Cellphone health risk debate not over

Scientists still can’t agree on what guidance to give as use of mobile devices skyrockets

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published new guidelines 18 months ago regarding the radiation risk from cellphones, it used unusually bold language on the topic for the U.S. health agency: “We recommend caution in cellphone use.”

The agency’s website previously had said that any risks “likely are comparable to other lifestyle choices we make every day.”

Within weeks, though, the CDC reversed course.

It no longer recommended caution, deleting a passage specifically addressing potential risks for children.

Mainstream scientific consensus holds that there is little to no evidence that cellphone signals raise the risk of brain cancer or other health problems; rather, behaviours like texting while driving are seen as the real health concerns.

Nevertheless, 500 pages of internal records obtained by the New York Times, along with interviews with former agency officials, reveal a debate and some disagreement among scientists and health agencies about what guidance to give as the use of mobile devices skyrockets.

Although the initial CDC changes, which were released in June 2014, had been three years in the making, officials quickly realized they had taken a step they were not prepared for. Health officials and advocates began asking if the new language represented a policy change.

CDC officials began debating how to back away from their recommendation of caution, internal emails show.

Bernadette Burden, a CDC spokeswoman, said in a statement that the original changes made in June 2014 stemmed from “a CDC-wide effort to make health information for the public easier to understand” but led to confusion that the agency was making a new policy statement.

“To correct that misperception and to confirm that CDC had not changed its policy or recommendations, CDC posted a clarification statement,” she said.

Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, the CDC division that made the changes, disagreed with the decision to pull back the revised version. “I would not have removed it,” he said in an interview.

Portier, who led the centre when the revision process was initiated, said he believed parents should have been presented “with enough information to say caution isn’t ill advised, because we really don’t know, and there are enough indicators to say we should be cautious.”

While sporadic claims about cellphones and cancer go back several decades, most U.S. organizations echo the Federal Communications Commission, which says radio-frequency energy is not “effectively linked” with “any known health problems.”

Radiation released by nuclear bombs is obviously harmful.

Known as ionizing radiation, it is powerful enough to remove electrons from atoms.

By contrast, radio-frequency energy is a form of non-ionizing radiation given off by cellular and portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby moni- tors and countless other devices.

Given the state of the research, the industry has rejected health concerns.

When Berkeley, Calif., passed an ordinance last spring requiring retailers to warn customers that radiation emitted by cellphones could be hazardous, CTIA — The Wireless Association, an industry trade group, sued. It called the ordinance “scientifically baseless and alarmist.” The lawsuit is pending.

The study cited most often is Interphone, a multination review published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2010.

CTIA, in a statement, noted that Interphone found “overall, no increase in risk.”

But Interphone did find “some indications of an increased risk of glioma,” a type of brain tumour, among the heaviest 10 per cent of cellphone users, though “the researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.”

Dr. Elisabeth Cardis, Interphone’s principal investigator, said in an interview, “I can’t say for sure there’s an effect, but I can’t say for sure there’s no effect.”

“I can’t say for sure there’s an effect, but I can’t say for sure there’s no effect.” DR. ELISABETH CARDIS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR INTERPHONE, A MULTINATION REVIEW OF CELLPHONE RISKS