Sunday, July 24, 2016

Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 

Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)


Part II: Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC

Last revision: 7-24-2016
The FCC received more than 900 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.

In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the media and to the public. 
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.

Although fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken our radiation standards instead of strengthen them.
In all, 978 submissions were made to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and November 12, 2015. Many submissions include multiple documents. To access these papers go to the FCC's web site for Proceeding Number 13-84 at http://bit.ly/1aGxQiq.

Part II which appears below contains a list of key research papers and monographs submitted to the FCC and links to these documents which  enable people to download the papers.
(See Part I for key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards, and Part III for a list of 98 scientific experts who have signed resolutions that call for stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation.)
 Published Research Papers

Adams JA, Galloway TS, Mondal D, Esteves SC, Mathews F. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment Int. 2014. 70(2014): 106-112.  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001040814

Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep. 2012;2:312. doi: 10.1038/srep00312. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311532

Balmori A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):191-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.007.

Buchner K, Eger H. Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields—A long-term study under real-life conditions. Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft 24(1):44-57. 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940778

Blackman CF. Treating cancer with amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields: a potential paradigm shift, again? Br J Cancer. 2012 Jan 17;106(2):241-2. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.576. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940777

Chou CK, Guy AW, Kunz LL, Johnson RB, Crowley JJ, Krupp JH. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 1992;13(6):469-96.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60002060833

Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, Machado MC, Zanesco T, Surjan R, Chammas MC, de Souza Rocha M, Morgan D, Cantor A, Zimmerman J, Brezovich I, Kuster N, Barbault A, Pasche B. Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.292.

Cucurachi S1, Tamis WL, Vijver MG, Peijnenburg WJ, Bolte JF, de Snoo GR. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:116-40. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.009.

Davis DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y. Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.03.001.

Everaert J, Bauwens D. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(1):63-72. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940767

Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH, Morgan L, Richter E, Sage C. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. Rev Environ Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):307-17.

Gandhi, OP. Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults. IEEE Spectrum. 3:985-988. July 10, 2015.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001122233

Gandhi, OP, Kang G. Inaccuracies of a plastic pinna SAM for SAR testing of cellular telephones against IEEE and ICNIRP safety guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 52(8):2004-2012. Aug 2004; DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2004.832689.
Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han Y-Y, Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Mar;31(1):34-51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827.

Güler G, Tomruk A, Ozgur E, Sahin D, Sepici A, Altan N, Seyhan N. The effect of radiofrequency radiation on DNA and lipid damage in female and male infant rabbits. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Apr;88(4):367-73. doi: 10.3109/09553002.2012.646349.

Haggerty K. Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations.International Journal of Forestry Research, vol. 2010, Article ID 836278, 7 pages, 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/836278. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940764

Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):75-84. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958029

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link - Part I. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):191-209. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.001.

Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology. 2013 Jun;20(3):211-34. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.002.

Giuliani L, Soffritti M. (Eds.) Non-thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matter. ICEMS Monograph. European J Oncology. Vol. 5. 2010.

Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic hypersensitive Finns: Symptoms, perceived sources and treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):117-22. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.02.001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941823

Kane RC. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(2):195-7.

Kesari KK, Kumar S, Behari J. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2012 Jan;166(2):379-88. doi: 10.1007/s12010-011-9433-6.

Levis AG, Gennaro V, Garbiso S. Business bias as usual: The case of electromagnetic pollution.  In Elsner W, Frigato P, Ramazzotti P eds: “Social Costs Today. Institutional Analyses of the Present Crises”. Routledge (Taylor&Francis Group), London and New York 2012: 225-68.

Levis AG, Minicuci N, Ricci P, Gennaro V, Garbisa S. Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies - how do they arise? Environ Health. 2011 Jun 17;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-59.

Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Res. 18:369-395. 2010.

Li DK, Ferber JR, Odouli R, Quesenberry CP Jr. A prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci Rep. 2012;2:540. doi: 10.1038/srep00540. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311533

Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng CT, Moskowitz JM. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5565-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366.

Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Salford LG. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):103-12. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.001.

Nittby H, Grafström G, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Brun A, Persson BR, Salford LG. Review. Radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):103-26. doi: 10.1080/15368370802061995.

Odaci E, Bas O, Kaplan S. Effects of prenatal exposure to a 900 MHz electromagnetic field on the dentate gyrus of rats: a stereological and histopathological study. Brain Res. 2008 Oct 31;1238:224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.013. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311527

Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.

Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic fields bioeffects. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e62663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062663. Print 2013. Erratum in: PLoS One.

Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks. 3:455-461.1997. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941992

Rea WJ, Pan Y, Fenyves EJ, Sujisawa I, Suyama H, Samadi N, Ross GH. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. Journal of Bioelectricity. 10(1&2):242-256. 1991.

Sivani S, Sudarsanam D. Im pacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from
cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review. Biology and Medicine 4(4):202-216. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940779

Tseng AS, Beane WS, Lemire JM, Masi A, Levin M. Induction of vertebrate regeneration by a transient sodium current. J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 29;30(39):13192-200. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3315-10.2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940761

Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S, Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. Posted online on July 7, 2015. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001122232

Monographs and Papers

Austrian Medical Association. Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome): Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group. Vienna, Austria. Mar 2012.

Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons. Addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies *Worldwide (NGIC-I 147-101-98) Study. Undated classified document released by the Dept of the Army Dec 13, 2006. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311621

BioInitiative Working Group. Sage C, Carpenter DO. (Eds). BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for  Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation. www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012. (29 chapter authors)

Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Doc. 12608. May 6, 2011. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311504

Dart P. Alterations in Hormone Physiology. Undated.

Dart P. Cell Phones and Risk of Brain Tumor. Undated.

Dart P. Consequences of Chronic Microwave RF Exposure. Undated.

Dart P. Effects of Microwave RF Exposure on Fertility. Undated.

Dart P. Health Effects of Microwave Radio Exposures: Acute Symptoms from RF Exposure. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940904

Dart P. Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures. Undated.

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A. Public Health Implications of the Proposed Cell Phone Transmission Tower at Oakway Golf Course. Undated. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311419

Dart P, Cordes K, Elliott A, Knackstedt J, Morgan J, Wible P, Baker S. Biological and health effects of microwave radiofrequency transmissions: A review of the research literature. A report to Eugene Water and Electric Board. Jun 4, 2013.

European Environment Agency. Statement on Mobile Phones for Conference on Cell Phones and Health: Science and Public Policy Questions, Washington, 15 September 2009. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311538

Frey A. Opinion: Cell Phone Health Risk? The Scientist. Sep 25, 2012.

Frey AH. On the Safety of Cell Phone Radiation. British Medical Journal. Nov 7, 2011.

Glaser ZR. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation: Research Report No. 2 Revised. Naval Medical Research Institute. Oct 4, 1971. Second printing w/ revisions. Apr 20, 1972. (Contains more than 2,000 references.) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311479

Goldsworthy A. The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields. Mar 2012.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311211

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Chapter 21. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk: early warnings early actions?  In Emerging issues: Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation. European Environment Agency Report 1/2013. Jan 2013. Pp. 541-561. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941294

Kane RC. Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective. New York: Vantage Press. 2001. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941881

Kucinich D. 112th H.R. 6358. A bill to examine, label, and communicate adverse human biological effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields from cell phones and other wireless devices. Congress. 2d Session. Aug 3, 2012.

Lai H. Exhibit D: An Update on Neurological Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 169 pp.

Lai H. Exhibit E: An Update on the Genetic Effects of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Mar, 2014. 94 pp.

Leszczynski, D. FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP should tighten safety standards. Washington Times Communities. Apr 9, 2013.

Markova E, Malmgren L, Belyaev I. Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells Stronger than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environ Health Perspect. 118(3):394-399. Mar 2010. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311529

Moskowitz JM. Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed”. Aug 15, 2012 (rev. Aug 24, 2012).

Moskowitz JM. Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S.: A compilation of original press releases from April 2012 – November 2013. Nov 5, 2013.

Sierck  PH. Smart Meter—What We Know: Measurement Challenges and Complexities. A Technical Paper to Clarify RF Radiation Emissions and Measurement Methodologies. Encinitas, CA: ET&T Indoor Environmental Surveys. Dec 2011.

U.S. Department of the Army. Bioeffects of Nonlethal Weapons. Feb 17, 1998 (Unclassified Dec 13, 2006). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311476.pdf

U.S. E.P.A. Electric and Magnetic Fields: An EPA Perspective on Research Needs and Priorities for Improving Health Risk Assessment. Washington: EPA. Dec 1992. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311520

U.S. EPA. Letter from Norbert Hankin to Janet Newton re: inadequacy of FCC radiofrequency guidelines. Jul 16, 2002. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022311328.pdf

Wargo J, Taylor HS, Alderman N, Wargo L. Cell Phones: Technology | Exposures | Health Effects. Environment & Human Health, Inc. 2012. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311531

Wisz, J. Potential Hazards of Cellular Phone Radiation: Responses to Fear and Uncertainty. Harvard University. 2002. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001335019


Wednesday, July 20, 2016

FCC Open Letter Calls for Moratorium on New Commercial Applications of Radiofrequency Radiation

Today the FCC sent me a recommendation to submit my comments on the Spectrum Frontiers proposal (see July 14 open letter below) to an official proceeding on this issue. 


What's the point since they already decided to approve the proposal?  Besides they rarely ever process submissions to these proceedings (e.g., see http://bit.ly/1ICtEUA).



From:     DoNotReply@fcc.gov
To:          jmm@berkeley.edu
Date:      Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: CIMS00006050198 -- Moratorium -- FCC's Spectrum Frontiers Proceeding 5G

Dear Consumer,

Thank you for your e-mail to Chairman Tom Wheeler expressing views regarding Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services. On behalf of Chairman Wheeler, I want to assure you that your input will help inform the Commission's future decisions.

There currently is an open proceeding about this matter:  GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket No. 15-256, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112 and IB Docket No. 97-95.  You may wish to add public comments to this proceeding's record.  If so, you can search for the proceeding and submit your comments though this portal:  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs

We appreciate your reaching out to Chairman Wheeler and sharing your views about this issue.


--


FCC Votes Today on Opening Additional Wireless Spectrum for 5G


Suzanne Potter, Public News Service, July 14, 2016


The FCC will vote today on opening up more of the spectrum for new 5G wireless technology. 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Today the Federal Communications Commission votes on a plan to open a new part of the wireless spectrum to encourage the development of the next generation of cell phones and wireless devices called 5G. 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says this will allow U.S. companies to be the first to deploy the faster technology. 

But Joel Moskowitz, an expert on radio frequency emissions with UC Berkeley, says there's barely any research on the health effects of 3G and 4G, much less 5G. He notes that a recent comprehensive government study showed a small but significant percentage of male rats exposed to lifelong 2G cell phone radiation developed cancerous or precancerous cells.

"I don't think we should blindly plow ahead and unleash these new technologies on the public because we're experimenting with the public,” he stresses. “We'd be saturating people's environments with this new form of man-made radiation."

Current wireless devices range between 2.4 and 5 gigahertz of exposure. The FCC says the next generation would operate between 28 and 71 gigahertz. 

Moskowitz says 5G technology is more line-of-sight than current devices, so it would require millions of small transmitters just about everywhere, including on existing utility poles.

Wheeler has called for limits on local cities' authority to regulate the siting of these transmitters. 

John Terell is vice president for policy and legislation for the California chapter of the American Planning Association, which represents city planners.

"We want to balance the rights of residents to an uncluttered and safe environment around their residence or business with the expansion of cellular telephone service, which the organization strongly supports," he says.

The Telecom Act of 1996 took away state and local governments' rights to limit antennas on health or environmental grounds. 

The health advocacy group ElectromagneticHealth.org says it is essential for that section of the Telecom Act to be repealed. The hearing is being live streamed on the FCC website. 
http://bit.ly/29HKBR0

--


FCC hails 'monumental' vote opening new spectrum for 5G and IoT

Grant Gross, Network World, Jul 14, 2016

"The US is the first nation to set aside spectrum for 5G services"

"The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted to open nearly 11 gigahertz of high-band spectrum to new wireless uses, hailing it as a "monumental step" that will greatly increase network capacity for 5G and the Internet of Things."

"The FCC on Thursday adopted new rules for spectrum above 24 GHz, in a vote that Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler described as one of the most important decisions commissioners will make this year.”

"The FCC's decision opens up 3.85 GHz of licensed spectrum and 7 GHz of unlicensed spectrum to new wireless uses. The new licensed spectrum is in the 28GHz and 37GHz bands, and the new unlicensed band is from 64 to 71 GHz.

In addition to opening up the 11 GHz of spectrum, the FCC will seek public comments on making use of another 18 GHz of spectrum in eight additional high-frequency bands." 


--

Open Letter to the FCC
July 11, 2016

Dear Commissioners:
In light of your upcoming vote on the proposed Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, I wish to draw your attention to the International EMFScientist Appeal. The Appeal, which has been signed by 220 scientists who published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health, calls for stronger regulatory standards for radio frequency (RF) emissions.

I also wish to remind you that the FCC has yet to act on NOI #13-84, "Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies," issued in 2013 and a similar NOI issued in 2003. The 2013 NOI has received more than 900 submissions--almost all call for stronger regulation of RF radiation. Links to key submissions can be found on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.
Finally, the General Accountability Office issued a report entitled, “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed” (GAO-12-771: Published: Jul 24, 2012. Publicly Released: Aug 7, 2012. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771). The report made the following recommendations which have yet to be addressed by the FCC:

FCC should formally reassess and, if appropriate, change its current RF energy exposure limit and mobile phone testing requirements related to likely usage configurations, particularly when phones are held against the body. FCC noted that a draft document currently under consideration by FCC has the potential to address GAO’s recommendations.”
The FCC's RF standards were adopted 20 years ago. Many scientists believe these standards are obsolete because they do not protect the population from established, non-thermal risks from RF radiation exposure. Thus, to ensure public health and safety, the FCC should commission an independent review of the biologic and health research to determine whether the RF standards should be modified before allowing additional spectrum to be used for new commercial applications.

Sincerely,
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Pregnancy & Wireless Radiation Risks

Grassroots Environmental Edu Wireless Radiation / Doctors Caution Pregnant Women About Wireless Radiation Health Risks (PRNewsFoto/Grassroots Environmental Educati)


Feb 9, 2016


French cell phone manufacturer warns pregnant women and teens
about cell phone radiation

The French phone manufacturer WIKO states in their manual for the Pulp 4G smartphone (pp. 21-22):


"The maximum SAR value tested on this device when used in its normal position at the ear is 0.114 W/kg and 0.387 W/kg when used close to the body, at a minimum distance of 1.5 cm. It complies with the rules on exposure to radio frequencies when used in its normal position at the ear or at a minimum distance of 1.5 cm from the body. The device uses a high-quality network connection for transmitting files, data and messages. On occasion, the transmission of files or messages may be delayed until the connection is available. When this is the case, be sure to follow the instructions regarding the separation distance for establishing the transmission. If you use a case, belt-clip or holder for carrying the phone, it must not contain any metal and should be kept at a minimum distance of 1.5 cm from your body.

*The SAR limit for mobile devices is 2.0 watts / kilogram (W/kg) averaged over ten grams of body tissue. SAR values may vary according to the standards for reporting information that are in force in different countries.  [My note: This standard is used in France and many other countries. In the U.S. the limit is 1.6 watts / kilogram averaged over one gram of body tissue.]

Tips for Reducing Exposure Levels

We recommend that you use your phone in good reception conditions in order to reduce the amount of radiation received. It is advisable to limit the amount of time you use the phone in underground car parks and when travelling by car or train, etc.

Reception conditions are indicated by the bars that are displayed on your phone: the more bars there are, the better the reception quality.

We recommend that you use the hands-free kit to reduce exposure to radiation.

To reduce the adverse effects of prolonged radiation exposure, we advise teenagers to hold the phone away from their lower abdomen, and that pregnant women hold the phone at a distance from their stomach."

Copyright © 2015 WIKO


http://data.wikomobile.com/documents/fichiers/f404d5a6f9dbd799184f05010cac9cd2.pdf#page=21



Recent studies that found adverse effects on offspring 
from prenatal exposure to wireless radiation
(Updated: Jul 20, 2016)


spontaneous abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25937931
spontaneous abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25877464
miscarriage: http://bit.ly/1Iwye5z
preterm birth: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23905441

liver: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26084117
liver: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27427155
testes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095929


July 1, 2015

Doctors Caution Pregnant Women About Wireless Radiation Health Risks

Over one hundred medical doctors and scientific experts from around the world agree: the risks of exposure to RF radiation from wireless devices for pregnant women and their unborn children are real, and women have a Right To Know.

NEW YORK, July 1, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- More than one hundred medical doctors, scientists and public health experts from around the world have signed a Joint Statement advising pregnant women to take simple precautions to protect themselves and their babies from wireless radiation. The Statement is part of a national right-to-know campaign called the BabySafe Project created by two non-profit organizations to inform pregnant women about the issue.

"The wireless world may be convenient, but it's not without risks," says Patricia Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education and co-creator of the BabySafe Project. "When more than one hundred of the world's leading medical doctors and researchers on wireless radiation say we have enough evidence for women to take protective action, we think women should know about it."

The project is based on recent scientific studies suggesting that radiation from wireless devices is capable of interfering with the tiny electrical impulses that help synapses connect in a developing brain. Researchers at Yale University have been able to demonstrate that the brains of laboratory mice exposed to pulsed radio frequency radiation in utero were wired differently from those of the mice who were not exposed, resulting in behavioral differences that include poorer memory and symptoms that resemble ADHD in children.

The Yale study builds on more than twenty years of research and hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed studies showing that exposure to radiation from wireless devices can have non-thermal, biological effects on humans, including DNA strand breaks and other impacts not previously known. 

The authors of many of those studies are among those calling for precautions.

"The fetus is perhaps the most vulnerable to these types of insults, when the brain is just forming, when all of the organ systems are just beginning to develop," says Dr. Hugh Taylor, Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Professor of Women's Health at Yale University, and lead author of the study. "There's essentially no downside to being cautious and protecting your baby. Why not do it?"

SOURCE Grassroots Environmental Education

http://bit.ly/1GMY4Nk

June 3, 2014

The following joint statement on pregnancy and wireless radiation is part of the Baby Safe Project, a new public awareness initiative designed to inform women about the links between pregnancy and wireless radiation.  The statement was signed by 44 physicians and scientists from 13 nations, and by 13 educators who have studied wireless radiation health effects.

The project is a joint initiative of two environmental health non-profit organizations: Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust.  

A video of the press conference that launched the Baby Safe Project and supplementary resources are available at http://bit.ly/1kqJUur/.  


Dr. Hugh Taylor from the Yale University School of Medicine, Dr. Devra Davis from the Environmental Health Trust, and Dr. Maya Shetreat-Klein, a pediatric neurologist who treats autistic children, made presentations at the press conference and answered questions from journalists.

Dr. Taylor discussed his peer-reviewed, experimental research on pregnant mice that were exposed to cell phone radiation. In his study prenatal exposure to cell phone radiation resulted in decreased memory and increased hyperactivity in the offspring. A dose-response relationship was observed between the amount of fetal exposure to cell phone radiation and altered brain activity in the offspring. Dr. Taylor recommends that pregnant women limit their exposure to cell phone radiation.

Dr. Davis discussed the history of tobacco and asbestos in the U.S. to argue for a precautionary approach to reducing risks from "possibly carcinogenic" environmental exposures like wireless radiation (as determined by the World Health Organization). She summarized peer-reviewed, experimental research on prenatal exposure to microwave radiation conducted by Dr. Nesrin Seyhan which found DNA damage in mice and by Dr. Suleyman Kaplan which found damage to brain cells in the hippocampus as well as adverse behavioral effects in the offspring.  Dr. Davis provided recommendations on how to reduce exposure to cell phone and Wi-Fi radiation.

Dr. Shetreat-Klein discussed peer-reviewed observational research that found prenatal exposure to wireless radiation associated with adverse behavioral changes in children. She advises pregnant women to keep cell phones away from their bodies.

In response to audience questions, Dr. Davis discussed the need for research funding. She mentioned that the Environmental Health Trust and Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley are calling for an annual, one dollar fee per cell phone to be devoted to training and research on wireless radiation and health.  Dr. Taylor reported that his patients appreciate receiving precautionary information regarding the need to reduce exposure to wireless radiation during pregnancy. Dr. Davis discussed recommendations from the U.S. General Accountability Office and the American Academy of Pediatrics that call on the FCC to test cell phones in a realistic manner. Finally, Dr. Davis discussed the potential product liability faced by the cell phone industry due to adverse health impacts, an issue which she addressed in her book on cell phone radiation, Disconnect.

Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation

We join together as physicians, scientists and educators to express our concern about the risk that wireless radiation poses to pregnancy and to urge pregnant women to limit their exposures.

We recognize that the exquisitely delicate systems that direct the development of human life are vulnerable to environmental insults, and that even minute exposures during critical windows of development may have serious and life-long consequences.

We know that the scientific process demands a thorough and exhaustive examination of the possible impact of wireless radiation on health; however, we believe substantial evidence of risk, rather than absolute proof of harm, must be the trigger for action to protect public health.

We call on the research community to conduct more studies to identify the mechanisms by which a fetus could be affected by wireless radiation exposures. We call on our elected leaders to support such research and to advance policies and regulations that limit exposures for pregnant women. We call on industry to implement and explore technologies and designs that will reduce radiation exposures until such research is carried out.

We affirm our role as health and science professionals to inform the public about the potential dangers associated with early-life exposures to wireless radiation, and invite all professionals engaged in obstetric, pediatric, and environmental health advocacy to join us in our quest to ensure the safety and health of future generations.

Signatories  
(Affiliations listed for identification purposes only)

Mikko Ahonen, PhD,
 University of Tampere, Finland

Jennifer Armstrong, MD, Ottawa Environmental Health
Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University
David Brown, PhD, Public Health Toxicologist, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Lois Brustman, MD, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist, St. Luke's - Roosevelt Hospital Center
Sheila Bushkin-Bedient, MD, Concerned Health Professionals of New York
David Carpenter, MD, School of Public Health, University at Albany
Richard Clapp, DSc, MPH, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health, Boston University
Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting Scholar, University of California at Berkeley
Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Larysa Dyrszka, MD, Pediatrician, New York
Dr. Elizabeth Evans, MA, (Cantab) MBBS (London), DRCOG,  UK
Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego School of Medicine
Oleg Gregoriev, DrSc, PhD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Magda Havas, PhD,  Associate Professor of Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Gunnar Heuser, MD, University of California at Los Angeles (retired)
Olle Johansson, PhD, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Cynthia Johnson-McKay, MD, Columbia University
Süleyman Kaplan, PhD, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
Henry Lai, PhD,  Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory, University of Washington
Michael Lerner, PhD, President, Commonweal
Luana Licata, PhD, University of Rome Tor Vergata
Don Maisch, PhD, www.emfacts.com, Australia
Asish Mehta, MD, MCh, DNB, Neurological Surgeon Mumbai, India
Anthony Miller, MD, School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada
Joel Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley
Hildor Palsdottir, PhD, School of Medicine, New York University
Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, University of California at Berkeley
Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, School of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco
Lisa Ridgway, MD, Pediatrician
Aviva Romm, MD, Family Physician, Boston
Annie SascoMD, DrPH, University of Bordeaux, France
Stephen Sinatra, MD, FACC, CNS, CBT
Maya Shetreat-Klein, MD, Pediatric Neurologist, Bronx, New York
Colin L. Soskolne, PhD, University of Canberra, Australia
Ken Spaeth, MD, MPH, Hofstra University, North Shore--LIJ Health System
Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University – Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
Anne Steinemann, PhD, University of California at San Diego
Hugh Taylor, MD, Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale-New Haven Hospital
Leonardo Trasande, MD,  Institute of Environmental Medicine, Langone Medical Center, New York University
Lucy Waletzky, MD, Psychiatrist, Sleepy Hollow, New York
John Wargo, PhD, Professor of Risk Analysis, Environmental Policy, and Political Science, Yale University
John West, MD, Surgeon, RadNet
Jingduan Yang, MD, Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia

Wafaa Aborashed,
 Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities
Nancy Alderman, Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Mary Beth Brangan & James Heddle, Ecological Options Network (EON)
Giorgio Cinciripini, Italian Network of No-Electrosmog NGOs
Frank Clegg, Canadians For Safe Technology
Desiree Jaworski, Center for Safer Wireless
B. Blake Levitt, former New York Times contributor, medical/science journalist, author
Ellen Marks, California Brain Tumor Association
L. Lloyd Morgan,  Environmental Health Trust
Janet Newton, EMRadiation Institute
Camilla Rees, MBA, ElectromagneticHealth.org
Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates; Co-Editor, BioInitiative 2012 Report

--

For more information about wireless radiation reproductive health effects and effects on children

The Baby Safe Project
http://bit.ly/1rDKjiq

Environmental Health Trust
http://bit.ly/1kjkaRP


Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
http://www.saferemr.com/


Related news releases from Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children
http://www.prlog.org/12269207

Children's Cell Phone Use May Increase Their Risk of ADHD
http://www.prlog.org/12110138


MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study

Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm
http://www.prlog.org/12026867Cell Phone Radiation Damages Sperm
http://www.prlog.org/11911996

Magnetic Field Exposure Before Birth May Contribute to Childhood Obesity
http://www.prlog.org/1193609

Belgium Adopts New Regulations to Promote Cell Phone Radiation Safety

French Health Agency Recommends Children and Vulnerable Groups Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Exposure
http://www.prlog.org/12226630