NYT -- Cellphone: A Convenience, a Hazard or Both?
October 1, 2002
Cellphone: A Convenience, a Hazard or Both?
By JANE E. BRODY
When a new technology takes off, it seems to fly with the
speed of light. So it is with cellphones, now owned by well
over half the population and soon to be found in more than
90 percent of American households.
The latest trend is to replace one's land line with a
cellphone, but that action seems a bit premature, given the
erratic nature of many cellphone connections.
Still, the potential is there, and when you can carry a
phone wherever you go, you can spend many more hours on the
phone than you would if a land line was all you had.
This raises critical questions that have been asked for
nearly a decade with little resolution. How safe are they?
What effect do they have on quality of life? Recent bans in
New York State and elsewhere on the use of hand-held phones
while driving only begin to address these questions, and
with limited effectiveness.
A Cause of Cancer?
Right up front, I must say that it is not possible to prove
definitively that anything is safe. Science can only
produce evidence that makes it highly unlikely that a
hazard exists.
Widespread fears that cellphones could increase the risk of
brain cancer began in January 1993 when David Raynard,
whose wife talked on a cellphone "all the time" and
subsequently died of brain cancer, appeared on "Larry King
Live" and told viewers he was suing the cellphone industry
on the ground that it was responsible for his wife's
illness.
Since then, more than a dozen studies have been conducted
here and abroad. None have found any credible evidence for
a link between cellphone use and any kind of cancer. To be
sure, all the studies had limits, and if a relationship
exists it may take 30 or 40 years of cellphone use to show
it, not the 10 years or less covered by the studies.
But there is also biology to consider. Do cellphones
generate the kinds of radiation that could conceivably
cause cancer? Dr. Robert L. Park of the American Physical
Society addressed that question last year in an editorial
in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
"All known cancer-inducing agents - including radiation,
certain chemicals and a few viruses - act by breaking
chemical bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA," Dr. Park
wrote. "Not until the ultraviolet region of the
electromagnetic spectrum is reached, beyond visible light,
beyond infrared and far, far beyond microwaves, do photons
have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds. Microwave
photons heat tissue, but they do not come close to the
energy needed to break chemical bonds, no matter how
intense the radiation."
In other words, cellphones, which operate with radio
frequencies in the microwave range, do not emit ionizing
radiation, the type that damages DNA. So I would say at
this point, cancer is the least of one's worries when it
comes to using cellphones.
A Road Hazard?
Cars, trucks and vans these days come equipped with a host
of electronic devices that can easily distract the most
conscientious of drivers, and the future promises even
more. Just try tuning the radio while driving a car that
has been produced in the last 5 or 10 years and it becomes
clear.
Distractions abound that can interfere with safe driving. A
study supported by the Automobile Association of America
Foundation and conducted by the University of North
Carolina Highway Safety Research Center revealed that
distractions outside the vehicle, like gawking at
accidents, other drivers, pedestrians, animals and even
road construction were the primary distraction culprits in
road accidents. After the visual distractions were
adjusting the radio or sound system and interacting with
passengers.
Talking on a cellphone was the least prominent distraction
in serious crashes, accounting for 1.5 percent of 5,000
accidents, the same as eating and drinking or smoking.
But the researchers believe the role of cellphones was most
likely underreported. Publicity about the risks of phoning
while driving may have made drivers in accidents less
willing to admit to talking on the phone. Furthermore,
without knowing how many cellphone calls result in crashes
(as opposed to how many radio adjustments), it is
impossible to rank the risk accurately.
In Japan, where the police have kept track of accidents
caused by the use of cellphones, cellphone-related crashes
plummeted by 75 percent after 1999 when the country banned
the use of hand-held phones while driving. In New York,
where a similar ban took effect in November 2001, the law
is still widely ignored.
Had I not shouted to an elderly woman crossing a Brooklyn
street with the light the other day, she would have been
hit by a minivan turning the corner driven by a woman
talking on her hand-held cellphone and apparently totally
unaware of the pedestrian.
But restrictions on hand-held phones address only part of
the hazard - that of having to juggle a phone while
steering, braking and shifting. Instead, the effects of a
phone conversation on the brain are likely to be more
important, and those effects apply equally to hand-held and
hands-free phones.
Studies of brain function during multitasks like driving
and talking on a phone have shown that the brain's ability
to attend to each task is significantly diminished.
One study cited by Dr. Paul Green of the University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute showed that
hands-on or hands-off, the risk of a crash is about four
times as great when a driver is talking on the phone as it
is when the phone is not in use.
"Requiring the use of hands-free phones may reduce the risk
associated with retrieving and holding the phone," Dr.
Green said, "but the main problem is that the act of
answering the phone can happen at an inopportune time - in
heavy traffic, for example."
He noted that a phone conversation was not the same as
talking to a passenger, who might notice a potential road
hazard even before the driver does and stop talking and
perhaps even warn the driver. But the person at the other
end of a phone call has no idea what is happening on the
road and keeps chatting.
A smart driver will interrupt the call when a hazard
arises, but only if the driver notices it in the first
place.
Having a phone in a car is a good idea. It can relieve
anxiety in unavoidable delays and be lifesaving in an
emergency. But safety-conscious drivers would be wise to
avoid using it for casual conversations and should always
pull off the road when dialing, talking or answering it.
The Nuisance Factor
Finally, there is the question of
common courtesy. Most cellphone users seem to think the
person on the other end is deaf. They all but shout into
their phones, disturbing everyone within 25 feet or more.
It is especially annoying in places where there is no
escape from someone else's cellphone conversation, like
airport gates where you may be trying to read, work or doze
in peace.
Phones outside of homes, once housed in booths, are now
separated by partitions to prevent others from listening to
or being disturbed by a phone conversation. But there are
no barriers around cellphone users. They should take a
moment to find a private place for long business or
personal calls.
I suppose I should have been amused by my unavoidable
eavesdropping on a cellphone conversation on the street
involving a young woman who was trying to find out from her
boyfriend why he had stopped calling her. But, in fact, I
was annoyed, because I had other things to think about that
were far more important to me.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company. |
