Friday, August 17, 2012

Are Bluetooth devices really safer than using a cell phone?


Are Bluetooth devices really safer than using a cell phone?

From Cindy Sage on the supposed safety of Bluetooth devices:
People should realize that Bluetooth devices that fit in or around the ear typically radiate at 0.23 watts per kilogram (W/Kg). Go into any AT&T wireless store and ask for the SAR on Bluetooth devices. Or check any SAR values website that shows cell phone SAR levels, and you’ll find the Bluetooth devices are actually worse than some of the low-SAR cell phones.
This level of 0.23 W/Kg is ten to 100 times higher than the RF exposure levels shown to make the blood-brain barrier pathologically leaky, allowing toxins and toxic molecules to cross the BBB. This is reported by Salford, Persson, NIttby and Schirmacher among others – to cause neuron death at 0.012 to 0.002 W/Kg.
Multiple studies have reported that as short as a single, two-hour exposure to cell phone radiation will result in pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier. The effect occurs immediately, and is still seen at 14 days and at 50 days post-exposure at only 0.012 W/Kg to 0.002 W/Kg. The lowest exposure SARs are worse than the higher SAR exposures (Nittby et al, 2009). These studies show neuron death (brain cells) at SARs of only 0.012 W/Kg. Bluetooth devices are worn for hours at a time, in some cases – all day long. So, it is reasonable to conclude that a device which radiates at a higher intensity than some cell phones that are still risky in terms of SAR, worn for more hours than a cell phone is typically used – would not be a good idea to promote.
Cindy Sage

Are cellphone towers near your home dangerous for you?


Are cellphone towers near your home dangerous for you?


After the Delhi High Court tells the government to look into the effects of cellphone tower radiation on citizens, we ask whether radiation from cell towers cause serious health issues.

San Francisco faces wireless industry in court over radiation warnings


San Francisco faces wireless industry in court over radiation warnings

The city's law requiring cell phone retailers to disclose possible health risks from cell phone radiation will have an important day in court today.
 
The City of San Francisco will face off in court with the wireless industry today in a hearing that may determine if the local government will be allowed to force retailers selling cell phones within city limits to disclose possible health risks to consumers before they buy mobile devices.
In 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and then-mayor Gavin Newsom approved legislation that would require manufacturers to provide information about the potential health risks associated with using cell phones.
Specifically, the ordinance required retailers to put up posters in stores that sell cell phones warning of potential risks. It also required that a sticker be affixed on the outside of cell phone packaging providing information about the SAR level, a specific absorption rate at a level defined by the Federal Communications Commission, and a fact sheet that offered more information about the potential risks of using cell phones as well as information about how to reduce exposure.
The CTIA, the wireless lobbying association representing handset makers and cell phone carriers, sued the city, arguing that these requirements violate the industry's First Amendment rights and also pre-empt the federal standard set by the FCC that ensures cell phone safety.
In October, U.S. District Judge William Alsup struck down the city's sticker and poster requirements. But he upheld the city's right to distribute "fact sheets" about potential risks, provided the city tone down rhetoric.
The CTIA is appealing this decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and it's asking for an injunction against issuing the "fact sheet." Meanwhile, the city, which in Judge Alsup's judgment lost two of the three warning methods in the original ordinance, is also appealing the former decision, asking the three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals to re-instate the other pieces of the ordinance.
The case is significant in the ongoing battle between those who believe that low levels of radiation from long-term cell phone use can be hazardous and those who say that cell phone use is not at all dangerous. And if the city prevails in court, it could pave the way for other state and local governments to pass similar legislation of their own. And it may bolster the chances of a new federal law.
Earlier this week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a bill called The Cell Phone Right to Know Act that would put warning labels on cell phones and require the Environmental Protection Agency to update the RF energy absorption rates. The bill also calls for more research to be conducted on the potential health risks.
A CTIA representative said the association hasn't issued a formal statement on the legislation yet. But he did say that the CTIA supports more research being conducted. That said, the CTIA views requiring labels or warnings on devices an infringement of the First Amendment.
"The government can't compel a private party to express an opinion that it disagrees with," said Andrew McBride, an attorney with the Washington, D.C. firm Wiley Rein LLP, who will argue the CTIA's case in front of the U.S. Appeals Court today.
He added that the information the city wants to provide to cell phone consumers is opinion and not fact.
To be fair, the science on the issue of whether cell phones are harmful is conflicting. Some research suggests there are legitimate health concerns while other studies conclude there is no cause and effect between cell phone use and cancer or any other health issues. Still, in spite of the conflicting information, the World Health Organization a year ago called cell phone radiation a "carcinogenic hazard," putting it in the same category as other possible carcinogens like lead and exhaust from gasoline.
On Tuesday the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report calling for the FCC, which has oversight of cell phones, to revise its standards. The agency reviewed several studies and concluded that the FCC's standards, which were established in 1996, may be out of date.
"The FCC energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research, and testing requirements may not identify maximum exposure in all possible usage conditions," the GAO report said.
The FCC's current standard looks at what's called specific absorption rate or SAR. This rate measures the rate at which radio frequencies are absorbed by a section of tissue. The FCC's current SAR limit is a maximum of 1.6 watts per kilogram for any wireless device sold in the U.S.
Vince Chhabria, a deputy city attorney for San Francisco, who will argue the city's position in court, said that the GAO's report supports the city's argument that warnings are needed because of the lingering concerns about the long-term effects of cell phone radiation exposure.
"This report confirms what was already obvious," he said. "New information keeps coming up about the relationship between cell phone use and health risks, such as cancer. And we think the public is better served if they're given the opportunity to take a closer look at this new information."
But the CTIA actually thinks that the GAO report may help its argument. The GAO report states that there is no evidence to date that proves cell phone use is a risk to consumers' health. And the report suggests that the U.S. align its standards with standards used in Europe, which could actually raise the exposure level or SAR higher than where it it is today.
Meanwhile, the FCC said in June that it's looking at revising the standard anyway. And the agency is currently preparing to take public comment on the issue.

Barbara Makota: Proof of physical harm by wireless technology


Cell Phone Radiation Drastically Underestimated for Children


Cell Phone Radiation Drastically Underestimated for Children

Children's radiation absorption rates compared to adults

  • Twice the amount to their heads
  • Up to three times the amount in the their brain's hippocampus and hypothalamus
  • As much as ten times more in their bone marrow
Photo of Teenage Boy Reading Text MessageIt's enough to make me wonder whether we will begin to see an epidemic of childhood and young adult leukemia in the next decade or so, as the long-term effect of this DNA-damaging radiation begins to express itself in the form of cancer.
For the most part, though, the largely uninformed public hasn't heard about this. Why? Because they either don't want to know, or they just don't care. It doesn't help that the cellphone industry designed the cellphone certification standards and is in clear conflict of interest with any alternative standard that would force them to lower the radiation emissions on their products.

A Better Way to Measure Absorbed Cellular Radiation

The good news is an alternative system exists, based on MRI imaging that can measure the amount of radiation being absorbed into all tissues on people of different sizes. Called the "Virtual Family," it can measure absorption rates on a 5-year-old girl, a 6-year-old boy, an 8-year-old girl, an 11-year-old girl, a 14-year-old boy, a 26-year-old female, a 35-year-old male, an obese adult male, and a pregnant woman at various stages of her pregnancy.
The irony about this new system? It's already FCC approved, and yet it has never been used for certification purposes. Instead, the FCC continues to use an outdated 1991 method for occupational exposure that is completely out of touch with the current widespread saturation of involuntary cellular radiation exposure 24/7, and without regard to the increased vulnerability of certain populations such as children and unborn children in the womb.
Yet despite the increasing number of research studies coming out warning against the dangers of cellphone use, the American population seems to be blithely ignoring the warnings and continuing on with their daily lives, unwilling to accept the idea that their smartphone might not be the best invention since sliced bread.

The Normalcy Bias

Financial investors and psychology experts call this the normalcy bias. Even when the threat of imminent catastrophic harm comes to a town such as New Orleans in 2006 before Hurricane Katrina hit, people refuse to acknowledge the bad and continue with their normal routine until it is too late. More simply put, it's the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
Don't tell me because I don't want to know. If I don't know that I'm buying my children the equivalent of their first carton of cigarettes at the age of eight and encouraging them to a lifetime of exposure to carcinogenic toxins, maybe I won't have to feel guilty when they get cancer in their early 30s. Maybe I won't be around at that time. Surely they'll have left the house by then and I won't be held responsible for their choices.
I know I'm being harsh. But when it comes down to it, every parent is responsible for protecting the long-term health of their child. If you know that something poses a long-term threat to them, how can you NOT do something about it, regardless of the personal inconvenience? Some parents argue that there are too many other imminent threats like car accidents, kidnappings, and accidental falls, etc. to worry about whether their child's cell phone is going to give them cancer 20 years from now.
But doesn't the same reasoning apply to second-hand cigarette smoke?

The Problem of Consent

The skeptical parent might say, "But no one has officially come out and banned cell phones. I'm going to wait until that happens before I do anything."
No one has come out and banned cell phones yet, but countries like Canada, Israel, Germany, India, France, Finland, Russia and Switzerland have issued  advisories to limit cell phone use for children under the age of 18.
It all boils down to informed consent. It's irresponsible to allow young children who are not old enough to understand the long-term risks of using cell phones to bathe in toxic radiofrequency radiation 24/7.

Other Countries' Wireless Safety Standards

Take a look at Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland, and Austria. All these countries have recently lowered their exposure limits from wireless transmitters in public places. In the case of Austria, the safe exposure limits are more than 5000 times lower than the current FCC standard. Don't believe me? Read our article, The Wireless Human Experiment. The rest of the world is waking up to this threat and is becoming proactive in protecting the health of their most valuable asset: their children.
When is the right time to do something: before the hurricane wipes you out, or after your children have already been swept away?
Don't you think it's time this great country of ours did a little more to protect our own?

Sign the Prove-It Initiative to ask the President to stay the installation of new wireless technologies until better safety standards can be implemented.
Sign the Cellphone Safety Pledge at the Center for Safer Wireless.

Important differences between The ICNIRP and IEEE standards and the FCC standard for cell phones.


Important differences between The ICNIRP and IEEE standards and the FCC standard for cell phones.

From Louis Slesin:
The current FCC emission standard for cell phones is 1.6 W/Kg averaged over 1g of tissue. The IEEE and ICNIRP standards are 2.0 W/Kg averaged over 10g of tissue. The difference between 1.6 and 2.0 may not seem large but it’s the averaging volume that is the key factor (as Henry Lai just pointed out to the CHE list -). [Included below].
Changing it from 1g to 10g would lead to a loosening of the cell phone standard by a factor of two or three, according to Jim Lin of the University of Illinois in Chicago. To put it another way, an SAR of 2 W/Kg averaged over 10g is approximately equivalent to an SAR of 4-6 W/Kg average over 1g.
Lin is no radical. He pointed out this difference back in the year 2000. Since then he has become the editor-in-chief of Bioelectromagnetics and is now a member of ICNIRP. Lin was one of those interviewed by the GAO for its new report (see p.32 of the report).
Back in August 2000 when the IEEE was considering “harmonizing” its 1.6 WKg over 1g standard with that of ICNIRP’s 2 W/kg over 10g, Microwave News wrote “If the two organizations [IEEE and NCRP] succeed in harmonizing their standards [with ICNIRP] and move away from the 1.6 W/Kg over 1g limit. would the U.S. FCC follow?” Today, a dozen years later, we may soon find out.
The NCRP is the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
IEEE did follow ICNIRP, as everyone expected. As for the NCRP, it was put out of business. Jim Lin was the chair of the NCRP committee that was working on revising its RF guidelines. At the time, Lin had made it clear that he would resist any loosening of the cell phone limit by switching the averaging volume from 1g to 10g. Was the closing down of Lin’s committee a coincidence? I don’t think so.
The NCRP no longer works on EMFs or RF, but that’s another story for another day
It’s also important to point out that the U.S. does NOT have an RF exposure standard. The EPA was going to propose one in the 1980′s after doing years of prep work, but then the agency was forced to give it up after the broadcasting industry raised a stink. (There were no cell phones back then.)
To read more about the 1g vs 10g issue, see MWN, J/A00 p.8 and MWN, N/D00 p.3. Both are free downloads available at:
http://microwavenews.com/back-issues.
I hope this helps clarify what I wrote a couple of days ago,
http://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/gao-fcc-reassess-rf-limits-cell-phones
Henry Lai on the GAO Report:
The GAO Report addresses mobile phone exposure, which is near-field partial body exposure. The concern is in the last paragraph on page 17 of the Report- whether exposure limits should be based on SAR averaged over one or ten grams of tissue. As far as I know, the US FCC still uses 1-gm averaging whereas IEEE and ICNIRP recommend 10-gm. Averaging over 10 gm would allow higher emission from a phone- thus higher exposure.

Cellphone exposure limits should be reassessed, GAO recommends


Posted at 02:30 PM ET, 08/07/2012

Cellphone exposure limits should be reassessed, GAO recommends

This story has been updated.
Mobile phone exposure limits and testing requirements should be reassessed, according to a Government Accountability Office study released Tuesday.
The study, the culmination of a year-long review done at the urging of lawmakers, comes at a time of heightened concern about the possible impact of cellphone radiation on human health. Its findings may prompt the Federal Communications Commission to update its standards to more accurately reflect how people use their cellphones.
While the report did not suggest that cellphone use causes cancer, the agency did say that FCC’s current energy exposure limit for mobile phones, established in 1996, “may not reflect the latest evidence on the the effects” of cellphones. The study recommends that the FCC reassess two things: the current exposure limit and the way it tests exposure.
In its conclusions, the report says that the FCC has not formally coordinated with the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency on the exposure limits. The report also raised questions about the FCC’s decision to only test exposure at a distance from a body while using an earpiece, simulating, for example, someone setting their phone on a nearby table rather than in their pocket while speaking.
The FCC, the report said, “may not be identifying the maximum exposure, since some users may hold a mobile phone directly against the body while in use.”
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who called for the GAO to conduct the report said that the study highlights that the FCC is behind the curve when it comes to evaluating the effects cellphones have on the human body.
“With mobile phones in the pockets and purses of millions of Americans, we need a full understanding of the long-term impact of mobile phone use on the human body, particularly in children whose brains and nervous systems are still developing,” Markey said.
Ahead of the study’s release, there’s been renewed interest in the area of cellphone radiation. The FCC has already said that it will investigate whether it should take a new look at the issue.
On Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a bill that would put warning labels on cellphones and tap the Environmental Protection Agency — not the FCC — to lead the way in examining the effects that radiation has on the human body.
In a statement, Kucinich said that cellphone users have a right to know how much radiation their phones give off, particularly as people spend more time with them, and not wait for scientists to prove whether there are harmful effects behind cellphone radiation or not.
“It took decades for scientists to be able to say for sure that smoking caused cancer,” Kucinich said. “While we wait for scientists to sort out the health effects of cell phone radiation, we must allow consumers to have enough information to choose a phone with less radiation.”
The city of San Francisco is looking at a labeling measure similar to the one proposed by Kucinich. CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade group, has filed a lawsuit against the proposed ordinance.
In response to the report, the FCC said that it will ask multiple stakeholders — including federal health agencies — for input as it assesses its standards.
"The U.S. has among the most conservative standards in the world,” said FCC spokesman Neil Grace in a statement. “As part of our routine review of these standards, which we began earlier this summer, we will solicit input from multiple stakeholder experts, including federal health agencies and others, to guide our assessment. We look forward to reviewing today's GAO report as part of that consideration."
By   |  02:30 PM ET, 08/07/2012