Petition Closed
Petitioning Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation Senator John Thune and 6 others

Chairman Rockefeller: Hold hearings to fire FCC and hire EPA to set RF radiation safety limits

The absence of meaningful biologically-based safety limits is having real life effects on real people.  

Children are having higher rates of cognitive and neurological problems due to being exposed in utero to radiation from wireless technology.  Mothers are often unaware of the risks, so the Baby Safe Project has been started (www.BabySafeProject.org).  It is a travesty that a technology as ubiquitous as wireless technology complies with no meaningful safety limits.  This jeopardizes our future (our children) at their most vulnerable moment.  That jeopardy continues through their life due to the absence of biologically-based safety limits.

One couple and their children began experiencing noticeable cardiac arrhythmias in response to radiation from wireless devices a short time after installation of transmitting utility meters in their area.  They were forced to go off-grid by an unsympathetic utility, an unsympathetic Public Service Commission - the state utility regulatory agency, and their serious and worsening cardiac symptoms.  It became a choice between the convenience of the electrical grid and their children's health and lives.  Going off-grid so they were no longer intimately exposed to radiofrequencies from the meters and other grid related sources brought welcome relief ... for three weeks.  Then, 4G cell service was installed in their area.  Within a week their youngest was again experiencing dangerous arrhythmias which woke him in the night and they all felt slower, less energetic, slept poorly, etc.  They have shielded and shielded, but the situation worsens continually as more people get smart phones, cellphones, ipads, etc.  Their children can now only be outside about a half an hour a day or they get cardiac arrhythmias severe enough to wake them in the night, in addition to the arrhythmias, headaches, etc. that they get at the time.  They are not alone.  Their situation is often hard for people to truly understand... until they experience it.  More and more people are having their health compromised by exposure to wireless technology due to the absence of meaningful biologically-based safety limits.  Please see the video clips below for more examples of how ordinary people are being seriously affected by the rampant growth in wireless technology.  The examples include breast cancer from cellphones on standby, cardiac arrhythmias, and behavior problems in children.

Sign the petition for Congress to hold hearings as a necessary first step to have an unbiased agency (EPA) protect your health by establishing meaningful safety limits for RF radiation from wireless devices. Please ask your friends and relatives to sign as well.

Thomas Wheeler has been confirmed as Chairman of the FCC.  He was the chief lobbyist for the wireless industry while president of the CTIA (Cellular Telephone and Internet Association) from 1992-2004.  Mr. Wheeler has worked for industry his entire career and was a major player in the industry fight against RF radiation safety limits that would have provided meaningful protection in the drafting of the Telecommunications Act  of 1996 (TCA of 1996).  This further underscores the need for the responsibilities for protecting America's public health and safety to be moved to an agency with that expertise and focus, one that has no inherent conflict of interest.

The FCC has shown again, even as it opens a docket to determine whether it should take another look at its RF radiation limits, that it cannot do so in an unbiased manner. The document ( http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-39A1.pdf) contains multiple statements showing bias. The current scientific evidence (BioInitiative 2012 Report - http://www.bioinitiative.org) actually demonstrates biological effects at levels well below the FCC’s inadequate safety limits adopted in 1996. These limits are based on the scientific knowledge as of 1986. The FCC is ignoring the federal government’s own record that the FCC safety limits are flawed and obsolete (www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/epa_to_fcc_3nov_93.pdf, www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/exhibit_a.pdf, www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12036).

Including the recent statement by the Department of Interior -the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. (http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-...)

The FCC also freely admits to its lack of expertise: the FCC “is not a health and safety agency, we defer to other organizations and agencies with respect to interpreting the biological research necessary to determine what levels are safe.” The FCC also makes it clear throughout its current docket that it is extremely concerned with protecting and promoting the industry, since it it has the statutory obligation to do so.

The FCC's primary function is to promote telecommunications technologies by licensing providers of these technologies. By its own statements, its expertise is not public health. Public health is too important to let the fox continue to guard the henhouse.

With the almost-ubiquitous exposure of the entire US population to RF radiation, it is past time that US policy for non-ionizing radiation protection follow the model in place for the ionizing radiation protection. A recent report released by The EMRadiation Policy Institute (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1770139.htm) shows not only that the FCC has not modernized its RF radiation safety limits to reflect current science, but that it does not even enforce its own outdated thermally-based RF radiation safety regulations.

Hundreds of comments to recent FCC dockets (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/input?z=iw0f and search proceedings 03-137 and 12-357) support the need for biologically-based RF radiation safety limits NOW!

Until the late 1980s the EPA carried out it own non-ionizing radiation research program. Unfortunately, the EPA's mandate for developing non-ionizing radiation safety regulations was never fully funded. Its non-ionizing radiation regulatory authority has been eroded by industry lobbying, most significantly in the lead-up to passage of the TCA of 1996 which gave the FCC sole authority for adopting RF safety regulations.

It is extremely important that EPA's research funding and RF regulatory authority be unequivocally supported, because the FCC cannot both promote wireless technologies and regulate RF radiation. This inherent conflict was recognized when the Atomic Energy Commission was disbanded and its prior development/promotional responsibilities were separated from its responsibility to protect the public health and safety. (The former was transferred to the Department of Energy and the later to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

 

Letter to
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation Senator John Thune
House Committee on Energy & Commerce Chairman Fred Upton
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation Chairman Jay Rockefeller
and 4 others
House Committee on Energy & Commerce Representative Henry Waxman
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
President of the United States
Hold hearings to fire FCC and hire EPA to set RF radiation safety limits

I support transferring the authority for setting radiofrequency (RF) radiation safety limits from the FCC to the EPA.

The FCC has shown again, even as it opens a docket to determine whether it should take another look at its RF radiation limits, that it cannot do so in an unbiased manner. The document ( http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-39A1.pdf) contains multiple statements showing bias. The current scientific evidence (BioInitiative 2012 Report) actually demonstrates biological effects at levels well below the FCC’s inadequate safety limits adopted in 1996. These limits are based on the scientific knowledge as of 1986. The FCC is ignoring the federal government’s own record that the FCC safety limits are flawed and obsolete (www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/epa_to_fcc_3nov_93.pdf, www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/exhibit_a.pdf, www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12036).

Including the recent statement by the Department of Interior - “the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” (http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-...)

The FCC also freely admits its lack of expertise: the FCC “is not a health and safety agency, we defer to other organizations and agencies with respect to interpreting the biological research necessary to determine what levels are safe”

Confirmation of Thomas Wheeler as Chairman of the FCC is of paramount concern. His confirmation further highlights the need for the responsibilities for protecting the public health and safety to be moved to the agency with that expertise and focus, and that has no inherent conflict of interest.  Mr. Wheeler has worked for industry his entire career and was a major player in the industry fight against RF radiation safety limits that would have provided meaningful protection in the drafting of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The FCC's primary function is to promote telecommunications technologies by licensing providers of these technologies.  By its own statements, its expertise is not public health.  Public health is too important to let the fox continue to guard the henhouse.

With the almost-ubiquitous exposure of the entire US population to RF radiation, it is past time that US policy for non-ionizing radiation protection follow the model in place for the ionizing radiation protection.   A recent report released by the EMRadiation Policy Institute (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1770139.htm) shows not only that the FCC has not modernized its RF radiation safety limits to reflect current science, but that it does not even enforce its own outdated thermally-based RF radiation safety regulations. 

Hundreds of comments to recent FCC dockets (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/input?z=iw0f and search proceedings 03-137 and 12-357) support the need for biologically-based RF radiation safety limits NOW!

Until the late 1980s the EPA carried out it own non-ionizing radiation research program.  Unfortunately, the EPA's mandate for developing non-ionizing radiation safety regulations was never fully funded. Its non-ionizing radiation regulatory authority has been eroded by industry lobbying, most significantly in the lead-up to passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which gave the FCC sole authority for adopting RF safety regulations.

It is extremely important that EPA's research funding and RF regulatory authority be unequivocally supported, because the FCC cannot both promote wireless technologies and regulate RF radiation.  This inherent conflict was recognized when the Atomic Energy Commission was disbanded and its prior development/promotional responsibilities were separated from the responsibility to protect the public health and safety.  (The former was transferred to the Department of Energy and the later to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.) 

Hearings need to begin immediately so that the legislation can be passed as soon as possible. Many people are already paying dearly for the absence of meaningful biologically-based safety limits for RF radiation see http://www.BabySafeProject.org and http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/special-report-keeping-cell-phone-in-bra-may-lead/vhPF8/. Congress has the power to substantially improve the situation almost immediately, merely by moving responsibility for RF radiation safety limits from an agency with an inherent conflict of interest, the FCC, to an agency whose sole responsibility is the health and safety of the American public, EPA.