WASHINGTON-Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. Chairman George Carlo is expected to recommend early next year that basic scientific research be de-emphasized in the future in favor of post-market surveillance.
Carlo announced that initial findings from radio-frequency radiation experiments do not appear to have identified a clear link between mobile phones and brain cancer, according to people that attended Carlo’s recent presentations.
Much of Carlo’s work still must undergo several layers of peer review. Carlo will meet with scientists from the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies next month to analyze the results. The findings also will be examined by a peer review board coordinated by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
Final results and recommendations will be presented by Carlo at a scientific conference Feb. 2-3 here.
“If Motorola and Lucent want to do research, more power to them. If it doesn’t help post-market surveillance, then it doesn’t help the public,” said Carlo in a telephone interview.
Motorola Inc., the nation’s biggest mobile communications equipment manufacturer, said the RF research it has conducted or sponsored in recent years failed to find a health risk from using mobile phones.
Lucent Technologies Inc., another top U.S. wireless supplier, also has been involved in the scientific debate questioning whether mobile phones pose a health risk to the nation’s 60 million subscribers.
“We will intervene when we see a health risk that is significant,” said Carlo. “That means we have not identified a health risk that requires it.”
As a result of mostly negative findings in RF research conducted since the cancer issue arose in a failed Florida lawsuit five years ago, the debate going forward likely will revolve around the amount of money that should be devoted to wireless health and safety programs in the future; how and where that money should be spent; and how communications with the public and the media on safety issues can be improved.
The cancer-wireless phone issue comes up at local zoning hearings on proposed antenna sitings, and is at the center of a legal challenge to Federal Communications Commission RF exposure guidelines brought by environmentalists, soccer moms and organized labor in a New York federal appeals court. Oral arguments are scheduled to begin at the end of November.
Lawsuits against mobile carriers and manufacturers are being contemplated in the United Kingdom, but litigation has not gone forward to date because lawyers say they do not have enough scientific data to support their cases. Factored into the equation as well is the “loser-pays” rule in U.K. litigation.
While Carlo emphasizes post-market surveillance, the FDA continues to press for more basic research. In correspondences with Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) during the past few years, FDA has insisted that lifetime animal RF exposure studies be pursued as part of major research programs.
Others argue that because enough new data discounts any health threat from mobile phones, resources should be directed away from additional research and toward post-market surveillance.
Post-market surveillance, said Carlo, can include conducting more epidemiology studies, registering mobile phone users and monitoring technological changes.
The House and Senate E911 federal land antenna-siting bills that died before Congress adjourned authorized $10 million over five years for two-year (lifetime) animal RF exposure studies.
In two studies, Carlo exposed rats for two hours to RF energy. The results were characterized as “conflicting,” and will be reviewed in mid-November by government scientists. It is unclear whether the conflict involved a positive result or conflicting interpretations of a negative finding.
Two cell culture experiments at 837 MHz had negative results. The outcome of two human epidemiology studies were not clear immediately.
WTR’s preliminary research results, the culmination of a controversial six-year program that cost cellular carriers and manufacturers $27 million, were made public by Carlo in recent presentations.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and key officials at the FDA and FCC had not been briefed by Carlo and were taken off guard about public disclosure of WTR’s preliminary findings.
Wireless lobbyists have focused more lately on recent British newspaper articles-one suggesting patents of least six mobile phone manufacturers-that claim the companies suspected a health risk associated with their products. The story was carried by the “Independent on Sunday” newspaper.
British and U.S. electronics industry associations downplayed the matter.
“Mobile phones are designed to comply with internationally agreed safety guidelines,” said Rusty Brashear, a Motorola spokesman. “These guidelines are supported by the scientific experts, government agencies, and health authorities around the world. They recognize that there are no health risks associated with the use of mobile phones. Manufacturers develop various strategies to continue to meet the guidelines.”
CTIA reacted likewise.
“In the United States, all mobile phones must comply with strict exposure guidelines which are adopted by the FCC and supported by the major U.S. government agencies responsible for public health,” said Jo-Anne Basile, vice president for external and industry relations at CTIA. “Wireless communications technologies are covered by science-based standards that set exposure limits well below the level that any known adverse effects are known to occur,” Basile said. “The prevailing scientific consensus is that there is no evidence of a health risk from the use of mobile phones.”
