Pediatricians Group Says FCC RF Rules Not Strong Enough to Protect Children

In March, the FCC released slightly revised RF rules and a further notice asking questions about the commission’s RF exposure limits and policies (CD April 1 p6). The FCC last examined the biological effects of RF in 1979. The FCC said in March it hopes to determine “whether the present limits are insufficiently protective, appropriately protective, or overly restrictive.” RF safety has long been a contentious issue, with scientific studies offering differing assessments of the risks. In a Jan. 9 speech at the Consumer Electronics Show, former Chairman Julius Genachowski was interrupted by a man who stood up in the audience to shout: “You're giving people cancer and you know it."

Joining grassroots and public interest groups who said the 1996 RF standards should be strengthened, AAP said there are many times more cellphones in use today than 17 years ago and people use their devices much more frequently. “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation,” AAP said (http://bit.ly/15Gwi2j). “Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes."

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental and public health research and advocacy group, said the 1996 rules are not strong enough. “Specifically, the agency’s regulations must be revised so that they will adequately protect both children and adults, reflect actual current use patterns and provide meaningful consumer disclosure without preempting states from requiring additional disclosure,” EWG said (http://bit.ly/151VRiO). “Moreover, it is imperative that the FCC not weaken its existing standards by altering its testing guidelines to adopt average radiation exposure testing over a larger volume of tissue. This change, proposed by the FCC, would be a step backward, given the unanswered questions about the potential long-term effects of cell phone radiation exposure."

"When the Commission adopted its 1996 regulations, it grounded them in the weight of scientific evidence as then expressed in the work of international standard-setting bodies and federal health and safety agencies,” CTIA said (http://bit.ly/1dUdOWf). “Backed by scientific evidence and set at a level 50 times below the threshold at which biological impacts are observed, the current standards appropriately balance public safety with the need to allow wireless services to address ever-growing marketplace demands. CTIA urges the Commission to continue its science-based approach to RF emission standards and testing methodologies, and to continue to eschew any requirements that are not supported by the science but are putatively ‘precautionary’ in nature.” CTIA said the proliferation of wireless service since the release of the rules “makes clear that the FCC struck the right balance when setting its RF emission standards."

CTIA addressed at some length an International Agency for Research on Cancer finding that cellphones should be classified as 2B agents, those which are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The IARC Working Group that made that determination “concluded that there was not enough experimental or epidemiological evidence to label RF fields as even ‘probably carcinogenic’ -- let alone ‘carcinogenic,'” CTIA said. The group conceded that a majority of the working group declined to find RF energy is “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity” or “probably not carcinogenic to humans.” But that’s not a surprise, CTIA said. “Only one of the nearly 1,000 agents classified by the IARC Working Group was deemed ‘probably not carcinogenic,'” the group said. RF energy was placed in the same category as coffee and picked vegetables, CTIA observed.

"The Commission’s RF exposure guidelines are based on scientific information that is more than twenty years old. During that time, there has been continual research and standards work, both in the United States and globally, that the Commission should take into account,” CEA said (http://bit.ly/19fTnNu). “Adoption of the new global standards is well supported by the latest science, and maintenance of RF limits based on outdated research does not provide better protection.” CEA also said the FCC has a big role to play in educating consumers to ensure that “consumer information concerning RF emissions is meaningful and provides the tools that consumers need to assess device purchases and use.” The commission should also allow for flexible time averaging standards for testing mobile and portable devices, CEA said.

The Telecommunications Industry Association said the FCC standard should be internationally harmonized, based on IEEE exposure standard, which was published in 2005. “TIA believes that the Commission should harmonize its exposure standard with the internationally-accepted 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 grams value,” the group said (http://bit.ly/17HOdZq). “We base this assertion on: (1) the consensus views of expert health and safety organizations that have reviewed the existing scientific evidence, and (2) the economic benefits that result from the global harmonization of standards."

"As the Commission reviews its RF exposure policies, it should begin from the understanding that the current system is working,” Motorola Solutions said (http://bit.ly/13koVRx). “The Commission’s policies have enabled the rapid development and widespread adoption of wireless technologies in the United States in a manner that is safe and sustainable. However, to the extent the Commission seeks to revise these policies, it should strive to harmonize its requirements, procedures, and guidelines with international standards and specifications.”