Select Page

EPA Letter Confirms Lack of Wireless and 5G Safety Regulations for Birds, Bees and Trees

Jul 11, 2020

On July 8, 2020, Lee Ann B. Veal Director, Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America confirmed that they have no funded mandate regarding wireless  radiofrequency matters and that they are not aware of any developed safety limits or research reviews related to impacts of wireless on birds bees and the environment.

Please read the latest email exchange below. Theodora Scarato has followed up with more questions after this email. Responses will be posted. Scarato questions are in bold. 

We are holding our government accountable. If you think our work in exposing this reality is important, please DONATE to Environmental Health Trust. 

We are non profit fully supported by donations from the public.  Thank you.

Letter from the EPA to Theodora Scarato

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Veal, Lee
Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: Letter with specific Questions Related to the FDA review and to the EPA, CDC, NIOSH and FDA Jurisdiction on EMFs
To: Theodora Scarato

Dear Director Scarato;

 

Thank you for sending us your questions and references regarding radiofrequency (RF) radiation.  Up through the mid-1990s, EPA did study non-ionizing radiation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish rules regarding RF exposure, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, nor do we have a dedicated subject matter expert in radiofrequency exposure. The EPA defers to other agencies possessing a defined role regarding RF. Although your questions are outside our current area of responsibilities, we have provided a response to each one as you requested.

What is your response to these scientists’ statements regarding the FDA report and the call to retract it? EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, has not conducted a review of the FDA report you cited or the scientists’ statements, and therefore has no response to it.

To the FDA- What consultants were hired for the FDA review and report on cell phone radiation? EPA Response: This is not an EPA matter. Please refer this question to the FDA.

What US agency has reviewed the research on cell phone radiation and  brain damage? I ask this because the FDA only has looked at selected studies on cancer. If your agency has not,  please simply state you have not. EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

 

What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to memory by cell phone radiation?   If so, when and send a link to the review. EPA Response: EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

 

What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to trees from cell phone radiation?   If so, when was it issued and send a link to the review. Note this study showing damage from long term exposure to cell antennas.  EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and we are not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on this topic. We do not know if any other US agencies have reviewed it.

 

What US agency has reviewed the research on impacts to birds and bees?   If so, when and send a link to the review. I will note the latest research showing possible impacts to bees from higher frequencies to be used in 5G. EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and we are not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on this topic. We do not know if any other US agencies have reviewed it.

 

What is a safe level of radiofrequency radiation? I ask this because the FDA and FCC both state they do not need to test cell phones at body contact and it is proven that phones will create exposure that are higher than FCC limits when phones are tested in these positions.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA defers to these regulatory authorities for the establishment of safe levels of radiofrequency radiation.

 

The FDA and FCC have been provided with information and published data showing  the fact that cell phones create cell phone radiation exposures that violate FCC limits. What agency has the job of ensuring accountability that the American public is not exposed to RF radiation that exceeds FCC limits. The FCC has test protocols that say body contact tests are not needed. The FDA refers to the FCC. Yet the fact is that cell phones exceed FCC limits when tested in body contact positions. Are the FCC limits legitimate? These FCC limits are being violated.  Who is the responsible agency that will ensure Americans are protected? The FCC says their rules are not being violated as their rules allow for a space between the phone or device and the body? The FDA says there is a safety factor so there is no need for them to act (and will not state what the safety factor for a cell phone is)  . YET government limits are being exceeded. Are agencies fine with limits being violated? If so please explain at what level of cell phone radiation a federal agency will step in? If so, which agency has jurisdiction? (March 12, 2019 Publication on Om Gandhi’s paper on radiation emissions violating FCC limits 11 times and August 21, 2019 Chicago Tribune cell phone testing data released)

EPA Response: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and the questions you raise are outside of EPA’s areas of responsibilities and current expertise.  Please refer this question to FCC and FDA.

 

The National Toxicology Program states clear evidence of cancer was found and the FDA disputes this because it was just an animal study. However birds fly and nest on cell antennas mounted on towers, bees fly in front of antennas and family pets (dogs, cats) will sit directly on or near Wi-Fi routers and smart speakers despite the fact that the manuals state humans should be at a minimum of 20 cm from wireless devices (far more from antennas of towers). What about the impact to these animals? What is the US government doing to ensure safety for wildlife and family pets? 

 

EPA Response: The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and the questions you raise are outside of EPA’s area of responsibility and current expertise. We defer to FDA to provide a response regarding their findings.

 

Please send me the staff member of your respective agency who is on the Interagency Radiofrequency Workgroup as I have repeatedly tried to get this information and it is never provided to me.

EPA Response: The Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG) is an informal forum for exchange of information and the group does not meet to set, or advise on, policy, rulemaking or guidance. The group has not met in more than two years.

The FDA only reviewed selected studies on cancer  until 2018. Most recently, the American Cancer Society funded radiation in people with genetic susceptibilities. The National Toxicology Program published research showing DNA damage. Will the FDA be updating it’s review with these studies? If not, then what agency is accountable to American public to ensure humans are not harmed?

 

EPA Response:  The questions you raise are outside of EPA’s areas of responsibilities and current expertise. Please direct questions about FDA activities to FDA.

What agency ensures safety related to extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) electromagnetic fields- also non ionizing? Currently we have no federal limit, no federal guidelines and confirmed associations with cancer and many other health effects. Kaiser Permanente researchers have published several studies linking pregnant women’s exposure to magnetic field electromagnetic fields to not only increased miscarriage and but also increased ADHD, obesity and asthma in the woman’s prenatally exposed children.  A recent large scale study again found associations with cancer. Please clarify which US agency has jurisdiction over ELF-EMF exposures? 

EPA Response:  There are no U.S. Federal standards limiting residential or occupational exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from power lines.  The EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.

When it comes to cell phone radiation SAR thresholds, what is your understanding of the “safety factor” in place?

EPA Response:  EPA last commented on FCC proposals for SAR limits in the 1996 FCC 96-236. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the FCC to establish rules regarding radiofrequency (RF) exposure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets standards for electronic devices that emit non-ionizing or ionizing radiation. The EPA defers to these regulatory authorities for the establishment of safe levels of radiofrequency radiation.

Sincere regards,

Lee Ann B. Veal

Director, Radiation Protection Division

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

www.epa.gov/radiation

 

From: Theodora Scarato <
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2020 5:27 PM
To: ombuds@oc.fda.gov; DICE@fda.hhs.gov; jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov; Stephen.Hahn@fda.hhs.gov; Secretary@hhs.gov; Veal, Lee <Veal.Lee@epa.gov>; bullard-jenkins.pamela@epa.gov; Griggs, John <Griggs.John@epa.gov>; Wilds, Edward <Wilds.Edward@epa.gov>; Edwards, Jonathan <Edwards.Jonathan@epa.gov>; edwards-jonathan@epa.gov; Rowson, David <Rowson.David@epa.gov>; rowson-david@epa.gov; zkz1@cdc.gov; fjh1@cdc.gov; francis.collins@nih.gov; hrcs@cdc.gov; nidcdinfo@nidcd.nih.gov; talktodol@dol.gov
Cc: Miriam Falco <miriam.falco@cancer.org>; William G. Cance <bill.cance@cancer.org>; Susan Gapstur <susan.gapstur@cancer.org>; Lindsay.Lloyd@fda.hhs.gov; Louis Slesin <louis@microwavenews.com>; sborenstein@ap.org; Broad, William <wjb@nytimes.com>; alan.burdick <alan.burdick@nytimes.com>; Hilary Stout <hilary.stout@nytimes.com>; rebecca.blumenstein <rebecca.blumenstein@nytimes.com>
Subject: Letter with specific Questions Related to the FDA review and to the EPA, CDC, NIOSH and FDA Jurisdiction on EMFs

 

Dear Honorable Leadership and Scientists  of the FDA,  EPA,  CDC, Health and Human Services,  National Cancer Institute and Department of Labor;

 

I would respectfully ask the following questions for each of your agencies- the CDC, FDA, HHS, FDA, EPA, NIOSH, Department of Labor  to answer promptly.

  1. What is your response to these scientists statements regarding the FDA report and the call to retract it?
    2. To the FDA- What consultants were hired for the FDA review and report on cell phone radiation?
    3. What US agency has reviewed the research on cell phone radiation and  brain damage? I ask this because the FDA only has looked at selected studies on cancer. If your agency has not,  please simply state you have not.
    4. What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to memory by cell phone radiation?   If so, when and send a link to the review.
    5. What US agency has reviewed the research on damage to trees from cell phone radiation?   If so, when was it issued and send a link to the review. Note this study showing damage from long term exposure to cell antennas. 
    6. What US agency has reviewed the research on impacts to birds and bees?   If so, when and send a link to the review. I will note the latest research showing possible impacts to bees from higher frequencies to be used in 5G.
  2. What is a safe level of radiofrequency radiation? I ask this because the FDA and FCC both state they do not need to test cell phones at body contact and it is proven that phones will create exposure that are higher than FCC limits when phones are tested in these positions.
  3. The FDA and FCC have been provided with information and published data showing  the fact that cell phones create cell phone radiation exposures that violate FCC limits. What agency has the job of ensuring accountability that the American public is not exposed to RF radiation that exceeds FCC limits. The FCC has test protocols that say body contact tests are not needed. The FDA refers to the FCC. Yet the fact is that cell phones exceed FCC limits when tested in body contact positions. Are the FCC limits legitimate? These FCC limits are being violated.  Who is the responsible agency that will ensure Americans are protected? The FCC says their rules are not being violated as their rules allow for a space between the phone or device and the body? The FDA says there is a safety factor so there is no need for them to act (and will not state what the safety factor for a cell phone is)  . YET government limits are being exceeded. Are agencies fine with limits being violated? If so please explain at what level of cell phone radiation a federal agency will step in? If so, which agency has jurisdiction?

(March 12, 2019 Publication on Om Gandhi’s paper on radiation emissions violating FCC limits 11 times and August 21, 2019 Chicago Tribune cell phone testing data released)

  1. The National Toxicology Program states clear evidence of cancer was found and the FDA disputes this because it was just an animal study. However birds fly and nest on cell antennas mounted on towers, bees fly in front of antennas and family pets (dogs, cats) will sit directly on or near Wi-Fi routers and smart speakers despite the fact that the manuals state humans should be at a minimum of 20 cm from wireless devices (far more from antennas of towers). What about the impact to these animals? What is the US government doing to ensure safety for wildlife and family pets?
  2. Please send me the staff member of your respective agency who is on the Interagency Radiofrequency Workgroup as I have repeatedly tried to get this information and it is never provided to me.
  3. The FDA only reviewed selected studies on cancer  until 2018. Most recently, the American Cancer Society funded Yale study linked Thyroid cancer to cell phone radiationin people with genetic susceptibilities. The National Toxicology Program published research showing DNA damage. Will the FDA be updating it’s review with these studies? If not, then what agency is accountable to American public to ensure humans are not harmed?
  4. What agency ensures safety related to extremely low frequency (ELF-EMF) electromagnetic fields- also non ionizing? Currently we have no federal limit, no federal guidelines and confirmed associations with cancer and many other health effects. Kaiser Permanente researchers have published several studies linking pregnant women’s exposure to magnetic field electromagnetic fields to not only increased miscarriage and but also increased ADHD, obesity and asthma in the woman’s prenatally exposed children.  A recent large scale study again found associations with cancer. Please clarify which US agency has jurisdiction over ELF-EMF exposures?
  5. When it comes to cell phone radiation SAR thresholds, what is your understanding of the “safety factor” in place?

I am writing to all of you so each of your agencies can provide me with the answers from your respective agencies. Usually one agency  sends me to the other agency but I do not receive an answer. Everyone points the finger at the other but no one has an answer. Please answer my questions numbered one through ten numbered so we have clarity in the response.

Please see the letter from multiple scientists below. I also attached a sampling of recent  pertinent science.

Theodora Scarato

Executive Director Environmental Health Trust

If you think our work in exposing this reality is important, please DONATE to Environmental Health Trust. 

We are non profit fully supported by donations from the public.  Thank you.