Six years ago the Disney Corporation announced a deal with Nokia, the cell phone manufacturer. Disney was going to license the use of Mickey and Minnie and other denizens of the Magic Kingdom for use on cell phones marketed to kids. Ads showed Disney characters like Cinderella leaping from cell phones.

Parents, worried that radiation as well as Cinderella would be leaping into their children’s brains, raised such a fuss that Disney backed out of the deal. The plan, however, slithered off into some marketing cave from which it has now re-emerged. Instead of characters on cell phones, Disney now plans to offer Disney Mobile, a cell phone service for kids with enticing features for parents—like a tracking system that alerts parents when their kid has wandered away from the playground, backyard, or other “safe” area.

The current issue of Businessweek reports on the resurrection of Disney’s plans. The article notes that this time around there doesn’t seem to be any outcry and wonders whether the health issues that stopped Disney before had been resolved. Businessweek found that the answer was “No.”

So how does Disney deal with the health risks? To quote a Disney representative, “Disney is relying on the FDA.” I hear you laughing. Stop it.

Disney’s response is an artful dodge. After all, if the agency responsible for protecting our health and specifically directed by Congress to investigate the safety of cell phones doesn’t find fault with the technology, cell phones must be safe for children. Just like the FDA thought Prozac was safe for children.

Of course, funding for research into the health effects of cell phones has completely dried up in the United States. Europe is the principal source of research on the effects of the radiofrequency radiation that baths us and our children with the magic from cell phones, wireless routers, personal digital assistants, and other wireless technologies.

Under the heading “No Scientific Evidence,” the Businessweek article plays the rather disreputable game of doubt-mongering. To their credit, they quote two people critical of wireless technologies: Louis Slesin, the publisher of Microwave News, and Dr. Henry Lai, one of the leading independent researchers in this field. But this only seems to grant permission for a he-said-she-said atmosphere in which a Verizon representative is quoted as saying that “no scientific evidence… points to negative health effects to people, including children, who use mobile phones.”

Dr. Lai has tracked all research in this area since 1990, accumulating a list of over 400 studies. He’s quoted as saying that about 50% of the studies show an effect from RF radiation. What Businessweek didn’t mention is that if you remove the industry-sponsored research, it turns out that 70% of the studies show an effect.

But let’s stick with the more conservative 50%. Half-and-half. Might be dangerous. Might not.

It’s a beautiful summer day. You and your family and friends decide to go to the pool. When you get there a sign says “50% Chance of Sharks.” The kids are raising a ruckus to get in the water. Do you let them in? After all there’s only a 50% chance that they’ll end up as a shark snack.

The issues in this article are developed (with references) in issue #8 of the Progressive Health Observer in the article titled “The WiFi Blues.”

Related resources are available on the Radiation page.