Devra L. Davis, PhD MPH
In
2003 I was stunned to learn that a prestigious commission of
the conservative British government had issued warnings three
years earlier about children and cell phones. While I like to
think of myself as an open-minded scientist, I thought the
idea that cell phones could cause any harm was a bit daft,
right up there with the notion that invisible radio waves
could control the brain. I assumed that the lack of interest
in the matter in America meant there was nothing to it.
A
dogma of physics had long held sway over discussions of
radiofrequency (RF). Ionizing radiation—the kind issued
by x-rays—heats and sometimes burns the body and damages
the basic building blocks of the genetic material that rests
in the center of all living cells, our DNA. In order for any
biological effect to take place, so goes the dogma, you have
to have heat. Non-ionizing radiation of the sort emitted by
cell phones had to be safe. The dogma holds that without
overt warming nothing harmful could happen.
Like
much scientific speculation, this widely held belief turned
out to be wrong. Like most humans, scientists don’t like
to admit the need to correct their deepest convictions.
Intrigued and unsettled by the British report, I began to read
the experimental literature on RF, as I was completing two
decades of research that went into my book, The
Secret History of the War on Cancer.
I found numerous studies indicating that exposures to
radiofrequency at precisely the conditions posed by cell
phones could cause a host of biological effects ranging from
damage to DNA to leakage in the blood-brain barrier. I soon
learned that the British had not been wacky, just far ahead of
the rest of the world in issuing the Stewart Commission report
warning that children should not use cell phones.
I
remember talking with my husband one evening about all this. I
came home and said, “Honey, I think I’ve found
something really, really important for public health.”
He
murmured, as longtime spouses do, “That’s great,
sweetheart. What is it? Why are you so upset?”
“Well,
if I’m right, we could be in really big trouble in a few
decades. It’s cell phones. Cell phones could turn
out to be a dreadful problem.” I said.
“What
on earth are you talking about?” he asked.
I
explained what I was learning. America was way behind
the rest of the world on this issue. Lennart Hardell in
Sweden and Elihu Richter in Israel had produced troubling
reports—cell phone signals got into the brain. The human
head actually functions like an antenna taking RF signals into
the brain. Worse yet, it looked like long-term use of cell
phones was tied with doubled risks of brain cancer in those
who used them the longest.
Why
contradictory results?
The
Biointiative Report came
out in 2007 and sent shock waves through parts of the research
community. The product of Cindy Sage, an experienced
environmental consultant, and David Carpenter, a distinguished
researcher and former dean of public health at State
University of New York, this report by more than two dozen
expert scientists provided a concise overview of studies
ranging from experimental work in cell cultures and animals to
the evolving and contradictory efforts of
epidemiologists.
The sheer volume of evidence was
daunting. Their work reviewed more than a thousand studies,
many of which showed that radiofrequency exposures just like
those released by phones could damage cells, impede
neurotransmitters, cause leakage into the brain, and even
worsen performance, insomnia, and memory loss.
However,
there was no denying that most published studies of RF found
no effect at all. Henry Lai of the University of Washington—a
pioneer in the field—identified a peculiar sort of
publication bias at work. When he produced break-through
studies in 1994 showing that RF could damage the DNA of rat
brain cells, industry tried to get him fired and block
publication of his research. They also funded what is
now termed ‘advocacy research’—giving money
to scientists with the explicit intent of undermining
suspicions that had been raised about the safety of RF.
As funding for his own work on RF dried up, Lai left the field
for a while. Sensing that what had happened to him
was no accident, Lai turned his own scientific microscope on
the funding for RF research over all and produced a simple
finding—in looking at all the studies conducted on RF,
he determined that the chances that any study would find that
cell phones were harmful depended on who had paid for the
work. If a study was funded by industry—as most were—the
chances they would find any risk was about .2. But if studies
were independently funded—and a few were—the
chance that results would be positive was .8.
Still,
the majority of scientists, including Nobel Laureate Robert
Weinberg, who, like other scientific luminaries with no
training in RF science, has been a consultant to the cell
phone industry, hold to the dogma that without warming nothing
can happen biologically. This view has been carefully
nurtured. Public relations firms have ensured that Lai’s
work was deliberately targeted and “war-gamed,”
employing others to launch critical attacks on findings that
RF could be harmful. Science became simply a tool in the
public relations strategy. The notion that without
generating a change in temperature there could be no biologic
effect became widely bandied about as scientifically
implausible-- a violation of the basic laws of
physics.
Herberman
sounds the alarm
As
I was finalizing my book in 2006, I went to talk with my boss,
Ronald B. Herberman, then director of the University of
Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. As one of the world’s
top cancer biologists, Herberman knew good science from bad.
As a grandfather and cancer survivor, he also had a deeply
personal interest in reducing risk and, like me, was disgusted
with evidence of how long and hard industry had manipulated
information about various hazards--asbestos, vinyl chloride,
benzene, and now cell phones. He encouraged me to lay
out the facts, including the heavy hand of industry in shaping
and molding public grasp of the issues and the growing number
of troubling findings indicating that the dogmatic view of RF
was wrong—RF signals can produce biological changes at
levels that do not generate any increase in
temperature.
Convinced that there was a need to warn
others about the potential dangers of cell phones and of the
need for basic research on the issue, Herberman began talking
with colleagues about the issue and decided to do something
about it. As Director of the nation’s third
busiest cancer center, Herberman issued an advisory in July
2008 to the three thousand staff members of the cancer
institute. He urged them to take some simple precautions:
reduce direct exposure of the head to cell phones by using a
speakerphone or earpiece and avoid keeping the phone turned on
while closely attached to their bodies.
Within days,
Herberman’s notice made it around the world. For years,
scientists like the prolific and distinguished Lai had shown
that radiofrequency signals could disrupt living cells. Groups
such as the International
Commission on Electromagnetic Safetyand
the Bioinitiative Report and others had called for such
action. What was different? As the author of more than seven
hundred scientific articles and one of the most influential
cancer scientists in the world, Herberman was not known to
take personal or scientific risks. His scientific work had set
the stage for major programs of cancer research. The fact that
someone of his stature had weighed in on the topic changed the
equation. Concerns about cell phones could no longer be
marginalized. The world began to take notice.
Just
after Herberman had weighed in publicly on the matter, I got
cautionary phone calls from several colleagues. “You
should be very, very careful about taking this on,”
advised one distinguished cancer researcher. “A decade
ago I looked into this and was also quite concerned, but I was
frankly told to stay out of it. This is a not a field for the
faint of heart. Big, big money is involved. There’s
simply no independent funding available.”
Another
colleague at the University of Pittsburgh was blunt. “You
can’t afford to go public here. It’s much too
dangerous an issue. If you are right, you are attacking the
jugular of a multibillion-dollar industry that is booming when
many others are not. Think of your career and back
off.”
Mounting
evidence
After
the Bioinitiative Report came out, I continued to read and to
talk with serious scientists around the world who were
conducting research on RF. I learned of the strange odyssey at
the University of Vienna where charges of scientific fraud had
been invoked to discredit studies showing that cell phone
radiation could damage DNA. I soon found that the charges of
fraud were themselves a fraud, fueled by the industry’s
determination to keep the public convinced that all was well
in the matter of radiofrequency. The
Competence Initiative arose
in an effort to inform the German-speaking public about the
truth behind this story and began issuing searing indictments
of the research and researchers who claimed cell phones were
completely safe.
Colleagues in Israel and Finland, two
countries that use radar and electromagnetic radiation
intensively, opened big cracks in the notion that RF was
harmless. I visited with a conservative physician and
researcher, Siegal Sadetzki in Israel, who had long thought
that cell phones had to be harmless. I came to understand why
she had convinced the Israeli government to issue a warning
about children’s use of cell phones. I also began to
correspond with Darius Lezcynzki from Finland’s Nuclear
Radiation and Protection Agency and found out that the Finns
had issued warnings about this in 2002, 2004, and 2009.
I met with the science attaché of the French embassy in
Washington, D.C. and heard of the government’s efforts
to limit cell phone use of children and mandate safer
technologies for the rest of us.
I spoke with my old
and brilliant friend, David Gee, now with the European
Environment Agency (EEA), who explained that the EEA had come
under fierce, well-coordinated, and unreasonable fire for
endorsing the Bioinitiative Report.
Christopher
Portier of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, one of the most highly respected and talented
researchers in the US government, has followed this issue for
more than a decade. He pointed out that the field was full of
tremendous information gaps and said that it had taken a
decade to get the government to agree to carry out much needed
cell culture and animal studies on this issue. The
long-delayed work will be completed in 2014.
I phoned
Joseph Fraumeni of the National Cancer Institute to learn
whether NCI would support carrying out more studies of RF in
people. Fraumeni was noncommittal. “We are waiting for
the Europeans to complete their work,” he
explained.
Waiting is something we
epidemiologists do a lot. That’s because after exposures
first take place cancer can take three or more decades to
occur. Brain tumors associated with the one-time
exposure from the Hiroshima bombing were not evident until
four decades later. The long-awaited European study on this
issue—the World Health Organization’s Interphone
project studying more than 2,000 brain cancer cases—has
broken into distinct camps. Some of the researchers from a
dozen countries are no longer talking to one another. They
disagree about how to interpret their findings.
The
more I read about the issue, the more it became clear that
silence was not an option. Herberman’s advisory echoed
views expressed by French experts convened by David
Servan-Schreiber, a dear colleague and brain tumor survivor at
Pittsburgh and in Paris. Elmer Huerte, an oncologist and past
president of the American Cancer Society, issued similar
warnings on his Spanish language blog.
Take
precautions
When
is the right time to act? That is not a scientific question
but a moral one. As a public health researcher and historian
of medicine, I have seen epidemics unfold in slow motion.
I have tallied the dreadful toll of our failure to act against
tobacco, asbestos, and vinyl chloride—compounds long
known to cause cancer. Like David Michaels and other
experts in the field, I have documented sophisticated public
relations strategies to hire competing experts, produce
confusing results, manipulate scientific uncertainty, and
exaggerate doubt. These so-called war games leave a
toxic and lethal legacy that is far more than abstract
numbers. I am starting to hear more about that as I meet
inspiring brain tumor survivors like Alan Marks (who used a
cell phone for more than 10,000 hours) and his determined wife
Ellie.
I no longer depend on government
grants. I have been fortunate to gain support from private
foundations that share my concern for our children’s
brains and those of the rest of us. As a grandmother to three
young children, I have seen the entertaining and addictive
qualities of toy or real cell phones. I am appalled by
the rapid and unthinking proliferation of phones into
elementary schools and the branding and marketing of
cartoon-themed phones for toddlers.
With support
from the Fine Foundation, my own nonprofit Environmental
Health Trust,
the Flow Circle Fund, NIEHS, and the Competence Initiative and
encouragement from many others, I organized a major
international conference on the topic in Washington DC in
September and worked with Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Arlen
Specter, himself a brain tumor survivor, to conduct the first
Senate hearing on this topic in three decades. We were
broadcast live on CSPAN3. The world began to look at the
question differently. Senior representatives of the
American Cancer Society actively engaged in this meeting and
announced on the ACS web site the need for new research to be
developed on the subject.
Of course, even at this point
I cannot be certain that cell phones are a major risk to
public health. But I and growing numbers of others have very
good reasons for concern. Unlike tobacco, which was never used
by most people at any time, cell phones are used today by many
adults and growing numbers of children. The case for
precautionary action is clear and strong and relatively free
and painless.
If we wait for more definitive
proof of human harm before acting to lower exposures to RF, we
put ourselves at risk of epidemics of devastating brain
illnesses including cancer. Accordingly, I am leaving my post
at the University of Pittsburgh at the end of this year to
focus on generating support for and conducting research on
this issue and other matters where there is a clear need to
inform the public about potential hazards. I am writing a book
on the subject—Sell Phone—What’s Really on
the Line, which will be published by Dutton.
With
support provided from private donors, the Competence
Initiative, and others, I am now working with colleagues
around the world to identify major gaps in research and
understanding, come up with strategies to fill them, and
promote the adoption of precautionary approaches such as those
recently urged by the French, Finnish, and Israeli
governments:
• Use your cell
phones for short periods of time with an earpiece or speaker
phone.
• Texting is better
than talking.
• Children
should only use cell phones as phones for
emergencies.
Recently, Environmental Working Group
published a guide
to the relative emissions of
various phones, bringing greater public attention to the
issue. A number of advocates recognize that current
approaches to setting standards need to be radically
revised—something that is under active discussion by
governments in France, Finland, and Israel.
Our
conference in Washington, D.C., provided a pivotal moment in
the field by bringing together leading scientists on the issue
of cell phones and health and forming the basis for the first
U.S. Senate hearings on the topic in more than three decades.
Working groups from that meeting will soon be issuing specific
recommendations for major independent research programs,
extending work quickly done by the Institute of Medicine in
January of last year. And while those programs are underway,
taking these simple precautions will ensure that the billions
of cell phone users do not pass on avoidable risks to
themselves and their children.
When I eventually saw
the movie version of Thank
You For Smoking,
the years of delay and confusion all made sense. The cell
phone industry had taken their playbook from tobacco. Public
relations firms have mastered the effort to spew doubt and
blame any afflicted person for their own disease. Whenever
science produces results indicating that the technology could
produce harm, the strategy is to go after the scientists who
did the studies and find and fund others to come up with
contradictory results. But that strategy has been
exposed as something that potentially endangers the brains of
billions at this point.
The modern
history of environmental hazards is clear: It is not enough to
do the research; we also need to break away from a world where
science becomes an end game for public relations mavens.
I remain hopeful that the sheer weight of information amassed
at this point, the number of scientists now engaged in this
issue globally—as well as my forthcoming new book on the
topic detailing the complexities of the matter--will allow us
to resolve this matter constructively so that we can marshal
this revolutionary technology safely and not find ourselves
looking back with regret.
Dr.
Devra Davis is the founder of Environmental
Health Trust,
a newly created nonprofit devoted to researching and
controlling avoidable environmental health threats.
An award-winning scientist and writer, Davis' recent
paperback, The
Secret History of the War on Cancer,
includes stunning new information about the ways that public
relations strategies have undermined public health. Her
new book--Sell
Phone--what's really on the line,
will be published by Dutton in the Fall, 2010.
|
about sehn 
