News for USA
|Page 1 of 179  Next› Last»|
|Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit?|
|USA||Created: 4 Nov 2019|
Recognition of Non-Thermal Effects Hangs in the Balance.
After eight years of work, the World Health Organization (WHO) is reopening its review of the health effects of RF radiation for a summary report intended to serve as a benchmark for its more than 150 member countries.
The move might suggest that the WHO EMF/RF program is poised to reassess its long-held policy of rejecting non-thermal effects, and to loosen its deep ties to ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation with its heat-only dogma.
The reputation of both organizations has never recovered from the rampant industry cronyism of Mike Repacholi, who created them in the 1990s. A close look at the WHO radiation program and its approach to this new review show that not much has changed in Geneva.
In other words: Don't count ICNIRP out just yet.
Read our latest story here: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/can-who-kick-icnirp-habit
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 04 Nov 2019|
|Council urged to study health effects of 5G network|
|USA||Created: 3 Nov 2019|
A handful of citizens urged Aspen City Council to do all it can to prevent a barrage of 5G towers coming into town.
The concerns were voiced during public comment, led by Tom Lankering, a chiropractor from Basalt, and focused on the health effects of pervasive 5G signals.
Lankering held up a blank piece of paper, telling the council it was a list on the safety studies on 5G.
“That is the biggest issue we are talking about now, is that there are no safety studies,” Lankering said.
As Aspen has faced the incoming advent of 5G wireless devices and networks, city staff have been preparing to keep as much of a handle on new cell towers as they can. However, in public memos they have cited legislation passed in 1997 that bans local governments from regulating small cell wireless facilities based on health reasons.
“I’m sure this has been relayed to you by all of us that we feel our hands are tied by the FCC and other regulations,” Councilman Ward Hauenstein said in response to the public comment.
“That is only part of the misinformation that has been put out,” Lankering said.
He said other communities are finding ways to ban or delay the implementation of 5G. He also told the council that there is a movement in the statehouse now to repeal HB 17-1193, which he said was passed due to pressure from wireless companies at the expense of public health.
“Part of this is about being able to reclaim our right to protect our own health,” Lankering said.
Lankering asked that a safety study be done before 5G is allowed in town. He offered his own free time, as well as that of a group of citizens who have been gathering to fight the implementation of 5G.
“Electromagnetic radiation is devastating, it’s destructive and destroys brains,” Lankering said, invoking fears of dementia, alzheimers and cancers, as well as social health effects and depression.
5G waves are smaller and thus do not travel as far. This means more towers are needed in any given area than with current cell towers. It is estimated that Aspen would need more than 100 new towers in order to create a reliable 5G network in town. The county as a whole is years away from implementing 5G networks, even though some cell carriers advertise their networks as 5G currently.
Business owner Andrew Sandler told council that he can feel the effects of 4G towers when he travels to areas in Denver that have heavy 4G network. He also voiced concern about the health effects, even from the wi-fi signals created through the network of cell phones present in the council chambers.
“Picture walking through a haze of smoke and pretend that is the wifi frequency that is coming at you,” Sandler said. “Everyone in the room is sitting in a haze of junk and it’s killing us.”
Public comment on the health risks of 5G continued for about 20 minutes, with clapping from the room as each citizen voiced their concerns.
City Attorney Jim True said the city’s legal team is working on crafting Aspen’s own regulations to stay compliant with state and federal codes while also caring for the health and aesthetic preferences of local citizens. He encouraged those who spoke during public comment to send along examples of ways other communities are addressing the health concerns.
“This is just the biggest experiment on humankind that will even happen,” Lankering told the council, “but people are rising up.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Aspen Daily News, Alycin Bektesh, 23 Oct 2019|
|Got Anxiety? Brain Fog? Try Reducing Your Exposure to EMF|
|USA||Created: 27 Oct 2019|
In early September I attended the first conference of its kind for health care practitioners in the United States about Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF). Humans cannot see, touch, taste, or smell EMF, which understandably contributes to our capacity to deny the risks of exposure. Its effects accrue over time, and are proportional to the duration and intensity of exposure.
“Scientists, doctors and researchers have long accepted that ionizing radiation, such as the ultraviolet rays that accompany sunlight, or the X-rays that you are exposed to in your doctor’s or dentist’s office-can harm and destroy DNA. It has been assumed, however, that non-ionizing radiation from power-lines, television broadcasting and cell phones did not harm DNA," writes Dr. Martin Blank in "Overpowered."This is not the case. Non-ionizing radiation can react with and harm DNA which can cause mutations and even cell death and lead directly to serious medical illness.
There is incontrovertible scientific evidence supporting the seriousness and enormity of the deleterious impact of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) upon both human health and the biosphere. The BioIntiative Report updated from 2014-2019 included 6000 studies concluded that bioeffects are clearly established to occur with very low exposure levels (non-thermal levels) to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation exposures. Electromagnetic frequencies cause damage to our intricate and delicate DNA and is related to the development of cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, neurodegenerative diseases, infertility, depression and anxiety.
Just as the tobacco industry suppressed the scientific evidence regarding the hazards of cigarette smoking, a similar strategy has been undertaken by lobbyists for the telecommunications industry to manufacture doubt about the negative health effects of wireless technology. There has been a repeated assertion that there is no “proven link”, that the data is inconclusive. “It appears that the response of governments and industry groups to this lack of specific cause and effect relationships between non-thermal exposure to EMF and negative heath effects has been to formulate regulations and safety standards that ignore them completely. While there is plenty of science indicating the presence of significant health risks at non-thermal levels, as far as safety standards and regulatory frameworks are concerned, EMF is harmful to humans only at levels powerful enough to result in increased temperature (the so-called thermal effect). No recognition at all is given to any potential health effects at lower, non-thermal levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation even though non thermal biological effects have been scientifically demonstrated for over a century.” (Overpowered p 161)
Given our ever growing dependence on technology, exposure to EMF’s is a reality that increasingly effects all of us, but pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable. Children absorb more microwave radiation than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. Of particular concern is children’s exposure to EMF in the classroom. Unless we learn to choose safe technology practices, today’s wireless technology continually pulses toxic microwave radiation "electrosmog" at us. This includes our wi-fi routers, cell towers, cell phones, tablets, wearables, Bluetooth, baby monitors, gaming devices, microwaves, smart meters and more.
Early symptoms of EMF exposure may include headaches, nausea, Inability to concentrate (also known as brain fog), chronic fatigue and muscle fatigue without exercise, nose and/or ear bleeds, agitation, m and more.
Symptoms resulting from EMF exposure can be indistinguishable from Mast Cell Activation Disorder, Mold Toxicity, Chronic Lyme Disease and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. This is because the physiology underlying all of these conditions is the same: cellular inflammation. In addition it appears that these same conditions make a person more vulnerable to electro hypersensitivity. There seems to be a particular synergistic effect between exposures to chemical toxins and electro hypersensitivity.
Building biologists certified through the Building Biology Institute in Santa Fe can be consulted who will assess your home and make recommendations about how to improve its EMF health and safety. One of the most important areas of the home is the bedroom. EMF suppress melatonin production and lower sleep quality. Deep restorative sleep is essential to healing and supporting the health of the immune system.
There were individuals at the conference who were electro hypersensitive and would become very ill from exposure. Thus in the conference auditorium there was no wifi allowed and also none in the sleeping areas. Since attending the conference, and being more mindful to practice EMF safety, I have noticed that I feel cognitively sharper and am having less trouble with my memory and word finding. In addition my mood is improved and I feel less anxious. This was noticeable only after one week of reduced exposure.
I encourage all of my patients to make use technology in a safer way to mitigate against EMF exposure.
Below is a partial list of some of the steps that you can take to reduce your exposure. All of these suggestions are followed by fully elaborated explanations in Dr. Martin Blank's book. These recommendations can feel like an unwelcome hassle. But it’s important. Making even small changes can make a difference cumulatively to protect your health and the health of your loved ones.
There are two key principles:
Minimize your use of of EMF generating technology.
Maximize the distance between you and those EMF sources when they are in use.
Do not live near high voltage power lines.
Stay away from transformers.
Live as far from cell phone antennas as possible.
Don’t use electric blankets or waterbeds.
Run extension cords away from furniture and keep cords organized.
Switch from electric to battery alarm clocks.
Energy efficient appliances generate less pollution than older less efficient models
Don’t use fluorescent lights.
Don’t use dimmers of three-way switches.
Don’t use microwaves, but if you do, get out of the kitchen when the microwave is on.
Put your cell phone on airplane mode when not in use.
Don’t put your cell phone in your pocket.
Laptops are not for laps.
Minimize use of hairdryers and electric razors.
Consider using an ethernet cable rather than wifi in your home.
Turn the wifi router off at night.
Switch to plastic eyeglass frames and foam mattresses that do not function as antennas.
Two important resources are Wireless Education, a non-profit which educates about safer use of technology and the Americans for Responsible Technology. an advocacy group for the safe, reliable and responsible use of technology.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Psychology Today, Judy Tsafrir MD, 23 Oct 2019|
|We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe (blog)|
|USA||Created: 27 Oct 2019|
The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks.
The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.
Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.
Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”
The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.
5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?
Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Scientific American, Joel M. Moskowitz, 17 Oct 2019|
|American Kids Aren't Getting Enough Sleep and It's Affecting Their Success at School, Scientists Warn|
|USA||Created: 27 Oct 2019|
Around 30 percent of children in the US don't get enough sleep, according to scientists warning of a "public health crisis".
U.S. research found only 63.6 percent of six- to 12-year-olds and 68.1 percent of those aged between 13 and 17 were getting enough sleep on a weeknight. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends six- to 12-year-olds get at least nine hours on an average weeknight, while 13- to 17-year-olds should aim for at least eight.
The team looked at answers from 49,050 parents of young people aged between six and 17 years old, who took part in the 2016-2017 National Survey of Children's Health. The parents detailed how much their child slept.
The survey also measured what are known as flourishing markers, such as whether the child was curious about new things; if they did all their homework; cared about doing well at school; were committed to finishing tasks; and stayed calm and in control while faced with a challenge.
The under-12s who didn't have enough sleep were less likely to be curious about learning, care about school, do their homework and finish tasks. Those in the older category had similar problems, but were also less likely to stay calm when encountering a challenge.
The authors wrote: "Chronic sleep loss amongst youth is a major public health crisis globally and is associated with a multitude of physical and mental health issues."
They went on to state: "This study demonstrates that insufficient sleep is associated with decreased childhood flourishing, which could have a critical role on the physical and mental health, school performance and well-being of children."
The study is due to be presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2019 National Conference and Exhibition, and has therefore not been peer-reviewed.
Dr. Hoi See Tsao, a paediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital who co-authored the study, told Newsweek: "This research reinforces the importance of increasing efforts to maximize sleep sufficiency for children including addressing digital media usage, bedtime routines and school duration and start times.
"In addition, it can guide future recommendations to school districts and families regarding the importance of sleep, give directions for future targeted public health interventions to increase sleep sufficiency, and thereby enhance the broader effort to optimize childhood flourishing and development."
She suggested parents can help children get sufficient sleep by establishing regular bedtime routines, having all screens off at least 30 minutes before bedtime, and avoiding having any screens such as computers or televisions in children's bedrooms.
Lisa Henderson, a senior lecturer in the department of psychology at the U.K's University of York, who wasn't involved in the study, told Newsweek there is a lot of existing data showing a link between sleep and a child's academic outcomes, as well as supporting neural mechanisms of learning and memory retention.
"However, this data adds a new twist, namely that sleep deprivation may also impact on attitude to learning. An alarming number of children (even pre-adolescents) are not getting enough sleep," she said.
Henderson, an expert on how sleep can affect memory consolidation in children, argued the study was limited because the age ranges of each group assessed were "very broad" and it relied on parents being accurate.
"There are dramatic changes in sleep architecture and also school behaviors that take place from 6 to 12 years, and from 13 to 17 years. So, collapsing across these ranges may be masking important developmental changes in the nature of the relationship under investigation," she said.
The take-home message for parents, she suggested, is to "take note of how much sleep your child is getting and take active steps to maximize their sleep duration."
"Sleep is crucial for pretty much everything. It should be considered as vital as exercise and diet. Schools and parents should be looking to support and encourage healthy sleep habits in children," Henderson said.
Chen Song, of the Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, also not involved in the study, told Newsweek: "Adolescence is a sensitive period of brain remodeling and cognitive development but it is unknown whether chronic disruptive of sleep at this age will have long-term impacts on brain and behavior."
"This study tested a large sample of participants, and reported a striking impact of chronic sleep restriction during adolescence on flourishing," Song said.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Newsweek, Kashmira Gander, 10 Oct 2019|
|Let’s stop all ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to 5G|
|USA||Created: 3 Oct 2019|
The Union’s editorial board wrote on Sept 21 to “stop knee-jerk reactions to 5G.” We need to avoid both pro and con “knee-jerk” reactions. It is clear they have not done their homework on the science and legalities concerning this issue.
The Nation magazine published a ground-breaking investigative journalism article in the March 19 issue, “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation: The disinformation campaign — and massive radiation increase — behind the 5G rollout.” It shows that the wireless industry has gone to much expense to cover up and obscure safety and health issues from the public, media and government for decades.
In fact, tens of thousands of scientific studies documenting serious adverse health effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation have been published worldwide. The U.S. military has used such radiation (particularly 5G millimeter frequencies) as a weapon in the Middle East and elsewhere for “crowd dispersal.” I and other local citizens have previously sent information and references for many of these published scientific studies to local government officials as well as to The Union. Yet they don’t seem to have properly educated themselves. Now they are now trying to impose their opinions on the county. Despite statements from industry-captured agencies like the FCC and FDA, the evidence points clearly to this technology being unsafe.
Wireless telecoms still try to convince local governments that they cannot reject or regulate local wireless facility applications for health or environmental reasons because their “hands are tied” due to federal regulations of 1996 Telecommunications Act and recent “orders” issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
But a landmark August 10 unanimous decision against the FCC by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the March 2018 FCC Order that eliminated environmental, health, and historic-preservation criteria for local government review of 4G and 5G “small cell” antenna applications. This means that applications should be reviewed based on NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act, including CEQA in California) and NHPA (National Historical Preservation Act) criteria.
Here are some passages from that case:
“…The [FCC] Commission failed to justify its confidence that small cell deployments pose little to no cognizable religious, cultural, or environmental risk, particularly given the vast number of proposed deployments.”
“The FCC also failed to “adequately address possible harms of deregulation and benefits of environmental and historic-preservation review.”
“The GAO [Government Accountability Office] found in 2012 that the existing [FCC] health and safety regulations are dated and may not reflect current knowledge about the health and safety impacts of RF (radiofrequency) emissions. Because the [FCC] Order relies on these dated standards and stale scientific data . . . the Commission’s action is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.”
“The Commission did not adequately address the harms of deregulation or justify its portrayal of those harms as negligible….The Commission did not satisfactorily consider the benefits of review….failed to address concerns that it was speeding densification without completing its investigation of . . . health effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.”
From the text of the successful plaintiffs in the case:
“There is ample record evidence submitted in this proceeding of negative impacts from the widespread deployment of so-called “small” wireless facilities. This evidence…. includes references and electronic links to peer-reviewed scientific studies and letters from medical professionals. This documentation points to significant potential harm to the human body and brain functioning from RF radiation.”
“Growing evidence indicates that wireless radiation and the frequencies used in 5G can seriously impact wildlife. For example, research shows that 5G radiofrequency radiation could affect the capacity of bees and other insects to pollinate crops. Studies also indicate that this radiation can alter animal navigation, disturb honeybee colonies, damage trees, and impact other plants.”
“Published reviews on 5G, millimeter waves and wireless radiation have cataloged a host of harmful impacts, including … altered gene expression, faster cell growth, inflammatory and metabolic processes, damage to the eyes and cellular stress, memory problems, sperm damage, genetic damage, behavior issues, and brain damage.”
Another recent court decision by the California Supreme Court, April 4, T-Mobile v. San Francisco, affirmed that local governments have the authority to regulate utilities, such as wireless services and electric or water “smart meters.” Such local government bodies can restrict uses that would “incommode” the public use of roads. The court defined “incommode” to include “give inconvenience or distress or to disturb,” Including “generate noise, “cause negative health consequences,” and “create safety concerns.”
There are also additional lawsuits currently underway that will likely further limit the attempts of the FCC and wireless industry to force dangerous, dense 5G and 4G installations.
Faster, better quality internet and telecommunications technology can be safely and securely supplied through wired fiber-optic line connections, DSL and coaxial cable connections.
David Adams lives in Penn Valley.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Union, David Adams, 01 Oct 2019|
|An Iowan sounds alarm on new cell technology some say could have serious health effects|
|USA||Created: 20 Sep 2019|
Linda Mason Hunter of Des Moines shuns smart phones in favor of an old-style flip phone, and prefers her devices be wired rather than cellular. "I've lived here 42 years," says the blogger who does a radio talk show,"Green Zone" on KFMG and was an editor for Meredith and Rodale Press. She calls the Kingman Boulevard house she shares with her husband "a healthy home." She wrote a book on how to make homes healthy.
But Hunter has grown alarmed about the next generation of wireless cellular technology known as 5G (G stands for generation, not to be confused with the 5G in your router which refers to gigahertz, or GHz). She warns that even people who don't buy those phones could be susceptible to negative health effects from the infrastructure being installed across communities.
"Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that this type of radiation has both immediate and long-term health effects, including increased cancer risk, cellular stress, changes to DNA, memory deficits, neurological disorders, and insomnia," Hunter wrote. On top of which "there is growing evidence of serious risk to the planet — birds, plants, animals, every living thing, the entire ecosystem."
The new cellular technology involves emissions from relatively low-energy radio waves, microwave radiation, and pulsed millimeter waves which have the most energy, with frequencies from 30 to 100 GHz. (Existing cell phones have 2.4 GHz.) Scientists worry most about the high frequency microwave radiation and pulsed millimeter waves, which weaken the membrane around cells, transmitting radiation deeper into the body," said Dr. Magda Havas, professor emeritus at Trent University in Canada at a recent 5G Summit. She said sweat ducts and fluid in the eyes, as well as metal implants in the body, act as "antenna." lnside the cell, electromagnetic radiation can be a precursor to cancer, turning off antioxidants and allowing free radicals to build up and cause toxicity, she contended.
Industry heads don't dispute 5G will increase electromagnetic frequencies and microwave radiation manifold through transmission devices — boxed antennae installed on light and utility poles, described as a network of millions of cell sites close to the ground. They say they're meeting Federal Communications Commission guidelines.
But in a Feb. 6 Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of 5G, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said he had written the FCC commissioner asking for safety studies and received only general statements echoing the Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibility for cell phones. The FDA claims to urge businesses to undertake health studies, but when Blumenthal asked industry representatives at the hearing if they'd funded any such studies, they hadn't.
Verizon is already providing 5G home internet in 11 cities and plans to bring it to Des Moines before year's end. Its website boasts connectivity 20 times the speed of 4G. But opponents warn even the microwave radiation produced from exposure to cell phones and tablets close to the body hasn't been tested in 22 years. Besides threatening human and animal health, they say, 5G technology could interfere with weather satellites and enable surveillance.
So Hunter, who has never organized a protest before, began a petition drive and voiced her concerns in a letter to Des Moines City Manager Scott Sanders, among others. He replied that cities and states are prohibited under the federal 1996 Telecommunications Act from regulating placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities over environmental concerns, as long as the facilities comply with FCC regulations. State law, Sanders wrote, forbids a city from rejecting an application based on perceived effects of radio frequency emissions.
Hunter, however, contends those laws relate to radio wave frequencies but not to pulsated microwave frequencies, which are most harmful. She sent Sanders an opinion from her husband, Bob Hunter, a law professor emeritus at Drake University, faulting corporations for trying to rush 5G through with FCC assistance. He said nearly 80 cities and counties are suing in federal court claiming the FCC is exceeding its power by limiting local authority.
Verizon Spokesman David Weissman said the company follows FCC guidelines. Though declining to address the health concerns, he referred me to a July 16 New York Times piece that contends "mainstream scientists" see no evidence of harm from cellphone radio waves. The article critiques a 2000 study by physicist Bill P. Curry that suggested tissue damage increases with rising radio-wave frequency. It says Curry failed to consider "the shielding effect of human skin" in protecting cells inside the body.
In the recent summit critiquing 5G, Environmental Health Trust scientist Devra Davis referred to 1994 studies showing DNA damage to the brain cells of rats exposed to very weak pulsed signals from cell phone radiation. Studies on humans have detected rare cancers to the brain and nerves from cell phone exposure, she said. A Nov. 1, 2018, New York Times piece acknowledged evidence of links to cancer in male rats, but suggested the higher frequencies of current 4G and 5G cellphones make it harder for those radio waves to penetrate bodies.
As one not swayed by conspiracy theories, who believes children should be vaccinated, I'd paid little attention to 5G until Hunter contacted me. But I look back to when microwave ovens were first introduced in the 1980s, and consumers were warned not to stand in front of them while cooking. "Today, we have phones with the same frequency as a microwave oven, on all the time," said Stephanie McCarter, a Dallas environmental medicine specialist at the summit.
The bottom line is, until we have proper studies, we really don't know what's at stake here, and the government agencies created to protect us don't really seem to care. So it's up to communities to push for better answers.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Des Moines Register, Rekha Basu, 19 Sep 2019|
|Cellphone Users Sue Apple and Samsung Over Radiation Exposure|
|USA||Created: 14 Sep 2019|
San Francisco’s Andrus Anderson represents a class action of phone owners who say they would not have purchased or paid top dollar for their cells if they had known about the risks of contact with radiofrequency radiation.
Andrus Anderson in San Francisco is representing 16 plaintiffs against Apple and Samsung in a controversy some in the medical and scientific community are allegedly calling “Phone Gate.”
The complaint, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, claims that members of the class action would not have purchased their phones had they known their Apple and Samsung devices exposed them to radiofrequency radiation exceeding the regulatory limits.
Lawyers from Fegan Scott in Chicago and Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese in West Des Moines, Iowa, join Andrus in alleging that Apple and Samsung put their clients’ health at risk by designing products that emit heightened levels of RF radiation. Too much of the radiation, created by the transfer of energy waves, can increase cancer risks, cause cellular stress and jeopardize reproductive health, according to the complaint.
The Apple and Samsung products that the phone owners say they keep close to their body could exceed exposure limits in some instances by 500%, according to recent studies cited in the lawsuit.
In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission set the limit for RF radiation absorption to 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over one gram of tissue. However, the complaint cites a test conducted by the Chicago Tribune and the RF Exposure Lab in San Marcos, California, which found exposure rates up to four times the legal guidelines in some phones. With the iPhone 7, the study found radiation exposure increased significantly the closer it was to a person, such as in their pocket or touching their skin, according to the complaint.
“We intend to show that Apple and Samsung were fully aware that they marketed their phones to be used in ways in which testing showed users would be exposed to dangerous levels of RF radiation—without warning consumers,” said Elizabeth Fegan of Fegan Scott in an email.
Some of these campaigns include Apple describing its phones as “the internet in your pocket,” or “your life in your pocket,” disregarding the increased RF radiation risks when the phones are carried in pockets or against skin, according to the complaint.
“Similarly, Samsung markets its smartphones to be used in a variety of contexts, including in bed and against the skin for sonograms,” the attorneys write. “Defendants cannot hide behind regulatory compliance on testing to protect its marketing and advertising which knowingly misrepresents the true risks of RF radiation exposure when smartphones are used while touching or in close proximity to the human body.”
When asked about the attorneys’ plans to demonstrate concrete harm from the alleged exposure, Fegan said that consumers would not have paid up to $1,000 dollars for Apple and Samsung phones had they known the risks. “These damages are recoverable as out-of-pocket losses and/or as the failure to receive the benefit of the bargain under consumer protection laws,” she said.
The plaintiffs attorneys filed a similar class action complaint in August in the San Jose division of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The district is no stranger to litigation over potential cellphones’ RF radiation emissions. The city of Berkeley and the telecommunications industry has been litigating the enforcement of an ordinance requiring mobile device retailers to warn consumers of potential RF radiation exposure since 2015. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California’s denial of a preliminary injunction of the law brought by telecommunications industry group CTIA—The Wireless Association.
Neither Apple or Samsung responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Law.com, Alaina Lancaster, 11 Sep 2019|
|Apple, Samsung slapped with class action over handset RF emissions|
|USA||Created: 27 Aug 2019|
That was fast - Two days after a Chicago Tribune investigation found many contemporary mobile phones, including late-model iPhones, do not comply with radio frequency emissions standards, Apple and Samsung are being sued over alleged damages and problems related to RF exposure.
Aug 2019, USA: We tested popular cellphones for radiofrequency radiation. Now the FCC is investigating.
The class action suit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Friday, claims RF radiation emitted from smartphone devices designed and manufactured by Apple and Samsung exceed legal limits set forth by the Federal Communications Commission. Further, the case takes issue with marketing materials that claim the products operate within regulated guidelines, with neither company issuing warnings about potential negative health effects related to the allegedly high RF emissions.
"Numerous recent scientific publications, supported by hundreds of scientists worldwide, have shown that RF radiation exposure affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines," the filing reads. "Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans."
The suit relies almost exclusively on results from an independent study performed by RF Exposure Lab on behalf of the Chicago Tribune. A report published on Wednesday notes exposure from devices including iPhone 7, iPhone 8, iPhone X and recent Galaxy smartphone models exceeded federally mandated limits in a number of tests.
Plaintiffs argue Apple "covered up any risks by misrepresenting the safety of the smartphones" and misled customers by not informing them of potential ill effects from iPhone's RF exposure.
The complaint notes Apple has in past declared RF exposure information, including Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), for public viewing and provided recommendations defining the closest distance at which a user should carry the device. According to the filing, the company stopped furnishing such information with the release of the iPhone 7.
For its part, Apple in a statement to The Tribune disputed the paper's findings, saying they "were inaccurate due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models."
"All iPhone models, including iPhone 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where iPhone is sold," the company added. "After careful review and subsequent validation of all iPhone models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable exposure guidelines and limits."
Named class plaintiffs include owners of Apple's iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 and iPhone X, and Samsung's Galaxy S8 and Galaxy Note 8. Attached to the suit are Chicago-based lawyers Beth Fegan and Timothy A. Scott, partners at law firm Fegan Scott which on Thursday put a call out to potential class candidates.
"The fact that the Chicago Tribune can convene a group of experts and develop such convincing findings shows that the phone manufacturers may be intentionally hiding what they know about radiation output," Fegan said in a statement Thursday. "This could be the Chernobyl of the cell phone industry, cover-up and all."
Along with the suit, The Tribune's findings prompted the FCC to conduct its own testing of the reportedly non-compliant devices.
Plaintiffs seek class status, injunctive relief and damages including costs of medical monitoring, restitutions and wrongfully obtained revenue.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Apple Insider, Mikey Campbell, 23 Aug 2019|
|We tested popular cellphones for radiofrequency radiation. Now the FCC is investigating.|
|USA||Created: 27 Aug 2019|
The Apple iPhone 7 was set to operate at full power and secured below a tub of clear liquid, specially formulated to simulate human tissue.
With the push of a button, a robotic arm swung into action, sending a pencil-thin probe dipping into the tub. For 18 minutes, it repeatedly measured the amount of radiofrequency radiation the liquid was absorbing from the cellphone.
This test, which was paid for by the Tribune and conducted according to federal guidelines at an accredited lab, produced a surprising result: Radiofrequency radiation exposure from the iPhone 7 — one of the most popular smartphones ever sold — measured over the legal safety limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators from its own testing.
The Federal Communications Commission, which is responsible for regulating phones, states on its website that if a cellphone has been approved for sale, the device “will never exceed” the maximum allowable exposure limit. But this phone, in an independent lab inspection, had done exactly that.
The Tribune tested three more brand-new iPhone 7s at full power, and these phones also measured over the exposure limit. In all, 11 models from four companies were tested, with varying results.
The Tribune’s testing, though limited, represents one of the most comprehensive independent investigations of its kind, and the results raise questions about whether cellphones always meet safety standards set up to protect the public.
After reviewing the lab reports from the Tribune’s tests, the FCC said it would take the rare step of conducting its own testing over the next couple of months.
“We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules,” agency spokesman Neil Grace said.
The Tribune set out a year ago to explore an important question: Are cellphones as safe as manufacturers and government regulators say?
Though it’s unclear whether radiofrequency radiation from cellphones can increase cancer risk or lead to other harm, that question is increasingly pressing given the widespread use of cellphones today. Many children and teenagers may face years of exposure.
The newspaper’s testing was not meant to rank phone models for safety – only 11 models were examined, and in most cases just one device was tested. Nor is it possible to know whether any of the cellphones that tested above limits could cause harm. Two of the phone manufacturers, including Apple, disputed the Tribune’s results, saying the lab used by the newspaper had not tested the phones the same way they do.
But the results of the Tribune’s investigation contribute to an ongoing debate about the possible risks posed by radiofrequency radiation from cellphones, and they offer evidence that existing federal standards may not be adequate to protect the public.
Industry officials and manufacturers emphasize that before a new model can be brought to market, a sample phone must be tested and comply with an exposure standard for radiofrequency radiation. But manufacturers are allowed to select the testing lab — and only a single phone needs to pass in order for millions of others to be sold.
Companies testing a new phone for compliance with the safety limit also are permitted to position the phone up to 25 millimeters away from the body — nearly an inch — depending on how the device is used. That’s because the testing standards were adopted in the 1990s, when people frequently carried cellphones on belt clips.
In one phase of the Tribune testing, all phones were positioned at the same distance from the simulated body tissue that the manufacturers chose for their own tests — from 5 to 15 millimeters, depending on the model. Apple, for instance, tests at 5 millimeters.
But people now often carry phones closer to the body, in their pockets, which increases their potential exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
To assess this kind of exposure, the Tribune asked its lab to conduct a second phase of testing, placing the phones 2 millimeters away from the simulated body — closer than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and far less than the maximum distance allowed by the FCC.
The 2-millimeter distance was chosen to estimate the potential exposure for an owner carrying the phone in a pants or shirt pocket. Under those conditions, most of the models tested yielded results that were over the exposure limit, sometimes far exceeding it.
At 2 millimeters, the results from a Samsung Galaxy S8 were more than five times the standard.
The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ research arm, recommended in 2012 that the FCC reassess the exposure limit and its testing requirements, saying that because phones weren’t measured while against the body, authorities could not ensure exposures were under the standard.
Seven years later — after a lengthy period of public comment — the FCC came to its conclusion. The agency announced this month that the existing standard sufficiently protects the public and should remain in place.
Few other government officials have acted in recent years to address the possible risks of radiofrequency radiation from cellphones. But in California, the state Public Health Department in 2017 issued rare guidance on how concerned consumers could reduce exposure.
Among the advice: Don’t carry cellphones in pockets.
Apple, Samsung respond
When informed of the Tribune’s test results and provided with the laboratory’s 100-page lab report, Apple disputed the findings, saying they were not performed in a way that properly assesses iPhones.
The Tribune’s tests were conducted by RF Exposure Lab, a facility in San Marcos, Calif., that is recognized by the FCC as accredited to test for radiofrequency radiation from electronic devices. For 15 years, the lab has done radiation testing for wireless companies seeking government approval for new products.
Lab owner Jay Moulton said all the Tribune’s tests were done in accordance with detailed FCC rules and guidelines.
“We’re not doing anything extraordinary or different here,” Moulton said. Any qualified lab "should be able to grab a phone off the shelf and test it to see if it meets requirements.”
Apple, one of the world’s most iconic brands, would not say specifically what it thought was wrong with the Tribune’s tests or reveal how the company measures its phones for potential radiofrequency radiation exposure.
Still, based on Apple’s feedback, the Tribune retested the iPhones in the investigation as well as an additional iPhone 7, making a change aimed at activating sensors that would reduce power.
Once again, the iPhone 7s produced results over the safety limit, while an iPhone 8 that previously measured over the standard came in under.
When informed of the new results, Apple officials declined to be interviewed and requested the Tribune put its questions in writing. The newspaper did, submitting three dozen, but Apple did not answer any of them.
Apple then issued a statement, repeating that the Tribune test results for the iPhone 7s “were inaccurate due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models.”
“All iPhone models, including iPhone 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where iPhone is sold,” the statement said. “After careful review and subsequent validation of all iPhone models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable … exposure guidelines and limits.”
Apple did not explain what it meant by “careful review and subsequent validation.”
The three Samsung phones tested by the Tribune — the Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9 and Galaxy J3 — were positioned at 10 or 15 millimeters from the body, the distances chosen by the company in accordance with FCC guidelines. In these tests, the devices measured under the safety limit.
But when the phones were tested at 2 millimeters from the simulated body — to represent a device being used while in a pocket — the exposures measured well over the standard.
Samsung, based in South Korea and one of the world’s top smartphone makers, said in a statement: “Samsung devices sold in the United States comply with FCC regulations. Our devices are tested according to the same test protocols that are used across the industry.”
FCC officials would not comment on individual results from phones tested by the Tribune. They said that although the Tribune testing was not as comprehensive as what would be required for an official compliance report, they would examine some of the phone models in the newspaper’s investigation.
Assessing the risk
Around-the-clock cellphone use represents one of the most dramatic cultural shifts in decades. In 2009, an estimated 50 million smartphones were in active use in America, according to the wireless industry association CTIA. Today, there are 285 million. Twenty-nine percent of U.S. teens sleep with their cellphones in bed with them, according to a 2019 report by the nonprofit organization Common Sense Media.
Some researchers say safety efforts have not kept pace. “These days,” said Om Gandhi, an early researcher of cellphone radiation at the University of Utah, “exposure is from cradle to grave.”
Cellphones use radio waves to communicate with a vast network of fixed installations called base stations or cell towers. These radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation, in the same frequency range used by TVs and microwave ovens.
This kind of radiation, also known as radiofrequency energy, shouldn’t be confused with ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, which can strip electrons from atoms and cause serious biological harm, including cancer.
Radiofrequency energy from cellphones isn’t powerful enough to cause ionization, but at high levels it can heat biological tissue and cause harm. Eyes and testes are especially vulnerable because they do not dispel heat rapidly.
Less understood is whether people, especially children, are at risk for other health effects, including cancer, from exposure to low-level cellphone radiation over many years — potentially decades.
When cellphones hit the market in the 1980s, authorities focused on setting an exposure limit to address only the heating risks of cellphones. Scientists found that animals showed adverse effects when exposed to enough radiofrequency radiation to raise their body temperature by 1 degree Celsius. Authorities used this finding to help calculate a safety limit for humans, building in a 50-fold safety factor.
The final rule, adopted by the FCC in 1996, stated that cellphone users cannot potentially absorb more than 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over one gram of tissue. To demonstrate compliance, phone makers were told to conduct two tests: when the devices were held against the head and when held up to an inch from the body.
These testing methods didn’t address the anatomy of children and that of other vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, said Joel Moskowitz, a cellphone expert at the University of California at Berkeley.
“It was like one-size-fits-all.” Plus, he said, “I don’t think anyone anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives.”
The devices became ubiquitous and were increasingly slipped into pockets rather than carried on belt clips. The number of scientific studies related to cellphone radiofrequency radiation soared.
Last fall, in one of the largest studies to date, the National Toxicology Program, a research group within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that high exposure to the kind of radiofrequency radiation used by cellphones was associated with “clear evidence” of cancerous heart tumors in male rats.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibilities for cellphones with the FCC, responded to the study by assuring the public there was no danger to humans at “exposures at or under” safety limits. But the Tribune’s testing, disputed by manufacturers, found results from some cellphones over the exposure standard, particularly when tested close to the body.
Despite the changing ways people use phones, both the FCC and FDA said the current exposure limit protects the public. The agencies cite the 50-fold safety margin incorporated into the standard, as does CTIA, the industry association.
Over the limit
A half-hour drive north of San Diego, in the city of San Marcos, is RF Exposure Lab, a low-slung beige and white building that has the look and layout of a dentist’s office. Down the main hallway, past several doors, is a room with dozens of large containers labeled “Head Tissue” and “Body Tissue.”
Moulton, the lab owner, recalled how an intern once spilled some “body tissue” on himself and “freaked out because he thought it was real human tissue.” But it was just a mixture of mostly water, sugar and salt that simulates the electrical properties of the body. The liquid is used frequently at the lab, one of the few facilities in the U.S. that is accredited to test phones and other devices for radiofrequency radiation.
Moulton founded the lab in 2004 after serving as engineering director for chip-making giant Qualcomm. There, he said, he often wrestled with the radiation issue while helping design phones for Verizon.
The Tribune hired Moulton to conduct tests on 11 different models of cellphones, all purchased new by the newspaper. The tests took place in a 10-foot-by-10-foot room outfitted with copper screen windows to reduce electrical interference. In the middle of the room was a “phantom body,” an oval-shaped tub the size of a kitchen sink. Inside the tub was a body tissue mixture.
Moulton carefully positioned the first phone to be tested — an Apple iPhone 8 — under the phantom body so that it was 5 millimeters from the outside of the tub. This separation distance was the same gap selected by Apple in its tests and was in accordance with federal guidelines.
Using a base station simulator outside the room, Moulton placed a call to the iPhone 8 and adjusted the settings so the device was operating in the same band, frequency and channel that yielded the highest radiofrequency radiation reading reported by Apple to the FCC during the regulatory approval process — data that is available on the agency website.
The phone was now operating at full power, creating what was essentially a worst-case scenario in terms of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Typically, Moulton said, consumers do not experience exposure like this. But it could happen, he said, in limited situations, such as someone talking continuously in an area with a weak connection.
A probe attached to a robotic arm moved up and down, and back and forth, in the fluid, taking 276 measurements of the radiation absorbed. After a few minutes, the probe stopped, and the results appeared on a nearby computer screen: The radiofrequency radiation level for the iPhone 8 measured 2.64 W/kg — more than double the highest value Apple reported to the FCC and well over the 1.6 safety limit.
Moulton said he was surprised. “Maybe the phone’s power sensor isn’t working,” he said. “It’s supposed to be on."
Almost all smartphones, he said, have power sensors — also known as proximity sensors — designed to detect when the device is touching or extremely close to a person. When that occurs, the phone is supposed to reduce power, decreasing radiofrequency radiation.
“Let’s see how this iPhone 7 does,” he said, picking up the next phone to be tested. He secured it 5 millimeters under the phantom body, placed a call to the phone and activated the probe.
Minutes later, the results were in: 2.81 W/kg, again over the limit. He tested another iPhone 7, getting a similar result: 2.50 W/kg.
“Still high,” Moulton said.
As more phones were tested, some results came in low. For instance, Samsung’s Galaxy S9, S8 and J3 phones measured under the standard.
But the lab had tested the Samsung phones relatively far away from the simulated body, because that’s how the manufacturer had tested the devices when seeking FCC approval.
Two Samsung phones were tested at 10 millimeters away and one at 15 millimeters — still within federal guidelines but much greater than the 5-millimeter gap chosen by Apple for its tests.
So how would the Samsung devices and other models fare when tested at a consistent distance, one even closer to the body?
The ‘pocket test'
To help answer this question, the Tribune cut out pieces of dress shirts, T-shirts, jeans, track pants and underwear and sent them to Moulton. His measurements indicated that phones carried in pants or shirt pockets typically would be no more than 2 millimeters from the body.
Moulton then conducted the same radiation tests, using the same methods and equipment. The only difference was that the phones were placed 2 millimeters from the phantom body — closer than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and much closer than the maximum distance allowed by the FCC.
Maybe, he said, the phones’ proximity sensors would kick in at this closer distance, and the radiofrequency radiation levels would drop accordingly.
But most phones still showed high levels. The four iPhone 7s tested at 2 millimeters produced results twice the safety standard. The iPhone 8 measured three times over; the Moto e5 Play from Motorola measured quadruple the standard.
And the Samsung Galaxy phones?
All three measured at more than twice the standard, with the Galaxy S8 registering 8.22 W/kg — five times the standard and the highest exposure level seen in any of the Tribune tests.
Only two phones came in under the standard in the 2-millimeter “pocket test": an iPhone 8 Plus and a BLU Vivo 5 Mini.
Moulton said he couldn’t be certain why any of the phones in the Tribune tests scored as they did.
Only the manufacturers, he said, could say for sure.
Seeking an explanation
Apple and Motorola disputed the Tribune’s testing protocol but declined to answer written questions.
Motorola officials did say one thing about the high exposure measurement for their Moto e5 Play, which came in nearly three times the safety limit in a 5-millimeter test at the Tribune lab: They speculated the test did not trigger the proximity sensors in that phone.
Though the Tribune’s lab had followed all FCC testing methods, the newspaper subsequently retested the Moto e5 Play, slightly altering the previous testing method to reflect Motorola’s input. The Tribune also retested a Moto g6 Play, which had scored right at the safety limit in the first test, as well as an additional model, a Moto e5.
When tested with these modified methods, the exposure results for all three phones were under the limit at the 5-millimeter distance.
Moulton said the two test results for the e5 Play indicate that its sensors may not work under certain conditions.
Motorola, which is based in Chicago, said in a statement that “all Motorola devices meet or exceed FCC requirements" but would not answer questions about its power sensors.
“Our power management techniques and expertise provide Motorola with a significant competitive advantage in the marketplace, and are therefore highly confidential,” the company’s statement said. “The Chicago Tribune’s third-party lab was not privy to the proprietary techniques from Motorola necessary to elicit accurate results.”
Rules set by the FCC require that radiofrequency radiation testing be done “in a manner that permits independent assessment.”
Motorola said that after receiving the Tribune’s test results, it had the models in question tested at its outside lab, which “found results were within the appropriate limits.” When the Tribune asked Motorola to explain how it tests its phones, the company declined. It also would not share its lab reports.
The Tribune also retested several iPhones based on Apple’s feedback. A reporter touched or grasped the phones for the duration of the tests, actions intended to activate sensors that are designed to reduce the devices’ power.
In these tests, the iPhone 8 measured under the limit at 5 millimeters, but all four iPhone 7s did not.
In response to these results, Apple issued a statement saying the lab procedures in the Tribune testing still were improper. The company, based in Cupertino, Calif., wouldn’t say what methods were necessary.
FCC documents show that when Apple sought agency approval in 2016 to market the iPhone 7, the company promised to “take appropriate action” on any complaint “relating to the product’s compliance with requirements of the relevant standard.”
Apple, which said it validated the safety of its phones in response to the Tribune testing, would not provide any additional detail about the actions it took to evaluate the phones.
The company also wouldn’t comment on the information it provides the public on radiofrequency radiation. Consumers can find such information on their iPhones, but it’s difficult.
On the iPhone 7, for instance, a user would go to Settings > General > About > Legal > RF Exposure. There, the term “radiofrequency radiation” is not used but rather “RF energy,” a reference to radiofrequency exposure.
To reduce exposure, Apple suggests using “a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories.”
For some past models, Apple gives additional advice. Apple’s website tells users of the iPhone 4 and 4s: “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.” The site says those phones were tested at a distance of 10 millimeters.
When Apple submitted its application to the FCC to market the iPhone 7, the company included a similarly worded radiation statement, suggesting users carry the device at least 5 millimeters from the body, records show.
But iPhone 7s eventually sold to the public did not include that advice.
When the Tribune asked Apple in its written questions why that suggestion was not included, the company did not respond.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Chicago Tribune, Sam Roe, 21 Aug 2019|
|Page 1 of 179  Next› Last»|