Strengthen cell phone radiation standards!

Strengthen cell phone radiation standards!

The Federal Communications Commission's cell phone radiation standards haven't been updated for 17 years, but American cell phone usage has changed dramatically. And scientists are exploring links between cell phone radiation and cancer and other health problems. They don't have definitive answers yet. But one thing is clear: it's time for the FCC to take action to protect Americans' health.

The FCC is accepting public comments on updating its cell phone radiation standards. Make sure the FCC knows that this is the time to strengthen its standards, not weaken them!

Use the form below to sign EWG’s petition to the FCC!

http://action.ewg.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=2039

Smart meter foil cover.mov

Smart meter foil cover.mov

Hidden Insurance Risk Lurks in Property Leases

Hidden Insurance Risk Lurks in Property Leases

By Gloria Vogel, CFA | August 21, 2013

The RF Radiation Risk Factor

In February 2013, AM Best classified RF (radio frequency) radiation from wireless antennas as an “Emerging Technology-Based Risk.” This was based, in part, on an estimated 250,000 workers per year who may be over-exposed to RF radiation from the 600,000 governmental and commercial RF radiating antenna systems across the nation.

The FCC recognizes RF radiation from transmitting antennas as a human health hazard, as a single RF transmitting antenna can emit hundreds of times more RF radiation than a cell phone.  RF radiation hazards from transmitting antennas can cause thermal and non-thermal or cognitive/psychological injuries. Non-thermal or cognitive/psychological injuries do not necessarily have a physical manifestation. Cognitive/psychological RF injuries include memory loss, mood disorders, sleep disorders, and impaired or diminished cognitive function.

RF radiation injuries should be of concern to insurers, especially since their exposure to the risk is hidden within the lease contracts between the commercial wireless service providers (CWSPs) and landlords who lease space to those CWSPs for antenna systems.

The Property Leases:

Landlords who lease space to the CWSPs are completely unaware of the potential for injury from RF transmitting antennas and that they will be held liable for such injures. Typical site leases include a mutual indemnification clause, which would appear to protect the landlords from personal injuries that may be caused by the CWSPs’ antennas.  However to enforce the indemnity provision, the landlords must demonstrate that the primary cause of injury was the fault of the CWSPs.

CWSPs will take the position that it was the landlords who permitted access to the RF hazard area near the antennas, which was the proximate cause of the injury; or, that injury could have been prevented by the landlords controlling access to the RF hazard areas.  So, in reality, the lease language indemnity provision merely buys the landlords and their insurers a lawsuit against well-financed CWSPs with a litany of possible legal defenses.

Who Has Liability for RF injuries?

The CWSPs employ hundreds of RF engineers and are the technical experts on anything involving RF radiation and its ability to cause injury to humans.  Accordingly, prior to the lease being signed, the CWSPs have a “Duty to Warn” the unsuspecting landlords, and their insurers, of the RF radiation hazards associated with the lessee’s equipment.

By not divulging pertinent RF hazard information in the leases, the CWSPs may be attempting to use the 1996 Telecom Act as a shield in not warning the landlords. The Act precludes any discussion of RF radiation at municipal siting hearings. However, there is nothing contained in the language that enjoins the CWSPs from not informing the landlords of the hazards associated with RF radiation in the lease agreements they unilaterally create. Their actions are based solely on a business decision that has been used by other industries in the past…never mention the physical harm to humans that the product produces.

A landlord with full knowledge of their financial exposure to the liability assumed with the lease would likely either demand a greater monthly fee, or would decline permission to site on their property.  It stands to reason that no business person would trade hundreds of thousands or more in attorney and legal fees associated with an RF injury, for a few thousand dollars of rental income per month.

Legal Recourse

Once a lease has been executed without proper disclosure, “Fraud in the Inducement” can be alleged by the landlord asserting that the CWSP concealed material facts associated with the hazards of their operations/equipment. The CWSP will have known at the time of negotiating the contract that by not disclosing those material facts, the landlord might be more inclined to sign the lease. Additionally, theories of “Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation of Material Facts” may be brought against the CWSP.

Finally, there will be insistence that the CWSP has a “Non-Delegable Duty” to ensure full compliance with the FCC RF human exposure standard.  Federal law, 47 CFR 1.130, establishes the FCC licensee’s (CWSP) duty regarding RF safety, which cannot be transferred to the landlord.

Lack of Claims Doesn’t Mean Lack of Claimants

The insurers should not rely on the lack of RF injury claims to proclaim there isn’t a significant RF injury problem with workers being exposed to RF radiation on a daily basis.   The lack of claims is the result of injured parties being unaware that they were over-exposed to RF radiation.  Just one plaintiff’s attorney with an aggressive media campaign can quickly alter this lack of knowledge.  As the population of workers becomes aware of the hidden RF hazards and their potential for exposure, claims will likely be filed by the thousands, and long term litigation will result, in similar manner to the way asbestos evolved.

Gloria Vogel is senior vice president at N.Y.-based Drexel Hamilton, a service disabled veteran broker-dealer. She also teaches finance and metrics to graduate students as an adjunct professor at NYU-SCPS. Previously, Vogel was a contributing author on www.seekingalpha.com.  She worked at Swiss Re and was an All-Star equity research insurance analyst at several major investment banks, including Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/08/21/235352.htm

A Million British 5-Year-Olds Carry Cell-Phones – Cancer Threat a “Ticking Time Bomb”

A Million British 5-Year-Olds Carry Cell-Phones – Cancer Threat a “Ticking Time Bomb”

August 23, 2013 By Meredith Hoster

Health groups in the UK have spoken of the ‘ticking time-bomb’ waiting to wreak havoc in years to come, after it was revealed that one in every ten kids in Britain receives a mobile phone by the age of five. As it stands, more than a million youngsters of five and under now carry mobile phones and Smartphones provided by their parents.

Most are apparently buying the devices for their kids to use for entertainment and emergency purposes only.

However, the Department of Health has warned once again of the potential dangers of using mobile phones for extended periods of time from a young age. In addition, the most senior medical figures in the UK insist that for anyone under the age of 16, a mobile phone should be used sparingly at best and for short periods of time only.

The consensus shared between critics is that strong evidence continues to suggest mobile phone radiation massively increases the risk of brain tumors – something that younger users are as especially high risk of.

Speaking with the Daily Mail newspaper in the UK, Powerwatch health group representative Graham Lamburn made his feelings on the subject very clear.

“The very idea of letting children have mobile phones at the age of five is very irresponsible,” he told reporters.

“We have the greatest body of evidence to demonstrate that mobile phone radiation is a brain tumor risk for adults. If that is the case, children are almost definitely at a greater risk.

“Giving mobile phones to children represents an enormous experiment in terms of their health.

‘We won’t see anything in children for ten years, but this could very easily be a ticking time-bomb.”

Ongoing research suggests that using mobile phones for extensive periods of time over the course of several decades can lead to a 250% increase in the chances of an adult developing a brain tumor. In the case of children, the risk is thought to increase as much as 500%.

http://www.highlightpress.com/a-million-british-5-year-olds-carry-cell-phones-cancer-threat-a-ticking-time-bomb/4336/mhoster

Israeli Ministry Of Education issue guidelines to limit Wi-Fi in schools

Israeli Ministry Of Education issue guidelines to limit Wi-Fi in schools

August 22, 2013

Israel’s Ministry of Education has issued a new set of guidelines which will prevent wireless networks being installed in classrooms prior to the first grade and limit the amount of Wi-Fi use between first and third grades.

The new policy that will go into effect in August 2013 also requires that all Wi-Fi equipment be tested for compliance with safety limits before and after installation in an Israeli school and that desktop computers and power supplies be kept at least 20 cm from students.

To limit unnecessary exposure teachers will be required to turn off all radio frequency emitting devices such as mobile phones and Wi-Fi routers when they are not in use for educational purposes.

In the first grade students will be limited to use Wi-Fi to study for one hour per day and no more than three days per week. Between the first and third grades students will be limited to use Wi-Fi up to two hours per day for no more than four days per week.

In August 2012 a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court to ban Wi-Fi in schools prompted a court order for the Israeli Government to find out how many children in the country claimed to suffer from hypersensitivity to radio waves.

In May 2011 an international workshop of 150 experts on the radiation emitted by mobile phones and Wi-Fi concluded the current safe exposure guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) adequately protect children.

“The purpose of the meeting was to determine if our guidelines are adequate to protect children – who are different in terms of physiology, anatomy, and lifestyle,” Dr Paolo Vecchia the then chairman of ICNIRP said in a press conference following the conference.

“From the scientific results of the workshop, we can conclude that our guidance is adequate.”

Concerns were raised about the possibility of greater vulnerability for children because of an increased susceptibility to health risks during developmental stages and because young people will use Wi-Fi for most of their lives. However, the international safety guidelines have taken these concerns and potential risks into account when setting safe exposure limits the workshop found. TheHealth Council of the Netherlands has come to a similar conclusion.

“For UV radiation, we do know that people are at risk and now we have even more evidence for this position.  In contrast, for EMF, and mobiles in particular, there is no evidence that children are at special risk,” Dr Vecchia said.

In late 2011 the Canadian government conducted a study to determine the level of exposure to Wi-Fi signals in a simulated classroom setting in response to community concerns about the widespread use of wireless internet technology in schools.

The Industry Canada study (pdf) found exposure levels to radio frequency radiation from multiple laptop computers and Wi-Fi antennas were considerably below international safety limits, even when devices were set to operate at higher than normal power.

http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/israeli-ministry-of-education-issue-guidelines-to-limit-wi-fi-in-schools

Municipalities need final say on where cell towers can be placed

Municipalities need final say on where cell towers can be placed

ByTerence Young, Oakville MP

Oakville Beaver

Aug 22, 2013 

On Aug. 7, Councillor Ralph Robinson wrote in the Oakville Beaver, “Town council has absolutely no authority over the 14.9 meter installation.”

Yet with insistence from local citizens last Monday, Councillor Robinson moved that council advise the federal government the Town does not concur with such towers within specific distances of sensitive land use and was supported unanimously by council. This motion is based on federal regulations providing municipalities with a legal right to ‘concur’ or ‘not concur’ with such towers. Towns do have some authority, and responsibility: to represent the views of local residents to Industry Canada.

There are lots of things council could do. They could finish the job they started in May 2012 and produce a permanent Town protocol for cellular towers that includes community consultations for towers under 15 metres — the interim one does nothing for towers under 15 metres. They could hold hearings at Town Council Chambers. Or they could simply adopt the Federation of Canadian Municipalities protocol with the wireless industry, which clearly provides for public consultations for towers under 15 metres, described on the FCM website:

“Telecommunications carriers have agreed for the first time to notify municipalities of all antennas being installed before their construction, regardless of height, and to undertake full public consultation for towers under 15 metres — whenever deemed necessary by the municipality.”

The people in Bronte would have loved that, but council missed that boat. If they hadn’t, Bell Canada would have been obliged to not just notify the Town, but undertake full public consultation on the proposed tower on request.

So why doesn’t council want to do what they can to stop inappropriate cellular installations? Recently, I was maligned unfairly and inaccurately, at a public meeting, accused of doing nothing on this issue by Mayor Rob Burton.

Consultations provide no guarantee Bell would pull their application but it’s important to note facing opposition from residents and local councillors Cathy Duddeck and Pam Damoff, Rogers pulled their proposed tower at Hopedale Mall more than a year ago, even after construction had started. Bell Canada is facing similar pressure from me.

The leadership on this issue is coming from many of the same people who as C4CA (Citizens for Clean Air) stopped the proposed power plant in East Oakville — Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) — and I fully support their efforts.

As MP, I am fully engaged with this issue. I have been working with C4ST, the ministers of industry and health, and my parliamentary colleagues, to challenge the authority at Industry Canada and Safety Code 6. I will be tabling a Private Member’s Bill this fall, which would, amongst other things, transfer the final say on where cellular towers can be placed to municipalities. As they control local land use planning, local building permits and local zoning, this makes sense.

Here is my statement in Parliament on June 13:

Mr. Speaker, cellular telephones and cellular telephone antennas emit radio frequency electromagnetic radiation that the World Health Organization has classified as possibly carcinogenic. That is why Apple and RIM warn their customers to not touch BlackBerrys and iPhones during a call and to keep these devices at least 15 millimetres from their bodies. Health Canada tells parents to reduce children’s EMR exposure with shorter telephone calls, hands-free devices and text messaging, because children are more sensitive.

The people of Oakville do not want cellular antennas that broadcast electromagnetic radiation located near their homes, schools, daycare centres or health-care facilities. We have good coverage for phone calls and do not need cellular towers everywhere to broadcast hockey games to hand-held devices in every room.

Rogers and Telus are working with local residents, but Bell Canada has placed powerful antenna 11 metres from a child’s bedroom and over the heads of our firefighters and refuses to move them. This is intolerable. I would tell the president of Bell Canada, Mr. George Cope, to tear down those antenna.
http://www.insidehalton.com/opinion-story/4045599-municipalities-need-final-say-on-where-cell-towers-can-be-placed/

Smart meter installer held 'hostage'

Smart meter installer held 'hostage'

• KAREN COLLIER
• HERALD SUN
• AUGUST 22, 2013 8:00PM

A SMART meter installer was held "hostage" at a property until police were called to resolve the bizarre blockade.

While the latest stand-off was peaceful, dozens of other fitters have fled homes because of verbal abuse and threats of physical violence.

Tool boxes and equipment have been stolen in some cases.

Cattle breeder David Ginders has defended barricading a locked gate with a ute to detain an installer for about 90 minutes at his Flaggy Creek farm driveway near Bairnsdale.

He objected to the newly installed meter, and unsuccessfully demanded the old device be returned.

The stalemate, late last month, ended when police attended.

Mr Ginders has safety doubts about the digital meters, despite reviews finding they produce less electromagnetic radiation than microwave ovens and baby monitors.

He claims the installer ignored requests to leave before fitting the meter, and wants distributor SP AusNet charged with trespass.

"I am outraged they can march in and put something on your house against your wishes," Mr Ginders said.

SP AusNet's Jonathon Geddes said the Electricity Industry Act "allows entry onto private land to do works and things necessary for the construction, maintenance or alteration of equipment used in the supply of electricity".

Customers were required to give unrestricted meter access and police help was rarely needed.

"SP AusNet asks that customers continue to respect our people as they go about delivering the State Government-mandated smart meter program," Mr Geddes said.

United Energy revealed installers had left sites about 40 times since the start of last year because of threatening customers.

Police had intervened "less than a dozen" times since the rollout started in 2009.

"Although these statistics are not high ... any instance whereby one of our installers feels threatened is unacceptable," spokesman Stuart Allott said.

This included verbal abuse, threatened physical abuse, and a couple of theft cases.

CitiPower and Powercor spokesman Drew Douglas said a "very small minority" subjected installers to anti-social behaviour. Police had become involved nine times.

More than two million smart meters have already been fitted statewide.

All Victorian homes and small businesses are due to have a smart meter installed by the end of the year.

Companies said questions and concerns should be raised with customer service contact centres.

karen.collier@news.com.au

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/smart-meter-installer-held-8216hostage8217/story-fni0fit3-1226702386756