When shopping for the most reliable washing machine or the best shampoo for the dollar, many Americans depend on Consumer Reports,published by the Consumers Union (CU). On the other side of the Atlantic, the British consult Which?,the magazine of the U.K. Consumers’ Association (CA).
But this strategy is a loser when it comes to learning about the possible risks associated with electromagnetic radiation.
February is cell phone month at Consumer Reports.This year, the magazine features 13 pages on how to buy the best phone, find the best service plan and weigh the hazards of driving while on the phone —one full page is on hands-free headsets.
Yet there is not a single word about possible radiation health risks.
Perhaps the CU only addresses phone radiation in odd numbered years. It did devote a single paragraph in its 8-page cover story last February —2000 was another fallow year— but even so, it used wording usually favored by industry. “To date no conclusiveevidence has demonstrated [a brain tumor] risk,” the CU editors wrote [emphasis added].
Of course we agree with that. Everybody does. But it obscures the many uncertainties about what might happen if you put a radio transmitter next to your brain day after day, year after year.
Expert panels in England, France, Germany and Spain have all advised that children should limit their use of mobile phones. The British Medical Association and the German Academy of Pediatrics have made similar recommendations.
Sir William Stewart, the former science advisor to the British prime minister, has been particularly vocal in trying to stop the marketing of phones to children —a message he repeated at the end of January on announcing the 15 new grants for mobile phone research.
The CU appears to be apathetic about any long-term risks to children. Or maybe it is simply unaware of what is going on in other parts of the world. We tried to ask the new editor of Consumer Reportsfor the CU’s point of view, but she did not respond to our messages.
With the exception of ERA Technology, which made the measurements for the CA, none of the many test labs we contacted on three continents thinks that there is any substance to ERA’s and CA’s claims. But in the ensuing media storm, the CA has made no effort to respond to its naysayers.
Microwave Newshas learned that one of CA’s own technical experts advised the staff not to publish the article on hands-free sets. “I told them there must be something seriously wrong with their tests,” said Dr. Alan Preece of the University of Bristol.
When a U.K. government agency scheduled a meeting to bring all the parties together to settle the confusion, the ERA engineers did not show up (see MWN, N/D00).
The CA dug in its heels and refused to back down. Given the CA’s stature, the U.K. Department of Health decided not to endorse hands-free kits to cut radiation exposure. In its consumer brochure on Mobile Phones and Health,issued in 2000, the department waffled and told consumers that “the level of effectiveness of hands-free kits to reduce SAR is still uncertain.”
Today, close to two years after the CA sounded the alarm, the issue remains in limbo —though the government has now funded a project to settle the question.
The CA deserves credit for having raised a potentially serious problem. But having done so, it has the responsibility to finish what it started. By casting doubt on the only generally recognized way of limiting radiation exposure from mobile phones and then doing nothing to clear up the confusion, the CA has abandoned its public.
The one benefit of CA’s botched cell phone crusade is that it has generated a lot of media attention. The U.K. press, unlike its U.S. counterpart, has actively covered every twist and turn in the mobile phone health controversy —some would say it has been hyperactive. Nevertheless, the media are a reflection of public anxieties, and together they have prompted the new broad-based English research program.
By ignoring the uncertainties about safety and hiding behind mealymouthed truisms, the Consumers Union has done nothing to educate the American consumer about cell phone health risks. It has also encouraged continued government complacency.
Once Again, the TCO Shows the Way
In Sweden, the TCO, the Swedish union of white-collar workers, is showing what can be done. Unwilling to wait until the uncertainties are resolved years from now, it is proposing a sensible technical solution.
The TCO is pushing for a stricter SAR standard and is promoting a new index of performance, the communication efficiency of a mobile phone (see MWN, J/F01). Consumers and workers all over the world already owe a huge debt to the union for pushing the computer industry into making safer computer monitors —and to Per Erik Boivie, who masterminded TCO's campaign. TCO95 and TCO99 stickers are known the world over as signs of safe computing. The union is now applying the lessons learned with VDTs to mobile phones.
The CU and CA should wake up and catch up. Consumers on both sides of the Atlantic deserve better