CELL PHONES, THE INVISIBLE THREAT Part 2

[Guest guest]

" Cancer-CoverUp.com " <webmaster

The CancerCoverUp.com Monthly Newsletter | SEPTEMBER 2005 |

Volume 4, Issue 9

Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:56:29 -0700

 

 

CELL PHONES, THE INVISIBLE THREAT

Part 2

By Kathleen Deoul

Monthly Newsletter | www.CancerCoverup.com | SEPTEMBER 2005

 

AN EXPLODING MARKET

 

Walk into any shopping mall in America, and there are two things

you'll see a lot of: teenagers and cell phones. It's not surprising.

Once an exclusive toy for the rich and status-conscious, cell phones

have become commonplace - so much so that at 182 million units, they

are fast closing on the most widely-owned electronic device, the

television.

 

More important, increasingly, they are being used by our children.

Today, over one-third of teens and even pre-teens have joined the

ranks of cell phone owners - and that number is certain to grow.

 

This explosion of cell phone ownership among the young has been fueled

at least in part by a clever marketing strategy that has become common

within the industry: the use of prepaid cell phones. This eliminates

the need for an individual to pass the scrutiny of a credit check or

demonstrate a steady source of income - hurdles most teens couldn't

overcome - or for that matter, parental approval.

 

Now, with teens well in hand, the industry is targeting an even

younger audience.

THE NEXT TARGET

 

Major cell phone manufacturers have joined forces with toy companies

to market cell phones specifically targeted at pre-teens. For example,

Nokia had teamed up with the toy giant Mattel to market a " Barbie "

cell phone. The " Firefly " mobile phone is already being marketed to

kids at Target, and the " TicTalk " phone has also come out targeting

the youth market. Indeed, cell phone manufacturers believe that the 8

year-old to 12 year-old market is the key to future growth!

 

Nor are the " kid phones " the only manifestation of the growing use of

cell phones by the young.

 

A major new feature of the most popular " book bags " that virtually all

students use today is an external cell phone pocket. Clothing

manufactures such as Levi and Dockers have jumped on the bandwagon

too, offering special pockets on items such as Dockers " Mobile " pants

to carry phones.

 

From the standpoint of the telecommunications industry, this is all

good news - especially since young people are likely to make longer

calls than adults, and are far more likely to make use of other cell

phone services such as text messaging, downloading music or videos and

playing online video games via phone. All of this, of course,

translates into more minutes and therefore more dollars.

 

But what is good news for the cell phone providers may be bad or even

tragic news for the public at large. The reason is that the longer

calls and extended use typical of a young person's cell phone

rs carries with it an accordingly large exposure to

potentially deadly cell phone radiation.

 

Cell phones emit electromagnetic radiation from their transmitters and

antennae. It has long been known that electromagnetic radiation can

affect biological tissue. Most research in the effects of

electromagnetic radiation, however, have focused on various forms of

so-called " ionizing radiation, " which derive their name from the fact

that they have enough energy to strip an ion from an atom thus giving

it an electrical charge. The Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation we

associate with nuclear energy is ionizing radiation.

 

But there are many other forms of radiation as well. The non-ionizing

forms include such things as radiofrequency waves (RF), ultraviolet

waves (UV), infrared waves (IR), visible light, ultra-low frequency

waves (ELF) and microwaves. Generally, non-ionizing radiation is

considered harmless, and in some cases even beneficial. But in larger

strengths, non-ionizing radiation can generate significant amounts of

heat (as in a microwave oven) or damage biological tissues.

 

As electronic devices and the electricity they require has grown more

pervasive within modern economies, the " background " level of

non-ionizing radiation that surrounds us has steadily increased.

 

For years, a small number of scientists have been warning about the

dangers of this sea of electromagnetic radiation we live in but now an

important new voice has entered the debate.

AN ALARM IS RAISED

 

An article in the August 2, 2005 edition of " Pediatrics, " the journal

of the American Academy of Pediatrics has raised an alarm about the

potential dangers of exposing our children to electromagnetic radiation.

 

To be fair, it must be noted that the journal article acknowledges the

contradictory conclusions of research to date, but in so doing, it

raises an alarm and presents a possible explanation:

 

" Exposure to electric and magnetic fields from 0 to 300 GHz has

been increasing greatly as countries increase their capacity to

generate and distribute electricity and take advantage of the many new

technologies, such as telecommunications to improve lifestyle and work

efficiency. Evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and

exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields has led to their

classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer

(IARC) as a " possible carcinogen " based on consistent epidemiologic

data and lack of support by laboratory studies on animals and cells.

The reason why the results of the childhood leukemia studies are

consistent is still being investigated, but one possibility is that

children may be more sensitive to radiation in some or all parts of

the electromagnetic spectrum. "

 

In plain English, what the scientists are saying is that the reason

laboratory experiments are inconclusive is that they do not take into

account the vulnerability of a young person's developing body.

 

While it is obvious that a child's body is different from an adult's

what is not as obvious are the various stages it goes through during

the development from infant to adult. Indeed, the stages of

development actually begin during the prenatal period - before the

child is born, and continue until the late second or early third

decade of life! In the earliest stages, prior to birth and immediately

afterwards, the child's fundamental body structure and organ systems

are being developed, sometimes in ways you might not expect.

A CHILD'S BRAIN

 

For example, by the time a child is born most of its adult nerve cells

or neurons have developed. More important, the number of synapses, or

connections, in the brain's neurons peaks at around the age of 2 and

then begins to decline, falling fully 40 percent by the time adulthood

is reached. Scientists believe that the reason for this is that during

the first two years of life a child undergoes the process of learning

things that will be " hardwired " into the brain once they mature, and

that they need the extra connections to handle this process.

 

Similarly, it is in the first two years following birth that the

process of myelination, which facilitates the transmission of

information, largely occurs. Thus, the first two years of life are of

critical importance to a child's mental as well as physical

development. But the " Pediatrics " article warns:

 

" Unfortunately the susceptibility of these processes to

environmental agents has not been studied extensively and thus is not

well understood. However, because developmental processes are

vulnerable to disruption by agents that may not be toxic to mature

systems, it is reasonable to expect that the later stages of brain

development present special risks. "

 

Of course, cell phone manufacturers are quick to maintain that their

devices have been tested and that the level of radiation they emit has

been approved as safe by the regulatory authorities. What they do not

go on to admit, though, is that all of the tests performed have been

targeted at adults, not children. As the American Academy of

Pediatrics points out, children are not just small adults:

 

" Greater susceptibility to some toxicants and physical agents has

been demonstrated in children. Because the period from embryonic life

to adolescence is characterized by growth and development, deleterious

effects can occur at lower levels and be more severe or lead to

effects that do not occur in adults… "

 

In other words, there is a substantial body of research that clearly

demonstrates that children are not only more vulnerable to harm from

exposures to various environmental factors but also can have more

serious and different adverse effects than adults. This fact alone is

enough to argue for caution where exposing children to electromagnetic

radiation is concerned, but other epidemiological data regarding

childhood cancers raise a red flag!

ELF, RF AND CHILDOOD CANCERS

 

The " Pediatrics " article emphasizes:

 

" There is consistent evidence from epidemiologic studies of a risk

of childhood leukemia associated with exposure to environmentally high

levels of ELF magnetic fields.

 

It is important to understand that this is no small matter. As the

article goes on to note:

 

" Childhood leukemia is the most common form of cancer affecting

children, accounting for between 25 percent and 35 percent of all

childhood malignancies. "

 

Moreover, the incidence of leukemia among children in the developed

world, where there is a widespread presence of ELF magnetic fields is

4 per 100,000, fully 60 percent higher than in the developing world

where such magnetic fields are less common. Also, the onset of

leukemia in developed countries tends to be at an earlier age than in

the developing world, again suggesting exposure to some initiating

factor early in life, or even in the womb.

 

Brain tumors are is the second most common form of childhood cancer

accounting for 20 percent of all childhood malignancies in developed

nations. With this form of cancer the disparity between the developed

and developing world is even greater. Shockingly, children in the

developed world experience a brain cancer rate from 100 percent to 200

percent higher than in the developing world. It is particularly

noteworthy that in recent years a sharp rise in the incidence of brain

cancer in children in the United States, Great Britain, Australia and

Japan has been noted. Some scientists insist that the perceived

increase is really just a reflection of better diagnosis, but it is

also the case that each of these nations has experienced a rapidly

increasing amount of environmental ELF magnetic fields.

PRENATAL EXPOSURE

 

A matter of particular concern raised in the article is the prenatal

exposure of children to RF and ELF fields.

 

" Exposures of interest during the preconception and gestation

periods include residential and parental exposures to ELF and RF

fields, including mothers' exposure from the use of domestic

appliances and mobile phones. "

 

For example, a pregnant woman carrying a cell phone in her handbag or

on a belt clip can be inadvertently exposing her unborn child to ELF

and RF radiation without knowing it. But even if this isn't the case,

environmental ELF and RF " background " radiation generated by

everything from radio and television broadcasts to mobile phone base

stations make it virtually impossible to escape some degree of

exposure. Nor is staying indoors an effective means of avoiding

exposure. In the home, things such as wireless communications

equipment ranging from cordless phones to " Wi Fi " computer connections

to crib monitors all are sources of RF radiation.

 

So, too is using a mobile phone in close proximity to a child.

 

Stop for a moment and consider how often you have seen a mother

talking on a cell phone with a child on her hip or an infant in a

carrier. Without realizing it, these children are being exposed to RF

radiation at a time when their bodies are most vulnerable to its effects.

 

But it doesn't end with infancy. In fact, the problem worsens. As

" Pediatrics " noted:

 

" Infants and toddlers are exposed mostly at home or in day care

facilities. Among preteens, exposure sources expand to include mobile

phone use and sources at school, with an increased use of mobile

phones in adolescence. "

 

This increased mobile phone use by adolescents is a matter of

particular concern, the article states:

 

" Modern children will experience a longer period of exposure to RF

fields from mobile-phone use than adults, because they started using

mobile phones at an early age and are likely to continue using them.

Data from a multinational case-control study of potential causes of

adult brain cancer show that both the prevalence of regular

mobile-phone users and daily use are highest in the younger age groups

(e.g. 90% of the younger subjects made calls for over 30 minutes a

day, compared with 10% of older subjects). Moreover recent trends

(such as increased popularity, reduced prices and advertising to

children) have led to an increased mobile-phone use among children. A

steep increase in mobile-phone ownership among children has been

reported in several public-opinion surveys. For example in Australia

over 90% of 6-to 9-year-olds reported sometimes using their parents'

mobile phones, and in Germany approximately one-third of 9- to

10-year-olds reported owning a mobile phone. Clearly, mobile phones

are the dominant source of RF exposure for teens and preteens. "

 

SAR AND RF EMISSIONS

 

The concern over this ongoing exposure to cell phone RF emissions

arises from a number of factors. The first is what is termed the SAR

or Specific Absorption Rate of today's cell phones. This is the term

used to describe the amount of RF radiation that a user will be

exposed to when operating a cell phone. Although so-called " safe "

limits have been set for cell phone SAR values, " Pediatrics " notes:

 

" … the relative depth of penetration is larger for children, a

logical consequence of smaller head diameter. "

 

Yet:

 

" … the SAR values and exposure variations for child models are

similar to those for adults, although somewhat higher.. "

 

In other words, adequate consideration of the difference in SAR for

adults and children is not being taken. Most important is the failure

to take into account the differences betweZen developing tissue and

mature tissue that make children more vulnerable to adverse effects.

 

The article concludes:

 

" There is a need for dosimetric modeling of the distribution of

SAR and temperature in children and also a requirement for appropriate

age-related values for the dielectric properties of tissue. "

 

As the conclusion notes, changes in tissue temperature are also an

issue. RF radiation causes tissue to heat, (much as a microwave oven

heats food) and it has long been established that heat can damage

tissue. As with RF radiation, standards have been set for adults, with

no consideration of the physiological differences in children.

PRENATAL DANGERS

 

But it is not just the actual use of a cell phone that may pose a heat

or radiation hazard to children. Another concern is the effect of cell

phone emissions during pregnancy. What many people do not realize is

that the circulation of blood within a fetus is separate from the

circulation of the blood within its mother's body. Therefore its

ability to dissipate heat is less efficient than might be expected.

Emissions from a cell phone carried in a purse or on a belt can affect

a fetus at a time when it is most vulnerable to damage and least able

to dissipate the heat generated by those emissions.

 

The " Pediatrics " article warns:

 

" Hyperthermia during pregnancy can cause embryonic death,

abortion, growth retardation, and developmental defects. …In addition,

young infants aged 2 to 3 months are even more vulnerable than

neonates because of their higher metabolic rate. "

 

While much uncertainty over the long term effects of our children's

increasing exposure to RF and ELF radiation may exist, one thing is

certain: the levels of exposure can only increase and that increase is

likely to have some consequence. The only real question to be answered

is just how severe that consequence will be.

 

For information on how you can protect yourself and your family from

the dangers of cell phone radiation, visit:

http://www.mybiopro.com/secondgeneration