Cell phone radiation law health issue in San Francisco

By David Lieberman, USA TODAY

Safe Cell Tab

Radiation protection

for cell phone users

go to page bottom for cell phone radiation shield special offer

Articles Index for cell phone radiation reports

What can I use to protect myself from cell phone radiation

How cell phone radiation and electromagnetic radiation works

Cell Phone Radiation

People already grapple with complicated information when they buy mobile devices. But San Francisco consumers soon will face one more consideration — cellphone radiation — as the result of a precedent-setting law that delights public health advocates and enrages the wireless industry. The city recently passed the nation's first local ordinance that requires retailers to post radiation-emission data.

"There's enough information out there that long-term (cellphone) use may increase the risk of certain kinds of cancer," says Mark Westlund, spokesman for the San Francisco Department of the Environment. "We believe consumers have a right to know" which devices are most and least risky.

Supporters hope San Francisco's initiative will blossom into a national movement. For example, manufacturers may see low radiation as a selling point once consumers find it easy to compare emission levels. Other lawmakers could pass their own versions of the ordinance.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is preparing a federal bill that would require manufacturers to note on packaging how much radiation models emit. It also would create a national research program to determine what levels should be deemed safe.

"I'm sure the (wireless) industry will be fighting this," says Renee Sharp, director of the California office for the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group. "But we do think a major conversation has been started."

Chatter about the issue likely will take off in February when retailers in San Francisco will be required to include, in displays near each phone, the maximum amount of radiation that the model emits. That's measured in what's known as the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which reflects how much energy human tissue absorbs from a device's electromagnetic waves.

Manufacturers already report that information to the Federal Communications Commission, which limits wireless devices to an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram of tissue. But the FCC database is "difficult and tedious to use," Sharp says. "And, for some phones, we couldn't find the information anywhere."

The data are important, disclosure advocates say: Many people now spend the entire day with a cellphone next to their heads or in their pockets, and some scientists say they can't rule out the possibility of a health risk.

As usage soars, "Further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited," Christopher Wild, director of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in May.

The organization launched a new study, called Mobi-kids, that will examine whether children and teens who use cellphones a lot increase their risk of developing brain tumors. Kids may be particularly vulnerable because their skulls are thinner than those of adults.

Still, the wireless phone industry says that San Francisco's disclosure law will unnecessarily frighten consumers.

"It is clear, in the consensus by health organizations around the world, that there are no health risks" from cellphones, says John Walls, spokesman for CTIA: The Wireless Association, an industry trade group.

He says that studies show a device would have to emit 50 times more radiation than the FCC allows before it would create a health problem. And the government's SAR limit measures the total emissions from a device that's simultaneously transmitting phone, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals, which rarely happens.

A law that encourages people to compare radiation levels is "akin to a warning sign on a highway overpass telling you how much clearance you have," Walls says. "If it's 12 feet, then it doesn't matter if your vehicle is 4, 6, or even 10 feet tall. You'll be able to safely pass through."

Fighting legislation

The CTIA appears determined to stop any law that suggests cellphones may be dangerous. In March the group helped to defeat a proposal in Maine that would have required phones there to come with labels warning parents about potential health risks for children.

Last month a disclosure proposal similar to San Francisco's was defeated in the California Legislature.

The CTIA is so upset with San Francisco that the group has vowed not to hold another convention there following one already planned for October. "It's clear that we weren't welcome there," Walls says.

The CTIA's unyielding position troubles at least a few industry analysts who agree with the group's view that cellphones are safe. "It gives the appearance that there's something to hide, and I don't believe there is," says Daniel Hays, director of the telecom practice at consulting firm PRTM.

He says that the San Francisco law may generate more questions than answers. "Wireless service providers will have to create some pamphlets and brochures that explain what the (SAR) numbers mean."

The city also will launch an education campaign to help consumers understand the measurement numbers, and reduce their exposure to radiation.

For example, city pamphlets urge people to keep phones away from sensitive areas by not carrying them in pockets, by using headsets or speakers for voice calls or by replacing those conversations with text messages. They also recommend not making a call if the signal is weak: Phones generate more radiation, and use up more power, when they have to struggle to make a connection.
 

To learn more inquire these other search topics: cell phone danger, cell phone cancer, cell phone radiation shield, electromagnetic field, EMF effects, brain cancer and cell phone, cell phone electromagnetic radiation