The first government body in the nation to require radiation information on cell phones got more press attention in the past week as CTIA, the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry, retaliated by announcing it would no longer hold industry conventions in San Francisco. Part of CTIA vice president of public affairs John Walls’ statement:
In fact, all phones sold legally in the U.S. must comply with the Federal Communications Commission’s safety standards for RF emissions. According to the FCC, all such compliant phones are safe phones as measured by these standards. The scientific evidence does not support point of sale requirements that would suggest some compliant phones are ‘safer’ than other compliant phones based on RF emissions.
In fact, most citizens confronted with placement of a wireless transmission site close to their home or child’s school don’t trust the FCC’s emissions standards, which were set by industry insiders. Why should consumers and citizens believe that phone radiation limits, which were also set by the FCC in consultation with industry technicians, are safe?
Radiation warning legislation similar to San Francisco’s recently failed at the California state level and in Maine after overwhelming telecom industry lobbying efforts, but Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is not deterred, and today announced that he will introduce a similar bill at the federal level. A statement from the Congressman’s office:
Today Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) announced his intent to introduce a bill to create a new national research program to study cell phones and health, require an update of the decades-old Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), and grant a consumer’s right-to-know by providing for warning labels on cell phones.
“Consumers have a right to know whether they are buying the phone with the lowest – or the highest – level of exposure to cell phone radiation. They also deserve to have up to date standards, which are now decades old,” said Kucinich.
Kucinich first called a hearing on the issue in 2008 as Chair of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee. Dr. Ronald Herberman, then Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute testified to the Subcommittee, “I cannot tell this committee that cell phones are dangerous, but I certainly can’t tell you they are safe.”
Last month, the Interphone study, a major inquiry into the potential links between cell phone use and tumors, concluded that when taken as a whole, there was no link. However, when the data was broken down, more risk was found and the picture became clearer. Those using their cell phones only 30 minutes per day or more were found to have a 40% increased risk of a type of brain tumor called glioma. This risk increases to 96% if the phone is used mostly on one side of the head.
“Some studies find links. Some don’t. But studies funded by the telecommunications industry are significantly less likely to find a link between cell phones and health effects. We need a first-class research program to give us answers,” said Kucinich. “Until we know for sure, a labeling law will ensure that cell phone users can decide for themselves the level of risk that they will accept. Obviously, cell phone companies should not be the ones making that decision for us.”
Articles from major national dailies under the Sunroom Desk paperweight on fallout from San Francisco’s new law:
Are Cells the New Cigarettes?, New York Times, June 25, 2010, by Maureen Dowd. Excerpt:
Sure enough, when the bill passed Tuesday, CTIA issued a petulant statement that after 2010, it would relocate its annual three-day fall exhibition, with 68,000 exhibitors and attendees and “$80 million” in business, away from San Francisco.
“Since our bill is relatively benign,” Newsom said, “it begs the question, why did they work so hard and spend so much money to kill it? I’ve become more fearful, not less, because of their reaction. It’s like BP. Shouldn’t they be doing whatever it takes to protect their global shareholders?”
So now we have Exhibit No. 1,085 illustrating the brazenness of Big Business.
Cellphone industry attacks San Francisco’s ruling on radiation, Washington Post, June 29, 2010
Research about the effects of cellphone radiation, Washington Post, June 29, 2010 live transcript of Dr. Ron Herberman, former director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, online to discuss research into the effects of cellphone radiation on adults and children. Excerpt from one of Dr. Herberman’s responses:
I believe that the cell phone industry is concerned about bad publicity, which certainly could decrease its business. However, the responsible position should be to protect the public from potential risks by supporting the advice for taking simple precautions to keep the cell phones away from the body. It’s of note that the main cell phone manufacturers themselves provide such warnings in small font notices in the brochures that come with the cell phones. They, however, don’t want people to readily see such warnings.
Wireless industry retaliates against S.F. law, San Francisco Chronicle, June 29, 2010
San Francisco to require stores to post cellphone radiation levels, LA Times, June 23, 2010