Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation
The FCC received 900 submissions regarding its cell phone radiation regulations. These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) - Nov. 20, 2013 - BERKELEY, Calif. -- In response to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, individuals and organizations submitted thousands of documents, testimonials, research papers and scientific publications that are now available to the media and to the public.
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
These documents reveal what we know about wireless radiation health effects, and why we need to strengthen regulations and provide precautionary warnings to the public.
Although fifteen countries have issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and recommendations on how to reduce risks, the wireless industry in the U.S. has opposed precautionary warnings and wants to weaken our radiation standards instead of strengthen them.
In all, there were 904 submissions to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and November 18, 2013 when the submission period ended.
To assist investigative journalists, researchers and activists, I have created a table of contents for this valuable archive about cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.
The table organizes the submissions by constituency:
http://www.saferemr.com/
Electrosmog illness
Many individuals not indexed in the table submitted written testimony documenting adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. This condition has been called electrosensitivity or electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is recognized as a functional impairment in at least two countries: Sweden and Italy. Perhaps, it is more appropriately called electrosmog illness.
The cities of Boston and Philadelphia criticized the FCC in their joint submission on November 18 for failing to adequately protect electrosensitive persons from cell phone radiation:
"The FCC admits its own lack of expertise in the field. But the overlap of federal agency responsibilities for RF radiation protection and the merely advisory status of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group often leaves leadership unclear and encourages a pass-the-buck attitude ...
The 1999-2000 judicial challenge to the FCC’s 1996 rules never reached the issue of “electrosensitivity”
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
In all, there were 904 submissions to the FCC between June 24, 2012 and November 18, 2013 when the submission period ended.
To assist investigative journalists, researchers and activists, I have created a table of contents for this valuable archive about cell phone radiation and its health effects, and cell phone testing procedures and regulatory standards.
The table organizes the submissions by constituency:
http://www.saferemr.com/
Electrosmog illness
Many individuals not indexed in the table submitted written testimony documenting adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. This condition has been called electrosensitivity or electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is recognized as a functional impairment in at least two countries: Sweden and Italy. Perhaps, it is more appropriately called electrosmog illness.
The cities of Boston and Philadelphia criticized the FCC in their joint submission on November 18 for failing to adequately protect electrosensitive persons from cell phone radiation:
"The FCC admits its own lack of expertise in the field. But the overlap of federal agency responsibilities for RF radiation protection and the merely advisory status of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group often leaves leadership unclear and encourages a pass-the-buck attitude ...
The 1999-2000 judicial challenge to the FCC’s 1996 rules never reached the issue of “electrosensitivity”
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Media Contact
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
510-643-7314
jmm@berkeley.edu
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
510-643-7314
jmm@berkeley.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment