Oregon: Cell Phone & Wi-Fi Safety Warning Legislation

Oregon House Bill 3351 

The bill would prohibit retailers from providing a consumer with a cell phone unless the phone and its packaging contained a specific label. 

"(2) A retailer may not willfully or knowingly sell or lease, offer for sale or lease or otherwise distribute a cellular telephone in this state unless the cellular telephone bears a label that: 

(a) Is conspicuous, legible and nonremovable; 

(b) States in bold letters:

“WARNING: This is a radio-frequency (RF), radiation-emitting device that has nonthermal biological effects for which no safety guidelines have yet been established. Controversy exists as to whether these effects are harmful to humans. You may limit your exposure to RF radiation by limiting your use of this device and keeping it away from the head and body.”; 

(c) Is affixed to both the front and back of the packaging of a cellular telephone; and 

(d) Is affixed to the back of a cellular telephone and occupies at least 30 percent of the back surface of the cellular telephone." 

For more information: 
https://legiscan.com/OR/bill/HB3350/2015

Oregon House Bill 3350

Oregon State Representative Alissa Kenyguyer has proposed House Bill 3350 which directs the Oregon Department of Education to prepare a statement that would disclose the potential health risks of wireless technology. 

The bill requires public and private schools to distribute the statement annually to school employees and to parents of students. The bill declares an emergency stating that such an act is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety. 

The bill was introduced on February 27, 2015 and was referred to the Health Care Committee on March 6. 

If the bill is adopted, it would take effect on July 15, 2015.

For more information:
https://legiscan.com/OR/bill/HB3350/2015

Heavy Use of Cell Phones & Cordless Phones Increases Brain Tumor Risk

Pooled analysis of Swedish case-control studies during 1997-2003  and 2007-2009 on meningioma risk associated with the use of mobile and cordless phone

Michael Carlberg, Lennart Hardell. Pooled analysis of Swedish case-control studies during 1997-2003  and 2007-2009 on meningioma risk associated with the use of mobile and cordless phone. Oncology Reports. 33:3093-3098. 2015. DOI: 10.3892/or.2015.3930

Abstract

A pooled analysis of two case-control studies on meningioma with patients diagnosed during 1997‑2003 and 2007-2009 was conducted. Both genders were included, aged 20-80 and 18-75 years, respectively, at the time of diagnosis. Population-based controls, matched according to age and gender, were enrolled. Exposure was assessed by questionnaire. In the entire study, cases with all brain tumor types were included. The whole reference group was used in the unconditional logistic regression analysis on meningioma, with adjustments for gender, age, year of diagnosis and socioeconomic index (SEI).

In total, 1,625 meningioma cases and 3,530 controls were analyzed. Overall no association with use of mobile or cordless phones was found. In the fourth quartile of use (>1,436 h) somewhat increased risk was found for mobile phones yielding an odds ratio (OR)=1.2, 95% confidence intervals (CI)=0.9‑1.6 and cordless phones OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.3-2.2. Higher risk was calculated in the highest decile (>3,358 h), OR=1.5, 95% CI=0.99-2.1 and OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.4-2.8, respectively. In addition, the longest latency time gave somewhat increased risk for both phone types although the result was not statistically significant. There was no association for ipsilateral use or anatomical tumor location.

The present study showed a somewhat increased risk among heavy users of mobile and cordless phones. Since meningioma is generally a slow-growing tumor, longer latency period is necessary for definitive conclusions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=25963528

Excerpts

Meningioma is most common among middle-aged and elderly individuals. The incidence is approximately 2-fold higher in women than in men (1,2). It accounts for approximately 30% of intracranial tumors (3) and develops from the pia and arachnoid membrane that cover the central nervous system. Meningioma is a benign, encapsulated, well-demarked and seldom malignant tumor. It is slow growing and presents with neurological symptoms by compression of adjacent structures. Headaches and seizures are common symptoms.

The only well-established risk factor is ionizing radiation with a long latency period (time from first exposure until diagnosis) encompassing decades (4,5). Sex hormones may be of importance due to the female predominance, yet the role is unclear and has been suggested not to fully explain the higher incidence in women (6).

During recent years, the use of wireless phones has been discussed as a risk factor for brain tumors. When used they emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs).

The Nordic countries were among the first in the world to widely adopt this technology. Analogue phones (NMT; Nordic Mobile Telephone System) were introduced in the early 1980's ...

The digital system (GSM; Global System for Mobile Communication) using dual band, 900 and 1,800 MHz, started to operate in 1991. The third generation of mobile phones, 3G or Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS), using 1,900/2,100 MHz RF fields has  been introduced worldwide in recent years, and in Sweden in 2003 and currently dominates the market.

Desktop cordless phones (DECT) have been used in Sweden since 1988, first using analogue 800-900 MHz RF fields, but since the early 1990's using a digital 1,900-MHz system. The cordless phones are becoming more common than traditional telephones connected to landlines. In addition, these phones emit RF-EMF radiation similar to that of mobile phones.

[In 2011,] ... Regarding meningioma, the IARC Working Group found that the available evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion on an association with mobile phone use (7). The only studies that provided results for a 10-year latency or more were those from the Hardell group (9,13) and the Interphone study group (12).

Cumulative use. ... Cordless phone use gave statistically significant increased risk in the fourth quartile to OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.3-2.2 (p-trend <0.0001). Total use of wireless phones >1,486 h gave OR=1.3, 95% CI=1.1‑1.6 (p-trend =0.01). We also analyzed the >90th percentile corresponding to >3,358 h cumulative use. Mobile phones of the digital type (2G and 3G) gave a borderline increased risk with OR=1.5, 95% CI=1.0005-2.3 (p-trend =0.045) and cordless phone gave OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.4-2.8 (p-trend <0.0001; data not shown). The results for analogue mobile phones were based on only 6 exposed cases and 8 exposed controls yielding OR=2.1, 95% CI=0.7-6.3 (p-trend =0.65). Somewhat increased risk was found for the different phone types per 100-h cumulative use (Table II). Mobile phone use in total gave OR=1.005, 95% CI=1.001-1.009 and cordless phone use OR=1.010, 95% CI=1.005-1.014.

Multivariate and conditional logistic regression. ... The risk increased with statistical significance for cordless phone use with OR=1.009, 95% CI=1.004-1.013 per 100-h use ...

A modest increased risk was found in the fourth quartile >1,486 h of cumulative use for mobile phones. The result was statistically significant for cordless phones with a statistically significant trend (p<0.0001). We also analyzed the >90th percentile of cumulative use which gave support for an association with use both of mobile and cordless phones. In the multivariate analysis, only cordless phone use remained as a statistically significant risk factor per 100 h of cumulative use. The risk increased somewhat per year of latency for all phone types but was not statistically significant. Thus, taking together the results for mobile phones and cordless phones, an increased risk cannot be excluded among the heaviest users.

In the French case-control study including the time period 2004-2006, an increased risk was found among the heaviest mobile phone users (18). Thus cumulative use >896 h gave OR=2.57, 95% CI=1.02-6.44 for meningioma (p-trend =0.06). Time since first use >10 years yielded OR=1.57, 95% CI=0.64‑3.86 (p-trend =0.52), whereas no increased risk was found for shorter time of use. Use of cordless phones was not assessed. The study provided some support of an increased risk for heaviest cumulative use of mobile phones but less clear for latency. Thus, there are some similarities with our findings.

In conclusion, in the present study, no conclusive evidence of an association between use of mobile and cordless phones and meningioma was found. However, an increased risk was noted among heavy users of mobile and cordless phones, especially in the highest decile of cumulative use. The risk increased somewhat with latency, although the result was not statistically significant. Meningioma risk was not associated with tumor localization or ipsilateral use. However, taking the long latency periods that have been reported for the increased meningioma risk associated with exposure to ionizing radiation it remains too early to make a definitive risk assessment. Results for even longer latency periods of wireless phone use than in this study are desirable.

Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation

Click here to download a one-page handout 
on how to reduce your wireless radiation exposure: 

"Tips to Reduce Wireless Radiation Exposure"

Maine's "Cellular Telephone Labeling Act"

April 17, 2015

On a 7-4 vote, the Maine Legislature's Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology rejected the "Cellular Telephone Labeling Act" (LD 883), a proposal to require cell phone manufacturers to place health warning labels on cell phones. 

The bill now goes to the full Legislature as a "divided report." Supporters can try to revive the bill on the Senate or House floor.

For more information about this hearing on April 16, see the Portland Press Herald story.


April 5, 2015

The Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology of the 127th Maine State Legislature held a public hearing on the "Cellular Telephone Labeling Act" (LD 883) on Tuesday, March 31.

The Committee has scheduled a work session for Thursday, April 16, 2015  at 10:00 AM.

The bill requires cell phone manufacturers that include safety notifications in their owner's manuals to ensure that the phone's packaging includes these safety notifications or a label indicating where the safety notifications may be found in the owner's manual. 

The bill prohibits retailers from selling phones without the appropriate labels. It requires manufacturers to provide the safety notifications to retailers at no cost to the retailers. It prohibits retailers from selling phones that do not bear the following label warning that the device emits radiofrequency electromagnetic fields:

"This device emits radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Avoid direct contact."

Finally, the bill  requires retailers to provide an information bulletin to the purchaser informing the purchaser of potential health risks associated with cell phone use. A violation of these provisions is considered a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In March, 2014, a similar bill sponsored by Rep. Andrea Boland passed both houses of the Maine Legislature but was killed by cell phone lobbyists who co-opted the Democratic House leadership to switch their votes when it was returned to the originating body for enactment -- normally a routine vote. For more information on Rep. Boland's bill, see my Mar 21, 2014 press release.

The current bill is sponsored by Rep. Harlow of Portland. Co-sponsors include Rep. Beavers (South  Berwick), Chapman (Brooksville), Chipman (Portland), Dunphy (Embden), and Rykerson (Kittery).

Full text of the "Cellular Telephone Labeling Act": http://1.usa.gov/18Orj8N

Status of the bill: http://1.usa.gov/1LANHo7

Public Hearing Testimony, 11 items

Boland, Andrea M.	Sanford	(748 KB)
Callahan, Kevin	TechAmerica	(116 KB)
Clegg, Frank	Canadians for Safe Technology	(203 KB)
Cobb, Kristen	Portland	(225 KB)
Cotta, H David	China, Maine	(46 KB)
Friedman, Ed	Friends of Merrymeeting Bay	(194 KB)
Harlow, Denise	Maine State Legislature	(77 KB)
Hart, Debra	Retail Association of Maine	(57 KB)
Keegan, Gerard	CTIA-The Wireless Association	(326 KB)
Ory, Dr. Howard	CTIA	(836 KB)
Turner, James	Swankin and Turner	(507 KB)

---

Prior cell phone precautionary warning legislation (LD 1013) in Maine:

Maine lawmakers bow to industry on cellphone labeling bill

Jody Spear, Bangor Daily News, Apr 1, 2014

Latest Research on Bioelectromagnetics: BioEM2015

Selected Presentations and Papers from BioEM2015

 Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society

Asilomar Conference Center, California, June 14-19, 2015

“As the premier international conference in the area of bioelectromagnetics, BioEM2015 is expected to stimulate further research in this field through the exchange of ideas and lively debate on state-of-the-art knowledge, as well as gaps to be filled.”

“With the increased presence of electromagnetic fields (EMF) in our everyday lives, the meeting aims at presenting and advancing high quality research in basic and applied aspects of bioelectromagnetics to address the medical applications, health concerns, and regulations associated with EMF. BioEM2015 will feature invited plenary talks by world-renowned scientists, a variety of special sessions and panel discussions aligned with the most pressing issues in the field of bioelectromagnetics, as well as informative technical sessions, poster sessions, and social functions.”

In the opening plenary session, Kurt Straif, the head of the Monographs Program at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the WHO will raise the question, "Should IARC's Classification of RF-EMF Invoke the Precautionary Principle?."  

Kenneth Foster, a Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania who has been discussing EMF issues since 1971 will argue, "A Case for Precaution in the Application of the Precautionary Principle."  

The rebuttal,"The Precautionary Principle Should be Invoked for RF-EMF," will be provided by Christopher Portier, former Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at CDC.  Prior to his work at CDC, Dr. Portier was the Associate Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at NIH and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program. Dr. Portier served as the CDC expert on the 31-member IARC expert working group that declared radiofrequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic" to humans in 2011.

The abstracts for a selection of key papers and presentations which have the greatest potential utility for policy makers and the public can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/1IPRgEy.

California Medical Association Calls for Stronger Wireless Communication Safety Standards

The California Medical Association (CMA) adopted a resolution that calls for re-evaluation of the safety standards for wireless communications in the U.S.

The Federal safety standards for wireless communications were designed to protect humans from the heating, or thermal, risks caused by exposure to microwave radiation. However, thousands of peer-reviewed studies have found bio-effects from exposure to low intensity, non-thermal levels of microwave radiation. Moreover, three independent, case-control studies have found a two-fold increased risk of brain cancer among adults who have used cell phones for ten or more years. And one study found a three-fold risk of brain cancer after 25 years of cell phone and cordless phone use.

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that radio frequency energy is "possibly carcinogenic to humans", largely based upon the cell phone research.

The CMA’s “Wireless Communications Public Safety Standards Reevaluation” resolution “supports efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure levels associated with wireless communication devices, including consideration of adverse non-thermal biologic and health effects from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation used in wireless communications.” In addition, the CMA “supports efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research.”

Wireless Communications Public Safety Standards Reevaluation

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HOUSE OF DELEGATES 2014

California Medical Association (CMA) Resolution 107-14, Adopted December 7, 2014

Resolved 1: That CMA supports efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure levels associated with wireless communication devices, including consideration of adverse non-thermal biologic and health effects from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation used in wireless communications; and be it further


Resolved 2: That CMA supports efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research.


Cindy Lee Russell, M.D. introduced the resolution which she co-authored along with Ken Yew, M.D.

According to Dr. Russell:

"Physicians and scientists have recognized for years the dangers of ionizing radiation from x rays and nuclear weapons. Tissue is directly damaged causing cancer and a wide range of other health effects. The non ionizing microwave radiation from  wi fi routers, ipads, cell phones and cell towers has been thought to be harmless until the last few decades as a rapidly growing body of peer reviewed research has shown very troubling biological and health effects from even low levels of exposure. The studies have shown negative effects on cell structures, brain function, animals, and plants. Many experts feel this is a looming public health problem as the use of wireless technology swiftly rises in our homes, offices and schools. EMF standards need to be reevalauted and designed for safety based on the biologic effects on living structures not on heat as is now currently being done."

In August, 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics, a professional organization representing 60,000 physicians, sent a letter to the FCC and the FDA urging the FCC to adopt radiation standards that: 

• "Protect children’s health and well-being ... Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.
• Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996 ... Many children, adolescents and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures. FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today.
•  Provide meaningful consumer disclosure. The FCC has noted that it does not provide consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience." (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318 )

Four resolutions signed by scientific experts who have published research on wireless radiation and health in scientific journals were submitted to the FCC. The resolutions call on governments to issue stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation. The declarations were signed by 98 scientists. For more information, see “Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions at http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_4.html .”

Since 1997, twenty-two declarations have been signed by scientists and health professionals calling for stronger cell phone radiation regulations. For more information on these declarations, see http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-of-electromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/.

--

The CMA resolution (including 62 references) can be found on the Parents for Safe Technology web site.

--

Wi Fi in Schools: Are we Playing it Safe with our Kids? 

Cindy Russell, MD, The Bulletin (Santa Clara County/Monterey County Medical Association), March/April 2015, pp. 16-21.

Dr. Russell discusses the research which led to the adoption by the California Medical Association of the resolution calling for stronger wireless communication standards.

http://bit.ly/1HtJ9eU

Wireless Technology Health Risks --The New York Times Fuels the Debate

We are increasingly surrounded at home, in the office, and in public by wireless devices that emit microwave radiation. These include Wi-Fi routers, laptops, and tablets, cell phones, cordless phones, wireless TV cable systems, smart meters, and baby monitors. Now corporations would like us to add wireless wearable technology to this mix. 

The biologic and the epidemiologic research increasingly suggests that many types of non-ionizing, electromagnetic fields (EMF) are producing harmful effects on us as well as animal and plant species. The weight of the scientific evidence produced in the last decade strongly supports the need for precautionary policy measures to be adopted immediately.

Exposure to EMF has been increasing exponentially.  If we continue to allow powerful corporations to manufacture doubt by co-opting journalists, scientists, and policy makers, we will all suffer the consequences of this global experiment.

On March 18, 2015, the New York Times published a column on their web site, "Could Wearable Computers be as Harmful as Cigarettes?" by Nick Bilton. The article has attracted more than 150 comments so far -- both pro and con -- on the New York Times web site, and more than two dozen web-based news sites have published critiques of this column (see below).

Newspaper editors typically write headlines for articles they publish. Perhaps, the original headline was too provocative as the editor changed the headline for the web version of this article the next day to "The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech."  A version of the article also appears in the March 19th print edition of the New York Times on page D2 with the headline, "New Gadgets, New Health Worries."

The New York Times should be commended for publishing the original column even though both sides of the debate about the health risks of wireless radiation can find fault. I hope that the controversy this article has stimulated does not discourage the Times from future coverage of this complex topic.

In my opinion, the backlash on web-based news sites has been disproportionate and bypasses the significant issues that  Bilton's column raised. Read the column and the ensuing media coverage (links below) and decide for yourself. 

Instead, the Times went into "damage control" mode and tried to distance itself from the original opinion piece. 

On March 19, Margaret Sullivan, the Public Editor for the Times, published the following piece, "A Tech Column on Wearable Gadgets Draws Fire as ‘Pseudoscience’."

On March 21, 2015, the Editor for the Styles section of the Times appended the following statement to the opinion piece:

Editors’ Note: March 21, 2015

Editors’ Note

The Disruptions column in the Styles section on Thursday, discussing possible health concerns related to wearable technology, gave an inadequate account of the status of research about cellphone radiation and cancer risk.

Neither epidemiological nor laboratory studies have found reliable evidence of such risks, and there is no widely accepted theory as to how they might arise. According to the World Health Organization, “To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all said there is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship. While researchers are continuing to study possible risks, the column should have included more of this background for balance.

In addition, one source quoted in the article, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has been widely criticized by experts for his claims about disease risks and treatments. More of that background should have been included, or he should not have been cited as a source.

An early version of the headline for the article online — “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?” — also went too far in suggesting any such comparison.

These arguments are similar to those employed by the CTIA--The Wireless Association: 

“The FCC, the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, and the World Health Organization have each evaluated the scientific research on wireless phones and each has found that the weight of the scientific research has not shown that wireless phone use causes any adverse health effects.” (CTIA, May 27, 2012).

On April 2, 2015, the Editor for the Styles section of the Times appended the following "correction" to the original opinion piece. 

Correction: April 2, 2015 

The Disruptions column on March 18, about health concerns stemming from wearable technology, referred incorrectly to research conducted by Dr. Lennart Hardell, a professor of oncology and cancer epidemiology at Orebro University Hospital in Sweden, that concluded that talking on a mobile or cordless phone for extended periods could triple the risk of a certain kind of brain cancer. The study was an analysis of two earlier studies that asked people with and without brain tumors to answer questions about cellphone and cordless phone use; it was not a longitudinal study in which patients were followed over time.    

I inserted quotes around "correction" because I don't see the problem with Bilton's description of Hardell's research in his March 18th article. The author did not allege that the research was based upon a longitudinal study:

"Analysis conducted by a group of European researchers and led by Dr. Lennart Hardell, a professor of oncology and cancer epidemiology at Orebro University Hospital in Sweden, concluded that talking on a mobile or cordless phone for extended periods could triple the risk of a certain kind of brain cancer." 

In sum, I believe the public deserves better from the New York Times -- namely a full, unbiased discussion of the research on the health risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields from wireless devices. 

Media coverage of the March 18th NY Times article by Nick Bilton

Support for the column

Ignorance drowns out precaution: NY Times tech columnist has hands slapped

Microwave News

New Expert Study Confirms NY Times Questions on Wearable Tech

Environmental Health Trust, PRNewswire

'Sophisticated Evaluation of Serious Research' at the New York Times?

Huffington Post

Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?

Mercola.com

Criticism of the column

The NY Times declares wearables cause cancer – a fail for journalism or science?

The Conversation (Australia)

Weird Science: The Apple Watch may already be killing you!

ChannelWorld.in (India)

Apple Watch : La montre peut-elle causer un cancer ?
Melty Style (French)

NYT BS: Apple Watch Causes Cancer
The Rush Limbaugh Show

WaPo, Wired, and Gawker Slam NY Times for pseudoscience on smartwatches causing cancer

Tina Nguyen, MediaITE

The Times’ Attack on Wearables Is an Attack on Science

Nick Stockton, Wired

New York Times: No, wearables are not the new cigarettes

Dan Verel, MedCity News

Morning Break: Pseudoscience Finds a Home at the NYT

Staff, MedPage Today

Smartwatches might cause cancer, says article based on ‘expert’ who pushes holistic breast cancer treatments
Rachel Feltman, Washington Post

23 More Things Dr. Joseph Mercola Has Said Will Give You Cancer
Melissa Dahl, New York Magazine

Apple Watch Raises Health Concerns — Will Wearable Tech Cause Cancer?
Timothy Torres, Tech Times

Is it safe to put on wearable tech in a smart home?
Lloyd Alter, Mother Nature Network

Dumbphones: A vapid scare-piece in the New York Times gets a double-down debunking.

Daniel Engber, Slate Magazine

Fear Mongering in the NYT: Does Wearable Tech Cause Cancer?

Phil Plait, Slate Magazine (blog) 

A New York Times columnist wrote that smartwatches might kill you and ...

James Cook, Business Insider 

Why Is the Times Quoting This Quack About the Danger of AppleWatches?

Leah Finnegan, Gawker 

The health concerns about smartwatches are totally overblown

James Cook, Businessinsider India

The New York Times' smartwatch cancer article is bad, and they should feel bad

Russell Brandom, The Verge

Cellphones, watches, apps and cancer and cigarettes!

Dan Verel, MedCity News

No, Wearable Electronics Are Not Like Cigarettes

Alexandra Ossola, Popular Science

No New York Times, wearable computers couldn't be as harmful as cigarettes!

Andrew Maynard, Risk Science Center

A Badly Flawed NYT Story Trumpets Cell Phone Health Dangers

Keith Kloor, Discover Magazine (blog)

International New York Times wonders whether an Apple all day will bring doctors to stay
Tabith Powledge, On Science Blogs

NY Times draws Flak for suggesting Smartwatches can Cause Cancer
Eleanor Graham, NY City News

NY Times Article raises Concern over Cancer Risk posed by Smartwatches and Cellphones

Tanya Campbell, Maine News Online

Cell Phone Cases Can Increase Radiation Exposure

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a press release and a report on a study that has important implications. Not only are the FCC's cell phone certification testing procedures inadequate to protect consumer safety, the cell phone manufacturer's safety instructions fail to warn the consumer that some cell phone cases may significantly increase the user's exposure to microwave radiation.

Legislation may be needed to ban the sale of cases that increases a cell phone's Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). At the very least, warning labels should be required on these cases. Some cell phones may exceed the SAR legal limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram when used with certain cases.

The White House must end the diffusion of responsibility among government agencies and between government and the Telecom industry as public health and safety are at risk. The Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission should immediately address all of the health and safety risks associated with cell phone use.

In 1996 when the Federal government adopted the legal limit for cell phone radiation exposure, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health lobbied for 1.0 watts per kilogram. However, industry and military lobbyists prevailed in getting Congress to adopt the more permissive limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram.

The EWG report examines only one smart phone, the iPhone 4, that was tested alone and with several cell phone cases. The iPhone 4, unlike most other cell phones, has antennas on the exterior of the case. The results of the current study may have limited generalizability. The study should be replicated with other cell phones and other cases. 

The EWG report was based on a study commissioned by Pong Research Corporation, a cell phone case manufacturer that may have a vested interest in the outcome; however, the tests were conducted by CETECOM, an independent testing and certification laboratory used by many cell phone manufacturers for FCC certification of their handsets.

--

Cell Phone Cases Can Increase Radiation Exposure 

Up To 70 Percent

Press Release, Environmental Working Group, Mar 3, 2015

WASHINGTON – Most cell phone cases are so badly designed that they partially block the antenna, making the phone work harder to transmit a signal and intensifying the radiation that strikes the user’s head and body, a new Environmental Working Group analysis shows.

The analysis released today, based on data submitted to the Federal Communications Commission by case-maker Pong Research Corp., reveals that some cell phone cases on the market are so poorly engineered that the Specific Absorption Rate – a measure of the amount of radiation absorbed by the body – increased by 20 to 70 percent. While the jury is still out as to whether exposure to cell phone radiation can cause adverse health effects, a growing body of evidence points to this possibility.

<SNIP>

Environmental Working Group Press Release

--

"Does Your Cell Phone Case Raise 

Your Radiation Exposure?"

Excerpts from the Environmental Working Group Report

Table 1: Cell phone cases can significantly increase radiation exposure

*SAR values are from tests conducted by Pong Research Corp on March 29, 2012 and submitted to the FCC on May 31, 2012. Because the SAR values were submitted to the FCC in graph form, EWG estimated numerical SAR values based on the chart available in WT Docket 11-186. Pong’s filing to the FCC did not indicate whether SAR measurements were done at the head or in a body-worn configuration. In a personal communication, Pong informed EWG that the SAR measurements were done in a body-worn configuration, with the same distance from the test mannequin used by the phone manufacturer. Tests in the body-worn configuration were done at a 10 millimeter separation distance.
** Percent SAR increase rounded to the nearest decile.

Table 2: Cell phone cases diminish signal strength, measured as Total Radiating Power

Environmental Working Group Report

"Wireless Radiation: What Scientists Know and You Don’t with Dr. Joel Moskowitz"

"I just listened to your radio interview. It is excellent." -- one of the world's leading scientists on electromagnetic radiation and health

"It was GREAT! I heard it last night." -- electromagnetic radiation safety advocate in U.S.

WBAI-FM (New York City), 8:00-9:00 PM EDT, Mar 10, 2015

Hosts: Doug and Patti Wood, Green Street Radio
Guest: Joel Moskowitz, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

Cell phones, tablets, cordless phones, laptop computers, baby monitors and wireless routers have become so ubiquitous in our modern world we don’t even think about the fact that they all emit radio-frequency radiation, also called wireless radiation. If we could actually see wireless radiation in the air in the same way we see visible light, we’d see an increasingly dense web of electromagnetic smog that envelops us pretty much everywhere we go.

Dr. Joel Moskowitz is the Director and Principal Investigator of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley.  Visit his web site at 

www.saferEMR.com.

To listen to this 37 minute radio program:  http://bit.ly/1Brjph0

Transcript: http://bit.ly/1FCC1i6

Doug and Patti Wood, Green Street Radio

Latest News Releases

Berkeley's Proposed Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance
http://www.prlog.org/12383163

iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels and Separation Distance
http://www.prlog.org/12373670

CDC Retracts its Precautionary Health Warning about Cell Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12362077

CDC Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12359483

FCC: 98 Scientific Experts Demand Stronger Regulation of Cellphone Radiation
http://prlog.org/12355167

Scientists Call on Government to Protect Public from Wireless Radiation Exposure
http://bit.ly/ScientificDeclaration

Hybrid and Electric Automobiles Should Be Re-Designed to Reduce Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

http://www.prlog.org/12343742

Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation

http://www.prlog.org/12310450

Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC regarding Adverse Impact of Cell Tower Radiation on Wildlife
http://www.prlog.org/12299815

Cell Phone Radiation Label Bill Passes Maine Legislature Before Dying
http://www.prlog.org/12299052

Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children
http://www.prlog.org/12269207

The Top Cell Phone Radiation Safety Stories of 2013
http://www.prlog.org/12262295

Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation: Key submissions to the Federal Communications Commission
http://www.prlog.org/12245111

Belgium Adopts New Regulations to Promote Cell Phone Radiation Safety

http://www.prlog.org/12231532

French Health Agency Recommends Children and Vulnerable Groups Reduce Cell Phone Radiation Exposure
http://www.prlog.org/12226630

Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use
http://www.prlog.org/12216483

LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users

http://www.prlog.org/12215083

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

http://www.prlog.org/12135511

Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published
http://www.prlog.org/12125230

More News Releases