WASHINGTON-A British government advisory panel says research indicates mobile phones and base stations do not pose health risks to citizens, but cautioned that limitations of studies and the relatively short time of widespread wireless use dictates that more experiments be conducted to determine if long-term human exposure to radiation-emitting devices could cause cancer or other medical problems.
The review of biological and epidemiology data, conducted by scientists appointed by Britain’s National Radiological Protection Board, is the most comprehensive since the government’s wireless health report in 2000. That report generally gave mobile phones-operated by 50 million people in Britain and 155 million in the United States-a clean bill of health, but urged particular caution for children.
While the latest findings closely follow those in the 2000 report, the British government refused to declare mobile phones safe for all time.
“The advisory group concludes that there is still a possibility that there could be health effects from exposure to radio-frequency transmissions below guideline levels, and continued research is needed,” NRPB stated.
Some studies have shown genetic breaks and other health effects from low level RF radiation-like that emitted by cell phones-but the wireless industry and others discount such research because experiments have not been duplicated.
The U.K. report comes while a handful of health-related lawsuits against the U.S. mobile-phone industry remain pending. The wireless industry had key victories the past two years in health litigation and has yet to lose a legal challenge on any cancer-related claim.
Nine brain-cancer lawsuits are on hold in the Baltimore court of U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake, who in 2002 threw out an $800 million cancer lawsuit against wireless firms and the following year rejected several class-action suits seeking to force mobile-phone carriers to supply consumer headsets to reduce the risk of any injury from phone radiation.
In October, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., affirmed Blake’s dismissal of Christopher Newman’s brain-cancer suit. Late next month it is expected the same court will hear oral argument in the appeal of Blake’s headset decision. Much of the litigation has been funded by the law firm of Peter Angelos, owner of the Baltimore Orioles and a high-powered, Democratic Party-connected trial lawyer who won millions suing asbestos and tobacco companies.
Meantime, the Federal Communications Commission is considering revisions-including possible exclusions of low-power RF devices-to rules governing compliance with radio-frequency radiation guidelines. The agency is leaving intact RF exposure limits, which have been upheld by the courts.
Still, the mobile phone industry fears the agency might do more harm than good.
“In updating the rules … CTIA urges the commission to ensure that any modifications to the RF exposure requirements and limits are not overarching, and are based on valid science,” the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association told the FCC.
One advocacy group used the FCC proceeding to take issue with the RF standard, which some argue is limited because it is based primarily on thermal, or heating, implications of RF exposure.
“The EMR Network respectfully suggests that the results on which the current IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] RF exposure standards-and the derived FCC standards-are based is far out of date. Pointing to various studies attached to its written comments, the EMR Network added: “The plain message in most of this work is that evidence of `effects’ from non-thermal radiation is plentiful.”
The Personal Communications Industry Association, which represents the wireless tower industry, said the health issue is being exploited to thwart infrastructure buildout.
“Unfortunately, public concern over health effects of RF emissions serves as a convenient source of leverage for individuals not wanting the visual impact of a communications tower in their backyard and for opportunists seeking to profit from public fears by convincing local officials to require that industry compensate third parties to monitor RF emissions as a condition of zoning approval,” said PCIA.
