RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK -- John Bucher, a reserved scientist who will play a key role in the public debate over the health risks posed by cell phones, doesn't like to discuss his own calling habits.
His reticence is understandable: The 5-year, $25 million health study is meant to settle the question of whether long-term exposure to radiation from cell phones can cause cancers.
The study overseen by Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program in Research Triangle Park, is the U.S. government's response to rising concerns about the ubiquitous phones.
Some scientists and public health advocates are calling for restrictions on cell phone use. Bucher won't say whether he takes any precautions with his own cell phone.
More than 100 studies have been devoted to the subject of cell phone safety worldwide, but the results have been "all over the map," Bucher said. Nonetheless, he would like to believe the comprehensive U.S. study will carry sufficient authority to settle the long-simmering dispute.
"We have the world's experts working on this project," Bucher said. "If the question can be answered using animal experiments, this study is as good a shot as we have to answer that question."
The study will expose nearly 1,000 rodents for two years to electromagnetic radiation comparable to the intensity of cell phones. It's being carried out by an independent laboratory in Illinois.
Recent studies in Israel and Scandinavia suggest a link between tumors and heavy cell phone use. The issue is heating up as a majority of households and more than 270 million people in this country use cell phones. A growing number have cut their landlines and depend exclusively on wireless communications.
Bucher, a 26-year veteran of the National Toxicology Program, testified in September on the study before a U.S. Senate committee in Washington. He'll likely be the public face of the agency as the study proceeds. The results are expected to be released in 2014.
Communicating the agency's work is part of his job description, a duty for which he has little natural affinity. The lifelong research scientist feels miscast in his role of the public speaker who reduces complex and nuanced issues into digestible nuggets for the layperson. His agency has provided him with media training and public speaker workouts to ease him into the role.
Fight brewing
Whatever the outcome, the debate is likely to rise in volume. The cell phone trade group, the Wireless Association, staunchly defends the safety of cell phones. And the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Communications Commission and the World Health Organization have all said not enough evidence exists to doubt cell phone safety.
But skeptics say that even if cell phones pose a small risk, it's a risk not worth taking. They say that adverse effects could take decades to develop. Just recently, the mayor of San Francisco and a state lawmaker in Maine have called for safety warning labels on cell phones.
This summer, Ronald Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, issued his own cell phone safety advisory to about 3,000 faculty and staff. Citing a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer," the institute director urged texting and headsets, and limiting children's cell phone use to emergencies.
Will link show up?
Martin Blank, a professor of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University, compares the brewing battle of studies over cell phone safety to the bitter fight over tainted tobacco research. Blank, who says he doesn't use a cell phone, is a member of a working group of scientists that issued a safety warning in 2007, the BioInitiative Report.
"If there's a 5 percent chance of getting cancer, I don't think you want to take that chance," he said. "The greater the exposure, the more risk associated with it."
Bucher said he will make up his mind based on the science, but he's willing to share this much: He doubts scientific research can demonstrate a link between cell phones and cancer.
"I anticipate either no correlation or, if anything is seen at all, it won't be a strong signal," he said. "There's no biological basis explaining why someone would expect to see adverse effects from cell phone radiation."
What will set this study apart is its size and length. The rats and mice will be bombarded with low-level radiation in utero and then throughout their lives. They will be exposed to 20 hours a day in specially designed chambers that will distribute the frequencies uniformly.
The study will assess the animals' blood, bone marrow, sperm and brain cell DNA, among other physiological measures.
The National Toxicology Program research is funded by federal money, not by contributions from the cell phone industry, Bucher said.
