Monday, September 9, 2019

Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation

Aug 1, 2016   (Updated Sep 9, 2019)



Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation, an award-winning, feature-length documentary, explores the long-term health effects from cell phone radiation including cancer and infertility.

The film examines recent scientific research, follows state and national legislative efforts, and illuminates the influence that technology companies have on public health. The film was selected as the best documentary film at the California Independent Film Festival in 2014. 

Mobilize features interviews with scientists, doctors, politicians, cancer patients, and technology experts. 

The film was directed by Kevin Kunze and produced by Amir Zeev Kovacs, Ellie Marks, Devra Davis, and Joel Moskowitz. For more information see the official Mobilize web site.

The film is now available for free to Amazon Prime members and can be rented for $1.99 by non-members:   https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B07M639C2B

The DVD can be purchased through Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00M58FRQM/.

Note: I have no financial interest in the film.

KPFA Interview 
of Joel Moskowitz about Mobilize on September 11, 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgde8u9mBmw

KALW panel on Mobilize, Joel Moskowitz and Kevin Kunze. September 16, 2014. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01YB1ShpNWY


Movie reviews
Mobilize: A Film about Cell Phone Radiation
Distributed by TDC Entertainment, 220 East 23rd St., Suite 405, New York, NY 10010
Produced by Devra Davis, Ellen Marks, and Joel Moskowitz
Directed by Kevin Kunze
DVD, color, 88 min.

General Adult
Health Care, Public Health, Sociology, Psychology, Telecommunications
Date Entered: 07/01/2015
Reviewed by Rodney Birch, Reference Librarian, George Fox University
Mobilize investigates the claims around the question of whether the radiation from cell phones is harmful to human health. While the question dates back to the early 1990s, it has been revived as a result of the World Health Organization has stated that, “the electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are . . . possibly carcinogenic to humans,” as well as an increasing number of scientific studies showing the effects of cell phone radiation on human health, personal claims, and our increasing dependence on these personal communication devices. The producers go beyond the hype to get to the root of the issue, often exposing inconsistencies in statements by the cell phone industry regarding the current research, and statements made by the Federal Communications Commission and public health organizations. The producers process the information gained through scientific research, Congressional Hearings, and interviews with cell phone industry executives, politicians, public health professionals, and other individuals to provide a balanced and thorough discussion and investigation. Other countries have created legislation around the public health concerns related to the radiation from cell phones. The producers of the film claim the U.S. is slower to adopt such legislation due to the lobbying efforts of the cell phone industry. One of the few cases mentioned is when the city of San Francisco adopted a policy regarding the health concern of cell phone radiation, the cell phone industry filed a lawsuit against the city. This film would be a useful resource for persons exploring the impact of technology on health and behavior, including sociology, psychology, health care and public health.  http://emro.lib.buffalo.edu/record/index.html?id=5807



Mobilize 3 1/2 stars (2014) 84 min. DVD: $19.98. ISBN: 978-1-939517-25-8.
What are the long-term health consequences from daily use of cellular phones? No one really knows, since widespread cell phone use is fairly new. Still, filmmaker Kevin Kunze’s documentary Mobilize makes a strong case that persuasive evidence has emerged regarding the potential for damage to the human body through heavy cell phone usage. Buried in the fine print of the manuals that accompany new cell phones are warnings about keeping the devices a short distance from a user’s head. But studies outlined here make it clear that such precautions aren’t enough: radiation from phones causes heat that, over time, can injure the brain, while a phone’s constant radio interactions with mobile device towers can alter brain chemistry. The problems don’t end there: cell phones carry a potential threat to pregnant women and their babies, and have been linked to cancer, low sperm count, and attention deficit disorder (the industry is also marketing to toddlers, assuring that future generations will be exposed to this radiation). Despite the concerns, Mobilize illustrates how the lobbying and legal powers of the telecommunications industry have been able to shut down any legislative or judicial attempts to curb emissions (or even educate consumers). An alarming documentary with unquestionably controversial findings, this is highly recommended. Aud: C, P. (T. Keogh)

Sunday, September 1, 2019

Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC

March 24, 2014 (link to Interior Dept. letter updated 9/3/2019)

The Department of Interior charges that the FCC standards for cell phone radiation  are outmoded and no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife.

The Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance of the United States Department of the Interior sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce which addresses the Interior Department's concern that cell tower radiation has had negative impacts on the health of migratory birds and other wildlife. 

The Interior Department accused the Federal government of employing outdated radiation standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a federal agency with no expertise in health.  The standards are no longer applicable because they control only for overheating and do not protect organisms from the adverse effects of exposure to the low-intensity radiation produced by cell phones and cell towers:
"the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today." 
The Department  criticized the Federal government's proposed procedures for placement and operation of communication towers, and called for "independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies" in the U.S. to examine the effects of cell tower radiation on "migratory birds and other trust species." 

Following are excerpts from the letter, dated  Feb 7, 2014:
"The Department believes that some of the proposed procedures are not consistent with Executive Order 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, which specifically requires federal agencies to develop and use principles, standards, and practices that will lessen the amount of unintentional take reasonably attributed to agency actions. The Department, through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), finds that the proposals lack provisions necessary to conserve migratory bird resources, including eagles. The proposals also do not reflect current information regarding the effects of communication towers to birds. Our comments are intended to further clarify specific issues and address provisions in the proposals.
The Department recommends revisions to the proposed procedures to better reflect the impacts to resources under our jurisdiction from communication towers. The placement and operation of communication towers, including un-guyed, unlit, monopole or lattice-designed structures, impact protected migratory birds in two significant ways. The first is by injury, crippling loss, and death from collisions with towers and their supporting guy-wire infrastructure, where present. The second significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by them (See Attachment)."
Enclosure A
"The second significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from nonionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by these structures. Radiation studies at cellular communication towers were begun circa 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds. Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007). Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges- 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States. However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. This is primarily due to the lower levels of radiation output from microwave-powered communication devices such as cellular telephones and other sources of point-to-point communications; levels typically lower than from microwave ovens. The problem, however, appears to focus on very low levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. For example, in laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos- with some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002). To date, no independent, third-party field studies have been conducted in North America on impacts of tower electromagnetic radiation on migratory birds. With the European field and U.S. laboratory evidence already available, independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to begin examining the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species."
Radiation Impacts and Categorical Exclusions
"There is a growing level of anecdotal evidence linking effects of non-thermal, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication towers on nesting and roosting wild birds and other wildlife in the U.S. Independent, third-party studies have yet to be conducted in the U.S. or Canada, although a peer-reviewed research protocol developed for the U.S. Forest Service by the Service's Division of Migratory Bird Management is available to study both collision and radiation impacts (Manville 2002). As previously mentioned, Balmori (2005) found strong negative correlations between levels of tower-emitted microwave radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the vicinity of electromagnetic fields in Spain. He documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death in House Sparrows, White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and other species. Though these species had historically been documented to roost and nest in these areas, Balmori (2005) did not observe these symptoms prior to construction and operation of the cellular phone towers. Balmori and Hallberg (2007) and Everaert and Bauwens (2007) found similar strong negative correlations among male House Sparrows. Under laboratory 'conditions, DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised troubling concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos- with some lethal results (Manville 2009). Given the findings of the studies mentioned above, field studies should be conducted in North America to validate potential impacts of communication tower radiation both direct and indirect - to migratory birds and other trust wildlife species."
The full text of the letter, the addendum and citations are available at: http://bit.ly/InteriorletterFCC140207

Related posts:


International Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Fields & Wireless Technology

International EMF Scientist Appeal

U.N. Environment Programme Urged to Protect Nature and Humankind from Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)

4G/5G antenna densification is escalating health risks - a global crisis

New York, NY, July 22, 2019. The Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, representing 248 scientists from 42 nations, have resubmitted The Appeal to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director, Inger Andersen, requesting the UNEP reassess the potential biological impacts of next generation 4G and 5G telecommunication technologies to plants, animals and humans.

There is particular urgency at this time as new antennas will be densely located throughout residential neighborhoods using much higher frequencies, with greater biologically disruptive pulsations, more dangerous signaling characteristics, plus transmitting equipment on, and inside, homes and buildings. The Advisors to The Appeal recommend UNEP seriously weigh heavily the findings of the independent, non-industry associated EMF science.

See video of spokesperson for The Appeal, the late Martin Blank, Ph.D. of Columbia University, and read the recent letter to the UNEP and The Appeal.

The Appeal highlights the World Health Organization’s (WHO) conflicting positions about EMF risk. The 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, the WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favors guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German NGO with industry ties long criticized for promoting guidelines not protective of humans, and falsely assuming authority. In addition, it should be noted that no nation has established EMF exposure guidelines aiming to protect animals and plants.

The Appeal calls on the United Nations to resolve the inconsistencies among its sub-organizations and to seriously address the rapidly escalating health and environmental crisis caused by man-made EMF pollution. Leadership is needed now, especially in light of urgent warnings from international scientists about 4G/5G antenna densification, the Internet of Things (IoT), and plans for significant radiation from space emitted by tens of thousands of satellites now being launched.

The Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal - Annie Sasco, MD, Dr.PH., Henry Lai, Ph.D., Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. and Magda Havas, Ph.D., call on the UNEP to be a strong voice for the total environment of the planet, and an effective catalyst within the United Nations with regards to the biological and health effects of electromagnetic pollution.

In the letter to UNEP, Dr. Havas, Professor Emeritus, Trent University's School of the Environment, Canada, details serious effects on plants, insects and wildlife from electromagnetic fields that are well documented in the scientific literature.

Ronald Melnick, Ph.D., Advisor to The Appeal and former scientist at the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who managed the design and development of the NTP's recently published $30 million animal study showing a clear link between radio frequency radiation (RFR) and cancer, states: “Results from the NTP study show that the previously held assumption that radiofrequency radiation cannot cause cancer or other adverse health effects is clearly wrong.”

Policymakers the world over should take note.

See International EMF Scientist Appeal and Letter to UNEP (June 25, 2019)


Contacts:

Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director
EMFscientist.org
info@EMFscientist.org

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health, UC Berkeley
jmm@berkeley.edu


July 1, 2019 (updated September 1, 2019)

More than two hundred forty scientists from 42 nations have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health -- totaling more than 2,000 papers on EMF in professional journals. In addition, ten 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.

Quotes from 21 Experts Regarding Electromagnetic Fields


July 10, 2018

Two hundred forty-two (242) scientists from 41 nations including 38 from the U.S. have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. In addition, ten scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on related topics have signed this petition.


September 20, 2017

Two hundred thirty-five (235) scientists from 41 nations including 33 from the U.S. have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. All have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biology or health. 



Mar 10, 2016

Over 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.
Abstract
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).
http://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/Europeanjournalofoncology/article/view/4971

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."http://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
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 http://bit.ly/FCCappeal.

A summary of key documents submitted to the FCC under Proceeding Number 13-84 is available at http://bit.ly/FCCkeydocs.


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 EMFscientist.org 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


PRESS RELEASE


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:  EMFscientist.org

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

Contacts:

Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Director             Joel Moskowitz, PhD               
EMFscientist.org                                  School of Public Health, UC Berkeley
info@EMFscientist.org                         jmm@berkeley.edu