From The Guardian - Thursday October 16, 2003
A Finnish scientist believes he knows why scientists cannot determine
whether mobile phones pose a health risk to humans.
Dariusz Leszczynski, head of the radiobiology laboratory at the
radiation and nuclear safety authority in Helsinki, says that instead
of looking for the "obvious" possible health effects of
radiation from mobile phones - cancers, say, or death - we should
be studying the effect of the radiation on the brain's chemistry.
Tiny changes in brain proteins, for example, may not necessarily
mean that harm is being done, but knowing that these changes happen
might provide clues to possible impacts on health.
Most mobile phone studies look for effects such as cancers or headaches.
Others have been large-scale population studies matching phone usage
to health records. These methods are fine, says Leszczynski, if
you are looking for dramatic effects. However, if mobiles only exert
a subtle effect on living tissue then these techniques might miss
them. Exposing animals to radiation to see if they get cancer or
die will not help you pick upon subtle, yet potentially important,
effects.
Leszczynski's theory is that we should first understand how radio
frequency waves can affect biological matter, before looking for
effects. Weak radio waves should lack the necessary energy to break
chemical bonds, except through heating and mobiles are regulated
to operate at power levels too low to cause heating. This is one
reason why researchers in the field find it difficult to accept
that wireless technology, such as mobile phones and WiFi computer
networks could possibly pose a health risk.
Leszczynski believes we should look for biological effects first
and, if we find any, then work out what the health implications
might be. Perhaps then it will be possible to say whether the headaches,
nausea and tiredness reported are actually caused by phone use.
His answer is to use intensive screening techniques, such as proteomics
and transcriptomics, to search for molecules that might be affected
by radio waves. Proteomics uses a "protein chip" to measure
the levels of different types of proteins in cells, while transcriptomics
uses an "RNA chip" to measure levels of the ribonuclic
acid base pairs in protein synthesis.
Last year Leszczynski caused a stir when he showed that an hour's
exposure to mobile phones could modify several proteins in human
cells. While not claiming a health risk, the findings suggested
that mobiles might affect the barrier that protects the brain from
harmful toxins in the blood. The specific proteins highlighted by
his experiment may also influence a cell's ability to self-destruct.
If so it could lead to an explanation of how cancers might be caused
by exposure to microwave radiation from mobiles.
This study was the first in the 60-year history of this area of
science to look at how proteins are phosphorylated, or deactivated,
by radiowaves, says Leszczynski. "It is disturbing that no
one had looked at this before," he said. "In any cell
responding to any stimulus, not just electromagnetic frequencies,
the first observable change is a change in proteins' phosphorylation."
So really, it's an obvious place to start when looking for any effects".
It's important to start searching for effects at this level, agrees
Alan Preece at the University of Bristol. But, he says: "Ten
years ago these techniques didn't even exist."
Leszczynski has finally persuaded the World Health Organisation
(WHO) to put proteomics and transcriptomics on its research agenda
for mobile phone risk assessment. Leszczynski suspects that any
health effects that may eventually be found will be subtle, perhaps
manifesting as headaches, dizziness or tiredness. Jjust because
they are subtle doesn't mean they should be discounted, he says.
"These sorts of effects still reduce our quality of life."
John Tattersall of the government laboratory at Porton Down agrees
that it might be time to change tactics on mobile phone research.
He is researching the possible effects of mobiles on brain physiology
and function. "If there was something obviously dangerous I
think we would have found something by now," he says. "The
advent of these proteomic studies is just what we need."
|
