Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Buyer Beware: Cell Phone Radiation-Reducing Products

People often ask me to recommend a harm reduction product to reduce exposure to the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by their cell phone. 

Every few months a manufacturer asks me to endorse a new radiation-reducing product.

To avoid conflicts of interest, I do not promote or endorse any products. Moreover, I have little confidence in most manufacturers' product safety claims even by manufacturers who report independent laboratory test results for their products. 

Any use of my name, image, webinars. or website in marketing products is unauthorized and misleading.

Rather, I recommend people reduce their EMR exposure by making some simple behavioral changes. See "Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation" on my EMR Safety web site for suggestions.

In the news article below, Juli Clover, the author evaluated an iPhone case which is supposed to enhance the phone's signal strength. Although this product is not a harm reduction product, the article is useful to examine as the author compares how well the case functioned in the real world to the manufacturer's claims that were based on laboratory test results from "CETECOM, a well-respected test and certification lab for mobile devices."

The author concluded, "after several days of use, it remains difficult to conclusively say that the case improves signal in a meaningful way due to mixed test results." 

Her analysis validates my concern that testing a cell phone's radiation in a laboratory has limited utility because it does not yield results that accurately predict how the cell phone functions in the real world.

As I discussed in an interview in 2011, although the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires every cell phone in the U.S. to be tested in a laboratory for its Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), this measure is not useful to determine whether one cell phone is safer than another. In my opinion, the SAR is not useful to determine whether any cell phone is safe.

In sum, consumers would be wise to pay attention to the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) advice: "there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions."


The FTC makes the following recommendations in an article entitled, "Cell Phone Radiation Scams":
  • "Increase the distance between your phone and your head by using a hands-free device, like an earpiece that is wired to the phone, or using the speakerphone feature.
  • Consider texting more and limiting your cell phone use to short conversations.
  • Wait for a good signal. When you have a weak signal, your phone works harder, emitting more radiation. Phones also give off more radiation when transmitting than when receiving, so tilt the phone away from your head when you're talking, and bring it back to your ear when you're listening.
  • A phone's specific absorption rate (SAR) reveals the maximum amount of radiation the human body absorbs from the phone while it's transmitting. SAR testing ensures that the devices sold in the U.S. comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) SAR exposure limit, but the single, worst-case value obtained from this SAR testing is not necessarily representative of the absorption during actual use, and therefore it is not recommended for comparisons among phones. In short, selecting a lower SAR phone will not reliably ensure lower radiation absorption during use. 
  • The FCC has more information at Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You." 

--

Hands-On With the Reach79 Signal Boosting Case - Does It Work?

Juli Clover, MacRumors, Jan 27, 2015

Thursday, January 8, 2015

U.S. Navy's Electronic War Games

If you would like to learn about the U.S. Navy's electronic war games to be held in the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, you may find it informative to read the Navy's Environmental Assessment (EA) report:

Pacific Northwest EW Range Environmental Assessment (EA). United States Department of the Navy. Final EA, September 2014. Unclassified. 
URL: http://bit.ly/1yBz8dh. 

The report, however, seems rather sketchy as critical information is likely classified.

The safety of these war games has been challenged by Dr. Martin Pall as the Navy is only concerned about protecting people and wildlife from heating or thermal risks. The report actually admits that there would be a thermal risk should any persons or wildlife remain stationary within the test area. The report does not address the non-thermal risks of exposure to high-intensity radar.


Allegedly, the purpose of these war games is to test the Navy's ability to block military communications. According to the EA report, the primary radio frequency emissions involved in the games are in the 4-8 GHz range with a peak transmit power of 100 kW (kilowatts). According to Wikipedia, this radar C band is typically used for satellite transponders.

Following are some excerpts from the Navy's report.

2.1.1.2 Installation and Operation of a Fixed Emitter at Naval Station Everett Annex Pacific Beach, Washington (pp. 2-1 – 2-2)

To facilitate EW training, construction of a permanent tower south of Building 104 (Figure 2.1-1) is required to support a fixed emitter (MRES) at NS Everett Annex Pacific Beach (similar to that shown in Figure 3.1-3). The 40-foot (ft.) tower and fixed emitter would have a total height of about 66 ft. above ground level on a Navy-operated, controlled, and owned site, to which the general public does not have access. The MRES is capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 2 to 18 gigahertz (GHz). It can emit up to 64 simultaneous signals and can transmit in pulses or a continuous wave. The MRES site is fenced for security purposes to restrict public access, and the emitter’s height is designed to further reduce any potential safety issues or hazards. Additionally, warning signs specific to the tower-mounted emitter would be posted for Building 104, which already has a secured, fenced area with warning signs that exclude unauthorized personnel and the public. Furthermore, during training evolutions, the Navy would ensure that all necessary safety precautions and standard operating procedures would be followed to further minimize the risk to the public. All Navy personnel and trainees would be required to follow the specific safety precautions identified in Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5100.23 Series and any applicable site-specific range regulations.

3.1.1.2 Electromagnetic Radiation Hazards

<snip>

There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation. Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time (Focke et al. 2009).

Strong electromagnetic radiation can cause fire if a wave were to create a spark near explosives or ordnance. Strong waves can also induce an electric current capable of overloading or destroying electrical equipment while less strong radiation waves can interfere with electromagnetic signals, such as radio, television, and telephone.

3.1.1.2.1 Navy’s Electromagnetic Devices and Electromagnetic Radiation Outputs

Fixed Emitter. The MRES, more commonly referred to as the “fixed emitter” being proposed and analyzed for use at NS Everett Annex Pacific Beach (tower-mounted, similar to that shown in Figure 3.1-1) is capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 2 to 18 GHz. It can emit up to 64 simultaneous signals and can transmit in pulses or a continuous wave.

Vehicle-mounted Mobile Emitters. There are two types of vehicle-mounted mobile emitters that are being proposed and analyzed for use on the MEWTS, more commonly referred to as “mobile  emitters.” Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier (TWTA) mobile emitters are capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 4 to 8 GHz; the Magnetron mobile emitters are capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 6.7 to 7.4 GHz.

These emitters can produce the electromagnetic hazards mentioned in the previous section. As discussed below, the threat to the public’s safety is largely a function of the locations of the emitters relative to people, the power and frequency output of the emitters, the amount of time an individual is exposed to the electromagnetic energy, and the Navy’s management practices related to operation of the emitters.

For each EW emitter, a “controlled environment” and “action level environment” (as described below in Section 3.1.1.3) are determined based on the power and frequency output of the emitter. Because emitters focus energy in a relatively narrow beam, controlled and action level environments would be triangular, as opposed to complete circles. Within controlled and action level environments, personnel and the public would be limited to the time they could be exposed without receiving harmful levels of electromagnetic energy (this is done by calculating the distances from the emitter and time limits at those distances). For example, the mobile emitters (MEWTS) have controlled and action level environments in which personnel and the public must not be allowed to loiter, while outside a controlled or action level environment, personnel and the public would receive no harmful levels of electromagnetic radiation.

<snip>

Table 3.1-1 displays the minimum calculated separation distances within controlled and action level environments for the main beams of each electromagnetic radiation wave being proposed for use, at its highest frequency, and at the longest averaging time (the “permissive exposure time”) for each type of proposed emitter. The values were derived in accordance with OPNAVINST 5100.23G, IEEE standards, and two2 separate Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) safety reviews conducted for the MRES and MEWTS. It should be noted that these values are “worst case” scenario, thus providing the greatest amount of protection to the general public. In actual operations, these values will typically be lower, as the emitters will not be transmitting at their highest frequency, and permissive exposure times would  vary as well. Additionally, safety precautions, as described in Section 3.1.1.5 below, would further limit the general public’s (as well as forest creatures) potential exposure and enhance the overall safety of the operation.

Table 3.1-1: Radiation Hazard Minimum Safe Separation Distances Per the E3 Safety Reviews (see p. 3.1-4 for this table; my summary is in brackets)

[At the Naval Station Everett Annex Pac Beach, the minimum separation distances listed in the table range from 29.3 feet to 713.7 feet for the action level environment and from 9.3 feet to 276.4 feet for the controlled environment.]

[At the Olympic, Okanogan and Roosevelt MOAs (military operation areas), the minimum separation distances listed in the table range from 29.3 feet to 101.1 feet for the action level environment and from 9.3 feet to 32.0 feet for the controlled environment.]


Two types of mobile emitters will be used under Alternative 1. The first operates between 6 and 8 GHz with an approximate peak transmit power of 100 kW. The second operates between 4 and 8 GHz with an approximate peak transmit power of 3 kW. At these operational settings, it is not expected that wildlife, notably birds, would be impacted by the radiated energy. (3.2-26)



Under Alternative 2, the Navy would have a total of six mobile emitters. There would be three for the activities in the Olympic MOAs as described in Alternative 1 and three for activities in the Okanogan and Roosevelt MOAs. On average, the fixed and mobile emitters would provide service for 19 events a day, totaling about 72 hours of operation per day (Table 2.1-2). In order to power the mobile emitters, 10 kW generators will be used, which are housed within the mobile emitter unit. Emitters would be energized in accordance with the training scenario. The emitter may be energized for short periods of time throughout the training activity or continuously throughout the entire time the aircraft is airborne, depending upon the training scenario. Should an individual/individuals or animals remain in the area while a training event is occurring, the mobile emitter crews will cease the training (de-energize the emitter and stow for travel), and if need be, relocate to another pre-selected training site. (3.2-28)

---


The following study conducted in India is timely although the radar frequency bands differ from those that the U.S. Navy will employ in the war games discussed above. 

Singh S, Mani KV, Kapoor N. Effect of occupational EMF exposure from radar at two different frequency bands on plasma melatonin and serotonin levels. Int J Radiat Biol. 2015 Jan 7:1-39. [Epub ahead of print].

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to delineate the effect of chronic electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from radar on plasma melatonin and serotonin levels in occupationally exposed military personnel.


Subjects and Methods: 166 male military personnel participated in the study out of which only 155 joined for blood draw. They were divided into three sets viz control group (n=68), exposure group I (n=40) exposed to 8-12 GHz and exposure group II (n=58) working with radar at 12.5-18 GHz frequency. All the three groups were further split into two groups according to their years of service (up to 10 years and > 10 years) in order to investigate the effect of years of exposure from radar. Melatonin and serotonin levels were estimated by enzyme immunoassay in fasting blood samples collected during 0600-0700h. EMF measurements were recorded at different locations using Satimo EME Guard 'Personal Exposure Meter' and Narda 'Broad Band Field Meter'.


Results: The group I exposed population registered a minor though not significant decrease in plasma melatonin concentration while the other group II exposed population registered statistically significant decline in melatonin concentration when compared with controls. Highly significant increase in plasma serotonin levels was found in exposure group II when compared to control whereas marginal non-significant rise was also registered in exposure group I in comparison to control. Exposure in terms of length of service up to 10 years did not produce any significant effect in the indoleamine levels in both the exposure groups when they were compared with their respective control groups. Whereas, length of service greater than 10 years was observed to decrease and increase respectively the melatonin and serotonin concentration significantly in exposure group II but not in exposure group I. However, correlation test did not yield any significant association between years of service and melatonin or serotonin levels respectively in both the exposure sets I and II. No significant association was observed between melatonin and serotonin levels as well.


Conclusion: The study shows the EMF ability to influence plasma melatonin and serotonin concentration in radar workers, significantly in 12.5-18GHz range with service period greater than 10 years.


Excerpts

The EMF levels measured in power density (W/m2) were monitored with EME Guard personal exposure meter (frequency range 27MHz to 40GHz with upper and lower detection limit of 200V/m and 5V/m respectively) and Broad Band Field Meter (frequency range 100KHz to 60GHz). Measurements were undertaken inside the radar cabins and outside the radar at different distances of occupational exposures of the personnel. The power density of microwave radiation level inside the radar cabin and outside at various locations around the radar vehicle, where a worker of Group I worked during the course of normal duty ranged from 0.24 – 0.77W/m2. Subjects of Group II were exposed to microwave power density level of 0.1 – 15.6W/m2 inside and outside the radar vehicle.

Despite the measured EMF levels found to be well within the acceptable limits of occupational exposure of 50W/m2 for controlled environments (1.5 to 150GHz) (ICNIRP guidelines, 1998, 2002; Canada Safety Code 6, 2009; NRPB, 2004), changes in pineal indoleamine concentrations with radar exposure in terms of both frequency band and years of service have been observed. The significantly depressed antioxidant level of melatonin in exposure group II signifies the potential of EMF exposure combination at Ku frequency band and mean exposure period of 11.5 years in terms of length of service in inducing stress. At the same time, the slight fall registered in group I may be due to comparatively lower cumulative exposure both in terms of frequency band and length of service (mean 8.3 years) to which the group might have acclimatized as apparent by the non-significant difference when compared with the reference group. Correlation analysis however, did not yield any significant association between years of service and melatonin or serotonin levels in both the exposure sets I and II ...


In light of the observed alterations in melatonin and serotonin found in both the frequency bands of radar and service category though, significant only in the higher frequency band and in greater than 10 years of service duration, our study do imply the EMF potential to alter the plasma indoleamine levels in radar workers. The results need further corroboration; hence, the results should be interpreted with caution. Given the significance of these pineal secretions for organisms, further studies with better EMF characterization and standardization are crucial. In this regard, future studies should target occupational groups with cohort or cross-sectional studies with more time point measurements in order to find the pattern of melatonin and serotonin response with EMF experience. Upcoming studies should also address the effect of EMF on all the components of melatonin biosynthesis in order to concretize the findings in addition to taking into account possible confounders. For the time being, precautionary approach should be adopted and unnecessary exposures should be checked, along with suitable protective measures where such exposures are unavoidable and considerably high.

http://1.usa.gov/1wx5Dn5

--

Also see:

S. Weinberger. Microwave weapons: Wasted energy. Nature. 489(7415). Sep 12, 2012. 

Despite 50 years of research on high-power microwaves, the US military has yet to produce a usable weapon.

K. Kumar. US Navy’s Disruptive Weapon "Railgun" To Be Publicly Displayed At Washington Defence Expo in February. International Business Times. Jan 26, 2015.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Wireless Radiation Safety, 2014: Year in Review

Two major research studies published this year found that brain cancer risk increased with wireless phone use. Several significant policy-related actions regarding wireless radiation also occurred in 2014.

French researchers found almost a 3-fold increase in brain cancer with 896 or more hours of lifetime cell phone use. Swedish researchers found a 2-fold increase in brain cancer with 1,486 or more hours of cell phone use and a 3-fold risk with 25 or more years of cell and cordless phone use.  

These studies add to the evidence of increased brain cancer risk found among heavier cell phone users in the 13-nation Interphone study published in 2010. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) relied heavily on the Interphone Study and earlier research by the Swedish researchers to declare radio frequency radiation “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. 

A news report on the Swedish study by Reuters Health stimulated global media coverage—over 260 news articles published in 18 languages in 50 countries— demonstrating worldwide concern about the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation.

Key developments in the past year
  • The U.S. Department of the Interior accused the Federal Government of employing outdated standards: "the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today." The standards violate federal law as they endanger federally-protected wildlife species which suffer adverse effects from cell tower radiation exposure.
  • Four resolutions signed by 98 scientific experts were submitted to the FCC which call on government to issue stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation.
  • The Wall Street Journal reported that one in ten cell phone towers in the U.S., numbering about 30,000 in all, emit levels of microwave radiation that exceed the legal limit thus endangering the health of workers, noting that the FCC has issued only two citations for noncompliance since 1996.
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) became the first Federal health agency to issue precautionary health warnings about cell phone use; however, CDC later removed the warnings from its web site after the media reported about this key policy change.
  • Fifty-four scientists from 18 nations who study the effects of radio frequency radiation submitted a declaration to Health Canada calling on government to minimize public exposure to the microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices including cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors.
  • SINTEF, the largest independent research organization in Scandinavia, proposed manufacturing design guidelines to reduce the magnetic fields emitted by hybrid and electric automobiles which are possibly carcinogenic to humans.
  • The City Council of Berkeley, California directed the City Attorney to draft a cell phone “right to know” ordinance that would require retailers to provide consumers with a fact sheet regarding the cell phone’s minimum separation distance from the body. Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has offered to defend this ground-breaking ordinance should the CTIA—The Wireless Association sue the City.
  • In a lawsuit filed by 29 individuals who are suing the wireless industry for their brain tumors, the D.C. Superior Court admitted the testimony of expert witnesses for the plaintiffs. This ruling enables the case to move to the discovery phase of the trial, and the industry will be required to release relevant documents.
  • The Los Angeles Unified School District officially accommodated a teacher who suffers from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) by approving her request to have the Wi-Fi turned off in her classroom and her request to be reassigned in the future to another school where Wi-Fi has not been installed. This is the first accommodation for EHS by a public school system in the U.S.
  • A systematic review of the research on the effects of cell phone radiation on human sperm found that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality and may contribute to infertility in some men.
Although two wireless products launched in 2014 received extraordinary media coverage, the news media failed to mention the potential health risks from using these products:
  • The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed, is much higher for the Google Glass than for most cell phones. This is of particular concern for the Glass as unlike cell phones it is worn on the user’s head.
  • The iPhone 6, like most smart phones, has several transmitters that simultaneously emit microwave radiation. When these transmitters are turned on the radiation emitted by this phone is close to the SAR legal limit; thus, one should turn off any transmitters not in use (e.g. Wi-Fi) to reduce exposure. According to Apple, the iPhone 6 should be kept at least 5 millimeters or two-tenths of an inch from the body whenever it is turned on (i.e., the device's minimum body separation distance is 5 mm).

Listed below in order of popularity are the ten most popular wireless radiation news releases distributed this year through PRLog, a press release distribution website, and the ten most popular articles posted on the Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website. In 2014, the news releases received over 65,000 page views, and the website received 130,000 page views from visitors in more than 100 countries.




Ten Most Popular Electromagnetic Radiation Safety Press Releases of the Year 









The Top Cell Phone Radiation Safety Stories of 2013


Ten Most Popular Articles of the Year on the SaferEMR Website














Friday, December 26, 2014

News Releases on PRLog


Health Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hybrid and Electric Automobiles Should Be Re-Designed to Reduce Electromagnetic Radiation Risks
Google Glass Alert: Potential health risks from wireless radiation

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

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


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

Did Tom Wheeler, the Nominee for Chairman of the FCC, Subvert Research Showing Harm From Cell Phone Radiation?
http://www.prlog.org/12146045

Belgium Adopts New Regulations to Promote Cell Phone Radiation Safety

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

FCC Needs Input on Radio Frequency Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12178160

San Francisco Updates Cell Phone Safety Warnings
http://www.prlog.org/12149797
 
Will San Francisco Abandon Its Cell Phone Right to Know Law?
http://www.prlog.org/12132051

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

Wireless Industry's Patented System to Reduce Cancer Risk from Wireless Local Networks Never Adopted 
http://www.prlog.org/12094566
 
Better Late Than Never? FCC to Review Cell Phone Radiation Standards (2/5/2013)
http://www.prlog.org/12073996
 
Comments submitted to FCC re: "FCC Proposes Changes in the Commission's Rules and Procedures Regarding Human Exposure to RadioFrequency Electromagnetic Energy" (Proceeding Number 03-137), Feb 5, 2013
http://bit.ly/WsHdLe
http://bit.ly/UuBmZ2
 
Call for Action to Reduce Harm from Mobile Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12065677

Drs. Oz and Gupta Call for Caution in Using Cell Phones
http://www.prlog.org/12060850
  
What's Wrong with the GAO Report on Cell Phone Radiation?
http://www.prlog.org/12057270

Studies Show Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Cancer Risk
http://www.prlog.org/12052898

Boeing Tests In-Flight Wireless on Potatoes, Not People
http://www.prlog.org/12046596
 


Florida City Adopts Cell Phone Precautionary Health Warnings
http://www.prlog.org/12031899

San Francisco's Cell Phone Fact Sheet is Factual
http://www.prlog.org/11973342

Cell Phone Radiation Warning on San Francisco Government Web Site
http://www.prlog.org/11879000

Big Week for Cell Phone Radiation Legislation
http://www.prlog.org/11943091

Does The FCC Plan To Rubber Stamp Outdated Cell Phone Radiation Standards?
http://www.prlog.org/11901340

Italian Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Can Cause Cancer
http://www.prlog.org/12004383

India Adopts Health Warnings & U.S. Mobile Phone Standards
http://www.prlog.org/11966704

Russian Cell Phone Standards Offer Better Protection than American Standards
http://www.prlog.org/11916029 


Samsung Scores with Lowest Radiation Cell Phones
http://www.prlog.org/11962089


Health Effects

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

Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation
http://www.prlog.org/12245111

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

LTE Cell Phone Radiation Affects Brain Activity in Cell Phone Users 
http://www.prlog.org/12215083

Cell Phone Use, Acoustic Neuroma and Cancer of the Pituitary Gland
http://www.prlog.org/12135511
 

WHO Monograph on Cancer Risk from Mobile Phone Use Released
http://www.prlog.org/12122198

Children's Cell Phone Use May Increase Their Risk of ADHD
http://www.prlog.org/12110138

Your Cell Phone Company May Affect Your Risk of Brain Cancer
http://www.prlog.org/12106833

Exposure to Electricity May Increase Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease and ALS
http://www.prlog.org/12087069

Studies Show Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Cancer Risk
http://www.prlog.org/12052898

Secondhand Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation: An Emerging Public Health Problem?
http://www.prlog.org/12010018


Health Experts Caution About Smart Meters
http://www.prlog.org/11978228


Cell Phone Radiation, Pregnancy, and Sperm
http://www.prlog.org/12026867

Cell Phone Radiation Damages Sperm
http://www.prlog.org/11911996

Magnetic Field Exposure Before Birth May Contribute to Childhood Obesity
http://www.prlog.org/1193609


Monday, August 4, 2014

Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions

Selected FCC Submissions re:

"Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency
Exposure Limits and Policies" (Proceeding Number 13-84)

Part III: 98 scientific experts who signed four resolutions submitted to the FCC

(Last revision: 8-4-2014)

In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, more than 950 individuals and organizations submitted thousands of testimonials, research papers and scientific publications. Almost all of these submissions supported the need for stronger cell phone radiation regulations.

The submissions included four resolutions signed by scientific experts who have published research on wireless radiation and health in scientific journals. The resolutions call on governments to issue stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation. The declarations were signed by 98 scientists* between 2002 and 2014.                                                                                                            

                                                                                                         (*unduplicated count)

The scientists were affiliated with more than forty universities and many governmental institutions located in 23 nations. Signees included two former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, an organization that "promotes the exchange of ideas to advance the science of natural and applied electromagnetic fields in biology and medicine."  

Signees also included three editors-in-chief of professional research journals, scientists who worked in state health departments in California and Washington, the chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and a career scientist who worked in the US. Environmental Protection Agency where he conducted cutting-edge research on the carcinogenic effects of cellphone radiation in the 1990's until the Congress stopped the EPA from researching cellphone radiation health effects. (Hopefully, the EPA will  be funded once again to conduct research wireless radiation safety and assume its responsibility to protect public health from this source of pollution.)

The following specialties are represented among the signees: animal science, behavioral neuroscience, biochemistry, bioelectromagnetics, bioengineering, biophysics, cell biology, cell biophysics, clinical pathology, dermatology, environmental engineering, environmental health, environmental physics, environmental oncology, epidemiology, immunocytology, medical oncology, molecular medicine, neurobiology, neurology, neuropharmacology, neuroscience, neurosurgery, oncology, physiology, physiology & cellular biophysics, quantum physics, and toxicology.

Links to the four resolutions appear below along with a list of signees and their affiliations. 


Other scientific resolutions and petitions

Since 1997, twenty-two declarations have been signed by scientists and health professionals calling for stronger cell phone radiation regulations. See Dr. Magda Havas' website for a list of all 22 resolutions at http://bit.ly/XyeM46.  

The American Academy of Pediatrics, a professional organization representing 60,000 physicians, sent a letter to the FCC and the FDA urging the FCC to adopt radiation standards that (http://bit.ly/17tQclg): 
  • "Protect children’s health and well-being ... Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.
  • Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone radiation since 1996 ... Many children, adolescents and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures. FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today.
  •  Provide meaningful consumer disclosure. The FCC has noted that it does not provide consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience."
The Environmental Working Group submitted to the FCC a petition signed by 26,000 residents of the U.S. (http://bit.ly/1s64BNv). The petition calls on the FCC to ...
  • "Provide adequate protection for children's health -- accounting for their thinner skulls, smaller head size and developing brains.
  • Reflect actual use patterns such as smartphone cases and phones carried directly against the body instead of in holsters.
  • Provide meaningful consumer disclosure of cell phone radiation levels, without pre- empting states or local governments from requiring greater disclosure."

Signees of the four resolutions submitted to the FCC

Health Canada Safety Code 6 Declaration (2014)

Franz Adlkofer, MD, Pandora Foundation, Germany
Bahriye Sırav Aral, ABD, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biophysics, Gazi University, Turkey
Fiorella Belpoggi, MD, PhD, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy
Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Professor, Medical Oncology, Paris University Hospital; Director, European Cancer & Environment Research Institute, France
Martin Blank, PhD, Special lecturer (ret.), Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, USA
Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD, Faculty of Sciences, Free University of Brussels, Belgium
Ayşe G. Canseven, PhD, Medical Faculty, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey
David O. Carpenter, MD, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, USA
Simona Carrubba, PhD, Daemen College, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo (Neurology), USA
Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
Adilza C. Dode, PhD, MSc, Prof. EMF Pollution Control, Environmental Engineering Deparment, Minas Methodist University, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Meric Arda Esmekaya, PhD, Biophysics Department, Gazi University, Turkey
Arzu Firlarer, MSc, PhD, Senior Researcher & Instructor, Occupational Health and Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey
Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, MSc, PhD, Postdoc. Research Assoc., Dept. Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece
Christos Georgiou, PhD, Prof. Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
Livio Giuliani, PhD, Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florenze-Bozen, Italy
Yury Grigoriev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia
Settimio Grimaldi, PhD, Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy
Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario la fe Valencia, Spain
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
Paul Héroux, PhD, Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University Medical; InvitroPlus Labs., Royal Victoria Hospital, Canada
Donald Hillman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, USA
Martha R. Herbert, PhD, MD, Assisant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA
Tsuyoshi Hondou, PhD, Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Florian M. Koenig, DrSc, Director of Fl. König Enterprises GmbH, Sferics & Meteorosensitivity Research Institute, Germering, Germany
Kavindra Kumar Kesari, MBA, PhD; Research Scientist, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Jaipur National University, India
Girish Kumar, PhD, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering,  I.I.T. Bombay, India
Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, USA; Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine
Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc, Editor-in-Chief: Frontiers in Radiation and Health, Switzerland; Prof, Univ. of Helsinki, Finland
Ying Li, PhD, InVitroPlus Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital McGill University Medicine, Canada
Wolfgang Löscher, MD, Head, Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, University of Veterinary Medicine; Center for Neuroscience, Hannover, Germany
Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Prof. Emeritus, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece
Marko Markov, PhD, Research International Buffalo, USA
Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, Former Epidemiology Section Head, Washington State Department of Health and Adjunct Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, USA
Anthony Miller, MD, Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada
Hidetake Miyata, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust, USA
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Raymond Richard Neutra, MD, MPH, DrPH, USA; former Chief, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, California Department of Health Services (retired)
Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Speaker Environmental Medicine, Austrian Medical Association; Public Health, Salzburg Government, Austria
Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, PhD, Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada
Elcin Ozgur, PhD, Biophysics Department, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Turkey
Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
Michael A. Persinger, Professor, Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular Sciences & Human Studies, Laurentian University, Canada
Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Center for Excellence in Science, Prof, Dept. Chem. & Biochem., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA
Timur Saliev, MD, PhD, Life Sciences, Nazarbayev Univ., Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK
Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Prof., Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Nesrin Seyhan, Prof. Dr.,  Founding Chair, Biophysics Department, Medical Faculty, Gazi University; WHO EMF Advisory Committee, Turkey
Wenjun Sun, PhD, Professor, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
Mehmet Z. Tuyzuz, PhD,  Biophysics Department, Gazi University,Turkey
Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing, PhD, Head of Inst., Environmental Physics; Former Head, Clinical Research, Medical University, Luebeck, Germany
Stelios A. Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society, Greece


Seletun Scientific Panel (2009)


Adamantia Fragopoulou, PhD Cand., Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Yury Grigoriev, Professor, Dr of Med Sci, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation
Olle Johansson, PhD, Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, and The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lukas H Margaritis, Professor, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Faculty of Biology, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
L. Lloyd Morgan, Bioelectromagnetics Society, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA
Elihu D Richter, MD, MPH, Professor, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University Hadassah School of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel
Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA, USA


Benevento Resolution (2006)

Primary signers

Fiorella Belpoggi, MD, PhD, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, Italy
Carl F. Blackman, PhD, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-1991); Environmental Carcinogenesis Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-2014), Raleigh, USA
Martin Blank, PhD, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Natalia Bobkova, PhD, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region, Russian Federation
Francesco Boella, PhD, National Institute of Prevention and Worker Safety, Venice, Italy
Zhaojin Cao, PhD, National Institute for Environmental Health & Related Product Safety, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, China; Editor, Journal of Hygiene Research
Enrico D. Emilia, PhD, National Institute for Prevention and Worker Safety, Monteporzio, Italy
Emilio Del Giuduice, Quantum Physicist, National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Milan, Italy (deceased)
Antonella De Ninno, PhD, Italian National Agency For Energy, Environment & Technology, Frascati, Italy
Alvaro A. De Salles, BSc, MSc, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Livio Giuliani, PhD, East Veneto & South Triol, National Institute for Prevention & Worker Safety, Camerino University, Italy
Yury Grigoryev, MD, Institute of Biophysics, Chairman, Russian National Committee, NIERP, Russian Federation
Settimo Grimaldi, PhD, Institute of Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research, Rome, Italy
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Gerard Hyland, PhD, Warwick University, UK. International Institute of Biophysics, Germany; EM Radiation Trust, UK
Olle Johansson, PhD, Neuroscience Department, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Michael Kundi, PhD, Head, Institute Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Henry C. Lai, PhD, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Mario Ledda, PhD, Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine, National Council for Research, Rome, Italy
Yi-Ping Lin, PhD, Center of Health Risk Assessment & Policy, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Antonella Lisi, PhD, Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, Rome, Italy
Fiorenzo Marinelli, PhD, Institute of Immunocytology, National Research Council, Bologna, Italy
Elihu Richter, MD, MPH, Head, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Israel
Emanuela Rosola, Instit. of Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, Rome, Italy
Leif Salford, MD, Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden
Nesrin Seyhan, BSc, PhD, Head, Department of Biophysics; Director, Gazi NIRP Center, Ankara, Turkey
Morando Soffritti, MD, Scientific Director, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B. Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland
Mikhail Zhadin, PhD Cand., Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region, Russian Federation

Additional signers

Igor Y. Belyaev, MSc, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology, Arrhenius Laboratories for Natural Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
William J. Bruno, PhD, Theoretical Biophysics, awarded by Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA
Mauro Cristaldi, Dip, B.A.U. Universita degli Studi "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
Suleyman Dasdag, PhD, Biophysics Department of Medical School, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Sandy Doull, MPH, Consultant, Noel Arnold & Associates, Box Hill VIC, Australia
Christos D. Georgiou, PhD, Associate Professor of Biochemistry, Department of Biology, University of Patras, Greece
Andrew Goldsworthy, BSc, PhD, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, UK
Reba Goodman, PhD, Prof. Emeritus, Clinical Pathology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Luisa Anna Ieradi, Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi C.N.R., Rome, Italy
Michael Kundi, PhD, Head, Institute Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Angelo Gino Levis, Professor Emeritus, Environmental Oncology, Padua University, Italy
Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Athens University, Athens, Greece
Vera Markovic, PhD, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Nis, Serbia
E. Stanton Maxey, MD, Fayetteville Arkansas, USA (retired)
Gerd Oberfeld, Dr. Med, Federal Salzburg Government. National Medical Management, Public Health Hygiene and Environmental Health, Salzburg, Austria
Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Professor, Science/Health Science Learning Center, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Zamir Shalita, PhD, Consultant on Electromagnetic Hazards, Ramat Gan, Israel
Sarah J. Starkey, PhD, Neuroscience, University of London, London, United Kingdom
Ion Udroiu, Dip. B.A.U., Università degli Studi "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
Mehmet Zeyrek, BSc, PhD, Prof., Physics Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Vice President, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece
Anna Zucchero, MD, Internal Medicine Department. Venice-Mestre Hospital, Venice, Italy


Catania Resolution (2002)

Carl F. Blackman, PhD, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-1991); Environmental Carcinogenesis Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-2014), Raleigh, USA
Martin Blank, PhD, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Emilio Del Giudice, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Milano, Italy
Livio Giuliani, PhD, Camerino University - ISPESL*, Venice, Italy
Settimio Grimaldi, PhD, CNR-Istituto di Neurobiologia e Medicina Molecolare, Rome, Italy
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Michael Kundi, PhD, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Austria
Henry Lai, PhD, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, USA
Abraham R. Liboff, PhD, Department of Physics, Oakland University, USA
Wolfgang Löscher, DVM, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany
Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1996-1997), National Institute of Working Life, Umea, Sweden
Wilhelm Mosgöller, Prof Dr, Institute for Cancer Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Elihu D. Richter, MD, MPH, Head, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Public Health, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel
Umberto Scapagnini, MD, PhD, Neuropharmacology, University of Catania, Italy, Member of the Research Committee of the European Parliament
Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland