AP source: Obama to nominate former telecom industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler to head FCC

AP source: Obama to nominate former telecom industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler to head FCC

By Associated Press, Published: May 1

WASHINGTON — A White House official says President Barack Obama plans to name a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist to head the Federal Communications Commission.

The official said Obama planned to announce Wednesday that he was nominating Tom Wheeler as the country’s top telecommunications regulator. The official said Obama would name FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to serve as acting chairwoman while Wheeler awaits Senate confirmation. The official spoke on a condition of anonymity since the selection had not yet been officially announced.

Wheeler is former head of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association and the National Cable Television Association. Since 2005, he has been a venture capitalist at Core Capital Partners.

Wheeler would replace outgoing chairman Julius Genachowski (jen-uh-KOW’-skee), who announced in March he would be stepping down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/ap-source-obama-to-nominate-former-telecom-industry-lobbyist-tom-wheeler-to-head-fcc/2013/04/30/bf1ce056-b1d4-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html

Why Does the US Lag in Cellphone Precautions? WHO Knows

Why Does the US Lag in Cellphone Precautions? WHO Knows

Michael Kaufman, Medical Journalist
4/26/2013   

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has finally published its long-awaited monograph on cancer risk to humans from exposure to cellphone radiation and other radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

The conclusions suggest that "it is time for all nations to review their cell phone regulatory standards and testing procedures in order to protect their citizens from preventable risks," Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a press release. "Also, it is critical that governments provide ample warnings to cell phone users [on] how to use their phones safely."

Moskowitz cited one particular risk:

According to the monograph, "Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)." (p. 421) Children are particularly vulnerable to this carcinogenic effect as "the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child's brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull." Also, the child's brain is developing at a greater rate than the adult brain.

The IARC reviewed extensive research examining users of legally acquired cellphones that passed regulatory standards. Though they were exposed to nonthermal doses of microwave radiation from their cellphones, the IARC concluded there is (limited) evidence that such exposure increases the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma. "Thus, it is time for all nations to review their cell phone regulatory standards and testing procedures in order to protect their citizens from preventable risks," Moskowitz said. "Also, it is critical that governments provide ample warnings to cell phone users how to use their phones safely."

The 471-page report was prepared by a working group of 31 international experts who met in Lyon, France, in May 2011. But Moskowitz said some recent studies that further support the evidence of increased cancer risk from cellphone radiation exposure were not reviewed. Also, "other research has found that cell phone radiation has additional harmful effects on humans, especially on sperm and the fetus."

He expanded on his concerns in an email to healthcare activists. "Fifteen nations and the European Union have issued precautionary warnings about cell phone radiation," he wrote. "Many warnings strongly encourage limiting use by children and teenagers as well as adherence to cell phone manufacturers' recommendations that you must keep the phone away from your body when it is turned on." These recommendations, of course, appear in small print.

Federal agencies have been in denial about health risks from cellphone radiation, he wrote, because of "tremendous political and economic power" exerted by the wireless industry. "The industry has been very successful in co-opting many scientists worldwide and employs many of the tactics developed by the tobacco industry."

Thus, despite numerous attempts, no state has been able to pass a cellphone precautionary health warning bill. San Francisco (where else?) has adopted a precautionary cellphone ordinance. However, a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of the wireless industry may soon force San Francisco to rescind it. "The free speech rights of industry trump the public's 'right to know.'"

The irony, he says, is that no one is suggesting we give up cellphones or WiFi. "We are simply arguing we need to develop safer technologies, stronger regulations, and teach people how to use these technologies in a safe manner."

My wife has been putting all calls on speaker phone at home lately, especially since her recent surgery to remove a parotid tumor adjacent to her right ear -- where she used to hold her phone. And for my five kids, chronic cellphone users all, I have two words: hands free.

Reference:

• http://www.prlog.org/12122198-who-monograph-on-cancer-risk-from-mobile-phone-use-released.html

http://www.theonc.org/author.asp?section_id=1805&doc_id=262520&f_src=theonc_node_3503

Will San Francisco Cave to Telecom Industry and Abandon Cell Phone Right to Know law?

Will San Francisco Cave to Telecom Industry and Abandon Cell Phone Right to Know law?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) - Apr. 30, 2013 - CALIFORNIA BRAIN TUMOR ASSOCIATION

Will San Francisco Abandon its Unanimously Approved Cell Phone Right to Know Law Due to Pressure from the Telecom Industry?

San Francisco – April 30, 2013  The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on Tuesday, May 7 whether to approve a proposed settlement of a cell phone industry lawsuit that would kill San Francisco’s pioneering ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to provide information about how customers may reduce their exposure to the radiofrequency radiation (RF) emitted by cell phones.  

The Supervisors’ vote comes just as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has formally opened an assessment of their 1996 RF exposure safety standards and testing procedures in the face of the unprecedented use of wireless devices by children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a July 2012 letter to the FCC, declares “children….are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. In fact, according to the International Agency for Research on  Cancer, when used by children, the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults.” 

In May 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified the microwave radiation of cell phones and wireless devices as a possible human carcinogen based upon an increased risk of brain cancer associated with cell phone use. 

A new study, “Incidence Trends in the Anatomic Location of Primary Malignant Brain Tumors in the United States: 1992–2006” (Zada et al, 2012) references 3 U.S. cancer registries (including cancer rates from the National Cancer Institute) that reveal an increase in brain tumor rates in the State of California in those areas of the brain closest to where cell phones are held.  

“The City Attorney has informed the Supervisors’ Rules Committee that the savings to the City by settling the lawsuit amounts to ‘the upper six figures,’” said Ellie Marks of the California Brain Tumor Association (CABTA), a non-profit she and her son Zachary founded in 2009 after her husband developed a brain tumor on the same side of the head he held his cell phone for many years.

“The hypothetical legal costs to the city of defending the law are a drop in the bucket compared to the probable public health care costs involved in the City & County of San Francisco failing to inform consumers about easy ways to reduce their exposures to cell phone radiation,” Marks pointed out.  In 2010, Stanford University reported the average cost of initial treatment of a brain cancer is approximately $600,000.  

“The Supervisors should base their decisions upon the values expressed in the Precautionary Principle ordinance the City adopted in 2003,” added Cynthia Franklin of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, a non-profit wireless consumer advocacy group.  “However, it looks like telecom industry influence from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the newly-established ‘Tech Chamber of Commerce’ (SF CITI) is pressuring Mayor Lee and the Supervisors to repeal the law by accepting the proposed settlement.”  

“It’s vitally important for the supervisors to uphold their responsibility to inform the public about critical health issues and to refuse to be intimidated by the telecom industry’s wealth and political influence,” Franklin said.  

Contact:  (925) 285-5437  cabtasf@hotmail.com  or  (360) 201-3959

Other resources: 

FCC Begins Review of its Cell Phone Radiation Safety Rules:

http://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/fcc-updating...

IARC Publishes Rationale for Cell Phone Radiation as Possible Human Carcinogen:  

http://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/iarc-publish...

SF Chronicle article on SF Chamber of Commerce initiative:  

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Chamber-proposes-new-rules-for-City-Hall-4325232.php#page-1

San Francisco Invents the Tech Chamber of Commerce:  

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680974/san-francisco-invents-the-tech-chamber-of-commerce

San Francisco Citizens Initiative for Technology and Innovation: 

http://www.sfciti.com/

http://www.prlog.org/12128807-will-san-francisco-cave-to-telecom-industry-and-abandon-cell-phone-right-to-know-law.html

The World Is Watching San Francisco on Cell Phones

The World Is Watching San Francisco on Cell Phones

Devra Davis, Ph.D.

President and Founder, Environmental Health Trust, lecturer, San Francisco, London

Posted: 04/19/2013 1:11 pm

Three years ago, San Francisco passed the Cell Phone Right to Know Act, requiring phone sellers to tell consumers about safer uses of phones prior to purchasing them. At that time, Israel, U.K. and France had taken similar steps and the average age at which a child got a cell phone was 16; today most 10 year olds have phones. New scientific studies published since 2010 only strengthen the case for giving people information about ways to reduce their exposures to microwave radiation. Now all smart phones actually contain warnings, often deeply embedded within the devices themselves that are worded like those that the city proposes to make public through this law.

After years of legal wrangling the City stands poised to cave. At this moment, the federal courts have found that the public's right to know is trumped by industry's right not to be compelled to provide information about their product. While the city may have lost in the court of law, it has won in the court of public opinion and in the actions of industry itself.

Since the City passed this law more than two dozen sophisticated nations have issued advisories to their citizens to use headsets and speakerphones and protect children and pregnant women. Looked at from the point of view of what we know now and what has happened on this issue around the world the City's law looks prescient, courageous and right on the money. Since then, an expert group of the World Health Organization has deemed cellphone and other wireless radiation a "probable human carcinogen," and many studies have found that cell phone radiation can damage men's ability to become fathers and the brains and behavior of children whose mothers are exposed.

In fact, the Federal Communications Commission itself has shifted and issued a notice that it would consider the mounting evidence on cell phone risks on the late afternoon of Good Friday, March 29, when much of American media was decidedly out to lunch. In 1996, the last time the standards for cell phones were set cicadas flooded Washington DC streets and parks, gas cost $1.22 a gallon, and a stamp was 32 cents.

Gas prices are not the only things that have changed quite a bit in the past two decades. The users of cell phones are much younger and smaller and the uses of these devices are also radically different than when our approach was last laid down. Radiation from these two-way microwave radios was tested originally for military and medical adult male users, weighing well over 200 pounds having 11 pound heads. Plastic baby rattle iPhone cases and thousands of apps for infants and toddlers could not have been imagined back then.

In a world that has more cell phones than people, today's testing methods are grossly outdated. A recent Nielsen survey finds that American teenage girls talk about 750 minutes a month, send more than 7,000 text messages, and often keep radiating phones next to their ovaries or under their pillows. European researchers report that those who start using phones as teenagers have 4 to 8 times more brain tumors within a decade.

Phones are not tested as most of us use them--in the shirt or pants pockets--but only when kept about half an inch or more off the body. Industry studies find microwave radiation exposures can be four to eight times higher when kept next to the body than when held about an inch from it --the mandated distance. Eyeglasses, metal cases, earrings, or wired bras can all change the amount of radiation absorbed. 

San Francisco's law made sense at the time it was passed and makes more sense now. And even if the city decides to stop reinforcing this particular law, they still have the power to inform the public through ad campaigns that rely on old and new social media. The City can carry out its responsibilities to protect public health in this instance, just as it does by issuing no smoking signs and advisories about bike safety.

Smart phone manufacturers understand this and now include fine print (or deeply embedded) warnings to keep phones off the body. Apple advises that iPhones are tested and should be used--at least 10 millimeters away--advice that can be found within the phone by going to settings/general/about/legal/radiofrequency radiation. Blackberry urges its users to keep phones an inch from the body and avoid exposure to the pregnant or teenage abdomen.

Based on these and other developments, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have also issued precautionary advice about phones and other wireless devices. Israel, France and Finland are among those nations urging that phones be used with speakerphones or headsets, that wired connections are safer, faster and more secure. And following in the footsteps of France, Belgium and Turkey have banned sales and advertising of phones for young children.

It's about time that the FCC is asking whether it makes sense to rely on 20th century methods to handle 21st century technology. We are paying the heavy price now for having delayed efforts to control tobacco and asbestos.

San Francisco is taking steps to see that we do not go through a similar experience with cellphones and can and should protect public health on this matter using whatever tools are available to do so.

 

Follow Devra Davis, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DevraLeeDavis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/the-world-is-watching-san_b_3110977.html

New concerns over cell phone radiation

New concerns over cell phone radiation

by Diane Moca

Story Created: Apr 30, 2013

Story Updated: Apr 30, 2013 

MILWAUKEE -- For years, scientists insisted there was no connection between cell phones and cancer, but now some credible experts are re-evaluating that position.

A nurse who works in the brain injury unit of a physical rehabilitation hospital said, in the past year, she is suddenly seeing more people coming in with brain tumors and noticing the patients are younger and younger.
   
It was enough to make her discuss with the other nurses how they could change their ways, but the message isn't always welcomed.

"I don't think people want to know; I don't think they want to face that, because they're too addicted. If you go anywhere now, everybody is holding their phone," said nurse Laura.

She said trying to break her own technology addiction is rough but worthwhile.

"I got an old fashioned corded phone and plugged it into the computer," she explained, adding that she insists her older children limit their phone use and never keep their cell phones in their pockets.

She also stopped putting her cell phone under her pillow or on her nightstand, started using speaker instead of holding it to her ear, and even cut back using Wi-Fi -- another device that emits non-ionizing radiation.

Milwaukee attorney Randy Rozek wishes his deceased friend had been given such advice.

"He developed brain cancer on the side of his head where he typically used the cell phone," noted Randy.

He said his friend was a salesman who spent hours a day holding a cell phone next to his head for 20 years before his fatal tumor.

It's another example of anecdotal evidence possibly connecting cancer and mobile phone radiation.

Such "evidence" is disregarded by a top expert at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

"There is some data that suggests it might be a carcinogen. The bulk of the data says it's almost certainly not," insisted Dr. John Moulder, professor of radiation oncology and director of radiation biology at the college.

But consumer advocates say that data is changing.
   
First, the World Health Organization re-classified cell phone radiation as a "possible carcinogen similar to car exhaust."

"The World Health Organization study looked at 10 years of research and dozens of people that have been affected, and they concluded that cell phone radiation can cause brain tumors," summarized attorney Randy.

"They're saying, yeah, it's possible. There's some data that points that way. But it's not probable," countered Dr. Moulder.

Then this spring, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it's reviewing outside studies to decide if it should adjust current limits on how much radiation cell phones are allowed to emit.

Randy says the FCC will likely issue new warnings later this year.

"I think the FCC may be the primary factor in tipping the scales," he enthused.

The last time the agency reviewed a "safe" level of exposure was 17 years ago, long before smart phones became a daily part of life for millions and before international studies reported a link between cell phones and cancer.

Those studies are mentioned on the National Cancer Institute website, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

"It's more generally accepted in Europe and overseas that there is a link," noted attorney Randy.

Dr. Moulder added that such a link would be apparent in a rise in cancer cases. "Brain cancer levels in the Western world have been pretty steady in the last 20 years," he said.

But attorney Randy explains: "What's interesting about the majority of studies that did find a link between the radiation and the cell phone use is that the cancerous tumor would appear on the same side of the brain where they typically would use their cell phone."

Randy said other lawyers are pursuing class action suits.

"I'm not one of them. I hope the industry steps up, and there's no need for class action suits," he said.

Even scientists who refute the link between phones and tumors admit that cancer may take decades to appear.

"Most carcinogens take a long time to cause cancer, by a long time, meaning decades, not years," explained Dr. Moulder.

Both sides acknowledge that cell phones have not been in widespread use, especially among kids, for decades, so scientists in the United States say they have relied for years on laboratory studies involving animals. The professor said he doubts the results of the international studies showing a link and puts his faith in the U.S. studies.

"I know many of the scientists involved, and I don't believe they would all be lying," commented Dr. Moulder.

"They're basically relying on literature produced by scientists working for the cell phone companies. This is very similar to what we had with Big Tobacco; they funded the studies that refuted the link between cancer and smoking," offered attorney Randy. He says just like the tobacco industry, the telecommunications firms are "funding their own studies, and they're marketing to kids."

But Dr. Moulder does think entrepreneurs are deceiving the public, by selling products like the Bodywell Chip, which the makers say is guaranteed to reduce radiation absorption.

"That is a wildly implausible claim that anything stuck on the phone is going to reduce your exposure," laughed Dr. Moulder after examining the company's website, literature and research.

"We did three tests," noted Dr. Nachaat Mazeh, biomedical physicist at Beaumont University and researcher for the Bodywell Chip. "These tests are established by the FCC. They show the card (chip) blocked the radiation."

The Bodywell Chip claims to lower the SAR -- or specific absorption rate -- of cell phones. The company's researcher says the chip lowers the radiation without affecting phone performance.
   
The Better Business Bureau warns consumers that such products may not provide any benefit, especially since they have not been tested by the Food and Drug Administration for any claims of protecting health.

Dr. Mazeh said the company is planning to apply for FDA approval after its patent is approved, but the researcher did admit he cannot prove a link between mobile phones and tumors.
   
The creator of the company says the device is like a seat belt, an extra precaution in case of harm, and $30 is a small price to pay for peace of mind.

Dr. Mazeh said he works for the company as a consultant, but that did not influence the results of his research testing the Bodywell Chip. "I'm a very honest scientist," said Dr. Mazeh. "I have my credibility at stake."

The company's website says: "Our most recent study (January 2013) shows the SAR lowered by over 65% on the iPhone 5 and 80% on the Galaxy S3, with no effect on the cellphone's reception."

Cell phone companies include recommendations in the small print of their instruction manuals to keep the phone at least 15 mm away from the body.

Experts agree you will reduce your exposure to radiation if you follow a few simple steps:
1. Use an ear piece
2. Use speaker phone
3. Hold your phone away from your head
4. Text instead of calling
5. Don't use your phone when you have a weak signal
6. Don't put the phone to your ear until after the call connects
7. Don't put your phone in your pocket
8. Don't put your phone on your belt loop,
9. Don't give a cell phone to young children, even to play with, because they are most vulnerable to radiation.  

"The skull is not fully formed, and the radiation affects children differently," noted attorney Randy.

The Medical College professor did call cell phones "a big risk" -- to people talking or texting while driving or walking.

You can find out the surprising number of adults using their phones in this dangerous way in John Couco's special report next week.  

If you have a story you'd like us to investigate, send an email to dmoca@cbs58.com.

http://www.cbs58.com/news/local-news/New-concerns-over-cell-phone-radiation-205503891.html
 

Mysterious ailments linked to smart meters?

Mysterious ailments linked to smart meters?

Posted: May 11, 2012 11:59 AM JST Updated: May 10, 2012 07:59 PM By John Hook, FOX 10 News - bio

 

• Cindy deBac Web site

  
  

PHOENIX -

Electrical meters are on every home, apartment and business in the valley. They measure the amount of electricity you use, and determine how much you pay.

But meters that required a "meter reader" to check are vanishing -- along with meter readers' jobs. That's because newer smart meters transmit information directly to utility companies.

It's a cost cutting move -- but is it also costing some people their health?

"One day I was sitting in my living room and I started getting these intense chest pains," says Rita Field, who lives in Prescott.

The apartment she shares with her dog is only ten feet away from a wall of APS electrical meters.

"My neighbor said I bet you are affected by those smart meters and I said smart meters what's that?"

Smart meters are wireless devices that use technology similar to a cell phone.

"The new meter is exactly like the old one, the difference is the new meter has communications equipment in there that will communicate to APS hourly usage," says Damon Gross of Arizona Public Service.

We watched as an APS worker installed a smart meter. It took only about two minutes.

Salt River Project has installed 803,000 through May 1, while APS is also over 800,000 installations state wide.

"It's become rather routine and we've been doing this every day."

Gross says the meters also provide information to customers online.

"Now customers have access to their usage information at various intervals throughout the day."

And he says the meters pose no health risk at all -- mostly because unlike cell phones, people don't hold smart meters next to their heads.

"The radio in the meter has about one one thousandth of the radio frequency level of a smart phone," says Gross. "It's a 900 megahertz radio which is the equivalent of a baby monitor."

"These meters are very safe and they provide a lot of benefit to our customers."

Like Rita Field in Prescott, Cindy Dubac says she is electro-magnetically sensitive.

Dubac claims she was perfectly healthy until smart meters started being installed in her Scottsdale neighborhood.

"I didn't have headaches didn't have heart problems, didn't have insomnia," says Dubac.

Dubac has a background in alternative health care, and used to run a health food store. But at first, she didn't know what was happening to her.

"I almost had a massive heart attack and I don't have any heart problems."

She purchased an accoustimeter to measure electromagnetic fields, the same thing electricians use to find electrical lines behind walls in your home.

"This side is actually showing that smart meters are being fired right now," she demonstrates.

When APS arrived to install a smart meter in her home, Cindy pulled out her device.

"Their eyes were as big as plates they couldn't believe what they saw."

She showed us how her device reacts when held near a neighbor's smart meter.

"I told them to remove it immediately."

Smart meters, along with cellular phones, microwave ovens and other electronic devices, produce electro-magnetic, or radio frequency fields. The invisible waves of magnetic fields generated by every electrical device have been studied for years. Cell phones, cell phone towers, and power lines have been linked in some studies to possible health problems.

Those people who feel their effects are called electro-magnetically sensitive. But what about smart meters?

"What I can tell you with confidence is that if there is a risk it is extremely low," says Doctor Ken Mossman is an ASU Professor of Health Physics.

He tells us there is no evidence that radio frequency waves from smart meters pose a any health risk. But he doesn't rule it out either.

"I respect people that they have these sensitivities that they react in a way that's different than other people, but there is no medical explanation for why this sensitivity occurs at all," he says. "In fact it is so low you can not measure it with any confidence and it's essentially a risk that is theoretical."

Dr. David Carpenter is public safety expert from the University at Albany. He is often quoted by those opposed to the use of smart meters. We talked to him online via Skype.

"Smart meter issue surfaced only about a year ago," he says. "There is at least the possibility of radiation exposure to radio frequency fields which in my judgment are likely to increase the risk of several diseases."

He worries that radio transmissions from smart meters are just the latest from a long line of devices that have a cumulative impact on our health.

"Those of us who are concerned about smart meters feel that we are as a society are adding to our exposure to radio frequency fields at just an exponential rate."

Carpenter believes there is growing scientific evidence that these radio frequency waves like those broadcast by cell phones and smart meters are dangerous

"These people who complain of the headaches, memory loss and those kinds of symptoms are not just psychotic people, but are really suffering from hypersensitivity to radio frequency fields," says Carpenter. "And in my judgment the evidence that they do constitute a hazard is now growing enormously and I see it as being very convincing."

"I was nervous a lot and I couldn't sleep," says Loni Rosser lives in Mesa. She first noticed health issues when cell phone towers near her switched to 4G smart phone receivers.

"I had numerous cell phone antennas around my house and had direct radius into my home."

It got even worse for her when a smart meter was installed by SRP.

"I started having tightness in my chest and severe pain in my gut, just intolerable pain."

She asked the utility company to remove it.

"They don't think threes anything wrong with the smart meters but they were fine with taking them off," says Rosser.

Both APS and SRP tell us they will remove smart meters when asked. But if smart meters pose no health risk at all -- then why remove them?

"Our job is to respond to our customers needs and if they express a desire for whatever reason they don't want this on their home then it's our job to see if we can find a plan that accommodates that," says Gross.

Rita field asked APS to remove the smart meters on this wall, but since she was not the property owner, her initial requests were denied. So, she wrote a letter to the mayor of Prescott.

"When the mayor intervened all of a sudden APS did a 180 and said oh we are going to take these all off for you and put in non transmitting meters."

So for now, the smart meters are gone. And Rita Field hopes it stays that way.

"If they are safe and tested I wouldn't be hurting and neither would a lot of other people who are also having the same things if they were safe."

Removing a smart meter may lead to higher costs for homeowners. APS says they will request rate hikes for those customers still needing a meter reader to come to their home.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/18304823/2012/05/10/mysterious-ailments-linked-to-smart-meters

Open Letter to San Francisco Supervisors

Open Letter to San Francisco Supervisors

Dear Board of Supervisors,

I strongly urge you to maintain your Cell Phone Right to Know legislation which provides consumers with precautionary health information that is usually provided in the fine print of cell phone manuals.

As you may already know, May is National Brain Tumor Awareness Month. What kind of a message would the city of San Francisco be sending to cancer patients and citizens if it were to dissolve it's cell phone safety bill during this month? Even worse, what would residents say if they knew the bill was dropped because the city was intimidated by the cost of cell phone companies' attorney fees? 

While you debate the bill this week, I think it's important to note that on Thursday, May 2nd politicians in Maine are voting on whether they will pass cell phone safety legislation. This is a clear indication that San Francisco is on the right track. 

Even if you personally do not have enough information to decide whether cell phone radiation is dangerous or not, listen to what doctors in your community are saying: "There's enough cause to pause." The following is a list of doctors and influential individuals who are on the side of cell phone safety and urge you to stand by the legislation: 

Deleted because permission to use their names was not granted.

I have personally interviewed and spoken to all of the individuals above about this issue. If you're interested to view and hear their personal statements here is a private link to a feature length documentary about this legislation: _______

I strongly urge you to watch the film above before you make your final decision about the bill. This issue is a matter of public health and you can not allow money to change your opinion about what people have the right to know. 

Thank you very much for your time,

Kevin Kunze,

Director, Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation

http://www.mobilizemovie.com/#news/c10u6