WASHINGTON-While industry this holiday season pushes family plans and makes pocket phones attractive to the younger crowd, questions linger in the scientific community about whether children are more vulnerable to possible health risks from phones than adults.
“No, it (possible increased risk for children from mobile phone use) is not of concern to us,” said Ken Woo, a spokesman for AT&T Wireless Services Inc.
AT&T is marketing Nokia Corp. phones with designer Disney faceplates. The Kirkland, Wash., firm also is promoting a plan that discounts calls among family members.
“This is Joe Camel. I can’t believe they’re doing this. It is the worst corporate behavior I’ve ever seen,” said Dr. George Carlo, the epidemiologist who had a falling out with the cellular industry after publicizing positive results from mobile phone-cancer research.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association hired Carlo in 1993 to manage a $27 million research project.
Megan Matthews, a spokeswoman for Finland-based Nokia, said Mickey Mouse phones are “targeted for those who are young at heart and Disney fans.” When asked to define `young at heart,’ Matthews replied early 20s. “In the past, we haven’t targeted kids.”
U.S. News & World Report, which featured wireless Web phones as its cover story last week, reported Finnish teen-agers are a major driving force behind mobile phone mania in Finland, where 67 percent of the population subscribes to service. The article also said, “Most Finns in high school have cell phones” and “youngsters call their phones kanny which means `extension of the hand.’ “
Jim Gerace, vice president for public relations at Bell Atlantic Mobile, explained his company’s `share-a-minute’ marketing plan.
“We are not targeting children. We are targeting families and small businesses that could benefit from pooling their minutes on their price plan,” said Gerace.
But he acknowledged some families can benefit from teens (which Gerace described as high-school age and older) using the product. “We do not believe we’re selling a lot of this to children younger than that,” said Gerace.
A study conducted by University of Utah scientist Om Gandhi and published in 1996, found greater distribution and penetration of mobile phone radio-frequency radiation in the heads of 5- and 10-year-old children than in adult heads.
A computational model (as opposed to measurements) was used in Gandhi’s testing.
“No we haven’t done anything in that area [kids and phones],” said Dr. Russell Owen, a senior RF scientist at the Food and Drug Administration. Owen, who is working with CTIA to replicate Carlo studies that had positive results, said it first must be determined whether mobile phones cause bioeffects in humans.
On that score, FDA’s policy is that scientific data is inadequate to conclude no health risks exist. For now though, federal regulators say there is no reason for alarm.
While industry and some in the scientific community dispute the findings, arguing the data has been superseded by subsequent research showing little difference in RF absorption between adults and children, Gandhi stands firmly behind his work.
“The absorption is higher for children,” said Gandhi. “It is a very well-known phenomenon.”
The federal limit of specific absorption rate in the head of RF radiation is 1.6 watts per kilogram. The science of measuring SAR is dosimetry.
Gandhi’s biggest detractor is Professor Neils Kuster, a world-class expert in RF measurement design at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland.
Kuster told RCR last week the conclusions drawn by Gandhi are incorrect. He said Gandhi failed to scale the child’s ear properly in the experiment.
Kuster conceded that a child’s brain gets more exposure to RF radiation, but added that at maximum exposure there is “very little difference between adults and children.”
Kuster worked closely with researchers a year or so ago on a study that minimized RF head absorption differences between children and adults.
Henry Lai, the University of Washington scientist who has linked mobile phone RF with DNA breaks and long- and short-term memory loss, disagrees.
Lai said because mobile phone RF penetrates deeper into a child’s brain, more brain tissue would be exposed. He added that not all brain cells have been developed in children, with some cells in cerebellum (in the back of the brain) taking 10 years to develop.
The wireless industry, for its part, favors Kuster’s work over Gandhi’s.
Kuster owns a 30-percent share in Schmid & Partners Engineering AG, which provides wireless firms and others with testing equipment (featuring a phantom head) for measuring SAR.
The FCC recently awarded a $99,000 contract to Schmid & Partners for a system that would enable government engineers to test phones for compliance.
Today the FCC does not conduct independent testing to verify compliance documents supplied by mobile phone makers. That, combined with the fact that different testing methodologies are employed by phone suppliers, has raised regulatory and liability questions about whether phones approved for safety by the FCC meet compliance requirements.
SAR standards
Kuster, Gandhi and scientists from Motorola Inc., L.M. Ericsson, Nokia Corp. and other firms are working with regulators from the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission to fashion an SAR standard.
Last week, an Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers subcommittee took a big step toward that goal.
“Key decisions have been made,” said Robert Cleveland, the FCC’s expert on RF safety. The IEEE subcommittee on SAR measurements, after intense debate, agreed that testing should include two positions of holding the phone. The panel also agreed on a compressed ear and a spacer for the phantom head for testing. Dimensions for the phantom head and other specifications were agreed to as well.
A final draft of the IEEE SAR standard will be completed early next year, though the final published standard is not expected out until 2001. The IEEE is under pressure from FCC Chairman William Kennard and from industry to complete its work as soon as possible.
“This point [of whether there is greater SAR in children] is not really of great significance,” said Dr. Camelia Gabriel, an RF expert who heads Microwave Consultants in England. When asked why, she replied because people are making greater use of headsets-some of which come with phones. As to whether phones pose a possible health risk, Gabriel said, “I keep an open mind.”
