A man in the Philippines dies by fire. He was using his cellular phone while pumping gas. The spark ignited a gasoline fire killing the man almost instantly as he was turned into a human torch. Have you heard of this story on the Internet? It was one that is has been circulating for some time now and turned into a legend. Which is part of the reason that the law was passed by some gasoline companies because they took it at face value.

Here is the fact. The story is simply untrue. Nokia was curious about the story. They did a run down on it and found the man in the Philippines that was supposedly burned to death. He stated that he was very surprised to learn that he had been killed by fire and had no idea how the story even got started or who started it.

The manufacturers of cellular phones are required to print in their manuals that using a cellular phone near explosive & flammable materials may cause a fire due to a spark. Even though the possibility is remote, they are required to print it by some European countries.

In all the years of cellular phones being available, there is not one documented case of a cellular phone starting a fire while in use at a gas station. A Star Tac cellular phone uses 3.6 volts, less than what it takes to power a Walkman radio with 9 volt batteries. [We must make note to take caution nonetheless with regards to Lithium Ion batteries.]

top of page

CELL PHONES CAUSE CANCER

Next on our list. Cellular phones cause cancer. A very controversial issue but we are going to publish it anyhow. Some of you may have read about the cellular phones causing cancer and/or memory loss story circulating around for a while. The problems with those studies thus far are the following: The researcher who presented the results was taken to task for not allowing his peers to review his work prior to releasing. No checks or balances were in place. We are human and we make mistakes after all. Next, it appears as if the researcher has a beef with his former employer because they would not allow him to conduct other research projects. 

Then media sensationalism jumps on the band wagon. From our understanding, they tested some of the older model phones that were first in use in the wireless industry and tested them so that they offered maximum RF transmissions to prove their point. They failed to mention that the newer digital phones offer the least amount of RF transmissions which has significantly decreased over the past 10 years, and that they tested the phones like they did the exploding GM truck, and that cellular phones have evolved to the point of RF (radio frequency) transmissions becoming less and less with each passing year in technology. 

You have those that would say there is nothing to prove that cell phones don't cause cancer. How can you disprove something if it doesn't happen? Many of the scientific principles used today including those that made the existence of computers possible are based on theories not facts. None of these theories have been disproven.

The original studies available came from a disgruntled employee and from universities that the former employee had persuaded to conduct and publish results that were not recognized by the scientific community as valid.

Some of the points made by the wireless industry was the failure of these parties mentioned above to define the difference in ionizing and non ionizing radiation, lack of repeatable laboratory results, and what specific absorption rates really mean. As it stands right now, none of the studies conducted have been officially recognized by the scientific community since they violated proper scientific protocol which requires consistent results (being the same over and over again) on multiple tests.

We have seen material on another study stating that cellular phone RF exposure actually increased memory when tested on humans. Which contradicts the studies conducted by the other researching party.

Then we have a report from the Journal of American Medical Association and another one from the New England Journal of Medicine. Result: No links found on cell phone use and cancer. 

The study (done on people and not rats) suggests that there does not appear to be any connection of cancer being linked to cell phone use, so says a Dr. Inskip of the National Cancer Institute. Then we have someone from the American Health Foundation and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Yes, it also talks about the bio-cellular temperature change as being normal. (insignificant?) The tests conducted used a control group of cell phone users who had brain cancer and those who didn't. They even went so far as to make sure that both groups used their cell phones for the same number of years and used them daily for a specific number of hours.

Another one is being conducted right now by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to determine the long term effects of using a cell phone. Due in 2003. That study should help put it to rest once and for all. 

It also says the studies further support the idea that the fears may have been exaggerated. Then you have information on SAR values. There is a problem with that info too since it is a bit misleading to consumers.

What is not explained to you about SAR values is this fact. When the FCC decided to set the power limit for digital phones, they went out and found very prominent experts in many relevant fields and asked them to consult, and decide what they thought a safe power level would be. 

The FCC then divided that by 10, and that's the actual standard to which cell phones must comply. Meaning that the SAR value comparisons on cell phones are pretty much useless since cell phones are designed with a safety level that has been set at ten times higher than what the experts said was acceptable. (Some analog phones have even lower SAR values than digital phones.)

However, if you are concerned that future lab tests that are officially recognized by the scientific community will show that cellular phones can cause cancer, you can always get the proverbial hands-free kit. As you can see, this accessory is a very handy item with multiple uses. Not be confused with an ear bud hands free devices which is said to be even worse than just having a phone next to your head.

In case you are thinking of buying one of those radiation shields that we have claimed to be purely fraudulent in all sense of the practice. The FCC recently just busted a couple or three companies for misleading claims stating that these devices deflected or reduced radiation exposure from cellular phones.

top of page

RESULTS OF OUR TEST ON CELL PHONE HAZARDS

We recently decided that we too needed to get on the sensationalism bandwagon like 20/20. Therefore we decided to conduct our own study and examine the test results. In our studies, we used actual human subjects and no animals were harmed (like rats). Please see below: 

We used both an analog phone and a digital phone. For the purposes of this exercise, we tested them with both the antenna up and the antenna down. In all four testing conditions, we found that the results were consistent. In addition, we had our results independently confirmed. 

Although we did not have our peers examine the results, we did have them independently confirmed by cellular phone users within the general public. Which will also prove our results to be valid which will be shown shortly. 

We tested two phones. The Motorola 650e Flip Phone and the Ericsson KH688 Digital phone. We started with the analog phone. We had the subject take the cellular phone into their right hand. At which time they were instructed to hold the cellular phone about 1.5 feet from their head. The phone was being held slightly above eyebrow level. We then instructed the subject to bring the phone close to their forehead in a rapid motion. This same process was repeated six times. 

We then tested another subject with the antenna up. We repeated the process once again with using six attempts as the guideline. The process was duplicated with the digital phone that we have mentioned above. Noting that the digital phone had a fixed antenna to further diversify our testing conditions. 

The results were consistent in all 18 attempts in that the subject claimed to suffer an acute headache with no apparent effect of memory loss noted. We in turn had our test validated by asking cellular phone users to confirm that our test would in fact create the same results that we had discovered. 

I would supply the names of our subjects for your validation. However, I too was a test subject and I seem to have forgotten their names. 

Final Test Analysis: 

Repeatedly banging a cellular phone against your forehead can cause an acute headache and .... 

This is at least one study with proven results about the hazards of cellular phones. And we certainly agree that conducting such a test can be compared to the hype of cellular phone hazards in the real world by the media. Absolutely no value whatsoever. Test Study conducted by the wonderful people at EarthVision Cellular and an honorable mention to the people who assisted in validating the study.

top of page

CELL PHONES SET OFF FIRE/SMOKE ALARMS

Moving right along. Okay, as cellular phone users we can't use our cellular phones anywhere at anytime. Or so it is starting to seem. Out of etiquette, we can't use them in restaurants or other public places. For safety reasons, we can't use them while driving down the road. We can't use them on an airplane [although at high altitudes it wouldn't work anyhow but we are referring to the time that you are still at the gate waiting for other passengers to board]. Seems kind of harsh to cellular phone users, doesn't it? But look at it this way, we have rules and laws to make it easier to co-exist with one another. Now we can't use them at the gas stations since they may cause a fire. Then come the hotels telling us that we can't use our cellular phones.

Why would that be, you may ask. Well in the old days when smoke alarms were more crude and used tons of solder and our ancient cellular phones of old used higher RF frequency, the solder acted as an antenna. Which sometimes set off the smoke alarms in hotels. The hotels posting these warnings are of course stating that it isn't a gimmick to drive up phone usage and getting customers to pay the surcharges. 10 years ago, we would have been able to buy that. What they neglect to mention is that most hotels now have newer model alarm systems, and that cellular phones have evolved to a point of bringing the RF transmission to very low levels. We spoke to a former GM of 5 star hotels who told us that phone surcharges at hotels were big revenue for them.

Finally, there is no proof in recent years that cellular phones have set off smoke alarms in the rooms. The manufacturers suggest not doing it just in case. The manufacturers always cover their bases in stating that something may happen no matter how remote for legality purposes.

However, we must make it clear that smoke alarms in hallways and common areas of a hotel are not the same as in your room. There may be a higher possibility of setting off a smoke alarm although minimal. And if that happened then the chances of the smoke alarm being defective would be pretty good. Anything that transmits an RF frequency could trigger a smoke alarm. That is like saying "Don't use your microwave within 1000 feet of your smoke detector or you could trigger the alarm."

The hotels are probably going to ban this book (when the hardcover is available) from being placed on the shelves in their gift shops. But we must offer the cellular phone user the information that is going to benefit them the most. After all, that is what this book is all about.