Select Page

U.S. and International Law and Policy: Children and Cell Phone Radiation Health Issues

Oct 16, 2023

U.S. and International Law and Policy to Address Children and Cell Phone Radiation Health Issues

Theodora Scarato MSW, Executive Director, Environmental Health Trust

Environmental Health Trust Executive Director Theodora Scarato presented a scientific poster on children, cell phone radiation, law and policy at the Digital Media and Developing Minds 2023 Congress held in Washington DC with the Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development.

Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development is an international non-profit organization founded in 2013 to understand and address compelling questions regarding media’s impact on child development through interdisciplinary dialogue, public information, and rigorous, objective research bridging the medical, neuroscientific, social science, public health, educational, and academic communities.

 

U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY TO ADDRESS CHILDREN AND CELL PHONE RADIATION HEALTH  ISSUES

Scarato, Theodora MSW 

There are hundreds of cell phone apps designed for babies and toddlers. Children watch videos on cell phones for several hours a day. Yet growing scientific evidence associates exposure to the radiofrequency (RF) non-ionizing radiation emissions from cell phones to a range of adverse health effects. In response to research indicating children are more vulnerable due to their developing nervous system, numerous countries have implemented various policies to mitigate risk, with measures specifically aimed at protecting children. 

This presentation will overview and compare U.S. and international laws and policies related to children including updates from the World Health Organization database. 

More than 20 countries provide straightforward public health advice that parents should minimize their children’s exposure to cell phone radiation. Belgium and France inform have bans on the advertising and sale of cell phones designed for young children. Several countries have banned Wi-Fi in kindergartens. Korea, Cyprus, France, and French Polynesia have funded multimedia public education campaigns to educate parents on ways to use technology with reduced RF radiation.  

United States regulations for cell phone radiation have remained unchanged since 1996. Cell phones are premarket safety tested using liquid filled models sized to represent a 220-pound large adult male rather than a child. Phones are not tested in body contact positions, even though children use cell phones clutched against their bodies. A 2012 proposed federal bill H.R. 6358, the “Cell Phone Right to Know Act,” would have initiated government research, consumer labeling and federally developed safety limits. Although it received strong support from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the bill never made it out of committee. 

Several U.S. states and localities have proposed and passed various laws, enacted policies and developed educational initiatives. New Hampshire legislation created a study commission and issued a 2021 Final Report with 15 recommendations, several aimed at protecting children with measures such as replacing Wi-Fi with ethernet in schools. This year, Michigan, Maine, New York, and Massachusetts legislators are considering bills focused on RF impacts to children’s health.  

Numerous countries, including Switzerland, Israel, China, India and Russia, have set public exposure limits for environmental RF at levels 10 to 100 times more stringent than the U.S.  French government tests found hundreds of phone models violate RF limits when phones are tested touching the body. The U.S. does not have programs to independently test phones/towers, monitor environmental levels, gather and analyze health surveillance data, nor to provide oversight and enforcement. The Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and National Cancer Institute have not evaluated the totality of evidence. Stronger federal oversight activities are needed to protect children and address documented regulatory gaps. 

 

Scientific References 

  1.  Fernández, C., de Salles, A. A., Sears, M. E., Morris, R. D., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 167, 694–699.
  2. Mohammed, B., Jin, J., Abbosh, A. M., Bialkowski, K. S., Manoufali, M., & Crozier, S. (2017). Evaluation of Children’s Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields of Mobile Phones Using Age-Specific Head Models With Age-Dependent Dielectric Properties. IEEE Access, 5, 27345–27353.
  3. Christ A, Gosselin MC, Christopoulou M, Kühn S, Kuster N. Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. (2010) Phys Med Biol. 2010 Apr 7;55(7): 
  4. Redmayne, M., & Johansson, O. (2015). Radiofrequency exposure in young and old: Different sensitivities in light of age-relevant natural differences. Reviews on Environmental Health, 30(4), 323–335. 
  5. Markovà, E., Malmgren, L. O. G., & Belyaev, I. Y. (2010). Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(3), 394–399.
  6. Williams DA, Xu H, Cancelas JA. (2006) Children are not little adults: just ask their hematopoietic stem cells. J Clin Invest. Oct;116(10):2593-6.   
  7. Davis, D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374.  
  8. Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell, L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7.  
  9. Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (European Parliament), & Belpoggi, F. (2021). Health impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies. Publications Office of the European Union. 
  10. Lai, H. (2021). Genetic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 40(2), 264–273. 
  11. Luo, J., Li, H., Deziel, N. C., Huang, H., Zhao, N., Ma, S., Ni, X., Udelsman, R., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Genetic susceptibility may modify the association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut. Environmental Research, 182, 109013. 
  12. McCredden JE, Cook N, Weller S, Leach V. Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care. Front Public Health. 2022;10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.986315. 
  13. Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658. 
  14. McCredden, J. E., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2023). The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies. Frontiers in public health, 11, 1058454. 
  15. Gandhi, O. P. (2015). Yes the Children Are More Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Mobile Telephones Than Adults. IEEE Access, 3, 985–988. 
  16. Gandhi, O. P., Morgan, L. L., de Salles, A. A., Han, Y.-Y., Herberman, R. B., & Davis, D. L. (2012). Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 34–51. 
  17. Gandhi, O. P. (2019). Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body. IEEE Access, 7, 47050–47052.
  18. International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), (2022). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. Oct 18;21(1):92.  
  19. Hardell, L., & Sage, C. (2008). Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie, 62(2), 104–109. 
  20. Hankin, Norbert. 2002. “Letter to Ms. Janet Newton President of The EMR Network in Reply to Letter of January 31, 2002, to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Whitman,” July 6, 2002. 
  21. Belyaev, I. (2010). Dependence of non-thermal biological effects of microwaves on physical and biological variables: Implications for reproducibility and safety standards. European Journal of Oncology Library, 5, 187–2
  22. Smith-Roe, S. L., Wyde, M. E., Stout, M. D., Winters, J. W., Hobbs, C. A., Shepard, K. G., Green, A. S., Kissling, G. E., Shockley, K. R., Tice, R. R., Bucher, J. R., & Witt, K. L. (2020). Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 61(2), 276–290.
  23. Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology, 54(1), 111–127.
  24. National Toxicology Program (2018) NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd: Sprague Dawley sd rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR. 595:March 26-28–2018.Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf. 4–July.
  25. Food and Drug Administration (2020) Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer  https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download?attachment
  26. Letters to the FDA by Ronald Melnick PhD, Albert Manville PhD, Prof. Tom Butler, Igor Belyaev, PhD, Paul Heroux PhD, Alfonso Balmori, BSc , Letter to FDA signed by several scientists (2020)
  27. Environmental Health Trust (2023) Report by EHT on FDA Activities regarding cell phone radiation 
  28. No. 20-1025 Environmental Health Trust ET AL. v. Federal Communications Commission and USA, Consolidated with 20-1138.(United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2021) 
  29. McInerny TK. Letter from President of the American Academy of Pediatrics to the FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling for a review of RF guidelines Thomas K. McInerny, MD, FAAP to the FCC. August 2013
  30. Parliamentary Assembly of Europe, (2011) “The Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and Their Effect on the Environment.” Resolution 1815 Final Version https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&.
  31. American Academy of Pediatrics (2016)Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know. HealthyChildren.org. 
  32. New Jersey Education Association “Minimize health risks from electronic devices” Article, PDF of Recommendations (2016)
  33. California Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control (2017) How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones, Press Release 
  34. Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health And Protection Advisory Council (2016) Wi-Fi in School Report
  35. Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health And Protection Advisory Council Guidelines to Reduce Electromagnetic Field Radiati​on ( 2022)
  36. New Hampshire Commission on 5G, Report on 5G, Health and Environment, (2021)  Concord: General Court.
  37. Santa Clara Medical Association Best Practices in Schools (2023)
  38. Additional Santa Clara California Medical Association Bulletin Articles on EMF

39. Ferreira, J., & Almeida de Salles, A. (2015). Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the head of Tablet users. The 7Th IEEE Latin-American Conference On Communications (Latincom 2015), 1538, 5-9. Retrieved 3 June 2020.

40. France Policy on EMF, Environmental Health Trust https://ehtrust.org/france-policy-recommendations-cell-phones-wireless-radiation-health/ 

41. Phonegate Association, (2023) List of cell phones withdrawn or updated for deception and endangering users

42.Federal Communications Commission, (2019) RESOLUTION OF NOTICE OF INQUIRY, SECOND REPORT AND ORDER, NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, AND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

43.Environmental Health Trust, International Policy to Reduce EMF Exposure https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/  

44.Redmayne, M. (2016). International policy and advisory response regarding children’s exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35(2), 176–185. 

45.World Health Organization, “The International EMF Project/Participating Countries & Entities.”https://www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-project/participating-countries-entities.

46.Stam, Rianne. 2017. Comparison of International Policies on Electromagnetic Fields. The Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM. https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2018-11/Comparison%20of%20international%20policies%20on%20electromagnetic%20fields%202018.pdf

47.World Health Organization. 2017. “Exposure Limits for Low-Frequency Fields (Public) – Data by Country.” WHO. World Health Organization. May 31, 2017. https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.EMFLIMITSPUBLICLOW?lang=en.

 

Resources on how to reduce wireless and EMF exposure at home? Please see https://healthytechhome.org

 

Theodora Scarato Presentation to Henley University