Is the FCC Downplaying Potential Risks from Cell Phone Radiation?

[Donnachaidh]

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/06/fcc-downplaying-potential-risks-cell-phone-radiation

There's been much to-do this week over the announcement from the World Health Organization that the group now believes radiation from cell phone is a possible carcinogen. As my colleague Kiera Butler pointed out, there's not really much news there; we're basically at the same point we've been for a while now—although a few studies have suggested a connection between cell phones and brain tumors, there's not enough proof to firm up a direct link. But have federal regulators been complicit in downplaying the reasons we might want to be concerned?

The consumer watchdogs at Environmental Working Group believe that the Federal Communications Commission, the agency charged with regulating cell phones, may be deliberately shielding information from the public about possible concerns related to cell phone radiation in response to pressure from the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), the industry group representing wireless telecom companies. On its website, the FCC says that there is "no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer." That's true, but the FCC site also does not include much in the way of references to the studies that do suggest there may be some reasons for concern. And, as EWG has documented, the FCC last year deleted information from its website that advised consumers on how to avoid exposure to radiation.

The public battle heated up last June, when the city of San Francisco passed a "Cell Phone Right to Know" ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to prominently display information about the amount of electromagnetic radiation—also known as the "specific absorption rate" or SAR—that each phone releases. (The FCC has a database on its website that lists the amount of radiation emitted from each type of cell phone, but it's nearly impossible to navigate.) The CTIA retaliated, first barring San Francisco from hosting future trade shows and then suing the city, claiming that the ordinance oversteps FCC's regulatory oversight on the issue. Earlier this month, San Francisco backed off the new law in response to the suit.

In the heat of the debate over SF's ordinance, the FCC held several meetings with the CTIA and individual telecom companies. Not long after, the FCC removed information from its website that noted that some parties have suggested buying phones with lower emission levels or taking precautions to limit exposure. EWG submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the FCC seeking details about those meetings and all contact between the FCC and CTIA regarding the San Francisco ordinance.

More at the link --

[WinkyDink]

1. Yes. Business as usual (Cf., BP).

[Lance_Boyle]

2. No. Hysterical ninnies are overhyping the risks.

My post from the LBN discussion several days ago:

Mobile phones added to Group 2B, 'possibly carcinogenic to humans.'

Other terrifying members of Group 2B? Brace yourselves...

Coffee! Scary bad coffee!

The occupation of carpentry! Who would JESUS radiate with his terrible scary profession?!?

And pickled vegetables! That's right your kimchi may be KILLING YOU! BE AFRAID!!!

2B or not 2B, this is hysterical bullshit.

[WinkyDink]

5. So the WHO comprises "hysterical ninnies"? Okay, then.

http://hyblavalley.patch.com/articles/ask-the-techie-cell-phones-and-cancer-risk

And no researcher has EVER been paid by industry.

Of course, today it is accepted truth that smoking tobacco causes cancer. In the 1950's? Not so much.
We are ca. 1950's re: cell-phones. And we scoff at our peril.

Well, YOUR peril. I don't have a cell-phone.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. The WHO added cell phones to Group 2B, right alongside coffee and pickles.

Do you see anyone up in arms over the cancer risks associated with coffee and pickles? No? Then why do you suppose people are up in arms over the cancer risks from cell phones, which the WHO says are *THE SAME* as those from coffee or pickles? Any guesses? Hysterical ninnyism may not be the PC term, but it is what it is.

Edited to add - learn to read. The WHO made the findings. The hysterical ninnies are the ones seriously overreacting to those findings.

[fatbuckel]

7. You realize cell phones use microwave energy to transmit? You realize the reason we know microwaves

can cook is because we were inadvertently cooking our workers at the Moscow Embassy back in the day due to microwave communications beamed at the biulding? You realize we should be WAY more worried about all the towers irradiating us with microwave energy?Do you work for the phone industry?

[Lance_Boyle]

8. Do you realize that the WHO findings show cell phones equally as hazardous as pickles?

Hysterical ninnyism. It runs amok.

[RC]

9. It depends greatly on the exact frequency.

Microwaves cover a wide radio spectrum. Microwave ovens work by producing microwave radio energy at the same frequency that water is resonate at. Tune them up or down a bit and they cease to work. And it takes quite a bit of energy to do much. That's why for the 1000 watts plus involved. The puny amount transmitted by cell phones can't do much. Apples and watermelons.
The much bigger problem with microwaves is cataracts. Anyone hear of that causing problems with the general public?

[fatbuckel]

10. I`d rather be irradiated by zero amount.

During World War II, it was observed that individuals in the radiation path of radar installations experienced clicks and buzzing sounds in response to microwave radiation. This microwave auditory effect was thought to be caused by the microwaves inducing an electric current in the hearing centers of the brain.<10> Research by NASA in the 1970s has shown this to be caused by thermal expansion in parts of the inner ear.

When injury from exposure to microwaves occurs, it usually results from dielectric heating induced in the body. Exposure to microwave radiation can produce cataracts by this mechanism, because the microwave heating denatures proteins in the crystalline lens of the eye (in the same way that heat turns egg whites white and opaque) faster than the lens can be cooled by surrounding structures. The lens and cornea of the eye are especially vulnerable because they contain no blood vessels that can carry away heat. Exposure to heavy doses of microwave radiation (as from an oven that has been tampered with to allow operation even with the door open) can produce heat damage in other tissues as well, up to and including serious burns which may not be immediately evident because of the tendency for microwaves to heat deeper tissues with higher moisture content.

[Lance_Boyle]

11. Live your life in a lead-lined room, then.

'Cuz you're getting radiation from the Sun, bananas, other people, scotch tape. If you are concerned about the risks from cell phones, I'd suggest you also do not allow coffee or carpenters into your lead-lined cocoon.

[retread]

13. 850MHZ spectrum and 1900MHZ spectrum. New 4g spectrum in 700MHZ range. The pressure falls as the

square of the distance. Another factor is your distance from the cell site.

Have any research other than industry funded that verifies harmless "puny" amounts?

[ipfilter]

14. So does cordless phones, radio controlled cars,

garage door openers, WiFi access points, and every wireless device ever created.

[backscatter712]

3. I'm not giving up my phone.

Besides, the risks are tiny. Compared to smoking, the odds of getting cancer from your cell phone are ridiculously small.

[Lance_Boyle]

4. Right up there with the risk of getting cancer from a pickle. n/t

[retread]

16. What frequency is the rf transmitted by a pickle??

[Lance_Boyle]

17. Pickled vegetables are in Group 2B right next to cell phones.

Potentially carcinogenic to humans.

Group 2B does not distinguish between cancer risk from ionizing radiation or other sources but the risk equivalency is right there in plain sight. Cell phones are as likely to cause cancer as pickles.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Texting, Web Surfing, Taking Pictures

Who actually uses it to talk on the phone anymore?

[retread]

15. Because those activities are done away from the head and the pressure falls as the

square of the distance they are probably not a problem. It's when I'm in a grocery store and see someone shopping and talking on their phone and 30 minutes later I see them in the checkout lane still talking, I worry. Their phone is probably transmitting its max power(gsm around 2 watts, cdma around .3 watts) as the inside of those concrete structures are not good environments for uplink paths to cell sites.