Why Are Cell Phones Using the Wrong Safety Standards?

http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2012/01/17/cell-phones-using-the-wrong-safety-standards.aspx?e_cid=20120117_DNL_art_2


" … the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters."

Probing questions published by ElectromagneticHealth.org
If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA,
and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety
guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of
radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before
 they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then
where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled? Has responsibility for ascertaining consumer safety potentially
fallen through the cracks between these two agencies, resulting in a
situation were proper protection of consumer health interests is not
taking place? On what basis does the FCC, a communications commission charged
with regulating interstate and international communications, not a
health agency, have authority to ascertain safety and establish safety
guidelines, such as the SAR limit for cell phones, in the first place?
On what basis has the FCC assumed this responsibility? If the SAR value is a measure of the power or heating effects
from a phone, and is a physics measure unrelated to biology, what
regulatory agency is looking at the biological effects? This would
include biological effects from all forms of radiation being emitted by a
 cell phone, including 1) the heating effects (that the SAR attempts to reflect), 2) the non-heating effects from the frequencies and modulation, and 3) the low frequency (ELF) fields emitted by the devices. Why then do the present guidelines not address the non-thermal biological effects? Or the ELF Fields from the batteries? What public health expertise, if any, exists at the FCC and who
specifically set the current standards and what was their background in
biology? Research has shown source of scientific funding in this field
influences outcomes. In determining SAR safety guidelines for cell
phones, how much does the FCC rely on telecom industry funded science,
as opposed to independent science where there would not be a commercial
conflict of interest? Given evidence exists showing that in certain amplitude windows a
 lower SAR value can result in greater brain effects than a higher SAR
value (increased neuron death and blood brain barrier permeability, for
example), suggesting some biological effects do not occur in a linear,
dose-response manner. Thus, the SAR may be a wholly inadequate measure
of safety on these grounds. Given this, and the fact that the SAR does
not reflect either the non-thermal biological effects, or the ELF
effects, why is the SAR used as a measure of safety? Experts say a true biological standard for cell phone radiation
exposure should be set, especially for children, elderly and vulnerable
populations, instead of relying on estimates of safety based on a
physics measure that only measures the heating effect. Is either the FCC
 or the FDA working on biologically based guidelines or even studying
biological effects? What scientific experts with backgrounds in EMF
effects on biology are Advisors to the FCC and FDA? How is it that the FCC can state, "There is no scientific
evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to
cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches,
dizziness or memory loss", when there is voluminous amounts of evidence
showing that people are experiencing these problems as well as evidence
of biological change at the molecular, cellular, organ, neurological and
 immunological levels? Is the FCC relying on telecom industry advisors
in formulating the above statement who may perhaps have a commercial
conflict of interest and not want the biological effects to be known? Have the economic benefits to the U.S. government, in the forms
of telecom industry corporate income tax, user taxes and fees,
employment and social security taxes, jobs and job growth, employee
income taxes, income taxes from landlords agreeing to place antennas on
their property, spectrum license fees and more, unduly influenced
government officials such that they have sacrificed public health to
give the appearance of a stronger economy, when in fact the health
consequences from cell phones and wireless technologies may ultimately
burden the economy more than the short-term economic benefits?
We join ElectromagneticHealth.org and many other advocacy groups in
calling on Congress to delve into the issue of FCC/FDA responsibility
and accountability on matters of cell phone safety and to act to protect
 the public's health.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]