Has the Smart Phone Replaced the Cigarette?

To see recent research on addiction to smart phones, 

social media and internet gaming: http://bit.ly/addictionsaferemr.

Consumer cultivation?

Child advocates urge Facebook to end Messenger Kids

Hamza Shaban, Washington Post, Jan 30, 2018

"More than 100 child advocates, civil society groups, medical experts and other individuals are urging Facebook to discontinue its Messenger app for kids, alleging that the software poses health and development risks to children.

Organized by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, nineteen groups, including Common Sense Media and Public Citizen, have signed a letter to Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg that will be sent on Tuesday. The initiative is the latest example of critics opposing early adoption of digital technology and is playing out amid a broader backlash against the rising influence of Silicon Valley.

The signatories said children are not prepared for online relationships and lack an understanding of privacy and the appropriateness of sharing texts, pictures and videos. Citing research that suggests a link between social media use and higher rates of depression among teens, the letter states it would be irresponsible for Facebook to expose preschool-aged children to a similar service. In addition, the signatories expressed concerns over boosting the screen time of young children and said this would interfere with crucial developmental skills such as reading human emotion, delaying gratification and engaging with the physical world."

<SNIP>

http://wapo.st/2BEasUG

--

December 11, 2017

Is the smart phone the cigarette of the 21^st century?

Yesterday cigarette companies published the following notice in major newspapers in the U.S. as part of a year-long counter-advertising campaign to comply with a Federal court order. 

What if the courts decide some day that the smart phone is the 21^st century cigarette -- might we see the following smart phone ad?

July 6, 2015

During the past year, I've done several reviews of papers submitted to journals that examined smartphone addiction among young adults. The studies were conducted in different countries. The wireless industry claims to have sold more than one billion smartphones last year. Thus smartphone addiction is quickly becoming a global public health issue.  

Now for some anecdotal observations ...  Yesterday, I observed student cell phone-related behavior while walking across the UC Berkeley campus to do a lecture on the health risks of cell phones. More than half of the students I passed were carrying or connected to a smart phone. Eighteen students carried the smart phone in their hand while they walked and were not using it. Eighteen students were wearing a wired headset connected to a device in their pants pocket. I could not tell whether or how they were using this device (which was likely a smart phone) as I kept walking. Finally, seven students were on a phone call holding their smart phone next to their ear.

While waiting outside a lecture hall for the prior class to leave, I observed many undergraduates browsing their smartphones to fill the time before their next class. As the lecture hall emptied out, many students pulled out their smartphones as soon as they exited the hall. 

If we rolled the clock back to 1960, what would I have observed walking across campus?  Would many of the students I described above been smoking cigarettes?  Have we substituted one addiction for an another? Has the smart phone replaced the cigarette?

BTW, I am proud to say that the UC Berkeley campus, along with the other UC campuses, has a tobacco-free policy. I did not observe any tobacco use on my trek across campus.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, March 5, 2015

Resources

To see recent research on addiction to smart phones, 
social media and internet gaming: http://bit.ly/addictionsaferemr

Your smartphone is making you stupid, antisocial and unhealthy. So why can't you put it down?
Eric Andrew-Gee, The Globe and Mail, Jan 6, 2018.

Helping teens turn off in a world that's 'always on': The links between technology and depression

Donna Vickroy, Medical Xpress, Dec 27, 2017

Cellphone usage is the new smoking. It's time to follow France's example and stamp it out
Diane Francis, Financial Post, Dec 22, 2017

Phones in schools could be banned for public health reasons in France

Julia Glum, Newsweek, Dec 14, 2017  

Does smartphone addiction show up in teen’s brains?

Dennis Thomas, CBS News. Dec 4, 2017

Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain 

Sandee LaMotte, CNN, Dec 1, 2017

Hooked on your phone? 
Brit McCandless, CBS 60 Minutes, April 9, 2017

Screen addiction Is taking a toll on children
Jane E. Brody, New York Times, July 6, 2015

Smartphones are addictive and should carry health warning, say academics
Haroon Siddique, The Guardian, Mar 4, 2015

Smartphone addiction: Tips for breaking free of compulsive smartphone use

Helpguide.org, Undated. 

California’s Cell Phone Safety Guidance: 2017 vs 2009

January 4, 2018 (updated January 17, 2018)

In June, 2009, the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) prepared a draft cell phone safety guidance document. Although the document reflected the consensus of the division, it was not released until May, 2017 pursuant to a court order--the outcome of a lawsuit filed under the California Public Records Act.

In December, 2017, the CDPH finally published their cellphone safety guidance document.

A side-by-side comparison of the contents of the original 2009 draft with the 2017 published version of the document appears below. The side-by-side can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/CDPHsidebyside.

For more information: 

Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department 

California's Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: 2017 Year in Review

EMR Safety addresses scientific and policy developments concerning the health risks from exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Since 2013, it has had over 1.3 million page views by visitors from more than 200 countries which attests to the worldwide concern about the impact of wireless radiation on our health.

During the past year, over half of visitors were from outside the United States with Canada, the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Israel, Germany, Greece, Italy and Sweden represented the most. About two-thirds of visitors were 25-54 years of age and 60% were male.

This site provides a curated collection of links to articles on cell phones and cordless phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, Smart Meters and other wireless devices.  I summarize the peer-reviewed research on health risks associated with wireless radiation including cancer risk, reproductive harm and neurological disorders; and I expose the manufacturing of doubt about these risks by industry-linked scientists.

The following links were the most popular wireless radiation stories in 2017 including related posts and wireless product stories.

Most popular wireless radiation stories in 2017

    Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department

·         California's Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage

Cell Phone and Wireless Technology Safety Tips

·        Wireless Radiation TV News

    Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G

• International Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

    5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?

• 5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects
• 5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype
• 5G Wireless Technology: Major newspaper editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills
• Cell Tower Health Effects
• Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)

    Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

    Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cellphone & Cordless Phone Use

• Storyline vs. Rest-of-the-story: Brain cancer incidence, cellphone use & trends data

    Cell phone and cordless phone use causes brain cancer: New review

• Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk

     National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer

• NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats

    Recent Research on Wi-Fi Effects

• Wi-Fi in Schools & Other Public Places

     Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance

• Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance: Media Coverage

     Research on Smart Phone and Internet Addiction

• Has the Smart Phone Replaced the Cigarette?

Most popular wireless product stories in 2017

    Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)

    Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8 Plus Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) 

• Do iPhones emit more radiation than Samsung Galaxy Phones?

    iPhone 7 Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure

    iPhone 8 Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure

    iPhone X Models: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure

    AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-brain barrier effects)

    New Apple Watch Reignites Concerns over Cell Phone Radiation

Cell Phone and Wireless Technology Safety Tips

CDPH Issues Guidelines on How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones

Date: December 13, 2017
Number: 17-086
Contact: Corey Egel | 916.440.7259 | CDPHpress@cdph.ca.gov ​

SACRAMENTO – As smartphone use continues to increase in the U.S., especially among children, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) today issued guidance for individuals and families who want to decrease their exposure to the radio frequency energy emitted from cell phones. Although the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the risks of cell phone use, research suggests long-term, high use may impact human health.

"Although the science is still evolving, there are concerns among some public health professionals and members of the public regarding long-term, high use exposure to the energy emitted by cell phones," said CDPH Director and State Public Health Officer Dr. Karen Smith. "We know that simple steps, such as not keeping your phone in your pocket and moving it away from your bed at night, can help reduce exposure for both children and adults."

Cell phones emit radio frequency energy when they send and receive signals to and from cell towers, and some scientists and public health officials believe this energy may impact human health.

Meanwhile, cell phone use in the U.S. has increased dramatically in recent years. About 95 percent of Americans own a cell phone, and 12 percent rely on their smartphones for everyday Internet access. In addition, the average age when children get their first phone is now just 10 years old, and a majority of young people keep their phones on or near them most of the day and while they sleep.

"Children's brains develop through the teenage years and may be more affected by cell phone use," said Dr. Smith. "Parents should consider reducing the time their children use cell phones and encourage them to turn the devices off at night."

The new CDPH guidance includes practical steps both adults and children could take to reduce exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. That includes:

• Keeping the phone away from the body
• Reducing cell phone use when the signal is weak
• Reducing the use of cell phones to stream audio or video, or to download or upload large files
• Keeping the phone away from the bed at night
• Removing headsets when not on a call
• Avoiding products that claim to block radio frequency energy. These products may actually increase your exposure.

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR17-086.aspx

To download CDPH phone safety guidelines (3 page pdf): 

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell-Phone-Guidance.pdf

More information on the CDPH cell phone safety guidelines:

Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department
California's Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage
California’s Cell Phone Safety Guidance: 2017 vs 2009

Cell phone and cordless phone use causes brain cancer: New review

Increased Brain Tumor Risk from Wireless Phone Use:

2017 Supplement to the BioInitiative Report

Radio frequency radiation should be classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).

In May, 2011, radio frequency radiation (RFR) was classified as a ”possible” human carcinogen (Group 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) based upon an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma observed in human epidemiological studies.

Since then, RFR exposure has increased in most countries as few countries took any precautionary actions due to confusion sowed by the wireless industry. The emerging fifth generation of wireless technology, known as 5G, will further increase RFR exposure.

The RFR exposure limits adopted by most countries were established in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The limits were based on short-term thermal (heating) effects from RFR and ignored non-thermal biological effects.

Although the ICNIRP guidelines were updated in 2009, they still do not cover long-term health risks from non-thermal exposures.  ICNIRP’s current RFR exposure limits are 2 to 10 W/m² depending on frequency. ICNIRP has 14 members; many have ties to industries that want to maintain these permissive guidelines.

In contrast to ICNIRP, in 2007 27 RFR scientists reviewed the literature on non-thermal health effects and released the BioInitiative Report. In 2012 when the report was updated, the authors concluded that health risks can be observed with an RFR exposure of 30 to 60 μW/m². Applying a safety factor of 10, they proposed a precautionary target level of 3–6 μW/m² which corresponds to three hundred thousand to three million times less exposure than the ICNIRP limits allow.

This supplement to the BioInitiative Report written by Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg examines the case-control research on brain tumor risk published since 2011 when IARC classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic.” 

The report finds consistent evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone and cordless phone use. These results are supported by results from animal studies showing genotoxic, co-carcinogenic, and tumor-promoting effects from RFR. Animal research finds evidence for an indirect mechanism for RFR-induced cancer, namely, oxidative stress on the cells leading to free radical production and DNA damage.

The supplement concludes that RFR should now be classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) based on the IARC definition for this category:

“an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity."

--

Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg. Use of Wireless Phones and Evidence for Increased Risk of Brain Tumors: 2017 Supplement.  BioInitiative Working Group, November, 2017.

The supplement to the BioInitiative Report is available at: http://bit.ly/bioinitbrain2017.

April 13, 2017

Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk 

Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation

"The nine Bradford Hill viewpoints on association or causation regarding RF radiation and glioma risk seem to be fulfilled in this review. Based on that we conclude that glioma is caused by RF radiation. Revision of current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation is needed."

This review paper by Michael Carlberg and Lennart Hardell evaluates the strength of the scientific evidence to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk factor and an associated disease -- namely, wireless (cellphone and cordless) phone use and glioma, the most common brain cancer. The paper applies the nine perspectives developed by Sir Austin Bradford Hill to the peer-reviewed data pertaining to this health risk.

The authors allege that official bodies that have reviewed the evidence on mobile phone use and health risks have been dominated by individuals with conflicts of interest. Moreover, these reviewers have relied upon data from methodologically unsound studies, including the Danish Cohort Study and a UK cohort study, to dismiss the evidence from case-control studies.

Drawing upon several lines of research, the authors present a compelling argument for their conclusion that glioma is caused by radio frequency (RF) radiation. The paper recommends that the current guidelines for RF exposure must be revised to protect the population from exposure to low-intensity, non-thermal levels of radio frequency radiation.

--

Carlberg M, Hardell L. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Research International. 2017;2017:9218486. doi: 10.1155/2017/9218486. Epub 2017 Mar 16.

Abstract

Objective. Bradford Hill's viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation were used on glioma risk and use of mobile or cordless phones.

Methods. All nine viewpoints were evaluated based on epidemiology and laboratory studies.

Results. Strength: meta-analysis of case-control studies gave odds ratio (OR) = 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.31-2.76 with highest cumulative exposure.

Consistency: the risk increased with latency, meta-analysis gave in the 10+ years' latency group OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.20-2.19.

Specificity: increased risk for glioma was in the temporal lobe. Using meningioma cases as comparison group still increased the risk.

Temporality: highest risk was in the 20+ years' latency group, OR = 2.01, 95% CI =1.41-2.88, for wireless phones.

Biological gradient: cumulative use of wireless phones increased the risk.

Plausibility: animal studies showed an increased incidence of glioma and malignant schwannoma in rats exposed to radiofrequency (RF) radiation. There is increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) from RF radiation.

Coherence: there is a change in the natural history of glioma and increasing incidence.

Experiment: antioxidants reduced ROS production from RF radiation.

Analogy: there is an increased risk in subjects exposed to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields.

Conclusion. RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma.

Abstract for open access paper: http://bit.ly/2p1ovBU

Also see:

Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cellphone & Cordless Phone Use

Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer

NTP: Not the First Govt. Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats

Storyline vs. Rest-of-the-story: Brain cancer incidence, cellphone use & trends data

Why do many scientists believe mobile phone use increases cancer risk?

WHO Monograph on Cancer Risk from Mobile Phone Use Released

MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies

iPhone X SAR: Specific Absorption Rate or RF Exposure

What are the SAR values for iPhone’s new smart phones? 
How should consumers use this information?

Be sure to read Consumer Reports safety warnings 

about cell phone use.

Also see: "Do iPhones emit more radiation than 
Samsung Galaxy phones?"

To reduce your exposure to microwave radiation: 

• When communication is unnecessary, use Airplane mode.
• When using cellular, turn off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
• When using Wi-Fi, turn off cellular and Bluetooth.
• When phone is powered on, never keep phone next to your body, especially during a phone call.
• When communicating, use phone in speaker mode or a wired earpiece.

For information about wireless head sets, see my AirPods post.

A word of warning about new iPhones: Sophos has an article on its computer security website entitled, "iPhone's new 'off' switch that leaves Bluetooth and Wi-Fi turned on." (Please let me me know if this information is false.)

According to test reports filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the iPhone X Models A1865 and A1903  (FCC #BCG-E3161A) for cellular transmission is 1.08 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.08 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.09 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.39 w/kg at the head, 1.56 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.56 w/kg when used as a hotspot.

The SAR for the  iPhone X Model A1901 (BCG-E3175A [no CDMA]) for cellular transmission is 1.07 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.09 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.09 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.41 w/kg at the head, 1.59 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.59 w/kg when used as a hotspot.

The SAR for the iPhone X Model A1902  (BCG-E3176A) for cellular transmission is 1.09 watts per kilogram (w/kg) at the head, and 1.09 w/kg when worn on the body. The hotspot/Airplay SAR is 1.09 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.48 w/kg at the head, 1.59 w/kg when worn on the body, and 1.59 w/kg when used as a hotspot.

All SARs reported above are averaged over one gram of body tissue corresponding to the US guidelines. The SAR values vary by cell phone carrier: Verizon and Sprint use the CDMA models, and AT&T and T-Mobile use the GSM models. 

The SAR values listed above are for conventional cell phone communications using spectrum licensed to cell phone carriers (i.e., PCE). Apple lists slightly higher values on its website for the head and body which represent cell phone communications using unlicensed spectrum (i.e., NII). Note that Apple does not report on its website the SARs in hotspot mode or for simultaneous transmission of cellular and Wi-Fi.

The minimum separation distance for body-worn testing was 5 mm (about two-tenths of an inch).

The SAR values for the Samsung Galaxy S8, 8 Plus, and Note smart phones were obtained at a separation distance of 15 mm (about six-tenths of an inch) from the torso so the body-worn SAR values are not comparable to those reported for the Apple iPhones. For more information see my article about Samsung smart phones.

What do SAR values mean to the consumer?

The legal limit for the SAR in the U.S. is 1.60 w/kg (averaged over one gram of tissue).

The FCC requires that all cell phone models be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. The SAR is a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head or the body. It is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR, which is measured in watts per kilogram, represents the maximum amount of energy absorbed in any one gram of tissue in the test model. Phones sold in the U.S. typically range in SAR values from about 0.20 w/kg up to the 1.60 legal limit. (3, 4)

The SAR test, adopted in 1996 by the FCC, was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2012. (5) The test does not reflect those who currently use cell phones, nor does it correspond to the way people use them. Today many children are cell phone users--the child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. Moreover, the artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, earrings, or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond the measured SAR in the laboratory. (5)

The FCC assumes that consumers will carry their cell phones in a manufacturer-approved holder that keeps the phone a minimum distance away from the body. However, most people do not keep their phone in a cell phone holder. For the body-worn SAR test, the FCC allows the manufacturer to choose the separation distance between the cell phone and the test model as long as consumers are informed about the minimum distance tested. However, few consumers are aware of the manufacturer’s recommended minimum body separation distance from their cell phone because this information is often difficult to find. Thus, most consumers are in the dark about precautions they can take to keep their exposure to microwave radiation below the legal limit. This prompted the city of Berkeley, California to adopt landmark legislation that requires cellphone retailers to inform their customers about the manufacturer’s safety information.

To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin. The cell phone is not tested directly against the body because almost all cell phones would fail the SAR test as the radiation absorption increases dramatically when the cell phone is close to the body.

Is the legal limit sufficient to protect the cell phone user’s health?

Federal policies in the U.S. could lead the public to believe that all legally-marketed cell phones are safe, and that a cell phone's SAR doesn't matter as long as it meets the legal limit: 1.6 watts per kilogram. (3, 4)

However, the Environmental Working Group and experts point out that the SAR only measures the maximum microwave absorption from cell phone use that perfectly matches laboratory conditions. The SAR is not a good indicator of one’s cumulative microwave exposure under naturalistic conditions.  The research evidence suggests that how one uses the phone (e.g., hands-free) and one’s cell phone carrier actually matters more than the phone’s SAR level.  (4, 6, 7)

The SAR standard was developed to protect users only from the acute effects of the heat generated by microwave radiation (i.e., the thermal effect). (5) The SAR limit does not protect users from the non-thermal effects caused by the cumulative exposure over time to cell phone radiation.

Yet, thousands of laboratory studies with animals and cell samples have found deleterious biologic effects from short-term exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation, including development of stress proteins, micronuclei, free radicals, DNA breakage, and sperm damage. (8) Human studies have also found that brief exposure to cell phone radiation alters brain activity and can open the blood-brain barrier which could enable chemical toxins in the circulatory system to penetrate the brain. (9)

Major studies with humans have found increased cancer risk, including a three-fold increase in brain cancer among those who used wireless phones (cell phones and cordless phones) for 25 or more years. (10)  Based upon this research, the World Health Organization in 2011 declared radiofrequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2B). (11)

Other risks from cell phone use include reproductive harm and male infertility, and neurological disorders (e.g., impaired cognitive functioning, headaches and migraines, and ADHD [attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder]) in children. (12, 13)

Based upon the weight of the evidence from several decades of research including thousands of peer-reviewed published studies, many experts worldwide have signed declarations calling upon government to adopt stronger radiation standards to protect consumers from low intensity, non-thermal exposures from radiation associated with wireless communications, and to alert consumers about how to reduce their risk of harm. (14 -16)

Recent evidence suggests that brain tumor incidence is increasing in the U.S. and other countries and exposure to cell phone radiation may be contributing to this increase. (17) More than 230 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health have signed a petition, the International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling for stronger regulation of wireless radiation.

For tips on how to reduce exposure to wireless radiation, see "Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation". (18) In short, limit your use of the phone, keep the phone away from your body whenever it is powered on, use the phone hands-free, and turn off transmitters not in use (e.g., shut off Wi-Fi or use airplane mode).

References

(3) FCC. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cellular-telephones

(4) FCC. “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You.” Undated. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

(5) Joel Moskowitz. “"Comments on the 2012 GAO Report: 'Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed'.:” http://www.saferemr.com/2013/01/commentary-gao-2012-report-on-mobile.html

(6) Wolchover N. Radiation Risk: Are Some Cellphones More Dangerous Than Others? Life's Little Mysteries. June 23, 2011. http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1550-radiation-risk-some-cell-phones-more-dangerous-than-others.html

(7) Environmental Working Group. EWG’s Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use: Where is EWG's cell phone database? August 27 2013. 

http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/where_database

(8) Giuliani L. Soffritti M. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter. ICEMS Monograph. Bologna, Italy: National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer. 2010. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm

(9) Joel Moskowitz. “LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users.” Sep 20, 2013. http://www.prlog.org/12215083

(10) Joel Moskowitz. “Brain Cancer Risk Increases with the Amount of Wireless Phone Use: Study. http://www.prlog.org/12216483

(11) Joel Moskowitz. “Most Significant Government Health Report on Mobile Phone Radiation Ever Published.” http://www.prlog.org/12125230

(12) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm.” Nov 19, 2012.     http://www.prlog.org/12026867

(13) Joel Moskowitz. “Cell Phone Use and Prenatal Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Headaches in Children.“ http://www.prlog.org/12269207

(14) Joel Moskowitz. “Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone.html

(15) Joel Moskowitz. “Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_43.html

(16) Joel Moskowitz. “Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions.” Aug 4, 2014. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone_4.html

(17) Joel Moskowitz. Brain Tumor Rates are Increasing in the U.S.: The Role of Cell Phone and Cordless Phone Use. http://bit.ly/risingtumors

(18) Joel Moskowitz. Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation  (one page handout). Undated. http://bit.ly/saferemrtips3