"Wireless Hazards" -- An extensive exposé published by The Washington Spectator
Today The Washington Spectator published an extensive exposé about the Telecom industry's decades-long campaign to dismiss the research about the health risks of radiofrequency radiation and fool the public into believing that cell phones are safe by co-opting government agencies and the mainstream news media.
This in-depth study was conducted by Barbara Koeppel, an investigative reporter who covers social, economic, political, and foreign policy issues. Her 7,000-word article posed two questions:
"If you think your cellphone is safe, have you considered why you believe that? Is it a fact, or is it based on carefully crafted messages that you’ve read or heard?"Read more
Protecting the city from serious and costly lawsuits from residents
This Works: How You Can Tame 4G/5G Wireless in Your City - 2 minute Summary
For extended video version scroll to the bottom of this page.
This document will explain:
- The absolute necessity of the City to obtain proper health insurance for cell tower installations from Telecommunications Providers (Telecoms- such as Verizon, AT&T, etc).
- The precise kind of insurance must be obtained without compromise.
- Methods by which Telecoms attempt to avoid giving the proper insurance in contracts with Cities.
- The truth about what legal results Telecoms can actually win if they successfully sue a city for non-cooperation.
The following information applies to any City, whether or not they have issued permits or master license agreements with Telecoms
- The importance of obtaining the correct liability insurance for the city
Correct insurance covers all liabilities that can be generated by a device installed in a city or on private property,
such as cell towers, which emit Radio Frequency (RF), a recognized health hazard. Since a city may not reject the installation of cell towers purely for health reasons, it is crucial to obtain complete third party coverage for injury to the health of the city’s residents. General Liability Insurance may be required as part of a use permit or as a condition of any Master license agreement for the deployment of technology.
- The precise kind of insurance that must be obtained without compromise
This type of health issuance is called “Pollution Insurance”. Most General Liability Insurance policies have a ‘pollution exclusion’ (Under this exclusion, EMF /RF are listed as pollutants). The city must demand that any permit of any kind allowing a Telecom to install cell towers or related equipment in the city must include this specific pollution coverage in the license agreement. This insurance must be obtained from a licensed third party insurance company, not a self insured indemnity substitute by the Telecom or any company listed on the License Agreement. In the event that a master license or permit exists between the City and a Telecom, the City must examine the insurance provisions carefully and will find that Pollution insurance is not covered. The city should demand a copy of the actual third party insurance policy relating to the permit, and inform the Telecom that it is in breach of the permit until such time as proper Pollution insurance is obtained. All further installations will cease.
- Methods by which Telecoms attempt to avoid proper insurance in the contracts they negotiate with Cities
To protect the health and wellbeing of their citizens, and to avoid possible lawsuits by such citizens against the city and/or employees or council, the city must reject any offer of self-insurance or indemnity made by the installing company as not sufficient. Due to the well established (thousands of studies) fact that RF is a hazard, as stated by the major insurance companies such as Lloyds and Swiss RE, they do not offer pollution insurance for RF under any circumstances. See quote from Lloyd’s agent below, followed by AT&T exclusions to their user policy:
The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s.
Cell Phone Companies Define Electromagnetic Fields as a “Pollutant” and Will Not Cover Damages. AT&T Mobile Insurance “Exclusions:
- Loss caused by or resulting from the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of Pollutants
- “Pollutants” means any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, sound waves, microwaves, and all artificially produced ionizing or non- ionizing radiation and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.” (pg. 4) AT &T Mobile Insurance Policy, February 2014
Every cell phone company defines electromagnetic fields, microwaves, and all artificially-produced non-ionizing radiation as “pollutants” and refuses to cover the phone for damages from such pollutants.
It is not only acceptable, but crucial, that the City deal with the health issues of RF pollution, and they may do so in discussion with the Telecom when the subject is proper insurance. This is not the same as rejecting the installation for health issues alone, (47 US Code 332C, the Telecommunications Act 1996 ) without dealing with pollution insurance.
The City can simply state they are: (a) protecting the health of the citizens from a known hazard, and (b) avoiding any liability from lawsuits that may develop from any parties who claim injury from RF towers.
Since neither the City nor the Telecom is able to obtain the proper Pollution Insurance from third-party companies, Telecom will attempt to offer other forms of insurance without the pollution clause or will offer indemnity (self-insurance). This indemnity will not be offered directly by the Telecom (AT&T or Verizon, etc), but rather by another company which will be installing the equipment (LLCs such as GTE, New Cingular, etc) and which may be listed as “dba Verizon” or “dba AT&T”. The Telecoms are well aware that RF is a known hazard and admit this fact to their shareholders in annual reports and also as shown in their own insurance exclusions to their customers. Therefore third party insurance is the only way to insure proper handling of this issue.
- The truth about what kind of legal results Telecoms can actually win if they successfully sue a city for non-cooperation.
Telecom lawyers will threaten to sue the City if they do not agree to the permit with the lack of pollution insurance, and will falsely assert that they will win large sums of money and legal fees from the City. Below you will find the proof that a Telecom cannot collect any monetary reward or legal fees if they prevail in a court, only the permission to install the equipment under the license. It is doubtful that they will sue, because Pollution insurance for the city is part of any proper general liability insurance that all cities must demand, and this is a basic right of a city to protect itself from lawsuits from citizens claiming harm from the RF towers, which can literally bankrupt the City. Cities must stand up to any such legal threats as they are essentially without teeth.
A City Council may not be held liable for denying a permit:
Government code § 818.2. Adoption or failure to adopt or enforce enactment
A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law. However, where the City requires liability Insurance for a known risk (EMF illness) the city can be sued for damages if it fails to require coverage for such risk. If the City ignores the fact that the policy has a pollution exclusion for EMF illness, it can be sued by an injured third party. Cal Govt. Code 815.6 and 815.2 See also 51 Cal App 3d 577 , and 18 Cal 3d 901
A Telecom Company cannot sue a City for Damages for violating the Telecommunications Act; all it may recover is an injunction to issue a permit.
“We hold that Kay's three dismissed claims are barred by claim preclusion, that the City is immune from damages under California law, and that § 332 of the TCA does not provide a damages remedy.”
Kay v. Lucky’s Two Way Radio Corp. 504 F 3d 803 Ninth Circuit court of appeals, 2007
Not only will a Telecom company be unable to sue a City for money damages, even if they win a lawsuit against a City, and get an Order to issue a permit, they are not allowed to get Attorney fees.
“Section 1983 remedies, including the right to attorney fees for the prevailing party under § 1988, are unavailable in a suit to enforce rights granted by Telecommunications Act; Act's conferral of right to sue is presumed to entitle a successful plaintiff to usual remedies, which do not include attorney fees.” PrimeCo Personal Communications, Ltd. Partnership v. City of Mequon, C.A.7 (Wis.) 2003, 352 F.3d 1147.
Mark S. Pollock
POLLOCK & JAMES, LLP
1827 Clay St, Suite 300
Napa, CA 94559
Telephone (707) 257-3089
Facsimile (707) 257-3096
This Works: How You Can Tame 4G/5G Wireless in Your City - Full 20 minute Version
Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) and Microwave Radiation (MR) which are used 2, 3, 4 and 5G wireless technology and to create "Smart" Grids in our Cities and Towns
- US Navy Report (1971) – Naval Medical Research Institute – Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation
- Washington State University Emeritus Professor, Dr. Martin Pall's talk to the National Institute of Health https://phibetaiota.net/2019/03/dr-martin-pall-5g-criminally-insane-electromagnetic-fields-emf-fry-living-things/
- Blood Brain Barrier– The first study was conducted by Dr. Allan Frey (1975) (who already proved the “Auditory Effect” / “Frey Effect<” of non-thermal Microwave Radiation) – The study found that (1) non-thermal levels of microwave radiation can break the blood brain barrier (BBB) (2) the main cause of the adverse effects are from the modulation rather than the carrier wave - Neural function and behavior: defining the relationship. The Swedish Neuro-Scientist, Dr. Lai Salford confirmed Frey's study regarding the BBB. He conducted further studies on the various effects of this radiation on the brain. Summary by Arthur Firstenberg from Cellular Phone Task Force about Salford's work and link to his studies.
- Bioinitiative Report (2012) - The Bioinitiative report is the most comprehensive review of studies on biological effects caused by EMFs. It was prepared by 30 world-leading scientists and public health professionals. The authors reviewed 3000 peer reviewed studies on EMF's, including about 1,800 on the effects of wireless radiation. Their conclusion: "Bio-effects can also occur from just minutes of exposure to mobile phone masts (cell towers), Wi-Fi, and wireless utility ‘smart’ meters that produce whole-body exposure". – Color Charts of Sample Studies of Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposures.
- Increase in Glucose Metabolism - National Institute of Health (NIH) Study - Volkow (2011) - This study shows conclusive evidence of the bio-effects of wireless radiation on the human brain.Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism
- Microwave Sickness – Belyaev et al (2016) - EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 For the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF-Related Health Problems and Illnesses. Microwave Sickness is the more accurate name for electro-sensitivity (ES). It is the most widespread manifestation of illness from wireless radiation with mainly neurological symptoms. At least 10% of the population has already developed the condition; the rates are likely much higher. In 2016, the EMF working group of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) published guidelines, which include a review of the science of Electro-Sensitivity and instructions for doctors on how to diagnose and treat ES. It is important to know that Microwave Sickness is Recognized under the ICD-10 as ‘Radiation Sickness’ and was acknowledged by various government agencies as a disability.
- Antibiotic Resistance- Ecoli bacteria exposed to wireless technology radiation equal to cell phone or router radiation found to mutate and increase antibiotic resistance. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51046-7
- Autism – Prof. Martha Herbert MD. PhD is a pediatric Neurologist from Harvard University who specializes in autism. After exploring the potential correlation between the exponential increase in the rates of children with autism to the exponential increase in our exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation from wireless, she concludes that there is a likely correlation - Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link – Part I; Part 2. She is now convinced that there are established non-thermal effects from wireless radiation and is a strong advocate against WiFi in schools. Press Here for her letter on this issue.
- ADD – Prof. Hugh Taylor (2012) Yale University – The study showed that when pregnant mice were exposed to microwave radiation, it caused changes in the brains of their babies and behavior that resembled ADHD. Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice. Press HERE for Prof. Taylor video presentation.
- Wi-Fi - New meta-analysis paper by Prof. Martin Pall (2018) – The paper summarizes the various health effects found to be caused by WiFi. Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
- Video of the Effects of Bluetooth & Cell Phone in the Car on Brain Activity – a MUST WATCH Video of the experiment which was done by German scientists.
- Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599
- Dmoch A, Moszczynski P 1998. [Levels of immunoglobulin and subpopulations of T lymphocytes and NK cells in men occupationally exposed to microwave radiation in frequencies of 6-12 GHz] [Article in Polish]. Med Pr 49(1):45-49. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9587910
- Moszczynski P, Lisiewicz J, Dmoch A, Zabinski Z, Bergier L, Rucinska M, Sasiadek U 1999. [The effect of various occupational exposures to microwave radiation on the concentrations of immunoglobulins and T lymphocyte subsets] [Article in Polish]. Wiad Lek 52(1-2):30-34.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10335122
- Yuan ZQ et al. (2004) [Effect of low intensity and very high frequency electromagnetic radiation on occupationally exposed personnel].(2004) Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2004 Aug;22(4):267-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15355705
- Wolf and Wolf. Kaplan Medical Center. Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell Phone Transmitter Station. (2004) Israel. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.527.1036&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- Dode A et al. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. (2011) Science of The Total Environment. Volume 409, Issue 19, September 2011 , Pages 3649-3665 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969711005754
- Eger H et al. The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer. (2004) January 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241473738_The_Influence_of_Being_Physically_Near_to_a_Cell_Phone_
- Oxidative Stress Mechanism – Meta Analysis Paper - Yakymenko (2015) – This analysis shows that 93 out of 100 studies show wireless radiation causes oxidative stress, a mechanism that can lead to cancer, non-cancer diseases, and DNA damage. This study disproves the wireless industry’s misleading statements that there are no mechanisms by which non-thermal levels of wireless radiation can affect the body. It also disproves the industry contentions that "the overwhelming majority of studies show no effects". Oxidative Mechanisms of Biological Activity of Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation
- Cancer in Children- American Brain Tumor Association - Ostrom (2015) – This report shows that the 4 leadings diseases that kill children and young adults are brain tumors, thyroid cancer, testis cancer and rectal cancer – cancer in proximity to where wireless devices are carried/used. Adolescent and Young Adult Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012. Read about the school in Ripon CA in which 6 children and 3 teachers developed cancer after a “small cell” antenna was installed in the school.
- Cancer from Cell Towers – Meta Analysis Paper- Yakymenko et al (2011) – a good summary of studies including army and air-force studies that show wireless radiation from cell towers and radars have severe adverse effects. This is a good study to explain to legislators why we should not allow 5G towers near our homes or children's schools. Long-Term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidences From Radars and Mobile Communication Systems
Courts Find Causation Between Cell Phones & Brain Tumors - Fifth Court in Italy Ruled Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors and Determined It Is An Occupational Disease
The Ramazzini Study – The Ramazinni study is a 6 million Euro study conducted by the Ramazzinin Institute in Italy. The study is similar to the NTP study with one major difference – while the NTP study used levels of radiation similar to those emitted from a cell phone, the Ramazzini used levels of radiation 6,000 times lower, which are more like the levels of radiation we get from further away cell towers. The results were the same as the results of the NTP.
- NTP Study – On Nov. 1 2018, the final report of the results of the $30 million 14-year study of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) was published and determined the study showed CLEAR EVIDENCE that cell phones cause cancer and breaks the DNA. This is the biggest study of its kind. A peer review panel of 11 scientists confirmed the findings of "clear evidence" on March 28, 2018. Read about the study on SaferEMR.com Website: National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer. We now have the government study that proves beyond a doubt the harm of wireless technology and it should be a game changer. The public must be warned and protected. Dr. Ron Melnik, PhD, Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the (NIEHS), who lead the study until he retired, said in 2016: "The NTP tested the hypothesis that cell phone radiation could not cause health effects and that hypothesis has now been disproved. The experiment has been done and, after extensive reviews, the consensus is that there was a carcinogenic effect”. In regard to the DNA damage findings, Dr. Melnik stated that the results of the study: “should put to rest the old argument that RF radiation cannot cause DNA damage”.
- The Ramazzini Study – The Ramazinni study is a 6 million Euro study conducted by the Ramazzinin Institute in Italy. The study is similar to the NTP study with one major difference – while the NTP study used levels of radiation similar to those emitted from a cell phone, the Ramazzini used levels of radiation 6,000 times lower, which are more like the levels of radiation we get from further away cell towers. The results were the same as the results of the NTP.
- Reduced Sperm Count - Zilberlicht (2015) - Dozens of studies prove beyond a doubt that wireless radiation adversely affects the sperm. - Habits of cell phone usage and sperm quality - does this warrant attention?
- In Switzerland, where they have high density of wireless technology , 62% of young men have tested to be infertile. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790593/. At this rate according to Dr. Martin Pall, within 5 years human beings could be unable to procreate naturally and be in its way to extinction ( or, we add- only the wealthy able to procreate with in-vitro fertilization).
Impact on the Environment
- Bees Birds and Mankind - A very interesting report from a leading German scientist about the effects of wireless radiation on bees, birds and humans. Ulrich Warnke (2009) – Bees, Birds and Mankind - Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’
- Fires - https://www.electronicsilentspring.com/primers/cell-towers-cell-phones/cell-tower-fires-collapsing/
The Wireless Fraud
- The Nation Article – excellent article that was published on 3/29/18, about the wireless industry fraud/cover up titled: " How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation" and the subtitle: The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase - behind the 5G rollout." The article is especially important as it was written by two leading investigative journalists - Mark Hertzgaard and Mark Dowie. Dowie is a former publisher and editor of Mother Jones and has won nineteen journalism awards.
- FCC – Captured Agency - Harvard University Center for Ethics (2015)- Captured Agency: How the FCC is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates. Summary of relevant points from the report regarding the FCC & the wireless industry from SaferEMR.com - An Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it Regulates
- IEEE video on 5G - A video by the IEEE (the engineers association) explaining 5G – clearly IEEE did this video to promote 5G and the narrator sounds so happy to make people excited… but I use it for educational purposes. Note that in the video at 1:08 they say that they DO NOT KNOW WHAT 5G is…Which is exactly what we have been saying – 5G is NOT a technology but an infrastructure of antennas everywhere.
- A good introductory article about 5G health effects - Dr. Cindy Russell (2017) - A 5G Wireless Future – Will It Give Us a Smart Nation or Contribute to an Unhealthy One?
- 5G Appeal - Appeal of 240 scientists from 31 countries who published over 2,000 studies on EMF effects calling for a moratorium on 5G because the harms are proven and because an epidemic of sickness already exists. Ignoring it is a price society can no longer pay.
- Impact of 5G on Energy Consumption - 5G use will increase energy costs: study
- 5G in Congress - Senator Blumenthal’s Actions to Expose the Lie About the FCC claim that 5G is safe - Finally, Health Effects Were Mentioned in 5G Senate Commerce Committee Hearing
Database of Studies
Database of Studies – A website which is managed by a German hospital and funded by the German government and industry. Likely the most comprehensive database of studies on the issue of electromagnetic fields and radiation (both studies that found effects and studies that didn’t find effects), a total of about 30,000 studies- EMF-Portal
- Purchasing a Meter to Measure Wireless Radiation - There are various meters on the market. Each has advantages and disadvantageous. Zen recommends the Safe and Sound Pro II by Safe Living if you can afford $400. It s the most accurate because it has a high frequency of readings and measures the peak of the waves, and does not just show you the average. Dafna's personal favorite (more affordable) is Cornet ED88T Plus. Dafna like it because it is small and easy to carry everywhere. It also has the good features - lights, sound, graph, it shows the frequency and measures not only the radiation from wireless devices but also the electric and magnetic fields of the house electricity (low frequencies). It is the best value for the money and quite accurate. Other popular meters are the Acoustimeter and the Trifield. PLEASE do not buy the meter on Amazon but rather from activists who have also a side business of selling such products to help support their efforts. For example - you can buy from Josh Hart at StopSmartMeters.Org. Josh has led the movement against smart meters and he is also in California. If you mention Dafna he will give you a discount. Another website of an activist who is doing a great job is 4EHSbyEHS.com. There are many others.
- Building Biologists - if you are considering shielding your house and/or make sure it is optimal in terms of EMFs and radiation, you can hire a building biologist to help you. Press HERE for a list of Building Biologists.
- Protecting Yourself from Wi-Fi & 5G – Dr. Mercola article in “What Doctors Don’t Tell You”
- FCC Ruling 18-133 September 2018 - Section 84-92 refers to residents "quality of life"
Recommended Articles & Videos
The Epoch Times is the paper with the highest distribution in the world and is being published in 26 languages. It is a NYC based newspaper. The paper has been publishing many articles about the topic. The articles are very well researched.
- Video – Impact of Radiation from a Cell Phone, Bluetooth & Wi-Fi in a Car on the Brain – MUST WATCH
- Article About NTP - Study Finds ‘Clear Evidence’ Linking Cellphone Radiation to Tumors in Rats
- Article About 5G - Resistance to 5G: Roadblock to a High Tech Future or Warning of a Serious Health Risk?
- Article About Wi-Fi in Schools - Wi-Fi in Schools: Experimenting With The Next Generation
- Article About Microwave Sickness - Tuning in to Microwave Sickness - How wireless technology can trigger a devastating illness
- Generation Zapped – An introductory movie to the issue of wireless health effects.
- Microwaves, Science & Lies – A movie about the wireless fraud including in the World Health Organization.
- Resonance – Beings of Frequency (free) – A movie about how wireless is affecting us, considering humans are electric beings.
- Invisible Rainbow – A History of Electricity and Life – By Arthur Firstenberg
- Overpowered - By Dr. Martin Blank
- EMF*D – Dr. Mercola
California Specific Information
- California Medical Association (CMA) Resolution on Wireless Standards Reevaluation (2014) Resolution 107- 14 - The California Medical Association passed a resolution stating that our current safety standards are not adequate to protect public health and need to be revised to take into account non-thermal biological effect. Its resolve states: "CMA support efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to levels that do not cause human or environmental harm based on scientific research." In this resolution CMA acknowledges that “… peer reviewed research has demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF including single and double stranded DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors…” CA Medical Association is the only medical association that passed such a resolution.
- LA Firefighters & Cell Towers - in 2005, The International Firefighters Union, representing over 300,000 firefighters recognized wireless microwave radiation health effects and has stood strongly against locating cell towers on top of their fire stations; 28 page International Association of Fire Fighters Resolution detailing health effects associated with exposure to wireless microwave radiation and reported symptoms of their exposed firefighters. The document states numerous health effects were found to be caused by wireless radiation. The resolution was a result of complaints by firefighters of headaches, memory problems, sleeping problems, anxiety following the installation of cell towers at their fire stations. Brain scans of the firefighters in 2005 showed abnormalities. The results of these abnormal brain scans were summarized in a letter written to the FCC in 2013. California Assembly Bill AB57, which passed on October 9, 2015, exempts fire stations from having transmitting devices on their facilities. The 5G Bill SB 649 which was vetoed by Governor Brown included an exemption for firefighters.
- Medical Studies From CA: Divan (2010) – "Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Young Children" - Two of the top universities in California, UCLA along with USC, completed an National Institute of Health (NIH) funded study showing that pregnant women using cell phones had children with more behavioral problems. This was a repeat of a study previously done in Europe, showing its validity. Another recently published study was done on 83,000 women showing the same results.
- CA Department of Public Health (CDPH) Cell Phone Safety Guidelines (2017) - In December 2017, the California Department of Public Health became the first US State Department of Health to publish guidelines on how to reduce exposure to radiofrequency from cell phones cell phones. However, sadly the story behind the publication of the guidelines exposes the outrageous failure of those entrusted to protect our health, likely because of fear of industry. In 2014 Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, submitted 3 requests to the CDPH under the California Public Records Act for this information. All three requests were denied. In 2016, the UC Berkeley School of Law, Environmental Law Clinic and the First Amendment Project filed a lawsuit on his behalf in the Sacramento Superior Court. On May 12, 2017, CA Attorney General’s office released the drafts. Shockingly it was discovered that since 2009 and until 2015, the California Department of Public Health prepared 27 versions of a cell phone radiation safety fact sheet but never released them to the public. In December 2017 it officially published the guidelines. Needless to say the guidelines are inadequate, full of fear of telling the truth and also give bad advice such as encouraging the use of bluetooth headphone. The story was covered by the San Francisco Chronicles “New records show how state reworked secret cell phone warnings”
Contacts / Organizations in CA
- Center for Electrosmog Prevention – Led by Sue Brinchman who is doing fantastic job and focuses on the San Diego area. Email: email@example.com
- EMF Safety Network – Led by Sandi Mauer. Email: EMFSafe@sonic.net
- We Are The Evidence – Advocacy group that represent the many adults and children who have become sick by wireless technology radiation. We are not an organization that focuses on maintaining an information heavy website as we are more focused on the actual, on the ground work educating elected officials, getting accommodation for the injured, being involved in legal actions, and helping communities.
- Safer EMR - Scientific and policy developments regarding the health effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
- Americans for Responsible Technology - A Coalition of organizations, including We Are The Evidence, that is lead by seasoned environmental advocates Patti & Doug Wood. They are now leading the on-the-ground movement. They provide great resources for activists and organized the 5G Crisis Day of Action that took place on May 15. They are doing a fantastic job!
- WhatIs5G.info – Covers the various issues associated with 5G including health, environmental issues, privacy, cyber security, e-waste, and more.
- Scientists for Wired Technology & My Street My Choice - Focuses on how to stop 5G transmitters in front of our homes - by Paul McGavin from Marin County, CA.
- Microwave News – For over 35 years Microwave News has been the leader reporting on the potential health and environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields and radiation.
We wish to thank Dafna Tacheover from WeAretheEvidence.org and Children's Health Defense for many of these resources, also MDSafeTech.org
This is a partial list.
Other website with great resources are:
Ordinances for wireless telecommunication facilities (WTF)
We recommend that you do NOT play the Telecom's game and allow 4/5G WTFs all over your city, or even in part of your cities. Pushing WTFs to the commercial districts does NOT fulfill on your City Council obligation to protect your workers, tourists, residents who visit the commercial district and workers with a ElectroMagnetic Sensitivity disability.
We recommend that Plan A is to convince your City Council or Planning Commissioners to agree that all future telecommunications utilities will be UNDERGROUND and adjust their ordinance accordingly.
Plan B is to DELAY any approvals or put a moratorium on any further approvals for at least 6 months to 1 year. At this point in time there should be results from the 3 lawsuits against the FCC, several other lawsuits against city council members, and the Bills HR 530 and S.2012 which aim to give WTF construction authority back to the local municipalities. At that point the ordinance would be updated to reflect UNDERGROUND telecommunications facilities and any other laws or regulations as required by the outcome of the lawsuits and legislation.
If you are NOT successful in having your city delay, Plan C is to require setbacks which are reasonable, based on the data provided by the applicants on the reach of the technology and the science showing the effects of the technology.
Here are examples of other cities which chose not to delay, but to establish an ordinance for the installation of sWTF, with setbacks ( distance from homes) and distances between each facility.
You may use this as an example to gain larger setback for your community. But keep in mind, if it is not specified in your ordinance what the power level emissions should be, the Telecom company can simply turn up the emissions and despite your setback going from 25 feet to 100 feet, the microwave radiation exposure to your family will still be harmful.
Here is an example ordinance from Elk Grove, CA
This ordinance does not allow for WTFs to be installed directly across from homes, which is excellent, and requires WTFs to be 500 feet apart regardless of the carrier. Since there are three carriers that all want their own poles, this is important to specify that the distance between the poles is for any WTF, not merely by carrier.
It should be noted that if a WTF is 1000 feet away instead of 500 feet away, the power could simply be turned up by the Telecom company.
However, the municipalities, according to the 1996 Telecommunications act, have the ability to manage the "operations" meaning how much power comes out of the WTF and whether it is turned on or off. Below is an important chart to show how important the amount of power that is coming out of the WTF is, and how it must be managed. This chart shows that the amount of power the FCC allows to be emitted from WTFs is 5 BILLION times higher than has been shown to cause harm to humans.
Power emissions chart.
Recommendation to residents: Request a 1 hour study session before the City Council to discuss this following crucial issues which cannot be fully covered in detail in 3 minutes. You can make a presentation with a lawyer, engineer, doctor etc and fully discuss the resident’s perspective in order to support your Commissioners or Council to make the best decision.
OR have 10 people say the following 10 points in a city commissioner or city council meeting or study session. Three minutes each point to be flushed out ASAP in a separate expanded document. This document is more concise and useful for a one on one meeting with council members, study session or for submission as a letter. Download pdf of this document here.
An example presentation on Public Fiber Optic benefits pdf of a PPT is available here.
Email firstname.lastname@example.org with questions or for different files to these documents.
More information for your own presentation can be found on EHTrust.org, 5GCrisis.com, WearetheEvidence.org, Mystreetmychoice.org, and MomsAcrossAmerica.org
Document for _______City Council and Planning Commissioners Regarding “Small” Cell Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Note: In this document a “small” cell wireless telecommunication facility will be referred to as sWTF.
We, The Residents of ________City, Request the Following Course of Action be Taken by our City Commissioners and City Council Regarding Any “Small” Cell Wireless Telecommunication Facility Applications or Construction.
REQUESTED COURSE OF ACTION
The City’s best course of action is to obtain a tolling agreement or moratorium on current and future applications and construction until the rulings of the lawsuits against the FCC are released, the two bills which may abolish the FCC guidelines are voted upon, and the rulings or regulations are included in the updated ordinance for underground telecommunication utilities.
LAWSUITS AND LEGISLATION - There are currently 3 lawsuits filed against the FCC regarding sWTFs , one of which will be concluded within a few months. There are currently 2 bills HR 530, S.2012 which move to abolish the nearly 30 year old FCC guidelines and update them. Prudent city planning would include the results of these lawsuits and bills which may result in significant regulation changes, restrictions of operation or allowance of a moratorium on sWTFs. Any rush to approve structures in our city may result in useless, unsightly structures in our city. We ask the city to come to a tolling agreement with the applicants or state a moratorium until these legal and legislative matters are settled.
INSURANCE - There have been multiple lawsuits filed by the residents against city council members of various cities for neglecting to protect the health and safety of the residents from harm from radio frequencies (RFs) of sWTFs. These lawsuits could bankrupt a city or city council members. This is happening because the carriers do not have RF insurance. All applicants must be required to carry RF insurance and secondary insurance in order to protect the city from similar lawsuits. This Insurance must cover EMF physical, psychological and or emotional damage and list the City as an additional insured under the policy.
HEALTH IMPLICATIONS - The applicants say that these sWTFs are “Safe according to FCC Standards” (actually they are guidelines) and this statement means absolutely nothing...the FCC guidelines were created 24 years ago and do NOT include healthy, safety or environmental impact. Numerous health issues, including headaches, confusion, fatigue, stroke, cancer, and infertility - have been reported and documented from the frequencies of 2,3,4 and 5G. Resources on EHTrust.org
The City has the obligation to consider (but not make decision upon) impacts which may affect the Health, Safety and General welfare of its citizens.
Consider- according to a Supreme Court decision, T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356, the following side note is important for city planning: “For example, lines or equipment might, generate noise, cause negative health consequences, or create safety concerns.”
NOT considering health and approving sWTFS near residences, has resulted in lawsuits from residents in other cities against the city. These lawsuits are much more serious than the slap-on-the-wrist lawsuits that Telecom may try. These sWTF lawsuits can and will bankrupt city council members and/or our city coffers. Therefore, it is the duty of the city planners and council to delay and prevent construction of sWTFs for as long as possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - The environmental impact is being disregarded in the application of construction and operation of most sWTFs. The National Resource Defense Fund ( NRDC) sued the FCC and won- meaning it is required for applicants of sWTF construction and operation to conduct an environmental assessment according to the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA. Birds, bees, insects, pollinators and plants have been shown to be impacted by the radio frequencies emitted from these sWTFs and must be considered in the location and amount of effective radiated power emissions. Plants are weakened and become more frail ( ie: flammable) which can lead to increased fire hazards.
FIRES and EMERGENCY RESPONSE - Wireless telecommunication facilities have started fires. NexG, whose equipment on a top-heavy pole was partly to blame for the 2007 Malibu Canyon fire has agreed to pay $14.5 million for damages and maintenance. Birds can also build nests on the top of poles and start fires. In this current climate, or any climate, our city must require utilities to be underground to prevent fires, loss of life, businesses and property. SWTFs are above ground and can be compromised during extreme weather conditions, causing fires or limiting service for emergency response. The far safer, faster, more secure and reliable option is public fiber optics.
LOCAL CHOICE- INTERNATIONAL FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATION MORATORIUM ON WTFS - The International Firefighters Association ( IFFA) has restricted sWTFs from being placed on their premises. This was after sWTFs were installed on a Firefighter facility, on the premise that they need the best technology to receive communications. The firefighters reported headaches, fatigue, confusion and even lost their way to common locations. Thus, the IFFA declared a moratorium on further construction of any WTFs ( small cell or macro) on their premises. If they don’t want it, why should we be forced to have an unnecessary service? Do we live in a democracy with a free market?
CITY MASTER PLAN - 5 YEAR PLAN FROM APPLICANTS - The aesthetics and reputation of our cities are a major factor in our appeal to new businesses, property value, and tourism. Our city planners and residents must know the plans of the applicants for sWTF or telecommunication utilities. The current applicants and future applicants must be required to supply a 5 year plan with locations and reasons why. Approving construction without a City Master Plan which incorporates multiple carriers and their 5 year plans would not be prudent city planning nor responsible to the residents.
ALLOWING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE - Our city can have faster, safer, more secure and reliable service. We are not denying service to residents or the applicant’s ability to do business, we simply want any additional telecommunications service to be provided in a manner which does not compromise our city’s aesthetics, safety, health of residents and wildlife. We have sufficient text and call service, meaning emergency services, with the current 4G service in our city. The current Telecommunications Act only requires local municipalities to allow installation of telecommunications facilities which support text and call service, not data downloading. In addition, the promised faster download speeds of data, like movies, from 8 seconds to 4 seconds, is not necessary, nor is it a service worth compromising our city’s aesthetics, safety, and health.
Underground telecommunication utilities are in alignment with our city planning, historically, and aesthetic reputation - above-ground is not. By updating City ordinance to require additional telecommunications utilities to be UNDERground, (Title I - Internet -) The City is not prohibiting telecommunications service because fiber-optics to the premises (FTTP) fulfills any and all service needs.
Title II - Voice/Text, the City already has full coverage without any significant gap in coverage.*
EMS ADA DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION - The city must provide accommodation for Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) according to the American Disability Act (ADA). The only way to fully accommodate EMS disability in our city is to require further telecommunications utilities to be underground. Otherwise, above ground facilities mean that a EMS disabled person could not live, shop, eat in restaurants, visit neighbors, or work in most areas of our city.
If the city commissioners and/or city council choose to potentially violate the ADA by permitting above-ground sWTFs, the ordinance must, at least, include a notification to all occupants of any building within 1000 feet of the construction of the proposed construction informing them of their right to submit a request for accommodation. The city will then engage in meaningful discussion with any resident or occupant of a building with EMS who has submitted a request. In the event that the city finds that as a result the antenna should not be located near that home, the application shall be rejected.
Our City’s Hands are NOT “tied.”- Telecom companies will have you believe “Your hands are tied,” that you cannot do anything other than allow them to construct and operate as many small cell towers as they wish, because they have invested billions of dollars in increasing their network in order to increase their profits. It is NOT true that our city does not have jurisdiction. You do have jurisdiction.
The City has the right to regulate the Operation of any network deployed, separate and apart from the “Placement, construction and modification” of a system.
According to 47 US Code 332C, under the Senate Bill F652*, the Telecommunications Act 1996 specifically omits the word “operations” from preemption from regulation of a local municipality. This omission reserves that term for states and cities to legally regulate operations of facilities.
See Plan C for regulating operations if the city chooses to depart from historical city planning practices and allow above-ground telecommunications utilities.
Therefore, PLAN C includes that the City may approve construction according to ordinance requirements (distance and setbacks) AND OPERATION will be regulated through fulfillment of a conditional use permit which will include the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, time restrictions, power levels and other requirements. (see below)
- Public Fiber Optics - underground public fiber optic cables is a safer, faster, more secure and reliable technology for upgrading service to our residents. UNDERGROUND telecommunication facilities provides service that does not induce fires, permit security hacks, cause property damage in inclement weather and property value loss due to close proximity. UNDERGROUND also eliminates any possible violations of the American Disability Act, harm to workers in commercials districts, students, elderly, and tourists. Public fiber optics are a city asset and within local jurisdiction. UNDERGROUND public fiber optics maintain the aesthetics of a city and do not diminish the appeal of our city to new businesses.
We Residents, formally and legally request the following course of action for the aesthetics, safety, and health of our city and its residents:
Plan A - Determine as a city, that underground telecommunications are the best option for the aesthetics, safety and health of our city, residents and wildlife. Update ordinance to require additional Telecommunication Utilities to be underground based on aesthetics of long term, historical city planning and preservation of residential and city property value.
Plan B - Enact a tolling agreement or moratorium until FCC lawsuits are ruled upon and include the potential new requirements in an updated urgency ordinance which includes Plan A, underground telecommunications.
Plan C - Risk the aesthetics, safety and health of our city, residents and wildlife. Approve construction of WTFs but require a conditional use permit ( no shot clock), with quality analysis, which includes SEQUA, operation times (1), and power levels (2). (See below in point 13 of PLAN C ordinance updates)
Plan A ORDINANCE Recommendations:
Clarify that all Wireless Telecommunication Facilities going forward are to be referenced as Telecommunications Utilities. Utilities in our city going forward, shall be UNDERGROUND and the ordinance shall be updated to reflect the historical preservation of city aesthetics.
The ordinance shall require additional telecommunications to prove gap in coverage of text and call service before additional construction of telecommunication utilities are approved.
Any additional upgrades to service can best be accomplished through fiber-optic cables which are safe, fast, secure and withstand power outages.
Plan B/C ORDINANCE Recommendations Only:
______ City Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance Update Requests
A five-year master plan is required by all applicants. Applicants must supply sufficient reasons for placement in each location.
Stated general policy of intending to permit only the minimum network necessary/required by law.
Specific preamble describing the values of the City to be protected and recognizing that the Policy does not protect against health/safety with respect to Radio Frequencies (RF).
Adopt a clause for least-preferred locations: all locations within 2000 feet of a Restricted Site Location and 2000 feet from a home.
Restricted Site Locations: residence, playgrounds, elderly facilities, healthcare facilities and schools, which include day care, pre-school, K-12 and specialty schools where minors congregate.
Third-party expert review of applications/exception requests.
Mandatory, consistent, third-party RF emissions testing.
Expert fire-safety review and shorter permit terms for facilities in high fire risk zones. Placement near trees would be non preferred.
Clear exception request standards must be defined.
RF injury insurance coverage, including secondary insurance in the event of a lawsuit for adverse health effects or property value loss is required.
Add a clause that states that permits are conditioned on continued applicability of FCC rules (to allow for revocation or modification if lawsuits against FCC prevail) or state law changes.
Ordinance must include affirmative FHAA/ADA accommodation commitment. Include a notification to all occupants of any sWTF construction within 1000 feet of the construction of the proposed construction informing them of their right to submit a request for accommodation. The city will then engage in meaningful discussion with the applicant. In the event that the city finds that as a result the antenna should not be located near that home, the application shall be rejected.
Please note that Los Altos has denied 13 applications and they have not been sued by the applicants.
If the city chooses to compromise our city’s aesthetics, safety and health, and risk lawsuits from residents by approving construction of sWTFs, approval of application for sWTF construction would only happen after FCC lawsuits have been ruled upon and bills HR 530 and S. 2012 have been voted upon. Estimated time is one year from now. The updated ordinance would include the current technology regulations, (1) operation time restrictions, (2) power level emissions, (3) resident and school setbacks, and (4) reasonable distance between the construction of WTFS. This update will require a tolling agreement with the applicant.
According to an AT&T applicant's own data, their map of small cell LTE 100 (page 40 of 90 of application in Mission Viejo, CA) coverage reaches 2000-3000 feet. Therefore reasonable terms in the ordinance to specify distance are as follows:
Operation times for WTFs within 2000 feet of residential areas would be from 8 AM to 5 PM. Operation time for WTFs in commercial or industrial areas would be 6 AM to 6 PM
Levels of power would be set to a limit of 0.1 Watts of ERP for the total from all antennas and frequencies in the antenna shroud.
(3) Setbacks from homes, daycares, schools and places where children congregate should be 2000 feet.
(4) Distance between poles should be 4000 feet ( reach of 2000 + 2000 = 4000). Search radius should also be 4000 feet.
Plan C Implications: If the city chooses not to require telecommunication utilities to be underground as other utilities are required to be, it must acknowledge that the City becomes liable for lawsuits regarding placement, property value decrease, health impacts, fire losses, security and privacy issues, endangered species and animal welfare, and damages to property. The construction company contracted by the applicant is typically a LLC, and therefore escapes liability, leaving the City vulnerable to residents seeking remediation.
No Significant Gap Coverage (proposed locations already have sufficient coverage for making calls and texting) will be presented at meeting.
Presentation PPT also available.
The City has the jurisdiction to regulate operations and therefore, power:
Power means the maximum Effective Radiated Power that leaves the shroud or covering of the antenna.
By setting a limit of 0.1 Watts of ERP for the total from all antennas and frequencies in the antenna shroud, our city can preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets because it will require the Wireless Cos. to take away their 4-foot antennas and replace them with 4" antennas.
This will preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets and the signal will go down the street a half-mile down, receiving five bars on a cell phone, allowing everyone to make a call.
Service from WTFs is sufficient with 0.1 Watt limit of Effective Radiated Power -- just like the FCC limit for Class B devices such as home Wireless Routers. The FCC already limits the ERP of Class B devices to 0.1 Watt ERP because they know a neighbor that is 25 to 50 feet away cannot generate electromagnetic noise high enough to interfere with my home environment.
IF a city allows these WTF poles 25 to 50 feet away from a home, we need them to behave like a good neighbor.
If the city does not restrict the distance to be at least 2000 feet away from a dwelling, the City can preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets by passing a local Ordinance that caps each small WTF to no more than 0.1 Watt ERP.
The City has the obligation to consider the “Quiet Enjoyment of streets.”
8-9 of T Mobile v San Francisco case
. . . the City has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use . . . We also disagree with plaintiffs’ contention that section 7901’s incommode clause limits their right to construct [telephone] lines only if the installed lines and equipment would obstruct the path of travel. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the incommode clause need not be read so narrowly.
As the Court of Appeal noted, the word “ ‘incommode’ ” means “ ‘to give inconvenience or distress to: disturb.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Merriam-Webster Online Dict., available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incommode [as of April 3, 2019].)8 The Court of Appeal also quoted the definition of “incommode” from the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary. Under that definition, “incommode” means “ ‘[t]o give inconvenience to; to give trouble to; to disturb or molest in the quiet enjoyment of something, or in the facility of acquisition.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Webster’s Dict. 1828—online ed., available at <http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/incommod e> [as of April 3, 2019].)
For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the meaning of incommode has not changed meaningfully since section 7901’s enactment. Obstructing the path of travel is one way that telephone lines could disturb or give inconvenience to public road use. But travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, lines or equipment might
cause negative health consequences, or
create safety concerns.
All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment.
Links to important studies
National Toxicology Program
BioInitiative Report Updated 2014-2019
Professor Martin Pall PhD.
Ruling on case No, 18-1129 and Case No, 18-1051 are of utmost importance.
14.5 million dollar payout
Birds building nests on cell tower and starting fire
Subject: Every Verizon Annual Report says that its insurers no longer cover the company for litigation involving Wireless Technology - especially 5G, which known to be lethal to animals
This is stated every year in this industry's annual reports. Insurers dropped them for EMF litigation many years ago.
Verizon 2019 Annual Report:
'We are subject to a substantial amount of litigation...In addition, our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.'
Thank you for your generous consideration and dedication!
Note: We may update this document as further information is learned about lawsuits and regulation changes.
Environmental Health Trust Takes Historic Legal Action Against The FCC
Appeal filed after the FCC refuses to update their 24 year old wireless radiation limits.
Washington, DC – A group of scientists, consumer health nonprofits, and citizens filed a historic legal action against the FCC for its refusal to update its 24-year-old cell phone and wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation guidelines. The legal petition contends the FCC’s action is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” and “not in accordance with the law” as the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately review the hundreds of relevant scientific submissions finding harmful effects from wireless technologies.
The appeal was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on January 31, 2020 by the Law Office of Edward B. Myers on behalf of Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, and several individuals. Myers was part of the recent winning litigation against the FCC (along with the Natural Resources Defense Council and 19 tribal groups) which overturned FCC regulations that would have exempted small cell facilities from environmental review and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The legal action was featured in Law and Crime’s article “Scientists Sue FCC for Dismissing Studies Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer” where attorney Edward B. Myers stated, “The FCC’s order terminated an inquiry into the adequacy of existing health and safety standards for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices and facilities, including cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters,” he said. “The existing regulations were promulgated in 1996 based on scientific data from 1992 and the FCC had commenced the inquiry in 2013 after the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report finding that the existing standards may be based on outdated science and may need to be updated.”
In 2012, the General Accountability Office issued a report recommending wireless radiation regulations be re-assessed leading to the FCC opening Docket 13-84 in 2013 asking for public comment on whether a review was needed. The FCC accepted submissions into the docket for years and took no action until December 4, 2019 when they decided that no review needed to be done and that wireless radiation limits were protective.
EHT’s legal action challenges the December 4, 2020 FCC decision.Scientific submissions the petitioners contend were “ignored” in the FCC Docket included research documenting harm to wildlife and bees, the recent National Toxicology Program (NTP) study that confirmed cell phone radiation causes cancer and DNA damage, the Ramazzini Institute study, replicated studies finding tumor promotion, oxidative stress, reproductive damage, brain damage, and genotoxicity, cell tower research, and human studies finding increased brain tumors, headaches and memory damage. Submissions to the FCC indicate that childhood and pregnancy are times of unique vulnerability and that children are not only more exposed to cell phone radiation but also more vulnerable to its impact due to their developing brains. However the FCC stated, “We further decline to revisit our RF exposure policy as it pertains to children.”
“The FCC decision flies in the face of mounting scientific evidence demonstrating harm from RF radiation and runs counter to the science-based decisions of other governments that have devoted major resources to evaluating new evidence on the issue and have taken steps to curtail exposures as a result of their findings,” stated Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust, a scientific think-tank that has long pushed for stricter regulations on RF emissions from cell phones and other wireless equipment. Dr. Davis testified in the 2009 US Senate hearing on the health effects of cell phone radiation, and EHT’s Chairman Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, founder of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, testified in the 2008 House hearings on cell phone radiation.
The litigation was prompted by an FCC Order, released on December 4, 2019, “FCC Maintains Current RF Exposure Safety Standards”, in which:
- The FCC declined to update its US RF human exposure limits set in 1996.
- The FCC found it “unnecessary” to update evaluation procedures to include testing cell phones for radiation emissions in body contact positions.
- The FCC acknowledged that cell phones are capable of generating emissions that could exceed FCC exposure limits in body contact positions but found that “such exposure would still be well below levels considered to be dangerous, and therefore phones legally sold in the United States pose no health risks.”
- The FCC dismissed the findings of the NTP study that found cancer and DNA damage from cell phone radiation because the FDA issued a statement disagreeing with the NTP conclusions.
- The FCC declined to update its regulations to account for the unique vulnerability of children to RF radiation.
“The FCC will go down in history as the most dangerous government agency for America’s health and safety, even outdoing the FDA in this regard since, after all, each and every man, woman, child, bird, animal, and insect is being involuntarily exposed to wireless radiation. I only wish we could go for damages. I guess we will have to save that for the wireless industry itself. Beware of telecom bailout legislation, because the wireless industry has no re-insurance,” stated Liz Barris of the People’s Initiative Foundation.
Davis pointed out that FCC RF limits are 24 years outdated. “Would you want to fly in an airplane with 24-year-old safety standards? That’s what the FCC wants when it comes to cell phones and the latest technologies. Ignoring the government’s own tests showing that 3G and 4G cause cancer, ignoring the Cleveland Clinic and others that warn men to keep phones out of their pockets if they want to have healthy children, the FCC dares to propose that these outdated standards can safely be applied to 5G, a technology that did not even exist two decades ago.”
“The FCC’s recent order blatantly denies consumer health and safety advocate requests to require that phones be tested the way they are used—directly against the body. If not challenged, the rules will continue to allow manufacturers to “cheat” in order to pass the test by positioning phones as far as an inch away from the test equipment. No one knows they are being exposed to RF radiation that exceeds the federal limits simply by wearing and using a cell phone in a pocket or tucked into a sports bra. The testing procedure is designed to protect cell phone manufacturers….not the public,” stated Cindy Franklin, President of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones.
“The FCC is ignoring the recommendation of our nation’s largest organization of children’s doctors—the American Academy of Pediatrics,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT, pointing to the 2012 and 2013 letters to the FCC. “The AAP asked the FCC to test phones the way we use them—in positions against the body—and the FCC said it was unnecessary. The AAP asked the FCC to consider children’s unique vulnerability, and the FCC said it was unnecessary. The AAP asked for disclosure to consumers, and the FCC said it was unnecessary.”
In the early ‘90s, the EPA was tasked with developing safety standards for radio frequency limits, but the task and EPA research was defunded in 1996. Then, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted RF exposure limits based largely on limits developed by industry/military connected groups (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 , NCRP’s 1986 Report).
In 2008, the National Research Council report, “The Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communications Devices”, reviewed the research needs and gaps and identified the critical need to increase our understanding of any potential adverse effects of long-term chronic exposure to RF/microwave energy on children and pregnant woman.
In 2008, the US House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy held a hearing “Health Effects of Cell Phone Use.”
In 2009, the US Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing “Health Effects of Cell Phone Use.”
In 2012, a Government Accountability Report stated cell phone radiation limits could be based on outdated research and utilized outdated and unrealistic premarket test protocols.
Independent scientists consider FCC limits outdated because: 1. the limits are based on protecting from heating effects only, rather than from biological effects found at non-heating levels; 2. the limits are based on studies of short-term exposure, rather than long-term chronic exposure; 3. the limits do not consider children’s unique vulnerability; 4. the limits do not consider impacts to bees, other insects, trees, other flora, microorganisms, and wildlife.
Nearly two decades ago, a letter from EPA confirmed the fact that limits are not based on an understanding of impacts from long-term exposure. A 2002 EPA letter states, “Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long term, non thermal exposures,” and current FCC human exposure limits “are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations.” The letter clarifies that adequate scientific evaluations of the full impact on sensitive populations such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly have not been completed. EHT contends that the 2019 FCC action is arbitrarily dismissing the $30 million NTP study that was designed to determine if there was a risk from long-term non-thermal exposures. This study found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage in the rats and the mice.
In 2014, the US Department of the Interior sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration stating, “The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” Yet the 2019 FCC item refers to the 24-year-old thermally based limit as providing protections even if phones exceed the FCC limit when in body contact position.
In 2016, the French government released cell phone radiation measurements of hundreds of cell phone models and found most of them violated RF limits when tested in body contact positions.
In 2019, a published analysis in IEEE (journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) of the French cell phone tests found that some RF measurements exceeded FCC limits by 11 times. The analysis was performed by Professor Om Gandhi, an engineer who decades ago co-chaired the IEEE SCC 28.IV Subcommittee on the RF Safety Standards (the sub-committee that developed the standard on which the US FCC limits are based).
In 2019, the FCC issued FCC-19-126 “FCC Maintains Current RF Exposure Safety Standards.”
In 2020 the suit was filed. The appeal was featured in Law and Crime’s “Scientists Sue FCC for Dismissing Studies Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer.”