The New Nation - Internet Edition

Is your cell phone trying to kill you?

Mike Elgan

Don't look now, but your cell phone is out to get you. This deadly device can cause accidents, give you cancer or even kill you, according to a rising chorus of alarmist reports.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said this week that emergency room doctors are reporting an increase in both injuries and deaths caused by text messaging. People are apparently wandering into traffic and losing control of their cars because they're sending text messages instead of paying attention.

The ACEP singled out text messaging while rollerblading as a risk.

According to a survey-based report this week by the

Danish National Birth Cohort, "Children with exposure to cell phones (prenatally, postnatally or both), tended to have higher percentages of borderline or abnormal scores for emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and peer problems." Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members last week advising that they keep children away from cell phones, except for emergency calls-for example, if mommy rollerblades into a pole while text messaging.

States are increasingly banning cell phones for drivers. The laws are based on the belief that using a cell phone while driving a car increases the risk of accidents.

Officials in Russia say that cell phones are to blame for a rise in death by lightning; more than a dozen people were killed there in the past few weeks by lightning. The theory goes that if you're using a mobile phone during a storm, the chances of you being struck and/or killed by lightning is greater than if you're, say, just sitting under a tree.

So let me get this straight:

Cell phones cause cancer, injuries and death.

This is horrible news because in the past 18 years, cell phone use in the U.S. has risen from under 5 million to over 260 million.

The use of these dangerous devices has gone from zero

to almost everybody. Surely cancer, injuries and deaths

must have risen just as dramatically -

only, it turns out they really haven't.

Inside the ER: You'll notice that the warning from emergency room doctors about the dangers of text messaging is "anecdotal," and includes no numbers, percentages or rates. That's because the numbers are so small, they're probably statistically irrelevant. ERs keep detailed records about why people are injured. Why did they choose to not quantify this "trend"?

A whopping 31 million emergency rooms visits each year result from "accidental injuries." These injuries are caused by (in order of frequency) car accidents, falls (mostly elderly people and young children), drowning, fires, bicycle accidents, playground accidents, poisoning and work-related injuries. The number of visits related to text messaging is probably dwarfed by all these other causes. Some 1.7 million of the visits in 2003 were related to something going wrong with medical treatment. Visiting a doctor is probably several orders of magnitude more dangerous than text messaging.

It's probably true that some people are being distracted by text messaging. But why are cell phones being singled out as a major cause of injury when in fact they are not? Do phones really cause hyperactivity?

The authors of the Danish National Birth Cohort study say very clearly that other factors besides cell phone radiation may account for behavioral differences. For example, lower socioeconomic status may contribute to both increased cell phone use by mothers and behavioral problems in children. Also, families where parents are on the phone all the time may be paying less attention to their kids.

The assumption of a causal relationship is made mostly by the press.

Why are they so eager to blame phones?

Dr. Herberman's misguided memo

Dr. Herberman, who sent the memo to his staff saying kids shouldn't use phones, admits his fears are not based on published studies, but on a belief about what future studies will discover. Actual published research is extensive but inconclusive, and mostly favors the idea that cell phones don't cause cancer.

Researchers at the University of Utah this year analyzed nine studies on the use of cell phones by brain tumor patients and found "no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users." Other studies conducted in the past two years in Europe determined the same thing-that using cell phones doesn't significantly increase the likelihood of cancer.

However, other studies have found some link between cell phones and cancer.

The euphemism is "inconclusive,"

but in fact the studies are contradictory.

After all the research, we can say only that cell phone exposure over several decades might-just might-increase the risk of cancer.

Look at it this way:

You can place everything into one of three categories:

1) known to cause cancer,

2) might cause cancer, and

3) is not even suspected of causing cancer.

Items in category 1 -

things that science has proved increase the likelihood of cancer -

are too many in number to list here, but include things

like foods cooked above 248 degrees,

some common food colorings,

popular children's bath products,

red meat and processed meat,

dairy products, alcohol,

some soft drinks and others.

So here's my question: Why does Dr. Herberman ignore the hundreds of things known to cause cancer-items that are used daily by staffers and some of which I'll bet are served in the University of Pittsburgh 's cafeterias-and focus on one item from the list of things that might cause cancer?

What is it about cell phones that inspires a prominent scientist to ignore published scientific research and focus instead on what is essentially a hunch?

The accidental conclusion

I believe the majority of car accidents blamed on cell phones in fact have nothing to do with cell phones. Here's why. Anytime there's a car accident that happens while somebody is using a cell phone, the cell phone is blamed for the accident. That's just common sense, right? Well, not so fast.

In the U.S. , roughly 5% of the people driving cars at any given moment are using their cell phones. Unless using a cell phone actually prevents car accidents, you would expect that about 5% of the people who get into car accidents happen to be on the phone at the time of the accident.

This 5% represents chance, not causation.

In other words, you can expect, statistically speaking, that 5% of all accidents will have a cell phone driver just by chance; the cell phone didn't cause the accident.

There are about 6 million car accidents per year (and about 43,000 car accident fatalities).

That means there should be about 300,000 car accidents per year where the driver was talking on the phone, but where that cell phone use did not cause the accident.

Yet nearly all of those accidents are blamed on the cell phone. Sure, some unknown percentage of cell phone-related accidents are caused by the phone call, but the rest of the accidents involve a driver talking on the cell phone without that call actually causing the accident. Despite that, close to 100% of these will be blamed on the phone call.

In fact, investigators can't prove that a cell phone caused a driver to be distracted enough to cause an accident. (Nor can they prove that a driver distracted by daydreaming, listening to the radio or talking to another person inside the car caused an accident.) They can, however, prove that a driver was or was not talking on the phone at the time of a crash. And when they do, they assert cause, not coincidence, in almost every case.

Statistics prove that the number of crashes involving a cell phone talker ||has risen dramatically in the past 10 years. And why wouldn't it? Nobody used to use cell phones, and now everybody does.

Have all these accidents blamed on cell phones been added to previous causes for accidents, creating an ever-higher total number of accidents?

On the contrary, the rate of accidents, injuries and deaths from car accidents have all declined, this during a time of radical rise in cell phone use.

So why are cell phones singled out as the cause of car accidents, when an increase in the number of people using cell phones while driving has not increased the total number of accidents?

Shocking conclusion: While at least one Russian official claims that cell phones' electromagnetic radiation attracts lightning, a more plausible attractor is the metal in cell phones. Yes, metal can attract lightning. So it's possible that with more people walking around in thunderstorms with metal next to their heads, more people are getting zapped by lightning.

But the number of people killed by lightning is very low. Only about 50 people per year die in the U.S. from lightning, and only a small percentage (often zero percent) of these involved a cell phone. You're more likely to be mauled by an ill-tempered badger.

So why are cell phone-related lightning strikes making the news?

Here's what's really going on: In many of these cases, we're transferring blame for behavior from the people responsible to their cell phones. So a careless pedestrian is now careless with a cell phone as she walks into traffic. We know some foods cause cancer, but choose to eat them anyway-then focus on cell phones as a cancer risk. A neglectful mother now has a cell phone in hand as she neglects her child. A distracted driver-always dangerous - - is now using a cell phone to distract himself, and so on.

Of course, cell phones are involved in some accidents, injuries or maladies. But so far, it appears that the numbers are very small compared to other causes. Banning or avoiding cell phones wouldn't make a noticeable dent in rates of accidents, diseases or behavioral problems in children. By all means, take reasonable precautions with cell phones.

But what would really make a difference in your health and welfare is:

Eat healthy foods, pay attention when you're driving, walking or rollerblading-and be a good parent.

What we really need, in other words, is a return to personal responsibility.

What we don't need is an electronic scapegoat.

(Mike Elgan writes about technology and global tech culture. He blogs about the technology needs, desires and successes of mobile warriors in his Computerworld blog, The World Is My Office. Contact Mike at mike.elgan@. .. or his blog, The Raw Feed.)

Microbes eating away at pieces of history

Easir Abedin

At Angkor Wat, the dancers' feet are crumbling. The palatial 12th-century Hindu temple, shrouded in the jungles of Cambodia, has played host to a thriving community of cyanobacteria ever since unsightly lichens were cleaned off its walls nearly 20 years ago. The microbes have not been good guests.These bacteria (Gloeocapsa) not only stain the stone black, they also increase the water absorbed by the shale in morning monsoon rains and the heat absorbed when the sun comes out. The result, says Thomas Warscheid, a geomicrobiologist based in Germany, is a daily expansion and contraction cycle that cracks the temple's facade and its internal structure. Dr. Warscheid, who has studied Angkor Wat for more than a decade, said in an interview that these pendulum swings had broken away parts of celestial dancer sculptures on the temple walls. "It is getting worse - up to 60 or 70 percent of the temple is black," he added. Once chalked up to weathering, the damage at Angkor Wat is now seen as the result of a much more complex dynamic: the interaction of micro-organisms with the chemical and physical properties of the temple. In various places around the globe, from Easter Island to the Acropolis, microscopic organisms are accelerating the deterioration of monuments and historic landmarks. Scientists and conservators have only recently begun to understand the role that common bacteria and fungi play in destroying cultural sites and how - if at all - they can be stopped. This growing recognition is inspiring new techniques to combat microbial damage.

"Our heritage is disappearing," said Ralph Mitchell, a biology professor at Harvard. "Whether it's Angkor Wat or the Mayan sites in Mexico or the Native American archaeological sites in the West of this country, they are all under threat. And the question is, can we preserve them?"From bacteria that feed on hydrocarbons to endolithic fungi that eke out an existence within porous rock, monument-damaging microbes thrive because they survive in environments inhospitable to other flora and fauna. "One of the recent discoveries that is of concern is that increased air pollution can sometimes increase biodeterioration," said Eric Doehne, a scientist at the Getty Conservation Institute. Some bacteria feed on chemicals found in pollutants, excreting an acid that eats away at stone, metal and paint.

Microbes pose a serious risk to the monuments at the Acropolis in Athens, including the golden-proportioned Parthenon and the Temple of Athena Nike, said Sophia Papida, conservator for the Acropolis Restoration Service.

Bacteria penetrate the veins of the marble, attract water and expand, cracking the monuments' faces and pillars, Ms. Papida said. Lichens burrow circular holes in the marble, a phenomenon known as honeycomb weathering, and exfoliate sculptural friezes that tell the stories of gods and goddesses. Microbes also thwart painstaking efforts to restore the monuments. Acropolis stones can crumble into thousands of pieces, leaving a near-inscrutable jigsaw puzzle. "Our work is attacked by micro-organisms and we have to go back, remove the micro-organisms and put it back together," Ms. Papida said. "The bacteria which are there, they are having a good time, actually."For decades, researchers struggled to grow laboratory cultures of bacteria that thrive on monuments. Today, genetic techniques allow scientists to better identify micro-organisms, but that does not always mean they can reverse the damage. "We can use DNA analysis to identify who's there, but it doesn't mean that they cause the problem," said Robert Koestler, director of the Museum Conservation Institute at the Smithsonian. Some efforts to preserve monuments become the very cause of the problem. Biodegradable polymers used to consolidate the stones of Mayan ruins in Mexico, for example, created conditions ripe for damaging microbes.An added complication is that the organisms sometimes protect monuments, such as the volcanic rock formations known as the Cappadocian "fairy chimneys" of southeastern Turkey. Just as lichens once kept Angkor Wat from absorbing too much water and heat, scientists discovered that lichens on the chimneys prevented them from taking in too much water, keeping them intact longer."It's not always a bad-news story," Dr. Doehne said. He is optimistic about scientists' ability to manage microbial attacks. "We are seeing a burst of knowledge coming to the fore, really in the last 20 years."

At Angkor Wat, Dr. Warscheid developed a biocide called "mélange d'Angkor" that will be used to whiten parts of the temple. The chemical solution changes the ability of the cyanobacteria to produce their black-staining byproduct. There is no point, he says, in applying the biocide to the whole temple. After 10 years, the bacteria will adapt to it. "In certain places," he said, "where there are carved stone scriptures, you can provide the manpower to do this cleaning on a regular basis."At the Acropolis, University of Athens researchers are working with Ms. Papida to test a biocide, a quaternary ammonium compound that she hopes will get the restoration back on track. Fighting off microbes is a matter of "vigilant and routine maintenance," said Mark Weber of the World Monuments Fund. People often deal with "stone-eating organisms," as if they are singular events, he added, rather than as adaptive beings.

Another emerging solution is to starve the microbes. Conservators did this to kill off cotton-candy like fungi on flooded African artifacts housed in a university building in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit, Dr. Koestler said. The fungi thrive on oxygen; they created an anoxic environment by flushing the objects with argon.

The method is easier, of course, indoors. Outdoors, combating microbes can mean cutting off their water source. "You want to catch it early - just like you diagnose a disease," said Dr. Mitchell of Harvard. Once a biofilm, a community of bacteria like the slimy coating that forms on your teeth, develops, any effort may be futile.

Dr. Warscheid's view, protecting monuments, while important, is delaying the inevitable. "We have to accept that at some moment they will disappear," he said. "But we know a lot about how to conserve them for the next 20, 30 years."

(The writer is assistant manager quality control NOVO Healthcare and Pharma Ltd.)

India lagging behind in wind energy

To all appearances, the wind energy sector in India is booming-but it could very well be nothing but an optical illusion. Despite rising installed capacity and huge investments, India does not manage to generate enough power from wind because of lower than average plant load factors (PLF).

This has been reported in its latest expose by /Down To Earth /magazine, a New Delhi-based science and environment fortnightly, published with assistance from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).

"We know that wind energy can and must play a critical role in securing our future needs," says Sunita Narain, director, CSE. Over the past few years, the Government of India has given incentives to promote wind energy. Today, the country has over 8,700 megawatt (MW) of installed capacity. The country has also set a target to add another 10,000 MW in the 11^th plan.

"But our review of wind energy in the country finds that there is an urgent need to reassess the current policies and incentive structures, so that the business of wind gets serious about generating power, and not just installing wind farms and reaping benefits from fiscal incentives," says Narain.

The /Down To Earth/ study has found that shockingly, wind energy-while accounting for 6 per cent of the total installed power capacity in the country-only contributes 1.6 of the country's power generated! On an average, across the country, the PLF of wind energy has increased marginally from 13.5 per cent in 2003-04 to 15 per cent, but there are states like Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, where wind energy is functioning at a PLF of less than 10 per cent.

Maharashtra, ironically has more than tripled its wind capacity in the past few years, but has actually decreased in terms of its PLF. Today, in this energy-starved state, wind energy functions at a PLF of 11.7 per cent-a pathetically low figure compared to other states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and certainly to global averages of 25-30 per cent.

This analysis, based on data from the Union ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE), clearly shows that this investment in capital will be infructuous unless policies change. "In the current scheme, which gives an accelerated depreciation benefit of 80 per cent and other tax incentives for installation of the plants, wind energy has become the business of cash-rich investors, who take advantage of tax benefits, and are not serious about generation of power," says Narain. It is no wonder then, reports the magazine, that hotel companies, spinning mills and even film stars have invested in wind energy.

Down To Earth says the problem has been made even more pernicious because of the 'closed nature' of the business: the few companies who make wind turbines, monopolise the business of setting up the wind farms and then charge for a farm's operation and maintenance as well. As a result of this, there is no information on the cost of the capital infrastructure. Whereas in other parts of the world the cost of capital (which is the key determinant of the cost of power) has gone down because of economies of scale, in India it has climbed upwards-from Rs 4 crore per MW a few years ago to Rs 6 crore per MW today.

There is also little information about the cost of operation and maintenance or the expected efficiencies of a plant and how this can be increased. "The current business is not geared to generation of power and increasing efficiencies and reducing costs. This is clearly not good if we want wind energy to play an important role in our future energy security," says Chandra Bhushan, associate director, CSE and head of the Centre's industry unit.

"The Indian wind energy sector needs to be re-energised, and for that to happen, policy needs to change and get real," says Chandra Bhushan.

To begin with, the /Down To Earth/ report suggests, the key need is to move towards a generation-based system of incentives (instead of an investment-based one) by increasing the tariff paid to generate wind. The ministry has recently introduced a scheme which will give an additional Rs 0.50 per unit (kwh) over and above the tariffs fixed by the state boards to companies who do not take advantage of the current fiscal incentives. "But this step is too little, too inadequate and too hesitant to change the business as it operates currently," remarks Chandra Bhushan.

Secondly, changes are required in the CDM rules so that programmatic CDM can be used to pay a premium for green power. The current rules ask for additionality in justifying why a wind project needs CDM benefits. The magazine's analysis shows that registered wind CDM projects add up to a capacity of roughly 1,302 MW. But if all projects in various stages of the CDM pipeline get registered, they would add up to 4,150 MW, which is roughly half of India's current installed capacity. The report also indicates that CDM can be used to pay for wind energy through a sectoral programme.

In India, under the renewable portfolio standard (RPS), utilities have to purchase a certain proportion of their energy from green sources like wind. This can be a powerful tool to promote green energy, as producers can get premium rates and a market-but it is not due to a variety of reasons: lack of information on RPS use in different states, lack of penalty provisions if utilities do not meet the compulsory green quota, and even low or non-existent green energy quotas set by some states. The magazine, therefore, stresses on "using the RPS to build an India-wide market for green energy".

Finally, the report also suggests providing benefits to local people. While wind power generation needs land, rarely does it give back something in return to the communities who live in the vicinity of the wind farm. Local people, suggest the reporters, could be helped by rent or sharing from the lease of the land. "If not done democratically, the push for wind energy can well become just another alienating 'infrastructure' programmet It will be so understood, and so resisted, as just another brown-not green-energy programme," says Down To Earth.

(For more details, please contact Chandra Bhushan (chandra@cseindia.org ) or Kushal Yadav (98108 67667, kushal@cseindia.org)