Wireless Technologies and the National Information Infrastructure.
Chapter 11 - Health Issues:
Footnotes

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Talk Paper" on cellular telephone safety, 1993; U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology, "Information on Human Exposure to RF Fields from Cellular Radio Transmitters," 1994; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Position Statement on RF from Portable and Mobile Phones and Other Devices," 1992; U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Status of Research on the Safety of Cellular Telephones, GAO/RCED-95-32 (Washington, DC: November 1994), pp. 3-4, 15; Mark Fischetti, "The Cellular Phone Scare," IEEE Spectrum, vol. 30, No. 6, June 1993, pp. 43-47; "Cellular Phone Industry Research Group Sees Need for `Basic Information in All Areas'; Proposals Under Review," Microwave News, September/October 1994, pp. 9-10; Scientific Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Research, Interim Status Report: Potential Public Health Risks from Wireless Technology: The Development of Data for Science-based Risk Management Decisionmaking, Nov. 29, 1994, p. 4; "SAG Chairman Comments on Significance of Research Agenda; Proud of Group's Track Record," Cellular Telephone Update, vol. 2, No. 1, Fall 1994, p. 2.

2. Although "radiation" is the preferred technical term when discussing radio wave emissions from wireless transmitters, radio communication radiation should be clearly differentiated from the harmful ionizing and particulate ("hard") radiation associated with nuclear energy. These two types of radiation are not the same. Public concern about all forms of electromagnetic radiation may be fueled by a misunderstanding of the technical terms involved.

3. George Brandon, "Pulling Together an Electromagnetic Field Defense: Defendants Need a Coordinated Strategy for the Mass Tort Some Call the `Asbestos of the `90s,'" The National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, p. B19.

4. This difficulty in testing before full-scale release poses particularly acute problems for systems that operate highly reliably the first time, but cannot easily be subjected to real-world tests, such as antiballistic missile system software.

5. 5 See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, OTA-BP-E-53 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1989), pp. 77-80 for a discussion of prudent avoidance in the context of electric power line electromagnetic radiation and potential human health effects.

6. For recent reporting on low-frequency power effects, see Tekla S. Perry, "Today's View of Magnetic Fields," IEEE Spectrum, vol. 31, No. 12, December 1994, pp. 14-23. High frequency standards are dealt with in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE C95.1 1991, approved by IEEE Sept. 26, 1991, approved by the American National Stardards Institute Nov. 18, 1992, (New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, November 1994).

7. See U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 29- 31, for a brief review of this literature.

8. Ibid, p. 3.

9. Henry Lai and Narenda Singh, "Acute Low-Intensity Microwave Exposure Increases DNA Strand Breaks in Rat Brain Cells," Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 16, spring 1995, forthcoming. See report in "Microwaves Break DNA in Brain; Cellular Industry Skeptical," Microwave News, vol. 14, No. 6, November/December 1994, pp. 1, 11-13.

10. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE C95.1 1991, approved by IEEE Sept. 26, 1991, approved by the American National Stardards Institute Nov. 18, 1992 (New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, November 1994). These standards are based on several decades of biological and radiological work, particularly on the question of electromagnetic radiation and cancer. For the most recent verion of the standard, promulgated in 1991 and 1992, the standards committee had 14 biological evaluation working groups, with 125 scientists, physicians, and engineers drawn from academia, the private sector, and government. Similar standards have been adopted by other organizations as well.

11. This is a conventional way of stating the levels permitted under the standard, expressed in terms of what levels the emitting devices may have. The standard actually says nothing about emitting devices, but specifies exposure levels for humans, and is considerably more complex and detailed: it covers a wide range of frequencies (from 3 kHz to 300 Ghz), and power levels, measured as electric field or magnetic field strength or power density, depending on the frequency range. Compliance with the IEEE/ANSI standard also requires that, at cellular phone frequencies, actual exposure for the general public (measured by the specific absorption rate) not exceed 0.08 watts per kilogram whole- body average or 1.6 milliwatts per kilogram peak exposure in any one gram of tissue over 30 minutes. The maximum power density level is 0.57 milliwatt per square centimeter of tissue for over the whole body. These levels are somewhat different for other radio devices, such as ESMR, PCS or police radios. See Mark Fischetti, "The Cellular Phone Scare," IEEE Spectrum, vol. 30, No. 6, June 1993, pp. 44, 46.

12. IEEE notes that most reports of biological effects have dealt with acute exposures at relatively few frequencies rather than with chronic exposures, and its work reflects this data base. The cutoff date for the literature review on which the standard depends was December 1985, with some carefully selected exceptions. See Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 26-27.

13. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 21.

14. Ibid., p. 24.

15. Louis Slesin, publisher of Microwave News, is a careful exponent of those advocating increased attention to biological effects of high-frequency, low- power electromagnetic radiation on humans. See for example, "Cellular Phones: Why the Health Risk Can't Be Dismissed," Microwave News, vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1993, pp. 1, 11-12.

16. Microwave News, vol. 14, No. 5, September/October 1994, p. 8.

17. Microwave News, vol. 14, No. 3, May/June, 1994, p. 13.

18. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Status of Research on the Safety of Cellular Telephones, GAO/RCED-95- 32 (Washington, DC: November 1994).

19. Letter from Dr. George Carlo, Chairman, Wireless Technology Research, to Mr. Keith O. Fultz, Assistant Comptroller General, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, Apr. 10, 1995.

20. Interview with Scientific Advisory Group (now Wireless Technology Research) staff members, March 29, 1995.

21. Membership of the Scientific Advisory Group consists of Dr. George L. Carlo, of the Health & Environmental Sciences Group, Ltd., and George Washington University; Dr. Ian Munro, of CanTox, Inc.; and Dr. Arthur W. Guy, University of Washington, Seattle. On Mar. 31, 1995, the SAG became Wireless Technology Research, LLC.

22. Scientific Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Research, "Potential Public Health Risks From Wireless Technology: Research Agenda for the Development of Data for Science- Based Decisionmaking," (Washington, DC: Scientific Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Research, Aug. 25, 1994).

23. Details of Wireless Technology Research and associated activities can be found in Wireless Technology Update, its organization newsletter published in Washington, DC.

24. Letter from Dr. George Carlo, Chairman, Wireless Technology Research, to Mr. Keith O. Fultz, Assistant Comptroller General, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, Apr. 10, 1995.

25. Members include the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

BOX 11-1: Origins of Recent Concern About Brain Cancer and Cellular Telephones

Public concern about low-power, high-frequency radio devices such as cellular telephones has its origins in a wrongful death lawsuit filed in April 1992, by David Reynard against his cellular telephone company, alleging that his wife's frequent and prolonged use of her cellular telephone contributed to her death by brain cancer. The story was first reported in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun- Sentinel, and received widespread attention following an interview with Reynard by Larry King on the CNN television network in January 1993.

News of the suit led to a significant drop in the stock prices of cellular companies and led to efforts by the companies to assure the public that cellular telephones are safe. While there was broad public concern at the time about the safety of the devices, committed users apparently were unwilling to forego use of the phones: cellular telephone subscription rates and usage did not significantly drop during this time. The case was dismissed on May 17, 1995, for lack of evidence meeting Florida's standards for admissibility. (see footnote 1) There are currently seven other cases pending on the safety of cellular telephone use.

______________

1 H. David Reynard, et al., v. NEC Corp., et al., "Order," in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Div., case no. 94-825-CIV-T- 21E. See also John Schwartz, "Court Call Favors Cellular: Judge Throws Out Claim of Link to Brain Cancer," The Washington Post, May 20, 1995, p. A2.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.

BOX 11-2: Statistics and large numbers

In 1991, there were approximately 17,600 deaths caused by brain cancer in the United States and about 514,300 cancer deaths overall. The cancer rate, between five and six deaths per 100,000, has not changed significantly over the past decade. (see footnote 1) In a population of 180 million adults 20 years old and above, there are about 20 million cellular telephone users, or about 11 percent of the adult population. Mathematically, one would expect about 1,956 cellular telephone users to get brain cancer, independent of any specific cause. The National Cancer Institute, a part of the National Institutes of Health, estimated that there would be 350 new cases of brain cancer among cellular telephone users in 1993. (see footnote 2) It is unknown how many actual cases occurred, since data on cancer and cellular telephone use is not yet available.

The lesson in these numbers is that, just because someone uses a cellular telephone and gets cancer, there is no reason to assume it is the phone that caused it. Because the numbers are so small, it would be difficult to distinguish cancer due to cellular telephones from other possible causes. If it were scientifically proven that cellular telephone users contract cancer at rates above the average, all other things being equal, it might be concluded that cellular telephones had a role to play. But even this is difficult to say with certainty because so many factors contribute to the incidence and growth of cancer.

______________

1 Letter from Dr. F. Kristian Storm, Professor, Departments of Surgery and Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Comprehensive Cancer Center, to Rep. Edward Markey, Feb. 2, 1993.

2 Mark Fischetti, "The Cellular Phone Scare," IEEE Spectrum, vol. 30, No. 6, June, 1993, pp. 43-47.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.

Program Ref: Industry, Telecommunications, and Commerce Program