FCC Chairman Genachowski. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has released a formal petition to his fellow commissioners calling for an inter-agency review of mobile phone emission frequency standards, set in 1996. At the heart of the proposal, which will need majority approval before public comment and any studies commence, are growing concerns about health risks of radiation emitted from mobile devices and whether the 15-year-old standards don’t take into account the proliferation of both mobile device ownership and usage. While scientists representing the Environmental Working Group applauded the agency’s reevaluation of safety standards, the above proposals have drawn enormous protests from the $170 billion wireless industry.

By far the biggest fear related to cell phone use is the effect of radiation on health, particularly a link to brain cancer, headaches, dizziness or other neurological problems from radiation that cell phones emit. X-rays, gamma rays and UV rays, which are known to cause cancer, release ionizing radiation that can break chemical bonds within the body. Cell phones, however, release non-ionizing radiation in the form of radiofrequency energy. To date, exposure to non-ionizing radiation in smaller quantities (i.e. everyday cell phone use) has not been officially linked with any harmful effects, but acceptable absorption rates and wide scale health studies have not been replicated. Cell phones also emit thermal energy, which is another huge safety concern. Most of the harm of large absorption (such as long exposure to cell phone towers) is heat-related, including burns and heat exhaustion. The FCC reopens the case of cell phone safety. To date, no conclusive evidence has been found to indicate that non-ionizing cell-phone radiation is harmful.

Official scientific studies on the matter have been inconclusive at best, damaging to the mobile phone industry at worst. As far back as 2008, an international consortium of 23 doctors and public health researchers signed a document warning that prolonged use of cell phones carried an increased risk of brain cancer, citing nebulous studies that have shown that people who have brain cancer and are heavy cell phone users tended to have tumors on the side of their head that they held the phone. Nevertheless, a Danish study of 35,000 cell phone users published last October, one of the largest of its kind to date, showed absolutely no link between cell phone use and either brain or nervous system cancers.

Two new recent studies drawing reverse conclusions both come from authoritative and influential scientific bodies. Last year, the World Health Organization changed their previous stance to declare cell phones “possibly carcinogenic.” This was based on two large epidemiological studies that found a statistically significant association between cell phone use and brain cancer, particularly gliomas (a malignant form) and acoustic neuromas (a benign form). Earlier in 2011, a National Institutes of Health study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that one hour of cell phone use altered the activity of whatever part of the brain was nearest to the antenna. The lead scientist of the study, however, cautioned that the preliminary results were far too premature to either draw clinical conclusions or a definitive link between cell phones and cancer. For now, all these results provide is “evidence that the human brain is sensitive to the effects of RF-EMFs from acute cell phone exposures,” the researchers wrote.

Why the re-evaluation now? Despite seesawing conclusions from ongoing scientific studies regarding safety, the fact remains that a couple of decades after the mobile revolution, cell phones are more popular and a more central part of our lives than ever imagined. The number of cell phones in use worldwide hit 4.6 billion worldwide in 2010, and was expected to expand to 5 billion last year. But users are doing more than just talking. Cell phone data use continues to soar, with one out of five American mobile phone users owning a smart phone device. Even if scientists and public health officials vascillate until they find conclusive answers about the safety of these devices, their extended use and ubiquity calls for at the very least renewed open dialogue regarding