Swimming In A Deadly Sea: Awash In Radiation

[Guest guest]

" Cancer-CoverUp.com " <webmaster

The CancerCoverUp.com Monthly Newsletter | April 2006 |

Volume 5, Issue 4

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:09:29 -0700

 

 

Swimming In A Deadly Sea: Awash In Radiation

Part Two

By Kathleen Deoul

 

 

Although most of us are unaware of it, we are literally swimming in a

sea of radiation. Some of it is natural, like the cosmic rays that

bombard our planet from space, trace amounts from elements that occur

naturally in the ground, and even microwave radiation from sunspots

and solar flares. But increasingly, the radiation we are subjected to

comes from man-made sources ranging from medical X-rays to leakage

from appliances to cell phones. While much has been written about

man-made radiation, most of us have little understanding of what it is

and how it might affect us.

 

Last month, we began an interview Cancer Cover-Up author Kathleen

Deoul conducted with internationally recognized energy expert Milton

R. Copulos to get some straight talk about the radiation that

surrounds us. This month the interview continues.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Milt I know that everywhere you turn, someone is

talking on a cell phone. The number in use has grown phenomenally, but

could you give us some insight into just how big the cell phone market

has become?

 

Copulos: You're absolutely right about the incredible growth in the

number of cell phones out there. In 1985, there were just 340,000 cell

phone rs in the United States. By 2004, there were more than

182 million! Moreover, that 182 million doesn't include the prepaid

units that have become so popular with teens. What you may find

startling is that more people use cell phones than the traditional

land lines.

 

Kathleen Deoul: That's amazing. And I'll bet the gap is going to grow

even larger.

 

Copulos: Again, you're right on the money - and it is a matter of

money. More and more young people are using cell phones exclusively,

and cell phone manufacturers are encouraging this by developing

special features and characteristics that appeal to the younger

generation.

 

Kathleen Deoul: You mean like music that you can download?

 

Copulos: Right, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. It started

with individualized ring tones, and grew from there. Next came picture

phones that let you take snapshots followed shortly by text messaging

and then downloadable music. Now short videos have been added to the mix.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Aren't these features aimed primarily at young people?

 

Copulos: Exactly. In fact, the youth market is increasingly a

principal target of cell phone manufacturers.

 

Kathleen Deoul: I know that the growth of cell phone use among the

young has been stunning. Can you give my readers a sense of just how

large it has been?

 

Copulos: It has been nothing short of phenomenal. It was just five

years ago that only about 5 percent of teens had cell phones. But by

2004, that figure had jumped to fully one-third of pre-teens and teens

between the ages of 11 and 17. By the end of next year it is expected

that half of the children in that age range will have cell phones. In

fact, last year, cell phone use by rs between the ages of 11

and 24 accounted for $21 billion in cell phone revenues. That's

one-fourth of the total!

 

Kathleen Deoul: It seems that for teenagers, owning a cell phone has

become a status symbol.

 

Copulos: That's all too true. It's become a right of passage like

getting a driver's license. In fact, an analysis of spending by teens

and pre-teens showed that their spending on traditional items like

clothes dropped 10% in 2004, primarily due to a shift to spending on

cell phone minutes.

 

Kathleen Deoul: That sounds like they're spending a lot of money on

cell phone minutes.

 

Copulos: Yes, they are. Indeed, they're spending more than adults. The

average adult spends around $50 a month in cell phone charges, while

teenagers average $75 - and a lot of that extra money goes to the

features that I mentioned earlier. They're downloading pictures and

music, playing video games, sending photographs and playing music. And

now, the newest cell phones also have video recorders built in.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Don't parents have some control over their children's

cell phone use.

 

Copulos: Well, initially that was the case because you had to sign a

contract to get a cell phone, and minors could not enter into such

legally binding agreements. But then the marketers came up with a way

around contracts - prepaid cell phones. Virgin Mobile was the first

company to aggressively market prepaid phones to young people. In fact

the idea looked so good that the cell phone giant Cingular bought half

of Virgin Mobile for $180 million in 2005. Cingular estimates that the

youth market has the potential to generate between 30 million and 35

million new customers.

 

Kathleen Deoul: That's huge! But it's not just prepaid phones, is it.

Aren't the cell phone companies using other tools to market to teens?

In fact aren't they even marketing to pre-teens?

 

Copulos: They certainly are, Kathleen. Major toy companies like Mattel

have linked up with cell phone manufacturers like Nokia to develop

phones directly aimed at pre-teens. For example, Mattel is marketing a

" Barbie " cell phone. Target markets the " Firefly " phone that is also

aimed specifically at the pre-teen market, and there is even the " Tic

Talk " cell phone that is aimed at children between the ages of 8 and 12.

 

Kathleen Deoul: And it's not just the phones themselves. I've noticed

all sorts of cell phone tie-ins to clothing and other youth-oriented

products.

 

Copulos: That's right, Kathleen. Both Dockers and Levis have developed

clothing items with special accommodations for cell phones. In fact

Dockers has a specific line of pants with cell phone pockets it

markets as " Dockers Mobile. " And its not just clothes. One of the most

popular features in the new book bags almost all students carry is a

cell phone pocket.

 

Kathleen Deoul: You know, I've also noticed that cell phone companies

are marketing to parents as well, touting cell phones as a way to keep

tabs on their children. It's a pretty blatant attempt to play on the

fears many parents have about their children's safety.

 

Copulos: I agree, Kathleen. In fact one feature that is now being

offered is a chip you can have installed that allows you to keep track

of where your kids are through the Global Positioning Satellite

System. In essence, you're lojacking your kid!

 

Kathleen Deoul: That's unbelievable. But I guess it's not surprising

that the industry would pull out all of the stops when you consider

the size of the potential market. If you stop and think, there are

currently around 180 million cell phone rs in the United

States. That means that if fully exploited, the youth market would

represent a 20 percent increase in the number of cell phone users. But

it's not just the number of phones that's a matter of concern is it?

Don't young people use their phones more?

 

Copulos: Yes they do, Kathleen. The average cell phone r uses

around 619 minutes a month, or about 21 minutes a day. But teenage

rs log about 50 percent more hours a month. That means that

they could be spending as much as 15 and a half hours a month on their

cell phones, but even that number may understate the problem, because

it only takes into account billable minutes. Today most cell phone

plans have a certain number of free minutes and certain " unlimited "

calling periods, usually in the evening and on weekends. The thing is,

these are the times teens are most likely to be using their cell

phones. As a result, relying on billable minutes may grossly

understate the actual amount of time teens are spending on their phones.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Doesn't that get to the heart of the problem, the

duration of exposure?

 

Copulos: Absolutely, Kathleen. There is more and more evidence

concerning the dangers of long-term exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

 

Kathleen Deoul: But despite the mounting evidence, the cell phone

industry continues to insist that there isn't a problem, don't they?

 

Copulos: Indeed they do, Kathleen, but they may not be able to much

longer. As you know, about half of the studies that were done in

regard to the potential hazards of cell phones say that there are no

health effects, and about half say there are. But if you look more

closely, what you see is that the half that claim no problem exists

are primarily funded by the industry, and the half that say there is a

problem are independently funded.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Yes, but as you were starting to say, isn't it a

matter of duration?

 

Copulos: It certainly is, Kathleen, and it's also a matter of

intensity. In fact there have been two recent studies that shed

considerable light on the potential hazards of non-ionizing radiation

and cell phones.

 

Kathleen Deoul: What did they say?

 

Copulos: Actually, they said several things. Perhaps the most

important is the most recent study, conducted by the Swedish National

Institute for Working Life and the University of Orebro. Perhaps the

most comprehensive research to date, the study included 2,200 cancer

patients and the same number of healthy individuals. What the

researchers determined was that there was a 240 percent increase in

the risk of developing a malignant brain tumor among individuals who

had been heavy cell phone users for ten years. The researchers defined

heavy use as around 200 or more hours per year.

 

Now bear in mind, that a young person using their cell phone 15 and a

half hours per month, would average 186 hours per year, dangerously

close to the level where the researchers said there was an increased

risk of brain tumors.

 

But that's not all they said.

 

They pointed out that in 85 of 905 patients with a type of brain tumor

called a glioma that were heavy cell phone users, the tumor was

located at the very portion of their head where they habitually held

their cell phones.

 

The connection seems pretty clear to me.

 

Kathleen Deoul: It's clear to me as well. But you said there were

several studies.

 

Copulos: Yes, Kathleen, but before I get to them, there is one other

critical point about the study just released in Sweden. The

researchers also found that individuals who began using their cell

phones prior to the age of 20 were most susceptible to the risk.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Like the millions of teens who now use cell phones

here in the United States.

 

Copulos: That's right. Now let's talk about those other studies. One

of the most striking results came from a study by Professor Lennart

Hardell a cancer specialist at the University of Orebro in Sweden. He

studied rural cell phone users and discovered that their risk of brain

tumors of all kinds was three times as great as that of city dwellers

that used mobile phones. Among those rural residents who had used a

cell phone for more than five years, the risk was four times as high.

His results were based on a comparison of 1,400 patients with brain

tumors and 1,400 healthy individuals.

 

Although the specific cause of the correlation between cell phone use

and brain tumors was not firmly established, Dr. Hardell suggested

that it was caused by the fact that cell phones boost power in rural

areas because there are fewer cell phone towers. As a result, the

radiation they emit can be ten times higher than in urban settings.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Does that mean that if I use my cell phone while

driving in the country, my risk is greater?

 

Copulos: Actually, yes, Kathleen. Cell phones use a system called

adaptive power control that automatically boost the power output of

the handset signals when base stations are located further away. So if

you're in an area where there are few cell phone towers, your handset

will automatically compensate.'

 

Kathleen Deoul: You said that the risk of all types of brain tumors

was greater for rural residents who use cell phones. Is the overall

figure different from malignant tumors?

 

Copulos: I'm glad you brought that up. Yes, the risk is greater - a

lot greater. In fact, rural residents who use cell phones are eight

times as likely to develop a malignant brain tumor as city dwellers.

In other words, the increase in risk is twice as great for malignant

tumors as it is for all forms.

 

Kathleen Deoul: You said there were several studies. What other recent

research are you aware of?

 

Copulos: There is a third study from Sweden, where much of the best

research on cell phone hazards is being conducted, because they have

been in general use there much longer than in most countries. What is

interesting about this third study is that it not only involved cell

phones, but also cordless telephones that are used with a land line.

The study looked at 910 people with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and a

control group of 1,016 healthy individuals. They ranged in age from 18

to 74, and the study was conducted over a period of two and a half

years between December of 1999 and April of 2002. What the researchers

found was that there was an increased risk of developing T-cell

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among both cell phone and cordless phone users.

Moreover, they also found that the risk increased with the duration of

the exposure, and that the ten-year benchmark seemed, as in other

studies, to be a threshold.

 

Kathleen Deoul: That's amazing. So what these three studies seem to

say is that there is a link between cell phone use and brain cancer,

and that the more you use a cell phone, the greater the risk.

 

Copulos: I couldn't have put it better, Kathleen.

 

Kathleen Deoul: Of course, the industry still claims there is no

danger, and that their studies support their contention.

 

Copulos: That's true Kathleen, but there may be a logical explanation.

Cell phones simply haven't been in widespread use that long. If, as

appears to be the case, there is a ten-year threshold, as well as a

connection between the amount of use and the increase in risk, that

could explain the difference. It could be that more time needs to pass

before the full extent of the dangers becomes evident. Of course, if

that is the case, we've got a hidden cancer epidemic brewing.

 

Kathleen Deoul: That's perhaps the most frightening aspect of the

problem. We could be poisoning a generation and not know we are doing

it! So, by the time we know it's happening, it will be too late!

 

But the industry keeps saying that there's no scientific basis for a

possible link between non-ionizing radiation and brain cancer. Is this

true?

 

Next month in part 3 of Swimming in a Deadly Sea: Awash in Radiation,

we'll look at the possible causes of the link between non-ionizing

radiation and cancer and things you can do to protect yourself.