Friday, January 30, 2015

IEEE Committee on Man And Radiation-COMAR Technical Information Statement Radiofrequency Safety and Utility Smart Meters


IEEE Committee on Man And Radiation-COMAR Technical Information Statement Radiofrequency Safety and Utility Smart Meters


Bushberg JT, Foster KR, Hatfield JB, Thansandote A, Tell RA. IEEE Committee on Man And Radiation-COMAR Technical Information Statement Radiofrequency Safety and Utility Smart Meters. Health Phys. 2015 Mar;108(3):388-91. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000217.

Abstract

This Technical Information Statement describes Smart Meter technology as used with modern electric power metering systems and focuses on the radio frequency (RF) emissions associated with their operation relative to human RF exposure limits. Smart Meters typically employ low power (-1 W or less) transmitters that wirelessly send electric energy usage data to the utility company several times per day in the form of brief, pulsed emissions in the unlicensed frequency bands of 902-928 MHz and 2.4-2.48 GHz or on other nearby frequencies. Most Smart Meters operate as wireless mesh networks where each Smart Meter can communicate with other neighboring meters to relay data to a data collection point in the region. This communication process includes RF emissions from Smart Meters representing energy usage as well as the relaying of data from other meters and emissions associated with maintaining the meter's hierarchy within the wireless network. As a consequence, most Smart Meters emit RF pulses throughout the day, more at certain times and less at others. However, the duty cycle associated with all of these emissions is very small, typically less than 1%, and most of the time far less than 1%, meaning that most Smart Meters actually transmit RF fields for only a few minutes per day at most. The low peak power of Smart Meters and the very low duty cycles lead to the fact that accessible RF fields near Smart Meters are far below both U.S. and international RF safety limits whether judged on the basis of instantaneous peak power densities or time-averaged exposures. This conclusion holds for Smart Meters alone or installed in large banks of meters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25627954?dopt=Abstract

http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/COMAR%20Smart%20Meter%20TIS%20%289-25-2013%29.pdf

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Evaluation of Electromagnetic Interference and Exposure Assessment from s-Health Solutions Based on Wi-Fi Devices

Evaluation of Electromagnetic Interference and Exposure Assessment from s-Health Solutions Based on Wi-Fi Devices


de Miguel-Bilbao S, Aguirre E, Lopez Iturri P, Azpilicueta L, Roldán J, Falcone F, Ramos V. Evaluation of Electromagnetic Interference and Exposure Assessment from s-Health Solutions Based on Wi-Fi Devices. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:784362. doi: 10.1155/2015/784362. Epub 2015 Jan 6.

Abstract

In the last decade the number of wireless devices operating at the frequency band of 2.4 GHz has increased in several settings, such as healthcare, occupational, and household. In this work, the emissions from Wi-Fi transceivers applicable to context aware scenarios are analyzed in terms of potential interference and assessment on exposure guideline compliance. Near field measurement results as well as deterministic simulation results on realistic indoor environments are presented, providing insight on the interaction between the Wi-Fi transceiver and implantable/body area network devices as well as other transceivers operating within an indoor environment, exhibiting topological and morphological complexity. By following approaches (near field estimation/deterministic estimation), colocated body situations as well as large indoor emissions can be determined. The results show in general compliance with exposure levels and the impact of overall network deployment, which can be optimized in order to reduce overall interference levels while maximizing system performance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25632400?dopt=Abstract
Excerpts

The specific Wi-Fi module was a WiFly GSX 802.11 b/g wireless LAN module that operates with the protocol 802.11 g, whose maximum allowed power is 10 dBm. A specific architecture to generate traffic from the Wi-Fi module was implemented in order to operate the employed Wi-Fi module, depicted in Figure 2. Transmission routines of the Wi-Fi module have been programmed with Arduino, and a specific connection is established with an auxiliary access point (AP).

At 2.4 GHz, the wavelength is about 12.5 cm, which means the reactive near field extends to around 2 cm from the source. Taking into account that the length of the antenna of the Wi-Fi module is 3 cm, the radiating near field extends no further than around 1.44 cm at 2.4 GHz. The minimum distance between the probe and the antenna is 2 mm, so the great majority of the measurements during this work were made in the far field region with respect to the source.

As it can be seen from the results obtained from the near field measurement setup, the highest measured level of the E-field is 27.1 V/m, which exceeded the most restrictive value of 3 V/m that is established in the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard of Electromedical Devices [8]. Therefore, use of the proposed transceiver must be carefully evaluated in terms of maximum allowed transmit power, in order to comply with previously stated guidelines. These near field results will be complemented with emission and interference estimation in a conventional indoor scenario in the following section.

... both the measurements and simulation results comply with the recommendations proposed by ICNIRP, being the maximum allowed level of 61 V/m and 0.05 V/m the received electric field level in the worst case.

...  is important to stress again upon the influence of the people considered inside the room and the fact that most of the launched rays are absorbed by them decreasing considerably the number of rays and the delay spread time.

In Figure 13, SAR values for the person who is nearest to the antenna are depicted. In this case the human body is situated in profile to the antenna and, therefore, the highest SAR values are received in the right side of the body. Nevertheless and considering the low electric field and power received in aforementioned experiments, SAR values are far away from the recommendations collected in ICNIRP guidelines [3], reaching 0.00037 W/kg mean in whole body and being 0.08 W/kg the limit value which ICNIRP recommends.

The value of the E-field is 27.1 V/m; this involves that the more restrictive threshold of 3 V/m, established in the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard of Electromedical Devices [8], is exceeded. It is important to consider that the device under test was transmitting information continuously while the measurement campaign have been carried out, which means a duty factor of 100%. The duty factor is referred to as the relation between the time interval of effective transmission and the total duration of the transmission. Usually, Wi-Fi devices do not transmit information continuously, depending on traffic demands, adaptive modulation and coding schemes and additional quality of service constraints. It has been documented that exposure levels of the EM field depend on the data rate at which the information is being transmitted [21]. Regarding the influence of wireless local area networks (WLAN), no electromagnetic interference caused by the WLAN technology was documented by using in vitro testing of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) [22]. In order to avoid medical device malfunction, it is recommended to maintain a distance from the transmitting device greater than 1 m.

It is worth noting that all the field strengths recorded in this study are well below the corresponding ICNIRP reference level of 61 V/m defined for the general public at the working frequency (2.4 GHz) [3].


--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: EESC urges continuance of the precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: EESC urges continuance of the precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work


Press Release, European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Jan 23, 2015             Ref: 06/2015

At its January plenary session, the EESC adopted an opinion on electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome (EHS) which recognises the distress being suffered by people in Europe who believe they are affected. The opinion, which was adopted by 136 votes to 110 with 19 abstentions, calls for sympathetic and appropriate treatment and support for this condition.
Although the EESC opinion says that radiofrequency exposure is not causally linked to EHS symptoms, it urges continuance of the precautionary principle through regulation and advisory work, particularly as further research is still needed to accumulate evidence concerning any potential health impact from long-term exposure. 
The EESC opinion on electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome points out that further substantial research is ongoing to understand the problem and its causes. It also notes that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has performed an extensive analysis of this issue and will shortly be completing its latest opinion which draws on a broad public consultation. The opinion will soon be adopted and will be published on the SCENIHR website (http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/index_en.htm).
http://bit.ly/1BAvqz9

-- 
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Risk for Glioma Triples With Long-Term Cell Phone Use


Risk for Glioma Triples With Long-Term Cell Phone Use 


Pauline Anderson, Medscape Public Health and Prevention, Jan 14, 2015

CME/CE credit available
Clinical Context
During the last decade, there has been a dramatic global increase in wireless communication use, resulting in greater exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Health risk concerns center on the brain, which is the main target of RF-EMF during use of mobile or cordless phones.
Some evidence suggests the possibility of increased brain tumor risk associated with use of wireless phones, but findings to date have been mixed and inconclusive. The International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization concluded that RF-EMF exposure is "possibly" a human carcinogen.
Study Synopsis and Perspective
Long-term use of both mobile and cordless phones is associated with an increased risk for glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, the latest research on the topic concludes.
The new study shows that the risk for glioma was tripled among those using a wireless phone for more than 25 years and that the risk was also greater for those who had started using mobile or cordless phones before age 20 years.
"Doctors should be very concerned by this and discuss precautions with their patients," study author Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.
Such precautions, he said, include using hands-free phones with the "loud speaker" feature and text messaging instead of phoning.
The study was published online October 28 in Pathophysiology.
Pooled Data
The recent worldwide increase in use of wireless communications has resulted in greater exposure to RF-EMF. The brain is the main target of RF-EMF when these phones are used, with the highest exposure being on the same side of the brain where the phone is placed.
The new study pooled data from 2 case-control studies on histopathologically confirmed malignant brain tumors. The first included patients 20 to 80 years old diagnosed from 1997 to 2003, and the second included those 18 to 75 years old diagnosed between 2007 and 2009. Patients came from 6 oncology centers in Sweden.
Patients were matched with control participants of the same gender and approximate age who were randomly drawn from the Swedish Population Registry.
All participants filled out a questionnaire detailing exposure to mobile phones and cordless desktop phones.
The analysis included 1498 cases of patients with malignant brain tumors; the mean age was 52 years. Most patients (92%) had a diagnosis of glioma, and just more than half of the gliomas (50.3%) were the most malignant variety --- astrocytoma grade 4 (glioblastoma multiforme). Also included were 3530 control participants, with a mean age of 54 years.
The analysis showed an increased risk for glioma associated with use for more than 1 year of both mobile and cordless phones after adjustment for age at diagnosis, gender, socioeconomic index, and year of diagnosis. The highest risk was for those with the longest latency for mobile phone use at 25 years.
Table. Glioma Risk With Mobile and Cordless Phone Use
Phone UseOdds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)
Mobile phone use > 1 year1.3 (1.1 - 1.6)
Cordless phone use > 1 year1.4 (1.1 - 1.7)
Mobile phone use > 25 years3.0 (1.7 - 5.2)
The risk was increased the more that wireless phones were used. The odds ratios (ORs) steadily increased with increasing hours of use.
The risk for glioma was greatest in the most exposed part of the brain. The ORs were higher for ipsilateral exposure and for glioma in the temporal and overlapping lobes.
Furthermore, the risk was highest among participants who first used a mobile phone (OR, 1.8) or cordless phone (OR, 2.3) before age 20 years, although the number of patients and control participants was relatively small.
Developing Brain
As Dr Hardell explained, children and adolescents are more exposed to RF-EMF than adults because of their thinner skull bone and smaller head and the higher conductivity in their brain tissue. The brain is still developing up to approximately age 20 years, and until that time, it is relatively vulnerable, he said.
There was a higher risk for third-generation (3G) mobile phone use compared with other types, but this was based on short latency and rather low numbers of exposed participants, said the authors. 3G universal global telecommunications system mobile phones emit wide-band microwave signals, which "hypothetically" may result in higher biological effects compared with other signals, they write.
Such biological effects, said Dr Hardell, could include an increase in reactive oxygen species, which several articles have linked to cancer. The p53 gene has also been implicated, he said.
The study's very high participation rate (86% for patients and 87% for control participants) makes it unlikely that selection bias influenced the results, said the authors.
Dr Hardell believes the new findings reinforce the message that EF-EMF emissions from wireless phones should be regarded as carcinogenic under IARC classifications and that current guidelines for exposure "should be urgently revised" to reflect that.
According to the IARC's 2013 report, there is a "causal" relationship between use of both mobile and cordless phones and that the risk for glioma is "possible."
Numerous studies have looked at the link between use of wireless phones and brain tumors. Studies by Dr Hardell and his colleagues dating back to the late 1990s have found a connection with mobile and cordless phones.
However, the INTERPHONE study (Int J Epidemiol 2011;39:675-694Cancer Epidemiol 2011;32:453-464) failed to find strong evidence that mobile phones increase the risk for brain tumors.
In addition, a large prospective study (Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:792-802) found that mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidences of glioma, meningioma, or noncentral nervous system cancers in middle-aged British women.
According to Dr Hardell, this last study was limited because it used information at one point in time. "It is not a case-control study and has serious problems with the methods used," he told Medscape Medical News.
Evidence "Unconvincing"
Reached for a comment, L. Dade Lunsford, MD, Lars Leksell Professor of Neurosurgery, and director, Center for Image Guided Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said that the new study provides additional "but as yet unconvincing" evidence of a potential role of cell or cordless phone technologies in the pathogenesis of gliomas.
He noted that some features were not controlled for, including ionizing radiation exposure and family history.
As well, he said, the study has recall bias, with results possibly being affected by patients being anxious to solve the question of "why me?"
"It is of interest that the only study that used actual industry data of cell phone use (the Danish study [Lancet Oncol2011;12:624-626Rev Environment Health 2012;27:51-58]) was dismissed by the authors as 'uninformative'," he said. "Perhaps it was not supportive of the author's premise."
Although the study did not specify the side of the tumor, Dr Lunsford pointed out that roughly 90% of the world's population is right-handed and that most hold their mobile phone to their left ear in order to write with their dominant hand. "One could theorize then that left-sided tumors would predominate with the temporal lobe being most adjacent to the cell phone output."
Dr Lunsford also commented that both glial and Schwann cells are late-responding tissues and that the oncogenesis of such cells by mobile phone technologies remains unexplained. "If cell phones cause such tumors, why do patients not develop higher rates of ipsilateral basal or squamous cell cancers, or melanomas -- these are frequently dividing cell lines that theoretically ought to be even more susceptible."
Although the potential role of cell phones as an additional factor in oncogenesis "can't be dismissed out of hand," the use of this technology does save lives, stressed Dr Lunsford.
"Cell phone has provided an amazing safety net for citizens of almost all cultures across the world. The lives saved by the proliferation of cell phone communication [are] phenomenal -- emergency calls, quick first responders, warnings of severe weather are only a few examples."
Pathophysiology. Published online October 28, 2014. Abstract
Study Highlights
  • The investigators pooled data from 2 case-control studies of malignant brain tumors from patients diagnosed in Sweden during 1997 to 2003 (diagnosis at ages 20 - 80 years) and 2007 to 2009 (ages 18 - 75 years).
  • The investigators included only cases in which the tumor was confirmed by histopathologic examination.
  • Population-based control participants were matched for age and gender.
  • Questionnaires allowed determination of exposures to cell and cordless phone use.
  • Unconditional regression analysis used the entire reference group, with adjustment for gender, age, year of diagnosis, and socioeconomic index.
  • Response rates were 89% for patients (n = 1498) and 87% for control participants (n = 3530).
  • Among the patients, 92% had glioma, of which 50.3% of these tumors were highly malignant glioblastoma multiforme (astrocytoma grade 4).
  • Overall, mobile phone use was associated with a 30% increased risk for glioma (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 - 1.6).
  • For mobile phone use in the latency group of more than 25 years, the risk for glioma was tripled that in the control participants (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7 - 5.2).
  • Use of cordless phones was associated with an overall 40% increased risk for glioma (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 - 1.7), with risk increased further to 70% in the latency group of 15 to 20 years (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 - 2.5).
  • There were statistically significant increases in OR both per 100 hours of cumulative use, and per year of latency for mobile and cordless phone use.
  • The risk was greatest for ipsilateral glioma (OR, 1.8 for mobile phone use; 95% CI, 1.4 - 2.2 and OR, 1.7 for cordless phone use; 95% CI, 1.3 - 2.1).
  • In terms of location, the risk was greatest for glioma in the temporal and overlapping lobes, corresponding to the region of highest RF-EMF exposure.
  • Beginning mobile or cordless phone use before age 20 years was associated with a higher risk for glioma compared with mobile or cordless phone use beginning at later ages.
  • Although glioma risk was higher with use of 3G mobile phones, this was based on short latency and a small sample of exposed cases.
  • Limitations of this study include possible recall bias or observational bias and relatively small numbers of patients and control participants in certain subgroups.
  • Possible precautions to limit RF-EMF exposure during mobile or cordless phone use include using hands-free phones with a loud speaker and text messaging instead of telephoning.
Clinical Implications
  • The risk for glioma is increased with cell and cordless phone use, based on an analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden.
  • The risk associated with cell and cordless phone use is especially increased for ipsilateral glioma of the temporal and overlapping lobes, particularly for longer exposure starting at younger ages.
http://bit.ly/1CNAJ00

-- 
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Lessons Learned: The Precautionary Principle - The Wingspread Statement


Lessons Learned: The Precautionary Principle - The Wingspread Statement


Toxipedia Newsletter, Jan 28, 2015

On January 15, 1998 the precautionary principle was defined at a weekend meeting at Wingspread, headquarters of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin. Subsequently known as the Wingspread statement, the precautionary principle was defined as follows: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

The roots of the precautionary principle can be traced to statements by Aldo Leopold (1949) and Sir Austin Bradford Hill(1965), and it is also addressed in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

The precautionary principle is increasingly recognized as a foundation for decision making to protect human heath and the environment. Below are its five key elements:
1. Taking anticipatory action to prevent harm in the face of scientific uncertainty.
2. Exploring alternatives, including the alternative of "no action."
3. Considering the full cost of environmental and health impacts over time.
4. Increasing public participation in decision making.
5. Shifting the responsibility for providing evidence to the proponents of an activity.

Learn more about the precautionary principle here: http://bit.ly/1Hfx2El
--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Buyer Beware: Cell Phone Radiation-Reducing Products

Buyer Beware: Cell Phone Radiation-Reducing Products


About once a week someone asks me to recommend a harm reduction product to reduce the exposure to the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by their cell phone.

Every few months a manufacturer asks me to endorse a new radiation-reducing product.

To avoid conflicts of interest, I do not endorse any products. Moreover, I have little confidence in manufacturers' product safety claims even from manufacturers who report independent laboratory test results for their products. 

Rather, I recommend people reduce their EMR exposure by making some simple behavioral changes. See "Some Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation" on my EMR Safety web site for some suggestions.


As I discussed in an interview in 2011, although the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires every cell phone in the U.S. to be tested in a laboratory for its Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), this measure is not useful to determine whether one cell phone is safer than another. In my opinion, the SAR is not useful to determine whether any cell phone is safe.

In sum, consumers would be wise to pay attention to the Federal Trade Commission's advice: "there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions."


-- 
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Lifting Cell Phone Ban in Schools Leaves Some Parents & Educators Concerned

Lifting Cell Phone Ban in Schools Leaves Some Parents & Educators Concerned

By Stephen Witt
January 24, 2015 16:39

Lifting Cell Phone Ban in Schools Leaves Some Parents & Educators Concerned


Allowing cell phones in classrooms have some parents concerned.
Allowing cell phones in classrooms have some parents concerned.

By Stephen Witt

As Mayor Bill de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña ready for the city to lift the ban on cell phones in schools, not all parents and educators are in agreement with the policy shift, and some think it could cause more problems in the learning process.


“I’m not for the lifting of the ban. I think it will be a huge distraction for students and cause a lot of conflicts between students in the schools,” said Oma Holloway, a Bed-Stuy mother of an 8-year-old child and a community activist.


“I think it’s totally appropriate not to have cell phones in classrooms. Most schools have emergency systems in place where parents can be contacted or texted, and they will cause distractions in the classroom,” she added.


Holloway also mentors several dozen local youths between the ages of 14-21 on a weekly basis as part of the Bed-Stuy YES (Youth Education Safety) task force. In this role, she said she spends a lot of time in this mentor role telling the students to put away their cell phones.


“I truly don’t see the value of lifting the ban. Maybe I need to be more educated, but I think it will cause more problems for parents and teachers in the classrooms and I would rather the children be focused on education. As a parent advocate, I don’t think I’m in the minority.


In lifting the ban, de Blasio said the change will better enable parents to stay in touch with their children, especially before and after school. It will also end the inequity under the current ban, which was enforced mostly at schools with metal detectors in low-income communities.


The existing Chancellor’s Regulation bans cell phones and other electronic devices like iPads from school property. Students are required to leave their cell phones at home or leave them outside the building, often incurring a daily charge for private storage that can cost a family on average $180 each year.


As part of the change, schools will increase education and training to identify and prevent cyber-bullying, including a “Misuse It, You Lose It” policy. 


“Parents should be able to call or text their kids. That’s something Chirlane and I felt ourselves when Chiara took the subway to high school in another borough each day, and we know it’s a sentiment parents across this city share,” said de Blasio.


“Lifting the ban respects families, and it will end the unequal enforcement that has penalized students at so many high-needs schools. We are giving educators the tools and the flexibility to make this change responsibly,” he added.


The lifting of the ban also has the support of the public schools’ teachers union (UFT), but charter schools are allowed to set their own policy on the matter.


For example, Holloway’s child attends the Community Partnership Charter School, which shares classroom space with PS 270, across the street from Lafayette Gardens.


“At my child’s school, no cell phones are allowed in the classroom and the school strongly encourages parents to not have their children bring cell phones to school,” Holloway said.
The new changes would remove cell phones and electronic communication devices from the list of banned items in schools. Under the new regulation, principals will consult with School Leadership Teams in deciding among a range of options for their schools, depending on what they feel best meets the needs of their students, families and educators.


For schools that do not develop a written cell phone policy promptly, the default will be a policy that allows students to bring cell phones into the building, but requires that the school or students store the phones out of sight for the duration of the school day.
All cell phone policies must prohibit the use of cell phones during examinations, as well as during internal emergency preparedness drills and exercises, and be consistent with the DOE’s Discipline Code. Schools will have a range of options for discipline in cases where cell phones are misused, including confiscation.


The proposed changes must be approved by the Panel for Educational Policy. These changes will be voted on at the panel’s February 25 meeting. If passed, as expected, the new rule will go in effect March 2.


http://ourtimepress.com/?p=15953