Press a ringing cell phone to your ear and flick it on. Though you can't see it or feel it, microwave radiation is pummeling your skull.
That much nearly everyone in the scientific community agrees on. But the nettlesome question these days is this: Are cellular-telephone emissions bad for you?
Over the years, cell phones have been implicated in health problems ranging from brain cancer to memory loss. For nearly a decade, researchers have struggled to sort out these claims. And for nearly a decade they have come to the same frustrating conclusion: We don't know.
The problem is that for every study showing that cell phones might cause health problems, there's a study that shows they don't.
"No matter how you slice it, it's a gray area," says George Carlo of Wireless Technology Research LLC, an industry-backed group that has coordinated $25 million worth of cell-phone studies during the past five years.
Last week, things got even murkier. Carlo announced that several unpublished studies offer tantalizing hints that there may be something to the cell phone-cancer claim after all. The wireless industry and some other scientists were quick to dismiss the results. But the new research will fuel the debate well into the next century over whether cell phones can make people sick.
The question is of no small importance. In the 1970s and '80s, mobile phones were expensive, briefcase-sized gizmos mounted in the cars of a few affluent doctors and TV detectives like "Cannon." Today, they're the size of a deck of cards and glued to the ears of everyone from soccer moms to chatty teens. More than 70 million Americans use cell phones, according to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, and that number is growing every day.
The debate over cell phones and cancer ignited in 1993 when a Florida man appeared on the talk show "Larry King Live" alleging that a cell phone had given his wife a terminal brain tumor. He detailed his lawsuit against the industry. The program caused a sensation that has yet to subside.
Despite a lack of hard evidence, fear has prompted some to follow in the footsteps of the Florida widower and file lawsuits. None so far has been successful. Others, worried about the spread of wireless antennas atop schools and churches in the community, have mounted protests. "I get 10 questions on cell-phone base stations for every one I get on cell phones," says John Moulder, a radiation oncologist at the Medical College in Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The debate crosses national borders. In Britain, concern over potential long-term health effects prompted a leading insurance company to stop underwriting wireless companies. London's bobbies have been advised by their superiors on the police force to keep cell calls to five minutes and to use headsets for longer chats.
That's because most radiation emitted by a cell phone comes from the antenna and occurs when users are on a call, scientists say. "Distance is your friend," says Louis Slesin, editor of industry watchdog Microwave News. "The further away your head is from the antenna, the better off you are."
But whether such common-sense admonitions have any grounding in science is anybody's guess. The most intriguing finding presented at least week's meeting involved tests to determine whether cell-phone emissions damage the genetic material in human cells -- a common means to determine whether something causes cancer.
One study, carried out at Integrated Laboratory Systems (ILS) in Research Triangle Park, N.C., exposed mouse and human cells to radiation from four types of cell phones, then looked for genetic damage.
Most tests came up negative. However, one type of test, a "micronucleus assay," did find chromosomal damage on exposed human blood cells.
"We don't know what this means yet," concedes Carlo, who is pushing for immediate follow-up studies. "But we do know that if it holds up, it could be a pretty serious thing for consumers."
Critics argue that such studies are like Rorschach ink blots -- too ambiguous, too open to interpretation. And just because something occurs in a test tube doesn't mean the same thing will happen in the human body.
"There still isn't enough data," says Slesin.
Theoretically, cell-phone radiation shouldn't affect living tissue at all. But other studies have shown not only that it does, but that it does so in weird ways.
How weird? Consider what British researcher Alan Preece and colleagues at the University of Bristol discovered when they attached a device that mimicked the microwave emissions of cell phones to the left ear of volunteers.
The microwaves, they found, decreased the time it took subjects to react to words flashed on a screen. The results, published in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, might sound like a good thing. But, as the British journal New Scientist posed in a recent report on cell phones, if emissions can influence reaction times, what else might they do? Finding the answer will be difficult. Scientists will have to consider variables ranging from the amount of cell-phone radiation a person absorbs to his socioeconomic status, because cancer and other health problems have many environmental contributors. Just figuring out the radiation dose can be tricky, because it depends on the make and model of phone, whether it's analog or digital, how many barriers are in the way and how close to his ear the subject holds the phone.
"I think these are going to be very tough studies and very hard to interpret," says radiation oncologist John Moulder. "You'll never really be sure."
Finally, some researchers argue that patterns of disease, if they exist, may take a decade or more to show up.
The investigation continues. Epidemiologists in Europe are preparing to launch the largest attempt to link cell phones with brain tumors to date. The $6 million study -- funded by the World Health Organization and wireless companies -- will compare the cell-phone use of 3,000 Europeans with brain cancer to a control group of healthy people.
Even if it turns out that cell phones don't cause cancer, cell-phone users won't necessarily live long, healthy lives. One thing nearly everybody agrees on: Cell-phone users who gab and drive are far more likely to die in a car accident.
JUST IN CASE: PROTECTION
Scientists have yet to find a link between cell phones and human cancer, but that hasn't prevented inventors from hawking devices that claim to shield cell-phone users from their phones' electromagnetic emissions.
Like anti-bacterial soap, extended warranties and calcium-added milk, the value of anti-radiation accessories is questionable. But if you're health-conscious and glued to your cell phone, they may give you peace of mind. Beware: None will prevent a car accident, the most likely known cause of injury or death from cell- phone use.
Phone shield
A gadget that slips over the antenna and earpiece to block microwave emissions, one of several anti-radiation products -- from boxer shorts to leather carrying cases -- sold by online distributor LessEMF.com. "Business has been increasing dramatically," says company president Emil DeToffol. Price: $29.95. Information: www.lessEMF.com or 888-LESS-EMF.
Anti-radiation chip
Invented by Catholic Univeristy professor emeritus Theodore Lovitz, this circuit is designed to work inside cell-phone batteries to neutralize radiation. Batteries with the chip are expected to hit store shelves within a month. Price: About $40 more than your usual battery. Information: www.emxgroup.com.
Anti-radiation trench coat
This waterproof, private-label trench coat from Barneys New York is indistinguishable from other traditional coats sold by the tony men's clothier. Its right pocket, however, is made with an "anti-magnetic waves quilt" designed for mobile phones. Despite its price ($450- $595), sales of the coat have been brisk, says salesman Douglas Spencer. Information: 212-450-8300.