Wireless Safety Proclamation Toolkit

How To Adopt a Cell Phone Wireless Safety Proclamation in Your City

People are raising the issue of cellphone and wireless device safety across the World. You can, too! A Proclamation is an excellent way to raise community awareness on this issue and does not involve changing laws. Please bring this issue to the attention of your local city or town leaders and welcome them to adopt a Proclamation of Cell Phone/Wireless Safety and declare a Cell Phone Awareness Month.

Here are some examples of such efforts in the United States:

In order for the Council to understand this issue it is important that you send letters, prepare materials and speak at City Council meetings. We have several resources that will be helpful to your efforts.

Resources and Downloads:
Stories from Survivors & Non Survivors: Cell Phone-related Brain Cancer

San Francisco’s Right to Know Law
“My husband thought that it would not happen to him. People need to know”. Please watch this video from 2010 when San Francisco’s Right to Know Law was being passed. Survivors came from all over the United States to tell their stories of cell phone related brain cancer in this video. Their words and stories are important to hear and fully understand what is at stake if we do not raise awareness on this issue.


A Consumer’s Right to Know: The Fine Print Manufacturer Warnings

All manufacturers of wireless devices have warnings which describe the minimum distance at which device must be kept away from users in order to not exceed the present legal limits for exposure to wireless radiation. For example, the FCC regulates that the exposure limit for laptop computers and tablets is set when devices are tested 20 cm away from the body. Cell phones are usually tested at about 5/8th an inch and have similar manufacturer’s advice. Read our page on Fine Print Warnings.

Did you read your cell phone manual? Do you know your WI-FI router has a manual too? Do you have a wireless printer at your desk close to your body?

Why are these Fine Print Warnings important?

If these distances are not maintained, people can be exposed to radiation at levels that exceed the current FCC standard, potentially exposing them to thermal exposures. For example, laptops are tested at 20 cm (about 8 inches) AWAY from the body. The regulation requires that the SAR be less than 1.6 W/kg for any 1 gram of tissue, 20 cm (~8 inches) from the device.  Because of the inverse square law at 10 cm, the SAR could double; at 5 inches it could increase 16-fold, and at 2 cm (i.e. on your lap) it could increase 100-fold.

These Fine Print Warnings do not Protect the User from Non-Thermal effects.

Current outdated FCC exposure standards are only set to protect against thermal injury.

Even if devices are used per the manufacturers advice, safety is not assured. Research shows links between “low” levels of microwave radiation and biological effects.  Current US and Canadian radio frequency exposure standards are inadequate to protect human health. Sufficient long term pre-market safety testing was not done.

  • The testing procedures that define current standards did not consider the smaller size of children and teen brains nor the impact of the radiation on rapidly developing neurological systems.
  • Current exposure standards were set to protect against heating injury and do not protect against other mechanisms of action.
  • They do not consider the biological effects of chronic low level exposures.

The  World Health Organization cites the study, “Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children,” (Gandhi et al, 2011), which documents how the industry-designed process for evaluating microwave radiation from phones results in children absorbing twice the cell phone radiation to their heads, up to triple in their brain’s hippocampus and hypothalamus, greater absorption in their eyes, and as much as 10 times more in their bone marrow when compared to adults. 


READ THE RESEARCH:
Non-ionizing radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields / IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans

(2011). Non-ionizing radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields / IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to HumansIARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 102(2), 1-460.

  • Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).” (p. 421)
  • “Overall, the Working Group reviewed all the available evidence with regard to the use of wireless phones, including both mobile and cordless phones, and the risk of glioma. …a causal interpretation was possible.”
  • “In considering the evidence on acoustic neuroma, the Working Group considered the same methodological concerns as for glioma, but concluded that bias was not sufficient to explain the positive findings, particularly those of the study from Sweden.” (p. 412)

Mobile phone use and brain tumors in the CERENAT case-control study.

Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo JS, Loiseau H, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, Baldi I. (2014). Mobile phone use and brain tumors in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med. 71(7), 514-22.

  • “CERENAT is a multicenter case-control study carried out in four areas in France in 2004–2006. No association with brain tumours was observed when comparing regular mobile phone users with non-users. However, the positive association was statistically significant in the heaviest users when considering life-long cumulative duration for meningiomas  and number of calls for gliomas Risks were higher for gliomas, temporal tumours, occupational and urban mobile phone use.
  • These additional data support previous findings concerning a possible association between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumours.”

Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen.

Davis DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y.(2013). Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 20(2), 123-9.

  • “Given that treatment for a single case of brain cancer can cost between $100,000 for radiation therapy alone and up to $1 million depending on drug costs, resources to address this illness are already in short supply and not universally available in either developing or developed countries. Significant additional shortages in oncology services are expected at the current growth of cancer. No other environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one decade…If the increased brain cancer risk found in young users in these recent studies does apply at the global level, the gap between supply and demand for oncology services will continue to widen. Many nations, phone manufacturers, and expert groups, advise prevention in light of these concerns by taking the simple precaution of “distance” to minimize exposures to the brain and body. We note than brain cancer is the proverbial “tip of the iceberg”; the rest of the body is also showing effects other than cancers.”

Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumors diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild K.(2013). Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumors diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. International Journal of Oncology 43(6), 1833-45.

  • For persons with more than 25 years latency period (time since first use until tumour diagnosis) a 3-fold increased risk was found. The risk increased further for tumours located in the most exposed area of the brain, the temporal lobe, to a 5-fold increased risk.
  • “This study confirmed previous results of an association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumours. These findings provide support for the hypothesis that RF-EMFs play a role both in the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis”.

Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumors diagnosed during 1997-2003.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson, Mild K. (2006). Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumors diagnosed during 1997-2003. International Journal of Oncology.509-18.

  • In the multivariate analysis, a significantly increased risk of acoustic neuroma was found with the use of analogue phones.

Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH.(2013). Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncol.43(4), 1036-44.

  • “Ipsilateral use resulted in a higher risk than contralateral for both mobile and cordless phones. OR increased per 100 h cumulative use and per year of latency for mobile phones and cordless phones, though the increase was not statistically significant for cordless phones. The percentage tumour volume increased per year of latency and per 100 h of cumulative use, statistically significant for analogue phones. This study confirmed previous results demonstrating an association between mobile and cordless phone use and acoustic neuroma.”

Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. (2011). Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumors and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects. Int J Oncol. 38(5):1465-74.

  • An increased risk was found for glioma and use of mobile or cordless phone. The risk increased with latency time and cumulative use in hours and was highest in subjects with first use before the age of 20.

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.

Hardell L, Carlberg M. (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 phonesRev Environ Health. 28(2-3), 97-106.

  • “All nine issues on causation according to Hill were evaluated. The criteria on strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient for evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma were fulfilled.
  • Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.”

Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. (2013). Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology. 20(2):85-110.

  • “We give an overview of current epidemiological evidence for an increased risk for brain tumours including a meta-analysis of the Hardell group and Interphone results for mobile phone use. ..It is concluded that one should be careful using incidence data to dismiss results in analytical epidemiology. The IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem to have had any significant impact on governments’ perceptions of their responsibilities to protect public health from this widespread source of radiation”.

Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

Myung S.K., Ju W, McDonnell D, Lee Y, Kazinets G, Cheng C,  Moskowitz J.(2009). Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(33), 556.

  • A Meta-Analysis- “The current study found that there is possible evidence linking mobile phone use to an increased risk of tumors from a meta-analysis of low-biased case-control studies. Prospective cohort studies providing a higher level of evidence are needed”.