BRACT

by JoTina DiGennaro

Re:  Opposition to LD 1706 “An Act to Create the Children’s Wireless Protection Act.”

                      Major Arguments of the CTIA

The main points of the Memorandum are these:

1. The industry believes that the legislation is unnecessary, ignores the science on the issue of radiofrequency emissions and wireless devices, and will lead to consumer confusion.
2. They further assert that the 1997 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted safety standards governing RF emissions of wireless devices, if complied with, would then be safe for use by the general public, and represent, the “best scientific thought and are sufficient to protect the public health.”
3. Specifically, the FCC issued a maximum Radio Frequency (RF) exposure limit based on a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1.6 W/kg, and that this marker, “struck the proper balance between the need to protect the public and workers from exposure to potentially harmful RF electromagnetic fields, and the requirement that industry be allowed to provide telecommunications services to the public in the most efficient and practical manner possible.  In doing so the FCC specifically rejected additional restrictions that would impose significant and unnecessary economic and technical burdens for which adequate justification has not been presented.”
4. The FCC based its standards on international standards-setting bodies including the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).
5. In addition to these, the FCC carefully considered the impact of other Federal Agencies these being:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
6. On the FDA website the following is stated regarding US exposure limits, “the weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems,” and that the FCC’s RF standards, “represent a consensus view of the federal agencies responsible for matters relating to the public health and safety.”
7. The summation of all the points above is that “the FCC has expressly evaluated the potential biological effects of RF from FCC-licensed devices and adopted specific standards designed to ensure safety.  The FCC standards eliminate the need for warning labels because the devices are deemed safe by the federal safety limits.”
8. The industry further claims that Health Organizations agree that there is no adverse health effects from wireless devices.  These being, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).  Also cited as agreeing that present FCC standards are safe are:  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers of Disease Prevention and Control (2005), The U.S. National Cancer Institute (2008), and the European Commission (2009).
9. Since the Federal Agencies have done such a good job arriving at these standards, “there is neither the need nor the authority for states to regulate in this regard, as any such regulation might frustrate or interfere with this comprehensive, multi-agency federal regulatory and international enterprise.”
10.  The proposed labels and warnings would mislead consumers, as it would contradict the scientific consensus that there are no negative health effects from consumer use of wireless devices.”  Further, “The requirement in Maine LD 1706 that manufacturers warn users to ‘keep (wireless phones) away from the head and body’ strongly suggests a safety concern that is unfounded, unsupported, and contrary to the views of international health organizations and government agencies regarding the safety of wireless devices.”
11.  The final point of this memorandum is that Maine LD 1706 is federally pre-empted.

A Look at FCC Safety Standards; Who Has Set Them, and If They Are Adequate to Protect Public Health.

Most of the major points of the memorandum (with the exception of consumer confusion of Maine residents and federal pre-emption dictated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) can be summed up by the following assumption by the FCC:  That the FCC safety standards are safe, represent the best scientific thought, and are sufficient to protect the public health.  There is, therefore, no reason to issue warning labels on cellular phones.

Let us review what some of the leading scientific experts in the fields of EMR and RF radiation are saying, as well as what some of the current independent, non-industry funded research is discovering.  We begin with the standards.

1. Dr. George L. Carlo, who is Chairman of the non-profit Science and Public Policy Institute based in Washington DC, and who has overseen the world’s largest research effort regarding the safety of cell phones has this to say:  “Cell phones were first introduced into U.S. commerce in 1984.  However, unlike all other radiation emitting devices, cell phones were exempted from pre-market safety testing, the regulatory and legal requirement that ensures only safe products make it into the US marketplace.  At that time the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is the safety authority with jurisdiction over cell phones, accepted that the evidence proffered by the industry derived from microwave oven studies, would suffice as definitive proof of consumer safety.  Thus the affirmative duty of the cell phone industry to directly prove safety prior to marketing was sidestepped.  That error in judgment by the FDA in 1984 set in place a cacophony of misguided regulatory, legal and political moves that have had deleterious impact on the hundreds of millions of US consumers—if only because they erroneously believe they are being protected when in fact they are not.  And, if the dire predictions from emerging science regarding brain cancer and other cell phone related health effects prove true, it is an error that has already cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.”  He states further that, “The cell phone industry has failed to do its legal duty in proving safety and the federal regulatory system has failed and continues to fail consumers by succumbing to constant industry political pressure.”

2. The FCC safety standards were established in 1996-1997—thirteen years ago.  The limits were based on a six foot tall man, weighing 200 pounds, with an eleven pound head; and are further based on the false premise that the chief biological effect from cell phone radiation is heating, and that exposures set for a large adult head can be directly extended to children and smaller adults.  “The United Stated government safety rules for maximum allowable exposure to citizens from an antenna or cell phone do not take scientific studies past 1985 into consideration.  The current FCC standards for ambient exposures were established in 1996, but the FCC has thus far refused to revisit them or incorporate 20 more years of pertinent research into their allowances.  Adverse effects to living cells have been shown worldwide in numerous studies of EMR at levels far below those now allowed by the FCC.  For example, studies have found that one two-minute cell phone call made by a child effects his/her brain activity for up to an hour afterward.” (The EMR Policy Institute’s, Blind Faith in Wireless Technology—Facts Everyone Should Know).

3. “The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response.  The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones, and the like, or risk the known consequences.  The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.” (Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics, and Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on Stress Proteins).

4. “Studies of people have shown that both ELF (extremely low frequency fields) and RF exposures result in an increased risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensities that are too low to cause tissue heating.  Unfortunately all of our exposure standards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating.” (David Carpenter, MD, Professor, Environmental Health Studies, and Director, Institute for Health and The Environment, School of Public Health, State University of NY at Albany.  Co-editor, The BioInitiative Report, www.Bioinitiative.org).. “Radiofrequency radiation and other forms of electromagnetic pollution are harmful at orders of magnitude well below existing guidelines.  Science is one of the tools society used to decide health policy.  In the case of telecommunications equipment, such as cell phones, wireless networks, cell phone antennas, PDAs and portable phones, the science is being ignored.  Current guidelines urgently need to be re-examined by government and reduced to reflect the state of the science.  There is an emerging health crisis at hand and time is of the essence.” (Magda Havas, PhD, Associate Professor, Environment and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada.  Expert in radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current).

5

6. “The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur.  There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences.  These interactive intensities are about 1,000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations.  These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.” (Abraham R. Liboff, PhD, Research Professor, Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Florida Atlantic University, Co-Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine).

7. “Radiofrequency radiation human exposure standards for personal wireless communications devices and for environmental exposure to wireless transmitters are set by national governments to guide the use of wireless communications devices and for wireless transmitters.  In the US, the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission set these standards.  The Council on Wireless Technology Impacts considers these exposure standards to be inadequate as they are based on heating effects and do not accommodate the low level, cumulative exposure conditions in which the public now lives.  These standards are also designed for acute, short term exposure conditions and do not acknowledge the medical evidence pointing to increased risks and actual harm that results from chronic, intermittent exposure.” (Libby Kelly, Managing Secretariat International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Founder, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, Co-Producer of documentary, Public Exposure:  DNA, Democracy, and the Wireless Revolution; EMF environmental consultant and leading appellant in challenging the FCC Radiofrequency Radiation human exposure guidelines, 1997-2000.  www.icems.eu ).  Ms. Kelly goes on to urge, “We strongly encourage consumers, manufacturers, utility providers and policy makers to reduce, eliminate and mitigate EMR exposure conditions and to support biologically based standards.”

8. “According to the BioInitiative Report:  A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electronic Fields—from electrical and electronic appliances, power lines and wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, cellular antennas, towers, and broadcast transmission towers—we live in an invisible fog of EMF which thirty years of science, including 2,000 peer reviewed studies, shows exposes us to serious health risks such as increased Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, Lou Gehrig disease, EMF immune system hypersensitivity and disruption of brain function and DNA.  The public needs to wake up politicians and public officials to the need for updating the decades old EMF public health standards.  This report tells how.” (James S. Turner, Esq., Chairman of the Board, Citizens for Health, Co-author, Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life, Attorney, Swankin-Turner, Washington DC).

It appears then from the above expert testimony, that the FCC standards are inadequate for the year 2010.  “Contrary to popular belief, wireless technology has not been proven safe by the FCC or the wireless industry itself.  This technology has advanced at an unprecedented rate without regard to the impact on the health and well being of the people engaged in its use, or living in the vicinity of antenna sites.  Who will be held responsible?”  (The EMR Policy Institute’s, Blind Faith in Wireless Technology—Facts Everyone Should Know).

Further, the regulation process has fallen into the wrong group of experts.  Engineers and physicists are seeking efficiency of performance of each new technology—and, admittedly, the advances have been truly amazing.  However, they have failed to study the biological impact of these technologies on the human population.  This would have, and should have been the job of biologists, health physicists, epidemiologists, scientists, researchers and doctors.  The research should have been on-going, changing and expanding as the profile of the typical cell phone user changed.  Nobody should be comfortable with standards set for a 200 pound adult male with an eleven pound head.

“Ambient man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs’) across a range of frequencies, are a serious environmental issue.  Yet most environmentalists know little about it, perhaps because the subject has been the purview of physicists and engineers for so long that biologists have lost touch with electromagnetism’s fundamental inclusion in the biological paradigm.”  (B. Blake Levitt, Former N.Y. Times Journalist and author of, Electromagnetic Fields, A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, and Editor of Cell Towers, Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard?).  Miss Levitt goes on to say, “The Health of out planet may be in jeopardy from this newest environmental concern—added to all the others.  Citizens need to call upon government to fund appropriate research and to get industry out of the dialogue.  We ignore this at our own peril now.”

It appears that the first two claims made by the CTIA are unsubstantiated (adequate standards and best scientific thought), but what of the third and most important to all human beings—is our health being protected?  Let’s examine the current independent (non-industry funded) thought and research.

1. We begin with, Dr. William Rea, MD who is the Founder and Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas, and Past President of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine who says, “Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century.  It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it.  The human health stakes are significant.”

2. Dr. George Carlo continues, “During the 1990s’, the program I headed which was funded by the mobile phone industry was intended to fill the safety data gaps caused by the FDA’s error of omission in 1984.  Our work was specifically designed to meet all FDA standards for safety studies, including Good Laboratory Practices and other assurances of scientific rigor.  As such, that work remains the only legitimate safety data on cell phones upon which a direct safety assessment can be made.  Among the more than fifty studies completed in our program, were results indicating: genetic damage in human blood exposed to cell phone radiation; more than a doubling in the risk of rare neuro-epithelial brain tumors among cell phone users compared to non-users; and a statistically significant correlation between the side of the head where cell phones are used and the location of tumors among cell phone users.  Any one of these findings, had they been completed in the context of mandated pre-market testing prior to 1984, would have prevented cell phones from making it into the market place.  At the conclusion of the program in 1999, we recommended to both the cell phone industry and the FDA that a safety warning, similar to that now being proposed in Maine, be issued to cell phone users.  No government or industry protective steps were taken.”

3. Dr. Olle Johansson, PhD, author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on the Immune System declares,  “It is evident that various alterations, including immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons.  There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons.”  Further that, “There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth.”

4. B. Blake Levitt, quoted previously, has this to say about the health effects of RF radiation, “Radiofrequency radiation (RF)—the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used in all things wireless today—is a known immune system suppressor, among other things.”

5. “There is no question EMFs’ have a major effect on neurological functioning.  They slow brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity.  We should minimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levels and prevent deterioration of health.” (Eric Braverman, MD, Brain Researcher, Author of the Edge Effect, and Director of Path Medical in NYC and the Path Foundation, Expert in the brain’s impact on illness and health).

6. “The evidence for risks from prolonged cell phone and cordless phone use is quite strong when you look at people who have used these devices for 10 years or longer, and when they are used mainly on one side of the head.  Recent studies that do not report increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas have not looked at heavy users, use over ten years or longer, and do not look at the part of the brain which would reasonably have exposure to produce a tumor.” (Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, World renowned expert on cell phones, cordless phones, brain tumors, and the safety of wireless radiofrequency and microwave radiation.  Co-authored the BioInitiative Report’s section on Brain Tumors).

7. “Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity.  There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.” (Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology)

8. Paul J Rosch, MD says, “Claims that cell phones pose no health hazards are supported solely by Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits safety standards written by the telecommunications industry decades ago based on studies they funded.  These have made the erroneous assumption that the only harm that could come from cell phone radiofrequency emissions would be from a thermal or heating action, since such non-thermal fields can have no biological effects.  The late Dr. Ross Adey disproved this three decades ago by demonstrating that very similar radiofrequency fields with certain carrier and modulation frequencies that had insufficient energy to produce any heating could cause the release of calcium ions from cells.  Since then, numerous research reports have confirmed that non-thermal fields from cell phones, tower transmitters, power lines, and other man made sources can significantly affect various tissues and physiologic functions.”  In regard to children he feels, “Children are more severely affected because their brains are developing and their skulls are thinner.  A two-minute call can alter brain function in a child for an hour, which is why other countries ban their sale or discourage their use under the age of 18.” (Paul J. Rosch, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College).

It is clear from the information above, that the argument which states that the present FCC standards are adequate to protect the public health is both unfounded and simply untrue.

Consumer Confusion and Federal Pre-Emption

The last two points of the CTIA-The Wireless Association’s memorandum are that a warning on cell phones would confuse the public, and that intervention by Maine State is federally
pre-empted.

The fact that the entire cell phone industry got a literal free pass to actually have to prove product safety before releasing their products to the public, is both highly suspicious and quite irresponsible.  “In addition, the facts suggest that the warning label is a legal imperative.  In both our federal and state legal systems, it is not the responsibility of consumers to prove that cell phones are dangerous in order to elicit protective measures from government and industry.  The product liability litigation and the regulatory systems underscore that the legal, moral and ethical burden of proof has been and continues to be on the cell phone industry to guarantee that their products that have been introduced into commerce are safe.  To this point in time, the cell phone industry has failed to meet their burden of safety proof on any count.  In fact, existing data shows danger, not safety.” (Dr. George Carlo).

The cell phone packaging information (usually in very small print) does advise Blackberry users to keep the phone .98 inches away from the body, while the recommendation for iPhone users is 5/8 of an inch.  One wonders why the industry feels the necessity for any warning after making such confident claims of user safety—is it perhaps to have a disclaimer ready for future law suits?  Could this be an admission that perhaps the phone is not entirely safe”?  It certainly is the time for industry to consider public health and safety for all types and ages of cell phone users, rather than focusing solely on marketing of the products and industry profits.

Finally, when all else fails we come back to federal pre-emption.  Every time this argument is repeated—that an individual, town, Village, municipality or state cannot argue health or safety concerns; it should cause one to scream, “Why?”  What is this industry afraid of?  Isn’t this the country where anyone can argue anything?  Obviously the Telecommunications Industry feels above the Constitution, and both State and Individual rights.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has done a great disservice to consumer protection and safety—it is simply a bad law that every lawmaker with a conscience should look to repeal, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of an enormous and ever growing American population that mistakenly believes their wireless devices are safe.

Summary and Conclusions

The first conclusion has to be a question; “How long can the Telecommunications Industry get away with their smoke and mirrors approach to safety standards and public health?”  What will it finally take for a deceived public to awaken and begin to cry out, “Enough, we cannot take any more lies and deception, we need truth and protection!”  The incredibly arrogant and irresponsible behavior on the part of the Telecommunications Industry which puts the health and safety of the population using cell phones at serious risk is completely incredulous to any person with common sense.  It took almost 50 years to finally recognize and warn the public definitively of the link between cigarettes and many forms of cancer.  We as a nation, and the world community at large may not have the luxury of waiting that long for warnings about the link between heavy cell phone use and brain tumors, as was discovered in the WHO interphone research (all studies that included observations on people who have used phones for a decade, have found significantly increased risk of brain tumors).  Ten years is not that long a period of time, and the possibility of the young children and tweens (targeted for the sales of cell phones) using them today developing brain tumors in their early 20’s, is terrifying to any parent or grandparent aware of the danger.

The unfortunate fact is that the public is in denial—most people do not want to hear the frightening possibilities.  The Industry has done such a good job wooing them into believing that they can no longer do without a cell phone; who then wants to hear that they may develop a brain tumor in 10 years?  Cell phones, iPhones, Blackberrys, etc., are fantastic inventions that do make one’s life easier at times.  Unless you are a baby boomer who remembers when cell phones did not exist (and we got along just fine thank you very much), you cannot imagine a life without one.  The market includes young and old adult men and women, teens, tweens, and with Firefly or Barbie phones, even 5 and 6 year olds.  That is quite a range of age, and an inordinate number of cell phones sold every year.  If the Telecommunications Industry knows the potential danger of this technology, and hides it (or worse claims its safety), how do these people sleep at night?  Do they think their own children, grandchildren and families will somehow be immune to these effects—that they somehow do not live on the same precarious planet we all share?  It is totally unconscionable to study only what makes this technology work—without also learning, educating and warning of the possible health risks and how to make use of the cell phone in the safest manner.  The warning label is a first major step in the right direction.

As the industry has built out, the current generations of cell phones rely on wave lengths that approximate those of microwave ovens.  The major difference is that there is no door on your cell phone to protect you, and keep the waves contained.  Part of the problem is that, “Unfortunately because we can’t see EMR, we tend to think it is not there.  But just because you can’t see radio and television waves, doesn’t mean you don’t hear the sounds or see the pictures.  You can’t see cell phone transmissions but the phones still ring.” (EMR Policy Institute’s, Blind Faith in Wireless Technology—Facts Everyone Should Know).

Why doesn’t the Telecommunications Industry and the Federal Agencies in charge of EMR safety, ever recognize the BioInitiative Report (late 2007), co-edited by Cindy Sage (Sage Associates in California) and David O. Carpenter (MD, Director Institute for Health and the Environment, State University of NY at Albany)?  This report issued by 16 prominent international scientists, clearly states that the current RF standards do not protect the public health, and that a biologically based model needs to be developed before the wireless build-out continues.  This report alone should have been reason enough for the Maine State legislators to vote yes for LD 1706.  Every elected official in the United States should have a complete and thorough knowledge of this report, as well as all the current research on Electromagnetic Fields before voting on any EMR and RF radiation legislation that is put before them—and vote in favor of public health, safety and protection.  “Electromagnetic radiation is a very serious human and environmental health issue that needs immediate attention by Congress.  The BioInitiative Report is a major milestone in understanding the health risks from wireless technology.  Every responsible elected official owes it to his or her constituents to learn and act on its findings and policy recommendations.” (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Esq., Retired Attorney;  Former N.Y.S. Senator and United States Attorney, Southern District of NY; Co-founder, National Resources Defense Council).

The Precautionary Principle is definitely applicable to this debate.  “The Venice Resolution, initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) on June 6, 2008, and now signed by nearly 50 peer reviewed scientists worldwide, states in part, We are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological.  Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before.  We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity.  We strongly advise limited use of cell phones and other devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant exposure standards are developed.” (Professor Livio Giuliani, PhD, Spokesperson, International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, (www.icems.eu ), Deputy Director, Italian National Institute for Worker Protection and Safety, East Venice and South Tyrol; Professor, School of Biochemistry of Camerino University, Italy).

The Precautionary Principle states, “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach should be widely applied to States according to their capability.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

Once again, the warning labels on the cell phones would put the precautionary principle into practice, and at least alert the consumer to the very possible dangers.  “There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments.  Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives.” (Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director, European Environmental Agency, Advisor to European Union Countries under the European Commission).

Representative, Andrea Boland is a visionary, who has studied this issue, and introduced legislation to protect the health of her constituents.  Sadly, Maine and Representative Boland will not be able to claim to be the first State to issue warning labels on cell phones—but as time goes on, and a naïve public becomes informed, they will not be the last State to make this attempt—hopefully with greater success.

One final point made by Abraham R. Liboff, PhD, the research professor at Florida Atlantic University (formerly quoted) is that, “There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm.  The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place.  As this happens, I think, it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.”

It is the responsibility of the scientific field not to throw out the baby with the bathwater—and the immediate and urgent responsibility of the Telecommunications Industry, the FCC and the FDA to finally, and forever, throw out the dirty bath water.  It is time for the Cell Phone Industry to assume a position of truth and transparency about the effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the unsuspecting and trusting consumers in this country, before they are forced to by an environmental crisis with consequences too dire to imagine.