Remember the saccharin scare nearly four decades ago? Saccharin, a sugar substitute with a high level of sweetness, was discovered in 1879 by Constantine Fahlberg, a laboratory worker at the time.

Subsequently, its use as a sugar substitute came under suspicion as a cause for cancer.

The suspicion climaxed in the 1970s, when laboratory tests showed heavy use of the substance caused bladder cancer in mice. The tests were repudiated by more appropriate, reputable research.

Today, use of saccharine is prevalent without any fear of cancer. It has been a safe substitute for sugar for many years.

A large number of studies held it is not carcinogenic, and leading health groups as well as the World Health Organization have given it their approval.

The saccharin experience comes to mind as people now face the cancer fear-mongering over the frequent use of cellular phones.

Over the past half-dozen years, warnings have been sounded by some researchers that constant use of the instrument could produce a brain tumor.

Late last month, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, once again sounded the alarm on the overuse of cell phones.

One of the most outspoken researchers on this supposed danger, Dr. Herberman drew attention by sending a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff urging them to limit their cell-phone use.

Dr. Herberman gave parents something to worry about when he warned against allowing youngsters unlimited use of cell phones. His recommendation: children should use cell phones in emergencies only to eliminate any harm to their brains, which are in a development stage.

He recommends adults use a headset to keep the cell phone's electromagnetic radiation away from the head.

Use of the phones in public places should be avoided, he says, because the electromagnetic radiation could afflict others.

Obviously, news reports of his action reached the public, including about 225 million cell- phone owners if they weren't busy having conversations.

The strength of the effect his alarm on the latter is much in doubt, considering the attachment users have to their electronic marvels.

One even might equate the attachment to that exhibited by car owners who, as we now see, will tolerate a $4 per gallon of gasoline to be able to drive their prized possessions.

The doctor may be deemed an alarmist, for his conclusions do not have any solid footing in authentic research.

He admits "the evidence is still controversial" but contends sufficient data has been accumulated to justify urging people to keep their use of cell phones to a minimum.

This year, the University of Utah analyzed nine studies that involved "thousands of brain-tumor patients" and found "no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cell-phone users."

A study by a French group decided users of cell phones on a regular basis faced "no significant increased risk."

Dan Catena, speaking for the American Cancer Society, pointed out "there's no conclusive evidence that links cell phones to cancer, whether it's brain tumors or other forms of cancer."

What is important here is cell-phone users get non-partisan, accurate information on whether long-term usage can lead to brain tumors or whether exposure to electromagnetic radiation from the phones is harmless.

Lee Grabar is a syndicated columnist.

Story Source: http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2008/08/25/commentary/361742.txt