U.C. Berkeley Professor: Please tell the FCC -- Wireless is harmful at currently allowed levels

[pnwmom]

Last edited Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:11 PM - Edit history (3)

www.stopsmartmeters.org

FCC Needs Input about Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering changes to the exposure policy for radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the United States. The agency has requested comments be submitted by September 3, 2013.

We need to deliver scientific information to policy makers in a credible and understandable fashion to protect the future health and safety of our children and grandchildren.

Grassroots Environmental Education has launched a comments web site to help scientists, medical and public health professionals, and technical and policy experts from around the world to submit comments and peer-reviewed publications to the FCC.

RF Rad Comments is a cooperative project bringing together individuals and organizations concerned about reducing human exposure to RF radiation (e.g., cell phones and cordless phones, Wi-Fi and Smart Meters). The site describes two options for submitting comments: (1) through the RF Rad web site, or( 2) directly to the FCC. The site contains a list of key issues and reference documents. Since the site is a work in progress, your comments on the web site are appreciated. Please send them to [e-mail].

Please feel free to forward this message. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this effort.

Sincerely,

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

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

________________________________

Another expert who is concerned about long term effects of RF exposure, particularly on children:


http://electromagneticsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ArizonaSmartMeters.David_.O.Carpenter.MD_.MPH-Expert-Opinion.9June2013.pdf
Affadavit before the Arizona Corporations Commission

Credentials and experience:

My name is David O. Carpenter. I am a public health physician who currently holds the positions of Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences in the School of Public Health at the University at Albany and Honorary Professor, Queensland Children’s Medical Research Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. After graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Medical School I chose a career of research and public health, rather than the practice of patient medicine.

I spent seven years doing basic neuroscience research at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, MD, and then accepted a position that I held for eight years as a department head in the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI), also in Bethesda. AFRRI is the primary Department of Defense research institute dealing with the health effects of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. The radiofrequency fields used by smart meters are one form of non-ionizing radiation.

Two of the major public health issues in New York in the late 1970s were Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Because of my experience with neurotoxicology (relevant to Love Canal) and radiation biology (relevant to Three Mile Island and electromagnetic fields), I was recruited to become the Director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health in 1980. The Wadsworth Laboratories are the third largest public health laboratories in the United States, with about 1,000 employees at that time.
(SNIP)

Health Affects of Radiofrequency Fields:

(SNIP)
With the advent of enormous increases in the use of cell phones, we now have a situation in which a very large segment of society is regularly exposed to high levels of RF. In addition, the whole population has increased exposure through the placement of cell phone towers, wireless buildings and even wireless cities. Smart meters are one of the newest forms of RF radiation exposure.
The strongest evidence for hazards from exposure to RF radiation has come from Europe, especially Scandinavia, where cell phones were initially manufactured and have been in wide use for a longer period of time than in other parts of the world. Long- term use of a cell phone is associated with an elevated risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, but only on the side of the head where the phone is regularly used. Acoustic neuromas are a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, but they, like other brain tumors, can be life-threatening because they are space occupying and grow within the bony skull. In a meta-analysis (a review and evaluation of multiple research studies), Hardell et al. (2008) reported an odds ratio (OR) of 2.0 (95% CI = 1.2-3.4) for glioma among adults who have used a cell phone for ten years or more, but only on the side of the head where the phone was used. (An odds ratio is the ratio of disease found in the exposed population as compared to those not exposed. Thus an OR of 2.0 means that the risk of developing a brain tumor was doubled in those who used a cell phone for 10 or more years as compared to those did not use a cell phone. CI stands for confidence interval, and if the lower number is greater than 1.0 epidemiologists consider that the relationship is statistically significant). There was also an OR of 2.4 (95% CI = 1.1-5.3) for acoustic neuroma among long-term users. Risks for meningioma, another type of brain cancer, were elevated, but not significantly so. Kundi (2009) has reported on 33 epidemiological studies, and finds that the combined ORs from these studies show an OR of 1.5 (95% CI = 1.2-1.8) for glioma. There was also a non-significant elevation in ORs for acoustic neuroma but no relationship with meningioma.

The INTERPHONE study was a 13-nation investigation coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the first results were published in 2010 by The Interphone Study Group. While no excess risk of brain cancer was reported when comparing individuals who had ever used a cell phone to those who had not, there was more than a doubling of risk of brain gliomas in individuals who had used a cell phone for 10 years or more, a 1.8-fold elevated risk if they had used a cell phone for 1,640 hours or more, and a 1.3-fold elevated risk if they had made more the 270 calls. The elevation in risk was only on the side of the head where the cell phone was regularly used. The Israeli component of this study found an elevated risk of ipsilateral parotid gland cancer with long-term cell phone use (Sadetzki et al., 2008). The parotid gland is one of the salivary glands, but is located in the cheek, near to where a cell phone would be used.
Page 3 of 9

There is reason for particular concern about risks to children exposed to RF. Hardell et al. (2004) studied relative risk based on the age when a person began to use a cell phone. For use of either analog or cordless phones when assessed at >1 or >5 year latency, he found that individuals whose use began while they were in their 20s has higher ORs for brain cancer than those whose use began at an older age. Later Hardell and Carlberg (2009) reported that children who began use of a cell phone prior to the age of 20 had an OR of developing glioma of 5.2 (95% CI = 2.2-12) after only one+ year of cell phone use, while for all ages the OR was 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1-1.7). The same relative relationship was seen with use of a cordless phone, where use before the age of 20 years gave an OR of 4.4 (95% CI = 1.9-10), whereas for all ages the OR was 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1-1.8). These studies support the conclusion that use of cordless phones also increases risk, and that children are more vulnerable to risk of brain cancer than adults.

The elevated risk to children poses a major concern given the current extensive use of cell phones, even by young children. It is important to note that it was also children who showed the elevations in risk of developing leukemia among those living near to high powered radio transmission towers. These two kinds of studies show clearly that children are more at risk of developing cancer than adults when exposed to radiofrequency radiation.

SNIP

[MineralMan]

1. More unsubstantiated woo.

This belongs in Creative Speculation, IMO.

[pnwmom]

2. Right. From the Dept. of Public Health at UC Berkeley.

And it's substantiated enough that the FCC is considering changing the regulations as to the amount of allowable exposure.

But you know so much more.

[REP]

13. It's not from the Dept of Public Health at Berkeley. It's from a guy who works there's blog

It's not an official UC statement. It's from a guy who's part of Berkeley's research faculty (not a professor).

[pnwmom]

21. Here's another source. A Harvard trained physician who's the Director of the Institute for Health

and the Environment at the University of Albany.

(But just FYI, research faculty ARE considered professors within any University. The difference is that their funding comes from non-departmental sources.)

http://electromagneticsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ArizonaSmartMeters.David_.O.Carpenter.MD_.MPH-Expert-Opinion.9June2013.pdf

Affadavit before the Arizona Corporations Commission
Credentials and experience:

My name is David O. Carpenter. I am a public health physician who currently holds the positions of Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences in the School of Public Health at the University at Albany and Honorary Professor, Queensland Children’s Medical Research Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. After graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Medical School I chose a career of research and public health, rather than the practice of patient medicine.

I spent seven years doing basic neuroscience research at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, MD, and then accepted a position that I held for eight years as a department head in the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI), also in Bethesda. AFRRI is the primary Department of Defense research institute dealing with the health effects of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. The radiofrequency fields used by smart meters are one form of non-ionizing radiation.

Two of the major public health issues in New York in the late 1970s were Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Because of my experience with neurotoxicology (relevant to Love Canal) and radiation biology (relevant to Three Mile Island and electromagnetic fields), I was recruited to become the Director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health in 1980. The Wadsworth Laboratories are the third largest public health laboratories in the United States, with about 1,000 employees at that time.
(SNIP)

Health Affects of Radiofrequency Fields:

(SNIP)
With the advent of enormous increases in the use of cell phones, we now have a situation in which a very large segment of society is regularly exposed to high levels of RF. In addition, the whole population has increased exposure through the placement of cell phone towers, wireless buildings and even wireless cities. Smart meters are one of the newest forms of RF radiation exposure.

The strongest evidence for hazards from exposure to RF radiation has come from Europe, especially Scandinavia, where cell phones were initially manufactured and have been in wide use for a longer period of time than in other parts of the world. Long- term use of a cell phone is associated with an elevated risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, but only on the side of the head where the phone is regularly used. Acoustic neuromas are a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, but they, like other brain tumors, can be life-threatening because they are space occupying and grow within the bony skull. In a meta-analysis (a review and evaluation of multiple research studies), Hardell et al. (2008) reported an odds ratio (OR) of 2.0 (95% CI = 1.2-3.4) for glioma among adults who have used a cell phone for ten years or more, but only on the side of the head where the phone was used. (An odds ratio is the ratio of disease found in the exposed population as compared to those not exposed. Thus an OR of 2.0 means that the risk of developing a brain tumor was doubled in those who used a cell phone for 10 or more years as compared to those did not use a cell phone. CI stands for confidence interval, and if the lower number is greater than 1.0 epidemiologists consider that the relationship is statistically significant). There was also an OR of 2.4 (95% CI = 1.1-5.3) for acoustic neuroma among long-term users. Risks for meningioma, another type of brain cancer, were elevated, but not significantly so. Kundi (2009) has reported on 33 epidemiological studies, and finds that the combined ORs from these studies show an OR of 1.5 (95% CI = 1.2-1.8) for glioma. There was also a non-significant elevation in ORs for acoustic neuroma but no relationship with meningioma.

The INTERPHONE study was a 13-nation investigation coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the first results were published in 2010 by The Interphone Study Group. While no excess risk of brain cancer was reported when comparing individuals who had ever used a cell phone to those who had not, there was more than a doubling of risk of brain gliomas in individuals who had used a cell phone for 10 years or more, a 1.8-fold elevated risk if they had used a cell phone for 1,640 hours or more, and a 1.3-fold elevated risk if they had made more the 270 calls. The elevation in risk was only on the side of the head where the cell phone was regularly used. The Israeli component of this study found an elevated risk of ipsilateral parotid gland cancer with long-term cell phone use (Sadetzki et al., 2008). The parotid gland is one of the salivary glands, but is located in the cheek, near to where a cell phone would be used.
Page 3 of 9

There is reason for particular concern about risks to children exposed to RF. Hardell et al. (2004) studied relative risk based on the age when a person began to use a cell phone. For use of either analog or cordless phones when assessed at >1 or >5 year latency, he found that individuals whose use began while they were in their 20s has higher ORs for brain cancer than those whose use began at an older age. Later Hardell and Carlberg (2009) reported that children who began use of a cell phone prior to the age of 20 had an OR of developing glioma of 5.2 (95% CI = 2.2-12) after only one+ year of cell phone use, while for all ages the OR was 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1-1.7). The same relative relationship was seen with use of a cordless phone, where use before the age of 20 years gave an OR of 4.4 (95% CI = 1.9-10), whereas for all ages the OR was 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1-1.8). These studies support the conclusion that use of cordless phones also increases risk, and that children are more vulnerable to risk of brain cancer than adults.

The elevated risk to children poses a major concern given the current extensive use of cell phones, even by young children. It is important to note that it was also children who showed the elevations in risk of developing leukemia among those living near to high powered radio transmission towers. These two kinds of studies show clearly that children are more at risk of developing cancer than adults when exposed to radiofrequency radiation.

SNIP

[REP]

23. Ooooo, an *Honorary* professor

I know how academia works. I know why they're not professors, too.

[pnwmom]

24. Dr. David Carpenter is a public health physician and the Director of

Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany.

http://electromagneticsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ArizonaSmartMeters.David_.O.Carpenter.MD_.MPH-Expert-Opinion.9June2013.pdf
Affadavit before the Arizona Corporations Commission
Credentials and experience:

My name is David O. Carpenter. I am a public health physician who currently holds the positions of Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences in the School of Public Health at the University at Albany and Honorary Professor, Queensland Children’s Medical Research Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. After graduating from Harvard College and Harvard Medical School I chose a career of research and public health, rather than the practice of patient medicine.

I spent seven years doing basic neuroscience research at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, MD, and then accepted a position that I held for eight years as a department head in the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI), also in Bethesda. AFRRI is the primary Department of Defense research institute dealing with the health effects of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. The radiofrequency fields used by smart meters are one form of non-ionizing radiation.

Two of the major public health issues in New York in the late 1970s were Love Canal and Three Mile Island. Because of my experience with neurotoxicology (relevant to Love Canal) and radiation biology (relevant to Three Mile Island and electromagnetic fields), I was recruited to become the Director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health in 1980. The Wadsworth Laboratories are the third largest public health laboratories in the United States, with about 1,000 employees at that time.
(SNIP)

Health Affects of Radiofrequency Fields:

(SNIP)
With the advent of enormous increases in the use of cell phones, we now have a situation in which a very large segment of society is regularly exposed to high levels of RF. In addition, the whole population has increased exposure through the placement of cell phone towers, wireless buildings and even wireless cities. Smart meters are one of the newest forms of RF radiation exposure.
The strongest evidence for hazards from exposure to RF radiation has come from Europe, especially Scandinavia, where cell phones were initially manufactured and have been in wide use for a longer period of time than in other parts of the world. Long- term use of a cell phone is associated with an elevated risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, but only on the side of the head where the phone is regularly used. Acoustic neuromas are a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, but they, like other brain tumors, can be life-threatening because they are space occupying and grow within the bony skull. In a meta-analysis (a review and evaluation of multiple research studies), Hardell et al. (2008) reported an odds ratio (OR) of 2.0 (95% CI = 1.2-3.4) for glioma among adults who have used a cell phone for ten years or more, but only on the side of the head where the phone was used. (An odds ratio is the ratio of disease found in the exposed population as compared to those not exposed. Thus an OR of 2.0 means that the risk of developing a brain tumor was doubled in those who used a cell phone for 10 or more years as compared to those did not use a cell phone. CI stands for confidence interval, and if the lower number is greater than 1.0 epidemiologists consider that the relationship is statistically significant). There was also an OR of 2.4 (95% CI = 1.1-5.3) for acoustic neuroma among long-term users. Risks for meningioma, another type of brain cancer, were elevated, but not significantly so. Kundi (2009) has reported on 33 epidemiological studies, and finds that the combined ORs from these studies show an OR of 1.5 (95% CI = 1.2-1.8) for glioma. There was also a non-significant elevation in ORs for acoustic neuroma but no relationship with meningioma.

The INTERPHONE study was a 13-nation investigation coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO), and the first results were published in 2010 by The Interphone Study Group. While no excess risk of brain cancer was reported when comparing individuals who had ever used a cell phone to those who had not, there was more than a doubling of risk of brain gliomas in individuals who had used a cell phone for 10 years or more, a 1.8-fold elevated risk if they had used a cell phone for 1,640 hours or more, and a 1.3-fold elevated risk if they had made more the 270 calls. The elevation in risk was only on the side of the head where the cell phone was regularly used. The Israeli component of this study found an elevated risk of ipsilateral parotid gland cancer with long-term cell phone use (Sadetzki et al., 2008). The parotid gland is one of the salivary glands, but is located in the cheek, near to where a cell phone would be used.

Page 3 of 9
There is reason for particular concern about risks to children exposed to RF. Hardell et al. (2004) studied relative risk based on the age when a person began to use a cell phone. For use of either analog or cordless phones when assessed at >1 or >5 year latency, he found that individuals whose use began while they were in their 20s has higher ORs for brain cancer than those whose use began at an older age. Later Hardell and Carlberg (2009) reported that children who began use of a cell phone prior to the age of 20 had an OR of developing glioma of 5.2 (95% CI = 2.2-12) after only one+ year of cell phone use, while for all ages the OR was 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1-1.7). The same relative relationship was seen with use of a cordless phone, where use before the age of 20 years gave an OR of 4.4 (95% CI = 1.9-10), whereas for all ages the OR was 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1-1.8). These studies support the conclusion that use of cordless phones also increases risk, and that children are more vulnerable to risk of brain cancer than adults.

The elevated risk to children poses a major concern given the current extensive use of cell phones, even by young children. It is important to note that it was also children who showed the elevations in risk of developing leukemia among those living near to high powered radio transmission towers. These two kinds of studies show clearly that children are more at risk of developing cancer than adults when exposed to radiofrequency radiation.

SNIP

[NickB79]

17. His Ph.D is in Social Psychology

And the FCC's review appears to be a regularly planned update to keep abreast of the latest advances in scientific studies, not something initiated by this professor's claims: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-review-rf-exposure-policies

You've put the cart before the horse, so to speak: the FCC already planned on reviewing their regulations, and organizations like StopSmartMeters are trying to make people think it's due to their pressure.

My prediction? The FCC will find that the current science supports continued use of wireless signals at current rates and strengths.

[trumad]

5. wow...

You even read the piece?

[grantcart]

34. Not woo, has been classified by the WHO as a "possible" link.

It doesn't bother me because if there was a substantial link then it would have been found by now and that hasn't been found. But the WHO is actively considering it and calling for more active peer review studies.

Given that it is actively being considered by the WHO I would argue that it belongs in GD.



WHO peer review study has concluded that there is a "plausible" link to gliomas although the effect is likely to be small if it exists. It classifies it as a 2b risk: Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans 285

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf



IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS
IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France - Tel: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
© IARC 2011 - All Rights Reserved.
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.
Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed level of exposure. The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0). Bias and confounding should be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow‐up. A conclusion of evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity is inevitably limited to the cancer sites, conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded.
In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to carcinogenicity in specific organs or tissues.

The effect is probably marginal to none but it is not woo, it is being taken seriously by peer review scientists in the WHO.

[Berlum]

3. FACT: just about the time wireless became widespread, Republicons became totally freakin deranged

[pnwmom]

7. LOL. Maybe that explains it! n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

4. Research needs to be done. But there is no solid body of evidence to substantiate...

Any legitimate fear that "Wireless is harmful at currently allowed levels." That's simply not backed up by any research.

[pnwmom]

6. It will be interesting to see what the FCC decides after it gets the input it's asking for.

I'm assuming that the Public Health professor at UC is familiar with a body of evidence to substantiate his claims.

But there is some reason for serious concern. The studies that were used long ago to establish the current accepted levels were based on relatively short term research -- not people using cell phones for decades. Also, they were based on many few minutes/day exposure than is typical today. A "heavy" user back then used a cell phone less than a typical user today.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. Replication is key in scientific studies. And any findings on harm have not been replicated.

If such a body of evidence exists, it's certainly well hidden.

[pnwmom]

9. As I just said, the original studies weren't based on decades of exposure,

and they were based on many fewer hours exposure per week than is typical now. So there is serious cause for concern that they might underestimate the risk.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. That's simply not how research works.

To assume that the way a study is constructed, when used to evaluate short term exposure, could simply be ballooned up to effectively predict long term exposure effects is ridiculous. It's scientifically unsound.

This is without even admitting the fact that the studies haven't really found any strong evidence to support the claim that these specific frequencies of non-ionizing radiation are detrimental to one's health short term or long term.

[pnwmom]

15. That's exactly my point! And it works the other way too.

The old studies were based on several years of exposure at low levels of daily usage. You can't "balloon" them up to support a claim that decades of exposure for hours every week would be equally safe.

[REP]

10. Stop Smart Meters dot Org

My go-to source for the crazy.

[pnwmom]

11. Yeah, those crazy professors in the Dept. of Public Health at the University of California. n/t

[REP]

14. He's not a professor, and it's not a statement from UC Berkeley.

http://sph.berkeley.edu/faculty/moskowitz.php

[pnwmom]

16. He's a member of the faculty according to your link.

And he's the Director of the Center for Family and Community Health.

He's not some "crazy."

[NickB79]

18. With a Ph.D in Social Psycology

Not exactly the degree you'd expect when evaluating the biochemical effects of wireless signals on the human body.

[REP]

20. Details, details.

[pnwmom]

22. He has the background of an epidemiologist. But here's a Harvard trained MD who supports him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=3410628

[REP]

19. Right. Not a professor, just as I said.

[pnwmom]

25. So what? He's on the faculty at Berkeley, and he's the Director of the Public Health Center.

And he's familiar with the recent research, which you obviously haven't bothered to keep up with.

[REP]

26. Your header is in error

And your tone is hilarious.

[pnwmom]

27. It's hard not to react when someone keeps hammering on an utterly trivial point.

Whether he is on the research faculty or the teaching faculty, he is on the faculty at the University of California. But it really is irrelevant to the point of this. With his background in epidemiology and public health, he is well qualified to speak on the risks of RF. And so is David Carpenter, MD, who is at the University of Albany.

[marions ghost]

28. Absolutely concur

Good points, pnwmom.

[Berlum]

29. Ditzy Dithering is an intentional strategery

to bore most readers and divert from the subject at hand.

[dkf]

30. I am more concerned with iPads on my lap or iPhones near the bed when I sleep or wifi routers.

I don't talk on my cellphone much so that is less of a concern. Is that where most of the vulnerability lies, in having a phone next to your ear/brain?

Thanks for posting btw. Please do not feel discouraged by the naysayers.

[pnwmom]

31. Yes, I've read you should use it on speaker mode or use an earpiece whenever you can,

instead of holding it against your ear. The more distance you can put between the phone and your brain, the better.

The problem with the research is that the original research was based on several years of exposure for not many minutes a day. What was considered very heavy use back then is just average now -- plus these brain cancers can take 20 or 30 years to develop. So we really won't know for decades if the phones are causing more of these cancers. But why take the risk when it's so easy to lower exposure? We have had four friends who have died from brain cancer. I have no reason to think cell phones was involved in any of their cases, but knowing what they went through -- this isn't anything to mess around with.

The cautious approach is to not put the phone up next to the ear, but to use an earpiece or have it on speaker instead. And not to sleep with one close by. And if I were a guy I wouldn't keep it in a front pocket, either. I've also read that if you put it in a pocket, the phone should be placed so the keypad is either away from or facing the body -- but I can't remember which!

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/08/6-tips-for-minimizing-cell-phone-radiation-2/

"Tips for minimizing cell phone radiation"

[dkf]

32. I have read that the signal is weaker than it was years ago so hopefully that is a plus.

I am more concerned about wifi now because the kids may not use cell phones very often but most homes have wifi.

If you are thinking that there is an effort to not learn more I would say hell yeah.

[pnwmom]

33. I just added a list of "tips" from a CNN article about reducing RF exposure to my previous post.

One thing that wasn't intuitive for me is that you're supposed to avoid calling when there's a weak signal whenever possible, because your phone will have to work "harder" (produce more radiation) when that is the case.

Children are the most at risk. All the articles say to be especially careful about exposing them.