July 2008
Rad Haz Redux: The Saga Continues
By Barry Manz, Contributing Editor, MPD

As anyone knows who has followed the issue of whether or not non-ionizing radiation at low levels causes deleterious health effects, there is no more contentious issue on any subject, in any discipline. The battle over “who’s right and who’s wrong” has been publicly waged at varying levels of intensity since Paul Brodeur latched onto the subject in his inflammatory 1977 book “The Zapping of America: Microwaves, Their Deadly Risk, and the Coverup,” (now down to number 1,105,487 in Amazon.com’s book sales ranking.) While research had been conducted well before its publication, Brodeur knew a killer topic when he found one, and the book became the first among many since then (including several by Brodeur) to use the issue effectively for commercial gain. It’s an interesting read even today (I still have my copy tucked away), since so much has transpired since it appeared.

However, one thing that has not occurred over this time is a definitive agreement (or anything even remotely resembling it) about whether or not low levels of RF and microwave radiation emitted by wireless-enabled devices is a health hazard after long-term exposure. We’re not talking here about emission levels experienced by standing two feet in front of a phased-array radar or cellular antennas on a rooftop, but rather levels emitted by mobile phones and other “wireless-enabled devices” that emit small amounts of RF and are placed close to the head.

A truly enormous amount of research has been conducted over the years in an attempt to answer the question of whether or not these types of devices pose a health hazard to humans. However, in virtually every case, “peer” review has revealed some type of flaw in the study that allegedly renders it useless or at least brings its viability into question. This is inevitably followed by a defense of the work by others, leading to a stand-off. So as of this writing, it’s possible to confidently state that the question remains unanswered and perhaps even unanswerable in the short term, since it is devilishly difficult to perform long-term studies in man, and since there are a seemingly unending number of agendas in play.

Lack of definitive proof creates a situation ripe for interpretation that pits those with an interest in having the answer remain “no” against those who for equally ostensibly pure reasons believe it is at least “maybe”, “in some cases”, or “absolutely”. Never (and please correct me if I’m wrong) has there been an issue affecting the RF and microwave industry in which finger-pointing, unsubstantiated allegations, and downright ugliness have reached the level achieved concerning the “microwave debate”. A terrific place for information on the topic is and has always been Microwave News (www.microwavenews.com), whose owner, Louis Slesin, has followed the debate in agonizing detail for many, many years.

The issue has sporadically garnered media attention, especially in the 1990s, when the wireless industry took off like a rocket and the issue became relevant to anyone who uses a mobile phone. Today that includes pretty much everyone, and recently the issue has reappeared in the media to a greater degree than usual. On May 27, CNN dedicated the entire hour of Larry King Live to the topic, placing the ubiquitous Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Slesin, and several other researchers with different views on the issue together in the studio and live from as far as Australia to debate the topic.

To add some sex appeal, the theme was whether or not the late Johnny Cochran’s brain tumor could have been caused by his incessant mobile phone use, since the tumor appeared on the side of his head where he held the phone. Everyone but the researcher from Australia (who leaned heavily toward the “absolutely” side of the issue) hedged his or her bet with the usual caveats, and the discussion ended with hints about how everyone should either use a Bluetooth or wired headset “just in case”. Even the Bluetooth headset came into question, since it is after all another wireless device (albeit one with miniscule output power). Gupta at one point even consulted a mobile phone manual, which provided a suggestion that headsets be used. Gupta hinted that there must be a reason why the “warning” was there. From this superficial discussion, we of course learned nothing of substance, only that “we just don’t know”. Which is reasonable, since we don’t.

This was followed by articles in the New York Times1 and the Toronto Star2 that picked up on the subject of King’s show, and did a credible job of detailing the issue. Their publication coincided nicely with the announcement of Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor. Of course, for comic relief neither would have been complete without the requisite railing for or against health effects by various parties. These articles were followed shortly thereafter by a story from ABC News detailing how some people feel they are adversely affected by the radiation emanating from WiFi hotspots, caused by an ailment dubbed electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
The condition manifests itself in headaches, fatigue, nausea, burning and itchy skin, and muscle aches, among other things. “If I walk into a room or building that has Wi-Fi, my most immediate sign is that the front of my right thigh goes numb,” one sufferer told ABC. The article featured the usual, skin-level background information and some quotes from people close to the subject. The best, in my view, was from the World Health Organization (WHO), which has written that “there are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about believed EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself”. In other words, some of these people are either mentally ill or hypochondriacs and thus not the most reliable sources of information. Interesting viewpoint, coming from WHO.

So the battle rages on.

One might surmise that if EM radiation has serious health effects, we would all be dropping like flies, since many of us have been using mobile phones for more than two decades. And what of the RF and microwave engineers who spent their entire careers working around EM radiation at levels orders of magnitude greater than allowable by any international standard? Surely we would long ago have seen demonstrable effects in this population and many others that are exposed to EM radiation in their line of work. Then again, maybe we have, but haven’t recognized them, since there are plenty of obvious health hazards to which we either voluntarily subject ourselves or are involuntarily being exposed to that could mask the real cause of death.

The fact is that there may be health effects from exposure to the incredibly low levels to which most people who use wireless communications devices are exposed, but absolutely no one can today say this for sure, regardless of sound bites on Larry King and elsewhere. Is it not reasonable to continue research on the topic with the goal of producing studies that are so well conceived and precisely performed that their results either way cannot easily be refuted? Perhaps not, since history and human nature suggest that no such result can occur because someone of stature, somewhere, will find fault with it, defusing its validity, and perpetuating research forever. My guess is that the “rad haz debate” will continue for a very long time, giving interested parties the opportunity to express their opinions, and providing great topics for the media. In the meantime, add this to the list of articles that come to no conclusion, but admit that reasonable caution is prudent, that broadcasters and the wireless industry should comply with accepted standards and FCC rules to protect workers and the public, and that skepticism of those who purport to know “the truth”, is a healthy decision.

Manz is a contributing editor to Microwave Product Digest. He can be reached at manzcom@gmail.com.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/03well.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
2. http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/434412

Barry Manz
TXTLINX.COM86
Email this article to a friend!