Friday, September 19, 2014

iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels and Separation Distance

What are the SAR levels for Apple’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus? 
What is the minimum body separation distance?  How should the consumer use this information?

For both Apple iPhone 6 models, the SAR level for the head is 1.18. When using a body-worn accessory to keep the phone five millimeters from the body, the SAR level is 1.18 for the iPhone 6 and 1.19 for the iPhone 6 Plus. (1, 2) Thus, the minimum separation distance that the phones should be kept from the body is approximately two-tenths of an inch (i.e., 5 millimeters).

Like most cell phones, both new iPhone models have several transmitters that can simultaneously emit microwave radiation, which includes cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth radiation. When all these transmitters are turned on, the SAR value is 1.58 for the iPhone 6 and 1.59 for the iPhone 6 Plus. (1, 2) These levels are very close to the legal limit which is 1.60. To reduce exposure to microwave radiation, turn off any transmitters not in use.

What does this information mean to the consumer?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires all cell phone models to be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. The SAR is a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head or the body. It is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR, which is measured in watts per kilogram, represents the maximum amount of energy absorbed in any one gram of tissue in the test model. Phones sold in the U.S. typically range in SAR values from about 0.20 up to the 1.60 legal limit. (3, 4)

The SAR test, adopted in 1996 by the FCC, was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2012. (5) The test does not reflect those who currently use cell phones, nor does it correspond to the way people use them. Today many children are cell phone users -- the child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. Moreover, the artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, earrings, or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond what the laboratory-generated SAR reflects. (5)

The FCC assumes that consumers will carry their cell phones in a manufacturer-approved holder that keeps the phone a minimum distance from the body. However, people do not reliably keep their phone away from their body in a cell phone holder. For the SAR test, the FCC allows the manufacturer to choose the separation distance between the cell phone and the test model as long as consumers are informed about the minimum distance tested. Few consumers are aware of the manufacturer’s recommended minimum body separation from their cell phone because this information is often difficult to find. Thus, most consumers are in the dark about precautions they can take to keep their exposure to microwave radiation below the legal limit.

To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin. The cell phone is not tested directly against the body because most cell phones would fail the SAR test as the radiation absorption increases dramatically when the cell phone is close to the body.

Is the legal limit sufficient to protect the cell phone user’s health?

U.S. Federal policies and practices lead the public to believe that all legally-marketed cell phones are safe, and that a cell phone's SAR doesn't matter as long as it meets the legal limit: 1.6 watts per kilogram. (3, 4)

The Environmental Working Group and other scientific experts point out that the SAR only measures the maximum microwave absorption from cell phone use that perfectly matches laboratory conditions. The SAR is not a good indicator of one’s cumulative microwave exposure under natural conditions.  The evidence suggests that how one uses the phone (e.g., hands-free) and one’s cell phone carrier actually matters a great deal more than the phone’s SAR level.  (4, 6, 7)

The SAR standard was developed to protect users only from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation (i.e., the thermal effect). (5) The SAR limit does not protect users from non-thermal effects of cell phone radiation.

Yet, hundreds of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable any chemical toxins in the blood system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10)  Largely based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation possibly carcinogenic in humans (Group 2B). (11)
Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive health damage and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder). (12, 13)

Based upon the weight of the evidence from several decades of research including thousands of peer-reviewed published studies, many experts worldwide have signed declarations calling upon government to adopt stronger radiation standards to protect consumers from low intensity, non-thermal exposures from radiation associated with wireless communications, and to alert consumers about how to reduce their risk of harm. (14 -16)

For tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation, see Electromagnetic Radiation Safety (http://www.saferemr.com). (17)


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley


References

(1) Apple, Inc. “BCG-E2816A by Apple Inc. for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios.” Report No. 14U17673-S1C submitted to FCC.  Aug 15, 2014.

iPhone 6 SAR Levels (in watts per kilogram)
Head = 1.18
Body-worn Accessory = 1.18
Wireless Router (Hotspot) = 1.18
Simultaneous Transmission (Head) = 1.51
Simultaneous Transmission (Body) = 1.58

(2)  Apple, Inc. “BCG-E2817A by Apple Inc. for Cellular Phone with Bluetooth and WLAN Radios.” Report No. 14U17676-S1C submitted to FCC. Aug 15, 2014.

iPhone 6 Plus SAR Levels (in watts per kilogram)
Head = 1.18
Body-worn Accessory = 1.19
Wireless Router (Hotspot) = 1.19
Simultaneous Transmission (Head) = 1.59
Simultaneous Transmission (Body) = 1.54

(3) FCC. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

(4) FCC. “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.” Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

(5) Joel Moskowitz. “"Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: 'Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed'.:” http://www.saferemr.com/2013/01/commentary-gao-2012-report-on-mobile.html

(6) Wolchover N. Radiation Risk: Are Some Cellphones More Dangerous Than Others? Life's Little Mysteries. June 23, 2011. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1550-radiation-risk-some-cell-phones-more-dangerous-than-others.html

(7) Environmental Working Group. EWG’s Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use: Where is EWG's cell phone database? August 27, 2013.
http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/where_database

(8) Giuliani L. Soffritti M. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Bologna, Italy: National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer. 2010. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm

(9) Joel Moskowitz.LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users.” Sep 20, 2013. http://www.prlog.org/12215083

(10) Joel Moskowitz. “Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use: Study. http://www.prlog.org/12216483

(11) Joel Moskowitz. “Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published.” http://www.prlog.org/12125230

(12) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm.” Nov 19, 2012. http://www.prlog.org/12026867

(13) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children.“ http://www.prlog.org/12269207

(14) Joel Moskowitz. “Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone.html

(15) Joel Moskowitz. “Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_43.html

(16) Joel Moskowitz. “Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_4.html

(17) Joel Moskowitz. Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation  (one page handout). Undated. http://www.saferemr.com.


Welcome to EMR Safety

News releases:  PRLog
Twitter updates: @berkeleyprc


   


Mobilize, a Film about Cell Phone Radiation

Best Documentary Award, 
California Independent Film Festival  

Mobilize, a feature-length documentary about cell phone radiation premiered on September 12, 2014. The film won the Slate Award for Best Documentary Feature at the 17th Annual California Independent Film FestivalInformation about the film festival is available at http://bit.ly/1oERxy9 and at http://bit.ly/MobilizePremiere.

The film explores the potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation and examines recent scientific research and the challenges politicians face trying to adopt precautionary legislation. Featuring interviews with experts, wireless industry representatives and prominent politicians, the film illuminates how industry’s economic and political influence can undermine public health. 

The film was directed by Kevin Kunze and produced by Ellen Marks, Joel Moskowitz, and Devra Davis. 

The film will be available on DVD in October: http://bit.ly/TenYZt.


Short clips from the film:
Overview

Latest News Releases

"Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation" (one page handout)
   Original English version: http://bit.ly/1kVHRug
   Italian translation (by Associazione Elettrosmog Sicilia):  http://bit.ly/Y9E4Wy

"Cellphones and Health" by Joel Moskowitz (Oct/Nov, 2013)
http://www.saferemr.com/2013/09/cellphones-and-health_9.html

TelĂ©fonos Celulares y Salud por Dr. Joel Moskowitz 
http://www.saferemr.com/2014/02/telefonos-celulares-y-salud.html

"New Federal Policy Needed for Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Safety"
Prepared for "Oakland Voices: A Town Hall on Our Right to Communicate" (Jan 9, 2014)
http://bit.ly/1cH1Yvf

"Cell Phones and Cell Biology: Are We Selling Out?"
By David Katz, M.D., Huffington Post (Dec 12, 2013)
Based upon my press releases.
http://huff.to/1gtpcsX

Radio Programs

"Your Call: What do you want to know about cell phone radiation?"
Host: Rose Aguilar, Your Call, KALW - FM, Sep 16, 2014  (49 minutes)
Guests: Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley; Kevin Kunze, "Mobilize" Director
http://bit.ly/Yourcallcellphone

"Mobilize: A Film on Cell Phone Radiation”
Host:  Brian Edwards-Tiekert, Upfront, KPFA - FM, Sep 11, 2014 (25 minutes; starts at 33:50)
Guest: Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley

"Dr. Joel Moskowitz Joins the Show"  (52 minutes)
Boil the Frog Slowly Radio and Patient Safety Radio, Aug 1, 2014
http://bit.ly/boilfrogslowly

"Wireless Revolution: Research/Policy Implications" 
Host: Layna Berman, Your Own Health and Fitness, KPFA - FM, Apr 22, 2014 (1:00-2:00 PM)
Guest: Joel M. Moskowitz, UC Berkeley


http://bit.ly/QwhjbB

"Today on Your Call: What are 'best practices' for using digital devices?"
Host: Ali Budner, Your Call, KALW - FM, Mar 13, 2014  (53 minutes)
Guests:  Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
                Levi Felix, founder The Digital Detox and director of Camp Grounded

"Cell Phones and Health"
KPFA-FM, Jan 31, 2014 (1:00-1:30 PM)
Moderator: Laura Garzon Chica
Guests:  Josh Hart, Director, StopSmartMeters
               Joel Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
               Kevin Kunze, Director, "Mobilize"
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/99666

"What Do You Need to Know about Cellphone Radiation?"
An interview on KAHI radio news (Nov 22, 2013) (11 minutes).

Transcript:      http://bit.ly/1heyOFv
Download at:  http://bit.ly/J2XAf9 

"Everything you and your 'Friends and Neighbors' need to know about cellphone radiation and how to protect yourselves"
A 2-part program aired on Calvary Radio Network in Dec, 2013 (50 minutes).

Download at:     http://bit.ly/18xbulT

Community Presentations

"Mobile Phone Radiation and Health: Recent Research and Policy Developments"
Joel Moskowitz, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley (Jun 19, 2014)
Slides:     http://bit.ly/1lFp9vc

"Brain Tumor Risk from Wireless Phone Use: Recent Research and Policy Implications"
Joel Moskowitz, Commonwealth Club of California (Part II: Dec 9, 2013) 
Slides:    http://bit.ly/1k9PeRQ
Video:     http://bit.ly/1kxkpto or http://bit.ly/1hx3t5j

"Cell Phones & Brain Tumors What Does the Science Show?"
Joel Moskowitz, Commonwealth Club of California (Part I: Nov 18, 2010)
Slides:                       http://bit.ly/W5tNCN
Video (15 minutes): http://vimeo.com/17266112

"Expert Roundtable: Skeptical about Cell Phones and Health?"
Forum at Commonwealth Club of California (Dec 9, 2013)
Other presentations will be available soon. 
Agenda : http://bit.ly/1aqek9K

Monday, September 1, 2014

Latest News Releases


iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels and Separation Distance
http://www.prlog.org/12373670


CDC Retracts its Precautionary Health Warning about Cell Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12362077

CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12359483

FCC: 98 Scientific Experts Demand Stronger Regulation of Cellphone Radiation
http://prlog.org/12355167

Scientists Call on Government to Protect Public from Wireless Radiation Exposure
http://bit.ly/ScientificDeclaration

Hybrid and Electric Automobiles Should Be Re-Designed to Reduce Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation

Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC regarding Adverse Impact of Cell Tower Radiation on Wildlife
http://www.prlog.org/12299815

Cell Phone Radiation Label Bill Passes Maine Legislature Before Dying
http://www.prlog.org/12299052


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

The Top Cell Phone Radiation Safety Stories of 2013
http://www.prlog.org/12262295

Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation: Key submissions to the Federal Communications Commission
http://www.prlog.org/12245111

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

Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use
http://www.prlog.org/12216483

LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users

Cell Phone Use, Acoustic Neuroma and Cancer of the Pituitary Gland
http://www.prlog.org/12135511

Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published
http://www.prlog.org/12125230

More News Releases

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Berkeley Cell Phone Radiation Warning Ordinance

Precaution or Paranoia? Berkeley May Require Cancer Warning Stickers for Cell Phones

Sabin Russell, California Magazine, August 19, 2014

[An indepth article about the science and  politics underlying the proposed Berkeley cell phone ordinance--research on cancer risk and fetal effects on neurological development is discussed.]

Just as the world supply of mobile phones is reaching one unit for every human being on Earth, here comes Berkeley, with a warning: These things could be hazardous to your health ...
Stakes in this argument are extraordinarily high. Cell phones are radio transmitters that are not only ubiquitous, they are close at hand: We press them against our ears. We store them in our pants pockets. Women slip them into their bras. Teens sleep with them under their pillows. With the adult market nearly saturated, the big growth opportunity for mobile devices is children.
“In our so­ci­ety, the pre­cau­tion­ary prin­ciple does not res­on­ate well. We want to see a body count first.” 
The CTIA statement builds a case that the “scientific consensus” is firmly in their camp. In fact, the two-word term appears 28 times in their filing. They quote numerous federal agencies asserting a lack of evidence that cell phone radiation can cause harm. Among them is the FCC itself, the FDA, and most notably, the National Cancer Institute, which states on its web site that “there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.
Moskowitz dismisses the endorsements. “Industry and government agencies seem to be in denial, and have been in that frame of mind for decades,’’ he says.
... Cell-phone makers in their fine print do advise keeping these devices about a half-inch away from your body, although there is no mention of it in an industry-written parents’ guide to cell phone safety.
And meanwhile, let’s face it: We just love these little appliances. They are changing the way we live. If they are changing the way we die, we’ll find out, eventually.
http://bit.ly/1oXtcjX

Also see:
Eric Schultz. Killer App: A Berkeley researcher weighs in on cell phones and cancer. California Magazine. Winter 2010.  http://bit.ly/1kSu5z5

--

Berkeley pushes for cancer warning stickers on cell phones

Carolyn Jones, SFGate, Jul 15, 2014 (updated)

Print version: "CELL PHONE ORDINANCE: Berkeley will fight for cancer warnings," San Francisco Chronicle, Jul 15, 2014, pg. A - 1

Berkeley, undaunted by abandoned efforts in San Francisco, is attempting to become the first city in the nation to require retailers to put stickers on cell phone packaging warning people that the devices may emit cancer-causing radiation ...
Joel Moskowitz, head of UC Berkeley's Center for Family and Community Health, has no such indecision. He's been studying the issue since 2009, and has concluded that cell phones are "one of the top emerging public health risks." 
Studies cited by the cell phone industry are outdated, he said. Newer and more complex wireless technology, coupled with people spending increasing amounts of time on their phones, is almost certain to lead to an uptick in brain cancer, he said.
"It's just a matter of time," he said. "The evidence is a lot more compelling than it has been."
Radiation from cell phones penetrates the skin and skull and absorbs into the brain tissue, having an adverse affect on cells, he said. Phone radiation can also affect sperm count among men who carry phones in their pockets, he said.
Consumers should wear headsets, use the speaker feature and otherwise keep phones away from their bodies, he said.
"With cell phones, distance is your friend," he said.
Pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable, he said.
A warning sticker should advise consumers that some studies link cell phones to rare but serious cancers, and they should take precautions, he said ...


Other media coverage


Seattle Times (SF Chronicle)


WCVB News (ABC5 Boston) (SF Chronicle)

Yahoo! Screen (CBS)

Friday, August 8, 2014

Major breakthrough in cellphone industry product liability lawsuit in USA

My comments:  This superior court ruling enables the discovery phase of the trial to begin.  Perhaps, we will soon learn whether the wireless industry has been covering up knowledge of the health risks of mobile phone use. 

The insurance industry has refused to provide product liability insurance on cell phones primarily due to this concern as they fear that cell phone litigation may turn out like tobacco or asbestos litigation did with huge punitive awards.


My most recent press release, "FCC: 98 Scientific Experts Demand Stronger Regulation of Cellphone Radiation" makes the case that the scientific community has known for many years about the health risks of mobile phone radiation. The wireless industry, however, has confused government officials and the public by co-opting scientists to support the industry's disinformation campaign to buy time.

--



29 brain tumor lawsuits move toward trial in Washington, DC

Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force, Aug 11, 2014

Twenty-nine high-profile lawsuits brought by people whose brain tumors were caused by their cell phones are finally moving toward trial. Six of these cases were originally filed in 2001 and 2002. Many of the plaintiffs are no longer alive.

On Friday, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg, in the D.C. Superior Court, admitted the testimony of five expert witness for the plaintiffs, and the 12- and 13-year-old cases will now move into the discovery phase. Each of the plaintiffs is asking for more than $100,000,000. There are 46 defendants including Motorola, Nokia, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Cellular One, Cingular Wireless, SBC Communications, Verizon, Vodafone, the Telecommunications Industry Association, the IEEE, ANSI, the CTIA, and the FCC. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth & Morganroth, a law firm in Birmingham, Michigan.

For over a decade the industry and the plaintiffs have played tug-of-war with the oldest cases, sending them back and forth between federal and state courts, and fighting over whether the plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

In 2009 the D.C. Court of Appeals, in Murray v. Motorola (982 A. 2d 764), ruled that the telecommunications companies could not be sued over brain tumors caused by cell phones manufactured after 1996. But since all of these plaintiffs had used pre-1996 phones, their lawsuits were allowed to go forward. They were also allowed to go forward on their claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose information about the dangers of cell phones.  These claims were brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

In December 2013 and January 2014, testimony was heard from:

DR. SHIRA KRAMER, a Maryland epidemiologist;

DR. MICHAEL KUNDI, professor of epidemiology and occupational health at the Medical University of Vienna;

DR. VINI KHURANA, a neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University in Canberra;

DR. IGOR BELYAEV, head research scientist at the Cancer Research institute at the Slovak Academy of Science in Bratislava, Slovakia;

DR. WILHELM MOSGOELLER, professor and medical doctor at the University of Vienna Medical School’s Institute for Cancer Research;

DR. DIMITRIS PANAGAPOULOUS, founder of the Radiation Biophysics Laboratory at the University of Athens;

DR. ABRAHAM LIBOFF, professor emeritus of physics at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan; and

DR. LAURA PLUNKETT, pharmacologist and toxicologist in Houston.

On Friday, August 8, 2014, the testimony of Drs. Kramer, Khurana, and Panagopoulos was disallowed. But the testimony of Drs. Kundi, Belyaev, Mosgoeller, Liboff, and Plunkett was admitted. They will testify at trial about "general causation," i.e. that cell phones can cause brain tumors.

The lawsuits now move into the discovery phase, in which each side is compelled to produce documents and answer questions. This is the first time that the industry has had to turn over data. There will then be a fight over the admission of the testimony of witnesses on "specific causation," i.e. doctors and others who will testify that these specific cell phones caused these specific tumors.

Friday's decision by Judge Weisberg allowed 13 of the cases, which have been consolidated in one action, to go forward.  The other 16 cases are being tried separately, but the parties in those cases agreed to be bound by Friday's decision.


---

Judge Frederick H. Weisberg, Washington D.C. Superior Court: Expert Preemption Order (page 5): 

"Federal law is the supreme law of the land, but there is no constitutional provision that says federal facts are the supreme facts of the land. Federal law can preempt state law, but it cannot preempt scientific fact. The scientific truth, whatever it may be, lies outside of the FCC’s regulations about what is 'safe' or 'unsafe.'  The experts have offered their opinions on the state of the scientific knowledge and general causation. They have testified about the methodology they used to reach those opinions. Their testimony on these points, at this stage of the case, is not subject to preemption."  

--

Judge Weisberg's ruling on expert witness admissibility

Michael Patrick Murray et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al.
Superior Court for the District of Columbia

http://bit.ly/DC_expert_ruling

--

Court Allows Expert Testimony in Litigation Alleging Cell Phone-Linked Tumors According to Consumers' Legal Team

WASHINGTON -- Aug 8, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- A Washington D.C. superior court ruled that five scientific expert witnesses can testify for consumers suffering from brain tumors allegedly caused or promoted by cell phone use Ashcraft & Gerel LLP Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC Lundy Lundy Soileau & South L.L.P. and co-counsel said today.

Judge Frederick H. Weisberg who is presiding over 13 consolidated lawsuits against the telecom industry ruled that experts met the Dyas/Frye legal standards and can offer testimony related to injury causation and health effects. The court held evidentiary hearings in December 2013 and January 2014 and reviewed hundreds of exhibits.

Judge Weisberg noted that while the court did not decide the issue of whether cell phones cause brain tumors new scientific studies and information have emerged recently. His order referred to a May 2014 French case-control epidemiological study that found support for "a possible association between heavy mobile phone use" and brain tumors.

Each of the plaintiffs in the litigation suffers from a brain tumor or is suing for a family of someone who died of brain cancer.

The plaintiffs are represented by Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC of Birmingham Mich.; Ashcraft & Gerel LLP of Washington D.C. and Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP of Lake Charles La.; The Knoll Law Firm LLC of Marksville La.; Pribanic & Pribanic LLC of Pittsburgh; Frasier Frasier & Hickman LLP of Tulsa Okla.; and Bernstein Liebhard LLP of New York.

Hunter Lundy of Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP said "The telecom industry argued for years that cell phone consumer litigants could not produce scientists who could relate exposure to cell phone radiation to tumors. The ruling today refutes that contention and our experts' opinions having met the Dyas/Frye test are admissible."

Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC said "We now have opinions and testimony from prominent scientific experts that will be admissible and support our clients' claims that cell phone radiation can cause brain tumors in humans. With this landmark ruling the cases are moving forward to fact discovery."

Michelle Parfitt and James F. Green of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP said "The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearings months ago only included publicly available materials and did not include any testing data or information in possession of the defendants. We will seek that information as soon as possible."

The first of the consolidated cases is "Michael Patrick Murray et al. v. Motorola Inc. et al." Case No. 2001 CA 008479 B in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants in the cases are Motorola Inc. Qualcomm Inc. Nokia Inc. Audiovox Communications Corp. and Samsung Telecomm American LLC.

Contact: Erin Powers Powers MediaWorks LLC for Ashcraft Gerel LLP info@powersmediaworks.com.

SOURCE Ashcraft & Gerel LLP

http://bit.ly/1r1fns9



Monday, August 4, 2014

Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC

Selected FCC Submissions re: 

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency 

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

Part I: Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC

Last revision: 8-4-2014
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, 956 submissions were made to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and July 31, 2014. Many submissions include multiple documents. To access these papers go to the FCC's web site for Proceeding Number 13-84.

Although there is a basic search engine on the FCC web site, one cannot search through the documents. Thus, to help journalists, researchers, and concerned citizens, I constructed several lists.
Part I below contains key submissions to the FCC regarding cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.

The submissions were organized into the following categories.

(1) Scientific Expert Resolutions Calling for Stronger Regulations
(2) Expert Comments in Support of Stronger Regulations
(3) Expert Comments that Support Weaker Regulations
(4) Consumer, Environmental and Health Organizations
(5) Government Agencies
(6) Wireless Industry Corporations and Associations
(7) Miscellaneous Other
 
Not indexed below are submissions from many individuals who did not provide an organizational or institutional affiliation.
Part II contains a list of key research papers submitted to the FCC that can be downloaded from the FCC web site. 
Part III lists 98 different scientific experts from 23 nations who have signed resolutions between 2002 and 2014 that call for stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation. 

 Scientific Expert Resolutions Calling for Stronger Regulations  
Catania Resolution (2002; 16 signees)

Benevento Resolution (2006; 52 signees)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941320
Seletun Scientific Panel (2009); 7 signees)
Health Canada Safety Code 6 Declaration  (Jul 9, 2014); 54 signees)

Expert Comments in Support of Stronger Regulations
Omer Abid, MD, MPH


BioInitiative Working Group (29 contributing authors)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521097953



Devra Davis PhD MPH, Alvaro de Salles PhD, Susan Downs MD, Gunnar Heuser MD PhD, Anthony Miller MD. Lloyd Morgan BSEE, Yael Stein MD. Elihu Richter MD MPH (rebuttal of CTIA's claims)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958286

Alan H. Frey

Martha Herbert, MD, PhD

Henry C. Lai, PhD

Victor Leach / Simon Turner   

De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH


Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD


William J. Rea, MD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940950

Cindy Sage, Lennart Hardell, MD & Martha Herbert, MD, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940054

Cindy Sage & David O. Carpenter, MD

Miriam D. Weber, MD


Expert Comments that Support Weaker Regulations

Consumer, Environmental and Health Organizations

American Academy of Environmental Medicine
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941435

Center for Electrosmog Prevention


Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc.



Environmental Working Group

Pharmacists Planning Service Inc (PPSI)


Stop Smart Meters New York
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941985

Wireless Education Action
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311599


Government Agencies

Cities of Boston, Massachusetts and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
http://bit.ly/1kAYSu7

FCC Office of Engineering Technology Bureau
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022136643
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520936584

International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization

Los Angeles Unified School District

Town of Hillsborough, California
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941733

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

City and County of San Francisco

Radiation Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941527

City of Tucson and County of Pima, Arizona Resolution


Wireless Industry Corporations and Associations

Alarm Industry Communications Committee
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958406

ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941424


Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941477

GSM Association
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940433

IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940730 

National Association of Broadcasters
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941561

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors

PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The HetNet Forum
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941685
Telecommunications Industry Association
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941840

American Association for Justice
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017466603

Green Swan, Inc.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941846

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520959437