Justin Thomas

Research Paper

ENGL 1302

P. K. Muana

3 January 2012

“Radiation and Cancer: The Connection between Cell Phone Use and Brain Cancer”

According to a Baltimore neurologist, Christopher J. Newman, Motorola is the cause a life frightening tumor that has developed overtime in his brain. Newman sues Motorola for “a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the relevant products” (Parascandola). The court system and scientist are feuding on the matter of using scientific data as evidence in court cases. The courts argue whether or not the data is applicable and reliable. Hence, the association of cellular phone radiation and brain cancer is still under dispute on whether there is a correlation in between the two.

Worldwide there are over 4.3 billion cell phone users (web). This substantial number of cell phone users also causes generous amount of radiation to be generated. The radiation that is discharged through these devices is to as radio frequency (RF) energy. The measure of RF energy that is taken in by users is known as its Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. SAR is what researchers use to compare radiation given off by cell phones to cancerous tumors. Scientist research the amount of SAR that is exposed in different mobile phone models. For a phone to pass the Federal Communication Commission its SAR must be less than 1.6 W/kg (web).

Researchers from CNET in 2007 did a study to show the quantity of radiation given off by various cell phone models. Figure 1 shows the results.

|TEN HIGHEST SAR CELL PHONES | |TEN LOWEST SAR CELL PHONES |
|SAR (Specific Absorbed Radiation) | |SAR (Specific Absorbed Radiation) |

1. |Ericsson KF788 |1.56 | |1. |Qualcomm PDQ-1900 |0.2634 | |2. |Motorola ST7868 |1.53 | |2. |Mitsubishi Trium Galaxy g-130 |0.35 | |2. |Nokia 6185 |1.53 | |3. |Motorola I1000plus |0.43 | |4. |Motorola SC-3160 |1.52 | |4. |Motorola GSM3682 & g250 |0.457 | |5. |Motorola IHDT-5ZRS1 |1.51 | |5. |Motorola Startac 7860 & st7860 |0.54 | |6. |Ericsson T-28 |1.49 | |6. |Motorola Startac 7762 |0.58 | |7. |Audiovox PCX-1100XL |1.48 | |7. |Ericsson I888 World GSM-900 |0.69 | |8. |Samsung SCH-411 |1.4785 | |7. |Motorola i500(550,700) |0.69 | |9. |Audiovox 3300 |1.4514 | |9. |Audiovox HGP2000e |0.7496 | |10. |Nokia 5160 |1.45 | |10. |Motorola i2000 |0.79 | |Figure 1. – researchers from CNet show a variety of cell phone’s SAR.

As seen in Figure 1, Motorola beats out all other competitors having 3 models making the top 5 highest SAR cell phones list.

Along with these studies, in recent years there has also been increase in the number lawsuits against phone companies. Cell phone users believe that the radiation emitted from cell phones cause cancerous tumors to develop in the brain. One of the first people to file a lawsuit against a cell phone company is David Reynard, a Florida business man. Reynard sued the maker and the service provider of his wife’s cell phone. He believed they had something to do with his wife development of cancer, which lead to her death. When doing the autopsy for his wife, according to Reynard that “directly next to the antenna, and [it] seemed to be growing inward from that direction” (Parascandola). Reynard assumed that the position of the tumor in

comparison to where the phone’s antenna is positioned is no coincidence. What Reynard had left to do is prove this assumption was true in the court of law.

To begin his defense, Reynard hired an expert neurologist by the name of David Perlmutter. Perlmutter conducted a number of studies to find any negative effects of the radiation that is given off by cell phones. When the time comes for Reynard to present his evidence from the studies of Perlmutter, Perlmutter has a note for the courts. In the note Perlmutter explains to the court that “no studies had shown any adverse biological effects from cell phones [. . .]” (Parascandola). In addition to this statement, Perlmutter adds that if studies can be done on animals that he believes that there would be data available to prove the damaging effects of cell phone radiation. With the views expressed in Perlmutter’s note to the court, the case got dismissed. The reason being is that it did not pass the Daubert standard, which is a standard for allowing plausible scientific data to be used as evidence in any court case.

Newman, the neurologist mentioned earlier, lawsuit again raises the issue of whether or not the health of people is being jeopardized by the radiation produced by cell phones. His lawsuit takes place a few years later after the Reynard’s case got dismissed. Like Reynard, Newman has to prove to the judge in a pretrial that his evidence is relevant enough for a full fledge trial. The problem in all cases that deal with the concern of health problems due to cell phone radiation is conducting an experiment that can prove just that in a court of law. With the uprising of the ordeal with cell phone radiations, courts are now performing more pretrials. What

a pretrial does is limits the amount of cases that actually go to trial on the bases of the lack of evidence to represent a case. Some courts go as far as getting their own experts to examine the evidence of the scientific data collected by prosecutors.

In the efforts to find the link between cell phone radiation and cancer, scientist and researchers have undergone several experiments and studies. A recent study funded by the National Cancer Institute, is based on interviews with hundreds of brain cancer patients about how much they use their cell phone. A study similar was done by the telecommunication industry as well. A Danish study, which matched the names of over 400,000 mobile phone users and checked to see if they had any abnormal towering cancer rate. Within these three studies listed, not one of them succeeded in finding a positive relationship between caner and cell phone radiation.

On another note, there has been one study to prove there is a parallel correspondence involving cancerous tumors and cell phone radiation. This study was done by a Swedish oncologist, Lennart Hardell of Orebro Medical Center. In Hardell’s study, he proved that there is a 26% chance that people who have cell phones are at a greater risk than nonusers. As for any scientific data, Hardell’s had to go under peer review. Once being peer reviewed, the outstanding data Hardell collected did not seem so outstanding. Meir Stampfer, chair of the department of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, pointed out that “the difference in risk appeared only when acoustic neurinomas, a benign type of tumor, were included in the analysis” (Parascandola). What Stampfer is saying is that although Hardell’s study does in fact show an association with cell phone radiation to caner, Hardell whole research is not plausible because his analysis included a tumor that is not cancerous.

Even with researchers finding explicit results, critics believe there is too much grey area experiments to be 100% accurate. Some critics question the variables used to develop the experiments. Such as in the Danish study, because the study was done by checking the risk of people who have phones versus people who do not, all the people who have phones are considered open to the elements of radiation passed off by their phones. Although any person who has a phone is exposed to cell phone radiation, some people use their phone more than others. Additionally, not everyone puts their phone to their ear, some people use headphones. What critics are saying is that some people are exposed to more radiation than others and all these key factors should go into consideration when conducting a study.

Additionally, time frame plays an important role in the results of any experiment or study done. When looking at the majority of the studies done, the people used for experiments have not been using their phones for a sufficient amount of time for them to have cancer related problems due to the phones radiation. Most studies have a time interval of 1 to 3 years. The drawback with data collected with that period is that cancer takes in between 10 to 15 years to form.

When testing the effects of the radiation emitted by cell phones researchers cannot use human subjects, but instead animals. Animals do, in some cases exhibit the same type of effects that humans display as well. The question with testing the effects of radiation on animals is whether or not that same outcome is a good enough example to relate to humans. This too is a main argument for critics.

The ability for researchers to tie cancerous brain tumors to cell phone radiation is yet being challenged. For researchers to link the two, they have to take a lot of elements into consideration; the variables of the experiment, the time frame of the experiment as well as the biological impact of studies done on animals in relation to humans. Even with these crucial aspects taken into consideration within a study there will always be room for critics. When looking at the majority of data collected on cell phone radiation and brain cancer, for now studies prove they have no association to each other. Maybe new studies performed in the future will attest otherwise.

Work Cited

Munro, Neil. "Cellphone Snipe-Hunting." National Journal (2010). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 4 Jan. 2012.

Parascandola, Mark. "Cell phone lawsuits face a scientific test: evidence that radiation from cell phones increases the risk of brain cancer has not fared we[[ in the court of scientific opinion; is it acceptable in the court of law? (News Focus)." Science 294.5546 (2001): 1440+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 4 Jan. 2012.

Parascandola, Mark. "Judge rejects cancer data in Maryland cell phone suit. (Scientific Evidence)." Science 298.5592 (2002): 338. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 3 Jan. 2012.