WIRELESS QUESTIONS Could Cell Phone Radiation Harm Your Child's Brain? Amid reports about cell phone safety for children, Disney will discontinue licensing their characters for use on cell phones "until there is reliable scientific evidence establishing the absence of any such risk." (ABCNEWS.com) By Brian Ross with Isaiah Wilner N E W Y O R K, Nov. 23 - The Mickey Mouse cell phones are soon to be a thing of the past. In response to a PrimeTime report, in which scientists criticize some in the cell phone industry for marketing phones to children at a time when there are gaps in knowledge about cell phone safety, the Walt Disney Co. disclosed yesterday that it will stop licensing its cartoon characters for cell phones. Disney made the announcement after PrimeTime approached Disney, the parent company of the ABC television network and ABCNEWS.com, for a comment. Mickey and Minnie Mouse appear on faceplates that can be attached to certain Nokia phones. "Because the well-being of our customers is our priority, we have decided to discontinue the licensing of our characters for use on cellular telephones until there is reliable scientific evidence establishing the absence of any such risk," said John Singh, spokesman for Disney Consumer Products. Sales of cellular phones are booming. But a growing number of scientists and public officials are raising serious concerns about children's exposure to the microwave radiation that these phones emit. And some say companies should not market the phones to children - a recommendation that could be a huge setback for the cellular phone industry. "If there is a hazard from this technology, then the kids are more vulnerable," said Oxford University professor Colin Blakemore, a widely respected expert on brain development. "And I think if the industry were to behave truly responsibly, they would play their part in discouraging children from unnecessary use." The Stewart Commission Last May, a blue-ribbon scientific panel convened by the British government urged that children be discouraged from using cell phones and that companies stop marketing to kids. The panel, known as the Stewart Commission, considered hundreds of studies for their report, including one suggesting an association between cell phones and a rare type of brain tumor, another that found greater rates of cancer in laboratory animals exposed to cell phone radiation, and others that pointed to changes in the brain activity of people exposed to cell phones. The studies have not yet been replicated by other scientists, and the panel decided that the weight of the current evidence shows no proven risk to health stemming from cell phone usage. But the panel did find enough of a scientific basis to take a precautionary approach with children until more is known about the possible risks. Blakemore served on the panel and supports its cautionary conclusion. Since a child's head is small, he said, it is more vulnerable to radio frequencies than an adult's. And since a child's skull is thinner, it is less resistant to radiation penetration. A third factor, Blakemore explained, is length of use. "Since children are starting their use of mobile phones young, they're looking forward to a longer total lifetime of exposure," he said. "So if any of the effects, if there are effects, are cumulative, they're going to be greater for children than adults." Appealing to Youngsters In the United States, at least, some companies have not hesitated to use children in their advertisements. One commercial released last year by AT&T shows a busy working couple who reach their kids on their cell phones just to make sure the dog is walked and someone takes out the trash. AT&T told PrimeTime the company does not market to any specific age group. Stores now are full of cell phones and accessories that salespeople say have big appeal for the younger crowd. In trips to Orlando, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., PrimeTime found all kinds of new accessories: antennas that glitter like diamonds, hand-shaped stands that blink when the phone rings and hot pink protective covers that make phones drop-proof. Cartoon characters, including those of Disney, along with other companies' icons, some of which are knock-offs, are showing up on the phones themselves. PrimeTime, for example, found a phone with the Coca-Cola logo and one with an imitation of Sanrio's corporate symbol, Hello Kitty. Coca-Cola and Sanrio both said they have never licensed their icons for use on cell phones or accessories in this country. Blakemore says he was "amazed" to see some of the cell phones and accessories picked up at American stores. "Certainly in this country we have colored covers for phones," he says. "But as far as I know, nothing which is so blatantly directed at children as these things Personally, I feel that this is irresponsible." Industry Questions Warnings The American cell phone industry and its scientific consultants have raised questions about the evidence the Stewart Commission relied upon. "There's no biological reason to think that children are any more at risk than adults," said Dr. John Moulder of the Medical College of Wisconsin, an authority on radiation oncology who has served as a paid consultant for British, Australian and American cellular companies. Asked about evidence of the risk to children from cell phones, he said: "I don't know of any evidence and I don't see the Stewart Commission presented any." As for being cautious with kids' use of cell phones, Moulder responded, "Well, then maybe we shouldn't let anybody use them." 'The Cancer Puzzle' But in Britain, where children use cell phones more than youngsters in the United States, possible health risks are taken very seriously. In a school in Devonshire, for example, students are given lessons on cell phone safety and discouraged from using them for non-essential calls. "While other governments around the world are being responsible to protect their people," said Dr. George Carlo, a former cell phone industry research director, "our government here has done nothing." Carlo said the steps taken by the Stewart Commission and some British schools make sense. He believes the most important findings that came out of the $25 million in research he oversaw for the industry involved genetic damage done to human blood cells exposed to wireless phones - a possible, although far from scientifically conclusive, link to cancer. "What we have are pieces of a puzzle, and as you begin to put the pieces of this cancer puzzle together, we're beginning to see an image that suggests a cancer risk," he said. "It does not prove it, but the overriding factor here is that we have 100 million Americans exposed, a half a billion people around the world. That image in the cancer puzzle is enough to make it impossible to say that phones are safe." Moulder disagreed. "Let's look at what evidence we have now," he said. "Does it point to a cancer connection? The current evidence doesn't. Would I like more evidence? Yes." Recent studies involving cell phones and sleep disturbances conducted in Switzerland, as well as other studies showing changes in brain function and possible connections to headaches have kept the debate about cell phone safety very much alive. "There are serious questions," Carlo said. "And while we're sorting through all of this, children are at risk, consumers are not being protected." In the absence of conclusive evidence, Blakemore challenged the cellular phone industry: "How will you feel in ten years' time if a risk is proven? How would you feel about marketing devices like this, which are so obviously aimed at kids, if in ten years' time we know there is a risk?" Consumer Information This year, the American cell phone industry announced that it would provide consumers with the radiation level for each phone, known as the SAR, which measures how much radiation penetrates the brain. But the information will be inside the package, not printed on the outside as the Stewart Commission recommended. Blakemore insists that is not enough. "Why would the manufacturers not want to put it on the outside?" he asks. "What are they scared of? I mean, why shouldn't we know what we're exposing ourselves to? These are simple numbers." The cell phone companies say the range in radiation levels doesn't really matter because all phones meet safety guidelines. Still, Americans are taking precautions. Most notably, sales of the earpiece - a device that most studies show substantially decreases the amount of radiation that reaches the brain - have skyrocketed. The industry says many people buy an earpiece just for convenience, especially while driving. But even the scientist who most prominently defends the safety of cell phones says earpieces are not a bad idea for people worried about cell phone health hazards. "I think that using an earpiece for them is a good idea," Moulder says. "It cuts down on the exposure to their brains." But if you put the phone in your pocket, he adds, you'll get radiation to that part of the body instead. Moulder says a consumer can take other measures. The farther you take your cell phone from its base station, the more powerfully it broadcasts. So when your phone's signal is weak, the phone will try to adapt and send out a stronger signal, thereby emitting greater amounts of radiation.