Video
A 
government test used to measure the radiation people absorb from their 
cellphones  might underestimate the levels to which most adults and children are  exposed, according to a group of doctors and researchers whose stated  mission is to promote awareness of environmental health risks they  believe may be linked to cancer. 
Researchers from the 
Environmental Health Trust released a report this morning noting that the 
Federal Communications Commission test to determine 
radiation exposure is flawed. 
The reason for the discrepancy, the group says, is that the process to  determine radiation exposure from cellphones involves the use of a  mannequin model that they say approximates a 6-foot-2, 220-pound person.  Because the model represents only about 3 percent of the population,  the authors report, the test will not accurately predict the radiation  exposure of the other 97 percent of the population, including children.  The group is pushing for a new testing system to measure radiation  exposure in a wider range of consumers. 
"The standard for cellphones has been developed based on old science and  old models and old assumptions about how we use cellphones, and that's  why they need to change," said Dr. 
Devra Davis,  former senior adviser in the Department of Health and Human Services  under the Clinton administration and one of the report's authors. 
A different study cited in the report says a child's bone marrow absorbs  10 times the radiation as an adult. The authors also raise questions  about long-term side effects, such as infertility in males who carry  phones in their pockets, an exposure unaccounted for in the traditional  certification process. 
The authors suggest an alternative certification process, one that uses  MRI scans to test real humans, including children and pregnant women.  Such an approach would provide exposure data on a "Virtual Family,"  representing all ages, the authors say. 
"What the 'Virtual Family' does is it uses anatomically based models  that reflect the fact that children's brains are more vulnerable than  adults," Davis said. 
The Environmental Health Trust is a non-profit organization whose  scientists have also leveled their gaze at environmental hazards such as  asbestos, tobacco smoke and radiation from medical diagnostic  equipment. In addition to Davis, the group also counts among its members  Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer  Institute, and Om Gandhi, a former scientist for Motorola who first  performed the research establishing acceptable radiation risk. Both were  also authors on the report. 
The U.S. government has had no specific comment on the report. The  cellphone industry group CTIA-The Wireless Association said that because  members "are not scientists or researchers on this topic," the news  media should contact experts instead. 
But whether the low level of radiation from cellphones actually causes  cancer is a question that has yet to be answered. "No scientific  evidence currently establishes a definite link between [cellphones] and  cancer or other illnesses," the FCC says on its website. 
Independent scientists also said there are no conclusive studies that 
cellphone radiation causes cancer. 
In May, the 
World  Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer  placed cellphones in the same category as lead and engine exhaust,  citing the possibility that exposure to cellphone radiation could have  long-term health effects. But roughly 30 studies conducted thus far have  failed to draw a conclusive link. 
One study last year found a slight, statistically insignificant increase  in risk in a rare form of brain cancer called glioma among cellphone  users. Another study out of the National Institutes of Health Research  found 
cellphone use was associated with increased brain activity. But whether that is linked in turn to an increased risk of cancer has yet to be shown. 
Studies Show No Cellphone Radiation Dangers Yet
"While experimental evidence and very limited human studies suggest that  we should be cautious, people should realize there are many things we  are exposed to every day that also is classified by IARC as possibly  carcinogenic," Dr. Peter Shields, chief of Georgetown University  Hospital's cancer genetics and epidemiology program in Washington, D.C.,  told ABC News in May. "The classification used by IARC for cellphones  is the lowest of all the carcinogenic classes, and no one should think  that cellphones pose the same risk as smoking and asbestos." 
Doctors appear to be split on the possibility of risks when it comes to  their own cellphone habits. After the International Agency for Research  on Cancer announcement in May, ABC News reached out to 92 physicians.  Sixty-five of these doctors said they would continue to hold their  cellphones up to their ear, but 27 said they would use hands-free  devices to minimize their risk.
Although there is no good evidence shows that  radiation from cellphone can cause cancer, but there is also no good evidence shows that it doesn't link at all.
Source