US Centers for Disease Control Issues Precautionary Health Warnings about Cell Phone Radiation

[news....@googlemail.com]

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued precautionary health warnings about cell phone radiation and provides tips on how to reduce one's risk from exposure.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.- PRLog (Press Release)- Aug. 13, 2014 - ATLANTA -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated the Frequently Asked Questions about cell phones and health on the CDC web site.

CDC now asserts that "Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use." As the lead Federal health action agency, CDC provides tips to the public on how to "reduce radio frequency radiation near your body."

Health authorities at the Federal, state, and local level should follow CDC's lead and disseminate precautionary health warnings to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the potential health risks of cell phone use and has the know-how to reduce exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted when carrying or using cell phones.

Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission should review CDC's new position in light of the Commission's obsolete regulatory standard for cell phone radiation that was adopted in 1996 when few adults used cell phones.

CDC's latest recommendations represent a considerable improvement in our Federal government's position regarding cell phone radiation health risks and the need for precaution.

CDC indicates that more research is needed to understand the health risks of exposure to cell phone radiation. However, unfortunately the U.S. has been negligent in supporting research on wireless radiation health effects. A major government research funding initiative could be launched with as little as a nickel-a-month fee on wireless subscriptions. This research initiative should be conducted independent of the wireless industry as we have considerable evidence that the industry has undermined much of the research it has funded in the past.

<SNIP>

http://bit.ly/1l4oN3L

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Center: http://cfch.berkeley.edu

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Informant: André Fauteux

[Omega Group]

Sandi Maurer's findings on the CDC warning

"I started to wonder if there might be evidence for the recommended caution by the CDC, so I searched their website and found a 2012 Alice Hamilton Award (see Exposure and Risk category/ honorable mention) that went to this study: “Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries”

The award description language is strong on the association between cell phone radiation and cancer, especially compared to the CDC FAQ.  For example:  “…a significant dose-response was found with gliomas for phone use of more than 7 years.”; “…RF emissions from cell phones could be a causal factor in brain cancer.”; “In addition to providing evidence for cell phone carcinogenesis, the findings of these two papers also help identify preventive measures.”

http://emfsafetynetwork.org/cdc-recommends-caution-on-cell-phones-then-removes-the-warning/


Informant: Iris

[Prof Trevor Marshall]

The New York Times has carried an article: "At C.D.C., Evolution of Advice on Phones"
A version of this article appears in print on January 2, 2016, on page B1 of the New York edition

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/technology/at-cdc-a-debate-behind-recommendations-on-cellphone-risk.html

    "Nevertheless, more than 500 pages of internal records obtained by The New York Times, along with interviews with former agency officials, reveal a debate and some disagreement among scientists and health agencies about what guidance to give as the use of mobile devices skyrockets."

    "Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, the C.D.C. division that made the changes, disagreed with the decision to pull back the revised version. “I would not have removed it,” he said in an interview. “I would have been in support of a recommendation that parents look carefully at whether their children need cellphones or not.”

    "The change aroused alarm within the agency, and concerns from some outside experts. An official from the Vermont Health Department forwarded a letter he had received asking about the state’s legal liability for allowing wireless technology in public schools and libraries."

 -------------------------------------
 
Prof Marshall's comment:  Interesting to see the NYTimes doing its job on this issue, especially after the fiasco where they disciplined the journalist who wrote an article suggesting RF exposure risks. It is .also interesting to see the Vermont official reminding CDC of the complex, yet fragile, web that holds together the current pragma.

[MM Glaser]

It should be noted that the CDC retracted its precautionary health warnings mentioned here shortly after posting them.  Undoubtedly industry and government politics:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/technology/at-cdc-a-debate-behind-recommendations-on-cellphone-risk.html

This kind of warning-retraction cycle has happened on several US federal agency websites over the year, and basically occurred again this year when the NTP study report on outcomes was downgraded in comparison to the original early announcement of disturbing results in 2016.  Since then, an expert panel has reviewed the study and upgraded the concerns once again.  How can the public get any accurate and believable information from the government given this manipulation?

Marne Glaser