Scientific and Technological advancements have eased our lifestyle and revolutionized the medical practice, but ionizing and non-ionizing radiation sources around us are considered potentially hazardous to public health. The Federal and state governments have the primary responsibility in protecting the public and the environment from the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation, by setting allowable exposure levels as well as emission and cleanup standards for both workers and the public. Along with rapid advancements in electronic technology more new radiation-emitting devices are expected to flood the market that challenges our health, requiring review of diverging study reports. Thus, it will be crucial to decide whether a fresh approach to ionization radiation from cell phone use by children will help standardize public health policies and remove apprehensions on radiation hazards.
“Ionizing radiation” is energy that is carried by several types of particles and rays given off by radioactive material, X-ray machines, and fuel elements in nuclear reactors”. (Draggan, 2008). The outcomes of high-dose radiation exposure are classified into “teratogenesis (fetal malformation), carcinogenesis (induced malignancy), and mutagenesis (alteration of germ-line genes)” (Toppenberg et al, 1999). Extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields, which are known to interact with tissues by inducing electric fields and current in them, are classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This opinion is based on epidemiological studies of childhood leukemia, given by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification, a specialized cancer research agency of WHO (Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health, 2001). However, “there is no consistent evidence that exposure to ELF fields experienced in our living environment causes direct damage to biological molecules, including DNA.” (WHO, 2001).
Though the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gave the Atomic Energy Commission the authority to regulate some radio-active materials, radiation-emitting medical devices and consumables did not come under its control, necessitating the enactment of new federal regulations. The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act (RCHSA) was enacted in 1968 with the primary focus to set enforceable radiation standards in the United States. This Act provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to carry out provisions of RCHSA through conducting research, setting safety standards, monitoring compliance by concerned agencies/institutions, and imposing stringent action against violators.
The FDA under Section 531 [21 U.S.C. 360hh] of RCHSA defines “electronic product radiation” as “(A) any ionizing or non-ionizing electromagnetic or particulate radiation, or (B) any sonic, infrasonic, or ultrasonic wave, which is emitted from an electronic product as the result of the operation of an electronic circuit in such product:” The term “electronic product” means “(A) any manufactured or assembled product, which when in operation, (1) contains or acts as part of an electronic circuit and (ii) emits ( or in the absence of effective shielding or other controls would emit) electronic product radiation, or (B) any manufactured or assembled article which is intended for use as a component, part, or accessory of a product described in clause (A) and which when in operation emits (…) such radiation.” (Chapter 5 drugs and devices: Subchapter c electronic product radiation control, n.d).
Section 532 (21 U.S.C. 360ii) empowers the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program, and develop and administer performance standards for electronic products. It is also mandatory to “plan, conduct, coordinate, and support research, development, training, and operational activities to minimize the emissions of and the exposure of people to, unnecessary electronic product radiation. The goal is achieved through concerted involvement of the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the secretary of Labor, the Atomic Energy Commission, and appropriate Federal departments and agencies:
Since cell phone using habit by children is a recent development, predicting the long-term happenings require population-based multivariate study. The advisory committee of the Canadian department of public health warns that “because of possible side effects from radio frequencies, children under eight should only use a cell phone in emergencies and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.” (Cell phone use potentially risky for kids, teens health agency, 2008). But, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association and Health Canada say that there is no need to change cell phone habits, as there is no scientific evidence to support this argument. However, Epidemiological studies are expected to benefit from retrospective exposure of assessment that helps provide estimates of exposure or categorize groups of users by common exposure.
Background
Exposure to radiofrequency signals generated by cellphone is reported to induce neurological, psychological, and genetic changes and promote cancer. Since the standard set by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection of the World Health Organization for cellular phones exposure radiation is criticized as inadequate and insufficient to protect any health damage, formulating a prediction rule for microwave radiation effects of cell phones is paramount.
Aim
To derive a prediction rule for ionizing radiation effect of chromosomal damage in children aged 14-17 years, exposed to the microwave frequency range of 850 to 1900 MHz for more than 15 minutes per day
Method
A predictive rule is proposed for computing data from a 3-year prospective multi-center study to assess the predictive value of chromosome changes in cell phone users. Predictive values will be calculated by using a univariate Cox model and adjusted with multivariate analysis since a repeated application of the Cox model after “bootstrap resampling” permit an estimation of the stability of the model. (Methodological aspects of prognostic factor studies: Some caveats, 1998).
References
Bar, Joseph., et al. (2004). Neurobehavioral and cognitive performances of children exposed to low dose radiation in the Chernobyl accident.American Journal of Epidemiology, 150 (5), 453-459. Web.
Belson, Martin., Kingsley, Beverely., & Holmes, Adrianne. (2007). Risk factor for acute leukemia in children. Environment Health Perspectives. 115(1).
Cell phone use potentially risky for kids, teens health agency. (2008). CBC New.
Chapter 5 drugs and devices: Subchapter c electronic product radiation control. (n.d.). US food and drug administration: Federal food, drugs and cosmetic act.
Draggan, Sidney. (Ed.). (2008). Public Health Statement for Ionizing Radiation. The Encyclopedia of Earth.
Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health: Extremely Low Frequency Fields And Cancer. (2001). World Health Organization.
Hujoel, Phillippe. P., et. al. (2004). Antepartum dental radiography and infant low birth weight: Comment. 291(16). Web.
Korblien, Alfred. (2004). Perinatal mortality in West Germany Following atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Archives of Environmental Health. 29(11). 609. Web.
Lois. M, Green. Et al. (1997). Risk of congenital anomalies in children of parents occupationally exposed to law level ionising radiation. OVID Occupational & Environmental Medicine.
Public policy: Statement of the precautionary principle. (2008). CWTI: Making the invisible visible. Web.
Toppenberg, Kevin. S., Hill, Ashley., & Miller, David. P. (1999). Safety of radiographic imaging during pregnancy: Radiation induced gene mutation. American Family Physician.
Methodological aspects of prognostic factor studies: Some caveats. (1998). Sac Paulo Medical journal, 116 (4).