The second article gets into areas that, to me, lead to an easy way out - once won't kill you. But it is an amazing amount of "once's" that have gotten us where we are. So it will also take a lot of one time events - like putting the bottle into recycling, choosing glass over plastic - to change our situation.
At age 56 my husband was diagnosed with a malignant and lethal brain tumor. Before his diagnosis we had no idea that some researchers had linked prolonged cell phone use with brain tumors. I couldn’t stand idly by—the world needed to know what I had discovered.
On the night of May 5, 2008 I awoke to the sight of my husband’s arms flailing, face contorting, eyes rolling back in the head.Alan was having a grand mal seizure. Unable to wake him, I called 911. When he finally opened his eyes Alan couldn’t speak or understand anything the paramedics asked of him. At 4:00 AM in a cold emergency room I was told he had a mass in his right frontal lobe, the part of the brain that allows us to differentiate between right and wrong, to control our impulses, and to relate to those we love. For years he had been exhibiting unexplainable behavior that caused emotional chaos in our family. Now we knew the cause. At age 56 he was diagnosed with a glioma—a malignant and lethal brain tumor.
Six weeks later, Alan underwent a seven-hour craniotomy and resection of the glioma. Today, with titanium holding his skull in place, he is able to walk and talk. Deficits nonetheless remain, and the prognosis is that the tumor will almost certainly grow back—much more aggressively than before.
Coincidentally, our son Zack had interned for Senator Ted Kennedy, whose seizure occurred just 10 days after Alan’s. At the time there was speculation in the media that the senator’s tumor might be related to his frequent cell phone use. I’d also heard on CNN a suggestion by Dr. Keith Black, chairman of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, that Attorney Johnnie Cochran’s tumor might have resulted from the same cause.
All of this got me thinking. For about 20 years, Alan’s cell phone was a vital part of his work, always on, always ringing, always next to the right side of his head—the same side as the tumor.
I began researching cell phone risk studies. While I found much disagreement among scientists about the risks associated with cell phone use, the research on glioma by oncologist and cancer epidemiologist Dr. Lennart Hardell et. al. at University Hospital in Örebro, Sweden (2009) seemed particularly relevant to what had happened to my husband. Dr. Hardell found “a consistent pattern of an association between mobile phone use and ipsilateral [on one side of the head] glioma and acoustic neuroma [a benign tumor of the hearing nerve] using ≥ 10-years latency period.” According to Dr. Hardell, the heaviest users of cell phones have doubled the risk of brain tumors after a decade.
I sent my husband’s medical and cell phone records to Dr. Hardell and asked him if he thought there might be a connection to Alan’s brain tumor. He responded that, in his professional opinion, “It is more probable than not that [Alan] Marks’ glioma was caused by his long-term mobile phone use according to current literature.”
I also sent my husband’s medical and cell phone records to Dr. Elihu Richter, head of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Medicine, whose research calculates risk assessment of occupational exposure to radiation, including cell phones. Dr. Richter offered a similar assessment: “The weight of evidence suggests it is more likely than not that there is a cause/effect relationship between [Alan’s] heavy cell phone use and his brain tumor. The fact that a brain tumor appeared after a 10-year latent period and on the right side, where he held the phone, is consistent with the emerging body of knowledge on exposure, latency, and laterality of cell phone use.”
What was I to do with this alarming information? As a Jew I considered it my sacred duty to inform others how responsible cell phone use might possibly spare them and their loved ones from the suffering my family had endured. To save a life, our tradition teaches, is to save the world.
But with a sick husband, did I have the energy to take on this struggle? And if I did, exactly how far was I prepared to go?
Shortly thereafter, during a Shabbat service at my congregation, Temple Sinai in Oakland, I read these words in Mishkan T’filah—A Reform Siddur:
When justice burns within us like a flaming fire,
When love evokes willing sacrifice from us,
When, to the last full measure of selfless devotion, we demonstrate our belief in the ultimate triumph of truth and righteousness,
Then Your goodness enters our lives and we can begin to change the world.
And then You live in our hearts, and we, through righteousness, behold our truth.
My decision was made. I couldn’t stand idly by in the face of what I saw as an injustice, for “Who can protest and does not is an accomplice of the act” (Talmud Bavli Tractate Shabbat 54b).
Several international scientists and doctors who studied the relationship between cell phones and cancer personally embraced and supported our family. Dr. Richter of Israel, for example, spent hours on the phone with me explaining how he could help Alan regain some of his cognitive, physical, and behavioral abilities. Dr. Devra Davis, an epidemiologist and cancer researcher who founded the Environmental Health Trust and authored the book Disconnect on the cell phone controversy, called me often to meditate on the Sh’ma and pray together. My new friends had become a blessing.
On September 24, 2008, I testified before a congressional committee in Washington, DC. My public activism had begun.
After telling the lawmakers what had happened to Alan, I urged them to “demand that warnings about cell phone usage and the radiation they emit be stated on every cell phone. By doing so you will protect our most precious resource of all—human life.”
Wanting to learn more, in 2009 I attended an Environmental Health Trust Expert Conference on cell phones and health. Experts from 10 nations reported on their scientific findings. Martin Blank, Ph.D., professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, reported that microwave radiation has the potential of changing bonds in DNA strands which could lead to cancer. Dr. Leif Salford, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden, reported a positive correlation between gliomas and mobile-phone exposure, which he attributed to DNA damage caused by cell phone radiation occurring at non-thermal levels. Dr. Salford’s finding called into question the belief widely held among scientists that cell phone radiation could not cause cancer because it is non-thermal.
Yet Dr. Michael Thun, vice president of the American Cancer Society, reported that when looking at all the studies to date, the data on brain tumor risk had been reassuring. A heated discussion ensued. Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, an Israeli epidemiologist and physician who drafted the Israeli government’s official warning on cell phones, asked Dr. Thun in astonishment, “How can you say such a thing?” Another attendee commented, “[It’s] tobacco all over again, only worse.”
Dr. Thun’s position is consistent with those of the National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and the Federal Communications Commission. These agencies consider cell phones safe, though they acknowledge that more research is needed. The 2008–2009 President’s Cancer Panel’s “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk” (an annual report of the U.S. Department of Health and Homeland Services, National Institutes of Health, and National Cancer Institute) did acknowledge, however, that epidemiologic studies “have been able to assess only short lag periods [of use] and focused on a small number of cancer types. Thus while considerable research has been conducted on cancer risk due to RF (radio frequency radiation) from cell phones…the available data are neither consistent nor conclusive….” Subsequent studies on the potential dangers of cell phone use have not produced a consensus among scientists in different countries.
Most recently, on May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on increased risk for glioma associated with wireless phone use. IARC Director Christopher Wild said, “Given the potential consequences...of this classification and findings, it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of...information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure, such as hands-free
devices or texting.”
While I was still in Washington I appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and on Fox News with Shepard Smith. Alan, our children, and I appeared on The Dr. Oz Show , during which Dr. Mehmet Oz declared, “I’ve heard enough to make me rethink my cell phone use and that of my children.”
In December 2009, I began working with the San Francisco Department of Environment and the mayor’s office on a “Right-to-Know” ordinance that would require posting at point-of-sale (in addition to within user guides) the amount of radiation (Specific Absorption Rate or SAR) a cell phone emits. San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsom, however, was not yet fully on board.
One night, my husband, his brother, sister-in-law, and I were having dinner in a San Francisco restaurant when our waitress mentioned that Mayor Newsom was sitting near us. My sister-in-law looked me in the eye, gave me the thumbs-up, and said, “You go, girl!” Timidly I approached the mayor and, after introducing myself, told him I would be testifying at the cell phone hearing Monday night. The mayor said he knew who I was, and, gripping my hand, assured me, “This is going to be just fine.”
When I arrived at the hearing, Debbie Raphael of the San Francisco Department of Environment approached me and asked, “Just what did you say to the mayor at dinner the other night?” Mayor Newsom had endorsed the cell phone legislation, and the committee voted to move it forward! Six months later, despite strong opposition from CTIA, the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry, the bill passed 10–1. Similar legislation is being considered in other California cities.
I am not opposed to using cell phones. But it angers me that the U.S. government and national health agencies do not do a better job of warning people of the potential risks, especially to young children, whose brains absorb more radiation than adults and who, the President’s Cancer Panel acknowledges, “have ahead of them a lifetime of RF [radio frequency] and other radiation exposures and, therefore, special caution is prudent.”
Other nations have gone much further in alerting the public. The Israeli government, for example, has banned the marketing of cell phones to children and requires manufacturers to display the SAR on every cell phone. And in France, cell phones are not allowed in schools, and every cell phone is required to be sold with a headset.
Trying to effect change on this issue has not been easy. There are great obstacles, such as the love people have for their devices and people’s resistance to acknowledging the potential dangers. Many times I’ve wanted to give up my advocacy out of despair—such as when I see my own niece holding a cell phone against her head. But my fear that, without action, we will face a pandemic of brain cancer within the next 20 years prevents me from keeping silent.
Thankfully, I have the support of my rabbi, Steven Chester, who believes, “Anything that might be detrimental to one’s health, but might get buried…becomes a Jewish issue.” At his invitation, I addressed our congregation on the subject. Reciting the prayer from Mishkan T’filah—A Reform Siddur that had inspired me to take on this challenge brought me back full circle:
…When, to the last full measure of selfless devotion, we demonstrate our belief in the ultimate triumph of truth and righteousness,Then Your goodness enters our lives and we can begin to change the world.
Ellen Marks is a member of Temple Sinai in Oakland, California; a past president of Women of Temple Sinai and of the Sisterhood of Temple Israel in Stockton, California; co-founder with her son Zack of the California Brain Tumor Association; and lead author of the Cell Phone and Brain Cancer Legislative Briefing Book, which has been translated into eight languages, including Hebrew. She is also director of Government and Public Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust.
| Ellen Marks' Recommended Cell Phone Precautions
|
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2885
And a different approach -
Will Your Cell Phone Kill You?
According to a recently released statement by the World Health Organization, radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer in humans. According to Jewish law, does that mean it is time to throw away your cell phone and return to using only landlines?
Every day, we face a myriad of potential health hazards, some certain and some questionable. We drive cars, play sports, eat junk food, and speak on cell phones. Some activities, such as pregnancy and childbirth are commonplace, but certainly present a component of significant risk. It is impossible to avoid some risk in our daily lives, but how much risk does the Torah permit one to take?
From a secular perspective, autonomy dictates that one may take as much risk as one wishes (so long as no one else is endangered and society will not have to care for the orphans created by one’s risky behavior). But the Torah instructs us to guard our health because the individual does not hold title to his body.
Related Article: Taking a Risk
The Torah has several commandments related to personal safety. For instance, one must be proactive in eliminating preventable risks, such as building a parapet around any flat roof to prevent someone from falling and building a fence around a swimming pool.1 In addition to removing hazards, the Torah twice commands us to protect our health, safety and well-being.2 For example, the Talmud forbids walking near a shaky wall, for fear that it fall and injure the passerby.
Nevertheless, dangerous pursuits which involve risks accepted by the general population are permitted and therefore there is a subjective component to evaluating how much risk is acceptable. The Talmud asks in several places why certain potentially dangerous actions are permitted. It answers that a person need not avoid small risks that are accepted by the rest of normal society without undue concern. For instance, since automobile travel presents an element of danger, we might think that it should be forbidden. Nevertheless, driving a car is a risk accepted by society and most people do not give much thought to the danger. Therefore, driving with normal caution (such as wearing a seatbelt and using the turn signal) is permitted by Jewish law, despite the inherent small risk. The basis for this ruling is that while we may not take haphazard risks, we may go about our normal daily activities with the guarantee of Heavenly protection.3
Judaism recognizes the need to earn a living as a second mitigating factor in allowing risky behavior.4 There are many hazardous jobs that need to be done and if one takes adequate precautions, it is permissible to do these jobs, despite the risk involved.
A third justification for taking a risk is more altruistic. Attempting to save the life or health of another person or oneself is another legal justification for risk-taking.5 While one is almost never required to enter even a questionably dangerous situation to save the life of another person,6 Judaism clearly encourages an individual to take a small degree of risk to help save his fellow. This is the justification for activities as invasive as live kidney donation7 and as mundane as a person attempting to save a drowning victim if he knows how to swim.8
The degree of risk that one may undertake is related to several criteria. For instance, the extent of risk that is acceptable in Jewish law is directly related to the significance of the benefit to be gained. One may only accept small, theoretical risks as part of one’s routine activities of daily living. The means of determining how small a risk must be to be considered acceptable is a general societal standard, not an objective statistical standard. To earn a livelihood, a greater degree of risk is acceptable. While most people will not personally accept the risk of painting a bridge or diving for pearls, the requirement for income is a pressing need that justifies the greater risk. Nevertheless, one must take all reasonable precautions and one may not perform an activity which has a high expectation of serious injury or death. Even saving the life of another justifies only limited risk-taking, due to the principle that one’s own life takes precedence over the life of one’s neighbor.9
But there is another consideration that must be taken into account before we consider disposing of our cell phones. Not all risks are created equal. Maimonides draws an interesting distinction in describing the severity of various types of risk in his monumental legal treatise, the Mishneh Torah.
He describes one type of risk that is the result of unhealthy long-term behavior, such as eating certain unhealthy foods.10 While he strongly advises that one never eat such foods, he does not declare them forbidden. In another section, he gives a list of acts that are forbidden because they are dangerous such as drinking uncovered water (for fear that a snake poisoned it), regardless of how many people drank safely from the water previously. The latter category is forbidden even though the probability of a dangerous outcome is remote.11
The reason why the two types of risk are treated differently revolves around the distinction between pre-existing risk and risk that increases over time. A risk which is already present, even if the risk is very small, is generally prohibited by Jewish law. Therefore, a food that has even a small chance of being poisoned is forbidden to be eaten because there is a chance that the poison is already present. This is akin to playing Russian roulette -- even if only one chamber in ten thousand contained a bullet, the presence of a bullet in the gun would likely scare off any person who values his life.
Yet, an activity or situation where there is only a statistical risk of danger, such as eating unhealthy food or engaging in repetitive stressful activities that may cause disability over time,12 are not forbidden, because the risk is cumulative, with no individual item or action containing any significant danger. This is intuitive, as even a very health conscious person might be willing to eat a fatty steak on rare occasions because he rightfully believes the danger of such food is related to the quantity and frequency of ingestion and that an individual, unwholesome steak is not dangerous. If he eats even unhealthy food in moderation, the risk is small and acceptable.
Therefore, Jewish law would forbid the game of Russian roulette because of the present danger, but would only discourage the unhealthy food because no individual piece of meat presents a danger.
We may now put our cell phones in perspective. While cell phones may present an increased risk of brain tumors, Jewish law would be unlikely to ban their use. The use of cell phones is ubiquitous and the theoretical risks are thus far accepted by the overwhelming majority of society.13 Additionally, there is no pre-existing danger as no individual call presents a significant threat. It is not the use of the cell phone that is dangerous; it is the excessive use of the cell phone near the ear that presents the problem.
So while Judaism takes great interest in protecting life and health, Jewish legal experts are very unlikely to ban cell phones, but instead encourage their prudent use. It is wise to reduce radiation exposure by keeping the cell phone as far from the body as possible14 (preferably utilizing a wired earpiece or speakerphone to decrease radiation exposure), limiting the length of phone calls,15 and minimizing use in locations with weak signals where the phone increases radiation in its attempt to contact the tower. This approach fits in well with the Jewish value of encouraging a normal lifestyle with a sensible approach to risk.
- Deuteronomy 22:8 and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotzeach 11:1 and 11:4.
- Deuteronomy 4:9 and 4:15.
- The concept is derived from the statement in the book of Psalms (116:6): "God watches over the simple." (Shabbat 129b; Yevamot 71b. See also Avodah Zarah 30b; Nidah 31a and 45a; Ketubot 39a; Yevamot 12b).
- Baba Metzia 112a.
- Leviticus 19:16.
- A soldier on a battlefield is a particular exception.
- See Live Organ Donation, http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954401.html.
- Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chaim, 329:8 and Mishnah Berurah, 329:19. See Self-Endangerment to Save Others, http://www.daneisenberg.com/selfendangerment.html?1056519346030asp.
- Baba Metzia 62a. The basis for the fundamental principles guiding how much risk one may take to save someone else is discussed in two 16th century responsa of Rabbi David ben Solomon ibn Avi Zimra (Radbaz). The Radbaz establishes that one is obligated to undertake at least a small degree of danger to save one who is endangered, but that if the degree of danger approaches 50%, one is a pious fool for risking his life. See Responsa Radbaz, Vol. 3:627 (1052) and 5:318 (1582).
- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Hilchot Deos 4:9
- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotzeach 11:5 and 14. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah Chapter 116:5.
- Note that if the pitcher were a professional baseball player, there may be more latitude to undertake such risk since it is a component of his profession.
- This utilizes the concept of "God watches over the simple" discussed above.
- Both the Apple iPhone 4 safety manual and Blackberry Bold instructions recommend keeping the devices at a minimum of a certain distance from the body during use.
- “[A] study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, revealed radiation emitted after just 50 minutes on a mobile phone increases the activity in brain cells. The effects of brain activity being artificially stimulated are still unknown.” WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk by Danielle Dellorto, CNN, May 31, 2011.
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/Will_Your_Cell_Phone_Kill_You.html
No comments:
Post a Comment