Friday, May 31, 2013

WHO: Radiofrequency Policy Meeting

The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking input on its radiofrequency (RF) policies.  Although the WHO is applying a "risk management" framework to this issue, recent presentations by the WHO and by ICNIRP, its standard setting body, suggest these organizations perceive RF radiation to be more of a public relations problem than a public safety issue.

How long will the WHO (and ICNIRP) continue its denialist policy regarding radiofrequency bioeffects and long term health risks from low intensity, microwave radiation associated with use of mobile phones and Wi-Fi?  More importantly, what will it take to get the WHO to embrace the precautionary principle?

Announcement of International Stakeholder Seminar on Radiofrequency Policies and call for examples of good risk management practices

The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking the views of stakeholders and interested parties in the process of preparing an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) monograph on radiofrequency (RF) fields. The monograph will include a scientific review of all studied health outcomes and it will provide an overview of risk management policies and practices around the world.

As part of the EHC process, the WHO is convening a seminar on 5 June 2013 at the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) in Paris, France. The purpose of the seminar is to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to present their views on specific questions to be addressed during the course of this project. The discussions at the seminar and their conclusions will be considered carefully in the development of the WHO monograph.


RF and Health: A WHO Perspective 

Emile Van Deventer, ITU Workshop on EMF, May 9, 2013

At the ITU International Workshop on EMF in May 2013, Dr Emilie van Deventer from the WHO provided an overview of the WHO EMF program advising the EHC review process was already underway and was expected to be completed in 2015.


EMF Safety Guidelines -- The ICNIRP View

Rüdiger Matthes, International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), May 2013

Also at the ITU workshop, Rüdiger Matthes, Chairman of the International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) presented an overview of the EMF Safety Guidelines and told delegates that the Guidelines would be reviewed following the WHO EHC.

Following are some key quotes from his presentation:

  • "no convincing evidence from epidemiology"
  • "very few epidemiological data available (no recent studies)"
  • "insufficient evidence from animal studies"
  • "still insufficient evidence for firm conclusions"
  • "data are still too limited for an appropriate risk assessment"
  • "biological effects have not been studied very well"
  • "recent high quality animal studies consistently report lack of an effect"

IARC Monograph Vol. 102 on ‘Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Published

On the 19th April 2013, The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published Monograph Vol. 102 on ‘Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.‘

Monograph 102 - Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (April 2013) 

Additional Information:

(EMF Explained is a series developed by three wireless industry associations.)

Friday, May 10, 2013

Cell Phone Use, Acoustic Neuroma and Cancer of the Pituitary Gland

Cell phone use was associated with increased risk of two types of brain tumors in a new study of 790,000 women.

Joel M. Moskowitz, PRLog (Press Release) - May 10, 2013

Cell phone use was associated with increased risk of acoustic neuroma and cancer of the pituitary gland in a prospective study of more than 790,000 women in the United Kingdom.

Women who used cell phones for ten or more years were two-and- a-half times more likely to develop an acoustic neuroma. Their risk of acoustic neuroma increased with the number of years they used cell phones.

The results for acoustic neuroma re-affirm one of the two major conclusions by the World Health Organization (WHO) in its recent monograph about radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and form the basis for classification of cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" to humans:

“Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma, and acoustic neuroma.” (p. 421)


To see this news release:

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Maine Children's Wireless Protection Act: Update

Maine: Children's Wireless Protection Act (LD 1013) Update 

May 8, 2013

The work session scheduled today before the Joint Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology of the Maine State Legislature regarding Andrea Boland's Children's Wireless Protection Act was tabled.

The following individuals and organizations have submitted public hearing testimony. See links below to download documents.

Barris, Elizabeth American Assoc. of Cell Phone Safety(127 KB)
Boland, Andrea Maine State Legislature(1779 KB)
Callahan, Kevin TechAmerica(108 KB)
Carpenter, David University of Albany, N.Y.(529 KB)
Cobb, Kristin Portland(908 KB)
Edwards, Jane Vassalboro(171 KB)
Friedman, Ed Bowdoinham(241 KB)
Hayes, Terry Maine State Legislature(65 KB)
Keegan, Gerard CTIA-The Wireless Association(5175 KB)
Keene, Elery Winslow(72 KB)
Parker, Beedy Camden(53 KB)
Picard, Curtis Retail Association of Maine(112 KB)
Spear, Jody Harborside(63 KB)
The CTIA's testimony (dated May 2, 2013) submitted by Gerard Keegan made the following assertions: 
  • the March 29, 2013 FCC Notice of Inquiry (NOI) states that the FCC "continues to have confidence in the current exposure limits"; that the FCC does not expect consumers to keep cell phones "at least a specified distance (up to 2.5 cm) from the head during normal use to ensure compliance with SAR limits"; and that exceeding the SAR limit does not necessarily imply unsafe operation, nor do lower SAR quantities imply safer operation;
  • federal law preempts state governments from mandating cell phone labeling; 
  • regarding the CTIA's lawsuit to block San Francisco's cell phone right to know law: the "Ninth Circuit ruled in the CTIA's favor, finding that the FCC has concluded that cell phones are safe and the ordinance's requirements were misleading"; "Accordingly, the court permanently enjoined the City from enforcing its ordinance"; and "CTIA and San Francisco have entered into a settlement agreement that would permanently bar the City from enforcing its cell phone labeling and disclosure ordinance."
The CTIA filing is available at

Did the CTIA know ahead of time that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would vote on May 7, 2013 to enter into the settlement agreement?

Monday, May 6, 2013

Open Letter to San Francisco Mayor and Board of Supervisors

April 30, 2013

Dear Mayor and Members of the Board,

Since December, 2010, I have served as a consultant to the San Francisco City Attorney's Office regarding the health research related to cell phone radiation. I have done this work pro bono in support of San Francisco's "cell phone right to know" ordinance because the public needs to know.

Although the U.S. has been in denial about the health effects of cell phone radiation, fifteen nations and the European Union have issued precautionary health warnings about mobile phone use, especially among children. Two states, Maine and Pennsylvania, will soon try to adopt a Children's Wireless Protection Act.

In my opinion, the public needs ample warnings and other protections from what is likely to be a major public health problem resulting in substantial costs to our health care system, lost productivity, needless suffering, and preventable deaths.

Three years ago, I published an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle which called for precautionary health warnings about cell phone use (1). This article was based upon a review of the research about mobile phone use and tumor risk that my colleagues and I published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2).

Today, the evidence is considerably stronger. The evidence is also stronger than two years ago when 30 experts convened by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer categorized mobile phone radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2B). (BTW, almost all substances listed in Group 2B are covered by Proposition 65 health warnings in California.) In fact, many experts now believe we have sufficient evidence to upgrade the classification of mobile phone radiation to "probably carcinogenic" (Group 2A). Also, we now have evidence that cell phone radiation damages human sperm and is associated with male infertility. Moreover, prenatal exposure is associated with increased risk of neurological disorders in children, especially attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

For more information about the health risks of cell phone radiation, see my news releases and social media web sites (links below). Two of my news releases document that San Francisco's cell phone radiation fact sheet that was approved by District Court Judge Alsup is indeed factual and non-controversial (3, 4).

Please feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance.


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.

School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley


(1) Moskowitz JM. Government must inform us of cell phone risk (Open Forum), San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2010. URL:

(2) Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng CT, Moskowitz JM. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009 Nov 20; 27(33):5565-5572. Epub 2009 Oct 13. URL:

(3) Moskowitz JM. San Francisco’s Cell Phone Fact Sheet is Factual. Sep 12, 2012. URL:

(4) Moskowitz JM. The San Francisco Cell Phone Fact Sheet Suppressed by the CTIA. Apr 17, 2013. URL:


The San Francisco Cell Phone Fact Sheet Suppressed by the CTIA

Below is a link to the fact sheet that the Wireless Industry does not want the City and County of San Francisco to show you (see page 2).  I have appended annotated comments that verify it is indeed factual.

The fact sheet was approved by the Federal district court judge, but then the CTIA appealed the case to a higher court.

The fact sheet is the basis for the CTIA's current lawsuit against SF.  The industry has claimed  if retailers were forced to distribute it, this could cause confusion and panic among consumers.
You can decide for yourself whether the industry is right.