You are on page 1of 3

Testimony of Ellen Marks October 22, 2011 My colleagues and I do not believe in abandoning this valuable technology.

Our interest is not in harming this industry. The purpose of point of sale information is to inform consumers of safe use information and to heed precautions if they are concerned. The safe distance warnings which are currently required by the FCC to be included in every manual are hidden in fine print that consumers do not see. The intent suggested by the FCC was for industry to allow consumers to make informed decisions! The San Francisco ordinance takes that critical information (including the use of the belt clip suggestion which comes directly from the iPhone manual) and puts it where it belongs- in the hands of consumers at the point of sale to make informed choices. No one is suggesting one not purchase or use a cell phone. Since the FCC testing standard allows all cell phones to be tested held up to 1 inch away, manufacturers are required by the FCC to warn consumers to never wear or use a cell phone at the body. When testifying against SB 932, the proposed cell phone safe use disclosure bill, before the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee in May, 2011, Mr. Dane Snowden, former Vice President for the CTIA was asked why manufacturers are including warnings in the fine print of every user manual that users are to never use a cell phone directly against the body or they will be exposed to greater than the FCC compliance limit, Mr. Snowden sheepishly admitted, Because the FCC requires them. A year prior in Maine when presented with the iPhone manual he stated he did not know why it stated to hold it 5/8 of an inch from the body. He also admitted in Burlingame, California in September, 2010 that the industry has not said once, not once, that cell phones are safe. You questioned whether anyone has died or is dying from brain cancer from their cell phone use. There are currently many gliomas attributed to long term cell phone use by researchers, neurosurgeons, and epidemiologists. It was very difficult to hear comments in the court that claimed that there is no evidence showing that cell phones cause cancer. My husband and Senator Kennedy (for whom our son worked) were diagnosed a week apart and since speaking out on this I have a very long list of victims as young as 24. I have traveled the nation meeting many of the families and I cannot express the profound sadness and anger of those affected. Had my husband been warned he would have continued to use a cell phone but never would have held it to his head risking his life. How dare they hide essential information robbing people of their lives. We do not have absolute evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer as biological mechanisms can take decades or a century to determine, if ever. Absence of absolute evidence is not evidence of absence. You reiterated that the FCC exposure standard incorporates a 50-fold safety factor. This safety factor only applies to far field non-ionizing radiation which must adhere to a full body exposure standard of .08 W/kg averaged over the entire body. The 50-fold safety factor DOES NOT apply to the exposure standard for cell phones which must adhere to a maximum value of 1.6 W/kg. You expressed concern that 1/8 of an inch could not make a difference. The absorption rate of microwave radiation emitted by a cell phone is reduced by 15% for every millimeter of distance put between the cell phone antenna and the users body. Thus, if held one inch from the body 375% less radiation is absorbed. At 1/8 of an inch the difference would be about 47%. Considering cumulative use that is a significant amount. The paper published last week, Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children (see attached) shows that the amount of radiation can be as much as 700% greater than the safety standard if a cell phone is used in a pocket connected to a headset or BlueTooth device. Many countries around the world, including Canada, have issued precautionary statements informing their citizens about safe ways to use their cell phones, especially for children. The citizens of San Francisco have the same right to know about possible health risks of these products used by 303 million Americans including children as young as 6. Yes, people are texting more, but they are carrying them in their pockets and sleeping with them on at night.

You also showed concern about the expertise of the highly esteemed and conservative World Health Organization, a division of the United Nations. In May, 2011 a working group of 31 scientists met to critically assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency fields. They voted 29-1 (one dismissed as he has ties to the telecom industry) to classify radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use. The IARC Monograph Working Group, from whom many nations rely on to set public policy (and the state of California for Prop 65) discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long-term health effects, in particular an increased risk of cancer. They went on to say that this has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children.

You seemed to reject their classification because they have labeled so many substances as possibly carcinogenic. We are indeed living in an age with many carcinogens and fortunately excellent science to help direct us. If a ubiquitous device used by children is among that list it is prudent to take it seriously. The pickled vegetable referred to is one that was improperly fermented in China and led to deaths from esophageal cancer. A certain coffee bean was found to be responsible for urinary tract cancer. Yes, they found limited evidence but that means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias, or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. With any evidence at all the public is entitled to INFORMED CONSENT. Brain tumors are a cruel disease affecting families in ways I cannot describe as it is too personal. I have met many of the victims and the families of the deceased and many have stated that the only thing worse than dying from a glioma is living with one. Nearly 240,000 new cases of brain cancer occurred globally in 2008 and gliomas represent 2/3 of those. Of course, there were gliomas prior to cell phones, but they were predominantly in those over 60. That is not the case now as children are dying from them. Most alarming are recent studies from Turkey and Israel proving damage to newborns who were exposed to cell phone radiation as a fetus. Is it a coincidence that the leading cause of cancer death in the United States for those under 20 is brain tumors? As many people are giving up landlines and relying solely upon cell phones and are being exposed to many other forms of radiation simultaneously, San Francisco should be applauded for their actions and not chastised. This industry is no different that tobacco, asbestos or Enron. They know and they want to keep the cat in the bag as they do not have liability insurance. The facts mentioned above (and supported with the accompanying documents) are just a few of the underlying reasons San Franciscos disclosure information is acceptable and necessary. FCC certification standards have not been evaluated and updated in 15 years. You mentioned that the FCC is the expert on the safety standards. I testified to Congress with Julius Knapp of the FCC. http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20080925142528.pdf Do kindly refer to page 4 of this link, where you will find Mr. Knapps comment: The FCC staff is not sufficiently qualified to speak with authority to the science of health effects of RF absorption in the body. Your comment that the FCC has never actually deemed cell phones safe is of utmost importance. The onus of the burden of proof of safety should be on the ones that profit in commerce. You alone have the power to help stop the body count. If there is any doubt at all an injunction should not be granted. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your time and consideration. Do not hesitate to contact me if you require additional information.

Respectfully Submitted,

Exhibits: 1. Statement from Dr. Lennart Hardell regarding Alan Marks and the pathology report for Mr. Marks

2. 3. 4.

GAO report 2001 stating we added text that further emphasizes that FCC is not a health and safety agency. Worldwide Cell Phone Safety Recommendations and Policies, October, 2011

Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields - Supplement C to OET Bulletin 65 (Edition 97-01) stating In order for users to be aware of the body-worn operating requirements for meeting RF exposure compliance, operating instructions and caution statements should be included in the manual. THE INFORMATION SHOULD ALLOW CONSUMERS TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS on the type of body worn accessories and operating configurations that are appropriate for the device.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12.

Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children International Agency for Research on Cancer Press Release May 31, 2011 Statement of 2 leaders of Interphone Study who broke ranks and advise precautions. Explanation of 50 fold factor not pertaining to cell phones; Dr. Om Gandhi United States Presidents Cancer Panel Expresses Concern, 2010 FCC Limits for SAR Commentaries on the IARC National Brain Tumor Society Cell Phone Precautions