Monday, March 27, 2017

International Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Fields & Wireless Technology

International EMF Scientist Appeal

Mar 27, 2017

Two hundred twenty-five scientists from 41 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. In addition, eleven scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on related topics have signed this petition.

The Appeal calls on the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) including all of its member states and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to adopt more protective exposure guidelines for EMF and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of health risks.These exposures are a rapidly growing form of worldwide environmental pollution.

Links to more than 50 news stories published in over two dozen nations can be found on the Appeal web site under media coverage.

Mar 10, 2016

More than one hundred EMF advocacy and education nongovernmental organizations from 23 nations have signed a letter in support of the International EMF Scientist Appeal.  The letter was prepared by the IEMFA, the International Electromagnetic Fields Alliance

The letter calls upon all governments throughout the world to ... recognize that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is an emerging health and environmental crisis that requires a high priority response; review currently available EMF exposure information that demonstrates harm to humans and nature; revise current EMF exposure guidelines and propose how they can be lowered; and adopt precautionary measures to reduce EMF exposure.

Feb 8, 2016

Two hundred and twenty scientists from 41 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist AppealAll have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. In addition, nine scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on related topics have signed this petition.

The nations with the most signatories are the United States (with 29), Italy (19), South Korea (15), Turkey (15), India (12), China (11), United Kingdom (11), Canada (9), Brazil (8), Iran (8), Australia (7), Spain (7), Germany (6), Sweden (6), Finland (5), Greece (5), and Russia (5).

Dec 22, 2015

The European Journal of Oncology published the text of the International EMF Scientist Appeal in its December edition. The journal publishes contributions in the various areas of oncology including biology, epidemiology, pathology and clinical medicine.
International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European Journal of Oncology. 20(3/4): 180-182. 2015.
We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

Oct 15, 2015

Two hundred fifteen scientists from 40 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal

Jun 25, 2015

WHO: It's time for a change

The World Health Organization promotes the radio frequency radiation guidelines adopted by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Many countries have adopted these guidelines to serve as their regulatory standards for wireless radiation exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless devices.

ICNIRP has 14 members on the commission. ICNIRP recently announced that is calling for nominations to serve on the Commission from 2016 to 2020. To be eligible for membership, one must be nominated by the Executive Council of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) or an IRPA Associate Society.

IRPA, the international professional society for radiological protection, was created by health physicists with expertise in ionizing radiation. The Executive Council consists of 12 members including seven physicists, two engineers, a nuclear technologist, a biochemist, and an M.D. biologist. Their expertise and the primary focus of their association has been on protection from ionizing radiation. So it is reasonable to question why the eligibility criteria for ICNIRP membership requires that ICNIRP members be nominated by IRPA or its affiliates since ICNIRP’s domain is non-ionizing radiation protection.

Do the selection criteria for ICNIRP membership explain why ICNIRP has not adopted biologically-based guidelines to protect people from non-ionizing radiation?

ICNIRP should be composed of members who possess a comprehensive and deep understanding of the scientific literature regarding chronic, low intensity exposure to non-ionizing radiation and biology or health. In addition, these experts should be unbiased and should not have even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Recently, 206 scientists signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition which claims that "the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects" and "they are insufficient to protect public health."  All of these scientists have published peer-reviewed research on non-ionizing radiation protection.
"The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) established in 1998 the “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)”[1]." These guidelines are accepted by the WHO and numerous countries around the world. The WHO is calling for all nations to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines to encourage international harmonization of standards. In 2009, the ICNIRP released a statement saying that it was reaffirming its 1998 guidelines, as in their opinion, the scientific literature published since that time “has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields."
Perhaps, it is time for the WHO to replace ICNIRP with an expert committee that has greater expertise regarding non-ionizing radiation protection and use this committee to establish the WHO guidelines for wireless radiation. 

Jun 8, 2015

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. submitted the International EMF Scientist Appeal along with the Press Release and a description of the Appeal to the Federal Communications Commission in response to an FCC request for input regarding its radio frequency radiation regulations which were adopted in 1996 (Proceeding Number 13-84).

These three documents can be downloaded from FCC web site at

A summary of key documents submitted to the FCC under Proceeding Number 13-84 is available at

Jun 4, 2015

The "International EMF Scientist Appeal" has generated more than 48 news stories in 26 nations written in 21 different languages attesting to the global reach of this petition.

May 16, 2015

On Monday, May 11th, 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, the UN member states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology* in the face of increasing evidence of risk.These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide. 

*(e.g., cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, wireless devices, cell towers, wireless utility meters).

The “International EMF Scientist Appeal” asks the Secretary General, UN affiliated bodies and all member nations to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.

To date, the petition has been signed by 200 EMF scientists from 40 countries -- each has published peer-reviewed research on non-ionizing EMF and biology or health -- about 2,000 scientific papers in all. 

The web site launched last Monday has been visited by people in 119 countries attesting to the global reach of this emerging public health crisis. The site contains information about this "wake up call" from the scientific community including a 3-minute video announcing the Appeal by Dr. Martin Blank, a past president of the International Bioelectromagnetics Society who has had over 30 years of experience conducting EMF research at Columbia University.

The International EMF Alliance has begun to collect endorsements of the Appeal from non-governnmental (i.e., non-profit) organizations around the world.]

May 11, 2015


International Scientists Appeal to U.N. to Protect Humans and Wildlife from Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Technology

WHO’s conflicting stance on risk needs strengthening, says 190 scientists

New York, NY, May 11, 2015. Today 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk. These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental pollution worldwide.

The “International EMF Scientist Appeal” asks the Secretary General and UN affiliated bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women.

The Appeal highlights WHO’s conflicting positions about EMF risk. WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B “Possible Carcinogen” in 2011, and Extremely Low Frequency fields in 2001.  Nonetheless, WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines, developed by a self-selected group of industry insiders, have long been criticized as non-protective.

The Appeal calls on the UN to strengthen its advisories on EMF risk for humans and to assess the potential impact on wildlife and other living organisms under the auspices of the UN Environmental Programme, in line with the science demonstrating risk, thereby resolving this inconsistency.

Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University, says, 
"International exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields must be strengthened to reflect the reality of their impact on our bodies, especially on our DNA. The time to deal with the harmful biological and health effects is long overdue. We must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.”
Joel Moskowitz, PhD, of University of California, Berkeley, says, 

“ICNIRP guidelines set exposure standards for high-intensity, short-term, tissue-heating thresholds. These do not protect us from the low-intensity, chronic exposures common today. Scientists signing the Appeal request that the UN and member nations protect the global human population and wildlife from EMF exposures.”

International EMF Scientist Appeal, Description of the Appeal and Spokesperson Quotes:

Video Statement (3 min.) by Spokesperson Martin Blank, PhD:
     (An HD version of the video statement is available on request.)


Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Director             Joel Moskowitz, PhD                                        School of Public Health, UC Berkeley               

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation

The Google Glass, an optical head-mounted display designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses, was not embraced by the general public when it was introduced in 2013-2014. So Google changed its marketing strategy to target specific occupational needs including healthcare, military, and sports applications.
Recently, a colleague told me that some physician offices in California require their staff to wear the Glass. Last week, National Public Radio reported that some factory workers must also wear the Glass.
Tasnim Shamma, Google Glass Didn't Disappear. You Can Find It On The Factory Floor. WABE/National Public Radio, March 18, 2017.
Following is a press release I prepared three years ago which provides precautionary information about this wireless device. SAR values for the latest model of the Google Glass follow the press release.
Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation
The Google Glass emits more wireless radiation than most cell phones on the market, but unlike cell phone users, Glass users may be wearing this device on their heads for more than 12 hours a day putting their health at risk.

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

BERKELEY, Calif. - April 15, 2014 - PRLog -- The Google Glass emits both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth radiation. Although the Glass official web site, , contains information warning consumers about the device's potential interference with radio or television reception, the site provides no safety information to consumers.

As a body-worn, microwave-emitting device, Google is required by Federal law to test the Specific Absorption Rate or SAR of the Glass. This is a measure of the maximum microwave radiation absorbed by the user in 6 minutes averaged over one gram of tissue. 

Although Google did not post the SAR information on its web site, the Glass test reports can be found on the FCC's web site at []. The FCC ID for the current version of the Glass is X1.

The official test report indicates that the SAR for the Glass is much higher than the SARs for the iPhone 5, the Samsung Galaxy S5, or most cell phones on the market.

During the last year, Google improved the antenna on the Glass which resulted in an increase in the SAR from 1.11 to 1.42 watts/kilogram (W/kg).  In contrast, the Samsung Galaxy S5 has a head and body SAR of 0.57 and 0.64 W/kg, respectively. The Apple iPhone 5 has a head SAR of 1.17 and a body SAR of 1.18 W/kg.

In the U.S. no personal wireless device can have a SAR that exceeds 1.6 W/kg. The SAR standard, however, was developed several decades ago in the U.S. primarily by physicists and engineers to protect users from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation. The standards do not protect users from the non-thermal effects of cell phone radiation which have been associated with increased brain cancer risk among long-term cell phone users and other health problems in the short term including electrosensitivity, sperm damage and infertility, and reproductive health risks in children.

Just because these devices are legal does not mean they are safe

Although many health researchers, including myself, have questioned the utility of assessing only a device's SAR, currently that is all governments measure and regulate. 

Governments want consumers to believe that all legally marketed wireless devices are safe, and that the SAR level does not matter as long as it meets the legal standard.  Yet no study has proved that exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation is safe, and thousands of peer-reviewed, published studies have found biologic effects from such exposures. The research suggests that governments need to adopt more stringent, biologically-based, standards to protect consumers' health.

Medical and public health professionals should call on Google to end this experiment on Glass users or at least fully inform consumers of the potential long-term health risks from wearing this device.


Google Glass SAR test report update

Following are the results from the SAR test report for the Google Glass Model GG1 (A4R-GG1; dated May 18, 2015):

Head test: 0.293 W/kg for Wi-Fi (2.4 GHz) and 0.790 W/kg for Wi-Fi (5 GHz)

Simultaneous transmission: 0.874 W/kg

Bluetooth was excluded from testing as the maximum output power is 2.0 dBm.

Massachusetts Cell Phone & Wireless Safety Legislation

Five Cell Phone & Wireless Safety Bills introduced in Massachusetts Legislature

In 2017, the Massachusetts state legislature introduced five bills to address wireless radiation and public health:

S.107 would require manufacturers’ RF safety information to be plainly visible on cell phone product packaging or direct customers to safety notifications within the user manual including information pertaining to RF radiation exposure, compliance with RF regulatory requirements, and the minimum separation distance between the device and the person’s body.

S.108 would require the following language to appear on cell phone product packaging: 
"To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pocket or the phone is otherwise in contact with your body when the phone is on and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely." 
This notification is required by the model cell phone “right to know” ordinance that was adopted in 2015 in Berkeley, California. The Berkeley ordinance allows the retailer the option to post the notice in the store or provide it to the customer. It does not require the notice to be placed on the cell phone product packaging.

S. 1268 would create a commission to study the health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF). The commission will review non-industry funded science on the health impacts of all sources of EMF on reproductive systems, brain function including memory loss, diminished learning, performance impairment in children, headaches and neurodegenerative conditions, melatonin suppression and sleep disorders, fatigue, hormonal imbalances, immune dysregulation such as allergic and inflammatory responses, cardiac and blood pressure problems, genotoxic effects like miscarriage, cancers such as childhood leukemia, and childhood and adult brain tumors.

The commission will study whether EMF has a disparate impact on potentially vulnerable subgroups including children, fetuses, pregnant women, the elderly and those with pre-existing illnesses or impairments. The commission will investigate whether children are more vulnerable.

The commission will file a report by July 31, 2018, and recommend legislation needed to protect public health including a recommendation on whether children’s EMF (including Wi-Fi) exposure in schools should be eliminated or reduced. No commission member shall have a financial conflict of interest.

S.1864 would give residents the right to keep non-RF-emitting water, gas and electrical meters instead of "smart" utility meters without having to pay extra fees. Ratepayers will have the right to request that utility companies remove wireless meters and install electromechanical analog meters that emit no RF radiation. 

H.2030 would require the state government to develop best practices and guidance for the purchase and installation of wireless internet service in public schools, colleges and universities. The guidelines would prioritize practices that protect the health and safety of students and staff.