|
There are no translations available
USA: Better safe than sorry. Publicist Ralph E. Stone over de gevaren
van draadloze technologie.
maandag, 05 juli 2010 - Dossier:
Internationale berichten
Bron: Salem Nemws (Oregon) 4 juli 2010
Cell Phone Health Hazards: Better Safe Than Sorry
Ralph E. Stone Salem-News.com
''Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of
cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland
tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia, The
public must be informed.'' - August '09 report on cell phone hazards
Cell phones
There are several things a person needs to know about cell phone use
and related health and life hazards.
(SAN FRANCISCO) - As of June 2009, there were an estimated 4.3
billion cell phone (mobile phones) users worldwide. In the United
States, it is estimated that more than fifty percent of children own
their own personal cell phones.
A growing body of scientific evidence shows that there are
significant health hazards to their use, including brain tumors; damage
to DNA, an undisputed cause of cancer; blood-brain barriers (BBB)
leakage (BBB protects the brain from many molecules that are toxic to
the brain; and male fertility damage by cell phone use because men,
especially teenagers, put their cell phones in their pockets when not in
use, causing a deleterious effect on sperm count and sperm motility.
Introduction
On May 6, 2010, the President's Cancer Panel reported that "the true
burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly
underestimated" and named cell phones and other wireless technologies as
potential causes of cancer that demand further research and precaution.
On June 15, 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to
require retailers to post in their stores notices on the level of
radiation emitted by the cell phones they offer. San Francisco Mayor
Gavin Newsom said he would sign the legislation once it reaches his
desk. The proposed ordinance would not ban the sale of certain cell
phones, but would require retailers to provide the ''specific absorption
rate'' - a measurement of radiation registered with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) - next to phones displayed in their
shops. Consumers also would be notified about where they can get more
educational materials.
On June 30, 2010, U.S. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)
stated that he will introduce a bill for a federal research program on
the affects of cell phone radiation on users. The bill will also call
for a warning label on cell phones.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
The telecommunications industry helped write Section 704 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act), 47 U.S.C. § 332, Under the Act,
communities have rights over the general placement, construction, and
modification of cell phone towers, but cannot ban them altogether. Nor
can they set zoning regulations based on ''the environmental effects of
radio-frequency emissions, to the extent that such facilities comply
with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such
emissions.'' It is still in dispute as to whether Section 704 covers
the environmental (health) effects. It will ultimately be up to a
federal court to decide whether a city or town can refuse a request to
build a tower or other installation based on the health effects of
radio-frequency (RF) emissions.
As of now, the FCC standards are based only on the thermal effects
or the RF's ability to heat tissue, not on non-thermal effects. The FCC
has neither the money, manpower nor inclination to properly monitor
radiation output of tens of thousands of commercial wireless
installations and admits that it does not have the ability to physical
test radiation output.
Catch 22
A plaintiff seeking to challenge an industry member's non-thermal
health hazards of a cell phone or cell phone tower faces a Catch 22
situation. All the industry member has to prove is that it complies with
FCC regulations concerning thermal emissions. The FCC has no
regulations concerning non-thermal emissions. As there is seemingly
contradictory research on whether non-thermal emissions are hazardous to
health, the courts so far have ruled for the industry.
However, an August 25, 2009 report, Cellphones and Brain Tumors:
Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern. Science, Spin and
the Truth Behind Interphone (Report)
radiationresearch.org/pdfs/reasons_us.pdf, endorsed by more than 40
scientists and officials from 14 countries, found that: studies that are
independent of the telecom industry consistently show there is a
''significant'' risk for brain tumors from cell phone use; the
electronicmagnetic field (EMF) exposure limits advocated by industry and
used by governments are based on a false premise that a cell phone's
EMF has no biological effects except for heating; and the danger of
brain tumors from cell phone use is highest in children, and the younger
a child is when he/she starts using a cell phone, the higher the risk.
The Report persuasively argues that if there is any inconsistency
among the research, it is between industry-funded research with flawed
design study protocols and independent research. The industry-funded
research tends to underestimate the risk of brain tumors from cell phone
use while the independent research tends to show a significant risk of
brain tumors from cell phone use. In addition, the Report points out
that there are thousands of studies showing biological effects --
non-thermal effects from EMF -- at exposures far below the thermal
effects authorized by FCC regulations.
The Report further points out that Dr. George Carlo, leader of the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's (CTIA) $25 million
research project found a statistically significant doubling of brain
cancer risk.
In addition, independent studies conducted by Professor Lennart
Hardell in Sweden found significant increased risk of brain tumors from
ten or more years of cell phone use with the risk of brain cancer
increasing by 5 percent; for every year of cell phone use the risk of
brain cancer increases by 8 percent; after ten years or more years of
digital cell phone use, there was a 280 percent increased risk of brain
cancer; and for digital cell phone users who were teenagers or younger
when they first started using cell phones, there was a 420 percent
increased risk of cancer. This suggests that the two highest risks are
ten or more years of cell phone use and the cell phone was held on the
same side of the head where the tumor was diagnosed. Finally, the
telecommunications industry, on the one hand, disputes the non-thermal
risk of cell phones, but yet, their user manuals warn customers to keep
cell phone away from the body even when the cell phone is not in use.
Are these industry members erring on the side of caution or are the
warnings an implicit admission that a health hazard exists? For example,
Nokia 1100 warns: ''This product meets RF exposure guidelines . . .
when positioned at least 1.5 cm (about 1 inch) away from the body . . .
and should position the product at least 1.5 cm away from your body.''
Similarly, Motorola V195 GSM manual warns to keep the mobile device
2.5 cm from the body. And the BlackBerry 8300 manual warns to keep the
device at least 0.98 from the body and ''should not be worn or carried
on the body.'' But how many owners read their manuals? If the warnings
were meant to be read, they should be on the device itself. And if these
companies were truly concerned about safety, the device could be
manufactured so it cannot be used closer than the ''safe'' limits.
Children's Use of Cell Phones
In April 2009, the European Parliament by a vote of 559 to 22 (8
abstentions) voted for a set of changes based on the health concerns
associated with EMF.
Among the actions called for are a review of the scientific basis
and adequacy of the EMF exposure limits, finance a wide ranging
awareness campaign aimed at young people to minimize their exposure to
cell phone radiation, to increase research funding, condemnation of
marketing campaigns for the sale of cell phones designed solely for
children, require labeling requirements on all wireless operated
devices, and expressing concern that insurance companies are tending to
exclude coverage for the risk of EMF liability insurance.
There have also been numerous governmental warnings about children's
use of cell phones.
France is about to make it illegal to market cell phones to children
and recently banned cell phones in elementary schools, is requiring
manufacturers to develop a new kind of cell phone for children under
eight, which would allow only the receipt and sending of text messages
so the cell phone would not be placed at the side of the head. Russian
officials have recommended that children under the age of 18 not use
cell phones at all. Similarly, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium,
Germany, and India have discouraged the use of cell phones by children.
Toronto's Department of Public Health has advised that children
under eight should only use cell phones in emergencies and teenagers
should limit calls to ten minutes.
The Report recommends a number of personal actions parents can take
to reduce their children's exposure to cell phone radiation. Children
should use a wired headset (not a wireless headset like Bluetooth), or
use the speaker-phone mode, or only send text messages. The cell phone
should be kept away from the body or use a belt holster designed to
shield the body from cell phone radiation when not in use. Avoid cell
phone use in a moving car, train, or bus, or in buildings --
particularly with steel structures -- as this will increase the power of
the cell phone's radiation. Keep the cell phone off until you want to
see who called. Whenever possible, use a corded land-line phone instead
of a wireless phone. Do not allow children under 18 to use a cell phone
except in emergencies. I do not underestimate the difficulty parents
will have in enforcing this last recommendation.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Who should have the burden of proof on the health hazards of cell
phones: the industry or the individual user? Assuming for argument's
sake that the scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or
uncertain, if there are reasonable scientific grounds for concern about
the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or
plant health, the burden should shift to the industry. After all, a drug
cannot be sold without proof that it is safe, nor can a food be
launched without prior approval. Yet, we can use mobile telephony,
including masts, and introduce WiFi and cell phones, without
restrictions around our children, a double-standard gone insane.
Report Recommendations
The Report recommends the following:
* Ban marketing campaigns of cell phones designed solely for
children.
* Require proof of liability insurance coverage for potential health
risks associated with cell phones and similar wireless devices prior to
their being offered for sale.
* Review the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF exposure
limits.
* Allocate research funding independent of industry funds and
influence, to evaluate long-term effects from cell phones and other
harmful effects from different sources of EMF, particularly where
children are involved.
* Finance a wide-ranging awareness campaigns aimed at young people
to minimize their exposures to cell phone radiation.
* Require warning labels on all wireless devices.
* Make available maps showing exposure to high-voltage power lines,
radio frequency and microwaves from telecommunications cell towers,
radio repeaters, and telephone antennas.
Conclusion
The following is a quote from L.Lloyd Morgan, the main editor of the
Report:
''Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health
experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has over 4
billion participants enrolled. Science has shown increased risk of brain
tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer,
salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and
leukemia, The public must be informed.'' San Francisco's proposed
legislation and Rep. Kucinich's proposed bill requiring retailers to
post in their stores notices on the level of radiation emitted by the
cell phones they offer is a modest beginning to warn the public about a
serious health problem. It is better to be safe than sorry.''
Finally, I highly recommend reading the Report; it is a sobering
read.
==================================================
Salem-News.com writer Ralph E. Stone was born in Massachusetts. He
is a graduate of both Middlebury College and Suffolk Law School. We are
very fortunate to have this writer's talents in this troubling world;
Ralph has an eye for detail that others miss. As is the case with many
Salem-News.com writers, Ralph is an American Veteran who served in war.
Ralph served his nation after college as a U.S. Army officer during the
Vietnam war. After Vietnam, he went on to have a career with the Federal
Trade Commission as an Attorney specializing in Consumer and Antitrust
Law. Over the years, Ralph has traveled extensively with his wife Judi,
taking in data from all over the world, which today adds to his
collective knowledge about extremely important subjects like the economy
and taxation. You can send Ralph an email at this address
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
News 