Cellphone: A Convenience, a Hazard or Both?

By JANE E. BRODY

hen 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.

Advertisement

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.