Showing posts with label san francisco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label san francisco. Show all posts

Monday, June 3, 2013

San Francisco: Cell Phone Safety Warnings


San Francisco updated its cell phone safety recommendations on the city’s web site following the settlement of a lawsuit filed by the CTIA—The Wireless Association that blocked implementation of the cell phone “right to know” law adopted by the city in 2010.

After a three-year battle, the city decided to disband with its cell phone law rather than continue to fight the CTIA and risk having to pay the industry’s legal fees. The case was settled “in exchange for a waiver of attorneys' fees” even though the city believes the “Ninth Circuit’s opinion is deeply flawed.” (1)

Meanwhile, the CTIA has been citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion around the country in an effort to deter state and local policy makers from adopting cell phone “right to know” laws.

However, the city’s web site points out that because the court’s decision is unpublished, it only applies to San Francisco. Furthermore, the decision cannot serve as a precedent in any future litigation (1). Thus it is inappropriate for the industry to cite this case as a precedent for other jurisdictions.

The city reminds visitors to its web site that “the World Health Organization classified cell phone radiation as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)’ based on increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.” (1) 

In addition to increased risk for glioma, the World Health Organization included increased risk for acoustic neuroma, a tumor on the nerve from the ear to the brain, in its newly published monograph about cell phone radiation and cancer. (2)

San Francisco recommends on its web site the following strategies to reduce exposure to RF energy from cell phones. The goal is to increase the distance between your body and your cell phone whenever using and carrying the device.  (3)
  • “Limit cell phone use by children: Developing brains and thinner skulls lead to higher absorption in children.
  • Use a headset, speakerphone, or text instead: Exposure decreases rapidly with increasing distance from phone.
  • Use a belt clip or keep your phone in a knapsack, briefcase, or handbag to keep some distance between your phone and body: Do not carry your phone directly on your body or at least maintain the recommended safe distance specified in your phones’ user manual.
  • Avoid using your cell phone in areas with a weak signal (in elevators, on transit, or when indicated by your phone): Using a cell phone in areas of good reception decreases exposure by allowing the phone to transmit at reduced power.
  • Reduce the number and length of calls.
  • Turn off your cell phone when not in use.”  (3)

References

(1) SF Environment. Using Cell Phones Safely. URL: http://www.sfenvironment.org/article/safer-practices/using-cell-phones-safely.

(2) Non-ionizing radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields / IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (2011: Lyon, France).  Vol. 102 (2013). URL: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/index.php.

(3) SF Environment. How can I reduce my exposure to radiofrequency-energy from cell phones? URL: http://www.sfenvironment.org/solution/how-can-i-reduce-my-exposure-to-radiofrequency-energy-from-cell-phones.

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.

Sincerely,

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: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/28/EDMB1D58TC.DTL

(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: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826127

(3) Moskowitz JM. San Francisco’s Cell Phone Fact Sheet is Factual. Sep 12, 2012. URL: http://www.prlog.org/11973342-san-franciscos-cell-phone-fact-sheet-is-factual.html

(4) Moskowitz JM. The San Francisco Cell Phone Fact Sheet Suppressed by the CTIA. Apr 17, 2013. URL: http://saferemr.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-san-francisco-cell-phone-fact-sheet.html

 

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.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9fjS-Ghc0OkZEVjRFFXRjRrQUE/edit?usp=sharing