Last October, I was asked to edit a translation of a technical book about effects of cell phone radiation demonstrated in studies conducted by scientists at a research institute in Russia. Russia and European nations have taken a conservative approach. After reading these studies, I read another book by Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who has written extensively about the subject. I now use a headset when I use the phone, and I cringe when I see anyone holding a cell phone against his or her skull.

I recorded an interview that I'm now transcribing for publication. Dr. Carlo is an epidemiologist and forensic scientist who has worked on several major health cases, such as the infamous, "Love Canal". He's the Chairman of a nonprofit health sciences institute that is related to the nonprofit which publishes the www.safewireless.com website. It was because of his reputation for objective, rigorous, forensic science, that he was hired by the Cell Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) as the autonomous director of a $28.5 million aggregate of scientific studies commissioned to investigate any and all potential dangers from cell phone use. Eventually, there were 56 studies completed by scientists working in highly credentialed institutions around the world, and results were subject to peer review. You were correct to say that there have been no studies that indicated that human tissue had been harmed by the heating effects of radiation. However, many studies indicated that exposure to cell phone radiation produced adverse affects, and that some of them led to DNA damage. In other words, effects other than heating, are occurring in exposure to cell phone radiation, and in proportion to length of use, and related to the proximity of the transmitting source. Moreover, there is evidence of tumors are occurring with greater frequency on the side of the head in the portion of the brain and inner ear that lies within the radius of the plume of highest radiation from cell phones.

I'm skeptical of "conspiracy theories". To me, the term, conspiracy, implies an intent in conflict with some public or private right or interest as if collaboration is a fault rather than looking at the responsibility for a damaging action. This is like saying that because there is collaboration among industry members and with government agencies, that the object of this is conspiratorial. Collaboration is required in the telecom industry just to accomplish standardization, sharing of bandwidth and interconnectivity. To attack this collaboration raises the question of intent. I have never heard George Carlo say, or seen him write about conspiracies. The intentions of Motorola and Qualcomm and the FDA are just to do business. In the U.S., we are not required by law to look into areas of concern where we are not presumed to have knowledge of dangers to the public, but in some cases we may be held accountable for even non-intended results of our actions. In a legal sense, the word, conspiracy, might apply if there is direct intent to collaborate with others to deprive someone else of a right. It seems irrelevant and it is not what I hear George Carlo is saying.

After reviewing the cell phone health effect studies in three books, and hearing a brief summary of some cases in pending litigation, I conclude that the cell phone industry and the US government, which has a fiduciary relationship with the industry, are in a bind. If litigation the cell phone industry is now contesting is found in the plaintiff's favor, there are serious business consequences. If they admit to the possibility of harmful effects from the use of cell phones, and that they are putting people at risk of tumors and other health effects, the cases already on the docket will hurt the industry and cause a reaction on Wall Street, because there are so many cases possible even if cell phones were outlawed. In other words, it is impossible for the industry to admit of the danger and make appropriate warnings and take appropriate steps to protect people without admitting responsibility in the pending lawsuits. Therefore, in prematurely ending its support of the study Dr. Carlo headed, and in constantly spinning news stories to give the impression that cell phones are harmless, the industry is acting rationally in terms of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

The wireless telecom industry represents a huge part of our economy. The US government has been making billions from the sale of bandwidth and this income has been mortgaged-the fees come in over ten years but they are booked now. Moreover, there are an enormous number of jobs and billions of investment capital at stake. Telecom technology underpins the American economy. Based on what I've read so far, the epidemiological science is correct. Findings of the studies are not being contested with any rigor. As time goes on, if prophylactic measures are not applied, health costs will be astronomically high, not to mention the litigation costs, and in view of the global economic impact on one of the world's major businesses, these costs and litigation costs will likely be passed on to the public along with the tumors and other health effects. The railway situation is a microcosmic illustration of a similar situation where a governmental body is cooperating with private entities in a not very well thought-out plan that threatens to impact our lives and environment. Is it a conspiracy? Irrelevant in terms of what we must consider to protect our interests.

George Carlo said that it is a dangerous mistake to conclude that cell phones are safe based on "incomplete information". It seems accusative. I feel it is justifiable. The $28.5 million study conducted by the scientists in the program he oversaw showed links between genetic damage and cell phone usage, which have been acknowledged by the FDA, for instance, http://cryptome.org/fda102099.htm. In this report, the FDA staff goes on to waffle about it, but the waffling does not change the accuracy of the findings. I understand that there have been two Worker's Comp settlements already. There's a line of pending litigation queued up that will be heard soon this year. The cell phone industry has been stalling the legal process through a number of procedural motions, however, as a result of a Supreme Court decision last October, the log jam is broken-the cases are now moving forward. The outcome could be significant.

People hear conflicting interpretations of studies: Dr. Carlo said that this is because, although studies have not shown that the heating mechanism of radiation, as we see in a microwave oven (which uses the same frequencies at much higher power), is not directly causing genetic breakdowns, repeatable, peer-reviewed demonstrations in both in vitro and animal studies have shown cellular changes following irradiation from cell phones, and in particular cell membrane changes after irradiation that have lead to DNA breakdown. I also understand these studies have been conducted at levels of exposure less than a quarter to a half of the daily dosage duration experienced by many cell users, i.e., 500 minutes per month vs. 1000 to 2600 minutes, common for many cell users.

Dr. Carlo told me yesterday that the www.safewireless.com website was recently set up. Some links may not be working. He said that many of the studies he talks about are found in the three books he has written, which can be found at Amazon or Borders. I questioned him about the $10 fee for registration on the site. He said he has to find some way to fund the website and other educational activities. However, the point you make is that people should be able to get information without registering, let alone paying a fee. I agree. I can't imagine setting up a website about any public interest subject with a fee. On the other hand, how do you raise the money for media and communications to level the playing field with bureaucracies like the FDA and the huge resources of members of some of the largest corporate enterprises in the world?

Michael Winn
http://thedelmarnews.com