Category: RF

FCC seeks comments on wireless risks

FCCThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oversees the “safety guidelines” for public exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation (wireless) from a myriad of common devices now in use in many homes and communities.  Industry routinely points to these guidelines as proof of safety, however they were only designed to protect from thermal harm, and only for thirty minutes of exposure.

A majority of wireless devices, (cordless phones, cell phones, cell towers, wi-fi routers, baby monitors, smart meters and more) constantly emit RF radiation, 24/7.

The FCC says it’s now taking another look at their guidelines, (See FCC proposal) These guidelines were created in 1996 and they have not been reassessed since then. They also state they “have confidence in the current exposure limits and notes that more recent international standards have a similar basis.”

Phillip Janquart of Courthouse News Service recently wrote an article on this issue and he recognized the BioInitiative 2012 Report, “with over 1800 new scientific studies, indicating current guidelines are inadequate to protect the public from physical harm, which warns that cell phone users, pregnant women and young children are at particular risk.”  He further noted the following:

“There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma (a tumor near the ear) with use of mobile and cordless phones. Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a human carcinogen,” Dr. Lennart Hardell, of Orebro University in Sweden.

New studies also purportedly link phone radiation to sperm damage, according to the BioInitiative report.

“Even a cell phone in the pocket or on a belt may harm sperm DNA, result in misshapen sperm, and impair fertility in men. Laptop computers with wireless Internet connections can damage DNA in sperm,” according to the BioInitiative report.

The report added there is “strong evidence” that EMFs can increase the risk for autism and alter brain development of fetuses.

“This has been linked to both animal and human studies to hyperactivity, learning and behavior problems,” according to the BioInitiative report.

Dr. David O. Carpenter, co-author of the BioInitiative report, said “there is now much more evidence of risks to health affecting billions of people world-wide. The status quo is not acceptable in light of the evidence for harm.”

* * * * *

The FCC does not want to impose an “undue burden on industry”, but is seeking comments on whether the limits should be “more restrictive, less restrictive or remain the same,” but purely as a matter of “good government.”

The EMF Safety Network will be submitting comments on this proposal which are are due by Sept. 3, 2013.  More on this subject later…

Americans Beware: Nationwide Violations of FCC Radiation Limits at Wireless Antenna Sites

From The EMRadiation Policy Institute (EMRPI):  US workers and families are at risk of overexposure to RF at hazardous levels.  Hundreds of wireless industry-operated antenna sites from Maine to California have been tested by EMRPI and found to be in gross violation — up to and in excess of 600% — of the FCC’s public exposure limits. These sites include rooftops as well as locations where the general public, including children, can gain access, and where workers are on the job.  (See video below.)

Wireless Radiation Can Harm Health.

Public health is threatened by wireless radiation exposure at current FCC lawful limits as they are among the least protective in the world.  FCC safety limits do not acknowledge current science, nor the 2011 World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of wireless radiation as a 2B carcinogen.  The FCC does not even enforce its own inadequate radiation limits.

FCC Fails to Enforce Its Own Wireless Radiation Limits.

EMRPI informed FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in December 2011 of widespread FCC rules violations.  Despite detailed complaint letters sent to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief P. Michele Ellison, of RF safety violations in 23 states across all regions of the US, EMRPI has received no response that the FCC has taken any enforcement action against any noncompliant site.  EMRPI’s investigation re-tested sites and found violations still occurring months after EMRPI’s initial filings with the FCC.  The FCC responded to a US Senator’s inquiry on sites in her state with misleading information about the safety of the Senator’s constituents.

Are the FCC and the Wireless Industry Turning a Blind Eye to RF Violations?

FCC policy allows wireless companies to self-report their compliance with the lawful RF limits. The FCC website provides no information or procedures for either the public or workers to report potential or actual violations. Despite hundreds of thousands of wireless antenna sites across the US, since 1996 the FCC has issued only one wireless Notice of Violation, and not until 2010. Is FCC policing site violations and are violations hidden from the public?

The American Public Is Not Protected.

Congress must act to hold the FCC accountable. If not, Americans will remain at risk from unlawful RF radiation exposures at antenna sites across the country. The American people have a right to know and a right to be protected.  EMRPI urges the American people to demand that the FCC enforce its own RF safety limits to protect all Americans.

Italian Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Can Cause Cancer

“A landmark court case has ruled there is a link between using a mobile phone and brain tumours, paving the way for a flood of legal actions.” UK Telegraph, Oct 19, 2012

Contrary to the denial of many heath agencies in the U.S. and in some other countries, the Italian Supreme Court has recognized a “causal” link between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumor risk in a worker’s compensation case.

According to a UK news source, Innocente Marcolini, 60, an Italian businessman, fell ill after using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.  He now will be financially compensated.

Mr Marcolini said: “This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks. I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work. I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile and cordless phones…Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.”

The Italian courts dismissed research co-financed by the mobile phone industry due to concerns about conflict of interest. Instead, the courts relied on independent research conducted by Lennart Hardell and his colleagues in Sweden which showed consistent evidence of increased brain tumor risk associated with long term mobile phone use.

Last year, the Hardell research was heavily relied upon by 31 experts convened by the World Health Organization who classified radiofrequency energy, including cell phone radiation, as “possibly carcinogenic” in humans.

The evidence of harm from cell phone radiation has been increasing so it is only a matter of time before lawsuits filed in U.S. courts by cell phone radiation victims will be successful. The Insurance industry will not provide product liability insurance due to concerns that juries will find that the Telecom industry has behaved much like the Tobacco and Asbestos industries. So the Telecom industry could be faced with paying huge damages to individuals and governments.

Although 12 nations and the European Union have issued precautionary health warnings regarding mobile phone use, the U.S. has been in denial. The Telecom industry has blocked numerous attempts to pass cell phone warning legislation at the Federal, state, and city level. The industry even refused to support a bill in the California legislature by Senator Mark Leno that would simply remind consumers to read the safety information that is currently printed in their cell phone user manuals.

Only one city has been able to overcome intense lobbying by the Telecom industry. San Francisco adopted cell phone “right to know” legislation two years ago, but the Telecom industry (i.e., CTIA-The Wireless Association) blocked implementation of this law by filing a lawsuit claiming that the court-approved fact sheet violates the industry’s First Amendment rights. The CTIA also moved its annual conference from San Francisco to punish the city.

Since there are now more than 330 million cell phone subscribers in the U.S., an annual fee of 50 cents on each cell phone would generate sufficient resources to fund high quality, independent research that could promote safer technology development and fund a community education program about safer cell phone use.

Thanks to Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley for the press release on this issue. 

Dr. Magda Havas: “Cherry Picking and Black Swans”

Dr. Magda Havas presents this short video to illustrate the difference between “cherry picking” science and falsification or finding the “black swan”. She writes, “Some scientists are criticized for cherry picking their studies when in fact they are falsifying a hypothesis. Falsification, a concept coined by Sir Karl Popper (philosopher of science), is one of the methods that differentiates science from other forms of acquiring knowledge.”

Does the FCC Plan to Rubber Stamp Outdated Cell Phone Radiation Standards?

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