Newsweek Dials In on Legal Battle Over Berkeley Smartphone Radiation Warnings

berkeley-cell-phone-radiation-warning.jpg">Newsweek has focused attention on the alleged dangers of Smartphone radiation by reporting on a legal battle over Berkeley’s, “Right to Know” warnings on Smartphone radiation levels.

CTIA, formerly the Cellular Telephone Industries Assn., is fighting in federal district court the Berkeley law, the only cell phone radiation warning of its kind in the nation, that requires the following guidance to radiation warnings to be posted in stores selling cellphones:

“If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation.”

Customers are told to read the safety regulations in the cellphone manuals.

Berkeley has a proven track record of taking action first when large scale health threats impact their township.  After-all in 1977 Berkeley, California, became the first community to limit smoking in restaurants and other public places.  How many lives have been saved by Berkeley’s early adoption of Laws to ensure public safety which eventually all 50 states now enforce? Conservatively millions, if not 10’s of millions of lives – and many feel Berkeley’s cell phone radiation warning will spread to all 50 states and save even more lives!

On 5-12-2015 Berkeley, California, became the first community to alert consumers to be aware of Smartphone radiation warnings presented by the phones manufacturer.  Now how on earth this can be considered a violation of free speech is anyone’s guess, however it would surly have our founding fathers turning over in their graves to see such a misuse of the 1 st constitutional amendment take place by corporations harming people for profit with no remorse.

Newsweek reporter Ronnie Cohen has done an extensive article examining the legal arguments of both sides, “Berkeley, California has become ground zero over health debates on the safety of exposure to radio frequency in cellphones.”    According to RF Safe, if Berkeley can’t successfully enforce their unanimously approved cell phone radiation “Right to Know” without a fight from the wireless industry using an absolutely sick perversion of the 1st Amendment  — How will consumers ever know how much radiation they are being exposed (See video how a poorly trained Sprint store sales person answers a simple question about the level of radiation transmitted from the phone being sold) A written ruling if the Berkeley cell phone law will prevail in higher courts is expected “in the next few months,” said the Newsweek article.

CTIA’s slogan is “Everything Wireless.” Its website notes the industry spent $166 billion on cell towers and networks from 2009-14.  There are currently over 594,000 cell towers in the U.S., many of them in school and residential districts, according to rfsafe.com, which claims they are a major health hazard most notably because it’s been reported by the Wall Street Journal that One in 10 Cell Phone Towers Violate RF Radiation Safety Rules!

Berkeley is using Lawrence Lessig, Harvard law professor and “cyberlaw expert.” He is working pro bono.  He says he is doing so because corporations discourage governments from imposing regulations by filing First Amendment lawsuits that are prohibitively expensive to defend. “I’m a Constitutional scholar and I am very concerned,” he told Newsweek. He says that the warning notice in stores is “nothing but an arrow that points to the very manuals written by manufacturers.”

Cellphone Radiation Warning Must Remain

Lessig says the FCC never made a blanket statement that cellphones are safe in all circumstances, but only when used as tested. “We are relying on a regulation of the FCC. We don’t want to get into an argument about the science.”

A telephone survey by Berkeley found that 70% of voters were not familiar with FCC-mandated safety tests. The safety tests assume that people carry cellphones at a distance from their bodies.  Following the survey, the Berkeley Council passed a law requiring warnings on cellphones. Berkeley is arguing that the warnings are “free speech.” and the information is prudent to public safety as the towns elected officials have advocately spoken out on the peoples behalf.

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies Compiled By Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Note: Below list is not intended to be considered a full comprehensive list of studies as thousands more exist. For additional current research studies, see Joel’s post, “Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels? (Wall Street Journal).”

• National Toxicology Program (2016) Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure).  http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/23/055699 (see http://bit.ly/NTPsaferemr)

Tumor risk review papers

• Myung et al (2009) Mobile phone use & risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. http://1.usa.gov/12wBOmd
• Khurana et al (2009) Cell phones & brain tumors: a review including long-term epi data. http://1.usa.gov/1jel7s0
• Levis et al (2011) Mobile phones & head tumours: the discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epi studies-how do they arise. http://1.usa.gov/1gzK8vl
• Levis et al. (2012) Mobile phones & head tumours: a critical analysis of case-control epi studies. http://bit.ly/1rA9aTM
• Hardell, Carlberg (2013) Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health. http://1.usa.gov/1jelT8p
• WHO (2013) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. http://bit.ly/10oIE3o
• Morgan et al (2015) Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review). http://1.usa.gov/1EqL1DF

Tumor risk studies

• Interphone Study Group (2010) Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study. http://1.usa.gov/IBm2nJ
• Interphone Study Group (2011) Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. http://1.usa.gov/18CRSNA
• Aydin et al (2011) Mobile phone use & brain tumors in children & adolescents: a multi-center case-control study. http://1.usa.gov/1baLADg
• Hardell et al (2013) Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. http://1.usa.gov/1c7WF4T
• Hardell et al (2013) Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. http://1.usa.gov/1iu2ORM
• Coureau et al (2014)  Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. http://bit.ly/1DWgzRi
  •Grell et al (2016) The intracranial distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones: Analyses from the INTERPHONE Study. http://bit.ly/2emIZjz

Breast cancer case series

• West et al (2013) Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. http://1.usa.gov/1yFRFBH

Brain tumor incidence trends

• Inskip et al (2010) Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. http://1.usa.gov/1DXyCGR
• Zada et al (2012) Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992-2006. http://1.usa.gov/1tRnRPJ
• Hardell & Carlberg (2015) Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish National Inpatient Register & the Causes of Death Register. http://bit.ly/1aDHJmfAlso see: http://www.saferemr.com/2015/05/brain-tumor-rates-are-rising-in-us-role.html.

Mechanisms

• Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of RF EMF. http://1.usa.gov/1gzLuX3
•    Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. http://1.usa.gov/1jeogrO
•    Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields. http://1.usa.gov/1eQUXJ3
•    Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. http://1.usa.gov/IHmW2W
•    Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. http://1.usa.gov/VulzLm
•    Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between RFs emitted from wireless technologies & oxidative stress. http://1.usa.gov/1X9GfT6
•    Yakymenko et al (2015) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. http://bit.ly/1Hgq8f
•    Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. http://bit.ly/1WvQGiY
•   Tamrin et al (2016)  Electromagnetic fields and stem cell fate: When physics meets biology. http://bit.ly/2b6Ht3y
•  Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. http://1.usa.gov/1SVOa2g

Reproductive Health Effects

• LaVignera et al (2011) Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. http://1.usa.gov/1eQXwuv
• Aldad et al (2012) Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. http://1.usa.gov/18cGEwK
• Divan et al (2012) Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. http://1.usa.gov/1iu5qPn
•    Adams et al (2014) Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.http://bit.ly/1pUnmDq
•    Houston et al (2016) The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. http://bit.ly/2cJJ2pE

Also see: http://www.saferemr.com/2015/09/effect-of-mobile-phones-on-sperm.html and http://www.saferemr.com/2014/06/joint-statement-on-pregnancy-and.html.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

      See: http://www.saferemr.com/2014/10/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity_30.html

Exposure

• Kelsh et al (2010) Measured radiofrequency exposure during various mobile-phone use scenarios. http://1.usa.gov/1eQXinm
• Gandhi et al (2012) Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. http://1.usa.gov/1cVJBRD

Blood-Brain Barrier Studies

          See: http://www.saferemr.com/2016/09/airpods-are-apples-new-wireless-earbuds.html

Other

• Alster, N (2015) Captured agency: How the FCC is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Harvard University. http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured
• Consumer Reports (2015). “Does cell-phone radiation cause cancer?” http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation
• International EMF Scientist Appeal (2015) https://emfscientist.org/
• International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European J Oncology. 20(3/4). 2015. http://bit.ly/EMFappealEurJ