The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will conduct a formal review of the U.S. cell phone radiation standards according to a Bloomberg news report: “FCC. Wireless Devices and Health Concerns.”
An FCC spokesperson emailed a statement to a Bloomberg reporter that is truly alarming. Her message suggests that the FCC has already decided that the current standards are fine, and will conduct a review to rubber stamp the 1996 FCC guidelines:
“Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in an e-mailed statement. The notice won’t propose rules, Sun said.
‘Our action today is a routine review of our standards,’ Sun said. ‘We are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers.'”
The Bloomberg article cites a major review of the literature conducted by our research center in which we found an association between mobile phone use and increased brain tumor risk especially after 10 years of cell phone use:
“There is possible evidence linking mobile-phone use to an increased risk of tumors, according to a study of scientific studies and articles that was published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.”
The research we reviewed and subsequent research strongly suggest that the current standards for cell phone radiation are not adequate to protect us from health risks associated with exposure to cell phone radiation. A year ago, a 31-member group of experts convened by the World Health Organization agreed with our conclusions and classified cell phone radiation a “possible carcinogen.”
The FCC standards were established in 1996 at a time when few adults used cell phones. Today, children and most adults are exposed to far more cell phone radiation than the FCC-approved test models are subjected to when new cell phones are certified. Moreover, the test assumes that cell phones can harm us only by heating tissue. This is not true as there are numerous studies that demonstrate non-thermal effects from cell phone radiation including increased glucose metabolism in the brain, generation of heat shock proteins, free radicals, and double-strand DNA breaks; penetration of the blood-brain barrier, damage to sperm and increased male infertility.
The FCC admits on its web site* that “there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.” “The FCC’s guidelines and rules regarding RF exposure are based upon standards developed by IEEE and NCRP and input from other federal agencies.”
I have grave concerns if the FCC continues to rely on industry-funded expert groups because our research found that industry-funded epidemiologic research was generally of lower quality and biased against finding harmful effects. Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington has come to a similar conclusion in his analysis of the toxicology research.
In my opinion, it is premature to adopt new safety standards because we need more research that is independent of the wireless industry’s influence. The Federal government needs to sponsor a major research initiative on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. Martin Blank and Reba Goodman from Columbia University recently published a paper in the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, calling for the development of a biologically-based measure of electromagnetic radiation (abstract below).
In the interim, to protect cell phone users we must adopt and disseminate precautionary health warnings that promote safer cell phone use. Although The FCC web site provides some simple steps to reduce exposure to cell phone radiation, it “does not endorse the need for these practices.” A dozen nations and the city of San Francisco have issued precautionary warnings about cell phone use to its citizens. It is time for our Federal government to do so.Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director Center for Family and Community Health The UC Berkeley Prevention Research Center School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley
Environmental Health Trust circulated this video today to warn women about the serious health risk of tucking their cell phones into their bras. They state, “Growing numbers of young women in this fast-paced connected society keep their phones in their bras, hijabs (headscarves), or pockets–unaware of manufacturers’ hidden warnings.” The iphone manual states to keep the phone 5/8″ away from the body.
In 2009, the Breast Cancer Fund issued policy and research recommendations (State-of-the-Evidence-2008) to reduce exposure to radiation. They write:
“Decades of research indicate that exposure to EMF is associated with many adverse health effects including breast cancer (in both men and women) and other cancers, neurodegenerative diseases and impaired immune function. Existing public exposure standards for EMF are inadequate to protect public health because they are based on a short-term (30-minute) thermal effect.”
The Breast Cancer Fund Federal Policy Recommendations:
- Based on the scientific evidence set forth in The Bioinitiative Report and a growing body of additional research, exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation should be set at the federal level for:
- Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF), including power lines, appliances, interior electric wiring an other devices; and
- Long term and cumulative radiofrequency (RF) radiation from outdoor pulsed sources including cell phone antennas, radar, TV and FM broadcast antennas and wireless internet antennas, and from indoor sources including cell phones, wireless internet equipment and radiation that permeates buildings from outdoor sources.
- With the setting of federal limits for non-ionizing radiation, special protections should be required for homes, schools and places where children spend large amounts of time.”
Unfortunately, this video by pianist and composer Serge Andre Jones is no longer available. The song illustrates the electronic soup we are consuming daily.
Here’s the translation in English.
My name is Thérèse Cash.
I prepare and sell delicious homemade dishes.
One of them, my best-seller,
is full of good organic ingredients.
Teens love it!
It’s my Electro Soup.
In it, I put healthy greens … and a cell phone,
Potatoes … and a compact fluorescent light bulb,
A nice big WIFI router, marinated in garlic,
Ham and a telecommunications antenna.
To improve the taste of all that
I add a flat-screen TV and a wireless video game control pad.
That helps to sleep soundly!
I finish the cooking in the microwave oven.
Everything becomes nice and tender.
I serve the soup with white bread
Generously covered in Smart Meter spread.
And Smart Meters, we can put a whole lot!
3,8 million, why not?
Recipe Canada states that the Electro Soup causes no health risk whatsoever.
You’ll see! How delicious!
Delicious for lunch, supper, breakfast and before going to bed.
You can have some all day, it’s easy to sip.
I also sell it in pills and it can even be injected.
You’ll see! How delicious!
Come on! Buy some!
You’ll love it!
It’s even good for kids!
You’ll see! How delicious!
My delicious Electro Soup is even more fun than a party!
My delicious Electro Soup is especially good … for my wallet!
Jake Reilly, a college student gave up his cell phone and computer for 90 days. No texting, facebook, email, twitter etc. What he learned changed his life. He writes, “Everything was so much simpler, I had relationships with people, not profiles.”
“I had nothing but time on my hands.” “I was immeasurably more calm and peaceful.”
After doing it for 90 days, I didn’t want it to be over.” Here’s his video:
Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) released a cell phone environmental report calling for tougher standards to regulate cellular technologies—especially for children and pregnant women.
EHHI reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that examined the potential health threats associated with cellular device use, along with the regulatory standards that have been adopted by the U.S. and other nations.
John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of the report, said, “The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women. The weight of the evidence supports stronger precautionary regulation by the federal government. The cellular industry should take immediate steps to reduce emission of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from phones and avoid marketing their products to children.”
EHHI President Nancy Alderman said, “Children between the ages of 8-18 spend an average of 7.5 hours per day—nearly half their hours while awake—on smart phones, computers, televisions or other electronic devices. Exposures to electromagnetic radiation are increasing most rapidly among the youngest in our society, as service providers focus their advertising on children and educational markets.”
Dr. Hugh Taylor, coauthor of the report, summarized his concerns regarding neurological effects from cell phone radiation. “The human brain is especially susceptible to numerous environmental insults that can produce irreversible damage during critical periods of nervous system development between conception and full maturity. A number of peer-reviewed studies reported changes in the nervous systems of rats, mice and humans following exposure to cell phone radiation. These include diminished learning, diminished reaction time, decreased motor function, reduced memory accuracy, hyperactivity and diminished cognition.”
Taylor explained differences in exposure between children and adults, “The thinner skulls of young children permit cell phone radiation to penetrate brain tissues more deeply than occurs in adults. Devices stored in pants pockets while in standby mode can expose rapidly developing reproductive organs to radiofrequency energy. Storage in shirt pockets will increase exposure to breast tissues. Children’s and fetuses’ rapidly developing nervous systems, more rapid rates of cell division, longer potential lifetime exposure, and longer average use per day all heighten their risks of adverse health effects.”
Wargo cautioned, “Cell phones have enjoyed exceptional freedom from government oversight and control to protect against health and environmental hazards before cell phone devices are marketed. There are no enforceable standards to limit human exposure to cell phone radiation. While the U.S. does not require any regulations to restrict advertising or warnings against use of cellular devices by pregnant women or children, many other nations do.”
Nancy Alderman, president of EHHI, summarized the group’s recommendations. “The government must take greater responsibility for testing cellular technologies before they are marketed to assure their safety, their proper disposal and to educate the public about safe patterns of use.”
Experts in public health, oncology, neurosurgery, electronic engineering, toxicology, cardiology and epidemiology from the United Kingdom, USA, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Austria and the Slovak Republic have published a critique of an opinion piece published in The Economist: “Worrying about Wireless”.
In the critique, entitled The Economist—and the Truth About Microwave Radiation Emitted from Wireless Technologies the experts say the Economist failed to provide critical information about the emerging public health issue related to cell phones and wireless technologies and that it owes its readers a better accounting of the science.
Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Founding Director Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Chairman of Environmental Health Trust and a distinguished cancer researcher, says of the Economist article, “The public the world over has been misled by this reporting.” “A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science, which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer and other substantial health consequences.” Dr. Herberman adds, “It would behoove the Economist to publicly correct the errors made in this unsigned opinion piece by publishing a retraction—and investigating how such inaccurate and unbalanced scientific reporting could have occurred in the first place.”
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Professor of Oncology, Orebro Medical Center, Orebro, Sweden, and a widely published, internationally renowned neuro-oncologist, agrees. He says, “The Economist has misrepresented the science indicating biological effects, links to cancers, and damage to DNA and male fertility from exposures to microwave radiation emitted by wireless technologies. Given the wide scale use of cell phones and other wireless devices globally, for the sake of public health I consider it essential that The Economist’s reporting be corrected to adequately advise readers of the risks.”
Dr. Hardell’s research has repeatedly found increased risk of brain cancers in frequent users of cell phones and/or cordless phones for more than a decade. His team’s research was cited in May in the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) landmark decision to classify wireless radiation as a Class 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’.
Media advisory courtesy Electromagnetic Health.org
Brian Stein is a CEO of a UK company and is speaking about his EMF sensitivity, also known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). His video is a warning to others about the risks of cell phone use, the signs to watch for and how governments and industry have covered up the health and safety risks.
Do your ears get hot when you use a cell or cordless phone? Do you experience discomfort or pain? These are the early warning signs he ignored and although tests revealed he did not have a brain tumor he’s been left with EHS, which he calls a nightmare. He must avoid many modern conveniences including computers and TV. Travel and vacations have become very difficult.