Who Should Be Deciding Risk—Engineers or Experts in Biology?
18.06.2012 by emily Category Electromagnetic Health Blog
As Joel Moskowitz, PhD of
the UC Berkeley School of Public Health has pointed out in“Does the FCC Plan to Rubber
Stamp Outdated Cell Phone Radiation Standards?”, the FCC’s
recent statement that it intends to review the safety guidelines for RF
radiation–but has already made up its mind that the guidelines are
adequate–is of very great concern.
That the FCC is finally again reviewing the guidelines after a decade and a half since 1996 may seem on the surface like progress, as groups including ElectromagneticHealth.org have called for the FCC to revisit its exposure guidelines for years. (See EMF Petition to Congress, with thousands of endorsers from every state in the nation asking that the FCC review its guidelines). But should we be celebrating? It’s uncertain. Some smell a rat in this latest announcement.
This is the first time the safety guidelines have been reviewed since 1996, when the ramp up in cellular infrastructure began without any pre-market health testing of RF-emitting devices or post-market health surveillance. The FCC’s statement is calling the coming FCC review a ‘routine review’. Does a routine review happen every 15 years at the FCC or is there some unnamed reason it is happening now?
Could it be the FCC in good faith wants to consider the mounting evidence of biological harm from radiofrequency and microwave radiation, and that they are listening, responsibly, to the numerous appeals from scientists, physicians, psychologists, and government bodies around the world (See, for example, The Seletun Scientific Statement) and to the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer?
Or, is the coming review, perhaps, a desperate attempt under pressure from the wireless companies to continue to confuse the public about risk, reemphasizing what today’s announcement indicated—before even the review has taken place—that they ‘are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers’? Or, is this a preemptive move intended to counter upcoming studies containing damning evidence of risk of which they might be aware?
Since the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the radiation as a Class 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’ last summer, and the results from the Interphone study showed significant increase in incidence of brain tumors after 10 years of use in ‘heavy users’ (i.e. what would be light users today), observers have noticed an increase in efforts confusing people about risks, from many directions. One example was a timely update of the infamously flawed Danish cohort study, a study previously roundly criticized by scientists the world over, for a very long list of reasons (See criticism of Danish cohort study). Interestingly, the updated study was paraded out, once again, after the IARC warning that RF from all wireless devices was a ‘Possible Carcinogen’. News of ‘no risk found’ splashed across the newspapers around the globe, in papers that rely on telecom advertising revenues.
Indeed, the latest FCC announcement seemed to many to be a fox in sheep’s clothing–perpetuating conflicting statements in an announcement that at the same time suggested it was doing good. When Googling’s that announcement, one can see this perpetuation is now all over the news, all over the world.
Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University has pointed out the ripple effect misinformation can have, pointing to the last line of a follow-on article to the FCC announcement in a regional publication in TX, which ended with, “However, no studies have yet produced evidence that it can cause cancer.” She says:
That the FCC is finally again reviewing the guidelines after a decade and a half since 1996 may seem on the surface like progress, as groups including ElectromagneticHealth.org have called for the FCC to revisit its exposure guidelines for years. (See EMF Petition to Congress, with thousands of endorsers from every state in the nation asking that the FCC review its guidelines). But should we be celebrating? It’s uncertain. Some smell a rat in this latest announcement.
This is the first time the safety guidelines have been reviewed since 1996, when the ramp up in cellular infrastructure began without any pre-market health testing of RF-emitting devices or post-market health surveillance. The FCC’s statement is calling the coming FCC review a ‘routine review’. Does a routine review happen every 15 years at the FCC or is there some unnamed reason it is happening now?
Could it be the FCC in good faith wants to consider the mounting evidence of biological harm from radiofrequency and microwave radiation, and that they are listening, responsibly, to the numerous appeals from scientists, physicians, psychologists, and government bodies around the world (See, for example, The Seletun Scientific Statement) and to the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer?
Or, is the coming review, perhaps, a desperate attempt under pressure from the wireless companies to continue to confuse the public about risk, reemphasizing what today’s announcement indicated—before even the review has taken place—that they ‘are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers’? Or, is this a preemptive move intended to counter upcoming studies containing damning evidence of risk of which they might be aware?
Since the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the radiation as a Class 2B ‘Possible Carcinogen’ last summer, and the results from the Interphone study showed significant increase in incidence of brain tumors after 10 years of use in ‘heavy users’ (i.e. what would be light users today), observers have noticed an increase in efforts confusing people about risks, from many directions. One example was a timely update of the infamously flawed Danish cohort study, a study previously roundly criticized by scientists the world over, for a very long list of reasons (See criticism of Danish cohort study). Interestingly, the updated study was paraded out, once again, after the IARC warning that RF from all wireless devices was a ‘Possible Carcinogen’. News of ‘no risk found’ splashed across the newspapers around the globe, in papers that rely on telecom advertising revenues.
Indeed, the latest FCC announcement seemed to many to be a fox in sheep’s clothing–perpetuating conflicting statements in an announcement that at the same time suggested it was doing good. When Googling’s that announcement, one can see this perpetuation is now all over the news, all over the world.
Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University has pointed out the ripple effect misinformation can have, pointing to the last line of a follow-on article to the FCC announcement in a regional publication in TX, which ended with, “However, no studies have yet produced evidence that it can cause cancer.” She says:
Really?
What about the following evidence:
We have evidence that cell phone use is associated with cancer (even in the flawed INTERPHONE study).
We have evidence that microwave radiation causes DNA breaks in rat brains and in sperm.
We have evidence that 2.4 GHz (used in some cordless phones and Wi-Fi) causes primary tumours in rats (U.S. Air Force Study 1992).
We have evidence that this radiation increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, enabling potentially toxic chemicals to enter the brain.
We have evidence that it is associated with an increase in the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase that is linked to cancer.
We have evidence that it increases free radicals that can cause cancer. We have evidence that it increases stress proteins and compromises the immune system.
Indeed, we have epidemiological studies, in vivo studies, and in vitro studies (the three key types of scientific evidence) that microwave radiation below FCC guidelines is associated with AND causes cancer and that the mechanisms involve some combination of free radical production, increased membrane permeability, DNA fragmentation and a compromised immune system.
We also have evidence that some reporters (see below) do not read the science and make statements that are scientifically incorrect.”
We have evidence that cell phone use is associated with cancer (even in the flawed INTERPHONE study).
We have evidence that microwave radiation causes DNA breaks in rat brains and in sperm.
We have evidence that 2.4 GHz (used in some cordless phones and Wi-Fi) causes primary tumours in rats (U.S. Air Force Study 1992).
We have evidence that this radiation increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, enabling potentially toxic chemicals to enter the brain.
We have evidence that it is associated with an increase in the enzyme ornithine decarboxylase that is linked to cancer.
We have evidence that it increases free radicals that can cause cancer. We have evidence that it increases stress proteins and compromises the immune system.
Indeed, we have epidemiological studies, in vivo studies, and in vitro studies (the three key types of scientific evidence) that microwave radiation below FCC guidelines is associated with AND causes cancer and that the mechanisms involve some combination of free radical production, increased membrane permeability, DNA fragmentation and a compromised immune system.
We also have evidence that some reporters (see below) do not read the science and make statements that are scientifically incorrect.”
She is referencing an article promoting the FCC’s latest
announcement by the San Antonio Business Journal.
As Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD of the Center for Family and Community Health at University of California, Berkeley says, “The research we reviewed and subsequent research strongly suggest that the current standards for cell phone radiation are not adequate to protect us from health risks associated with exposure to cell phone radiation. A year ago, a 31-member group of experts convened by the World Health Organization agreed with our conclusions and classified cell phone radiation a “possible carcinogen.”
He adds, “…we need more research that is independent of the wireless industry’s influence. The Federal government needs to sponsor a major research initiative on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation.”
A New Way of Assessing Risk?
This sentiment was shared by Martin Blank and Reba M. Goodman from Columbia University, whose paper Electromagnetic fields and health: DNA-based dosimetry was published byElectromagnetic Biology and Medicine, June 7, 2012. The paper’s abstract suggests a new way of assessing the impact of electromagnetic fields, one that could apply across a wide range of frequencies, that is based on the effects on DNA biochemistry:
“We propose a biologically based measure of EMF radiation to replace the energy-based “specific absorption rate” (SAR). A wide range of EMF frequencies has been linked to an increased risk of cancer….A safety standard for exposure to a wide range of non ionizing frequencies can be based on the documented changes in DNA biochemistry that arise from interactions with EMF.”
Who Should Be Deciding Risk—Engineers or Experts in Biology?
That the FCC is revisiting its exposure guidelines brings us to the complex and unresolved issues regarding responsibility that have troubled scientists and health advocates for years about which we wrote on July 17, 2010 (See FCC & FDA Cell Phone Regulatory Roles Questioned by Activists). Here are some of the critical points.
As Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD of the Center for Family and Community Health at University of California, Berkeley says, “The research we reviewed and subsequent research strongly suggest that the current standards for cell phone radiation are not adequate to protect us from health risks associated with exposure to cell phone radiation. A year ago, a 31-member group of experts convened by the World Health Organization agreed with our conclusions and classified cell phone radiation a “possible carcinogen.”
He adds, “…we need more research that is independent of the wireless industry’s influence. The Federal government needs to sponsor a major research initiative on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation.”
A New Way of Assessing Risk?
This sentiment was shared by Martin Blank and Reba M. Goodman from Columbia University, whose paper Electromagnetic fields and health: DNA-based dosimetry was published byElectromagnetic Biology and Medicine, June 7, 2012. The paper’s abstract suggests a new way of assessing the impact of electromagnetic fields, one that could apply across a wide range of frequencies, that is based on the effects on DNA biochemistry:
“We propose a biologically based measure of EMF radiation to replace the energy-based “specific absorption rate” (SAR). A wide range of EMF frequencies has been linked to an increased risk of cancer….A safety standard for exposure to a wide range of non ionizing frequencies can be based on the documented changes in DNA biochemistry that arise from interactions with EMF.”
Who Should Be Deciding Risk—Engineers or Experts in Biology?
That the FCC is revisiting its exposure guidelines brings us to the complex and unresolved issues regarding responsibility that have troubled scientists and health advocates for years about which we wrote on July 17, 2010 (See FCC & FDA Cell Phone Regulatory Roles Questioned by Activists). Here are some of the critical points.
·
If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA,
and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety
guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of
radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they
can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the
responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?
·
Has responsibility for ascertaining consumer safety potentially
fallen through the cracks between these two agencies, resulting in a situation
were proper protection of consumer health interests is not taking place?
·
On what basis does the FCC, a communications commission charged
with regulating interstate and international communications, not a health
agency, have authority to ascertain safety and establish safety guidelines,
such as the SAR limit for cell phones, in the first place? On what basis has
the FCC assumed this responsibility?
·
If the SAR value is a measure of the power or heating effects
from a phone, and is a physics measure unrelated to biology, what regulatory
agency is looking at the biological effects? This would include
biological effects from all forms of radiation being emitted
by a cell phone, including 1) the heating effects (that the
SAR attempts to reflect), 2) the non-heating effects from the
frequencies and modulation, and 3) the low frequency (ELF)
fields emitted by the devices.
·
There is ample scientific evidence of biological effects from
cell phone radiation (RF) at non-heating levels of exposure, with links to a
multitude of acute and chronic illnesses. Some consider these effects more important
than the thermal effects. Why then do the present guidelines not address the
non-thermal biological effects?
·
There is ample scientific evidence of biological effects from
ELF levels found in cell phones and PDAs, and these devices emit ELF levels far
higher than levels of ELF fields known to cause miscarriage, for example. Why
do present guidelines not address ELF?
·
The current SAR limit for cell phones is 1.6 W/kg, but according
to the AACPS letters, research in the 1990s (Tice and Hook) showed micronuclei
in blood doubled when the cells were exposed to radiation at only 1 W/kg of
SAR. In light of this, why was 1.6 W/kg chosen as the limit and not a number
less than 1 W/kg?
·
What public health expertise, if any, exists at the FCC and who
specifically set the current standards and what was their background in
biology?
·
Research has shown source of scientific funding in this field
influences outcomes. In determining SAR safety guidelines for cell phones, how
much does the FCC rely on telecom industry funded science, as opposed to
independent science where there would not be a commercial conflict of interest?
·
Given evidence exists showing that in certain amplitude windows
a lower SAR value can result in greater brain effects than a
higher SAR value (increased neuron death and blood brain barrier permeability,
for example), suggesting some biological effects do not occur in a linear,
dose-response manner. Thus, the SAR may be a wholly inadequate measure of
safety on these grounds. Given this, and the fact that the SAR does not reflect
either the non-thermal biological effects, or the ELF effects, why is the SAR
used as a measure of safety?
·
Experts say a true biological standard for cell phone radiation
exposure should be set, especially for children, elderly and vulnerable
populations, instead of relying on estimates of safety based on a physics
measure that only measures the heating effect. Is either the FCC or the FDA
working on biologically based guidelines or even studying biological effects?
What scientific experts with backgrounds in EMF effects on biology are Advisors
to the FCC and FDA?
·
How is it that the FCC can state, “There is no scientific
evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a
variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory
loss”, when there is voluminous amounts of evidence showing that people are
experiencing these problems as well as evidence of biological change at the
molecular, cellular, organ, neurological and immunological levels? Is the FCC
relying on telecom industry advisors in formulating the above statement who may
perhaps have a commercial conflict of interest and not want the biological
effects to be known?
·
Why in the Kids Zone of the FCC website are precautions
recommended like using an earpiece or headset, keeping the devices away from
the body and using the speaker to reduce exposure to the head, if on the main
part of the FCC website it states “There is no scientific evidence to date that
proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other
health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss”? Is there
disagreement within the FCC itself about the risks, as this would suggest?
·
Why do cell phone manuals state a cell phone should be kept at
least 5/8”-1” away from the body for safety, but yet official federal positions
downplay any risks from the radiation? Why have regulatory agencies not
required larger warnings, as on cigarette packaging, if cell phone
manufacturers themselves acknowledge risks of radiation exposure if the phone
is placed close to the body?
·
Why was there no federal government pre-market safety testing of
cell phones and wireless technologies, and no post-market surveillance? Who
made the decision to not require this?
·
How could an industry grow to this size (285 million U.S.
wireless connection subscribers—now 332 million), with radiation-emitting
technologies deeply ingrained in the lives of citizens of all ages, without
greater government attention to the health effects on cell phone users, and the
health effects on users and non-users exposed to 2nd hand
radiation?
·
Who inserted Section 704 into the Telecom Act of 1996, which
took away state and local governments’ rights to protect their citizens’ (and
environment’s) health from wireless radiation exposure? Was anyone, at the
time, considering the science showing biological effects from this form of
radiation?
All eyes are on the FCC. Will this agency, that has authority vested in it through Congress, act with full integrity or not? Will it acknowledge the RF safety guidelines are inadequate and take steps to protect the public health, recognizing that even a small percentage increased risk adds up to potentially hundreds of millions of people at risk globally, and includes potentially unthinkable risk to our genetic code? (See, for example, The Seletun Scientific Statement)
Just this week, the 2012 U.S. Health Freedom Congress adopted a Resolution on Electromagnetic Health . Forty leading health advocacy groups stood in solidarity, adopting in principle the health freedom values embodied in the resolution, which called for 1) citizens’ right-to-know the science on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and 2) citizens’ right to opt-out from biologically disruptive or potentially biologically disruptive electromagnetic fields.
If you agree, please contact Members of Congress now and get their attention to the FCC’s upcoming ‘routine review’. Bring their attention to what is obvious—that an agency of engineers should not be opining on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, a subject of which they know little about. And an agency heavily influenced by the companies they regulate—can hardly be independent.
http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/fcc-standards/
No comments:
Post a Comment