Wall Street Journal Announces Cell Phone Cancer Link

U.S. Studies using rats, costing $25 million dollars, leaves no room for debate.  The most comprehensive study that has ever been conducted.  Exposed for 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off intervals for 9 hours per day to mimic what humans are exposed to daily.  Tumors in the brain and around the heart were definitely linked to the exposure.

Expert in clip states:

"You can't say these are perfectly safe."

"This calls into question the previous standards that were based on thermal effects only."

U.S. True "Causitive" Study Links RF and Cancer

GTCO-ATL followers:  Ever wonder if you supported the right side in the debate over whether DeKalb County should take money to place cell phone towers next to young children on their own public school campuses, in the middle of their  neighborhoods?  Well, if so, you can rest assured that you did the right thing by speaking up for the children in our county and now science is on your side, too.  The more research being done on this subject, the more science is siding with you.  And this time, the study was conducted to the top level of controls, with plenty of funds to cover the expenses and it was done in the U.S.   Here is how things worked out....

Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions

Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumor formation in rats

• By Dina Fine Maron on May 27, 2016
• Dina Fine Maron is an award-winning journalist and the associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. She is also a contributor to the publication's podcasts and Instant Egghead video series. She is based in Washington, D.C.

Credit: Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25-million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats. The results, which were posted on a prepublication Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, are poised to reignite controversy about how such everyday exposure might affect human health.

Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, led the study. They chronically exposed rodents to carefully calibrated radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives. The animals were placed in specially built chambers that dosed their whole bodies with varying amounts and types of this radiation for approximately nine hours per day throughout their two-year life spans. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans,” says Christopher Portier, a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist. “There will have to be a lot of work after this to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert.”

More than 90 percent of American adults use cell phones. Relatively little is known about their safety, however, because current exposure guidelines are based largely on knowledge about acute injury from thermal effects, not long-term, low-level exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. But data from human studies has been “inconsistent,” the NTP has said on its website. Such studies are also hampered by the realities of testing in humans, such as recall bias—meaning cancer patients have to try to remember their cell phone use from years before, and how they held their handsets. Those data gaps prompted the NTP to engage in planning these new animal studies back in 2009.

The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.

In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”

Read the full article here.

American Academy of Pediatrics Demands FCC Protect Children from Cell Phone & Wireless Radiation

Letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the 

FCC Regarding Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Standards

The American Academy of Pediatrics submitted the following letter to the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC). 

The letter urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards that:

1.)  protect children's health and well-being from radiation emitted by cell phones and other 
wireless devices; 2.)  reflect how people actually use their cell phones; and 
3.)  provide sufficient information to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

The letter is also  available on the FCC's web site at http://bit.ly/17tQclg.

August 29, 2013 

The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn

Acting Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street SW 

Washington, DC 20054

The Honorable Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg

Commissioner 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

10903 New Hampshire Avenue 

Silver Spring, MD 20993

  

Dear Acting Chairwoman Clyburn and Commissioner Hamburg:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of 
60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical 
specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, 
and young adults appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule 
“Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” 
published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2013. 
 
In the past few years, a number of American and international health and scientific bodies 
have contributed to the debate over cell phone radiation and its possible link to cancer. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the United Nations’ 
World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes 
mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”  The National Cancer 
Institute has stated that although studies have not demonstrated that RF energy from 
cell phones definitively causes cancer, more research is needed because cell phone technology 
and cell phone use are changing rapidly. These studies and others clearly demonstrate the 
need for further research into this area and highlight the importance of reassessing current 
policy to determine if it is adequately protective of human health. 

As radiation standards are reassessed, the AAP urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards 
that:  

Protect children’s health and well-being. Children are not little adults and are 
disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. 
Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific 
to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other 
wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to 
ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes. 

Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone 

radiation since 1996. Approximately 44 million people had mobile phones when the standard 

was set; today, there are more than 300 million mobile phones in use in the United States. 

While the prevalence of wireless phones and other devices has skyrocketed, the behaviors 

around cell phone uses have changed as well. The number of mobile phone calls per day, the 

length of each call, and the amount of time people use mobile phones has increased, while cell 

phone and wireless technology has undergone substantial changes. Many children, adolescents

and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless 
phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per 
day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience 
a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, 
because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures. 
FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today. 

Provide meaningful consumer disclosure. The FCC has noted that it does not provide 

consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to 

allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure 

available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual 

exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the 

information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to 

help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we 

support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience. 

The AAP supports the reassessment of radiation standards for cell phones and other wireless 
products and the adoption of standards that are protective of children and reflect current 
use patterns. If you have questions, please contact Clara Filice in the AAP’s Washington 
Office at 202/347-8600.

Sincerely, 

Thomas K. McInerny, MD FAAP

President

Americans Beware: 

Nationwide Violations of FCC Radiation Limits 

at Wireless Antenna Sites

 MARSHFIELD, VT--(Marketwire - Mar 20, 2013) - The EMRadiation Policy Institute (EMRPI) releases Videos revealing the FCC's failure to protect Americans from wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation. 

Don't forget that DeKalb County Commissioners are partially
to thank for their strict zoning laws that protected our
children from cell phone towers in their neighborhoods.

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: Wireless Industry Safety Failure I

Wireless Radiation Can Harm Health.

The only school that said
they wanted a cell tower ended up as
the only school without a signed contract.
That's a terrible representation of what they can do with "local control.

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 WHO IARC's classification of wireless radiation as a Group 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. See: Wireless Industry Safety Failure II

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

Want one?
Just call your
school board
member or
anyone affiliated
with the Lakeside
City Alliance!

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.

Contact US Senators at:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Contact US House Members at: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

American Academy of Pediatrics Urges the FCC to Reconsider Radiation Standards in the U.S.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its radiation standards.

Pediatricians Say Cell Phone Radiation Standards Need Another Look

By Bonnie RochmanJuly 20, 2012

It’s been 18 years since the U.S. government assessed the standards for cell phone radiation. That was back in 1996, long before the practice of giving your big kid a cell phone became as common as giving your little kid a bath. Both cell-phone technology and cell-phone use have changed in the interim, which is why last week the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its radiation standards.

Current guidelines specify that the specific absorption rate (SAR) — the amount of radiofrequency (RF) energy absorbed by the body when using a cell phone — can’t exceed 1.6 watts per kilogram. The standard tells cell-phone makers how much radiation their products are allowed to emit. This all sounds pretty technical; why, you may wonder, is the AAP getting involved in deliberations over RF and SARs? It comes down to children’s health and well-being, writes AAP President Dr. Robert Block, who notes that standards are based on the impact of exposure on an adult male, not on women or kids:

Children, however, are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. In fact, according to [the International Agency for Research on Cancer], when used by children, the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults.

Yikes. Parents, run, don’t walk, to buy your tween a headset.

The AAP’s appeal has a history: previous research has raised questions about whether exposure to radiation from mobile phones can lead to brain cancer. And last month, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski formally proposed an inquiry into radiation standards in cell phones and other wireless devices.  (We will have more on this subject in a future blog post from GTCO-ATL as there are ways to help the FCC in their request for consumer feedback on the issue.)

The FCC is also looking into whether emissions standards should be adjusted for the types of devices that are used mostly by kids, which makes sense. But Block points out that standards for all cell phones — even those not aimed at children or teens — need to “be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.”

Given his target audience, Block couldn’t resist highlighting more than physical health concerns. He also brought up the downside of too much time spent using cell phones, computers, televisions and other devices.

The Academy has found potentially negative effects and no known positive effects of media use by children under the age of 2, including television, computers, cell phones and other handheld wireless devices. In addition, studies consistently show that older children and adolescents utilize media at incredibly high rates, which potentially contributes to obesity and other health and developmental risks. In reviewing the SAR limit, the FCC has the opportunity to improve the health of our nation by highlighting the importance of limiting screen time and media use for children and adolescents.

The AAP is not recommending a SAR standard, says Dr. Jerome Paulson, chair of the AAP’s council on environmental health and a pediatrician at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. “We don’t have any preconceived notions about how much is too much,” says Paulson. “But we know in general that children are more vulnerable to environmental hazards.”

Until there’s more clarity, Paulson recommends doing what comes naturally to many kids: text. That way the cell phone isn’t near a child’s head. For phone conversations, use a hands-free device. And pregnant women, take care not to carry your cell phone in a pocket near your abdomen. 

Bonnie Rochman is a reporter at TIME. 

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/pediatricians-call-on-the-fcc-to-reconsider-cell-phone-radiation-standards/#ixzz2Kyuc3ulM

The Russians Love Their Children, Too

Remember Sting's famous words?  Well, I guess the Russians may have surpassed us in terms of their love of children from a governmental standpoint.  Read the following from the International EMF Alliance:

Professor Yury Grigoriev calls for order and the world needs to listen:  

“Man conquered the Black Plague, but he has created new problems – EMF pollution”

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) has agreed to provide a detailed report for the world containing clear information on the most important Russian research results in RF/EMF radiation over the past 50 years.

RF/EMF researchers and environmental activists, Eileen O’Connor, Director for the UK Radiation Research Trust charity and Sissel Halmøy, Chairman for the International EMF Alliance and Secretary General for the Citizens ́ Radiation Protection in Norway recently returned from a trip to meet with top scientists at the Russian Federation.

Halmøy said: “According to the RNCNIRP, the following health hazards are likely to be faced by children who use mobile phones in the near future: disruption of memory, decline of attention, diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to the stress, increased epileptic readiness. Action must be taken immediately to adopt biologically based guidelines to protect children.” (Current standards are based more on engineering needs than biological studies.)

O’Connor said “The Russian report is a gift to the world. The UK Radiation Research Trust will present the report in the Autumn to the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP and will be forwarded to the UK Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies.” 

She added “Russian scientists are advanced in their knowledge on RF/EMF radiation and have extended the hand of friendship and are willing to share their expertise and knowledge. I hope decision makers from the western world accept this great honor and work together.”

Russian research offers crucial and important aspects of developmental relevance that conveys a sense of urgency for the global RF/EMF framework. Without it, national governments may not be able to ensure the health of future generations are protected, especially that of our children.

Russian warnings exists urging pregnant women to avoid using mobile phones entirely along with children under eighteen. 

Likewise, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, Israel, Finland, Belgium and Toronto, Canada, have issued health warnings for children to not use mobile phones, or for emergency use only. Unfortunately, most children, parents, doctors and teachers are not aware of this important information.

Furthermore, in May 2011 the World Health Organisation and IARC issued a classification stating that radio frequency – electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (group 2B). This warning is issued not only for mobile phones and phone masts, but for Wi-Fi, smart meters, wireless computers and all applications of technology on the RF/EMF Spectrum (radio-frequency radiation to electromagnetic radiation).

Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, member of International Advisory Committee of WHO “EMF and Health” Professor Yury Grigoriev said: “The brain is a critical organ. Vital brain structures are under EMF exposure daily when using a mobile phone. The brain is made up of permanent complex biophysical processes and vital functions. We need to take care with mobile phones and use distance and reduce time. Children should use mobile phones for emergencies only and also use hands free.”

Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Professor Oleg Grigoriev said: “We need correct control and assessment of electromagnetic pollution. There are currently a lot of new frequencies containing modulation and no one knows the results which could be a serious problem.”

Russian scientists are also warning countries throughout the world including ministries of health and other organizations, responsible for the population safety (including children), to pay attention to the regulation of mobile phones and Wi-Fi use in kindergardens and are recommending the usage of wired networks in schools and educational institutions, rather than a network using wireless broadband systems, including Wi-Fi.

The Russians stand by their solid research which has consistently shown that prolonged exposure to RF/EMF radiation disturbs cognitive function.

For protection from RF/EMF non-ionizing radiation, many countries have adopted a set of guidelines provided by private group of industry-friendly scientists known as ICNIRP. The ICNIRP guidelines are for short-term, acute thermal RF/EMF exposure. The current ICNIRP, IEEE standards are based on the preconceived and out dated view of government authorities that the only possible established biological effect of RF/EMF exposure is tissue heating.

The Russian standards are supported by science as a result of extensive research and take into account the dangers of non-thermal exposure. The standards are also backed by the Russian Ministry of Health and are a small fraction of what is allowed by ICNIRP and the IEEE which is currently adopted in many counties.

Research clearly underlines the need for action on mobile phones and wireless technology. We need to launch global government backed hard-hitting advertising campaign especially for children, and large health warnings should be clearly visible on all RF/EMF emitting= equipment. Mass media campaigns can also create awareness.

O’Connor said: “I am grateful to the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith for offering to submit the Russian report to the UK Chief Medical Officer and hope that Government and health agencies worldwide listen to concerns raised by Russian and independent scientists and urgently adopt health based RF/EMF standards to protect human health. We need to provide as swift solution to this problem as soon as possible. We simply cannot afford to wait.”

Russian scientists recognize the value of non-Government groups in discussion and research. Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Professor Oleg
Grigoriev said: “We need to include non-Government groups in discussion and research. Non- Government groups play an equal importance to Government and the scientific community. NGO’s are a new power and are representing people with electrosensitivity (ES) and should be an equal player.” He added that “If the decisions are not made together with the NGOs, then decisions may have no value.”

The UK Radiation Research Trust, Citizens ́ Radiation Protection in Norway and International EMF Alliance are calling for the Governments to engage with NGO’s and Independent (non- telecommunications funded) scientists.

It’s time for action!

CONTACTS:  

Professor Oleg Grigoriev, Head of Department of Non-Ionizing Radiation, Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia and Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Director, Center for Electromagnetic Safety

Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, a member of Int. Advisory Committee of WHO “EMF and Health”

Sissel Halmøy, Secretary General for the Citizens’ Radiation Protection in Norway, www.stralevern.org and founder and Chair of the International EMF Alliance, http://www.iemfa.org

Eileen O’Connor, Founder and Board member for the International EMF Alliance and Director of UK EM Radiation Research Trust, www.radiationresearch.org.  Email:   Eileen@radiationresearch.org

BREAKING NEWS: The Cell Phone Right to Know Act

Federal Bill HR6538
"The Cell Phone Right to Know" Bill

  Is Safer Wireless on the Way?

Federal Bill Introduced

to Mandate Radiation Warning Labels

on ALL Cell Phones in the U.S.

(click headline to read full story)

 

We are very excited to inform you that U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced new, groundbreaking legislation Aug. 6 to address concerns about the public's health from cell phone radiation.

This announcement comes just days after 62% of DeKalb County, Georgia, residents voted "NO" on a phone tower referendum that asked whether the school board should place or operate telecommunications towers on any independent, public or charter school. 

The federal bill is something that our group (Get the Cell Out - Atlanta) and others, including The Center for Safer Wireless, The Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, the Mount Shasta Research Center, Get the Cell Out of Here, Moms of Merrick, and Get the Cell Out (California) have been anticipating.   

DeKalb County Schools are still awaiting the final decision by the county's CEO regarding whether or not to place cell towers near them.  They are holding out hope that this major announcement, together with the results of the referendum will be enough to convince him that any attempts by T-mobile to file for administrative permits should be denied.  To add your voice to those who have already expressed concern, please email:  burrell@burrell.ellis.com

According to a press release from Congressman Kucinich's office, the bill calls for:

1. Placing warning labels on cell phones,
2. A national research program, and
3. A scientific investigation into the adverse health effects reported by cell phone users. 

Read HR 6358, introduced and referred last week to the US House Energy and Commerce Committee.

  

What's in the Bill? 

HR 6358 directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to work together to develop a research and public information program to determine whether there are biological and health effects from wireless digital products. 

The bill language seeks to protect against conflicts of interest by participating federal agencies and within the scientific community. Importantly, wireless device usage data would, for the first time in the U.S., be used in performing scientific studies and would result in more accurate and reliable findings.

The bill would also charge the EPA with setting the maximum permissible safety limits, governing exposure to radio frequency radiation. When reviewing research, the EPA would be required to take into account whether the study was funded by an organization that could stand to profit from the research outcome, so it allows for independent research.  EPA would also be required to consider health-specific health outcomes such as insomnia, anxiety, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, tremors, dizziness, visual disturbances; longstanding concerns raised by the Federal Interagency Work Group; vulnerable sub-populations, including children, developing fetuses and persons who are functionally impaired due to electromagnetic hypersensitivity; non-thermal mechanisms and effects; effects of modulation and pulsing, etc.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be responsible for implementing and enforcing human exposure standards.  The FDA would issue regulations requiring local retail and internet based sales operations to provide labels on mobile communication devices. Labeling information would compare each device's exposure rating to the maximum permissible safety limit. These changes would help consumers made informed choices when purchasing wireless devices.

With the EPA acting as the lead federal agency, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would increase the number and size of grants for scientists interested in exploring how electromagnetic fields affect human health, including $15 million dollars to be available in research funds during fiscal year 2013 and each subsequent year.

Finally, the bill would remove the federal preemption provision enacted with the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996 and restore state and local government's traditionally held authority to consider the health and welfare of the people in the siting and management of wireless antennas and towers.

Follow Up to Core Message from

The 2011 Wireless Safety Summit

 Rep. Kucinich's bill incorporates many of the actions we recommended in 2012, as outlined in the Core Message to Congress we generated (as part of the national group known as The Center for Safer Wireless) during the Wireless Safety Summit in October 2011, such as: 

• Initiate a federally sponsored, sustained and independent EMF research program
• Direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to adopt lower, interim Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) standards
• Direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop lower, interim electromagnetic radiofrequency human exposure guidelines for radiofrequency transmission antennas
• Direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the radiological properties of consumer products that emit microwave-level radiofrequency radiation

Another key request in the Summit's core message was to ask the U.S. Surgeon General to review research and issue a report on cell phones and wireless radiation devices. Through our efforts, Senator McCain's office sent a letter to the U.S. Surgeon General asking for the review and report. However, Dr. Benjamin declined to initiate the review. Perhaps the introduction of this legislation will bring her to re-evaluate her decision. 

 What You Can Do

Communicate your support of the Cellphone Right to Know Act by contacting your Congressional leaders.  Here's how:

  

• Send this suggested letter to all members of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee.

• Use this suggested letter regarding HR 6358 to send to your Congressional Representative.

• Show your support for the bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h6358/show 

Reading Rack

Representative Dennis Kucinich's press release about the Cellphone Right to Know Act - August 6, 2012

US General Accountability Office Report issued August 6, 2012 that recommends that the US Federal Communications Commission review wireless safety standards established 15 years ago
   
Cellphone Exposure Limits Should be Reassessed, GAO Recommends- Washington Post blog, August 7, 2012 

 Health Risks from Cell Phones Needs Review, US GAO Says - Bloomberg News, August 7, 2012   

Cell Phone Safety Advocate Hopes Congress Forces the FCC to Update Its Regulations- Washington Post - August 4, 2012
 
Will the GAO Report for the FCC Follow the Fate of NAS Report for the FDA? blog  by Dariusz Leszczynski, Washington Times Communities, August 8, 2012 

Score 1 for the Kids: Public Schools in Montgomery County, MD, Ban Cell Towers From School Grounds

Wednesday, June 6, 2012 (click headline for full story)

From our friends in Montgomery County, Maryland comes this encouraging story:

On November 21, 2011, a Hearing Examiner for the Montgomery County Board of Appeals issued an Opinion in Case No. S-2818.  On page 40 of that Opinion, at Footnote number 19, we learn that MCPS is no longer placing cell phone/telecommunications towers on elementary school playgrounds. 

This change in MCPS standard operating procedure comes too late for Daly Elementary School (shown below), but benefits the the other 130 elementary school sites that were ripe for the picking by cell tower companies.

Daly Elementary School playground /cell tower compound
Since the Board of Education has never taken a public vote to place a cell tower on any public school site, decisions to let a private company build a cell tower transmission facility on public school land have been made behind closed doors with little or no public notice or input. 

From this Opinion, we now know that cell phone companies are no longer free to make behind closed door deals with MCPS to build cell tower facilities on elementary school playgrounds.
 
Score 1 for the little kids that get to keep their playground space!

********************************

Cell tower compounds have already been installed on playgrounds/fields at the following Montgomery County Public Schools:


Northwood HS - Silver Spring (pictured at right)
Blake HS - Silver Spring
Einstein HS - Silver Spring
Kennedy HS - Silver Spring
Wheaton HS - Silver Spring
Springbrook HS - Silver Spring
Blair HS - Silver Spring
Watkins Mill HS - Gaithersburg
*  Daly Elementary School - Germantown
Magruder HS - Rockville
Tilden Middle School - Rockville
Sherwood HS - Sandy Spring
Woodwards Road ES site - Gaithersburg


*  The Daly ES PTA and community said no to this cell tower and Superintendent Jerry Weast signed the lease and placed the tower on the playground anyway.

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich: Statement to the Wireless Safety Summit

(click headline for full text.) 

Kucinich (D - Ohio)

October 6, 2011

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about wireless technology. It is an honor to be in a room with people who are so ahead of their time when it comes to thinking about the effects of widespread wireless technology. This is an issue of great interest to me. Many of you know I held a hearing on the topic – the first in at least a decade if not the first ever – on the effects of cell phones on human health. My hearing was followed by a hearing in the Senate which also generated some interest.

I walked away from that hearing thinking the evidence that cell phones could cause brain cancer was fairly compelling. It was far from being authoritative but it was compelling. At a minimum, the current lack of research in the US is not at all justified, especially since some estimates are that half of the world population uses a cell phone. One of the most important areas we discussed at my hearing was the mechanism.

The wireless industry likes to claim that the only way a cell phone could cause harm to a human being is by heating tissue directly – the so called thermal mechanism. This is the way a microwave oven works. But we heard some evidence that a non-thermal mechanism is at work. It is certainly feasible since there are many existing therapies using electromagnetic radiation to induce some effect in the body using non-thermal mechanisms.

It is an important conversation to have because this belief - that there is no non-thermal mechanism - is preventing some influential agencies from being open to the possibility that cell phones and other wireless technologies are a real public health problem. I’m talking about the National Cancer Institute mainly, who is in turn influencing the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration.

These agencies are using this conversation about thermal and non-thermal mechanisms as a red herring, effectively claiming that we can’t move forward with any kind of precautionary action until we know the mechanism. Let me explain.

When trying to link any given environmental exposure to a health problem, scientists like to know exactly how it is happening at the 10,000 foot level and at the micrometer level. In other words, they like to be able to look over vast numbers of people and compare who was exposed and who was not exposed and show that there is a link there. But before they conclude the link is rock solid, they also like to know what, exactly, is happening at the cellular level – how are the molecules changing in cells to make this happen? That is called the mechanism. Scientists are hesitant to say with certainty there is a link until that mechanism is nailed down. And the mechanism is usually the last thing to be discovered – usually years if not decades after epidemiology first uncovers the problem.

That’s fine for scientists. But The NCI, the FCC, the FDA, and Members of Congress are not scientists. We are policy makers. And we have to look at things the scientists don’t. For example, we have to consider that we knew tobacco was killing people in the 30s. The Surgeon General didn’t even weigh in until the 60s. And there was no substantive action on cigarette bans until the mid 90s. In fact there are many places in the US where you can still smoke in public places even though it is well established that people die from exposure to it. It is not an accident that almost 70 years have passed and we’re still fighting to protect public health from tobacco. That was the result of a sophisticated campaign to manufacture doubt in the mind of the public about the link between cigarettes and health. What we have to consider as policy makers, not scientists is this: How many people died between the time we knew tobacco caused cancer and dozens of other major lethal health problems and the time policy makers took real action to protect the public and educate them?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking." 2

So, yes, let’s talk about what the non-thermal mechanisms are. But let’s not let that discussion get in the way when millions of lives are at stake. If we see a danger or even a potential danger to human health, we must act to protect health before acting to protect profits.

I announced that I would be introducing a bill that would do three things. It would reestablish a research program in the US to look at the health effects of cell phones. Almost all meaningful research in the field is now done overseas, save for a few selected pockets at places like the University of Washington and Cleveland Clinic.

Second, the bill would call for a real measure of exposure to replace the inaccurate, misleading, and downright false numbers used now to depict exposure levels. You know this measurement as the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, and it is mostly only accessible in places that are invisible to the consumer as they shop for phones. The SAR has multiple problems; among them is that they are designed for adults, not children; they ignore the fields created by phones that use increasing amounts of power, which smart phones do; and the science has developed significantly since the standards were set, mostly by engineers, not by people with medical training.

The third thing the bill would do is call for a label on cell phones, using the new measure of exposure that is created under this bill. Until we can say with greater certainty whether this is a link between electromagnetic radiation and various health problems, the consumer should be able to decide what they want. But markets are not truly free when the consumer has inadequate information. As it stands, the consumer cannot practically know what a particular phone or smart meter would expose them to. First the SAR is obsolete, as I mentioned. Second, even if it were useful, the SAR can’t be readily accessed when buying a phone. We need labels.

The bill has already accumulated cosponsors and I am awaiting the right moment to introduce it. It will not be easy to make legislative progress because of the enormous financial resources the industry has at its disposal. They have already tried a few tricks to get us to pony up information about the bill’s contents, timing and strategy. But I am convinced we can make legislative progress anyway. We just have to be very strategic about it.

I am also keeping a close eye on the other uses for wireless technology. Certainly there are a lot of questions about the dangers posed by towers. Increasingly, we’re seeing popular resistance to smart meters as well because of the additional exposure they cause. And the wireless spectrum is being sold off to make room for more wireless gadgets like keyboards.

The use of the radiofrequency spectrum is one of three emerging technologies that are proof for the maxim that we are developing technology faster than our ability to manage it. Another textbook case is nanotechnology, which is proliferating by leaps and bounds while research on the effects on the environment and health is slowly lumbering along. What little research we have seen to date is deeply concerning. The third case, of course, is genetically engineered food; another topic which I have held hearings on.

In each of these cases, any progress that has been made has only come as a result of the efforts of a thoughtful, dedicated few who have raised the hard questions for industry and for policy makers. It is a privilege to join you in your efforts to put public health over private profit. Thank you again for the invitation to be with you today.

Reprinted thanks to the Center for Safer Wireless