CITIZENS AND PROFESSIONALS FOR THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (EMR)
PO Box 221, MARSHFIELD, VT 05658 TEL: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802)426-3030

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 19, 2001
Contact: Janet Newton

LEGAL ACTION THREATENED AGAINST EMR NETWORK AFTER POSTING IEEE PROPOSAL TO RELAX RADIATION STANDARDS

Eleanor R. Adair, Ph.D., chairman of a key subcommittee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE-SCC28) is threatening legal action against the EMR Network, a U.S.-based international activist organization, for posting a draft of that subcommittee's proposed relaxation of the safety standards currently in place for non-ionizing radiofrequency (RF) radiation. The effect of the proposal in draft form would permit greater increases in the radiation levels experienced by the public. If adopted, cell phone users and people living near cell towers/antennas could be exposed to 12 times more radiation. RF exposures to people living near both analog and digital broadcast antennas would also be greatly increased.

Because of the advent of telecommunications technologies over the last decade, as well as deregulation of the public airwaves under the Telecommunications of 1996, those areas of the electromagnetic spectrum required by wireless communications have seen an enormous increase in use over prior decades. The relaxation of exposure standards could signify important public health concerns.

The IEEE is a private organization comprised of industry, military and some governmental representatives. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which oversees the use of public airwaves and adopts safety regulations, places heavy reliance on the standards traditionally developed by this IEEE subcommittee. IEEE recommendations are used in setting limits for the amount of RF radiation from devices such as cell phones, TV and FM antennas and other devices that emit non-ionizing radiation. The present FCC guidelines are partially based on the current IEEE standards, which have now become dated and do not include any research findings more recent than 15 years ago. That the guidelines need to be updated is widely understood in professional circles. Hundreds of pertinent studies have been released since the last IEEE update, but few thought the recommendation would be to relax exposure limits. Given new scientific evidence, most European countries have gone in the other direction and greatly tightened their standards.

Despite their representation that IEEE SCC28 standards development is open in nature and includes all stakeholders p.18, the EMR Network is nevertheless threatened with legal action for posting information that has already been discussed in technical publications and Federal agencies. Microwave News reported on this draft revision of the IEEE standards in the 2001 September-October issue. RCR NEWS discussed the specifics of the draft on November 26, 2001. This draft has also been circulated to members of the Federal government such as the FCC and others.

The IEEE SCC28 draft does not consider any studies that have not been "replicated." pp.19-21 This is a parameter that no other standards committee uses to determine public health issues because such a review parameter can de facto exclude pertinent scientific information. Setting a public health standard of absolute scientific proof of harm before taking precautionary measures is not only impossible, but may cause harm to innocent citizens. When the drug thalidomide was first tested, for example, the research showing malformed limbs was ignored because the results had not been widely replicated. Pregnant women took Thalidomide. Many babies were born with malformed arms and legs. In retrospect, the scientists learned that "replication" required mice with identical genetic makeup.

Numerous physicians both in America and in other countries, as well as august professional organizations and governmental agencies, now recommend that the precautionary principle be applied to possible risk ¾ rather than absolute proof of definitive harm ¾ when considering human exposure to this form of radiation. "We know of no other instance where a device, chemical or drug…would be imposed on the public without proof of its safety," said Michael D. Weil,, M.D. and David Raben, M.D. Professors of Radiation Oncology along with 8 other cancer researchers and clinicians at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in a March 3, 1999, letter to Jefferson County (CO) Commissioners. No safe level of RF exposure has ever been determined. Numerous studies show there may be an association between RF and cancer, among many other adverse effects at exposure intensities far below the current standards. The proposed changes would further erode those limits.

In his April 27, 1999, testimony before the Jefferson County (CO) Commissioners, Richard Hoffman, M.D., Chief Medical Officer for the State of Colorado noted that the U.S. RF exposures standards are based on acute health effects, not based on long term risk of cancer. He stated, "[N]one of the material I saw was presented that would make me think that's the kind of standard that is being used. . .[T]he degree of exposure and the length of exposure is very important in epidemiology in terms of drawing conclusions."

"It is the position of the EMR Network that physicians, public health officials and citizens should have a voice in whether the radiation standard should be based on prudent avoidance, which is also called the precautionary principle. Should we be moving toward an 'ALARA' exposure ¾ which means "as low as reasonably achievable?" Or should we blindly accept the recommendation from a committee whose members historically have conflicts of interest? What is to be lost by public scrutiny at this juncture?" said Janet Newton, President of the EMR Network. "What are they afraid of?"

The posting of the working draft of the committee's radiation standards will remain on the Network's website despite Chairman Adair's threat. "We have been advised by our legal committee that we are well within our rights to post such a document. It is in the public interest and we are a public advocacy group," Ms. Newton said. "To do otherwise would be against our mandate."