My Virtual Reading Room

FTC warns about cell-phone radiation scams.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has published tips on how to avoid cell phone radiation scams. http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/cellphone_scams.shtml The agency's warning was made in response to the proliferation of devices that are claimed to absorb electromagnetic emissions from mobile phones. Its warning document states:

There is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece-or another small portion of the phone-are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What's more, these shields may interfere with the phone's signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.

A few reports have suggested that mobile telephone use is related to the development of certain brain tumors. The World Health Organization's International Agency on Research on Cancer recently classified mobile phone use as a 'possible carcinogen' based upon inconclusive epidemiological findings. [NCI Statement: International Agency for Research on Cancer Classification of Cell Phones as "Possible Carcinogen." National Cancer Institute press release, May 31, 2011] http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/IARCcellphoneMay2011 However, mobile phones produce very small amounts of non-ionizing radiation and no mechanism is known by which such radiation can cause brain tumors. The largest and most important study to date has reported that overall, cell phone users have no increased risk of the most common forms of brain tumors-glioma and meningioma. In addition, the study revealed no evidence of increasing risk with progressively increasing number of calls, longer call time, or years since beginning cell phone use. [INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumor risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 39:675-694, 2010] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483835

(From quackwatch.org weekly "Consumer Digest" e-newsletter; bold print and italics mine)