A long term study is underway that will track the cell phone usage of 250,000 cell phone users between the ages of 18 and 69 over three decades. In addition to looking for cancer links, the study will be on the lookout for links to neurological diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. (Pink Sherbert Photography via Flickr)

Cell phones have only been in widespread use for a couple of decades, which is far too short a time for us to know conclusively whether or not using them could cause cancer. Research thus far appears to indicate that most of us have little if anything to worry about.

According to the federally funded National Cancer Institute, the low-frequency electromagnetic radiation that cell phones give off when we hold them up to our heads is “non-ionizing,” meaning it cannot cause significant human tissue heating or body temperature increases that could lead to direct damage to cellular DNA. By contrast, X-rays consist of high-frequency ionizing electromagnetic radiation and can lead to the kind of cellular damage resulting in cancer. Nonetheless, some cell phone users and researchers still worry about our cell phone usage, given how much we now use them and how little we know about their potential long-term effects.

The reason the issue keeps coming up is that some initial studies in Europe, where cell phone usage caught on a decade before the U.S., showed links between some forms of tumors and heavy cell phone usage. As a result, researchers teamed up to do a more definitive study, called the “Interphone” study, across 13 countries between 2000 and 2004. The results, published in May 2010 in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology, indicated no increased risk of developing two of the most common types of brain tumors, glioma and meningioma, from typical everyday cell phone usage. Study participants who reported spending the most time on their phones showed a slightly increased risk of developing gliomas, but researchers considered this finding inconclusive due to factors such as recall bias, whereby participants with brain tumors may have simply remembered past cell phone use differently from healthy respondents.

Researchers looking to get past the relatively short timing window and the recall bias issues of the Interphone study recently launched a longer term study, dubbed COSMOS (short for Cohort Study on Mobile Communications), in Europe. Some 250,000 cell phone users between the ages of 18 and 69 and located in Britain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark will participate by allowing researchers to track their cell phone usage and health over three decades. According to an April 22, 2010 article in Reuters, the study will factor in the use of hands-free devices and how people carry their phones and will also be on the lookout for links to neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

There are some precautions you can take to minimize whatever risk may exist. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) suggests reserving the use of cell phones for shorter conversations, or for times when a conventional phone isn’t available. Also, using a hands-free device places more distance between the phone and your head, significantly reducing the amount of radiation exposure. If the fact that many states require hands-free devices for using a cell phone while driving isn’t enough to make you go out and spend the extra money on such an accessory, maybe the cancer risk, perceived or real, will.

NEW YORK — The vast majority of American cell phone users (which is the vast majority of Americans) would pay extra to be able to listen to their local radio stations on their phone.

With all this talk about Pandora, iTunes, iheartradio, and all the other apps, 76 percent of cell phone owners would pay a one-time fee of 30 cents just to be able to tune to 107.9 or 101.7 on the FM dial, according to a poll conducted by Harris Interactive, one of the world’s leading research firms.

But we should mention, as a caveat, that the survey was commissioned by the National Association of Broadcasters. The 30 cent fee doesn’t seem significant either.

What is significant is that 71 percent of those aged 18-34 said they would actually listen to local radio if the feature was available.

Those surveyed cited local weather and musical preference as reasons why they’d listen to radio.

We’ve all had one of those days. Your phone is incessantly beeping in your ear, wasting what precious little power it has left to tell you that it, in fact, has no power. Your charger is nowhere to be found. Your friend offers her charger to you. Your hopes are smashed when her charger does not fit your phone. You miss the phone call from Ed McMahon “" rest in peace “" telling you that you’ve won a million dollars. Your lift is ruined (see picture).

OK, so that’s slightly dramatized, but we’ve all felt the sting of needing an inexplicably different cell phone charger for every phone we’ve owned. Why are they different, you ask? Just because. However, change is afoot “" at least in Europe “" where cell phone manufactures have agreed to all use micro-USB as the standard for charging and data transfer on their phones.

At the behest of the European Commission of the EU, manufacturers ranging from Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Apple, Motorola, and many others have all agreed to an industry-wide standardization. These companies control 90% of the phone market in Europe, so this is nothing to scoff at. The EU hopes that this will reduce the amount of waste thrown into landfills (though we feel like one charger every couple of years is a whole lot less than say, the one or two water bottles we throw away every week, but every little bit counts).

The universal chargers will initially be bundled with the phones, but eventually phones will not come with a charger at all, in the hopes that consumers will be reusing them. The price of the chargers is yet to be determined.

While this is only Europe-wide at the moment, the hope is that the world will follow suit, for both convenience and the environment’s sake.

Wireless carriers consistently rank low in customer satisfaction rankings. One only need troll the pages of sites like Consumerist to understand why. Expensive, spotty service couples with poor customer service makes for quite a set of disgruntled customers.

One of my big beefs with carriers (or even phone makers-I’m looking at you Apple) are carriers that cripple their phones because they’re worried that missing income could erode their bottom lines. Early on, Verizon crippled the RAZR so that uploaded mp3′s couldn’t be used as ringtones, forcing people to purchase expensive twenty second clips of songs that they already purchased for $0.99 from iTunes. Even still, most Verizon phones do not allow personalized mp3 ringtones, and customers must purchase them. On the flip side, Cingular customers, who have access to many of the same phones, are free to use their phones as they see fit.

Of course, this lead the grassroots efforts that lead to consumers hacking their phones. Apple routinely blocks apps from the App store that they find threatening. Such was the case with Podcaster which Apple blocked for “duplicating functionality.” Nevermind the clock apps, and calculator apps, and stock watching apps, and … Need I really continue? On a similar vein, AT&T forced Apple to remove NetShare because tethering your iPhone as a modem violated their contract. Of course, solutions to both of these missing apps are available to users who jailbreak their phones, leaving AT&T and Apple without any income.

While AT&T has allowed VoIP apps to run on iPhones, they have to restrict data to Wi-Fi networks only, eliminating the possibility of using data networks for free minutes. However, not all carriers are so generous. Nokia wants to bundle Skype on their upcoming flagship device, the N97 in Europe. Clearly, this would make the phone quite attractive to consumers already strapped for cash. However, O2 and Orange have refused to even stock the device unless Nokia strips the software out.

Businesses need to stop treating their customers like shoddy criminals and realize that it’s our nature to try and save money any way we can. If the technology exists, why can’t we use it? Carriers should realize that by allowing the software with a small surchange would sell more phones, bringing in more customers and more money. What about that situation isn’t attractive? Could this be why the US and Europe have some of the most underdeveloped wireless networks when compared to Asian countries?

Change may be scary, but it’s time for carriers to embrace new technologies and move forward. People are paying good money for devices-they’re going to want to use them to their fullest extent.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the impact of all the littering that individuals do, largely from their cars and on highways? What can I do to help clean it up? How can we strengthen laws to prevent it? — Won’t litter in Norwalk, CT

Environmentalists consider litter a nasty side effect of our convenience-oriented disposable culture. Just to highlight the scope of the problem, California alone spends $28 million a year cleaning up and removing litter along its roadways. And once trash gets free, wind and weather move it from streets and highways to parks and waterways. One study found that 18 percent of litter ends up in rivers, streams and oceans.

Cigarette butts, snack wrappers and take-out food and beverage containers are the most commonly littered items. Cigarettes are one of the most insidious forms of litter: Each discarded butt takes 12 years to break down, all the while leaching toxic elements such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into soil and waterways.

The burden of litter cleanup usually falls to local governments or community groups. Some U.S. states, including Alabama, California, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, are taking strong measures to prevent litter through public education campaigns, and are spending millions of dollars yearly to clean up. British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland also have strong anti-litter campaigns.

Keep America Beautiful (KAB), the group known for its "crying Indian" anti-litter TV ads of bygone days, has been organizing litter clean-ups across the U.S. since 1953. KAB has a strong track record of success in litter prevention, though it has been accused of doing the bidding of its industry founders and supporters (which include tobacco and beverage companies) by opposing many mandatory bottle and can recycling initiatives over the years and downplaying the issue of litter from cigarettes. Nonetheless, 2.8 million KAB volunteers picked up 200 million pounds of litter in KAB’s annual Great American Clean-up last year.

A more grassroots-oriented litter prevention group is Auntie Litter, which started in 1990 in Alabama to help educate students there about the importance of a healthy and clean environment. Today the group works internationally to help students, teachers and parents eliminate litter in their communities.

In Canada, the nonprofit Pitch-In Canada (PIC), founded in the late-1960s by some hippies in British Columbia, has since evolved into a professionally run national organization with a tough anti-litter agenda. Last year 3.5 million Canadians volunteered in PIC’s annual nationwide Cleanup Week.

Doing your part to keep litter to a minimum is easy, but it takes vigilance. For starters, never let trash escape from your car, and make sure household garbage bins are sealed tightly so animals can’t get at the contents. Always remember to take your garbage with you upon leaving a park or other public space. And if you’re still smoking, isn’t saving the environment a compelling enough reason to finally quit? Also, if that stretch of roadway you drive everyday to work is a haven for litter, offer to clean it up and keep it clean. Many cities and towns welcome “Adopt-A-Mile” sponsors for particularly litter-prone streets and highways, and your employer might even want to get in on the act by paying you for your volunteer time.

CONTACTS: Keep America Beautiful, Auntie Litter, Pitch-In Canada.

Dear EarthTalk: My uncle worked for over a decade on the top floor of an office building with cell phone towers directly above him. He was recently diagnosed with cancer. Is there any scientific evidence of links between exposure to cell phone tower radiation and cancer? — Jennifer L., Wellesley, MA

No one doubts that cell phone towers give off low-level radio-frequency radiation (similar to the microwave oven in your home), but scientists are still debating the health effects of long-term exposure. Some people are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancers, while others are not (for example, some lifelong smokers get lung cancer while others don’t). And with so many different chemicals, pollutants and other substances around us in our air, food and water, it is very difficult to determine with certainty if a particular environmental influence (such as a cell phone tower) is the culprit when health problems, such as cancer, arise in a particular locale or among certain populations.

But that hasn’t stopped many communities from worrying about this issue and taking cautionary measures. In San Francisco, for instance, concerned individuals and neighborhood groups have formed the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) for the purpose of preventing "the placement of wireless antennas on or near residences, schools, health care centers, day care centers, senior centers, playgrounds, places of worship, and other inappropriate locations…"

SNAFU is worried that San Francisco is “already immersed in a sea of electromagnetic radiation” from, among other sources, some 2,500 licensed cell phone antennas at 530 locations around the city. The group is distributing petitions calling on local public officials to increase “restrictions on the number and location of cellular phone antennas and other wireless transmitters.” Other controversies have erupted in communities in Connecticut and elsewhere over churches renting their rooftops and steeples to cell phone companies for placement of antennas. And parents in Ossining, New York waged an unsuccessful battle in 2000 to ban revenue-generating cell towers from school grounds.

Still, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not seem concerned, stating that limited epidemiological evidence suggests no link between cancers and living or working near a cell phone tower. ACS says that the energy level of radio waves coming off cell towers is too low to cause any noticeable human health impacts, and that a person would have to stand right in front of an antenna to pick up even trace amounts of radiation. And unlike X-rays or gamma rays, radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is "non-ionizing," meaning it lacks the gusto to break the bonds that hold molecules (like DNA) in cells together.

Still, cell phones and their towers are a fairly new technology, and very few studies of their health effects have yet been conducted. And the bulk of the research cited by the American Cancer Society has focused on direct and prolonged exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation in general, not on cell towers and their effects specifically. SNAFU reports that "no systematic attempt has been made to determine what current cumulative exposures to this radiation are…." Lingering public concerns about the issue surely means that more research on the topic is to come.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU).

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.