Sunday, December 19, 2021
Wednesday, November 3, 2021
The Center for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) is one of 18 regional Education and Research Centers (ERC), funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The ERC supports traineeships at three University of California campuses: UC Berkeley, UC Davis and UCSF.
This presentation summarized the research on biologic and health effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and cell towers along with the implications of this research for 5G, the fifth generation of cellular technology. The inadequacy of current national and international radio frequency exposure limits to protect environmental and public health was also discussed.
Indicative of the widespread interest in this public health issue, the webinar was attended by 660 people from 40 states and 30 countries. About 20% of attendees were from California and 19% from foreign countries. More than 100 people submitted questions; however, there was only enough time to answer a handful.
Webinar video: https://bit.ly/cellphonewebinar2021 (1 hour 22 minutes; starts 5 minutes in)
Speaker: Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, has directed the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley since 1993. Dr. Moskowitz has published research on disease prevention for 40 years. In 2009 he served as the senior author on a hallmark paper reviewing research on mobile phone use and tumor risk published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Last year he updated this meta-analysis in a paper published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. This year he co-authored a paper on electrohypersensitivity published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences.
Since 2013 he has translated and disseminated research on the biologic and health effects of wireless radiation through his website (https://saferemr.com). In 2017, with legal representation from the UC Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic, he won a lawsuit against the California Department of Public Health for suppressing its own scientists' cell phone safety guidance for eight years. This resulted in the Department finally publishing cell phone health warnings. He serves as an advisor to Physicians for Safe Technology and to the International EMF Scientist Appeal which was signed by over 240 scientists who published more than 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on electromagnetic fields and biology or health.
Webinar video: https://bit.ly/cellphonewebinar2021 (1 hour 22 minutes; starts 5 minutes in)
Sunday, August 15, 2021
“The FCC sets radiofrequency limits in close consultation with the FDA and other health agencies. After a thorough review of the record and consultation with these agencies, we find it appropriate to maintain the existing radiofrequency limits, which are among the most stringent in the world for cell phones,” said Julius Knapp, chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology.
As Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote to the FCC, “[t]he available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits…” and “[n]o changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.”
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: October 1, 2019
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 public.
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to consumers.
Although more than fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations about how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken cell phone radiation standards.In all, the FCC received more than 1,200 submissions between June 25, 2012 and October 1, 2019. Many submissions include multiple documents. The preponderance of submissions call on the FCC to adopt stronger exposure limits on radiofrequency radiation.
Hundreds of individuals submitted statements that document their personal health problems and diseases experienced from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These and other submissions can be viewed or downloaded by clicking on Proceeding Number 13-84 on the FCC web site.
The FCC's obsolete RF exposure limits are 23 years old. The current request for public input is six years old. The FCC never reported on or acted upon a similar request for public input issued in 2003.
In 2015, a Harvard publication exposed how industry captured the FCC, "As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest."
Obviously, updating RF regulations and testing procedures has not been a priority for the FCC even though the U.S. General Accountability Office recommended this in 2012.
Although there is a search engine on the FCC web site, one cannot easily find important documents. Hence, I constructed several indices.
Part I which appears 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 are organized under 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 individuals without organizational or institutional affiliations. Many of these submissions discuss electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) (see Part IV).
Part II contains a list of key research papers that can be downloaded from the FCC web site. (updated Aug 11, 2019)
Part III lists 98 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.
In 2015, scientists who published peer-reviewed research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) submitted a petition to the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and all world leaders calling for stronger regulations on exposure to radiofrequency radiation than current national and international exposure limits allow. The International EMF Scientist Appeal was also submitted to the FCC.
The Appeal has been signed by more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology and health. These scientists representing over 40 nations have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. This petition was recently submitted to the United Nations Environment Programme.
Part IV summarizes the responses of 184 persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) who submitted comments to the FCC and reported either their symptoms or the sources of their problematic exposure to radio frequency radiation.
Scientific Expert Resolutions Calling for Stronger Regulations
Catania Resolution (2002; 16 signees)
Benevento Resolution (2006; 52 signees)
Seletun Scientific Panel (2009); 7 signees)
Health Canada Safety Code 6 Declaration (Jul 9, 2014; 54 signees)
The International EMF Scientist Appeal (May 11, 2015; 200 signees)
The International EMF Scientist Appeal (Aug 25, 2019; 250 signees)
The 5G Appeal (2017 moratorium; signed by 245 scientists and doctors)
Expert Comments in Support of Stronger Regulations
Omer Abid, MD, MPH
David Adams, PhD
Norm Alster ("FCC captured agency")
Frank Barnes, PhD
Igor Belyaev, DrSc
BioInitiative Working Group (29 contributing authors)
David O. Carpenter, MD
Alan H. Frey
Isaac Jamieson, PhD
Olle Johansson, PhD
Henry C. Lai, PhD
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941777Victor Leach / Simon Turner
De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH
Don Maisch, PhD
Jerry L. Phillips, PhD
Ronald M. Powell, PhD
Cindy Sage & David O. Carpenter, MD
J. Bertel Schou, PhD & Diane Schou, PhD
Miriam D. Weber, MD
Expert Comments that Support Weaker Regulations
Consumer, Environmental and Health OrganizationsAmerican Academy of Pediatrics
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318American Academy of Environmental Medicine
California Brain Tumor Association
Center for Electrosmog PreventionConsumers for Safe Cell Phones
Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc.
EMF Safety Networkhttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940667
EMRadiation Policy Institute
Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Working Group
Environmental Working Group (petition w/ 26,000 signatures):
Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001390648
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520939117Pharmacists Planning Service Inc (PPSI)Stop Smart Meters
Smart Meters Irvine
Stop Smart Meters New York
Wireless Education Action
Environmental Protection Agency
FCC Office of the Chairman (Response to Sen. Blumenthal & Rep. Eshoo)
FCC Office of Engineering Technology Bureau
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization
Los Angeles Unified School District
Montgomery County, Maryland
National Cancer Institute & National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958232City and County of San Francisco
City of Tucson and County of Pima, Arizona Resolution
Wireless Industry Corporations and Associations
Alarm Industry Communications Committee
ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio
Association for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958353Blooston Private Users
Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C
Consumer Electronics Association
CTIA--The Wireless Association
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition
IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)
Mobile Manufacturers Forum
Mobile and Wireless Forum
Momentum Dynamics Corporation and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941479National Association of Broadcasters
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisorshttp://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958184
PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The HetNet Forum
RF Check Inc.
Sensormatic Electronics, LLC
Telecommunications Industry Association
Richard Tell Associates
Verizon and Verizon Wireless
Senator Bill Galvano (Florida)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
National Assn. of Telecommunications Officers, National League of Cities, National Assn of Counties, & U.S. Conference of Mayors
United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers