nearly every phone sold to consumers so infatuated with the devices they use them when they walk, drive, even eat.

It is a disclosure that could alert many of 97 million cell phone users in the United States to an issue they largely have ignored: conflicting evidence about whether the devices, which unlike regular phones work by beaming radio frequency energy through the air, pose any health threats.

But will the radiation disclosures suggest one cell phone brand is safer than another? Or that people who spend hours pressing them against their ear are at risk of brain cancer?

Or will consumers even bother to read the levels?

"People are going to look at that information and say 'huh?' " said Dave Berndt, a financial analyst at Boston's Yankee Group who specializes in wireless technologies.

Federal health officials insist, and published medical studies agree, that so far, that there is no real evidence cell phones cause brain tumors or other health hazards — beyond causing car crashes when people gab while driving.

At the same time, no government or health organization yet gives cell phones a definitively clean bill of health.

In fact:

The Food and Drug Administration just ordered new studies after industry-sponsored test-tube research discovered cell phone signals might cause genetic damage in human blood cells, which in turn might spur cancer growth.
British health officials warn that children should limit cell phone use to emergencies, because children's still-forming skulls and brains could be more vulnerable if the phones ultimately prove risky.
Some small studies raise health questions, including one controversial finding that tumors were more likely near the ear where patients held their cell phone. But it has been attacked as scientifically flawed.

The conflicting opinions have prompted at least one wireless company to post store signs recommending that parents consider pagers instead of cell phones for children. Metrocall, a nationwide reseller of wireless service, also recommends using earphones instead of holding cell phones to the head.

While taking no position on the science, "We decided if we were going to err, we wanted to err on the side of the angels," said Mike Scanlon, senior vice president at the Alexandria, Va.-based company.

Many phone manufacturers fear that listing the radiation number will prompt consumers to buy only the lowest-emitting phones evethough every phone must meet federal radiation safety limits.

Consequently, manufacturers will not make it easy to compare levels before buying. The numbers will not appear on the outside of cell phone packages, only inside along with a brochure explaining radiation safety guidelines. To check a phone before buying, consumers must look it up on the Internet.

"Unless these numbers are explained and put into the proper context, they will be regarded as gradients of safety, which they are not," contended Norm Sandler of Motorola, a leading cell phone equipment maker.

Amid this confusion, a new cottage industry is marketing products claiming to limit radiation absorption. They range from foam wafers stuck onto the phone's ear piece to an antenna-attached gadget that looks like a ceramic ladybug.

Experts warn against the hype.

"For a device which actually claims to reduce radiation, they should look for the data that it in fact does that. But still be aware of the fact that they're taking a precaution that may not be necessary," said Dr. David Feigal, chief of the FDA branch overseeing cell phone safety.

If precautions are not necessary, why did the FDA just call for more safety studies?

"We're not encouraging research because we know of a problem, but because it's important to continue making sure there's not a problem," said Feigal, who uses a cell phone himself.