EPA admits no RF research review since 1984, no Congressional funding for RF study, no exposure guidelines exist for trees or wildlife

Posted on November 7, 2020 by admin

From Environmental Health Trust

EPA LETTER CONFIRMS LACK OF WIRELESS AND 5G SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR BIRDS, BEES AND TREES

July 11, 2020

On July 8, 2020, Lee Ann B. Veal Director, Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America confirmed that they have no funded mandate regarding wireless  radiofrequency matters and that they are not aware of any developed safety limits or research reviews related to impacts of wireless on birds bees and the environment.

Please read the latest email exchange below. Theodora Scarato has followed up with more questions after this email. Responses will be posted. Scarato questions are in bold. 

We are holding our government accountable. If you think our work in exposing this reality is important, please DONATE to Environmental Health Trust. 

We are non profit fully supported by donations from the public.  Thank you.

LETTER FROM THE EPA TO THEODORA SCARATO

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Veal, Lee
Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: Letter with specific Questions Related to the FDA review and to the EPA, CDC, NIOSH and FDA Jurisdiction on EMFs
To: Theodora Scarato

Dear Director Scarato;

Thank you for sending us your questions and references regarding radiofrequency (RF) radiation.  Up through the mid-1990s, EPA did study non-ionizing radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish rules regarding RF exposure, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, nor do we have a dedicated subject matter expert in radiofrequency exposure. The EPA defers to other agencies possessing a defined role regarding RF. Although your questions are outside our current area of responsibilities, we have provided a response to each one as you requested.

What is your response to these scientists’ statements regarding the FDA report and the call to retract it? EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, has not conducted a review of the FDA report you cited or the scientists’ statements, and therefore has no response to it.

To the FDA- What consultants were hired for the FDA review and report on cell phone radiation? EPA Response: This is not an EPA matter. Please refer this question to the FDA.

What US agency has reviewed the research on cell phone radiation and  brain damage? I ask this because the FDA only has looked at selected studies on cancer. If your agency has not,  please simply state you have not. EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to memory by cell phone radiation?   If so, when and send a link to the review. EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

What US agency has reviewed the research on impacts to birds and bees?   If so, when and send a link to the review. I will note the latest research showing possible impacts to bees from higher frequencies to be used in 5G. EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and we are not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on this topic. We do not know if any other US agencies have reviewed it.

What is a safe level of radiofrequency radiation? I ask this because the FDA and FCC both state they do not need to test cell phones at body contact and it is proven that phones will create exposure that are higher than FCC limits when phones are tested in these positions.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA defers to these regulatory authorities for the establishment of safe levels of radiofrequency radiation.

The FDA and FCC have been provided with information and published data showing  the fact that cell phones create cell phone radiation exposures that violate FCC limits. What agency has the job of ensuring accountability that the American public is not exposed to RF radiation that exceeds FCC limits. The FCC has test protocols that say body contact tests are not needed. The FDA refers to the FCC. Yet the fact is that cell phones exceed FCC limits when tested in body contact positions. Are the FCC limits legitimate? These FCC limits are being violated.  Who is the responsible agency that will ensure Americans are protected? The FCC says their rules are not being violated as their rules allow for a space between the phone or device and the body? The FDA says there is a safety factor so there is no need for them to act (and will not state what the safety factor for a cell phone is)  . YET government limits are being exceeded. Are agencies fine with limits being violated? If so please explain at what level of cell phone radiation a federal agency will step in? If so, which agency has jurisdiction? (March 12, 2019 Publication on Om Gandhi’s paper on radiation emissions violating FCC limits 11 times and August 21, 2019 Chicago Tribune cell phone testing data released)

EPA Response: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and the questions you raise are outside of EPA’s areas of responsibilities and current expertise.  Please refer this question to FCC and FDA.

The National Toxicology Program states clear evidence of cancer was found and the FDA disputes this because it was just an animal study. However birds fly and nest on cell antennas mounted on towers, bees fly in front of antennas and family pets (dogs, cats) will sit directly on or near Wi-Fi routers and smart speakers despite the fact that the manuals state humans should be at a minimum of 20 cm from wireless devices (far more from antennas of towers). What about the impact to these animals? What is the US government doing to ensure safety for wildlife and family pets? 

EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and the questions you raise are outside of EPA’s area of responsibility and current expertise. We defer to FDA to provide a response regarding their findings.

Please send me the staff member of your respective agency who is on the Interagency Radiofrequency Workgroup as I have repeatedly tried to get this information and it is never provided to me.

EPA Response: The Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG) is an informal forum for exchange of information and the group does not meet to set, or advise on, policy, rulemaking or guidance. The group has not met in more than two years.

The FDA only reviewed selected studies on cancer  until 2018. Most recently, the American Cancer Society funded radiation in people with genetic susceptibilities. The National Toxicology Program published research showing DNA damage. Will the FDA be updating it’s review with these studies? If not, then what agency is accountable to American public to ensure humans are not harmed?

EPA Response:  The questions you raise are outside of EPA’s areas of responsibilities and current expertise. Please direct questions about FDA activities to FDA.

What agency ensures safety related to extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) electromagnetic fields- also non ionizing? Currently we have no federal limit, no federal guidelines and confirmed associations with cancer and many other health effects. Kaiser Permanente researchers have published several studies linking pregnant women’s exposure to magnetic field electromagnetic fields to not only increased miscarriage and but also increased ADHD,obesity and asthma in the woman’s prenatally exposed children.  A recent large scale study again found associations with cancer. Please clarify which US agency has jurisdiction over ELF-EMF exposures? 

EPA Response:  There are no U.S. Federal standards limiting residential or occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from power lines.  The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

When it comes to cell phone radiation SAR thresholds, what is your understanding of the “safety factor” in place?

EPA Response:  EPA last commented on FCC proposals for SAR limits in the 1996 FCC 96-236. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA defers to these regulatory authorities for the establishment of safe levels of radiofrequency radiation.

Sincere regards,

Lee Ann B. Veal

Director, Radiation Protection Division

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

www.epa.gov/radiation

From: Theodora Scarato <
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2020 5:27 PM
To: ombuds@oc.fda.gov; DICE@fda.hhs.gov; jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov; Stephen.Hahn@fda.hhs.gov; Secretary@hhs.gov; Veal, Lee <Veal.Lee@epa.gov>; bullard-jenkins.pamela@epa.gov; Griggs, John <Griggs.John@epa.gov>; Wilds, Edward <Wilds.Edward@epa.gov>; Edwards, Jonathan <Edwards.Jonathan@epa.gov>; edwards-jonathan@epa.gov; Rowson, David <Rowson.David@epa.gov>; rowson-david@epa.gov; zkz1@cdc.gov; fjh1@cdc.gov; francis.collins@nih.gov; hrcs@cdc.gov; nidcdinfo@nidcd.nih.gov; talktodol@dol.gov
Cc: Miriam Falco <miriam.falco@cancer.org>; William G. Cance <bill.cance@cancer.org>; Susan Gapstur <susan.gapstur@cancer.org>; Lindsay.Lloyd@fda.hhs.gov; Louis Slesin <louis@microwavenews.com>; sborenstein@ap.org; Broad, William <wjb@nytimes.com>; alan.burdick <alan.burdick@nytimes.com>; Hilary Stout <hilary.stout@nytimes.com>; rebecca.blumenstein <rebecca.blumenstein@nytimes.com>
Subject: Letter with specific Questions Related to the FDA review and to the EPA, CDC, NIOSH and FDA Jurisdiction on EMFs

Dear Honorable Leadership and Scientists  of the FDA,  EPA,  CDC, Health and Human Services,  National Cancer Institute and Department of Labor;

I would respectfully ask the following questions for each of your agencies- the CDC, FDA, HHS, FDA, EPA, NIOSH, Department of Labor  to answer promptly.

  1. What is your response to these scientists statements regarding the FDA report and the call to retract it?
    2. To the FDA- What consultants were hired for the FDA review and report on cell phone radiation?
    3. What US agency has reviewed the research on cell phone radiation and  brain damage? I ask this because the FDA only has looked at selected studies on cancer. If your agency has not,  please simply state you have not.
    4. What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to memory by cell phone radiation?   If so, when and send a link to the review.
    5. What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to trees from cell phone radiation?   If so, when was it issued and send a link to the review. Note this study showing damage from long term exposure to cell antennas. 
    6. What US agency has reviewed the research on impacts to birds and bees?   If so, when and send a link to the review. I will note the latest research showing possible impacts to bees from higher frequencies to be used in 5G.
  2. What is a safe level of radiofrequency radiation? I ask this because the FDA and FCC both state they do not need to test cell phones at body contact and it is proven that phones will create exposure that are higher than FCC limits when phones are tested in these positions.
  3. The FDA and FCC have been provided with information and published data showing  the fact that cell phones create cell phone radiation exposures that violate FCC limits. What agency has the job of ensuring accountability that the American public is not exposed to RF radiation that exceeds FCC limits. The FCC has test protocols that say body contact tests are not needed. The FDA refers to the FCC. Yet the fact is that cell phones exceed FCC limits when tested in body contact positions. Are the FCC limits legitimate? These FCC limits are being violated.  Who is the responsible agency that will ensure Americans are protected? The FCC says their rules are not being violated as their rules allow for a space between the phone or device and the body? The FDA says there is a safety factor so there is no need for them to act (and will not state what the safety factor for a cell phone is)  . YET government limits are being exceeded. Are agencies fine with limits being violated? If so please explain at what level of cell phone radiation a federal agency will step in? If so, which agency has jurisdiction?

(March 12, 2019 Publication on Om Gandhi’s paper on radiation emissions violating FCC limits 11 times and August 21, 2019 Chicago Tribune cell phone testing data released)

  1. The National Toxicology Program states clear evidence of cancer was found and the FDA disputes this because it was just an animal study. However birds fly and nest on cell antennas mounted on towers, bees fly in front of antennas and family pets (dogs, cats) will sit directly on or near Wi-Fi routers and smart speakers despite the fact that the manuals state humans should be at a minimum of 20 cm from wireless devices (far more from antennas of towers). What about the impact to these animals? What is the US government doing to ensure safety for wildlife and family pets?
  2. Please send me the staff member of your respective agency who is on the Interagency Radiofrequency Workgroup as I have repeatedly tried to get this information and it is never provided to me.
  3. The FDA only reviewed selected studies on cancer  until 2018. Most recently, the American Cancer Society funded Yale study linked Thyroid cancer to cell phone radiationin people with genetic susceptibilities. The National Toxicology Program published research showing DNA damage. Will the FDA be updating it’s review with these studies? If not, then what agency is accountable to American public to ensure humans are not harmed?
  4. What agency ensures safety related to extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) electromagnetic fields- also non ionizing? Currently we have no federal limit, no federal guidelines and confirmed associations with cancer and many other health effects. Kaiser Permanente researchers have published several studies linking pregnant women’s exposure to magnetic field electromagnetic fields to not only increased miscarriage and but also increased ADHD, obesity and asthma in the woman’s prenatally exposed children.  A recent large scale study again found associations with cancer. Please clarify which US agency has jurisdiction over ELF-EMF exposures?
  5. When it comes to cell phone radiation SAR thresholds, what is your understanding of the “safety factor” in place?

I am writing to all of you so each of your agencies can provide me with the answers from your respective agencies. Usually one agency  sends me to the other agency but I do not receive an answer. Everyone points the finger at the other but no one has an answer. Please answer my questions numbered one through ten numbered so we have clarity in the response.

Please see the letter from multiple scientists below. I also attached a sampling of recent  pertinent science.

Theodora Scarato

Executive Director Environmental Health Trust

If you think our work in exposing this reality is important, please DONATE to Environmental Health Trust. 

We are non profit fully supported by donations from the public.  Thank you.

EPA Letter Confirms Lack of Wireless and 5G Safety Regulations for Birds, Bees and Trees

See also

Congress Has Failed to Fund EPA Research Into Biological Effects of RF Emissions on Human Health
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA admits no RF research review since 1984, no Congressional funding for RF study, no exposure guidelines exist for trees or wildlife

New review study finds heavy cell phone use increases tumor risk

Posted on November 7, 2020 by admin

From Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

November 2, 2020

A review of research on cell phone use and tumor risk found that cell phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours significantly increased the risk of tumors.

(Berkeley, CA, November 2, 2020)  Today, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the case-control research on cell phone use and tumor risk.

This study updates our original meta-analysis (i.e., quantitative research review) published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2009. The new review examined twice as many studies as our original paper.

“In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods.”

The abstract and excerpts from this open access paper appear below:

Yoon-Jung Choi+, Joel M. Moskowitz+, Seung-Kwon Myung*, Yi-Ryoung Lee, Yun-Chul Hong*. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020, 17(21), 8079; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079.

Abstract

We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies. Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.

+Contributed equally to this study as the first author. *Correspondence.

Excerpts

3.5. Exposure–Response Relationship Between Use of Cellular Phones and Risk of Tumors

Table 3 shows an exposure-response relationship between cellular phone use and tumor risk. In the subgroup meta-analysis by time since first use or latency, overall the risk of tumors by cellular phone use non-significantly increased from an OR of 0.97 to 1.29 as latency increased from less than 5 years to 10 or more years. This finding was observed in each subgroup meta-analysis by research group. Especially, statistically significant increased tumor risk was observed for latency of 10 or more years in the Hardell studies (OR, 1.62; 1.03 to 2.57; n = 5; I2 = 39.9%). Similarly, the use of cellular phones non-significantly increased the risk of tumors as the cumulative or lifetime use in years and the cumulative number of calls increased in all studies and in each study group. Remarkably, in the subgroup meta-analysis of all studies by cumulative call time, cellular phone use greater than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors (OR, 1.60; 1.12 to 2.30; n = 8; I2 = 74.5%). Interestingly, the use of cellular phones overall and in the Hardell studies (OR, 3.65; 1.69 to 7.85; n = 2, especially in the Hardell studies) non significantly increased the risk of tumors with cumulative call time of 300–1000 h and more than 1000 h, while it decreased the risk of tumors in most subgroup meta-analyses of the INTERPHONE studies.

5. Conclusions

In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods. Further quality prospective studies providing higher level of evidence than case-control studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

This open access paper and supplemental material can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/cellphonetumor.

https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on New review study finds heavy cell phone use increases tumor risk

EMF Medical Conference 2021 — register now (video trailer)

Posted on November 4, 2020 by admin

The EMF Medical Conference 2021
Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF Associated Illness

January 28 – 31, 2021

A Virtual Conference

The EMF Medical Conference (EMFMC) 2021 will convene leading physicians, clinicians, and scientists for a series of presentations on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of EMF associated illness. Experts in EMF assessment will present proven methods that can prevent or limit EMF exposure hazards.

CME/CE credit

The public is welcome to attend.

Registration information at http://www.emfconference2021.com/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on EMF Medical Conference 2021 — register now (video trailer)

“Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G” — Grand Rounds, UC San Francisco, Sept. 24, 2020

Posted on September 29, 2020 by admin

http://bit.ly/UCSFgrandrounds

This presentation summarizes research on the biologic and health effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and cell towers and discusses the implications of this research for 5G, fifth generation cellular technology.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on “Radio Frequency Radiation Health Risks: Implications for 5G” — Grand Rounds, UC San Francisco, Sept. 24, 2020

NRDC: The Challenge of Nonionizing Radiation – A Proposal for Legislation / 1979

Posted on September 17, 2020 by admin

Once again, progress threatens to roll right over the regulators, leaving them to clean up the mess, as has been the case with air and water pollution.

In this in-depth and timely article, Karen Massey, project attorney for the Natural Resource Defense Council warned, as others had, of health and environmental hazards from microwave exposure when microwave ovens and CB radios were the primary microwave consumer products, and cellphones were still on the horizon.

From the Duke Law Journal

The Challenge of Nonionizing Radiation: A Proposal for Legislation
By Karen Massey
1979

PDF

From the Introduction:

Nonionizing radiation is an important factor in the life of every member of an advanced technological society. This is particularly true of American society with its space program, its sophisticated weapons systems, its highly developed electronics products, and the world’s most advanced national communications system-all of which use nonionizing radiation, generally in the microwave and radio frequency ranges. Most Americans are probably unaware of either the pervasiveness of nonionizing radiation or the controversy surrounding its status as a pollutant and a health hazard. In the last decade, however, both the scientific community and the United States Congress have begun to pay more attention to this form of energy and its impact on our lives. Very recently, their concerns have begun to trickle into the general public domain, popularized by a series of articles in the New Yorker by Paul Brodeur, recently expanded and published in his book, The Zapping of America.’ Unfortunately, America’s inventors and entrepreneurs move much more swiftly than its scientists, politicians and publicists; while the latter investigate and deliberate, the American public is presented with an array of consumer products such as CB radios and microwave ovens. Once again, progress threatens to roll right over the regulators, leaving them to clean up the mess, as has been the case with air and water pollution.

The purpose of this Article is to assemble the available information on radio frequency and microwave radiation in a systematic way, and to present it accurately as both a primary agent of progress in the second half of the twentieth century and a potential threat to man’s environment. The Article attempts to assess the immediate need for a regulatory system that would control nonionizing radiation in the public interest and offers a critique of the existing system, or lack thereof, for controlling such radiation. It makes a plea for a legislative solution and offers some suggestions for dealing with what may be the most complex yet in a line of pollution problems that tax the individual talents of both the scientists and the policymakers, as well as their ability to bridge the gap between their two spheres of action.

PDF p. 59-61

…[E]ven with additional knowledge, there are problems with the practical operation of the hazards-effects distinction when dealing with a national ambient standard for an extremely varied population. Different people react differently to the same stimulus. For example, even moderate exercise can cause hazardous physiological changes in some individuals. If their doctors have informed them of this hazard, they may choose not to engage in such activity, or to ignore the medical advice, knowing the possible consequences. It is well established that more stringent standards are needed for involuntary risks such as subjecting persons to high ambient levels of nonionizing radiation whenever they sit on a terrace or walk down a street. In setting standards, the at-risk population to be protected must be identified. For example, Congress has determined that in setting ambient exposure standards under the Clean Air Act, “public health” means the health of the most sensitive members of the population.334 In the present case, this group might include persons wearing electronic cardiac pacemakers or those having metal bone pins. If these persons are included, then the general American population standard must be lower than that which protects the average healthy person, since some electronic cardiac pacemakers, at least, have been shown to be affected at very low levels of NEMR.335 Alternatively, it might be possible to redesign and better shield these pacemakers336 and to substitute other materials for bone pins, but some provision must be made for the wearers in connection with setting health standards. In addition, research may point to other population groups who, for nonmodifiable physiological reasons, are likely to suffer from exposure to levels of nonionizing radiation that would not be hazardous to the average person

p. 62

The fact that the benefits of the pollution in question are so great — national defense, essential communications, first amendment values — may even enhance the need for such a standard confining the operation of cost-benefit analysis. One commentator analyzes the situation thus:

Society’s historical empirical approach to arriving at acceptable balances of technological benefit and social cost by trial, error and subsequent corrective steps create in advanced societies today a critical situation for two reasons: 1) the difficulty in changing a technical subsystem once it has been woven into the economic, political, and cultural structures and 2) the techniques for societal diffusion of a new technology and its subsequent exploitation are now so highly developed that widespread use of a new technological development may occur before its social impact can be properly assessed and before any empirical adjustment of the benefit-versus-cost relations is obviously indicated.346

The very fact that society places a high value on defense and communications makes them likely to develop more rapidly than other technologies and to become instantly “essential.” Since traditional market mechanisms have failed to account for health costs, health protection requires special governmental attention. Other efforts may be made within the process of cost-benefit analysis to deal with this problem, but the health-based pollution standard serves as a necessary safeguard in a preventive program.

Footnote 346
Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Nat’l Acad. of Sciences, “Considerations of Health Benefit-Cost Analysis for Activities Involving Ionizing Radiation Exposure and Alternatives” (1977) [hereinafter cited as BEIR II REPORT]

346. BEIR II REPORT 23. Such thoughts have been echoed in several court opinions in recent years. See, e.g., Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 (1976) (“Man’s ability to alter his environment has developed far more rapidly than his ability to foresee with certainty the effects of his alterations. It is only recently that we have begun to appreciate the danger posed by unregulated modification of the world around us, and have created watchdog agencies whose task it is to warn us and protect us, when technological ‘advances’ present dangers unappreciated-or unrevealed-by their supporters.“); Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (“The public’s need for information is especially great in the field of science and technology, for the growth of specialized scientific knowledge threatens to outstrip our collective ability to control its effects on our lives.”)

Posted under Fair Use Rules

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NRDC: The Challenge of Nonionizing Radiation – A Proposal for Legislation / 1979

Amazon / Vector electric Smart Meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers | ABC News

Posted on September 7, 2020 by admin

Summary from Stop Smart Meters Australia
6 September, 2020

Amazon Web Services, a subsidiary of the world’s biggest retailer, and New Zealand power grid owner, Vector, have joined forces to analyse, share and monetise data generated by more than 1.6 million smart meters across Australia and New Zealand.

The alliance will use data from the internet-connected smart meters to gather information on consumers’ consumption and network performance.

According to a recent ABC News report ‘The data goes far beyond how much power you use in a certain time of day — revealing things like the number of televisions you have, the age of your fridge and other appliances, and the number of people in your home’.

Almost every home in Victoria is connected to smart meters, part of a program that cost consumers $2 billion and, when reviewed by the Auditor-General, was found to provide almost “no benefit”.

Kaspar Kaarlep, co-founder of power technology company WePower is quoted by ABC business reporter, Daniel Ziffer, as stating that ‘greater consumer protections in Europe mean this deal would not be legal there’. Kaarlep likens the alliance to the City of Melbourne selling access to all of its CCTV cameras to Amazon … to develop new products and services. ‘When do I come home? When do I leave? What do I have at my home? Who do I live with? This is all visible in that data.’

CEO of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, Lauren Solomon, adds, ‘We actually can’t really tell what data’s being collected, who it’s being shared with and what it’s being used for’.

To read the ABC report in full, go to Amazon’s Vector power smart meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers

Stop Smart Meters Australia link:

Amazon’s Vector power smart meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers | ABC News

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Amazon / Vector electric Smart Meter deal puts ‘how you live your life’ on web giant’s servers | ABC News

August 3-14, 2020: Air Force exercise Red Flag 20-3 may cause health problems

Posted on August 5, 2020 by admin

A member of the public alerted me today to a new military exercise happening now. People are reporting health problems including being unable to sleep/insomnia and loud ringing in the ears. Other sudden onset or worsening health problems based on RF research may include heart rhythm disturbances, nausea, cognitive problems, headaches and migraines, neurological problems, and flu-like symptoms.

Information on the exercise was posted on a forum. www(dot)airliners(dot)net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1449617
Contact the AFB for more information:

Courtesy of Nellis Air Force Base Media Operations. Red Flag 20-3 runs from today 8/3 through 8/14.

For more information about Red Flag, contact the Nellis Air Force Base Public Affairs Office at 702-652-2719 or by email at 57WG.PA.MediaOps@us.af.mil

Also contact your Congressional representatives for information and to complain. These experiments/military exercises are a public health threat and are done without any notification or advance warning, public hearings, environmental review, or full informed consent from the public.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on August 3-14, 2020: Air Force exercise Red Flag 20-3 may cause health problems

Alabama Governor issues proclamation recognizing electromagnetic sensitivity — May 2020

Posted on May 31, 2020 by admin

Posted by Environmental Health Trust

2020 PROCLAMATION ON ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSITIVITY
By the Governor of Alabama

MAY 2020 ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSITIVITY MONTH

Whereas, people of all ages in Alabama and throughout the world have developed the illness of Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) aka Electrical Sensitivity or Microwave Sickness as a result of global electromagnetic pollution; and

Whereas, Electromagnetic Sensitivity is a painful chronic illness of hypersensitive reactions to electromagnetic radiations for which there is no known cure; and

Whereas, the symptoms of EMS include, dermal changes, acute numbness and tingling, dermatitis, flushing, nausea, stress, visual disturbances, severe neurological, respiratory, speech problems, chronic sleep disturbances and sleep deprivation, and numerous other physiological symptoms; and

Whereas, Electromagnetic Sensitivity is recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the US Access Board and numerous commissions; and

Whereas, this illness may be preventable through the reduction or avoidance of electromagnetic radiations, in both indoor and outdoor environments and by conducting further scientific research;

NOW, THEREFORE, I Kay Ivey, Governor of Alabama, do hereby proclaim May 2020, as Electromagnetic Sensitivity Month in the State of Alabama

 

Alabama Proclamation on Electromagnetic Sensitivity 2020

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Alabama Governor issues proclamation recognizing electromagnetic sensitivity — May 2020

ALERT: US Air Force plans live fire demonstration with Elon Musk Starlink satellites April 8

Posted on April 7, 2020 by admin

Florida, New Mexico and Arizona military bases will conduct these exercises.

“The Air Force will test SpaceX-developed technology in an upcoming demonstration that will reportedly include a live-fire exercise targeting drones and cruise missiles, the latest test of experimental technologies.

“The April 8 event, the next iteration of the military’s Advanced Battle Management System exercises, takes place at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona; White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico; and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Defense Daily reported.”

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/02/27/air-force-spacex-to-test-star link-capabilities-in-upcoming-live-fire-demonstration/

This is described as a “massive life fire exercise”:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32346/the-air-force-and-spacex-are-teaming-up-for-a- massive-live-fire-exercise

This could substantially increase RF radiation levels in the region.

Contact your Congressional reps today to protest this plan, especially with the public already under threat from COVID19.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on ALERT: US Air Force plans live fire demonstration with Elon Musk Starlink satellites April 8

IEEE publishes “EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?”

Posted on April 7, 2020 by admin

PDF

“People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health. The levels of radiation observed in most cases such as phone calls, internet browsing on laptops and smartphones, using wireless routers and hotspots, Bluetooth smartwatches and smartphones are unsafe when compared with radiations limits determined by medical bodies. According to the current medical literature, various adverse health effects from exposure to RF EMR have been well documented. For now, wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible.”
— from Conclusion (emphasis added)

From IEEE
Published 27 February, 2020

Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?

NAREN, ANUBHAV ELHENCE, VINAY CHAMOLA , AND MOHSEN GUIZANI
(Fellow, IEEE)

ABSTRACT

The electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted out of wireless communication modules in various IoT devices (especially used for healthcare applications due to their close proximity to the body) have been identified by researchers as biologically hazardous to humans as well as other living beings. Different countries have different regulations to limit the radiation density levels caused by these devices. The radiation absorbed by an individual depends on various factors such as the device they use, the proximity of use, the type of antenna, the relative orientation of the antenna on the device, and many more. Several standards exist which have tried to quantify the radiation levels and come up with safe limits of EMR absorption to prevent human harm. In this work, we determine the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence. This study also analyzes the EMR from common devices used in day to day life such as smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, hotspots, wireless earphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth speakers and other wireless accessories using a handheld radio frequency radiation measurement device. The procedure followed in this paper is so detailed that it can also be utilized by the general public as a tutorial to evaluate their own safety with respect to EMR exposure. We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to EMR exposure. We also discuss some individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that can be undertaken to reduce the risk of EMR absorption. This paper analyses radiation safety in pre-5G networks and uses the insight gained to raise valuable concerns regarding EMR safety in the upcoming 5G networks.

VIII. DISCUSSIONS (excerpts)
Currently employed public exposure limits do not provide sufficient protection to people both in terms of long-term and short-term exposure…

It has already been several years since the wireless-technologies have been deployed, meaning that the public has already been exposed to a lot of harmful EMR without their knowledge. It may be anticipated that this section of the population will suffer from many of the health hazards discussed in section V. If corrections are not made now, especially when the number of wireless devices are growing exponentially which leads to an exponential increase in public EMR exposure, the current and future public will be at even greater risks of both known and unknown health hazards. In particular, women, children and fetus are hypersensitive to EMR and special care must be taken to protect these groups from both short and long term exposure…

A two-fold approach can be followed to minimize harm from EMR pollution. Firstly, measures can be taken to protect people from the already existing high levels of EMR. Second, proactive prevention techniques can be adopted in environments such as households, schools and hospitals to greatly minimize EMR exposure. These have been explained in detail in Section VI and VII of this paper…

Both individuals and governments must be aware of the fact that the current population has already been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and the resulting adverse health effects may surface in people at any time. In this regard, proper planning and execution, both on governmental and individual levels is required to properly handle a breakout of EMR related health issues in large numbers of people in all areas of the world. Specifically, it must be noted that the radiation in 5G networks is suspected to increase by several folds. It will not only affect regions near cell towers and 5G devices but all indoor and outdoor environments in the region of coverage. Thus, almost all people in the area of coverage of 5G networks may be exposed to dangerous levels of EMR. Without thorough research and well-designed safety measures in place, wide-spread deployment of 5G networks could prove to be dangerous…

IX. CONCLUSION (excerpt)
People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health. The levels of radiation observed in most cases such as phone calls, internet browsing on laptops and smartphones, using wireless routers and hotspots, Bluetooth smartwatches and smartphones are unsafe when compared with radiations limits determined by medical bodies. According to the current medical literature, various adverse health effects from exposure to RF EMR have been well documented. For now, wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible. New and innovative wired solutions which provide the same level of user-friendliness should be encouraged. Intervention of government and medical bodies with the main purpose of protecting human health is of utmost necessity to ensure good economic development without compromising the health of the population. Countries must adopt the guidelines suggested by medical bodies which take into account both thermal and non-thermal effects of EMR. At present, all individuals must take preventive and protective measures to protect themselves from harmful EMR exposure.

(emphasis added)

Source: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9016183

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on IEEE publishes “EMR Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?”