P. K. Muana
3 January 2012
“Radiation and Cancer: The Connection between Cell Phone Use and Brain Cancer”
According to a Baltimore neurologist, Christopher J. Newman, Motorola is the cause a life frightening tumor that has developed overtime in his brain. Newman sues Motorola for “a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the relevant products” (Parascandola). The court system and scientist are feuding on the matter of using scientific data as evidence in court cases. The courts argue whether or not the data is applicable and reliable. Hence, the association of cellular phone radiation and ...view middle of the document...
|Ericsson KF788 |1.56 | |1. |Qualcomm PDQ-1900 |0.2634 | |2. |Motorola ST7868 |1.53 | |2. |Mitsubishi Trium Galaxy g-130 |0.35 | |2. |Nokia 6185 |1.53 | |3. |Motorola I1000plus |0.43 | |4. |Motorola SC-3160 |1.52 | |4. |Motorola GSM3682 & g250 |0.457 | |5. |Motorola IHDT-5ZRS1 |1.51 | |5. |Motorola Startac 7860 & st7860 |0.54 | |6. |Ericsson T-28 |1.49 | |6. |Motorola Startac 7762 |0.58 | |7. |Audiovox PCX-1100XL |1.48 | |7. |Ericsson I888 World GSM-900 |0.69 | |8. |Samsung SCH-411 |1.4785 | |7. |Motorola i500(550,700) |0.69 | |9. |Audiovox 3300 |1.4514 | |9. |Audiovox HGP2000e |0.7496 | |10. |Nokia 5160 |1.45 | |10. |Motorola i2000 |0.79 | |Figure 1. – researchers from CNet show a variety of cell phone’s SAR.
As seen in Figure 1, Motorola beats out all other competitors having 3 models making the top 5 highest SAR cell phones list.
Along with these studies, in recent years there has also been increase in the number lawsuits against phone companies. Cell phone users believe that the radiation emitted from cell phones cause cancerous tumors to develop in the brain. One of the first people to file a lawsuit against a cell phone company is David Reynard, a Florida business man. Reynard sued the maker and the service provider of his wife’s cell phone. He believed they had something to do with his wife development of cancer, which lead to her death. When doing the autopsy for his wife, according to Reynard that “directly next to the antenna, and [it] seemed to be growing inward from that direction” (Parascandola). Reynard assumed that the position of the tumor in
comparison to where the phone’s antenna is positioned is no coincidence. What Reynard had left to do is prove this assumption was true in the court of law.
To begin his defense, Reynard hired an expert neurologist by the name of David Perlmutter. Perlmutter conducted a number of studies to find any negative effects of the radiation that is given off by cell phones. When the time comes for Reynard to present his evidence from the studies of Perlmutter, Perlmutter has a note for the courts. In the note Perlmutter explains to the court that “no studies had shown any adverse biological effects from cell phones [. . .]” (Parascandola). In addition to this statement, Perlmutter adds that if studies can be done on animals that he believes that there would be data available to prove the damaging effects of cell phone radiation. With the views expressed in Perlmutter’s note to the court, the case got dismissed. The reason being is that it did not pass the Daubert standard, which is a standard for allowing plausible scientific data to be used as evidence in any court case.
Newman, the neurologist mentioned earlier, lawsuit again raises the issue of whether or not the health of people is being jeopardized by the radiation produced by cell phones. His lawsuit takes place a few years later after the Reynard’s case got...