At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk

[proverbialwisdom]

Source: By DANNY HAKIM, New York Times

JAN. 1, 2016

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published new guidelines 18 months ago regarding the radiation risk from cellphones, it used unusually bold language on the topic for the American health agency: “We recommend caution in cellphone use.”

The agency’s website previously had said that any risks “likely are comparable to other lifestyle choices we make every day.”

Within weeks, though, the C.D.C. reversed course. It no longer recommended caution, and deleted a passage specifically addressing potential risks for children.

Mainstream scientific consensus holds that there is little to no evidence that cellphone signals raise the risk of brain cancer or other health problems; rather, behaviors like texting while driving are seen as the real health concerns. Nevertheless, more than 500 pages of internal records obtained by The New York Times, along with interviews with former agency officials, reveal a debate and some disagreement among scientists and health agencies about what guidance to give as the use of mobile devices skyrockets.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/technology/at-cdc-a-debate-behind-recommendations-on-cellphone-risk.html

[pnwmom]

1. The CDC: "WE RECOMMEND CAUTION IN CELL PHONE USE."

Yes, I shouted that on purpose.

How many times have people here claimed that concerns about cell phone use were based on nothing but "woo"? Meanwhile, evidence has been accumulating for decades.

So the CDC withdrew its caution statement shortly after. Sorry, but their credibility is gone. Good for the NYTimes for reporting on the cover-up.

Thanks for this post, proverbialwisdom.

[pnwmom]

4. Please reread my post.

So the CDC withdrew its caution statement shortly after. Sorry, but their credibility is gone. Good for the NYTimes for reporting on the cover-up.

[proverbialwisdom]

5. Rushing, missed that. My apologies. (nt)

[proverbialwisdom]

2. Related.

http://www.today.com/health/pediatricians-new-warning-limit-childrens-exposure-cellphones-t53541

Pediatricians' new warning: Limit children's exposure to cellphones

Nov. 5, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Danielle Dellorto

There are now more cellphones in use in the United States than there are people. But how safe are they?

U.S. government agencies including the FCC (which decides how much radiation mobile phones are allowed to emit) say there is little to be concerned about.

But others beg to differ. Earlier this year 190 independent scientists representing 39 countries (including the United States) appealed to global health organization to strengthen cellphone guidelines and ensure the public be "fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy." These scientists, who have collectively authored more than 2,000 papers on the topic, add to a growing number of prominent experts and government agencies around the world who are holding up a caution sign for consumers — particularly when it comes to kids.

CTIA, which represents cellphone manufacturers, tells NBC News that mobile phones are tested at independent labs to ensure they meet the FCC's mandatory radiation exposure limits. But the FCC does not independently test cellphones for safety; they base their guidelines on information provided by other government agencies and independent experts.

The guidelines were last updated in 1996. In a letter to the FCC, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the agency to adopt U.S. standards that protect children's health, reflect use patterns of cellphone users today, and "provide consumers the information they need to make informed decisions."

<>

https://www.emfscientist.org/images/docs/International-EMF-Scientist-Appeal-2015.pdf
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520941318

More: http://ehtrust.org/super-smart-and-safe-technology-ehts-holiday-shopping-tips-for-parents/

[Skittles]

15. people do seem more stupid, the more they use their phones

[restorefreedom]

6. once again, a govt agency

that exists "to protect us" got their marching orders from big business

no surprise

[arikara]

7. There is lots of documentation on the risks

not only of cellphones, but wireless internet, smart meters and all those towers that proliferate everywhere.

"Distracted" driving isn't the cause of accidents when people are on the cellphones. Its more a scrambled brain syndrome from the radiation amplified by sitting inside a metal box, and it takes about 20 minutes to dissipate after the call. Hands free doesn't help, actually its even worse because the signal is boosted. Seriously, how could people have been driving and chatting with passengers for as long as there's been vehicles with no increase in distracted driving and it only become an issue since cellphones.

[still_one]

8. "Hands free is even worse"??? Really. So you are saying that cars which communicate with Bluetooth

to the phone, NOT YOUR BRAIN, and then are amplified on the cars speakers are worse? That doesn't even make sense. You are not even holding the phone, it is not near your head

and as far as your statement regarding that cell phones are not the cause of accidents, sorry, but the statistics disagree with your statement. People are distracted by the cell phones, everything from manually dialing a phone number to texting.

Here is some actual long term studies:

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/01/cell-phones-and-cancer-should-you-be-worried/

http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(14)00064-9/abstract

[NobodyHere]

9. If that were true then shouldn't car accident deaths be skyrocketing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

[arikara]

10. Not every accident results in a death

People used to think driving drunk was acceptable too. When they started bringing in the laws, I heard some even call it a "Gawd given right" to drink while they were driving.

I know this topic upsets a lot of people. I know many have an emotional attachment to their communication devices and its hard to give them up for any length of time. As well, the companies who sell them and the governments they support have their very profitable reasons for suppressing information. At any rate, I'm not going to start flashing links all over the place. If what I say bothers you, then ignore it. But if it makes you want to do some research that's great because there really is lots of unbiased information out there that is worth looking at and don't discount the sites that aren't so fancy because they don't have lots of $$$.

I have to go to work so that's all I got to say.

[NobodyHere]

11. Accidents have gone down too

Is there any evidence to support your tinfoil hat theories?

[Bernin]

12. Yes!

It's in the manual for your Iphone that you never read.
It specifically states to keep the phone at least 5/8 of an inch away from your head when in use and 10mm away from your body at all times!

[Cal Carpenter]

13. "scrambled brain syndrome"

Link to diagnosis information and peer-reviewed scientific study of this syndrome and its relationship to cell phones, please. I've never heard of it.

[anigbrowl]

14. Link to some of it then

This claim in particular sounds like BS to me:

Its more a scrambled brain syndrome from the radiation amplified by sitting inside a metal box, and it takes about 20 minutes to dissipate after the call.

As if trying to read something printed on paper while driving would be perfectly safe.

I don't think I'm suffering from personal bias here as not only do I not use my cellphone much, I don't drive or own a car so I have no habitual use patterns involving the two to defend.

[FLPanhandle]

18. What silliness

Go outside and the sun hits you with more radiation than you'll get from a cellphone in a lifetime.

[proverbialwisdom]

19. Forbes reviewed the SafeSleeve in a tech blog post, but not the rest. Check it out, I'm doing same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[center]vs. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2002/12/v25n4-9.pdf[/center]

http://www.safesleevecases.com/pages/cell-phone-radiation

http://www.saferemr.com/2015/07/children-are-more-exposed-to-cell-phone.html

Monday, November 30, 2015
Children are more exposed to cell phone radio-frequency radiation than adults

"It is very hard to understand why the FCC allows the use of a large SAM (specific anthropomorphic mannequin) model of dimensions derived from the 90th percentile head size of the U.S. mlitary recruits for psSAR (peak spatial absorption rate) compliance testing against safety guidelines."
-- Professor Om Gandhi

If one reads back issues of Microwave News, it's not so hard to understand why the FCC adopted radio frequency (RF) radiation limits for cell phone handsets in 1996 that failed to protect the health and safety of cell phone users (men as well as women and children).

In the early 1990's, the U.S. military and the defense industry played a major role in the RF standard-setting process overruling the Federal health agencies that advocated for more stringent limits at the time based upon the research. The result of health agency opposition to the military and industry position was that industry lobbied the Congress to cut off Federal health research funding on RF radiation which has lasted to this day.

The Federal government maintains the status quo by arguing it needs more definitive research before strengthening RF exposure limits. However, the government does not fund the needed research. Doesn't this constitute gross negligence on the part of our government?

Norm Alster's new book."Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates," helps explain why our government has maintained these obsolete RF safety limits for almost two decades.

<>

Om Gandhi, Professor in the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at the University of Utah, has published over 200 journal articles on electromagnetic dosimetry, microwave tubes, and solid-state devices. He edited the book Biological Effects and Medical Applications of Electromagnetic Energy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), and coedited the book Electromagnetic Biointeraction (New York: Plenum, 1989).

Dr. Gandhi was elected a Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering in 1997. He has been President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1992–1993), Cochairman of IEEE SCC 28.IV Subcommittee on the RF Safety Standards (1988–1997), and Chairman of the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) 1980–1982. He received the d’Arsonval Medal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society for pioneering contributions to the field of bioelectromagnetics in 1995, the Microwave Pioneer Award of the IEEE-Microwave Theory and Techniques Society in 2001, and the State of Utah Governor’s Medal for Science and Technology in 2002.

http://www.saferemr.com/2015/06/an-expose-of-fcc-agency-captured-by.html

Friday, June 26, 2015

Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates.
By Alster, Norm
Publisher: Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University
Publication Date: June 23, 2015

Cambridge, MA: Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University. 2015.

PDF: http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured (free)
Kindle: http://amzn.to/1SQThCU ($0.99 -- check out the book reviews)
FCC filing: http://bit.ly/FCCcapturedagency

vimeo.com/107306727

vimeo.com/106235406

vimeo.com/72054626

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/05/cellphone-users-check-phones-150xday-and-other-internet-fun-facts/
http://www.mayfieldclinic.com/PSA_cellphone.htm

[trillion]

16. 10 years ago I was reading a Time article on this where the reporter was interviewing

NY traders who used cell phones all day for their work and some were quitting because of how many brain cancers there were in that office and how they were formed on the side of the head behind the ear that people spoke on cell phones with.
That article concluded with a scientific study that proved that the frequency the cell phones use caused cancer in rats. I never forgot that and have used speaker phone on my cell, since.

[trillion]

17. this reminds me of the cigarette industry's - smoking doesn't cause cancer and no study has every

proved it did, campaign that went on for decades in light of hundreds of studies proving it did.

[0rganism]

20. i used to carry my cell phone around in my breast pocket

i used to carry my cell phone (Samsung galaxy S4) around in my left breast pocket on my overshirt with an undershirt underneath.

a few months ago, i noticed the beginnings of a small weird growth on my left nipple (nipples on men? i blame Cthulhu).

about a month ago i decided not to carry the phone around in that pocket anymore because the nipple was itching.

2 weeks after that, the growth was gone along with most of the itching.

i have no desire to continue the experiment by putting the phone back in my breast pocket.

disclaimer: this is account is entirely anecdotal, and does not constitute evidence for anything except my lack of fashion sense.