Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance
Media coverage about the Berkeley cell phone "right to
know" ordinance
August 21, 2015
On August 20, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco held
a hearing on
the CTIA's motion for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the
Berkeley cell phone "right to know" ordinance. The
presiding judge was Edward Chen. The
CTIA was represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, and
the City of Berkeley was represented by Harvard Law Professor Lawrence
Lessig.
Judge Chen is likely to issue a decision about the injunction
within the next few weeks.
I took six pages of notes at the hearing. In my opinion the
following news stories provide the most accurate summary of the hearing:
Bob Egelko, SF Gate, Aug 20, 2015 (This article appeared
in the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 21, 2015.)
Jessica Aguirre, NBC Bay Area, Aug 20, 2015
Lance Knobel, Berkeleyside, Aug 21, 2015
August 18, 2015
Should the City of Berkeley have the
right to require
cell phone retailers to provide the
following safety notice to their customers?
Why is the CTIA trying to suppress this
82-word notice?
July 21, 2015
On July 20, the CTIA filed with the Court its reply to the City
of Berkeley. The CTIA wants the Court to issue a preliminary injunction
that would block implementation of the cell phone “right to know” ordinance
until the lawsuit is resolved.
The CTIA claims that the ordinance should be subjected to
“heightened scrutiny” and does not achieve “any substantial or even legitimate
government interest.” Other CTIA claims include the ordinance is
“misleading, not purely factual,” and that it is “controversial, “unduly
burdensome,” and unlike other consumer disclosures. The CTIA argues that
the ordinance is preempted by Federal regulation, and that members of the CTIA
will be “irreparably injured if the ordinance is enforced.” Finally, the
CTIA claims that the“injunction will not harm the City,” and would serve the
public interest.
July 16, 2015
A hearing on
the CTIA's motion for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the
Berkeley cell phone "right to know" ordinance is scheduled
for August 20 in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The
hearing will be held in Courtroom 5 at 1:30 PM.
The Honorable Edward M. Chen is
the presiding judge.
On July 13, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned
the Court for the right to file a "friend of the court" brief in
opposition to the CTIA's motion for a preliminary injunction.
The NRDC is a nonprofit environmental and public health advocacy
organization with more than 2 million members including
1,244 members who reside in Berkeley. The NRDC is "One of the
nation's most powerful environmental groups" according to the New
York Times.
The proposed brief makes the following arguments:
"Part of NRDC’s mission is to protect public health by
minimizing human exposure to harmful substances. Regulations like Berkeley’s
radiofrequency exposure right-to-know ordinance are important to advancing that
goal: after all, an individual cannot choose whether to minimize her exposure
if she does not know that it is occurring.
The logic of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, if accepted,
would undermine not just the Berkeley right-to-know ordinance, but legions of
risk-disclosure rules that apprise the public of exposures that they might not
otherwise discover. Many rules that NRDC, on behalf of its members, has long
supported and advanced could be swept away." (1)
The NRDC further argues that the Court should not be put in the
position of answering questions like "How safe is safe enough? and
"How risky is too risky? This task falls within the institutional
expertise of legislatures and regulators. Finally, the NRDC argues that
"Mandatory disclosure of environmental and health risks is crucial to
protecting the public's safety and individuals' autonomy." (1)
Reference
(1) National Resources Defense Council. CTIA v City of
Berkeley. "[Proposed] brief of amicus curiae National
Resources Defense Council in opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction." US District Court for Northern District of California. Case
No. C15-02529 EMC. July 13, 2015.
July 6, 2015
The City makes the following arguments why the Court should not
grant the CTIA's request for an injunction that would block enforcement of the
ordinance:
•
the City has a substantial interest in providing the consumer
disclosure to inform its residents about proper cell phone use;
•
the mandated disclosure is accurate, factual and
noncontroversial;
•
the ordinance does not violate the First Amendment and is not
preempted by Federal law;
•
the disclosure is not burdensome for cell phone retailers;
•
the CTIA's members will not be harmed if the ordinance is
enforced;
•
and interfering with the ordinance is not in the public
interest.
The response was submitted by Berkeley City Attorney Zach Cowan,
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, Yale Law Professor and Dean Robert Post,
and Yale Law Ph.D. candidate Amanda Shanor. Declarations of support for
the ordinance were filed by Anthony Miller, Om Gandhi, Tom Jensen, and Sandra
Cortesi.
The introduction to the brief summarizes
the City's position:
CTIA has launched a war based on a mistake. It labors hard to paint
Berkeley’s “right to know” Ordinance as an attack on settled science. It
objects with vigor to being “compelled,” as it puts it, to spread a view about
cell phone safety that it claims is “scientifically baseless and alarmist,” And
it links Berkeley’s motives, as it describes them, to the “unsupported
proposition that cell phones are unsafe.”
But Berkeley has no purpose to engage a scientific debate
through political means. Its Ordinance simply reinforces a message that the
Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) itself already requires manufacturers
to disseminate.
The FCC has since 2001 encouraged—and now requires—manufacturers
to “include information in device manuals to make consumers aware of the need
to maintain the body-worn distance —by using appropriate accessories if they
want to ensure that their actual exposure does not exceed the [Specific
Absorption Rate (“SAR”)] measurement obtained during testing.”
The Ordinance is a response to data demonstrating that Berkeley
residents are unaware of the information that the FCC desires them to have.
Berkeley residents do not understand that cell phones are tested at a
“body-worn distance” and are not aware that carrying a phone against one’s body
“might result” in “exposure in excess of [FCC] limits” … The Ordinance also
responds to data that a significant proportion of Berkeley residents want this
information (82%) and said that it would affect their behavior (80%). The
Ordinance thus answers a desire of Berkeley residents to have the information
about RF exposure limits that the FCC wants them to have.
Yet on the basis of a single paragraph in a single FCC Notice of
Inquiry cited by Plaintiff more than a dozen times, CTIA insists that no
government can have any legitimate purpose in making consumers aware of long
established RF guidelines—the very instructions and mandates that CTIA’s
members must meet and must disclose—because, in CTIA’s view, these precautions
are too cautious.
Regardless of how cell phones are used, in CTIA’s view, cell phones
must be deemed safe. And any effort to draw the public’s attention to the
actual manner in which cell phones were tested to be safe in effect, Plaintiff
maintains, slanders CTIA’s members. But a single paragraph in a single FCC
Notice of Inquiry cannot establish such an extraordinary proposition. Neither
was it meant to. The whole purpose of the FCC Notice is to initiate an
inquiry into whether the FCC should alter its limits for RF radiation, by
either strengthening or weakening them. The FCC does not begin an inquiry by
announcing its results. FCC mandates about cell phone RF limits and the
disclosure of information about those limits are the law. So long as that is
true, nothing in the First Amendment blocks Berkeley from requiring retailers
to inform customers about those mandates as well. The Ordinance requires the
disclosure only of uncontested statements of fact that refer to existing
federal requirements ....
June 9, 2015
On June 8, 2015, CTIA—The Wireless Association filed a lawsuit
and a motion for an injunction in the Federal District Court in Northern
California against the City of Berkeley to block the city’s cell phone “right
to know” ordinance. This model law which was drafted by two of nation's leading
legal scholars was designed to withstand legal challenges from industry.
The CTIA’s lawsuit claims
that the ordinance violates the First Amendment rights of cell phone retailers
in the City of Berkeley:
“The Ordinance compels retailers of
cell phones to issue to their customers a misleading, controversial, and
government-crafted statement about the “safety” of cell phones. The statement
conveys, by its terms and design, the City’s view that using cell phones in a
certain way poses a risk to human health, particularly to children. That
compelled speech is not only scientifically baseless and alarmist, but it also
contradicts the federal government’s determination that cell phones approved
for sale in the United States, however worn, are safe for everyone.”
“…the FCC—consulting with expert
federal health and safety agencies and drawing from international
standards-setting bodies—has carefully reviewed the scientific studies that
have examined cell phones for possible adverse health effects, including health
effects from the radio waves—a type of radiofrequency energy (“RF energy”)—that
cell phones emit in order to function. The FCC has determined, consistent with
the overwhelming consensus of scientific authority, that “[t]here is no
scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or
a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss.”
FCC, FAQs –Wireless Phones, available at https://goo.gl/ZrKBly.
“…The FCC’s guidelines are highly
conservative: they are set 50 times below the threshold level of RF energy that
has been shown to cause potential adverse health effects in laboratory animals,
and assume that a cell phone is operating at its maximum certified power
setting (even though cell phones rarely use the full extent of their power) …
As the FCC recently put it, ‘[t]his ‘safety’ factor can well accommodate a
variety of variables such as different physical characteristics and individual
sensitivities—and even the potential for exposures to occur in excess of our
limits without posing a health hazard to humans.’ …
“Thus, according to the FCC,
‘exposure well above the specified [FCC’s] limit should not create an unsafe
condition.’”
“By using words and phrases such as
‘assure safety,’ ‘radiation,’’potential risk,’ ‘children,’ and ‘how to use your
phone safely,’ the City’s unsubstantiated compelled disclosure is designed to
convey a particular message that will stoke fear in consumers about the dangers
of cell phones: ‘Do not carry your cell phone in your pants or shirt pocket, or
in your bra, when powered ON and connected to the wireless network, because by
doing so, you may absorb more RF radiation than is safe, as determined by the
Federal Government. The risk of exposure to unsafe levels of RF energy is
greater for children.’”
“But CTIA’s members do not wish to
convey that message, because it is not true. As explained above, the FCC has
stated that even where the RF emissions limit is exceeded, there is ‘no
evidence that this poses any significant health risk.’ It has also concluded
that RF energy from FCC-approved cell phones poses no heightened risk to
children. Berkeley’s compelled disclosure is misleading because it fails to
explain that the FCC guidelines already take account of the fact that consumers
may use cell phones in different ways, and that cell phones are used by people
of different ages and different sizes. In short, when a cell phone is certified
as compliant with the FCC’s guidelines, that phone is safe, however it is worn,
even if a particular usage results in exposure ‘well above’ the limit.”
“The City, which concededly lacks any
evidence that exposure to RF emissions from FCC-approved cell phones at levels
in excess of the FCC’s guidelines presents a safety issue, cannot meet its
heavy burden under the First Amendment to justify compelling CTIA’s members’
speech, under any applicable standard of review.”
“Moreover, if the Ordinance is
allowed to stand, other local governments will soon follow the City’s lead,
resulting in a crazy-quilt of tens of thousands of inconsistent ‘disclosure’
obligations across the country. The result will be more compelled speech (and
very likely self-contradictory speech), as well as widespread and unwarranted
consumer confusion and anxiety about the safety of cell phones.”
“For these reasons, and as more fully
described below, Berkeley’s Ordinance violates the First Amendment because it
will require CTIA’s members to convey a message to which they object, and which
is factually inaccurate, misleading, and controversial.”
“Berkeley’s Ordinance is also
preempted by federal law because it would stand as an obstacle to the careful
balance that the FCC has devised between protecting consumer safety and
supporting the growth of mobile wireless service.”
The CTIA also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to
petition the Court to block implementation of the cell phone "right to
know" law:
"... CTIA respectfully requests
that this Court preliminarily enjoin all Defendants from enforcing or causing
to be enforced Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 9.96 before the Ordinance goes
into effect on June 25, 2015, pending final judgment."
The Berkeley Cell Phone "Right to Know" ordinance is
available at:
The court filings for the lawsuit, "CTIA - The Wireless
Association v. City of Berkeley et al." (Case Number
3:150-cv-02529), are available at Law 360.
June 4, 2015
The Berkeley cell phone "right to know" ordinance
takes effect on June 25th, 30 days after its second reading.
May 26, 2015
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt second reading of Ordinance No.
7,404-N.S. requiring cell phone retailers to provide a notice with each sale or
lease concerning the carrying of cell phones, and adding Berkeley Municipal
Code Chapter 9.96.
First Reading Vote: All Ayes.
Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Zach Cowan, City Attorney, 981-6950
Action: Adopted second reading of Ordinance No. 7,404-N.S.
Excerpt from the Ordinance:
A Cell phone retailer shall provide to each customer who buys or
leases a Cell
phone a notice containing the following language:
"The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the
following notice:
To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell
phones meet
radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use
your phone
in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone
is ON and
connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal
guidelines
for exposure to RF radiation. This potential risk is greater for
children.
Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for
information
about how to use your phone safely."
--
May 18, 2015
Berkeley's Cell Phone "Right to
Know" Ordinance (video)
Kevin Kunze, director and writer of the award-winning
film, "Mobilize: a Film about Cell
Phone Radiation," prepared a a 6 minute video about
the adoption of the nation's only cell phone "right to know"
ordinance by the City of Berkeley on May 12, 2015.
--
May 16, 2015
City of Berkeley to require cellphone sellers
to warn of possible radiation risks
Lawmakers vote to highlight the potential dangers of keeping
devices close to the body as scientists raise raft of concerns, especially for
children
Anita Chabria, The Guardian (UK), May
16, 2015
Note:
The article in The Guardian refers
to EMFscientist.org. On Monday, May 11th, 190 scientists
from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, the UN member
states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting they adopt more
protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless
technology in the face of increasing evidence of risk.*
These exposures are a rapidly growing form of environmental
pollution worldwide.
As of today the petition has been signed
by 200 EMF scientists from 40 nations. Seventy non-governmental organizations
(i.e. non-profits) have endorsed the Appeal.
*(e.g., power lines, cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi,
wireless devices, cell towers, wireless utility meters).
--
May 12, 2015
Berkeley Adopts Cell Phone "Right to Know" Ordinance
on Unanimous Vote
This evening the Berkeley City Council adopted the cell phone
"right to know" ordinance on a unanimous vote of 9-0. Berkeley
is the first city in the nation to pass a cell phone radiation ordinance since
San Francisco disbanded its ordinance after a two-year court battle with the
CTIA
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig helped draft the ordinance
and presented it to the Council on behalf of city staff.
The only opposition to the ordinance came from the CTIA--The
Wireless Association. The CTIA claims that consumers would be scared if they
were directed to read the information that the FCC requires they provide to
consumers.
May 5, 2015
Berkeley residents want, deserve cellphone ‘right to know’
Ellen Marks, Berkeleyside, May 5, 2015
Ellen Marks is Executive Director of the California Brain Tumor
Association.
---
May 1, 2015
Berkeley City Council: May 12, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item on
Cell Phones
Action Calendar -- New Business
From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance
requiring cell phone retailers to provide a notice with each sale or lease
concerning the carrying of cell phones, and adding Berkeley Municipal Code
Chapter 9.96.
Financial Implications: Staff time
Contact: Zach Cowan, City Attorney, 981-6950
--
Excerpt from Proposed Cell Phone Ordinance
CHAPTER 9.96
REQUIRING NOTICE CONCERNING RADIO FREQUENCY EXPOSURE OF CELL
PHONES
Section 9.96.030 Required notice
A. A Cell phone retailer shall provide to each customer who buys
or leases a Cell phone a notice containing the following language:
The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following
notice: To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet
radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a
pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected
to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF
radiation. This potential risk is greater for children. Refer to the
instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use
your phone safely.
B. The notice required by this Section shall either be provided
to each customer who buys or leases a Cell phone or shall be prominently
displayed at any point of sale where Cell phones are purchased or leased. If
provided to the customer, the notice shall include the City’s logo, shall be
printed on paper that is no less than 5 inches by 8 inches in size, and shall
be printed in no smaller than a 18-point font. The paper on which the notice is
printed may contain other information in the discretion of the Cell phone
retailer, as long as that information is distinct from the notice language
required by subdivision (A) of this Section. If prominently displayed at a
point of sale, the notice shall include the City’s logo, be printed on a poster
no less than 8 ½ by 11 inches in size, and shall be printed in no small than a
28-point font. The City shall make its logo available to be incorporated in
such notices.
C. A Cell phone retailer that believes the notice language
required by subdivision (A) of this Section is not factually applicable to a
Cell phone model that retailer offers for sale or lease may request permission
to not provide the notice required by this Section in connection with sales or
leases of that model of Cell phone. Such permission shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
---
April 30, 2015
PRESS RELEASE
Survey of Berkeley Residents Affirms Need for City to
Adopt Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance on May 12
Berkeley, Calif. April 30, 2015. Eighty-two
percent (82%) of adults in Berkeley, California reported in a recent survey
that they want to be informed when they purchase a cell phone about the
manufacturer’s recommended minimum distance that the phone should be kept from
the user’s body.
On May 12, the survey results will be officially presented
to the Berkeley City Council when the Council votes on a Cell Phone “Right to
Know” ordinance.
The proposed Cell Phone Right to Know legislation requires cell
phone retailers to provide a city-prepared handout to each consumer at the
point of sale that advises them of their phone’s manufacturers’ own directive
to never wear or use a cell phone against their body when on (as in a
shirt or pants pocket or tucked into a bra). This manufacturer’s separation
distance use advisory which is required by the Federal Communications
Commission is currently located in the legal fine print of user manuals or
on the phone in text menus which are difficult to find.
If the Council adopts the ordinance, Berkeley will become the
only city in the U.S. to require retailers to provide consumers with this
important safety information.
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig who helped draft the
ordinance will present it to the Council on behalf of City staff. Professor
Lessig has offered to defend the ordinance pro bono should the
CTIA—The Wireless Association file a lawsuit against the City.
Other key survey findings:
• Fully, 70% of Berkeley
adults were unaware that the government’s radiation tests to assure the safety
of cell phones assume that the phone would not be carried against the user’s
body, but instead would be held at least 1 to 15 millimeters from the user’s
body.
• Two out of three (66%)
were unaware that cell phone manufacturers recommend that their cell phones be
carried away from the body, or used with hands-free devices.
• Fewer than one in six
(15%) have seen the recommendations by cell phone manufacturers about how to
best protect against overexposure to cell phone radiation.
• Almost three out of
four (74%) reported that they or their children carry a cell phone against
their body—tucked in a shirt or pants pocket while the phone is switched on.
Lisa Bailey, M.D., past president of the California Division of
the American Cancer Society and a breast cancer surgeon at Alta Bates Medical
Center, strongly supports the ordinance:
“We have had some anecdotal cases in which the woman’s breast
cancer develops directly below the area where her cell phone was carried. I
believe that the public has the right to know that there may be potential risks
and to use their phone in a way to reduce potential harm. I urge the Berkeley
City Council to provide such information to their constituents.”
Recent peer-reviewed research has found that cell phone
radiation causes sperm damage. The authors of a systematic review and
meta-analysis of ten studies on the effects of mobile phone radiation on human
sperm quality concluded that, "Our analyses indicate negative
associations between mobile phone exposure on sperm viability and
motility.” (Adams et al., 2014).
Several peer-reviewed papers have recommended that cell phones
should not be carried or used directly against the body as in a pants pocket.
For example:
•
“Keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode
may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility” (Agarwal et al.
2009).
•
“Overall, these findings raise a number of related health
policy and patient management issues that deserve our immediate attention.
Specifically, we recommend that men of reproductive age who engage in high
levels of mobile phone use do not keep their phones in receiving mode below
waist level” (De Iuliis et al., 2009).
The City Council meeting will be held 7:00
PM on May 12 in the City Council Chambers at 2134 Martin Luther
King Jr. Way, Berkeley. Supporters of the ordinance will hold a rally in front
of the building at 6:00 PM.
The survey of Berkeley residents was conducted by Public
Policy Polling of Raleigh, North Carolina from March 6-8, 2015. The survey was
funded by the California Brain Tumor Association.
Contact:
Ellen Marks, Executive Director, California Brain Tumor
Association
--
April 28, 2015
On Tuesday, May 12, the Berkeley City Council will vote on
becoming the first city in the nation to enact legislation to give consumers
information at the point of sale as to the recommended distance information
which is currently hidden in the cell phone or in the manual. Harvard Law
Professor Lawrence Lessig helped draft the ordinance and will be at the meeting
to present it to the Council.
Advocates for the ordinance will hold a rally in front of City
Hall at 6 PM.
--
March 27, 2015
--
March 10, 2015
The cell phone "right to know" ordinance will be on
the agenda of the Berkeley City Council meeting on Tuesday, May
12.
--
November 21, 2014
On November 18, the Berkeley City Council adopted a referral to the City Manager on
a 7-2 vote. The referral asks the City Manager to draft a cell phone
“right to know” ordinance.
Once this ordinance is enacted, Berkeley will become the first
city in the nation to require cell phone retailers to provide those who
purchase a new phone an informational fact sheet. Retailers will be required
to provide the fact sheet to those who purchase a cell phone which informs
them to read the user manual to learn the cell phone’s minimum separation
distance from the body.
The FCC requires manufacturers to provide this information to
ensure that the consumers’ cell phone radiation exposure does not exceed the
amount when the cell phone was tested. Few consumers are currently aware of
this safety information because it is buried in their user manual or within
their smart phone. Knowledge of this information is an important step in
increasing awareness that cell phones should not be used next to the body.
Councilman Max Anderson who sponsored the referral grilled the
CTIA representative, Gerard Keegan, about why the industry does not want
consumers to see the safety information that the FCC mandates. The CTIA
position is that this is between the FCC and the industry, and the FCC is in
the process of deciding whether this information is necessary so the City
should not act on this issue.
The referral directs the City Manager to ask City Attorney Zach
Cowan and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig to draft the ordinance.
--
November 10, 2014
The Berkeley City Council postponed discussion of
the cell phone "right to know" ordinance until Tuesday,
November 18, 2014.
From: Councilmember Anderson
Recommendation: Refer to City Manager for the creation
of an ordinance to have cell phone retailers give to consumers who purchase a
phone, a factual, informational handout referring the user to their cell phone
manufacturers' disclosure regarding the recommended separation distance for use
against the body.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Max Anderson, Councilmember, District 3, 981-7130
--
October 15, 2014
Press Release: Berkeley's Proposed Cell Phone "Right to
Know" Ordinance
--
October 10, 2014
This cell phone "right to know" ordinance is on the
consent calendar for the Berkeley City Council meeting to be held on Tuesday,
October 28, 2014. The referral and briefing document are available
at http://bit.ly/BerkeleyReferral.
City Manager Referral: Cell Phone Ordinance Referral to City
Manager
From: Councilmember Anderson; Councilmember Worthington
Recommendation: Refer to City Manager for the creation of an
ordinance to have cell phone retailers give to consumers who purchase a
phone, a factual, informational handout referring the user to their cell
phone manufacturers' disclosure regarding the recommended separation
distance for use against the body.
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Max Anderson, Councilmember, District 3, 981-7130
The advisory will be in the form of an informational handout to
be handed to consumers by the retailer at the time of purchasing a cell phone.
The proposed wording is as follows:
"The Federal Government requires that cell phones meet
radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. Don't carry or use your phone in
a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is turned ON
and connected to a wireless network. This will prevent exposure to RF
levels that may exceed the federal guidelines."
"Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for
the recommended separation distance."
--
Precaution or Paranoia? Berkeley May Require Cancer Warning
Stickers for Cell Phones
Sabin Russell, California Magazine, August
19, 2014
[An indepth article about the science and politics
underlying the proposed Berkeley cell phone ordinance--research on cancer risk
and fetal effects on neurological development is discussed.]
Just as the world supply of mobile phones is reaching one unit
for every human being on Earth, here comes Berkeley, with a warning: These
things could be hazardous to your health ...
Stakes in this argument are extraordinarily high. Cell phones
are radio transmitters that are not only ubiquitous, they are close at hand: We
press them against our ears. We store them in our pants pockets. Women slip
them into their bras. Teens sleep with them under their pillows. With the adult
market nearly saturated, the big growth opportunity for mobile devices is children.
“In our society, the precautionary principle does not
resonate well. We want to see a body count first.”
The CTIA statement builds
a case that the “scientific consensus” is firmly in their camp. In fact, the
two-word term appears 28 times in their filing. They quote numerous federal
agencies asserting a lack of evidence that cell phone radiation can cause harm.
Among them is the FCC itself, the FDA, and most notably, the National Cancer Institute,
which states on its web site that “there is no evidence from studies of cells,
animals, or humans that radio-frequency energy can cause cancer.
Moskowitz dismisses the endorsements. “Industry and government
agencies seem to be in denial, and have been in that frame of mind for
decades,’’ he says.
... Cell-phone makers in their fine print do advise keeping
these devices about a half-inch away from
your body, although there is no mention of it in an industry-written parents’ guide to
cell phone safety.
And meanwhile, let’s face it: We just love these little
appliances. They are changing the way we live. If they are changing the way we
die, we’ll find out, eventually.
Also see:
Eric Schultz. Killer App: A Berkeley researcher weighs in on
cell phones and cancer. California Magazine. Winter 2010.
http://bit.ly/1kSu5z5
--
Berkeley pushes for cancer warning stickers on cell phones
Carolyn Jones, SFGate, Jul 15, 2014 (updated)
Print version: "CELL PHONE ORDINANCE: Berkeley will
fight for cancer warnings," San Francisco Chronicle, Jul
15, 2014, pg. A - 1
Berkeley, undaunted by abandoned efforts in San Francisco, is
attempting to become the first city in the nation to require retailers to put
stickers on cell phone packaging warning people that the devices may emit
cancer-causing radiation ...
Joel Moskowitz, head of UC Berkeley's Center for Family and
Community Health, has no such indecision. He's been studying the issue since
2009, and has concluded that cell phones are "one of the top emerging
public health risks."
Studies cited by the cell phone industry are outdated, he said.
Newer and more complex wireless technology, coupled with people spending
increasing amounts of time on their phones, is almost certain to lead to an
uptick in brain cancer, he said.
"It's just a matter of time," he said. "The
evidence is a lot more compelling than it has been."
Radiation from cell phones penetrates the skin and skull and
absorbs into the brain tissue, having an adverse affect on cells, he said.
Phone radiation can also affect sperm count among men who carry phones in their
pockets, he said.
Consumers should wear headsets, use the speaker feature and
otherwise keep phones away from their bodies, he said.
"With cell phones, distance is your friend,"
he said.
Pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable,
he said.
A warning sticker should advise consumers that some studies link
cell phones to rare but serious cancers, and they should take precautions,
he said ...
