Cell-Phone Radiation: The Yay, Nay, and In-between Argument
The use of mobile devices has skyrocketed since the decade after the year 2000. In the United States it is estimated that 90 percent of adults have cellular phones. Like any other new technology concerns about safety are raised despite their popularity, yet in a recent Consumer Reports survey involving 1,000 adults only 50 reported any safety concerns and less than half took any steps to limit their exposure. So, should we be worried? What is cell-phone radiation? Can cell-phones cause cancer? And where does the scientific community stand?
We interchangeably use the words radiation and radioactivity, but it is important to note that they don’t necessarily mean the same thing. With Radioactive by Imagine Dragons on people’s playlists I believe it is of some interest to understand what radioactivity is. If you recall from high school chemistry, every element in the periodic table has an atom. Atoms are composed of a nucleus with protons and neutrons in its center. In the outer shells you have what physicists and chemists call valance electrons, these electrons orbit around the nucleus at high speeds and the whole system appears to be kept in place by electrostatic forces, i.e., protons (+) in the nucleus are attracted by electrons (-) in the outer shells and vice-versa. Radioactivity, also known as nuclear decay, is the loss of energy by emission of alpha particles (2 neutrons and 2 protons), beta particles (electron or positron), and gamma rays (high energy photons). There are many types of nuclear decay, but what’s common in all, is that radioactivity involves an unstable atom. In summary, radioactivity is the disintegration of an unstable nucleus. The bigger the atom the more unstable it is and the more time it takes for the nucleus to disintegrate into a safer and smaller element. Just to give you a taste of heavy element nuclear decay, it has been estimated that the zone of alienation in Chernobyl will be safe for human activity in the year 22,000…
Now that we have a basic understanding of radioactivity it is time to differentiate it from radiation, while radioactivity involves radiation, radiation does not necessarily involve radioactivity. Radiation simply stated, is the emission and transfer of energy through a medium. But in order to answer the questions in our introduction it is important to understand the concept of ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. In short, ionizing radiation (gamma rays, X-rays) is said to have enough energy to knock out electrons from an atom. In contrast, non-ionizing radiation (radiowaves, microwaves, infrared, and the visible spectrum) does not have the potential energy to completely strip away the electrons of atoms or molecules. Below is a representation of the electromagnetic spectrum so you can see the relative size of the wavelengths that constitute ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
The First Law of Thermodynamics highlights the principle of energy conservation, thus energy cannot be created or destroyed. We understand that energy is always transferred by light, heat, or sound. By now you are probably arriving at the correct conclusion, cell-phones emit radio waves which release thermal energy (but also light and sound) thus they fall in the range of non-ionizing radiation, which makes the use of cell-phones harmless, well at least that’s what the majority of experts believe. Microwaves from microwave ovens work by shifting the vibrational and rotational movement of water molecules, thus causing the water in your food to heat up (if you do not believe me try to microwave a piece of dry seaweed). The same is true for radio-frequency (RF) waves but to a lesser extent. Cell-phones emit RF waves so the concern is that they might heat human tissue, which is primarily composed of water, thus causing cellular damage.
The admonition of cell-phones has been brought to the stoplight by studies showing that even at levels too low to raise body temperature cellular changes have been observed. In a German study, researchers found that radiowave frequency (RF) promoted the growth of brain tumors in mice. Martin Blank, Ph.D., lecturer at the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia university says that radio waves create “stress” proteins protect the cell, thus concluding that if cells are safeguarding against RF then it must cause damage of some sort. Furthermore, in 2011 researchers at the NIH showed that low level radiation from an active phone held in close proximity of a human head could lead to changes in the way certain brain cells function; these and other findings have lead 190 independent scientists from 39 countries to call on the United Nations and the World Health Organization to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation.
However, the majority of scientists aren’t as concerned. John Boice Jr., Sc.D., president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine says “[There’s] no evidence of an increase risk of brain tumors or any other form of cancer”. The FDA seconds this conclusion, on their website the FDA states that there is no link between cell-phones to any health concern. Siddhartha Mukherjee M.D., hematologist-oncologist, professor at Columbia University School of Medicine, and Winner of the 2011 Pulitzer Prize says in his 2010 The Emperor of All Maladies, this “rash” of early reports started in 2004 when it was believed that RF waves from cell-phones might be the cause of a form of brain cancer called glioma. Mukherjee reports a large British study was at first an association was made between cell-phone use and brain tumors, but after adjusting for recall and reporting bias the study concluded that “…there was no detectable association between gliomas and cell-phone usage overall.”
It is also important to note that by this time the British study concluded in 2006 new phones had entered the market adding to the complexity of the issue.
We like to think the phones we have today are far more superior than what people had a decade ago, while this is true in many levels we simply don’t know with certitude when it comes to radiation. One advance in my opinion was the position of the antenna, perhaps you remember that long ago phones had an antenna (close to our head), we often had to extend it to get good reception. Today, the antenna is internalized usually at the bottom of the phone. This is an important design as the waves are captured and emitted by the antenna, thus the farther is it from the user’s head the better, I suppose.
Until more concrete evidence comes into existence I don’t think there’s a need to be worried. Here are four recommendations from Consumer Reports to protect yourself in the meantime:
Try to keep the phone away from your head and body (use headphones or earbuds). This is particularly important when the cellular signal is weak–when your phone has only one bar, for example– because phones may increase their power to compensate.
Text or video call when possible.
When speaking, use the speakerphone on your device or a hands-free headset.
Don’t stow your phone in your pants or shirt pocket. Instead, carry it in a bag or use a belt clip.
As always, if this blog was of your liking make it known, by leaving kudos and subscribing to my blog (no spams, I promise). Also, at the bottom of the page there’s a button where you can send me comments, suggestions, complaints. If you think others might benefit share it with friends!
Until next time,
MC