The issue of mobile-phone radiation and its possible link to cancer became even more garbled last week as the Australian Consumers Association released a study in its Choice magazine, claiming hands-free kits dramatically reduce the amount of electromagnetic radiation exposure to the brain.
These findings wholly contradict the results of a study conducted by researchers for the British consumer magazine Which?. That study found wired ear pieces create three times as much radio-frequency radiation as the phone itself and that phone shields did little to block mobile-phone emissions.
The discrepancy largely can be attributed to the types of radiation that were measured by each research group.
“The Which? test, for example, measured electromagnetic field intensity, not SAR (specific absorption rate), in a very specific area of the head. While its methods have since attracted criticism and the basic recommendations of its study conflict with ours, its results serve to emphasize the need for ongoing study,” the ACA said.
Choice said the ACA tested three mobile phones with and without their hands-free accessory kits-an ear piece and a clip-on microphone-and found a 92-percent reduction in the specific absorption rate of electromagnetic radiation when using the kits. Two digital mobile phones that complied with the Australian SAR standard and one analog phone that complied with the less-stringent New Zealand standard were tested, Choice said.
In the United States, starting Aug. 1, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association enacted a plan requiring all mobile phones seeking CTIA certification to include SAR data. Boxes containing new mobile phones must state on the outside that the phone meets Federal Communications Commission guidelines, according to the CTIA plan. The ACA is calling for a similar plan of action in Australia.
CTIA said it was unaware of the Australian study and could not comment on it.
The SAR limit in both the United States and Australia is 1.6 watts per kilogram of human tissue, and in both countries, doubts have been raised as to the validity of measuring SAR, which is a thermal measurement.
“The possible health risks of RFR can be characterized in two ways: thermal and non-thermal. Thermal effects occur when enough RFR, at certain frequencies, is absorbed to be converted to heat, increasing tissue temperature,” the ACA said.
Non-thermal effects, however, encompass different aspects of RF exposure, including cumulative and chronic exposure, said Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who has conducted his own industry-funded research and found mobile phones could pose health risks to users.
The ACA concluded there is a lack of understanding about the non-thermal effects of RF radiation, and their health risks are “something of an unknown quantity.”
“Though disputed, it’s suggested they can occur at lower levels of exposure and involve changes to complex biological molecules and body cells, possibly leading to anything from memory loss and headaches to tumors,” said the ACA.
Falling in line with the recommendations made by the British government in May after it conducted its own extensive research, the ACA is calling on consumers to exercise caution by keeping calls as short as possible and by avoiding bodily contact with a mobile phone whenever possible, especially for children.
The association also is urging the Australian government to uphold its current standards, rather than relaxing them-as is now being considered-to comply with the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection standard.
The wireless industry has been forced to address the effects of mobile-phone use in and out of court. Two weeks ago, Chris Newman, a 41-year-old neurologist, filed a $800 million lawsuit in Baltimore City Circuit Court against several cellular carriers, CTIA and the Telecommunications Industry Association alleging his wireless phone caused a malignant tumor behind his right ear.
