Readaloo

It takes a little extra work to get in touch with Andrea Boland. The Maine state representative answers e-mails and lists her business and home phone numbers on the Web. But unlike many politicians surgically attached to their BlackBerrys, she keeps her cell switched off unless she's expecting a call. And if she has her way, everyone in Maine — and perhaps, eventually, the rest of the U.S. — will similarly think twice before jabbering away on their mobiles.

In March, Maine's legislature will begin debating a bill she submitted that would require manufacturers to put a warning label on every cell phone sold in the state declaring, "This device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer." Her warning would continue, "Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body."  

For those of you now eyeing your cell phones suspiciously, it's worth noting that both the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organization say there isn't evidence to support the assertion that cell phones are a public-health threat. But a number of scientists are worried that there has been a dangerous rush to declare cell phones safe, using studies they feel are inadequate and too often weighted toward the wireless industry's interests. An analysis published by University of Washington neurologist Henry Lai determined that far more independent studies than industry-funded studies have found at least some type of biological effect from cell-phone exposure. 

Several countries — including Finland, Israel and France — have issued guidelines for cell-phone use. And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who began researching the issue when his wife was expecting their first child, is hoping his city will adopt legislation that would have manufacturers print radiation information on cell-phone packaging and manuals and require retailers to display the data on the sales floor.

With 270 million Americans and 4 billion people around the world using cell phones — and more signing up every day — a strong link between mobiles and cancer could have major public-health implications. As cell phones make and take calls, they emit low-level radio-frequency (RF) radiation. Stronger than FM radio signals, these RF waves are still a billionth the intensity of known carcinogenic radiation like X-rays.

The wireless industry contends that RF radiation lacks the strength to alter molecules in the human body; the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) maximum for cell-phone-signal exposure is intended to prevent RF radiation from heating tissue to the point that cells are damaged. Cell-phone RF radiation's "effect on the body, at least at this time, appears to be insufficient to produce genetic damage typically associated with developing cancer," Dr. Robert Hoover, director of the National Cancer Institute's Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program, testified at a 2008 congressional hearing.

But the body of research is far from conclusive. In 1995, Lai co-wrote a study showing that a single two-hour exposure of RF radiation — at levels considered safe by U.S. standards — produced the sort of genetic damage in rats' brain cells that can lead to cancer. Though subsequent researchers — often funded in part by the wireless industry — failed to replicate Lai's results, a 2004 European Union — funded study reported similar findings.

Dariusz Leszczynski, a research professor at Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki, has done studies indicating that RF radiation may create a stress reaction in the cells that line blood vessels, leading to a dangerous breach in the blood-brain barrier. "Mobile-phone radiation may be able to indirectly hurt cells, perhaps by interfering with their ability to repair normal DNA damage," he says. "Given the scientific uncertainty, it's premature to say the use of cell phones is safe."

If RF radiation increases the chances of developing brain cancer, it should show up in long-term studies of cell-phone users. But many epidemiological studies have found no clear connection, including a 2007 Danish Cancer Society study of 421,000 cell-phone users, which led many in the media to conclude that mobiles are harmless. To date, "peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a risk," says John Walls, a spokesman for CTIA, a global wireless association. 

There are problems with many of these studies, however. For starters, the Danish one — which reviewed the medical records of people who had signed up for cell phones from 1982 to 1995 — didn't include all the business users, who were among the earliest adopters and most intensive users, because they were not billed directly.

Also, the study looked only at tumors that were diagnosed by 2002 — not long after daily use of cell phones became widespread. Brain cancers can take several decades to develop, so it might be many years before a measurable bump in cancer rates shows up. "The latency period we have is far too short," says Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, a cancer researcher at Israel's Gertner Institute whose epidemiological studies have found some connections between cell-phone use and salivary-gland tumors. "And today, people are using the phone much more heavily." 

Sadetzki served as Israel's principal investigator in the Interphone study, which was conducted over the past several years by 13 countries, most of them European. The Interphone results initially were to be published in 2006, but the final report has been postponed repeatedly, and the study investigators are reportedly deeply divided. In the U.S., which isn't one of the Interphone countries, the National Toxicology Program is launching studies of the health effects of cell phones. But peer-reviewed results won't be available until at least 2014.

That's a long time to wait for definitive data. The good news is that there are easy ways for those concerned about RF radiation to cut down on exposure. Using your cell phone's speaker or connecting a wired headset — while keeping the handset away from your body — drastically reduces RF exposure. (Bluetooth headsets help too, but they still emit some radiation.) And given the potentially more serious risks for children, who have thinner skulls than adults, parents might want to wait before handing teens their first phone — or at least ensure they use it mostly for texting.

Meanwhile, a start-up, Pong Research, is selling cell-phone cases that significantly reduce radiation exposure by channeling waves away from the head. Says Alfred Wong, Pong's chief scientist and a professor emeritus of physics at UCLA: "I think it's best to avoid as much of the risk as possible until the verdict is in."

That's exactly what Boland and other advocates of warning labels are arguing. It's true that cell-phone use has yet to be linked to cancer risk. "Scientifically speaking, we don't have the proof yet," says Sadetzki. "But as a public-health concern, I'm saying we definitely should adopt precautions."

You don't need to be a camera geek to get excellent photos. Virtually all point-and-shoots and many SLRs feature scene modes. Turn a dial to specify the shooting situation. Or, select it from a camera menu. The camera optimizes the settings.

Available scene modes vary by manufacturer. Modes are more common on point-and-shoots and entry-level SLRs. You won't find them on high-end SLRs. Let's take a look at some common scene modes and when to use them.

Starting with portrait mode, use this when shooting well-lit people or animals. Its icon is typically a person. You'll get soft, natural skin tones. Focus is on the subject's face, drawing viewers' attention.

The background will be blurred to eliminate distractions. However, the closer your subject is to the background, the clearer the background.

The sports mode icon is a person running. Use it for children, pets or any fast-moving subject. Exposure time is minimized, so you take photos quickly. Continuous shooting is enabled for rapid, multiple shots. Focus tracking is also enabled. The subject should always be in focus.

Sports mode may yield noisier photos, particularly in poor lighting. Noise is off-color pixels; it looks somewhat similar to film grain.

The icon with a mountain and star is night (or night landscape) mode. Use it for night scenes without a person or other central subject. It is perfect for photographing skylines. Night mode brings as much of the scene into focus as possible. Settings are optimized for low light. You'll get detailed dark areas, but lights and other bright areas won't lose detail.

Again, noise may be a problem. Also, flash is disabled. Use a tripod to avoid camera shake.

Use night portrait when shooting a central subject at night. Night portrait mode is represented by a person and star. The background may be dark, but, your subject will be well lit, thanks to your camera's flash. Night portrait may add noise to your shots.

Photographing bugs or flowers? Select the flower icon to put your camera in close up (macro) mode. It also works well for shots of small objects or details.

Your camera will focus at its closest distance. The background is softened so that your subject stands out. Additionally, flash settings may be tweaked to prevent bleached out subjects.

The picture of mountains is landscape mode. Use it for capturing detailed landscapes and streetscapes. Landscape mode puts as much of your scene in focus as possible. Foreground objects and distant objects should be equally sharp.

Use sunset mode for sunsets and sunrises. It is represented by a picture of the sun. Sunset mode preserves warm tones. You'll get the rich colors you want. Flash is turned off and your camera focuses farther away.

Child mode is represented by a picture of a child. It yields smooth, natural skin tones, but background details and clothing are vivid. The camera will track the child and focus continually. Settings are changed to avoid blurring.

The scene modes on your camera may differ slightly. Try using them. Experiment. After all, there is no more film to waste.

State leaders in Florida are in a battle with technology: new forms of communications that make it difficult for public officials to follow the law.

The state has one of the best government public record laws in the country. Virtually every public document is accessible to the public. And though the state is embracing the perks of advanced technology — the Legislature just started piloting the use of electronic meeting packets, instead of printing them on paper — the use of cell phones and BlackBerrys is causing concern. It's simply too difficult to archive all communications.

E-mails sent from a BlackBerry are easily tracked and archived by government servers. But the wireless devices can also send electronic messages in another way called "PINing," and those communications often are not tracked. The practice stirred controversy last summer when staff members of Florida's Public Service Commission were caught exchanging PIN messages with a lobbyist for a utility it regulates.

"People need to understand that they cannot use these kinds of modes of communications to conduct official business if they have no way of capturing the record that it creates," says Anne Weissman of the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

'Where Do You Draw The Line?'

Weissman says that during the Bush administration, some officials used Republican National Committee e-mail accounts and PIN-to-PIN messaging to avoid record keeping. She says states across the country need to be careful.

"I'd be inclined to ban the use of BlackBerrys during those kinds of proceedings, just because of the risk that they could be used for inappropriate or ex parte communications," Weissman says.

But Ron Book, a Tallahassee lobbyist, disagrees. He says that's just not possible in this technological age. "Where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at a BlackBerry, but yet it's OK to bring a personal computer in?" Book says.

State Sen. Mike Fasano remembers that at a committee meeting last year on property insurance, a lobbyist in the audience was sending to a senator's BlackBerry questions to ask the office of insurance regulation. "That is, in my opinion, way out of line," Fasano says.

But Fasano, who chooses to leave his phone in his office during meetings, says he doesn't believe there should be a ban. "Certainly, a lobbyist should not be texting messages or PINing messages to a senator, asking him or her to ask these specific questions. If a lobbyist had any courage or guts, he or she would get up there and ask those questions himself before the Senate committee," Fasano says.

Florida law already covers electronic communications, noting that any discussion that has to do with public issues is a public record. Open-government experts say it just comes down to enforcement and hope that governments can keep up with the changes in technology.