FCC needs input regarding allocation of spectrum for 5G

The FCC needs your input regarding allocation of spectrum for 5G. The deadline is September 30, 2016.

Submit your comments regarding allocation of additional frequencies within the 5G spectrum that the FCC is going to vote on including 24-70 GHz as well as higher spectrum: 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 95 GHz.

For more information about these proceedings: http://bit.ly/FCC16-89A1.

If you follow the instructions below, you can comment on five different dockets at once. You may want to comment specifically on the ways they want to use 5G technology such as: "machine-to-machine communications, healthcare devices, autonomous driving cars, and home and office automation."

Follow These Instructions to Make Comments:

1. Click on this link   http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

2. Click on "Submit a Filing" Tab at the top of the page.

3. Click on "Express a Comment" (on top of the page) to just make a comment or "Standard Filing" to attach documents (one of which can be your comment).

4. You can make one comment for all five docket numbers at once. Simply type in or Copy and Paste each of these Docket numbers one at a time into the "Proceedings" Field and make sure they are accurately displayed in the window:

14-177

15-256

RM-11664

10-112

97-95 

5. Fill out all required fields and click "Enter" or "Return" before you go to the next field. There is a check box to request an email confirmation.

6. Once all fields are filled out - click continue screen.

7. Review and submit.

8. Write down your confirmation # so you can check on your submission.

--

I submitted the following express comment today:

In light of your upcoming votes on allocation of additional spectrum for 5G, I want to draw your attention to the International EMF Scientist Appeal (https://EMFscientist.org) which calls for stronger regulatory standards on radio frequency (RF) emissions.

The Appeal has been signed by 221 scientists from 41 nations. All of these scientists have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health.

The FCC's RF guidelines were adopted 20 years ago. Many scientists and health professionals believe these guidelines do not protect the population from non-thermal health risks due to RF radiation exposure. To ensure public health and safety, the FCC should commission an independent review of the biologic and health research to determine stringent RF standards before allowing additional spectrum to be used for new commercial applications.

I also wish to remind you that the FCC has yet to act on NOI #13-84, "Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies," issued in 2013 and a similar NOI issued a decade earlier. The 2013 NOI has received more than 900 submissions--almost all call for stronger regulation of RF radiation. Links to key submissions can be found on the Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website at http://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/part-i-why-we-need-stronger-cell-phone.html.

Finally, the General Accountability Office issued a report entitled, “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed” (GAO-12-771: Published: Jul 24, 2012. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771). The report made the following recommendations which have yet to be addressed by the FCC:

“FCC should formally reassess and, if appropriate, change its current RF energy exposure limit and mobile phone testing requirements related to likely usage configurations, particularly when phones are held against the body. FCC noted that a draft document currently under consideration by FCC has the potential to address GAO’s recommendations.”

iPhone 6 radiation levels: Most popular post on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

The most popular post on the Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website addresses the radiation levels or Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and minimum separation distance for Apple's iPhone 6 models. This post from last September has had more than 100,000 page views. Apple is selling about 40 million iPhones per quarter and will soon pass the billion sales mark for all models. Apparently, many iPhone users and potential consumers are interested in learning about the cellphone radiation emitted by this phone and the potential effects on their health. Saferemr.com has reached the 600,000 page view mark today. More than 200 countries are represented among those who visited the website. Residents of 29 nations had a thousand sessions or more. U.S. residents accounted for almost half of the sessions. Residents of Canada, India, United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Greece, Russia, Spain, and Italy accounted for the next fourth. See the links below for the ten most popular posts to date. iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation Distance Sep 29, 2015

Council of Europe: Restrict Wi-Fi and Mobile Phone Use in Schools Mar 4, 2013

Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks  Jun 24, 2016

Samsung Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) Oct 5, 2015

Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) Aug 3, 2016

Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cellphone Use and Cordless Phone Use Aug 11, 2016

Cellphones and Health Nov 3, 2013

Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance May 12, 2016

iPhone SE SAR: Radiation Levels & Separation Distance Apr 18, 2016

MOBI-KIDS: Childhood Brain Tumor Risk & Mobile Phone Use Study May 4, 2016

Secondhand Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation: An Emerging Public Health Problem?

Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields

Lennart Hardell, Tarmo Koppel, Michael Carlberg, Mikko Ahonen, Lena Hedendahl. Radiofrequency radiation at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden and some medical aspects on public exposure to RF fields. International Journal of Oncology. Published online August 12, 2016.

Abstract

The Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden was investigated for public radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure. The exposimeter EME Spy 200 was used to collect the RF exposure data across the railway station. The exposimeter covers 20 different radiofrequency bands from 88 to 5,850 MHz. In total 1,669 data points were recorded. The median value for total exposure was 921 µW/m2 (or 0.092 µW/cm2; 1 µW/m2=0.0001 µW/cm2) with some outliers over 95,544 µW/m2 (6 V/m, upper detection limit). The mean total RF radiation level varied between 2,817 to 4,891 µW/m2 for each walking round. High mean measurements were obtained for GSM + UMTS 900 downlink varying between 1,165 and 2,075 µW/m2. High levels were also obtained for UMTS 2100 downlink; 442 to 1,632 µW/m2. Also LTE 800 downlink, GSM 1800 downlink, and LTE 2600 downlink were in the higher range of measurements. Hot spots were identified, for example close to a wall mounted base station yielding over 95,544 µW/m2 and thus exceeding the exposimeter's detection limit. Almost all of the total measured levels were above the precautionary target level of 3-6 µW/m2 as proposed by the BioInitiative Working Group in 2012. That target level was one-tenth of the scientific benchmark providing a safety margin either for children, or chronic exposure conditions. We compare the levels of RF radiation exposures identified in the present study to published scientific results reporting adverse biological effects and health harm at levels equivalent to, or below those measured in this Stockholm Central Railway Station project. It should be noted that these RF radiation levels give transient exposure, since people are generally passing through the areas tested, except for subsets of people who are there for hours each day of work.

Excerpts

The mean measurements in the Stockholm Central Station showed a total RF radiation between 2,817 to 4,891 μW/m2. Studies with laboratory animals exposed to RF radiation at or below these levels have shown influence on several physiological parameters in the body of mammals. Influence on the blood-brain barrier, proteins and microRNA in the brain, testicular function, oxidative stress in the cells and DNA damage have been shown. Also neurotransmitters in people living in a village were changed after activation of a GSM mobile phone base station. These are non-thermal effects and are discussed briefly …

Due to the rapid development of the telecommunications technology and the evolution of the wireless infrastructure, it is imperative to measure public's exposure. Yearly monitoring measurements would allow an overview of the public's exposure budget, since nowadays, rapid deployment of new RF radiation sources take place. The information obtained by the exposure studies allows assessing public's exposure to RF radiation today and in the years to come, when future epidemiologic studies seek for information in assessing the historic exposure levels to which the public was commonly exposed. Unfortunately studies on human risk from long-term environmental RF radiation based on personal exposure monitoring do not exist to our knowledge. Given the lack of good historic RF radiation exposure information to date, it is imperative that better efforts be directed to periodic collection of RF radiation exposures in daily life for use in epidemiological studies of cancer as well as of neurological diseases and other adverse health effects attributed to RF radiation exposures.

Open access paper: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2016.3657

--

Assessment of contribution of other users to own total whole-body RF absorption in train environment

Plets D, Joseph W, Aerts S, Vermeeren G, Varsier N, Wiart J, Martens L. Assessment of contribution of other users to own total whole-body RF absorption in train environment. Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Oct 29. doi: 10.1002/bem.21938. [Epub ahead of print]

Abstract

For the first time, the contribution of radio-frequent radiation originating from other people's devices to total own whole-body absorption is assessed in a simulation study.

Absorption in a train environment due to base station's downlink is compared with absorption due to uplink (UL) of the user's own mobile device and absorption due to the UL of 0, 1, 5, or 15 other nearby active users.

In a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) macro cell connection scenario, UL of 15 other users can cause up to 19% of total absorption when calling yourself and up to 100% when not calling yourself. In a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) femtocell connection scenario, UL of 15 other users contributes to total absorption of a non-calling user for no more than 1.5%. For five other users in the train besides the considered person, median total whole-body Specific Absorption Rate is reduced by a factor of about 400,000 when deploying a UMTS femtocell base station instead of relying on the GSM macrocell.

http://1.usa.gov/1jXzFRZ

Excerpts

Two train scenarios were investigated, for which a 20 m × 2.83 m train wagon (type M6, lower floor of double-decker, built by Bombardier (Montreal, Canada) and Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France)) with 66 passenger seats were considered (Fig. 1). The first scenario was a reference scenario, where people in the train made a phone call and connected to a GSM macro cell base station at 900 MHz (GSM900), a typical current deployment. The second scenario considered a future deployment, in which people on the train made a phone call and connected to an in-train UMTS FBS.

It can be concluded that for current deployments, contributions of other in-train users is sometimes not negligible: 15 other users connected to a GSM 900 macro cell base station can induce absorption rates up to 24% of that induced by user's own device. This corresponds for the scenario to a contribution of 19% to total absorption rate when calling yourself and a contribution of 100% when not calling yourself. A UMTS femtocell deployment in this environment drastically reduces total absorption (when calling, at least by a factor 39097) and makes the other users' contributions to total absorption negligible (at most 1.5% of the total absorption when not calling yourself). Future research will consist of considering influence of antenna orientation of mobile device and of assessment of 4G and 5G scenarios. In-train Long-Term Evolution (LTE) femtocell BS will provide a user with high data rate traffic, while keeping exposure low, thanks to power control mechanisms.

--

October 29, 2012

Secondhand Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation: An Emerging Public Health Problem?

Exposure to other people's cell phone radiation on buses and trains can be considerable according to a newly published study.

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Press Release, Oct. 29, 2012 - PRLog 

Many people are unaware that they are exposed to cell phone radiation when their cell phones are in standby mode.  This occurs because their cell phone contacts the nearest cell tower periodically to update its location.

In a moving vehicle, cell phones in standby mode contact cell towers more frequently. Thus, exposure to cell phone radiation from one's cell phone is greater in transit.

The Israeli Environmental Protection Ministry found that "when one fourth of the passengers in one train car or bus use their cell phones, all the passengers are exposed to a level of radiation higher than the allowable 0.8 watts per kilogram" (0).  Thus, everyone's exposure exceeds the legal safety limit.

Two Swiss researchers, Damiano Urbinello and Martin Roosli, set out to measure personal cell phone radiation exposure during car, bus and train trips when one's own phone was in standby mode. 

Their study just published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiologyidentified a source of cell phone radiation that may constitute a public health problem. Namely, secondhand exposure to cell phone radiation from other people's cell phones can be considerable while traveling on buses and trains (1).

During bus or train trips, individuals may be exposed to considerable amounts of cell phone radiation from other people's cell phones. Buses and railroad cars act like "Faraday cages" that reflect much of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones throughout the vehicles' interiors. Thus, all passengers, including infants and pregnant women as well as those without cell phones, may be exposed to considerable levels of cell phone radiation emitted by others' phones.

As for car trips, the results of the study suggest that exposure to cell phone radiation from one's own phone in standby mode is relatively low compared to overall exposures during public transit. Nonetheless, those who are concerned about their exposure to cell phone radiation should turn off their phones during car trips, or at the very least, avoid using their phones for calls.

● "The study indicates that own uplink exposure during car driving can be considerably reduced (about a fraction of 100) when turning off ones own mobile phone in order to prevent it from location updates."  (1)

The researchers found that GSM, the 2G carrier system in Europe which is used in the U.S. for voice communication by AT&T and T-Mobile, is particularly problematic compared to UMTS, a 3G carrier system used for data transmission. The researchers did not test CDMA which in the U.S. is used by Verizon and Sprint for voice calls. Other research has found that GSM emits 13 to 28 times more radiation on average than CDMA during phone calls. No published studies have examined exposures from LTE, the 4G carrier system now in widespread use in this country.

● "GSM levels in the reference scenario during bus and train rides were about 100 times higher than those during car rides. As a consequence of this high background exposure in trains, due to the use of other people's mobile phone in a closed area intensified by the Faraday cage effect, the relative contribution of the location update from ones own mobile phone is small"  (1)

The study also reported that smart phones, including the iPhone 4 and the Blackberry Bold 8800, which can operate on four radiofrequency bands emit more radiation during standby mode than classic phones, like the Nokia 2600, which operate on two bands. 

Earlier this year, a study was published that examined cell phones in standby mode while stationary. Kjell Mild and his colleagues from Sweden found that under these conditions cell phones contacted the cell towers only once every two to five hours. They concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation in this situation "can be considered negligible."  (2)

These studies should be replicated in the U.S. as well as in other countries since every cell phone carrier system operates differently. 

In the meantime it is advisable to keep cell phone use in moving vehicles to a minimum as low level exposures to cell phone radiation have been associated with deleterious effects in humans.

To protect us from the health risks associated with cell phones and related devices (e.g., cordless phones, Wi-Fi, wireless Smart Meters and security systems, and cell towers), we need research independent of industry to develop biologically-based standards and safer technologies.  A nickel a month from each cell phone subscription would suffice to fund a comprehensive program of research. Since the average cell phone subscription costs more than $47.00 per month, this tiny fee constitutes a prudent investment in our health and our children's health.

References

0) Minat, Z. Ministries look at cell phone-free zones on public transit. Haaretz. Apr 10, 2012.

1) Urbinello D, Roosli M. Impact of one's own mobile phone in stand-by mode on personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology advance online publication, Oct 24, 2012.

Abstract

When moving around, mobile phones in stand-by mode periodically send data about their positions. The aim of this paper is to evaluate how personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) measurements are affected by such location updates. Exposure from a mobile phone handset (uplink) was measured during commuting by using a randomized cross-over study with three different scenarios: disabled mobile phone (reference), an activated dual-band phone and a quad-band phone. In the reference scenario, uplink exposure was highest during train rides (1.19 mW/m(2)) and lowest during car rides in rural areas (0.001 mW/m(2)). In public transports, the impact of one's own mobile phone on personal RF-EMF measurements was not observable because of high background uplink radiation from other people's mobile phone. In a car, uplink exposure with an activated phone was orders of magnitude higher compared with the reference scenario. This study demonstrates that personal RF-EMF exposure is affected by one's own mobile phone in stand-by mode because of its regular location update. Further dosimetric studies should quantify the contribution of location updates to the total RF-EMF exposure in order to clarify whether the duration of mobile phone use, the most common exposure surrogate in the epidemiological RF-EMF research, is actually an adequate exposure proxy. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=23093102

2) Mild KH, Andersen JB, Pedersen GF. Is there any exposure from a mobile phone in stand-by mode?Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2012 Mar;31(1):52-6.

Abstract

Several studies have been using a GSM mobile phone in stand-by mode as the source for exposure, and they claimed that this caused effects on for instance sleep and testicular function. In stand-by mode the phone is only active in periodic location updates, and this occurs with a frequency set by the net operator. Typical updates occur with 2-5 h in between, and between these updates the phone is to be considered as a passive radio receiver with no microwave emission. Thus, the exposure in stand-by mode can be considered negligible.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.201...

BioEM2016 Conference: A Report by Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski

A 23-page report about BioEM2016, the joint annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the European Bioelectromagnetics Association, prepared by Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski is now available.

Following are some of Dr. Leszczynski's comments regarding key sessions from this conference.

National Toxicology Program (NTP) cellphone radiation-cancer study

"There are numerous misconceptions and misrepresentations of the NTP study and its outcome. However, one thing is certain, this is the best animal study that can be done with the existing technical and financial limitations. Even with the $25 million funding, scientists cannot do all what they would like and need to do, in order to thoroughly address all issues and answer all questions."

" ... the outcome of the NTP study should be considered in the context of all the evidence from the to-date performed epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies. The combination of all the elements suggests that cell phone radiation possibly (or probably) affects human health because

•  three case-control epidemiological studies (Interphone, Hardell's group, CERENAT) have shown increased risk of developing glioma in avid, long-term users of cell phone (30 min/day for 10+ years)
• several animal studies have shown increased health risk in exposed or co-exposed animals (e.g. Chou et al., Tillman et al, Lerchl's group, NTP-study).

Lack of the knowledge of the mechanism does not mean that a certain event doesn’t happen. In the context of the recent study by Schmid & Kuster showing that the cell culture experiments were under-exposing cells to radiation, it is probable that the majority of the in vitro studies have shown a weak effect or lack of effects because of this under-exposure. Higher doses, as suggested by Schmid & Kuster, would certainly lead to more robust effects in vitro. Replication of some of the in vitro experiments with higher exposures might bring out some evidence of mechanism(s).

Epidemiological cohort studies, like the Danish Cohort or Million Women study, are of poor quality and cannot be used as a reliable proof of no effect.

We still do not have the definite proof that cell phone radiation causes cancer or increases risk of developing brain cancer. However, combination of the evidence from the case-control and animal studies indicates that the health risk is possible or even probable. The NTP study strengthens the evidence for the 'probable health risk'.

The conclusion of the 'probable health risk' strengthens the call for the implementation of the Precautionary Principle in the use of cell phones. It seems that the human health risk might not only be possible rather probable; in the IARC classification, cell phone radiation could be upgraded from group 2B to group 2A."

New avenues in epidemiology: COSMOS, GERoNiMO, and HERMES

"Finally, there was really not much anything new presented as 'new avenues in epidemiology'."

"COSMOS study, for example, tediously collects data on numbers of performed calls and send messages, but it has no information at all on real radiation exposures. Also, wi-fi is completely excluded. So, how valuable and reliable will be the exposure data collected by COSMOS? I dare to say that it will be of very little real value. Epidemiological studies published with such data will remain unreliable and, most likely, will not show any dose dependency of exposure and health outcome. The reason is "simple" and should be obvious to anyone dealing with dosimetry.

Collecting information on the number of calls and on their length does not provide information on radiation exposure. As in studies done by the Interphone, Hardell's group, CERENAT, Danish Cohort, Million Women project, and by Chapman et al., the COSMOS and GERoNiMO also collect a surrogate of the radiation exposure. None of the epidemiological studies executed to-date collected real radiation exposure data. All of them have collected either bad or very bad surrogates of radiation exposure."

 

"Exposures of persons using the GSM network are dramatically higher than exposures of persons using the UMTS network. However, which network is used and when? The user does not know this. In modern phones, the switching between networks happens automatically, to keep call of good quality, without the users’ knowledge. So, the users, by reporting just minutes of calls in epidemiological studies, provide useless “surrogate” information on radiation exposure."

Tutorial on safety standards by IEEE-ICES (International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety) in USA

".. all safety standards being developed by IEEE-ICES-TC95 are, in practice, developed by the industry scientists for the use by the industry they are employed by. The industry scientists have the majority on the committee and upper-hand in any process involving democratic voting. To me this is a clear CoI [Conflict of Interest] ... While the IEEE has the excellent expertise in the area of telecom technology, the Conflict of Interest remains an unresolved issue that undermines, in my opinion, reliability of the IEEE safety standards."

Wi-Fi and health – review with unfounded conclusions:

 "Scientists from the ‘EMF Portal’ presented a review of the to-date published studies examining health effects of exposures to wi-fi. Conclusion of the study was that there is no health problem to be concerned about but, at the same time, our knowledge is still very limited. Unfortunately, scientists’ conclusion was not justified by the presented evidence ... This is the real problem: the insufficient research, the poor quality research, and lack of research studies is being interpreted as “evidence” for the lack of health effects. This is wrong."

Some excerpts from the abstract:

Is there evidence of biological effects from WLAN and comparable electromagnetic fields in everyday exposure situations? Systematic review of experimental studies. F. Gollnick, L. Bodewein, D. Graefrath, K. Jagielski, T. Kraus & S. Driessen. Research Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction (femu), RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

“…We reviewed the evidence of experimental studies for biological or health effects by everyday exposure to RF fields of WLAN devices or exposures comparable to such RF fields. From 225 potentially eligible references, 65 relevant studies using exposures below, at, or slightly above the exposure limits were included.

Just over half of those 44 studies of it using exposures below or at the limits showed an effect. The large majority of these 44 studies had medium or strong methodical weaknesses. More detailed evaluations are ongoing. So far no substantial evidence of health implications is derived from the results, but the mostly poor study quality impairs the informative value of the present available scientific database…"

“…Only studies using signals in the 2.4 GHz band remained in the final review, because all of the studies using signals in the 5 GHz band (i.e., 12 of 225 potentially eligible studies) had to be excluded, mostly due to too high power levels. Only three studies on human subjects were identified among the relevant in vivo studies…”

“…Just over half of the 44 studies finally reviewed showed an effect of the real WLAN or comparable to WLAN exposure. Overall, the most affected biological endpoints from a vast variety were oxidative stress, reproductive system functions including sperm quality, and heart rate variability. Most of the studies had medium or strong methodological weaknesses…”

Summarizing our results so far, we do not derive substantial evidence of health implications from it. Nevertheless, the large amount of studies of insufficient quality discovered in this review poses a serious problem in terms of substantial health risk assessment.

Studies on human subjects with exposures to WLAN RF fields or comparable fields are so far very rare."

Closing words

"... there is seen a striking shortage in research on biological effects of EMF executed in human volunteers."

"... Gaps in the knowledge need to be filled before we can make reliable and scientifically valid conclusions concerning EMF and public health. At this point, the debate on EMF and public health is more and more resembling a “shouting competition” where two opinions, neither of them being sufficiently supported by the scientific evidence, are being presented… and the groups presenting these opinions do not even want to speak to each other. The mistrust runs deep, and only good science would be the way to resolve the problematic issues."

Dr. Leszczynski's report about BioEM2016 is available at http://bit.ly/BioEM2016summary.  His "Between a Rock and a Hard Place" science blog on mobile phone radiation and health is at https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/.

FCC Open Letter Calls for Moratorium on New Commercial Applications of Radiofrequency Radiation

Today the FCC sent me a recommendation to submit my comments on the Spectrum Frontiers proposal (see July 11 open letter below) to an official proceeding on this issue.

What's the point since they already decided to approve the proposal? Besides they rarely ever process submissions to these proceedings (e.g., see http://bit.ly/1ICtEUA).

From:     DoNotReply@fcc.gov

To:          jmm@berkeley.edu

Date:      Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:39 PM

Subject: Re: CIMS00006050198 -- Moratorium -- FCC's Spectrum Frontiers Proceeding 5G

Dear Consumer,

Thank you for your e-mail to Chairman Tom Wheeler expressing views regarding Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services. On behalf of Chairman Wheeler, I want to assure you that your input will help inform the Commission's future decisions.

There currently is an open proceeding about this matter:  GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket No. 15-256, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112 and IB Docket No. 97-95.  You may wish to add public comments to this proceeding's record.  If so, you can search for the proceeding and submit your comments though this portal:  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs

We appreciate your reaching out to Chairman Wheeler and sharing your views about this issue.

--

FCC Votes Today on Opening Additional Wireless Spectrum for 5G

Suzanne Potter, Public News Service, July 14, 2016

Play: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/mp3.php?f=rss-52952-1.mp3

The FCC will vote today on opening up more of the spectrum for new 5G wireless technology. 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Today the Federal Communications Commission votes on a plan to open a new part of the wireless spectrum to encourage the development of the next generation of cell phones and wireless devices called 5G. 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says this will allow U.S. companies to be the first to deploy the faster technology. 

But Joel Moskowitz, an expert on radio frequency emissions with UC Berkeley, says there's barely any research on the health effects of 3G and 4G, much less 5G. He notes that a recent comprehensive government study showed a small but significant percentage of male rats exposed to lifelong 2G cell phone radiation developed cancerous or precancerous cells.

"I don't think we should blindly plow ahead and unleash these new technologies on the public because we're experimenting with the public,” he stresses. “We'd be saturating people's environments with this new form of man-made radiation."

Current wireless devices range between 2.4 and 5 gigahertz of exposure. The FCC says the next generation would operate between 28 and 71 gigahertz. 

Moskowitz says 5G technology is more line-of-sight than current devices, so it would require millions of small transmitters just about everywhere, including on existing utility poles.

Wheeler has called for limits on local cities' authority to regulate the siting of these transmitters. 

John Terell is vice president for policy and legislation for the California chapter of the American Planning Association, which represents city planners.

"We want to balance the rights of residents to an uncluttered and safe environment around their residence or business with the expansion of cellular telephone service, which the organization strongly supports," he says.

The Telecom Act of 1996 took away state and local governments' rights to limit antennas on health or environmental grounds. 

The health advocacy group ElectromagneticHealth.org says it is essential for that section of the Telecom Act to be repealed. The hearing is being live streamed on the FCC website. 

http://bit.ly/29HKBR0

--

FCC hails 'monumental' vote opening new spectrum for 5G and IoT

Grant Gross, Network World, Jul 14, 2016

"The US is the first nation to set aside spectrum for 5G services"

"The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted to open nearly 11 gigahertz of high-band spectrum to new wireless uses, hailing it as a "monumental step" that will greatly increase network capacity for 5G and the Internet of Things."

"The FCC on Thursday adopted new rules for spectrum above 24 GHz, in a vote that Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler described as one of the most important decisions commissioners will make this year.”

"The FCC's decision opens up 3.85 GHz of licensed spectrum and 7 GHz of unlicensed spectrum to new wireless uses. The new licensed spectrum is in the 28GHz and 37GHz bands, and the new unlicensed band is from 64 to 71 GHz.

In addition to opening up the 11 GHz of spectrum, the FCC will seek public comments on making use of another 18 GHz of spectrum in eight additional high-frequency bands." 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-opens-5g-spectrum/158032

--

Open Letter to the FCC

July 11, 2016

Dear Commissioners:

In light of your upcoming vote on the proposed Spectrum Frontiers proceeding, I wish to draw your attention to the International EMFScientist Appeal. The Appeal, which has been signed by 220 scientists who published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health, calls for stronger regulatory standards for radio frequency (RF) emissions.

I also wish to remind you that the FCC has yet to act on NOI #13-84, "Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies," issued in 2013 and a similar NOI issued in 2003. The 2013 NOI has received more than 900 submissions--almost all call for stronger regulation of RF radiation. Links to key submissions can be found on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.

Finally, the General Accountability Office issued a report entitled, “Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed” (GAO-12-771: Published: Jul 24, 2012. Publicly Released: Aug 7, 2012. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771). The report made the following recommendations which have yet to be addressed by the FCC:

“FCC should formally reassess and, if appropriate, change its current RF energy exposure limit and mobile phone testing requirements related to likely usage configurations, particularly when phones are held against the body. FCC noted that a draft document currently under consideration by FCC has the potential to address GAO’s recommendations.”

The FCC's RF standards were adopted 20 years ago. Many scientists believe these standards are obsolete because they do not protect the population from established, non-thermal risks from RF radiation exposure. Thus, to ensure public health and safety, the FCC should commission an independent review of the biologic and health research to determine whether the RF standards should be modified before allowing additional spectrum to be used for new commercial applications.

Sincerely,
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Consumer Reports: Cell Phone Radiation Warnings

Consumer Reports (CR) published an article online entitled, "Does Cell Phone Use Cause Brain Cancer? What the New Study Means For You," on May 27, 2016.

CR discussed the newly-released study conducted by the National Toxicology Program calling it "the largest and most expensive study of its kind."

Based upon the results of this study and the prior research on humans, CR made the following recommendations to consumers to reduce the risks from cell phone radiation:

• Keep the phone away from your head and body especially when the signal is weak.
• Text or video call when possible.
• Use the speakerphone or a hands-free headset.
• Don’t keep your phone in your pants or shirt pocket.

Also, CR made the following policy recommendations:

• The NIH should fund another animal study to determine whether the latest cell phone technology also increases cancer risk.
• The FCC should update its testing requirements for cell phone radiation exposure to account for the thinner skulls in children's heads.
• The FCC and FDA should determine whether the current cell phone radiation limit (1.6 W/kg over 1 gram of tissue) provides adequate protection to consumers.
• The CDC should reinstate the cautionary advice about cell phone radiation that it removed from its website in August, 2014.
• Cell phone manufacturers should prominently display advice about how to reduce cell phone radiation exposure.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cell-phones/what-the-cell-phone-brain-cancer-study-means-for-you/

Sep 24, 2015

Consumer Reports issues cell phone safety recommendations 

On September 24, 2015, Consumer Reports (CR) published an article online entitled, "Does Cell-Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?" 

CR advises cell phone users to take safety precautions, government to strengthen cell phone radiation regulations, and manufacturers to prominently display "steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation."

According to CR, only about five percent of Americans are "very concerned' about cell phone radiation, and few take steps to reduce their exposure. Furthermore, "many respected scientists" and federal agencies "don't seem very troubled" about this health risk.

"But not everyone is unconcerned. In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, who in total have written more than 2,000 papers on the topic, called on the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation. They point to growing research—as well as the classification of cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the WHO—suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects ...."

"Some countries have taken steps to protect users, at least when it comes to children. For example, France, Russia, the U.K., and Zambia have either banned ads that promote phones’ sale to or use by children, or issued cautions for use by children.

The city council of Berkeley, Calif., has also acted. In May 2015, it approved a “Right to Know” law that requires electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones."

CR notes that the FCC’s cell phone safety test established in 1996 protects users only from heating effects due to cell phone radiation; yet, many laboratory studies suggest that exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation can have harmful effects without raising body temperature including creation of "stress proteins" and promotion of brain tumors.

CR examined five large population studies:

"three of the studies—one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries—suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor."

CR comments that "none of the studies can prove a connection between cell phones and brain cancers." CR further notes that cell phone designs have changed. 

[JMM: No study can prove that cell phones are safe, and many studies have found evidence for other health effects including neurologic disorders, infertility, and reproductive health effects. Moreover, some research suggests that current cell phone technologies are more harmful than earlier technologies.]

CR recommends that cell phone users take the following precautions:

• "Try to keep the phone away from your head and body. That is particularly important when the cellular signal is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate.
• Text or video call when possible.
• When speaking, use the speaker phone on your device or a hands-free headset.
• Don’t stow your phone in your pants or shirt pocket. Instead, carry it in a bag or use a belt clip."

Finally CR makes several policy recommendations:

• "The Federal Communications Commission’s cell-phone radiation test is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults, though research suggests that children’s thinner skulls mean they may absorb more radiation.

• Consumer Reports agrees with concerns raised by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Government Accountability Office about the tests, and thinks that new tests should be developed that take into account the potential vulnerability of children.

• We think that cell-phone manufacturers should prominently display advice on steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation."

CR is a monthly American magazine published since 1936 accepts no advertising. CR is known for its strong policies on editorial independence. According to the latest annual report, CR has 8.4 million subscribers and 530,000 donors.

This article will appear in the November 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

The online version of the article is available at  http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation

Sep 24, 2015

Report Examines Cell Phone Radiation  (2 minute video) - covers new CR Report.
Jean Elle, 11 PM News, NBC Bay Area, Sep 24, 2015


July 14, 2014

Consumer Reports (CR), in their 2010 annual cellphone issue, cited our meta-analysis on mobile phone use and tumor risk published in late 2009. And In their 2011 annual cellphone issue, CR continued to provide a precautionary health warning about cell phone radiation. 

Shortly after the 2011 annual cellphone  edition was published, I did an hour phone interview with two of their staff and began sending CR periodic updates about the emerging science and policy developments. 

CR wrote several blog pieces during 2011 (see below). However, with the exception of the current piece and a story in 2012, CR stopped covering the health risks of cell phone radiation exposure in October, 2011. 

Hence, the 2012, 2013, and 2014 annual cellphone issues of CR failed to mention cellphone radiation health risks or the need to reduce exposure.

Hopefully, the new piece that CR posted on July 12 is a sign that CR has decided to once again warn its readers to take precaution to reduce their cell phone radiation exposure. Also, I hope CR will once again inform its readers about the latest scientific evidence. Moreover, CR should warn its readers that the research evidence for carcinogenicity that has been published since WHO declared cell phone radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in 2011 is now considerably stronger. 

Following are comments I sent to CR today:

"... Although I approve of CR's recent post (7/12/2014), "How to cut your exposure to cell-phone radiation," it does not go far enough. Based upon the research, I have generated a more extensive list of risk reduction tips.  At the very least, I would recommend that CR forewarn its readers not to keep their cell phones near their genitals. We have substantial evidence that cell phone radiation damages sperm in males and some evidence of reproductive health effects  (i.e., neurological disorders) in human offspring as well as mice for females exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy.  We also have preliminary evidence of increased breast cancer risk for women who kept cellphones in their bras."

A search of the CR web site found the following ten articles on cell phone radiation published since 2009.  To read some of these stories on the CR website requires a subscription to CR.

Cell Phone Radiation - Consumer Reports News

Jul 12, 2014 - ...your exposure to cell-phone radiation Find Ratings Cell phones Q. Is it true that cell phones emit dangerous levels of radiation?

" Possibly ... Some studies have suggested that cell-phone use alters brain function and may increase the risk of some cancers, although the overall evidence hasn’t found a clear link. More study is needed to determine the health effects of cell-phone use, and what constitutes a safe level of use.

For now, you can reduce radiation exposure by:

• Limiting talk time;
• Using a speakerphone or headset;
• Holding the phone away from your ear; and
• Replacing some calls with text messaging or e-mail."

GAO: Time to reassess limits on cell-phone radiation
Aug 9, 2012 ...Commission set a limit on how much low-level radiation cell phone users are exposed to. It's time for a... 

"... Current limits may be based on out-of-date research, and its test requirements may underestimate the maximum exposure users experience when holding phones against the body, according to the GAO review, done at the request of members of Congress ...

The agency has also not reassessed its testing procedures used to certify cell phones' compliance with SAR limits to ensure that they measure the maximum exposure a user could experience ... 

Bottom line. "We agree with the recommendations and concerns raised by the GAO report," says Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., director of Consumer Safety and Sustainability at Consumer Reports. "Consumers who want to take precautions should be aware of the ways to reduce their radiation exposure while using their mobile phones." Here's how: • Limit cell-phone use, particularly by kids. • Hold the phone away from your head and body, especially when a call is connecting.• Text or use a speakerphone or headset to reduce absorption in your head.:

Do current cell-phone radiation rates underestimate exposure?

Oct 19, 2011 ...s “safe exposure” limits for low-level radiation absorbed from cell phones operating at their highest possible power level—known as...

"Bottom line: Despite the many questions this article raises about SAR values and whether they adequately protect cell phone users from the potential effects of cell phone radiation, the Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibilities for cell phones with the FCC, maintains that the "weight of scientific evidence” has not linked cell phones with harm except through heating tissue. 

However, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently classified cell-phone radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The IARC action is based on limited evidence and doesn't convincingly link typical cell-phone use with cancer. But it does increase the need for further study, as well as better and more visible guidance to consumers on the issue. (We contacted the FCC for this article but did not hear back by the time of publication.) "

Details emerge on possible cell-phone radiation risk
Jun 23, 2011 ...on Cancer, which last month classified low-level radiation from cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," provided more details yesterday... 

"A group of scientists at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which last month classified low-level radiation from cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," provided more details yesterday about how they arrived at their conclusions in a report published online in The Lancet Oncology.

Cell-phone radiation 'possibly carcinogenic'

Jun 1, 2011...for Research on Cancer yesterday classified low-level radiation from cell phones “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence linking...

"The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer yesterday classified low-level radiation from cell phones “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence linking cell-phone use with an increased risk of glioma, a type of brain cancer. While that's certain to raise the level of discussion about the health effects of cell phones, government regulators remain reassuring about the potential risks ...

In a statement released yesterday, John Walls, vice president of public affairs for CTIA The Wireless Association, said that the IARC classification “does not mean cell phones cause cancer.” ...

Bottom line: The IARC action is based on limited evidence and doesn't convincingly link typical cell-phone use with cancer. But it does increase the need for further study, as well as better and more visible guidance to consumers on the issue.
We will continue to monitor the research on cell-phone safety. In the meantime, if you’re concerned about radiation, you can minimize exposure by using a speakerphone or hands-free headset, holding the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reducing use, especially by children. Of course, you can also text."  

Study shows cell phone radiation can alter brain function

Feb 23, 2011...a new wrinkle to a long-standing concern of cell phone users, the Journal...that low-level radiation from cell phones...

"...Although, as the FDA has stated, the "weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems," consumers continue to be concerned. The city of San Francisco recently enacted an ordinance requiring that cell phones disclose the amount of radiation emitted, and Consumer Reports has called for a national research program and more guidance for cell phone users on potential risks."

Cell phones alter brain function, but health effects still unknown

Feb 22, 2011 -Low-level radiation from cell phones can affect brain function during short-term use, according to a report in the Feb... 

"Low-level radiation from cell phones can affect brain function during short-term use, according to a report in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association...

Bottom line: We will continue to monitor the research on cell-phone safety. In the meantime, if you’re concerned about radiation, you can minimize exposure by using a speakerphone or hands-free headset, holding the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reducing use, especially by children."

How risky is cell-phone radiation?
January 2011

"The Food and Drug Administration says the "weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems," including brain tumors from the low-level radiation that phones emit in normal use. Yet in the past year San Francisco lawmakers have enacted an ordinance requiring that cell phones disclose the amount of radiation emitted, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) announced plans to push for radiation warnings on all cell phones.

Phone manufacturers are required by federal law to package every cell phone with information about its specific absorption rate (SAR) values. The higher the SAR value, the more radiation the body absorbs. But there's usually no explanation provided with those numbers, not even the fact that all phones sold have levels lower than what the FDA considers a concern ...Consumers Union believes a number of measures would benefit consumers:

• The U.S. needs a national research program on cell phones and health. Rep. Kucinich has called for such an effort as part of his cell-phone safety proposals.

• The FDA and the FCC should step up their efforts to provide better and more visible guidance to consumers on the risks, if any, of cell-phone radiation.

• The FCC should mandate that the SAR information included with phones be more consistent. The information that's currently provided varies greatly in its format and detail, as the photographs below illustrate.

Bottom line We will continue to track the research. In the meantime, if you are concerned about radiation, minimize exposure by using a speaker phone or hands-free headset, holding the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reducing use, especially by children."

 New cell phone models fit changing lifestyles

...January 2010 Consumer Reports Magazine. Latest on Cell phones and services Overview...of cell-phone radiation continues. ...

"Research into the possible risks of cell-phone radiation continues. A recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, based on research involving about 38,000 people, found a slightly increased risk of head and neck cancer among longtime cell-phone users. But more evidence is needed to understand the link, if any, between phones and cancer. We'll keep tracking the research. If you want to minimize exposure, use a speaker phone or hands-free headset, hold the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reduce usage, especially by children."

Gauging cell phones’ possible cancer risk

Jan 2009...on the way. Questions have been raised about whether cell phones might elevate cancer...non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Most studies have... 

"... Bottom line The Federal Communications Commission advises that if there is any risk, and at this point we do not know that there is, it is probably very small. Until more is known, people who want to minimize potential risks of radio waves from cell phones should use the speakerphone mode or a hands-free set while on calls and ask kids to do the same. They should also limit time spent on the phone and keep the antenna away from the head and body."