By Camilla Rees, www.electromagnetichealth.org

Today was a very important day in San Francisco!

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Mayor Gavin Newsom’s cell phone ‘right to know’ ordinance that will require retailers to post warnings of cell phone radiation risk at the point-of-sale.

The ordinance, postponed last week to today to address legal liability concerns of the City of San Francisco and small business owners, passed with flying colors. In fact, it passed despite heavy lobbying by the telecommunications industry. To be enacted into law, there is first a 10 day comment period before the Mayor signs it into law.

This is a watershed moment for health advocates in the U.S. and families who have or have had members with brain tumors.

San Francisco is the first city in the country to require radiation disclosure data at the point of sale. Warnings were proposed in Maine in March, by Rep. Andrea Boland, and in the State of California in recent weeks by Sen. Mark Leno, but both bills did not pass.

The SAR value to be required at the point-of-sale in San Francisco is a measure of the power of the phone. The exposure limit in the U.S. is 1.6 W/Kg, for this type of radiation, and the guideline was based on an assumed 6 minutes of cell phone radiation exposure.

Please note, however, the SAR is not a complete gauge of cell phone safety. See my article on this at Mercola.com (http://sn.im/xgd6d). The cell phone SAR value does not accurately reflect the potential for biological harm from the frequencies of the communication, and, very importantly, there are also some biological effects that have been shown to be worse at lower SAR values compared to higher SAR values, such as blood brain barrier permeability. In no way should consumers be relying on the SAR value alone as a measure of safety, but instead realize it is how one uses a cell phone (speaker phone or headset vs. against one’s head) and for how long that matters most.

“This bill is a first step”, says Dr. Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust. “It would be dangerous for people to assume that they can hold a lower SAR phone close to the head for hours a day. How and where phones are used determines the overall exposures to radiofrequency radiation.”

According to Doug Loranger of SNAFU, the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna Free Union, “The new law will be phased in over the next 2 years, with large formula retailers to be the first to comply, followed by small independent businesses that sell mobile phones”.

Scientists have known for some time that radiation emitted by cell phones posed serious risk. Olle Johannson, PhD of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden has said:

“At the Karolinska Institute, we have for many years observed very serious biological changes from exposure to microwave radiation and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields of the kind emitted by cell phones. The type of radiation emitted by cell phones has been linked to cancer, neurological diseases, impairments to immune function, and neurological function (cognition, behaviour, performance, mood status, disruption of sleep, increased risk for auto collisions, etc.). We also know that this kind of radiation impacts DNA, leading to possible mutations and cancer development, as well as affecting fertility and reproduction, causing a dramatic decline in sperm count.”

Just today, in Seoul, Korea, a presentation at the Bioelectromagnetics Society annual meeting (http://www.bioelectromagnetics.org/bems2010/) by Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc. showed that the risk of brain tumors from cell phone use is in fact much higher that the recently published Interphone study acknowledged. Entitled “Re-evaluation of the Interphone Study: Application of a Correction Factor” (http://sn.im/xd8ex), the report, co-authored with Professor Michael Kundi of the Medical University of Vienna and Michael Carlberg, M.Sc. of the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, quantifies the extent of the underestimation of risk of brain tumors from cell phone use on account of the 12 design flaws, now widely reported on.

Morgan says, “What we have discovered indicates there is going to be one hell of a brain tumor pandemic unless people are warned and encouraged to change current cell phone use behaviors. Governments should not soft-peddle this critical public health issue but instead rapidly educate citizens on the risks. People should hear the message clearly that cell phones should be kept away from one’s head and body at all times.”

Please read the full Press Release and audio news releases on this important new scientific report at http://sn.im/xd8ex.

San Francisco Legislation –Draft (stay tuned for final)
http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/bag061510_100104.pdf

Download the Warning Poster Draft from the Mayor of San Francisco here:
http://snurl.com/wqpoi


- by Camilla Rees
ElectromagneticHealth.org

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • email

Continue reading about San Francisco 1st City to Require Warnings of Cell Phone Radiation Risk at Point of Sale

By Camilla Rees via www.ElectromagneticHealth.org

The President’s Cancer Panel reported on Thursday, May 6, 2010 that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated” and named cell phones and other wireless technologies as potential causes of cancer that demand further research and precaution.

In its recommendations to the President, the panel stated “Methods for long-term monitoring and quantification of electromagnetic energy exposures related to cell phones and wireless technologies are urgently needed given the escalating use of these devices by larger and younger segments of the population and the higher radiofrequencies newer devices produce.”

In this article about the panel’s report from Environmental Health News Dr. Ted Schettler, Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network explains “Another sensitive issue raised in the report was the risk of brain cancer from cell phones. Scientists are divided on whether there is a link. Until more research is conducted, the panel recommended that people reduce their usage by making fewer and shorter calls, using hands-free devices so that the phone is not against the head and refraining from keeping a phone on a belt or in a pocket. Even if cell phones raise the risk of cancer slightly, so many people are exposed that it could be a large public health burden.”

Continue reading about President’s Cancer Panel Recommends Precaution with Cell Phones and Wireless Technologies

Citizens For Health on January 25th, 2010

Washington, DC, September 4, 2009

On August 25, 2009 the International EMF [Electro Magnetic Field] Collaborative released Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern. This report underscores the risk of tumors from cellphone use, especially for children. Endorsed by a wide range of scientists from around the world, the report makes three findings based on a review of existing scientific data: 1) There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use; 2) Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors; and, 3) Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors.

The Collaborative’s report, by well-known health advocacy groups, and with over forty additional scientific endorsers, specifically underscores the shortcomings of a $25 million, multi-country study conducted for the cellphone industry, the so called “Interphone” study. The industry effort was begun over ten years ago in response to significant evidence that cellphones posed a risk of brain tumors. Interphone researchers finished collecting data for the study in 2004, but amid reports of conflicts among researchers within the study group (some saw serious risk, some saw no risk and some counseled silence), final results remain hidden from the public.

Partial Interphone results released thus far by some of the participating countries raise doubts about the validity of any of the Interphone study’s conclusions, and raise the spectre that some design flaws may have been intended to underestimate risk.

The Collaborative’s report cites a recent Swedish study which reported a 420% increase in tumor risk for teenage cellphone users. France has banned cell phones in primary schools and is calling on manufacturers to produce texting-only cellphones for children, thereby reducing radiation to the head. University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute Director Emeritus, Ronald B. Herberman, MD, citing substantial evidence that long term exposure to radiofrequency radiation may lead to increased risk for brain tumors, issued a precautionary advisory to the Institute’s faculty and staff last year. Lloyd Morgan, lead author of the Collaborative’s new report, told Computerworld magazine, “I fear we will see a tsunami of brain tumors, although it is too early to see that now, since the tumors have a 30-year latency.” He added, ” I pray I’m wrong, but brace yourself.”

The Collaborative’s report, subtitled “Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone” cited Interphone study design flaws that included categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones) as “unexposed;” excluding many types of brain tumors; excluding people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumors; and excluding children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.

Industry Spin

John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the CTIA, which represents cellphone makers in the U.S., said in a statement in response to the Collaborative’s report that “peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk.” He claimed that the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have all concurred that wireless devices are not a public health risk.

In fact, however, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is on record as saying, “The available science does not allow us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or that they are unsafe. However, the available scientific evidence does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of mobile phones.”

The FDA and FCC jointly state that “The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe.”

(more…)

Continue reading about Brain Tumor Hazard For Children From Cell Phones

Citizens For Health on January 12th, 2010

 

Continue reading about Cell Phone Antennas Blamed for Kindergarten Cancer Cases

Citizens For Health on October 27th, 2009

By Camilla Rees, via www.mercola.com

cell phone

Just prior to the recent Senate hearings on cell phone safety, Chaired by Senator Tom Harkin, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a new database for consumers ranking over 1,000 cell phones by the Specific Absorption Rate, known as the SAR value.

The SAR value is a measure of the power of the cell phone and its potential for heating tissues.

The SAR value has been available for some time through the FCC’s own databases but has never before been made available in one central, easily accessible source in the United States. Nor is the SAR value listed on box packaging of cell phones at the point of sale for comparison purposes.

All that has changed.

Within days of the EWG launching the new SAR value database, and issuing its 42-page report entitled “Cell Phone Radiation Science: Review of Cancer Risks and Children’s Health”, almost 500,000 people had accessed the database, indicating very encouraging new interest by consumers in cell phone safety.

Consumers’ new awareness of the SAR value will be certain to influence phone selections going forward (though sales reps at T-Mobile and Verizon I quizzed a week later still knew nothing about it.)

It is important consumers realize that the SAR value, while providing information for comparison purposes between phones, is very limited in its usefulness as a measure of ‘safety’. We are greatly concern that people may be turning to the EWG database in droves not understanding just how limited a measure the SAR value is.

What You Need to Know About Your Phone’s SAR Value.

1. The SAR value is only comparing the heating effect of different phones and does not give an indication that a cell phone is ‘safe’, or for that matter anything about the biological effect of cell phone use in a given person.

(more…)

Continue reading about Top ‘Safe’ Cell Phones That Aren’t Safe