An Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it Regulates

Click on graphic to enlarge. Posted with permission of Einar Flydal.

Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture

Erica Rosenberg (2022). Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 64:5-6, 17-27, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2022.2131190.

No abstract

"With infrastructure including millions of miles of fiber optic cable and lines, thousands of towers, earth stations and satellites, and hundreds of thousands of small cells, 1 the telecommunications industry leaves a significant environmental footprint: wetlands filled, viewsheds marred, cultural resources damaged, and habitat destroyed. As the agency overseeing telecommunications, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates radio, TV, satellite, cable, and both wireline and wireless communications—and associated entities like Verizon, AT&T, and broadcast and radio corporations. It also plays a critical role in providing universal broadband and telecommunications access, and authorizing facilities associated with wireline and wireless build-outs. Yet the FCC fails to fulfill its mandatory duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in multiple and significant ways. 2 ...."

Applicants and licensees submit no documentation of their determination that their project is categorically excluded, and the agency does not track categorically excluded actions. With the applicant conducting the initial environmental review of whether the project is categorically excluded by assessing the list of extraordinary circumstances (i.e., the NEPA checklist), as well as preparing the environmental assessment, the burden falls on the public to learn of the proposed action and to raise a potential effect.

But categorically excluded actions, including authorization of certain towers, do not receive public notice; only applications for towers that require registration (generally taller than 199 feet) are put on notice, and those may or may not have associated environmental assessments. In addition to towers under 200 feet not posing an air hazard, these stealth projects that the agency has no record of include small wireless facilities associated with 4G and 5G.

That the public has no access to this information is particularly problematic in the radio frequency context, where applicants are required to meet radio frequency emissions standards or submit an environmental assessment. If the applicants do analyze the checklist and radio frequency studies at all, they routinely categorically exclude small wireless facilities, despite growing public concern about radio frequency associated with such technologies. Without access to the documented checklist, the public has little to no basis on which to refute or comment on checklist conclusions on radio frequency. And given the streamlined process, citizens often find out about facilities only after they are built...."

"Conclusion: Prospects for a More Accountable FCC

Clearly, the FCC’s NEPA process falls short of what NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality require.

• It ignores major federal actions requiring environmental review, such as its distribution to industry of billions of dollars that support build-outs for updated wireless service, or improperly deems certain major federal actions non-major federal actions to circumvent NEPA.
• Its NEPA rules create an unsupported and overbroad categorical exclusion so that, for example, satellite licensing and submarine cable licensing are excluded from review.
• With little oversight or tracking, it delegates environmental review of NEPA determinations to industry proponents of the project.
• It fails to vigorously enforce its rules so that industry noncompliance is rampant.
• It fails to provide adequate notice and opportunities for public comment.
• It fails to make environmental documents, including radio frequency emissions studies, publicly available or readily accessible.
• It routinely ignores or dismisses public comments and concerns and places an unfair burden of proof on the public when it raises concerns.

These practices serve to facilitate deployment for carriers while ignoring environmental rules and the public. Besides environmental costs, the FCC’s approach bespeaks a lack of transparency and accountability that undermines good governance and erodes democracy. It also bespeaks an agency completely captured by the entities it is tasked with regulating.

Recent Biden-era NEPA implementing rules 60 require agencies to revisit their NEPA rules and procedures by September 2023. 61 They also require that the agencies have the capacity to comply with NEPA, 62 something the FCC has to date lacked. Perhaps when Council on Environmental Quality reviews the FCC’s procedures this time, it will scrutinize the rules more carefully and hold the agency to a higher standard for NEPA compliance."

​https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139157.2022.2131190​

--

The Corporate Takeover of the Trump-FCC Is in Full Attack Mode

Bruce Kushnick, HuffPost, Nov 9, 2017   (Part 1 of 2)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-corporate-takeover-of-the-trump-fcc-is-in-full_us_5a041fb3e4b055de8d096ab0

The Trump-FCC-AT&T-Et Al. Plan: The Insidious “Wheel of Mis-Fortune”

Bruce Kushnick, HuffPost, Nov 10, 2017   (Part 2 of 2)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-trump-fcc-att-et-al-plan-the-insidious-wheel_us_5a055a13e4b0ee8ec3694081

Bruce Kushnick is the Executive Director of New Networks Institute (NNI), which was established in 1992, and a founding member of the IRREGULATORS, and has been a telecommunications analyst and visionary for over 35 years. During his career he has predicted that the addition of new technologies and networks would change the way we used the phone networks and he helped launch numerous interactive information markets and services that have now become commonplace.

http://newnetworks.com/about-bruce-kushnick/ 

--

June 26, 2015

Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates

Alster, Norm. Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Cambridge, MA:  Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.  2015. 

PDF: http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured  (free)
Kindle: http://amzn.to/1SQThCU ($0.99 -- check out the book reviews)

Introduction

This exposé provides insight into how the FCC became a victim of regulatory capture by industry and the implications of these corrupting influences for our health and safety, our privacy, and our wallets. 

This book concludes with a series of recommendations by its author, Norm Alster, an investigative journalist, who has written for the New York Times, Forbes, Business Week, and Investor’s Business Daily.  He wrote this book while serving as a journalism fellow with the Investigative Journalism Project at Harvard University.

Following are some excerpts that pertain to the wireless radiation industry and its corrupting influences on the FCC. I encourage you to read Mr. Alster's entire treatise.

Excerpts

A detailed look at FCC actions—and non-actions—shows that over the years the FCC has granted the wireless industry pretty much what it has wanted.

Money—and lots of it—has played a part ... In all, CTIA, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile USA, and Sprint spent roughly $45 million lobbying in 2013. Overall, the Communications/Electronics sector is one of Washington‘s super heavyweight lobbyists, spending nearly $800 million in 2013-2014, according to CRP data.

As a result, consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence …. Most insidious of all, the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health impact routinely ignored. Industry control, in the case of wireless health issues, extends beyond Congress and regulators to basic scientific research. And in an obvious echo of the hardball tactics of the tobacco industry, the wireless industry has backed up its economic and political power by stonewalling on public relations and bullying potential threats into submission with its huge standing army of lawyers. In this way, a coddled wireless industry intimidated and silenced the City of San Francisco, while running roughshod over local opponents of its expansionary infrastructure.

… Currently presiding over the FCC is Tom Wheeler, a man who has led the two most powerful industry lobbying groups: CTIA and NCTA. It is Wheeler who once supervised a $25 million industry-funded research effort on wireless health effects. But when handpicked research leader George Carlo concluded that wireless radiation did raise the risk of brain tumors, Wheeler‘s CTIA allegedly rushed to muffle the message. ”You do the science. I‘ll take care of the politics,” Carlo recalls Wheeler saying.

Graphic: The revolving door between the FCC and industry

Tom Wheeler, former Head of CTIA & NCTA, is now FCC Chair.

Meredith Atwell Baker, former FCC Commissioner, is now head of CTIA.

Michael Powell, former FCC Chair, is now head of NCTA.

Jonathan Adelstein, former FCC Commissioner, is now head of PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association.

Graphics: Top House and Senate recipients of cellular industry campaign contributions 

It all begins with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, legislation once described … as “the most lobbied bill in history.” Late lobbying won the wireless industry enormous concessions from lawmakers, many of them major recipients of industry hard and soft dollar contributions. Congressional staffers who helped lobbyists write the new law did not go unrewarded. Thirteen of fifteen staffers later became lobbyists themselves.

In preempting local zoning authority—along with the public‘s right to guard its own safety and health—Congress unleashed an orgy of infrastructure build-out. Emboldened by the government green light and the vast consumer appetite for wireless technology, industry has had a free hand in installing more than 300,000 sites. Church steeples, schoolyards, school rooftops, even trees can house these facilities.

In a 2010 review of research on the biological effects of exposure to radiation from cell tower base stations, B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai found that “some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting” ….

Beyond epidemiological studies, research on a wide range of living things raises further red flags. A 2013 study by the Indian scientists S. Sivani and D. Sudarsanam reports: “Based on current available literature, it is justified to conclude that RF-EMF [electromagnetic fields] radiation exposure can change neurotransmitter functions, blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, cellular metabolism, calcium efflux, and gene and protein expression in certain types of cells even at lower intensities.”

… Citing other studies—often industry-funded—that fail to establish health effects, the wireless industry has dismissed such concerns. The FCC has typically echoed that position.

… since the passage of the 1996 law, the very opposite has occurred. Again and again both Congress and the FCC have opted to stiffen—rather than loosen—federal preemption over local zoning authority ….

… would consumers‘ embrace of cell phones and Wi-Fi be quite so ardent if the wireless industry, enabled by its Washington errand boys, hadn‘t so consistently stonewalled on evidence and substituted legal intimidation for honest inquiry?

The FCC in 1997 sent the message it has implicitly endorsed and conveyed ever since: study health effects all you want. It doesn‘t matter what you find. The build-out of wireless cannot be blocked or slowed by health issues.

… federal preemption is granted to pretty much any wireless outfit on just one simple condition: its installations must comply with FCC radiation emission standards. In view of this generous carte blanche to move radiation equipment into neighborhoods, schoolyards and home rooftops, one would think the FCC would at the very least diligently enforce its own emission standards. But that does not appear to be the case.

Indeed, one RF engineer who has worked on more than 3,000 rooftop sites found vast evidence of non-compliance. Marvin Wessel estimates that “10 to 20% exceed allowed radiation standards.” With 30,000 rooftop antenna sites across the U.S. that would mean that as many as 6,000 are emitting radiation in violation of FCC standards. Often, these emissions can be 600% or more of allowed exposure levels, according to Wessel.

The best ally of industry and the FCC on this (and other) issues may be public ignorance.

An online poll conducted for this project asked 202 respondents to rate the likelihood of a series of statements … there was one statement of indisputable fact: “The U.S. Congress forbids local communities from considering health effects when deciding whether to issue zoning permits for wireless antennae,” the statement said.

Though this is a stone cold fact that the wireless industry, the FCC and the courts have all turned into hard and inescapable reality for local authorities, just 1.5% of all poll respondents replied that it was “definitely true.”

… many respondents claim they would change behavior—reduce wireless use, restore landline service, protect their children—if claims on health dangers of wireless are true.

… in May 2015, more than 200 scientists boasting over 2,000 publications on wireless effects called on global institutions to address the health risks posed by this technology.

Some have suggested that the health situation with wireless is analogous to that of tobacco before court decisions finally forced Big Tobacco to admit guilt and pay up.

It seems significant that the responses of wireless and its captured agency—the FCC—feature the same obtuse refusal to examine the evidence. The wireless industry reaction features stonewalling public relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve undermining the credibility and cutting off the funding for researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these hardball tactics that look a lot like 20th century Big Tobacco tactics. It is these hardball tactics—along with consistently supportive FCC policies—that heighten suspicion the wireless industry does indeed have something to hide.

So how does the FCC handle a scientific split that seems to suggest bias in industry-sponsored research?

In a posting on its Web site that reads like it was written by wireless lobbyists, the FCC chooses strikingly patronizing language to slight and trivialize the many scientists and health and safety experts who‘ve found cause for concern. In a two page Web post titled “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,” the FCC four times refers to either “some health and safety interest groups,” “some parties,” or “some consumers” before in each case rebutting their presumably groundless concerns about wireless risk. Additionally, the FCC site references the World Health Organization as among those organizations who‘ve found that “the weight of scientific evidence” has not linked exposure to radiofrequency from mobile devices with ”any known health problems.”

Yes, it‘s true that the World Health organization remains bitterly divided on the subject. But it‘s also true that a 30 member unit of the WHO called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was near unanimous in pronouncing cell phones “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011. How can the FCC omit any reference to such a pronouncement? Even if it finds reason to side with pro-industry scientists, shouldn‘t this government agency also mention that cell phones are currently in the same potential carcinogen class as lead paint?

Cell phones are not the only wireless suspects. Asked what he would do if he had policy-making authority, Dr. Hardell swiftly replied that he would “ban wireless use in schools and pre-schools. You don‘t need Wi-Fi,” he noted.

So what is the FCC doing in response to what at the very least is a troubling chain of clues to cellular danger? As it has done with wireless infrastructure, the FCC has to this point largely relied on industry “self-regulation.” Though it set standards for device radiation emissions back in 1996, the agency doesn‘t generally test devices itself. Despite its responsibility for the safety of cell phones, the FCC relies on manufacturers‘ good-faith efforts to test them. Critics contend that this has allowed manufacturers undue latitude in testing their devices.

The EPA, notably, was once a hub of research on RF effects, employing as many as 35 scientists. However, the research program was cut off in the late 80s during the Regan presidency. [Former EPA Scientist, Carl] Blackman says he was personally “forbidden” to study health effects by his “supervisory structure.”

Blackman is cautious in imputing motives to the high government officials who wanted his work at EPA stopped. But he does say that political pressure has been a factor at both the EPA and FCC: “The FCC people were quite responsive to the biological point of view. But there are also pressures on the FCC from industry.” The FCC, he suggests, may not just be looking at the scientific evidence, “The FCC‘s position—like the EPA‘s—is influenced by political considerations as well.”

Still, the FCC has ultimate regulatory responsibility and cannot indefinitely pass the buck on an issue of fundamental public health. Remarkably, it has not changed course despite the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic, despite the recent studies showing triple the glioma risk for heavy users, despite the floodtide of research showing biological effects, and despite even the recent defection of core industry booster Alex Lerchl. It is the refusal of both industry and the FCC to even acknowledge this cascade of warning signs that seems most incriminating.

This is a very rich industry that does not hesitate to outspend and bully challengers into submission. Meanwhile, amidst the legal smoke and medical confusion, the industry has managed to make the entire world dependent on its products. Even tobacco never had so many hooked users.

Such sustained success in the face of medical doubt has required industry to keep a lid on critics and detractors. Many scientists who‘ve found real or potential risk from the sort of microwave radiation emanating from wireless devices have learned there is a price to be paid for standing up to the industry juggernaut. A few prominent examples …

The FCC‘s network of corruption doesn‘t just shield industry from needed scrutiny and regulation on matters of public health and safety. Sometimes it just puts its hand directly into the public pocket and redistributes that cash to industry supplicants …

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued several reports citing fraud, waste and mismanagement, along with inadequate FCC oversight of the subsidy program. Bribery, kickbacks and false documentation can perhaps be expected in a handout program mandated by Congress and only indirectly supervised by the FCC.

[The "subsidy program," the Universal Service Fund, subsidizes various technology programs at public cost.]

Fraud—as pervasive and troubling as it has been—is just one of the problems with the programs of universal service. It may not even be the fundamental problem. More fundamental issues concern the very aim, logic and efficiency of programs to extend broadband and wireless technology at public expense. Though the aims of extending service to distant impoverished areas seem worthy on the surface, there are many reasons to think the major beneficiaries of these programs are the technology companies that win the contracts.

… the FCC, prodded by an industry ever on the lookout for incremental growth opportunities, is ignoring the health of youngsters to promote expanded Wi-Fi subsidies in schools across the U.S.

As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest.

… the auctions of electromagnetic spectrum, used by all wireless communications companies to send their signals, have yielded nearly $100 billion in recent years. The most recent auction to wireless providers produced the unexpectedly high total of $43 billion. No matter that the sale of spectrum is contributing to a pea soup of electromagnetic "smog" whose health consequences are largely unknown. The government needs money and Congress shows its appreciation with consistently pro-wireless policies.

Science is often the catalyst for meaningful regulation. But what happens when scientists are dependent on industry for research funding? Under pressure from budget cutters and deregulators, government funding for research on RF health effects has dried up. The EPA, which once had 35 investigators in the area, has long since abandoned its efforts.85 Numerous scientists have told me there‘s simply no independent research funding in the U.S. They are left with a simple choice: work on industry-sponsored research or abandon the field.

… an FCC with public interest commissioners is an idea worth consideration. It would at least require party apologists to defend how they so consistently champion the moneyed interests that have purchased disproportionate access and power in Washington.

Cellphone Industry Product Liability Lawsuit

On April 25, 2023, Judge Irving disallowed the testimony of all six expert witnesses who testified for the 13 plaintiffs who suffered from brain tumors in this lawsuit filed against the telecom industry: Murray et al. v. Motorola et al.; case no. 2001-CA-008479-B.

See Microwave News for a detailed summary of the case and a discussion of the judicial system's inability to resolve complex scientific issues in a fair manner (https://www.microwavenews.com/news-center/judge-bars-expert-witnesses).

The website for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia contains a case summary, events and orders of the court, and information about the parties in the case and their legal representation at https://bit.ly/3AWHArL.

Sep 22, 2022

Cell phone-brain tumor case finally goes to trial

A major lawsuit originally filed in 2001 by individuals who got brain cancer from their cell phones is being heard in the D.C. Superior Court before Judge Alfred S. Irving (Murray et al. v. Motorola et al.; case no. 2001 CA 008479 B). The evidentiary hearings for this multi-plaintiff case are being held from September 12 to September 30, 2022.

 

This case has dragged on for 21 years due to delaying tactics and appeals by the defendants. The defendants constitute much of the telecommunications industry including Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, the CTIA, the IEEE, the FCC, and many other telecom companies. In the interim many plaintiffs have died. 

 

The hearings begin weekdays at 9:30 A.M. ET. The public can bear witness to this historic case: 

Option 1: Dial 844-992-4726, meeting ID 129 685 3445#, then press # again if asked for another code. 

Option 2: Open your web browser in Google Chrome and copy and paste the following URL or click: https://dccourts.webex.com/meet/ctb518. You will be connected to the waiting room or the live WebEx session. If this is your first time connecting to a WebEx session, you may receive a notification requesting that you download the WebEx program to your computer.  When prompted, click “Join Meeting” to enter the session.

--

D.C. court considers how to screen out ‘bad science’ in local trials

Ann E. Marimow, Washington Post, Nov 24, 2015

Excerpts

The District’s highest court on Tuesday considered whether to change the rules for screening out “bad science” from trials and to adopt the standards used in most states and federal courts.

The case before the appellate court involves the question of whether cellphones can cause brain cancer. Plaintiffs have sued cellphone manufacturers and providers in D.C. Superior Court alleging that long-term exposure to cellphone radiation causes brain tumors.

The appellate court will not rule on that specific issue, but the full court is taking the opportunity to weigh how judges decide which expert witnesses are allowed to testify.

Under the standard used in the District, Illinois and a small number of other states, the judge determines whether a methodology or theory has gained “general acceptance” in the expert’s field. The test is known as Frye, a reference to a 1923 D.C. Circuit case.

After a landmark 1993 Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, federal courts — and now the majority of states — adopted a more extensive test, making the judge the “gatekeeper” for ensuring that the scientific evidence is “not only relevant, but reliable.”

On one hand, [Judge] Weisberg said, there is not enough evidence for any scientist to conclude with certainty that cellphones cause brain cancer. On the other, because of the District’s standards for admitting evidence, Weisberg said he would permit the testimony of five experts who would say in effect that cellphones are more likely than not to cause or promote certain brain tumors.

But Weisberg also noted that in a federal courtroom, that testimony was unlikely to be aired.

Attorneys for the 13 plaintiffs and a local organization of trial lawyers had urged the court in its filings to keep the standard, which lawyer Jeffrey B. Morganroth said Tuesday is “working just fine.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys, representing people who suffer from or have died from brain tumors, said any change would be a “drastic departure” from current practice.

http://wapo.st/1MQclwA

Case on Health Risk From Cellphones Is Back in Court

Ryan Knutson, Wall Street Journal, Nov 22, 2015

Excerpts

Murray v. Motorola faces another test Tuesday when the two sides argue over what legal standard to use

In the years since the lawsuit was filed, other plaintiffs have brought more than two dozen similar cases, the most recent one in October. Defendants include almost all the major cellphone and wireless companies, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.

Representatives for Motorola and the other defendants referred questions to the CTIA, the wireless industry trade group, which said in a statement that “peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk for adults or children.”

So far, the cases have mostly been a battle over legal procedure, not science ...

... A total of 13 cases have been consolidated into the Murray case, and the plaintiffs are seeking more than $1.9 billion in damages combined. 

In filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, cellphone manufacturers and wireless carriers specifically acknowledge the risk posed by health-related lawsuits. “We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits,” Verizon wrote in its 2015 annual filing. “In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”

... Eight of the plaintiffs in other cases have died while the lawsuits have been pending, he said. A decision in favor of Motorola and the other defendants, which are pushing for the Daubert standard, would send ripples beyond the Murray lawsuit. Seventeen of the other cellphone-health cases are stayed pending a ruling in this case.

If the plaintiffs prevail, discovery will begin on the broad issue of whether cellphones can cause brain tumors, specifically, glioma and acoustic neuroma. In addition, the plaintiffs would need to prove cellphones caused the cancer in their specific cases. 

 http://on.wsj.com/1LuI2cW


August 8, 2014

My comments:  This superior court ruling enables the discovery phase of the trial to begin.  Perhaps, we will soon learn whether the wireless industry has been covering up knowledge of the health risks of mobile phone use. 

The insurance industry has refused to provide product liability insurance on cell phones primarily due to this concern as they fear that cell phone litigation may turn out like tobacco or asbestos litigation did with huge punitive awards.

My most recent press release, "FCC: 98 Scientific Experts Demand Stronger Regulation of Cellphone Radiation" makes the case that the scientific community has known for many years about the health risks of mobile phone radiation. The wireless industry, however, has confused government officials and the public by co-opting scientists to support the industry's disinformation campaign to buy time.

--


29 brain tumor lawsuits move toward trial in Washington, DC

Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force, Aug 11, 2014

Twenty-nine high-profile lawsuits brought by people whose brain tumors were caused by their cell phones are finally moving toward trial. Six of these cases were originally filed in 2001 and 2002. Many of the plaintiffs are no longer alive.

On Friday, Judge Frederick H. Weisberg, in the D.C. Superior Court, admitted the testimony of five expert witness for the plaintiffs, and the 12- and 13-year-old cases will now move into the discovery phase. Each of the plaintiffs is asking for more than $100,000,000. There are 46 defendants including Motorola, Nokia, AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Cellular One, Cingular Wireless, SBC Communications, Verizon, Vodafone, the Telecommunications Industry Association, the IEEE, ANSI, the CTIA, and the FCC. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth & Morganroth, a law firm in Birmingham, Michigan.

For over a decade the industry and the plaintiffs have played tug-of-war with the oldest cases, sending them back and forth between federal and state courts, and fighting over whether the plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

In 2009 the D.C. Court of Appeals, in Murray v. Motorola (982 A. 2d 764), ruled that the telecommunications companies could not be sued over brain tumors caused by cell phones manufactured after 1996. But since all of these plaintiffs had used pre-1996 phones, their lawsuits were allowed to go forward. They were also allowed to go forward on their claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose information about the dangers of cell phones.  These claims were brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

In December 2013 and January 2014, testimony was heard from:

DR. SHIRA KRAMER, a Maryland epidemiologist;

DR. MICHAEL KUNDI, professor of epidemiology and occupational health at the Medical University of Vienna;

DR. VINI KHURANA, a neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University in Canberra;

DR. IGOR BELYAEV, head research scientist at the Cancer Research institute at the Slovak Academy of Science in Bratislava, Slovakia;

DR. WILHELM MOSGOELLER, professor and medical doctor at the University of Vienna Medical School’s Institute for Cancer Research;

DR. DIMITRIS PANAGAPOULOUS, founder of the Radiation Biophysics Laboratory at the University of Athens;

DR. ABRAHAM LIBOFF, professor emeritus of physics at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan; and

DR. LAURA PLUNKETT, pharmacologist and toxicologist in Houston.

On Friday, August 8, 2014, the testimony of Drs. Kramer, Khurana, and Panagopoulos was disallowed. But the testimony of Drs. Kundi, Belyaev, Mosgoeller, Liboff, and Plunkett was admitted. They will testify at trial about "general causation," i.e. that cell phones can cause brain tumors.

The lawsuits now move into the discovery phase, in which each side is compelled to produce documents and answer questions. This is the first time that the industry has had to turn over data. There will then be a fight over the admission of the testimony of witnesses on "specific causation," i.e. doctors and others who will testify that these specific cell phones caused these specific tumors.

Friday's decision by Judge Weisberg allowed 13 of the cases, which have been consolidated in one action, to go forward.  The other 16 cases are being tried separately, but the parties in those cases agreed to be bound by Friday's decision.


---

Judge Frederick H. Weisberg, Washington D.C. Superior Court: Expert Preemption Order (page 5): 

"Federal law is the supreme law of the land, but there is no constitutional provision that says federal facts are the supreme facts of the land. Federal law can preempt state law, but it cannot preempt scientific fact. The scientific truth, whatever it may be, lies outside of the FCC’s regulations about what is 'safe' or 'unsafe.'  The experts have offered their opinions on the state of the scientific knowledge and general causation. They have testified about the methodology they used to reach those opinions. Their testimony on these points, at this stage of the case, is not subject to preemption."  

--

Judge Weisberg's ruling on expert witness admissibility

Michael Patrick Murray et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al.
Superior Court for the District of Columbia

http://bit.ly/DC_expert_ruling

--

Microsoft Corporation. Form 10-K. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Washington. July 31, 2015. pp. 87-88. 
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312515272806/d918813d10k.htm

U.S. cell phone litigation

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines (“FCC Guidelines”) are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs’ expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In March 2014, defendants filed a separate motion to preclude plaintiffs’ general causation testimony. In August 2014, the court granted in part defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal. In December 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc defendants’ interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal.

Canadian cell phone class action

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served.

--

Court Allows Expert Testimony in Litigation Alleging Cell Phone-Linked Tumors According to Consumers' Legal Team

WASHINGTON -- Aug 8, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- A Washington D.C. superior court ruled that five scientific expert witnesses can testify for consumers suffering from brain tumors allegedly caused or promoted by cell phone use Ashcraft & Gerel LLP Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC Lundy Lundy Soileau & South L.L.P. and co-counsel said today.

Judge Frederick H. Weisberg who is presiding over 13 consolidated lawsuits against the telecom industry ruled that experts met the Dyas/Frye legal standards and can offer testimony related to injury causation and health effects. The court held evidentiary hearings in December 2013 and January 2014 and reviewed hundreds of exhibits.

Judge Weisberg noted that while the court did not decide the issue of whether cell phones cause brain tumors new scientific studies and information have emerged recently. His order referred to a May 2014 French case-control epidemiological study that found support for "a possible association between heavy mobile phone use" and brain tumors.

Each of the plaintiffs in the litigation suffers from a brain tumor or is suing for a family of someone who died of brain cancer.

The plaintiffs are represented by Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC of Birmingham Mich.; Ashcraft & Gerel LLP of Washington D.C. and Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP of Lake Charles La.; The Knoll Law Firm LLC of Marksville La.; Pribanic & Pribanic LLC of Pittsburgh; Frasier Frasier & Hickman LLP of Tulsa Okla.; and Bernstein Liebhard LLP of New York.

Hunter Lundy of Lundy Lundy Soileau & South LLP said "The telecom industry argued for years that cell phone consumer litigants could not produce scientists who could relate exposure to cell phone radiation to tumors. The ruling today refutes that contention and our experts' opinions having met the Dyas/Frye test are admissible."

Jeffrey B. Morganroth of Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC said "We now have opinions and testimony from prominent scientific experts that will be admissible and support our clients' claims that cell phone radiation can cause brain tumors in humans. With this landmark ruling the cases are moving forward to fact discovery."

Michelle Parfitt and James F. Green of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP said "The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearings months ago only included publicly available materials and did not include any testing data or information in possession of the defendants. We will seek that information as soon as possible."

The first of the consolidated cases is "Michael Patrick Murray et al. v. Motorola Inc. et al." Case No. 2001 CA 008479 B in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants in the cases are Motorola Inc. Qualcomm Inc. Nokia Inc. Audiovox Communications Corp. and Samsung Telecomm American LLC.

Contact: Erin Powers Powers MediaWorks LLC for Ashcraft Gerel LLP info@powersmediaworks.com.

SOURCE Ashcraft & Gerel LLP

"Electromagnetic Fields of Wireless Communications: Biological and Health Effects"

Panagopoulos DJ (Ed.). (2022). Electromagnetic Fields of Wireless Communications: Biological and Health Effects (1st ed.). CRC Press. doi: 10.1201/9781003201052. 

https://www.routledge.com/Electromagnetic-Fields-of-Wireless-Communications-Biological-and-Health/Panagopoulos/p/book/9781032061757

This 544-page book reflects contributions from experts in biological and health effects of Radio Frequency (RF)/Microwave and Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) used in wireless communications (WC) and other technological applications. Diverse topics related to physics, biology, pathology, epidemiology, and plausible biophysical and biochemical mechanisms of WC EMFs emitted by antennas and devices are included. 

Discussions on the possible consequences of fifth generation (5G) mobile telephony (MT) EMFs based on available data and correlation between anthropogenic EMF exposures and various pathological conditions such as infertility, cancer, electro-hypersensitivity, organic and viral diseases, and effects on animals, plants, trees, and environment are included. It further illustrates individual and public health protection and the setting of biologically- and epidemiologically-based exposure limits.

Features:

• Covers biological and health effects, including oxidative stress, DNA damage, reproductive effects of mobile phones/antennas (2G, 3G, 4G), cordless phones, Wi-Fi, etc.
• Describes effects induced by real-life exposures by commercially available devices/antennas.
• Illustrates biophysical and biochemical mechanisms that fill the gap between recorded experimental and epidemiological findings and their explanations.
• Explores experimental and epidemiological facts and mechanisms of action. Provides explanations and protection tips.
• Transcends across physical, biological, chemical, health, epidemiological, and environmental aspects of the topic.

Table of Contents and Chapter Abstracts

A. Physical properties of Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields

Chapter 1: Defining Wireless Communication (WC) Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs):

A. Polarization is a principal property of all man-made EMFs.
B. Modulation, Pulsation, and Variability are inherent parameters of WC EMFs.
C. Most man-made EMF-exposures are Non-Thermal.
D. Measuring incident EMFs is more relevant than SAR.
E. All man-made EMFs emit continuous waves, not photons.
F. Differences from natural EMFs. Interaction with matter

Panagopoulos DJ, Karabarbounis A, and Lioliousis C

ABSTRACT
All types of man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and corresponding non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electric/electronic circuits and antennas – in contrast to natural EMFs/EMR – are totally polarized and coherent. Polarized/coherent EMFs/waves can produce constructive interference and amplify their intensities at certain locations. Moreover, they induce parallel/coherent forced oscillations of charged/polar molecules – especially mobile ions – in living cells/tissues, which can trigger biological effects. The most bioactive man-made EMFs are those employed in wireless communications (WC). They are usually referred to simply as Radio Frequency (RF) or Microwave (MW) EMFs/EMR because they emit carrier signals in the RF/MW band. Yet, WC EMFs contain emissions in the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF), Ultra Low Frequency (ULF), and Very Low Frequency (VLF) bands as well in the form of modulation, pulsing, and variability. This complexity and variability of WC EMFs, combined with polarization, is what makes them even more bioactive. Man-made EMFs (including WC) at environmentally existing intensities do not induce significant heating in living tissues. The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) was introduced by health agencies as the principal metric for the bioactivity of RF/microwave EMFs. Estimation of SAR from tissue conductivity is inaccurate, and estimation from tissue specific heat is possible only for thermal effects. Thus, SAR is of little relevance, and EMF exposures should better be defined by their incident radiation/field intensity at the included frequency bands, exposure duration, and other field parameters. The present chapter also explains that man-made EMFs/EMR, in contrast to light and ionizing electromagnetic emissions, do not consist of photons but of continuous “classical” waves and, thus, do not obey Planck’s formula connecting photon energy (ϵ) with frequency (ν), ϵ = h ν. Apart from polarization, man-made EMFs differ from natural EMFs in frequency bands and emission sources. Basic concepts of interaction with living tissue are discussed.

B. Biological and Health effects of Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields

Chapter 2: Public Health implications of exposure to Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Miller AB

ABSTRACT
Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and corresponding electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to Radio Frequency (RF) radiation, and to modulated RF wireless communication (WC) EMFs/EMR has grown substantially over time. In 2011, a working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized WC EMR, termed as RF radiation, as a “possible” (Group 2B) human carcinogen. A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with WC EMFs/EMR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, two large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of WC EMR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage. Of particular concern are the effects of WC EMR exposure on the developing brain in children. Compared with an adult male, a mobile phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull’s bone marrow absorbs a roughly tenfold higher local dose. Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep mobile phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and signifcantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage as well as an increased risk of colon cancer. Pending an updated IARC working group review, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to WC EMFs/EMR to as low as reasonably achievable.

Chapter 3: Oxidative Stress induced by Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Yakymenko I and Tsybulin O

ABSTRACT
This chapter describes experimental data on oxidative effects induced by man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and corresponding electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in living cells. Analysis of the currently available peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals important molecular effects induced by non-thermal exposures to man-made EMFs, especially wireless communication (WC) EMFs, in living cells. They include significant activation of key cellular pathways generating oxidative stress (OS) by reactive oxygen species (ROS), activation of peroxidation, oxidative damage of DNA, and changes in activities of antioxidant enzymes. Critically important features of man-made EMFs, compared to natural EMFs, are their totally polarized and coherent character and, in the case of WC EMFs, combined frequency bands and sophisticated modulation. These features provide these types of EMFs/EMR with the unique and unexpected capacity of inducing biological effects such as pronounced oxidative effects in exposed living cells. It is indicative that among 131 analyzed peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of non-thermal Radio Frequency (RF) EMFs, mostly pulsed/modulated by Extremely Low Frequencies (ELF), 124 (95%) confirmed statistically significant oxidative effects on various types of biological systems. And among 39 analyzed studies on oxidative effects of purely ELF EMFs, 36 of them (92%) also revealed significant oxidative effects of the exposure. The wide pathogenic potential of induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling explains a range of biological/health effects of non-thermal man-made EMF exposures, which includes both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic pathologies. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that a) man-made EMFs, and especially those employed in WC combining both RF and ELF components, is a pronounced oxidative agent for living cells with high pathogenic potential; and b) the OS induced by man-made EMF exposures should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of biological activity of this new environmental agent.

Chapter 4: Genotoxic Effects of Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Jagetia GC

ABSTRACT
The tremendous development of wireless communications (WC) technology during the past 30 years has transformed telecommunications and popularized mobile phones so much that, today, their number exceeds the global population. In addition to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and corresponding electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from natural sources like sun, cosmos, atmospheric discharges, etc., humans are exposed to man-made EMFs/EMR, especially at the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and the Radio Frequency (RF)/microwave bands. EMFs/EMR emitted by WC devices, such as mobile phones and corresponding antennas, contain RF carrier signals which are pulsed and modulated by ELF signals. We call these complex emissions WC EMFs. WC EMFs have generated great concern in the scientific community and the public, as they have been reported to cause headache, fatigue, tinnitus (microwave hearing), concentration problems, depression, memory loss, sleep, and hormonal disorders as short-term effects and even infertility and cancer as the long-term effects. This chapter has been written after collecting information from various search engines, including Google Scholar, PubMed, SciFinder, Science Direct, and other websites on the internet. The chapter focuses on the genotoxic cellular effects of WC EMFs on cultured cells, humans, and animals. Since WC EMFs combine both RF and ELF, in this chapter, both RF/WC and purely ELF man-made EMF studies are reviewed. Most studies conducted on the genotoxic effects of ELF or RF/WC EMFs have resulted in positive findings. Many human and animal studies have demonstrated that ELF or RF/ WC man-made EMFs increased the frequency of micronuclei and induced chromosome aberrations or DNA damage, including single- and double-strand breaks. It has also been demonstrated that these EMFs trigger reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, and changes in gene expression, particularly in genes involved in signal transduction, cytoskeleton formation, and cellular metabolism

Chapter 5: DNA and Chromosome Damage in human and animal cells, induced by Mobile Telephony EMFs and other stressors
Panagopoulos DJ

ABSTRACT
Induction of DNA fragmentation in fruit fy ovarian cells after in vivo exposure and chromatid type aberrations in human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs) after in vitro exposure to mobile telephony (MT) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from mobile phones are presented. In both cases, the biological samples were exposed in close distance to a commercially available second or third/ fourth generation (2G or 3G/4G) mobile phone handset during an active phone call in “talk” mode. The DNA fragmentation in fruit fy ovarian cells induced by 2G MT EMFs was compared with that induced by 50 Hz magnetic fields (MFs) similar to or much stronger than those of high-voltage power lines or a pulsed electric field (PEF) of similar characteristics with EMFs of atmospheric discharges (lightning) under identical conditions and experimental procedures. Respectively, the degree of chromosomal damage induced by in vitro exposure of HPBLs to 3G/4G MT EMF was compared to that induced by a high caffeine dose (~ 290 times above the permissible single dose for an adult human) administered to blood samples of the same subjects under identical conditions and experimental procedures. In the first case, it was shown that MT EMFs are much more damaging than high-voltage power line MFs or the PEF and more damaging than previous other stressors tested on the same biological system, such as certain cytotoxic chemicals, starvation, and dehydration. In the second case, it was shown that MT EMFs are similar and even more damaging than the above extreme caffeine dose. The combination of this caffeine dose and the 3G/4G MT EMF exposure increased dramatically the number of aberrations in the blood samples of all subjects, suggesting that MT EMF exposure may be significantly more dangerous when combined with other stressors. The above findings allow useful conclusions regarding EMF bioactivity, cell sensitivity, and relevant EMF exposure limits.

Chapter 6: The impacts of Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields on human reproductive biology
Miller K, Harrison K, Martin JH, Nixon B, and De Iuliis GN

ABSTRACT
The domain of reproductive biology underpins our understanding of human fertility and forms an important part of the debate on the safety of wireless communication (WC) electromagnetic fields (EMFs). While studies on the effects of anthropogenic EMFs on reproduction are of clear importance, recent evidence suggests that such studies are well placed to provide much-anticipated mechanistic insights on the health impacts of EMFs. Resolution of the biophysical mechanism(s) of action is one of the most important keys required to unlock scientific progression and enable accurate assessment of health risk. Growing recourse to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) across developed nations has justifiably given rise to concern about our decreasing collective fertility as a species. While this issue is certainly multi-factorial, the rise of anthropogenic EMF exposures and especially those of WC technology has aligned with a simultaneous global decline in male semen quality parameters. This well recognized link to reproductive health clearly underlines the unique sensitivity of our reproductive systems to environmental change and has prompted investigation of the impact of novel environmental insults such as WC EMFs. The current picture of how WC EMFs impact reproduction is not yet completely clear, but the field offers strong evidence of negative impacts on the cells, tissues, and processes that influence fertility. Accordingly, here we summarize the highest quality evidence outlining effects of WC EMFs on reproductive tissues and germ cells, and based on this, we propose a plausible mechanism for the molecular nature of the interaction of WC EMF with our biology. We also highlight some of the controversies in this field, including those pertaining to policy. Against this background, we contend that, in parallel with our advancing research, revising the safety limits of anthropogenic EMF exposures to our population is warranted.

Chapter 7: Effects of Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields on human and animal brain activity
Mohammed HS

ABSTRACT
The wide and increasing use of telecommunication equipment has necessitated the study of its effects on biological systems and, in particular, on brain activity. Due to the electrical nature of communication between neuronal cells in the brain, the effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and corresponding electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on the human and animal brain have become the focus of many studies. Electroencephalography (EEG) as a direct and sensitive tool for monitoring brain functional changes can be implemented to decipher these effects. Pulsation and modulation of the wireless communication (WC) electromagnetic signals at low frequencies produce complex radiation patterns with components in the Radio Frequency (RF)/microwave and the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) bands. This mixed type of EMFs/EMR we call wireless communication EMFs/EMR (WC EMFs/EMR). Increasing experimental and theoretical evidence emphasizes the crucial role of the ELF signal pulsation/modulation in the effects of WC EMFs/EMR on human and animal EEG, even at intensities well below the officially accepted limits for human exposure. The duration of exposure is an additional important parameter for the induced effects. The vast majority of recorded effects of WC EMFs/EMR on the human/animal brain are not accompanied by any significant heating, and thus, they are categorized as non-thermal effects. This chapter highlights the concepts related to the human and animal EEG and its alterations induced by anthropogenic EMFs and especially WC EMFs/EMR. Effects on wake and sleep human and animal EEG are described. The importance of animal studies is discussed, and the need for methodological standardization in experimental studies is emphasized. Proposed mechanisms for the action of anthropogenic EMFs on brain activity are reviewed. More studies investigating the non-thermal effects of WC EMFs/EMR on the human and animal brain are needed in order to further explore the effects, the interaction mechanisms, and the consequences of anthropogenic EMFs on health and wellbeing.

Chapter 8: Electrohypersensitivity as a worldwide man-made electromagnetic pathology: a review of the medical evidence
Belpomme D and Irigaray P

ABSTRACT
Much of the controversy over the causes of electro-hypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) lies in the absence of both recognized clinical criteria and objective biomarkers for widely accepted diagnosis. However, there are, presently, sufficient clinical, biological, and radiological data for EHS to be acknowledged as a distinctly well-defined, objectively identified, and characterized neurologic pathological disorder. Therefore, patients who self-report suffering from EHS should be diagnosed and treated on the basis of currently available biological tests and the use of suitable cerebral imaging. Because we have shown that EHS is frequently associated with MCS in EHS patients and that both those individualized clinical entities share a common pathophysiological mechanism for symptom occurrence, it appears that EHS and MCS can be identified as a unique neurologic pathological syndrome, whatever their precise causal origin is. In this review, we distinguish the etiology of EHS itself from the environmental causes that trigger symptoms and subsequent pathophysiological changes after EHS occurrence. Contrary to present scientifically unfounded claims, we indubitably refute the hypothesis of a nocebo effect to account for the genesis of EHS and its presentation in EHS self-reported patients. We also refute the erroneous concept that EHS could be reduced to a vague “functional impairment”. The hypersensitivity that characterizes EHS appears to be a persistent and most often irreversible pathological state, as is also the case for sensitivity to chemicals in MCS-bearing patients. Taking into consideration the WHO-proposed causality criteria, we argue that EHS may, in fact, be causally related to increased exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and, in a limited number of cases, to marketed environmental chemicals. We, therefore, appeal to all governments and international health institutions and, more particularly, the WHO to urgently consider this growing EHS-associated pandemic plague and to acknowledge EHS as a new real disorder.

Chapter 9: Carcinogenic effects of non-thermal exposure to Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields
Yakymenko I and Tsybulin O

ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we discuss alarming epidemiological and experimental data on carcinogenic effects of long-term non-thermal exposure to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and corresponding electromagnetic radiation (EMR), mainly from wireless communication (WC) systems, termed as WC EMFs and WC EMR, respectively. Moreover, since all WC EMFs/EMR include Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) components in the form of pulsations and modulation, the chapter also examines corresponding data from purely ELF man-made EMFs. During the past two decades, a number of scientific reports have revealed that, under certain conditions, non-thermal exposure to WC EMFs/ EMR or modulated microwaves (MMWs) can substantially induce cancer progression in humans and animals. The carcinogenic effect of WC EMFs is typically manifested after long-term (usually ≥ 10 years) exposure, e.g., in mobile phone users. Nevertheless, even a year of operation of a powerful base station for mobile telephony (MT) reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among the population living nearby. In addition, studies in rodents unveiled a significant increase in carcinogenesis after 17–24 months of MMW exposure both in tumor-prone and intact animals. Data on widely accepted molecular markers of carcinogenesis confirm that exposure to non-thermal levels of MMWs or ELF man-made EMFs can induce tumorigenesis. It is becoming increasingly evident that assessment of biological effects of man-made EMFs/EMR based solely on thermal approach used in recommendations by certain international regulatory agencies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), requires urgent and significant re-evaluation. We conclude that available scientific data strongly point to the need for re-elaboration of the current safety limits for man-made EMF exposures. We also emphasize that the everyday exposure of the population to WC EMFs/EMR should be regulated based on the Precautionary Principle, which implies maximum restriction of the risk factor till new, more unambiguous conclusions can be drawn regarding its safety.

C. Effects on Wildlife and Environment

Chapter 10: Effects of man-made and especially Wireless Communication Electromagnetic Fields on Wild Life
Balmori A

ABSTRACT
During the past few decades, millions of mobile telephony (MT) base antennas and antennas of other types of wireless communications (WC) have been installed around the world, in cities and in nature, including protected natural areas, in addition to pre-existing antennas (e.g., for television, radio broadcasting, radars, etc.) and high-voltage power lines. Only the aesthetic aspects or urban regulations have been generally considered in this deployment by the responsible authorities, while the biological and environmental impacts of the associated electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and corresponding non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emissions have not been assessed so far. Therefore, the effects on animals (including humans) and plants living around the anthropogenic EMF sources have not been considered. This deficit is particularly concerning because these EMFs/EMR are very different from natural EMFs/EMR, such as light, geomagnetic and geoelectric fields, atmospheric (Schumann) oscillations, or cosmic microwaves, which not only are not dangerous at normal intensities, but, on the contrary, they are vital to the environment and to all forms of life. This chapter reviews the available research on the effects of anthropogenic and especially WC EMFs on wildlife and the natural environment, published mainly during the past 30 years. It includes studies conducted both in the nature and in the laboratory, with vertebrates (mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles), invertebrates (mostly insects), plants, and trees. Most of these studies have shown significant detrimental effects of the anthropogenic EMFs on wildlife, at intensities comparable to the current ambient exposure levels, suggesting that we are facing a new environmental pollutant which threatens the health and existence of these species. It is worrying that, despite the accumulating evidence, the people, governments, and even nature conservation organizations are uninformed and unaware of the risks that anthropogenic, and especially WC EMFs pose to the welfare of biodiversity and ultimately to humans.

D. Biophysical and Biochemical Mechanisms of action

Chapter 11: Mechanism of Ion Forced-Oscillation and Voltage-Gated Ion Channel Dysfunction by Polarized and Coherent Electromagnetic Fields
Panagopoulos DJ

ABSTRACT
Exposure of living organisms to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) causes a variety of adverse biological and health effects including oxidative stress (OS), genetic damage, cell death, and cancer, as is today documented by a great number of indisputable scientific studies. How does this happen? Key signaling molecules in all cells are the mobile ions, the concentrations of which control all cellular functions. The mobile ions move in and out of the cells through ion channels. A most important class of ion channels are the voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs) which open or close by polarized forces on the electric charges of their voltage-sensors generated by changes ≥ 30 mV in the membrane voltage. Polarization, coherence, and existence of Extremely Low Frequencies (ELFs) are common features of all man-made EMFs. Polarized and coherent oscillating EMFs force mobile ions to oscillate in parallel and in phase with them. This coordinated oscillation generates electrical forces on neighboring charges. The forces increase with increasing EMF intensity and decreasing EMF frequency. The oscillating ions close to the voltage-sensors of VGICs generate similar forces on them as those generated by 30 mV changes in the membrane voltage, causing irregular opening and closing of the VGICs. Continuance of such a dysfunction disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations, which determine the cell’s electrochemical balance and homeostasis. Impairment of this balance triggers overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cells which create OS and can damage DNA and other critical biomolecules. Since no convincing corresponding non-thermal mechanism exists for Radio Frequency (RF) EMFs, and because all RF EMFs employed in wireless communications (WC) and other applications are necessarily combined with ELF pulsation, modulation, and random variability, it seems that all non-thermal biological effects of man-made EMFs attributed, until now, to RF EMFs are actually due to their ELF components and can be explained by this mechanism.

Chapter 12: Electromagnetic Field-induced dysfunction of Voltage-Gated Ion Channels, Oxidative Stress, DNA damage and related pathologies
Panagopoulos DJ, Yakymenko I, and Chrousos GP

ABSTRACT
A plethora of studies show that exposure of living organisms to man-made polarized and coherent electromagnetic felds (EMFs), especially in the Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and the microwave/Radio Frequency (RF) bands, may lead to oxidative stress (OS) and DNA damage. DNA damage is associated with mutations, cell senescence, cell death, infertility, and other pathologies, including cancer. ELF EMF exposures from high-voltage power lines and complex “RF” EMF exposures from wireless communication (WC) antennas/devices have been associated with increased cancer risk. Almost all man-made microwave/RF EMFs, and especially those employed in WC, are combined with ELF components in the form of modulation, pulsation, and random variability. Thus, in addition to polarization/coherence, the existence of ELFs is a common feature of almost all man-made EMFs. Polarized/coherent ELF EMFs are predicted to induce dysfunction of voltage-gated ion channels (VGICs) in cell membranes through the ion forced oscillation mechanism, and this has been verified by many experimental studies. Dysfunction of VGICs disrupts intracellular concentrations of critical ions, such as calcium, sodium, potassium, etc. This condition initiates biochemical processes leading to OS by reactive oxygen species (ROS) overproduction. Such processes include a) increased calcium signaling, leading to nitric oxide (NO•) overproduction by the nitric oxide synthases (NOS) in various locations in the cell, and superoxide anion (O2•−) overproduction in the mitochondria; b) activation of NADPH/NADH oxidase in the plasma membrane, leading to increased production of O2•−; and c) dysfunction of the Na+/K+ pump (ATPase) in the plasma and internal cell membranes, triggering mitochondrial ROS production. At least these processes may result in excessive OS, leading to DNA damage and related diseases, including infertility and cancer. Thus, it seems that there is a plausible explanation for the genetic damage and related effects found to be induced by man-made EMF exposures as reported by many experimental and epidemiological studies.

Excerpts from the book re: 5G

"Today the massive deployment of the New Radio (NR) 5G (fifth generation) MT/WC system around the world by the telecommunications industry, which is expected to further increase considerably the existing ambient EMF levels, has already started and is rolling out, despite serious concerns expressed by scientists (Miller et al. 2018; 2019; Hardell and Nyberg 2020; Kostoff et al. 2020; Levitt et al. 2021)." 

"Recently, because of the highest microwave carrier frequencies (“mm-waves”) of the 5G, certain Russian studies reporting “non-thermal effects of microwave/mm-wave EMFs” came to light. These studies were written in Russian and became known mostly from reviews in English by other Russian scientists. Three such reviews are by Pakhomov et al. (1998), Betskii and Lebedeva (2004), and Belyaev (2005)." 

"At the same time, the massive deployment of the 5G MT/WC system in order to achieve ever increasing data transmission rates and the so-called Internet of Things (IoT) is well underway despite serious concerns expressed by many expert scientists who have asked for a moratorium in 5G deployment (Hardell and Nyberg 2020), as implied by the Precautionary Principle (Harremoes 2013; Read and O'Riordan 2017; Frank 2021). Indeed, the deployment of 5G will require a huge increase in the number of base antennas, combined with potential increases in transmission power/ intensity, and thousands of satellites in the atmosphere to complement the base antennas. Moreover, the increased amount of variable data transmitted by this new WC EMR type make it even more variable in intensity, waveform, frequency, etc., with inclusion of ever more variable ELF pulsations than previous types of MT/WC EMFs (Rappaport et al. 2013; Dahlman et al. 2018). Thus, 5G is expected to significantly increase public exposure and consequent health problems (Panagopoulos 2019; Hardell and Nyberg 2020; Kostoff et al. 2020; Levitt et al. 2021). 

"Strangely, in 2020, the ICNIRP increased the general public exposure limit for WC EMFs (2–6 GHz) averaged over 6 minutes (min) from 1000 to 4000 μW/cm2 (from 1 to 4 mW/cm2) instead of decreasing it (ICNIRP 1998; 2020). Also strange were the technical reports and papers referring to the characteristics of 5G that do not provide any information on the ULF/ELF/VLF components of this new WC EMF type, as if their authors are not aware of their existence (EPRS 2020; 2021; Karipidis et al. 2021). As already mentioned, carrying out studies involving WC EMF exposures without searching the low-frequency components and attributing any observed effects to the RF/ MW carrier can be very misleading. Similarly, reviewing and evaluating other studies by looking only at the RF/MW part of their EMF exposures and ignoring the low-frequency part or not examining whether the exposures are from real-life WC devices/antennas or simulated signals with fxed parameters and, thus, significantly less bioactive, as in EPRS (2020; 2021) (EPRS: European Parliamentary Research Service) and Karipidis et al. (2021), is a flawed methodology. Thus, not only are WC EMFs dangerous to life, but the evaluation of their risks by certain reviews and organizations is flawed as well. In view of the fact that the ULF/ELF/VLF EMFs are actually the most bioactive, the low frequency (ULF/ELF/VLF) pulsations of the most recent generations of WC signals such as the 4G and 5G should be in the forefront of bioelectromagnetic research in order to allow the correct evaluation of their risks." 

"The International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a private, non-governmental organization (NGO) that sets EMF exposure standards and claims that the only biological effects induced by EMFs are those due to tissue heating (thermal effects) in the case of RF EMFs, and denies any non-thermal effects (ICNIRP 1998; 2020; Hardell and Carlberg 2021). Facts show that only RF exposures with frequencies at the GHz range or higher and intensities greater than 0.1 mW/cm2 may induce tissue heating, usually of the order of 0.1–0.3°C, and, thus, the vast majority of EMF exposures at environmentally existing intensities, mainly due to ELF EMFs alone or combined with RF, are non-thermal (Panagopoulos et al. 2013b). Yet, the thermal effects are expected to become more significant with the higher frequencies of 5G (up to 100 GHz) (Neufeld and Kuster 2018). Even though ICNIRP accepts (only) the thermal effects of RF EMFs, it has recently increased the average 6-minute (min) exposure limit for 2–6 GHz from 1 mW/cm2 to 4 mW/cm2 (ICNIRP 2020). Thus, not even thermal effects are prevented by the ICNIRP limits anymore."

"In the 5G or New Radio (NR) system which is being deployed, the carrier frequencies are extending up to 80–100 GHz with two basic frequency ranges: 1) existing MT bands ≤6 GHz, and 2) 24.25–52.6 GHz with a tendency to increase. Moreover, 5G uses new technologies such as Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) for multi-stream transmission and high data rates, and adaptive beam-forming by use of antenna arrays (which can be used to amplify beam intensity – see Section 1.2.4 equations 1.23, 1.24). The 100 Hz and 1000 Hz pulsations (frame, subframe) are retained, and there are synchronization and reference pulsations at ~ 6–200 Hz called Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSB) (Rappaport et al. 2013; Dahlman et al. 2018)."

"5G MT employs higher MW carrier frequencies (called mm-waves) in order to accomplish higher quality of simulations (data transfer). But with higher frequencies, the heating of exposed living tissues increases (Eq. 1.31), while penetration through different materials (e.g., air, buildings, etc.) decreases (Eq. 1.2). In order to overcome the low penetration, the number of antennas must be significantly increased, and the intensity of the emissions as well. Under such conditions, thermal effects in exposed humans cannot be excluded in addition to the already existing non-thermal effects. Studies have theoretically predicted the induction of significant thermal effects (Neufeld and Kuster 2018; Thielens et al. 2018; 2020). These facts further justify the concerns expressed by the scientific community against the installation of 5G (Hardell and Nyberg 2020; Kostoff et al. 2020; Panagopoulos 2020)."

"In a recent review of studies of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS 2021)(authored by Thielens and reviewed by Vacha and Vian) regarding environmental impacts of 5G, there is no mention of pulsations or any other ELF components, and the only examined frequency band of the radiation is the carrier (MW) frequency. Moreover, the importance of the inherent variability of the real WC exposures in inducing biological/health effects is not even mentioned, and studies are criticized for having used real-life emissions from mobile phones for the exposures, which, as explained, is the only realistic exposure method (Panagopoulos et al. 2015b; 2016; Panagopoulos 2017; 2019a; Leach et al. 2018; Kostoff et al. 2020). Thus, the most important parameters of WC EMFs (low frequency components, variability) were completely ignored...."

"Another recent review of 107 experimental and 31 epidemiological studies with “RF” EMFs above 6 GHz (in order to assess bioactivity of 5G) by members of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency again makes no mention of pulsations or any other ELF components in the 5G or in the examined studies, and no mention whether there is any similarity of the signals produced by generators in the studies with those of the 5G apart from the carrier frequency. Although most of the reviewed studies had reported genotoxic and various other effects, the authors of the review found “no confirmed evidence” of adverse effects on human health and criticized the studies for not being “independently replicated” and for employing “low quality methods of exposure assessment and control” (Karipidis et al. 2021). The same authors also made a “meta-analysis” of the same 107 experimental studies and found that the studies “do not confirm an association between low-level mm-waves and biological effects” (Wood et al. 2021). They also estimated the “effect size” (an arbitrary measure of bioactivity) among studies that reported “continuous wave” and “modulated” “RF” EMFs and found “non-significant difference”. But the “effect size” of the studies reporting modulation was found to be almost double (4.3 ± 1.6) than that of the studies reporting “continuous wave” (2.2 ± 0.6), and it is strange how this difference was reported as “nonsignificant”. Moreover, as explained in the present chapter and in Panagopoulos (2021), it is unlikely that any MW generator does not contain on/off pulsations, even only for energy-saving reasons, as in radars. Even the onset and removal of an EMF exposure alone may produce the greatest effects (Goodman et al. 1995)."

"Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher carrier frequencies (shorter wavelength) associated with 5G do not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies, but the low frequency pulsations do. Moreover, the effects may be systemic (at whole organism level) (Beltzalel et al. 2018; Russell 2018). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin, and systemic effects such as on immune function (Szmigielski 2013; Yakymenko et al. 2016; Russell, 2018). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (Beltzalel et al. 2018), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts of this range of frequencies and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures. While information on the carrier frequencies of 5G technology are available in the related technical literature, there is no information regarding the lower frequency components (pulsations, modulations) of this new type of WC EMFs/EMR."

"Even if the risk of WC EMR per individual is low, WC EMR is now widely distributed and could become a major public health problem, especially if the planned introduction of 5G proceeds. If 5G is rolled out, we can expect to see an increase in all of the conditions associated with exposure to WC EMR. A moratorium on the roll-out of 5G is essential."

"The 5G system involves even higher carrier frequencies (up to 100 GHz) in order to be able to transmit higher amounts of data per second, and a much denser network of base antennas of potentially increased power and directional beams in order to compensate for the energy scattering loss due to the higher carrier frequency (Sauter 2011; Sesia et al. 2011; Neufeld and Kuster 2018; Agiwal and Jin 2018; Dahlman et al. 2018). A part of the scientific community, including most of those who are experts in the biological and health effects of WC EMFs, has expressed strong objections to 5G installation with concerns of highly increased health risk (McClelland and Jaboin 2018; Miller et al. 2018; 2019; Panagopoulos 2019a; 2019b; Hardell and Nyberg 2020; Hardell and Carlberg 2020; Kostoff et al. 2020)."

"Given the unique exteriorization from the human body, the temperature of the testis is 2°C–3°C lower than rectal temperature, with 35°C considered optimal for spermatogenesis (Saikhun et al. 1998). A review of 5G WC-related EMF studies and expected health effects has highlighted that there is an essential need for more research into local heat impacts on body surfaces, such as the skin and eyes, with improvement to study design necessary for safety assessment (Simkó and Mattsson 2019). The attention to exposed surface area (and not volume) requires further consideration because of the very shallow penetration depth of 5G and millimeter wave* (mmW) carrier frequencies. Although such frequencies have a very shallow penetration depth, contrastingly, associated ELFs (due to pulsation and modulation of the WC EMFs) have considerable tissue penetration depth, calling attention to the accountability of both surface area and volume. Investigation into whether there are any plausible health-related effects associated with the skin is under way (Karipidis et al. 2021) and, while requiring careful corroboration in the scientific community, pronounces the further significance for the potentially vulnerable exteriorized human testes (Miller and Torday 2019). Discussion concerning non-thermal modes of action in human reproductive systems, which constitute the vast majority of recorded effects, is the feature in this chapter and is addressed below; however, possible micro-thermal impacts are clearly not to be neglected, as they form a key part of the debate and must be explicitly considered in any research design in this field."