EMF Health Impacts and Policy Change Webinar

Invisible Hazards: State of the Science 

on EMF Health Impacts

 and Next Steps for Policy Change 

Collaborative for Health and the Environment Webinar, May 9, 2018

Video: 

http://bit.ly/CHE-emfwebinar

Slides:

Weak Magnetic and RF Fields (0:2:45)

Dr. Frank Barnes 

http://bit.ly/slidesBarnes

Adverse Fetal & Childhood Health Effect of In-Utero Exposure to Magnetic Fields (0:21:50)

Dr. De-Kun Li 

http://bit.ly/slidesLi3

Cell Phones and Public Health Policy (0:40:00)

Dr. Joel Moskowitz

http://bit.ly/slidesMoskowitz

Questions and Answers (0:57:30 - 1:10:20)

As wireless technologies, particularly cellphones, become ever more ubiquitous in our culture and communication systems, researchers have been asking the question: what, if any, impact is there from this technology on our health? Research has been conducted investigating links with cancer, reproductive health, fetal development, children's health, and electromagnetic sensitivities, among other concerns. We also encounter lower frequency electromagnetic fields produced by power lines, electrical wiring, and electrical equipment.  

In May 2015, over 200 scientists signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal calling upon the United Nations and World Health Organization to address the emerging public health crisis related to cell phones and wireless devices and infrastructure. Electromagnetic fields have been classified as a possible carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2012. And in 2016, the National Toxicology Program released partial findings from a multi-year animal study revealing an increased risk for cancer associated with EMF exposure.

On May 9, 2018 we learned about the latest science on health impacts of EMF exposure and possibilities for policy change. 

Dr. Frank Barnes, Distinguished Professor in the Biomedical Group of the Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering at the University of Colorado, provided some of the current state of the science on how weak electric and magnetic fields can modify biological systems and the growth of cancer cells. Dr. Barnes is co-author of the Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields: Bioengineering and Biophysical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, soon to be released in a new edition. 

Dr. De-Kun Li, Senior Research Scientist at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, presented his team’s December 2017 study, Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study. He also discussed his perspective on overall issues in EMF research. 

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley, discussed policy-related developments. He shared his experience suing the California Department of Public Health in 2016 for not releasing a cell phone radiation fact sheet first developed in 2009. This lawsuit led to the issuance of the Department’s December 2017 Guidance Document, How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones. Dr. Moskowitz concluded with thoughts on possibilities and priorities in the policy arena.  

Featured Speakers

Frank Barnes, PhD, received his B.S. from Princeton University in electrical engineering in 1954 and his M.S., engineering, and PhD degrees from Stanford University in 1955, 1956, and 1958. He joined the University of Colorado in 1959, where he was appointed a Distinguished Professor in 1997. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2001 and received the Gordon Prize 2004 for innovations in Engineering Education from the National Academy.

Dr. Barnes is a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and served as Vice President of IEEE for publications, Chairman of the Electron Device Society, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and U.S. Chair of Commission K-International Union of Radio Sciences (URSI). He and his students have built lasers, flash lamps, super conductors, avalanche photo diodes and other electron devices. Recently they have been studying the effects of weak magnetic fields on radical concentrations and changes in the growth rate of cancers and other cells.

De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH, is a Senior Research Scientist at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Dr. Li completed his medical training and master’s degree in Public Health at Shanghai Medical University then received his PhD in epidemiology from the University of Washington. 

Dr. Li is a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist with extensive experience conducting epidemiologic studies examining in-utero exposures in relation to pregnancy outcomes and early childhood diseases, including childhood obesity and asthma, preterm delivery, low birthweight, birth defects, miscarriage and SIDS. He has more than 100 peer-reviewed publications, of which he first-authored 41 and was the senior author for another 23. He has been invited to many NIH and CDC study sections to review grant applications. Recognized for his long-standing experience in international collaborative research, Dr. Li was invited by the US National Academy of Science to evaluate Sino-US collaboration in bio-medical research. He has received more than 10 research grants from federal agencies including NIH, CDC, FDA, and AHRQ.

Dr. Li’s current research focuses on developmental origins of fetal and childhood diseases which include examination of (1) in-utero environmental exposures including endocrine disruptors (e.g., BPA) and electromagnetic fields (EMF), (2) safety and effectiveness of medication use during pregnancy, and (3) gene-environment interactions. Throughout his professional life, he has made important contributions to the understanding of (a) factors associated with reduction in SIDS risk, (b) health effects due to exposure to EMF, (c) adverse effects of in-utero exposure to caffeine, (d) impact of exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors, (e) risk and benefit of treating maternal depression during pregnancy, (f) parental genetic contribution to the risk of preterm delivery, and (g) benefits of treating herpes infection during pregnancy. Dr. Li has worked closely with the medical communities, especially OBGYN physicians, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, is Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Moskowitz has published extensively on smoking and cancer prevention.

Since 2009 he has translated and disseminated research on the health effects of cell phone and other wireless radiation exposure. He has served as an advisor to the Berkeley cell phone “right to know” ordinance and to the International EMF Scientist Appeal which has been signed by more than 230 EMF scientists. Last year his successful lawsuit against the California Department of Public Health led to the release of cell phone safety guidance that had been suppressed since 2009.

Since 2013, his Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had over 1.5 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. The Northern California chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists presented him with the 2018 James Madison Freedom of Information Award. 

This webinar was moderated by Antoinette Stein, PhD, coordinator of the CHE EMF ScienceServ. It lasted for 70 minutes and was recorded for the call and webinar archive. 

https://www.healthandenvironment.org/webinars/96433

Industry-funded Scientists Undermine Cell Phone Radiation Science

"How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation"

The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, THE NATION, March 29, 2018

http://bit.ly/BigWireless

--

January 30, 2017

In the following post, Dr. Leszczynski, one of the world's leading EMF scientists, was censored by STUK, the Finnish government radiation research agency whom he worked for, when he wrote about scientific misconduct in the WHO-sponsored Interphone study in 2011.

Uncensored version of blog post on Interphone, first published in 2011 and re-published for the first time now…Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Jan 30, 2017.  http://bit.ly/2jMBgwa

--

March 7, 2015

In his February 12 blog post, Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski discussed how industry-funded scientists undermined his cutting-edge research on cell phone radiation biologic effects which he conducted for the Finnish government for more than a decade. The Wireless Industry, following Big Tobacco's playbook, co-opts scientists to do low quality research and  uses them to manufacture doubt about high quality science. Dr. Leszczynski provides some insight about how industry-funded scientists undermined his government-funded, state-of-the-art scientific research.

Dr. Leszczynski was one of 31 experts selected to review the cancer risks of radio frequency (RF) radiation in 2011 by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer. The panel declared that RF radiation is "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B). Dr. Leszczynski reported in a subsequent blog post that he and several other experts wanted RF radiation to be classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A), but a majority of the panel would not support this designation.

Since 2011, we have considerably more biologic and epidemiologic data to support the Group 2A classification for RF radiation.

--

Science and Conflict of Interest in Bioelectromagnetics

Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, March 7, 2015

Key-note presentation of Dariusz Leszczynski at the Jubiläums-Generalversammlung of the Swiss association Gigaherz, celebrating its 15th anniversary, Thalvil (near Zurich) on March 7, 2015.

Video recording of the presentation will be made available shortly.

http://bit.ly/1CMWkHq

--

The GameChanger: revision of dosimetry by Schmid & Kuster

Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Feb 12, 2015

<SNIP>

"The general trend of exposing cells at 2.0 SAR was strongly advocated and propagated by the scientists from the telecom industry. It was a strong peer pressure from, among others, Mays Swicord, Joe Elder and C-K Chou of Motorola, USA, and Sakari Lang and Jafar Keshvari of Nokia, Finland, that caused lack of in vitro studies at SAR higher than 2.0. These five scientists mentioned above were the most active in exercising peer pressure.It was a normal occurrence at the scientific meetings, and I attended really a lot of them, that whenever scientist reported biological effects at SAR over 2.0, the above mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group, jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results. The argument was always the same – safety standards are set at 2.0 and examining effects above it is futile. Furthermore, any study with SAR above 2.0 was suggested to be caused by thermal effect. It meant, according to these industry scientists that the obtained biological data were irrelevant.It was the continuous and relentlessly executed peer pressure from the industry scientists that discouraged, and in the end prevented, scientists from the academia to do freely research at SAR higher than 2.0, even when the exposure chamber had cooling system."

<SNIP>

"Therefore, with the extreme delight I read the recent paper in Bioelectromagnetics “The Discrepancy Between Maximum In Vitro Exposure Levels and Realistic Conservative Exposure Levels of Mobile Phones Operating at 900/1800 MHz” by Gernot Schmid and Niels Kuster.

Here area  few quotes from this game-changing paper by Schmid and Kuster:"

 <SNIP>  

http://bit.ly/1FDwkw6

--

In vitro studies of GSM cell phone radiation should be redone using higher SAR levels to better simulate real-world conditions

Here is the abstract for the "game-changing" paper by Schmid and Kuster. The results of this analysis suggest that most in vitro studies of GSM cell phone bioeffects tested exposures that are too low to simulate real-world exposures, especially to cells contained in skin and blood. According to the authors, these studies should to be redone using SAR's that greatly exceed 2 watts per kilogram so the results can be generalized to real-world exposures.

Gernot Schmid, Niels Kuster. The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. Bioelectromagnetics. 36(2):133-148. 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644546

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to compare realistic maximum electromagnetic exposure of human tissues generated by mobile phones with electromagnetic exposures applied during in vitro experiments to assess potentially adverse effects of electromagnetic exposure in the radiofrequency range.

We reviewed 80 in vitro studies published between 2002 and present that concern possible adverse effects of exposure to mobile phones operating in the 900 and 1800 MHz bands. We found that the highest exposure level averaged over the cell medium that includes evaluated cells (monolayer or suspension) used in 51 of the 80 studies corresponds to 2 W/kg or less, a level below the limit defined for the general public. That does not take into account any exposure non-uniformity. For comparison, we estimated, by numerical means using dipoles and a commercial mobile phone model, the maximum conservative exposure of superficial tissues from sources operated in the 900 and 1800 MHz bands.

The analysis demonstrated that exposure of skin, blood, and muscle tissues may well exceed 40 W/kg at the cell level. Consequently, in vitro studies reporting minimal or no effects in response to maximum exposure of 2 W/kg or less averaged over the cell media, which includes the cells, may be of only limited value for analyzing risk from realistic mobile phone exposure.

We, therefore, recommend future in vitro experiments use specific absorption rate levels that reflect maximum exposures and that additional temperature control groups be included to account for sample heating.

Keywords: SAR; GSM; cell; compliance; radiofrequency 

http://bit.ly/1BTqtz3

--

 Research “firewalls” – The King is Naked!

Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Mar 29, 2014

<SNIP>

In my opinion, the currently used system of “firewalls” does not work. Industry sponsors and sponsored scientists are intelligent people. Industry sponsors do not need to say “things” aloud and scientists understand “things” that are not said. In the situation of research data being very ambivalent, the interpretation of the meaning of the results is crucial and should not be in any way influenced by “things” not said….

On the Cosmos project website at the Karolinska Institute the following statement is displayed:

“…Vinnova administers a grant from Telenor, TeliaSonera and Sony Ericsson, and acts as a firewall according to a contract that guarantees the independence and autonomy of the research…”

This statement is to assure us that the science is independent of the industry because:

• the industry provided research funding, but
• funding is administered by Vinnova, meaning that
• researchers receive funds from Vinnova and not directly from the industry ....

Institutions that are used as “firewalls” are living off the industry funding for the “firewall”. It is not certain that they will endanger their own livelihood by passing funding to “undesirable” projects.

Industry that sponsors research projects often requires, as a part of the deal, to know on what projects their money will be used. This way the industry justifies the participation of the industry scientists in planning phase of the research projects – they do not want their money to be wasted for unnecessary research. There is some logic in this kind of thinking but there is also a danger. Projects that for some reasons industry considers as undesirable, from the industry point of view, will not get funded. This does not automatically mean that these “undesired” projects are wrong….

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/research-firewalls-the-king-is-naked/

Acoustic Neuroma and Cell Phone Use

Studies that report evidence of increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with 

long-term cell phone use

Acoustic neuroma, also known as vestibular schwannoma, like heart schwannoma arises from the Schwann cells, but unlike its counterpart in the heart, it is usually a slow-growing tumor and not cancerous. 

Acoustic neuroma develops on the main nerve leading from the inner ear to your brain. This nerve influences balance and hearing, and pressure from an acoustic neuroma can cause hearing loss, ringing in your ear and unsteadiness. Occasionally, it can interfere with brain functioning.

Two experimental studies have found evidence of increased incidence of heart schwannoma in male rats from exposure to cell phone radiation: National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer.

Nine peer-reviewed studies, including one cohort study, have found evidence that long-term cell phone use is associated with increased risk of acoustic neuroma in humans (see below).


April 26, 2017

Cohort Studies

Benson et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma) - UK Million Women cohort study

For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200

Case-Control Studies

Moon et al, 2014

Vestibular schwannomas (VSs) grow in the region where the energy from mobile phone use is absorbed. We examined the associations of VSs with mobile phone use. This study included 119 patients who had undergone surgical tumor removal. We used two approaches in this investigation. First, a case-control study for the association of mobile phone use and incidence of VSs was conducted. Both cases and controls were investigated with questions based on INTERPHONE guidelines. Amount of mobile phone use according to duration, daily amount, and cumulative hours were compared between two groups. We also conducted a case-case study. The location and volume of the tumors were investigated by MRI. Associations between the estimated amount of mobile phone use and tumor volume and between the laterality of phone use and tumor location were analyzed. In a case-control study, the odds ratio (OR) of tumor incidence according to mobile phone use was 0.956. In the case-case study, tumor volume and estimated cumulative hours showed a strong correlation (r(2) = 0.144, p = 0.002), and regular mobile phone users showed tumors of a markedly larger volume than those of non-regular users (p < 0.001). When the analysis was limited to regular users who had serviceable hearing, laterality showed a strong correlation with tumor side (OR = 4.5). We found that tumors may coincide with the more frequently used ear of mobile phones and tumor volume that showed strong correlation with amount of mobile phone use, thus there is a possibility that mobile phone use may affect tumor growth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23975478

Hardell et al, 2013 (acoustic neuroma)

We previously conducted a case-control study of acoustic neuroma. Subjects of both genders aged 20-80 years, diagnosed during 1997-2003 in parts of Sweden, were included, and the results were published. We have since made a further study for the time period 2007-2009 including both men and women aged 18-75 years selected from throughout the country. These new results for acoustic neuroma have not been published to date. Similar methods were used for both study periods. In each, one population-based control, matched on gender and age (within five years), was identified from the Swedish Population Registry. Exposures were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire supplemented by a phone interview. Since the number of acoustic neuroma cases in the new study was low we now present pooled results from both study periods based on 316 participating cases and 3,530 controls. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for age, gender, year of diagnosis and socio-economic index (SEI). Use of mobile phones of the analogue type gave odds ratio (OR) = 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.0-4.3, increasing with >20 years latency (time since first exposure) to OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 2.8-21. Digital 2G mobile phone use gave OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1, increasing with latency >15 years to an OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.8-4.2. The results for cordless phone use were OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1, and, for latency of >20 years, OR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.7-26. Digital type wireless phones (2G and 3G mobile phones and cordless phones) gave OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.0 increasing to OR = 8.1, 95% CI = 2.0-32 with latency >20 years. For total wireless phone use, the highest risk was calculated for the longest latency time >20 years: OR = 4.4, 95% CI = 2.2-9.0. Several of the calculations in the long latency category were based on low numbers of exposed cases. Ipsilateral use resulted in a higher risk than contralateral for both mobile and cordless phones. OR increased per 100 h cumulative use and per year of latency for mobile phones and cordless phones, though the increase was not statistically significant for cordless phones. The percentage tumour volume increased per year of latency and per 100 h of cumulative use, statistically significant for analogue phones. This study confirmed previous results demonstrating an association between mobile and cordless phone use and acoustic neuroma.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23877578

Hardell et al, 2013

Regarding acoustic neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73-4.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55, 95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained. Also use of cordless phones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma in the Hardell group studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23261330

Interphone Study Group, 2011

The odds ratio (OR) of acoustic neuroma with ever having been a regular mobile phone user was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.04). The OR for ≥10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.76 (0.52-1.11). There was no trend of increasing ORs with increasing cumulative call time or cumulative number of calls, with the lowest OR (0.48 (0.30-0.78)) observed in the 9th decile of cumulative call time. In the 10th decile (≥1640 h) of cumulative call time, the OR was 1.32 (0.88-1.97); there were, however, implausible values of reported use in those with ≥1640 h of accumulated mobile phone use. With censoring at 5 years before the reference date the OR for ≥10 years after first regular mobile phone use was 0.83 (0.58-1.19) and for ≥1640 h of cumulative call time it was 2.79 (1.51-5.16), but again with no trend in the lower nine deciles and with the lowest OR in the 9th decile. In general, ORs were not greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour than in those who reported it on the opposite side, but it was greater in those in the 10th decile of cumulative hours of use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21862434

Hardell et al, 2009 

For acoustic neuroma, the highest OR was found for ipsilateral use and >10 year latency, for mobile phone OR=3.0, 95% CI=1.4-6.2 and cordless phone OR=2.3, 95% CI=0.6-8.8.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19513546

Hardell et al, 2006

Regarding acoustic neuroma analogue cellular phones yielded odds ratio (OR) = 2.9, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 2.0-4.3, digital cellular phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.1-2.1 and cordless phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.04-2.0.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034627

Schoemaker et al, 2005

Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as reported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1). The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136046

Lonn et al, 2004 

The overall odds ratio for acoustic neuroma associated with regular mobile phone use was 1.0 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-1.5). Ten years after the start of mobile phone use the estimates relative risk increased to 1.9 (0.9-4.1); when restricting to tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used, the relative risk was 3.9 (1.6-9.5).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15475713

Samsung Galaxy S9 and S9 Plus Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)

What are the SAR values for Samsung’s new smart phones? 

What is the manufacturer's recommended minimum 

body separation distance?

How should consumers use this information?

Be sure to read the 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. Only make calls when signal is strong (4-5 bars).

February 28, 2018

According to test reports filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for the Galaxy S9 for cellular transmission is 0.34 watts per kilogram (W/kg) at the head, and 0.93 W/kg when worn on the body. The WiFi hotspot SAR is 0.75 w/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.25 W/kg at the head, 1.39 W/kg when worn on the body, and 1.52 W/kg when used as a hotspot. (1)

For the Galaxy S9 Plus, the SAR for cellular transmission is <0.10 W/kg at the head, and 0.47 W/kg when worn on the body. The WiFi hotspot SAR is 0.18 W/kg. The SAR for simultaneous transmission (cellular plus Wi-Fi) is 1.14 W/kg at the head, 1.42 W/kg when worn on the body, and 1.59 W/kg when used as a hotspot. (2)

All SARs reported above are averaged over one gram of body tissue corresponding to the U.S. standard. The SARs may vary depending upon your specific cell phone carrier.

The minimum separation distance for body-worn testing was 15 mm (about 0.6 of an inch). According to the testing facility, "Device was tested using a fixed spacing for body-worn accessory testing. A separation distance of 15 mmwas considered because the manufacturer has determined that there will be body-worn accessories available in the marketplace for users to support this separation distance." (1,2)

The SARs for the Apple iPhone X and iPhone X Plus were obtained at a separation distance of 5 mm (about 0.2 of an inch) from the body so the body-worn SAR values are not comparable to those reported for the Samsung phones. The iPhone SAR values can be found in my article on Apple Iphones.

The FCC ID numbers for the Galaxy S9 are A3L SMG960U, 960U1, and 960W and 960SU, and for the S9 Plus they are A3L SMG965U, 965U1, and 965W, and 965SU. The SAR values for these smart phones can be found on the FCC website:  https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid.

What do the 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. 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 young 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. 

For a recent news story, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had the three most popular smart phones tested next to the body. They found that the radiation absorbed increased three to four times, and that the SARs for all three phones exceeded the legal limit (for the U.S. and Canada).

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 health damage 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

(1)  PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. FCC ID: A3LSMG960U. Date of Testing: 12/20/2017 to 1/9/2018. https://fccid.io/A3LSMG950U/RF-Exposure-Info/RF-Exposure-Info-1-3288005

(2) PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc. SAR Evaluation Report. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. FCC ID: A3LSMG965U. Date of Testing: 12/20/2017 to 1/9/2018. https://fccid.io/A3LSMG965U/RF-Exposure-Info/RF-Exposure-Info-1-3288005

(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