Why Cell Phone Radiation is Harmful

Conflicting Viewpoints: Cell Phone Radiation
Is cell phone usage safe? The FCC has said that cell phone radiation is not harmful to humans. However, studies have shown that it does have an effect, especially on the brain and even on children and babies developing in the womb (Gandhi, Morgan, de Salles et al., 2012). My position is that cell phone radiation can be dangerous and that more studies should be done to focus on the problems of cell phone radiation. I chose this topic because I have always suspected that cell phone radiation was harmful and I wanted to look more closely at what researchers have said on the topic.
Two opposing views to my position are: 1) cell phone radiation is not harmful, as the FCC has demonstrated in its research on the subject, and 2) there are too many other variables that factor into how a person’s body develops and/or changes over time; to say that brain cancer or childhood defects are solely the cause of cell phone radiation (if at all) is to assume too much and ignore the myriad other factors that could account for defects or cancer development. My view is that there is plenty of evidence to show that cell phone radiation is indeed dangerous and harmful and that the FCC is not an impartial critic in this matter, and that those who say harm cannot be directly linked to cell phone radiation are actually the ones ignoring the facts.
First of all, Nylund and Leszczynski (2006) have clearly shown that mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines. While their study showed that different levels of changes were seen across samples, the fact is that cell phone radiation does alter the body. This is significant because cancer growth is the uncontrolled replication of cells—and at a basic level, cell phone radiation is altering the way cells grow. This means that there is a fundamental link between cell phone radiation and cancer risk, and for this reason their study shows that cell phone radiation has the potential to be harmful.
Secondly, Gandhi et al. (2012) have shown that children are especially vulnerable to cell phone radiation, particularly because their bodies are still growing and external factors can have the greatest impact on their development. Cell phone radiation over a prolonged period of time can impact their growth in different ways. Gandhi et al. (2012) demonstrated through their testing and analysis that children’s heads absorb more radiation than adults and thus more safety precautions should be taken by the mobile phone industry. Their study supports the viewpoint that cell phone radiation is harmful to the body.
Thirdly, Kesari, Siddiqui and Meena (2013) have shown that cell phone radiation exposure can adversely affect the brain and can cause neurodegenerative disease. Any type of prolonged exposure to radiation can damage the health of the body, whether it is a cell phone or a microwave, and the more one uses a cell phone the higher he or she is at risk for developing a health issue. Thus, their study supports my argument that cell phone usage is dangerous.
What led me to believe things was that I suspect that too much technology is harmful in some way as it is not really natural. Plus, with all the radio waves and signals passing through the air, it just stands to reason that this will have an effect on one’s body. If one gets too many x-rays over a period of time, there will be an effect on the body, so why shouldn’t this also be true of cell phone radiation? The logic seems clear enough and one can reason it out. If one examines what people are saying, one can see whether their argument or premises are sound.
I believe I have two types of bias, however, in approaching this issue. First, I have confirmation bias: I began the study with my perspective already formed and it is possible that I was just looking for reports that confirmed my position and that I ignored data that suggested or supported an alternative perspective.
Second, I have culture bias: My suspicion of governmental institutions may derive from a culture bias. My lens is shaped by a skeptical outlook when it comes to believing anything that is published by the government. This stems from a mistrust of “official” publications, such as the Warren Commission’s review of the Kennedy Assassination to the 9/11 Report. I feel that if the government is willing to lie about those things, then why would it not lie about something like cell phone radiation, when there is so much money to be made from having everyone use cell phones? Thus, this type of bias may also have influenced my perspective on this study.
My thinking about this topic has not really changed so much. I still feel that cell phone usage is dangerous; however, I feel that if one limits one’s usage of the cell phone, it can be less harmful. For example if one just uses the phone to send and receive text messages, this is less time with the device actually up against one’s head. The less time it can be used in this manner, the better.
In conclusion, I feel that cell phone radiation is a serious threat to health, but I also feel that it is only after prolonged exposure to this radiation that it becomes a problem. Children should definitely be kept away from cell phones, but that is because their bodies are still developing. They need to grow up safely. Those who suggest otherwise are not being cautious and the FCC should be more cautious about what it does and does not disclose.
References
Gandhi, O. P., Morgan, L. L., de Salles, A. A., Han, Y. Y., Herberman, R. B., & Davis,
D. L. (2012). Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 34-51.
Kesari, K. K., Siddiqui, M., Meena, R., Verma, H. N., & Kumar, S. (2013). Cell phone
exposure on brain and associated biological systems. IJEB, 51(3).
Nylund, R., & Leszczynski, D. (2006). Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene
and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome?and proteome?dependent. Proteomics, 6(17), 4769-4780.