Cell Phones and Brain Tumors

Are cell phones harmful to your health?  From personal experience I can say yes.

Over 20 years ago, when a cell phone had the size, shape, and heft of a brick, holding my phone for frequent, lengthy calls, the phone against the right side of my head, my right elbow flexed to a very acute angle, gave me a nasty case of lateral epicondylitis (often called tennis elbow).

Such conditions don't make headlines, but brain tumors do.  You may have read about the recent decision from SCORI.  (I made up that acronym.  The Supreme Court of the United States is often called SCOTUS for short, so why not do the same for the Supreme Court of Repubblica Italiana?  OK, OK, for those of you who are fussy about accuracy, the Italians actually call it Corte Suprema di Cassazione.)
Anyway, the Italian court ruled that a businessman who said he held a cell phone to his left ear, with his left hand, often while taking notes with his right hand, six hours a day for twelve years, had a valid claim when he said this caused him to develop a benign tumor of one of his cranial nerves.  Testifying on behalf of the plaintiff were a neurosurgeon and an oncologist who specializes in environmental factors contributing to cancer.

Dr. Marco Coppola,
Speaker of the ACEP Council

Never having made a study of the Italian system of jurisprudence, I have no idea what the standards of evidence are.
I also have no way of knowing what the expert witnesses said.
Even if I could get transcripts of their trial testimony, I would have to get someone to translate them for me.
(Marco, would you help me with that?)

What I do know, however, is that Italian courts must work a lot like ours do, because the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the published scientific literature fails to support a causal link between cell phone use and development of brain tumors.

To be fair, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the amount of use described by the plaintiff in this case caused his tumor.  The scientific evidence does suggest that extremely heavy use might be a problem.  But if the standard of evidence were "clear and convincing," that wouldn't make his case.  Even with a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, it should have fallen well short.  So I am forced to conclude that in handling civil torts of this nature, the Italian courts operate the way ours do: maybe it was their fault, so we'll give you lots of their (or their insurance company's) money.

My own review of the literature found more than a dozen studies of varying design and variable quality in methods and statistical analysis.  Nearly all failed to find a link (let alone causation) between cell phone use and brain tumors.  Note that I said "nearly all."  There was one well-done Swedish epidemiologic study that showed a link to the development of a certain type of benign tumor (similar to the one afflicting the plaintiff in the Italian case) for people who were very heavy users of cell phones for more than a decade.  Again, this is an association, which doesn't prove causation.  But I suspect this is the study on which the Corte Suprema di Cassazione relied.

I found it interesting that, in an interview with the British tabloid The Sun, the oncologist said, "The court decision is extremely important.  It finally officially recognizes the link.  It will open not a road but a motorway to legal actions by victims.  We're considering a class action."  What this quotation tells us is that the witness was serving not as an impartial expert on the relevant scientific evidence but as an advocate for the plaintiff.  Such behavior on the part of experts, which is all too common in U.S. courts too, does not aid the search for truth or advance the interests of justice.  Those among my readers who know enough about the American legal system to have become appropriately cynical are now smirking at the notion that truth and justice play any role at all.

The more I observe use of cell phones and smartphones nowadays, the more convinced I am that all these concerns about brain tumors are rapidly becoming passé.  First, many users do more texting than calling.  A recent study showed three times as many texts as voice calls for the average user, and the proportions favor texting even more heavily among younger users.  Second, hands-free calling is becoming more common all the time.  In some states only hands-free use is legal while driving a car.  There was a time, not that long ago, when a person using wireless, hands-free (bluetooth) technology would be perceived by others as likely schizophrenic, apparently having an animated conversation with himself. But bluetooth is now so common that no one even notices such behavior.  All this hands-free use means the phone is nowhere near the head.

But for those who like to worry about adverse effects of technology on our health, go right ahead and keep worrying. You now have "texting thumb" to obsess about.  Not as frightening as a brain tumor, perhaps.  And you could solve the problem by using an Android phone with a Swype keyboard.  But then you'll have to find something else to fret over.

I am happy to oblige.  Phones cause far more trouble when people use them while driving.  In order of risk, texting > handheld calling > hands-free calling.  And how many people have you seen texting while walking? They shouldn't be trying to cross streets when they're texting.  This is like a blind person crossing the street with neither a guide dog nor the heightened sense of hearing that the blind possess.  We like to multi-task, but we should remember that some tasks are just not meant for "multi" - unless you like to live dangerously.