As the worldwide debate rages on whether pocket phones are linked to adverse health effects, some groups are attempting to capitalize on the issue.
Within the next few months, two companies will introduce devices in the United States, Europe and other countries designed to limit the amount of electromagnetic field radiation to which wireless phone users are exposed.
The introduction of these products comes at a time when the European community is being bombarded with stories from the media that question pocket phone safety. The London Sunday Times ran its first alarming article on the subject in April, citing new evidence that RF radiation from handheld communicators may pose more of a threat to consumers than what the wireless telecommunications industry has led the public to believe-a finding the U.S. telecommunications industry has criticized as inaccurate and misleading.
Media inquiry and public concern has prompted the European Commission to commit $30 million to researching the subject, although it maintains no evidence exists suggesting cellular phones pose a health risk. Japan recently announced plans to implement a research program to test EMF radiation on a broad scale, and the United States is in the middle of a five-year, $25 million industry-funded study that began in mid-1993 after a highly publicized Florida lawsuit claimed a woman’s fatal brain cancer was caused by her cellular phone use.
The two companies expect a big demand for their products in Europe. Kelser Ltd., an Israeli marketing company, said it already has secured distribution for its product in the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and the Benelux countries, which include Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg.
Kelser will introduce the RadGap in January. The product is a telescopic device mounted on the earphone end of a cellular phone that when extended, forces the antenna to be farther away from a user’s head. The position reduces the amount of radiation that reaches the head by 80 percent, without compromising sound quality, said the company.
Codem Retail, a division of Merrimack, N.H.-based Codem Systems Inc., has received positive feedback from Europe as well, said John Gargasz, division manager of Codem Retail.
Codem next month will unveil a form-fitting, wrap-around attachment consisting of lightweight shielding material that encases the upper half of the cellular phone. Although similar products have been introduced in Europe, Gargasz said its PhoneShield blocks the areas where the highest concentration of EMF radiation is emitted. He said the shield does not interfere with range, muffle voice quality or impact battery life as earlier models have.
Will these products catch on in the United States?
“Nothing suggests consumers are put at risk by using handsets. We would be really surprised if the use of protective devices became widespread,” said Sheldon Moss, government relations manager for the Personal Communications Industry Association.
“The phones operate in accordance with science safety standards,” said Norman Sandler, director of strategic issues for Motorola Inc. “Standards bodies have looked at this; government bodies around the world are constantly looking at the question. No one has cited a reason to intervene. The public should draw confidence on that.”
But the two device companies disagree.
“The message is not one of fear. The community just doesn’t know, and there’s evidence both ways,” said Gargasz. “Our position is that PhoneShield is a level of insurance until studies are conclusive one way or another.”
Zvi Grinfas, general manager of Kelser, said his company does not believe in the cancer scare either and said, “There is absolutely no proof or direct linkage between cellular phone radiation and cancer-at least not yet … What we are doing is telling the sophisticated users that if they are concerned, we’ll give them something that is guaranteed to reduce whatever radiation their head is subject to now, by approximately 80 percent.”
Marketing the products in the United States and elsewhere may be a hurdle for the companies as consumers don’t constantly hear about the controversy from the media, and the wireless industry insists the devices are unnecessary and unwarranted. One executive at a leading U.S. cellular and personal communications services accessories company said marketing the products will be a “tough road to hoe. If I had to prove something necessary, I wouldn’t be investing there,” he said.
Gargasz said Codem hope to sell the PhoneShield for around $30 through retail specialty stores such as The Sharper Image and Brookstone, direct sales and its Web site. The company currently is signing on resellers and distributors and hopes to eventually move the product into mass merchandising stores. Codem doesn’t need backing from the wireless industry to become successful, said Gargasz, “the accessory business is a huge business. A lot of people who manufacture aren’t in the cellular industry. We don’t see that as a necessity.”
Gargasz said Codem has extensive experience in wireless UHF and VHF radio. Codem Systems’ products include location systems, antenna control and satellite tracking systems and military communications interfaces.
“We would have never gotten into the product if we didn’t have wireless experience. The cost of trying to generate a message from scratch is extremely expensive. We weren’t willing to invest that type of money.”
Kelser, which does not manufacture any other wireless products, also plans to sell the RadGap for about $30 via distributors such as phone accessory companies.
“We are ready. Distributors are saying there is a demand, and with a little PR, they can make people aware,” said Grinfas. “Based on preliminary inputs from the market, we do not foresee any problems selling the RadGap with or without the participation of cellular phone companies.”
Grinfas believes phone manufacturers eventually will be forced to offer some type of radiation-reducing device to show their concern for their customers’ health, and he is actively marketing the product to manufacturers.
“Manufacturers have a dilemma. [Offering the product would be] taken as an admission that phones may be hazardous to your health. They will open themselves to vast liability,” Grinfas said. “I tell them, you don’t have to say the phone is hazardous. You’re just increasing the safety of phones.”
Sandler said Motorola doesn’t see any indication it will be forced by public pressure to offer a protective device.
“We have been as responsive as possible for the safety of cellular telephones, and I think that basically speaks for itself. They’re obviously trying to create some type of market that’s built on a certain amount of public concern they believe exists or would like to manufacture,” said Sandler.”We fully anticipate that the public would look to sound science and the leading judgment of experts. Products of this kind are simply unnecessary.”
No judgments to date have been rendered against any wireless equipment or service supplier in any health-related lawsuits. However, there are a few cases pending involving health damage from cellular phones.
“Something is going to come out,” said Grinfas. “My feeling is that it’s going to be embarrassing to phone companies.”
