Mark Hart was hired in August 1998 as director of worldwide sales for smart-phone maker NeoPoint. As someone who demonstrated cell phones, often prototypes, to pick up sales, you could say being on the phone was Hart's job.

He started using a prototype of the NeoPoint 1000 in October 1998. Five months later, after suffering from headaches, fatigue, and a series of seizures, the 45-year-old Hart was diagnosed with a fast-growing brain tumor on the right side of his head.

During surgery in July 1999 to try to remove the cancer, he had a stroke that left him partially paralyzed on his left side. The entire tumor could not be removed, and his health is still in jeopardy.

	Advertisement

Convinced that using the company-issued cell phones on the job caused his brain tumor, Hart filed a workers' compensation claim with NeoPoint (which has since gone out of business) seeking compensation for lost wages and help paying his medical bills, according to Alissa Magenheim, his attorney.

NeoPoint's insurance carrier denied the claim, and Hart is now appealing to a California state appeals board, seeking to have the insurance carrier pay the claim. In fact, no one has ever won a court case based on the argument that cell phones were responsible for a person's health problems.

The Hart case and others like it, while human tragedies, raise serious issues for network and telecom executives. Are companies that issue cell phones to their employees opening themselves up to possible litigation? And what are IT managers to believe? Do cell phones cause health problems such as brain tumors, eye cancer, memory loss and fatigue? Or is that belief simply an unfounded health scare? And how should IT managers respond when employees or senior managers pose questions about cell phone risks?

"We're sitting on a time bomb here," says Libby Kelley, executive director of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, a nonprofit, public health advocacy group. "You're going to have one claim where somebody wins, and then it will start snowballing, just like it did with tobacco."

Workers compensation attorney Diana Wann predicts increases in workers' comp claims related to cell phones.

"You have the scientific proof problem to overcome, and that's a fairly large hurdle," says Wann, who is also management co-chair for the workers' compensation committee of the American Bar Association. People "sue for everything. They'll bring actions, I'm sure."

There are at least three other cases, in addition to the Hart case, of U.S. employees suing or filing workers' compensation claims against their employers, claiming they developed brain tumors while using company-issued cell phones on the job.

No one is saying companies should amass legal teams and plot insurance and courtroom strategy. But companies should weigh the scientific reports and set policies on how they want business conducted and how they can limit potential liability.

Companies issuing cell phones could be opening themselves up to potential liability for any cell phone-related health problems.

And more and more companies are issuing cell phones. There are an estimated 110 million cell phones in the United States, according to the cell phone industry. And the percentage of companies paying for cell phones for their employees rose from 7 percent in 1999 to 11 percent in 2000, according to market research firm IDC.

Companies need to consider how integral cell phones are to their business. How important is it for employees to be in touch at all times? Will sales be lost, will opportunities be missed, or will customers or users be kept waiting if employees aren't reachable by phone at all times?

At John Deere Ottumwa Works, cell phones are an integral part of the way engineers and other technical workers do their jobs.

"I think the problems they solve far outweigh the danger, at least for us," says Deb Parks, infrastructure analyst at John Deere Ottumwa.『[Employees] may be standing out in the middle of a hay field in Oklahoma, and they need to get some information and talk to someone here.』The company has issued between 120 and 130 cell phones from the Ottumwa office.

On the other hand, Mike Riley, the chief scientist responsible for emerging technologies at R.R. Donnelly & Sons, is still evaluating cell phones. Riley says people in the corporate communication department are considering handing out cell phones for work use. He has been keeping a close eye on the studies.

"Certainly any time an individual's health is impacted or it's brought into question, it needs to be taken a look at very seriously," Riley says.

Everyone agrees cell phones, both analog and digital, emit radio frequency radiation (RFR) from the antenna. That's simply how the calls or data are transmitted. And most will agree that some of that radiation is absorbed by the user's head, sinking in about one to two inches within the skull, causing some heating of the brain tissue.

What those absorbed radio waves and the resulting heat do--or don't do--is at the heart of the scientific debate.

The cell phone industry's trade group, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), and cell phone manufacturers argue that there are no health risks from cell phone use.

"There's nothing in the science to suggest there are any adverse health effects with cell phones," says Jo-Anne Basile, vice president for external and industry relations for the CTIA. "The more studies they have, the more absolute they become."

Norman Sandler, director of global strategic issues for Motorola, one of the three major cell phone manufacturers, emphatically states that all Motorola's cell phones meet government safety standards, a promise made by all the leading producers.

He also notes that Motorola and the rest of the industry have spent a lot of money on research into RFR and its effect on humans.

"There are no biological changes that have been established vis-a'-vis the use of mobile phones," Sandler says. He adds there are some questions that still need to be answered, but says there is no evidence of harm.

However, some scientists and government officials disagree.

• Astudy funded by the British government, undertaken by an independent group of scientists and published last year, warns people to not let children use cell phones and spurred the government to set up a database of occupationally exposed workers.
  
  
• Dr. Russell Owen, chief of the radiation biology branch at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, says,『There is no scientific evidence that demonstrates there are any adverse health effects from wireless phone radio frequency energy.』But, he adds,『Scientific literature really is a mixed bag of studies,』he says. "There are positive and negative studies."
  
  
• Dr. Jerry Phillips, who was a research scientist for 30 years and a well-known cell phone radiation researcher for nine years, says in two separate studies he found evidence that cell phone frequency radiation causes biological effects.
  
  

Motorola funded Phillips' study and the scientist alleges that the cell phone manufacturer told him to delete any reference in presentations to DNA damage and biological effects.

"There was to be absolutely no mention of DNA damage at any time," Phillips says.

Motorola's Sandler says Phillips' research was a "mixed bag" that didn't come to any clear conclusions.

"I'm not sure what he's talking about," Sandler adds.『We've gone to great lengths over the years to safeguard the independence of Motorola-sponsored researchers.』

• The CTIA sank $25 million into the Wireless Technology Research program, a six-year effort through the late 1990s aimed at proving the safety of the cell phone. The CTIA put Dr. George Carlo in charge of the project. However, Carlo broke ranks with the CTIA and reported a potential for health risks.
  
  
• One of the studies that came out of Carlo's WTR effort was a four-year case study through the American Health Foundation, headed up by Joshua Muscat. Muscat says there were no signs of a correlation between cell phone use and health problems, except for one rare type of tumor.
  
  

However, these studies have been met with skepticism from critics who argue that the studies haven't been large enough, haven't looked at longtime cell phone users and haven't looked at specific kinds of tumors, such as those that grow in the emissions absorption area on the edge of the skull.

If a company decides that workers need to be equipped with cell phones, what then? What policies or procedures should network executives put in place?

Bill Plummer, vice president of government and industry affairs for Nokia, says people should have options of different ways to use cell phones for their convenience, not for any real safety issues.

"Whether they're employees receiving a phone from a company or a consumer off the street, they should do what makes them feel comfortable," says Plummer, conducting the interview from his car using a hands-free cell phone device.

Here are some tips gathered from people on both sides of the debate--lawyers, cancer patients, and gadget aficionados:

• Cheapest isn't always best. Investigate many different cell phone models, focusing on the brands with the lowest RF ratings. But keep in mind that manufacturers rate themselves.
  
  
• Talk with your employees. Hold mandatory meetings for anyone using a cell phone on the job, or include anyone who uses one for personal reasons and simply wants more information.
  
  
• Recommend employees keep the phone as far away from their body as possible when it's in use. Tell them to point the antenna away from them and anyone near them. They also should be aware that if they wear their phone on their bodies, clipped to their pants or in a pants or shirt pocket, they can be exposed to bursts of emissions caused by incoming calls or data transmissions.
  
  
• Issue headsets along with each cell phone.
  
  
• Be aware that there has been little, if any, testing of some protective devices, such as radiation shields.
  
  
• Buy tested products.
  
  
• Tell employees to use a regular wired phone when possible.
  
  

"It's incumbent upon employers to make sure any equipment they're issuing to employees is safe to use," says Hart, who is battling cancer. "I think employers don't give it a thought."