Dear Attorney General Rosenblum,

Utility and telecommunication customers in Oregon are not being informed of recent, sound science made available by reputable sources such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program or the Ramazzini Institute in Italy regarding health risks from radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of the kind broadcast by utility meters, cell phones and wireless equipment. This includes gas and water utilities as well. Many product providers in the U.S. are required to provide notice on their products or at the point of sale of known or possible risks to health. While it took years for the risks of tobacco use to be conclusively understood, in large part because of industry interference, eventually the risk was clear and tobacco companies became forced to provide unmistakable warnings on their products regarding these risks.  Science is now catching up with the risks of exposure to the high level of microwave radiation that the telecommunication industry exposes us to, though they, like the tobacco industry before them, have done their best to delay this process as long as possible.

As it stands, new developments in communication technology bring with them exponentially increasing exposure to RFR at a faster rate than we can effectively screen for health risks – every year going into new and uncharted territory. A 2018 Lancet article provides data showing that this is clearly true and that science is beginning to take this seriously. (1) The upcoming 5G deployment, for example, brings higher RFR at frequencies that the public has never gotten exposed to before.  Another example is the energetic push for smart classrooms and fast WiFi in schools. By prioritizing fast deployment of such technology, the deployment itself becomes a research study that because of ethical concerns, would never get approval in a research laboratory, with our children being the guinea pigs. Quoting from Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal in a February 7, 2019 report, “Wireless carriers concede they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on safety of 5G technologies.” (2) In our state, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC) is mandated to assure safe access for Oregonians to needed utilities and telecommunications, but utilities and telecommunication companies also share responsibility for the effects of their operations and actions on their customers in Oregon, including unintended consequences from a blind leap into radio-frequency communication technology.

In 2004, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, began a ten-year series of studies costing 30 million dollars which examined the health effects of RFR exposure in rats and mice. On March 12, 2018, Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. from the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley published comments regarding the NTP studies and the recent study results from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy (see Appendix 1). He said that: “These studies prove that long-term exposure to low intensity, non-thermal levels of microwave radiation can cause DNA damage and cancer in an animal model.” He further commented that: “Due to the new animal and human evidence of carcinogenicity since 2011, many EMF scientists are now calling for re-classification of radio frequency radiation either to “probably carcinogenic to humans” or “carcinogenic to humans”.” Moskowitz further referenced comments regarding  these NTP cell phone radiation studies made by Michael Wyde, PhD, Meeting Director at the June, 2018 annual BioEM meeting. Wyde said that statistically significant evidence of DNA damage was observed in the frontal cortex, hippocampus, liver, and blood of rats, as well as the frontal cortex, liver, and blood of mice. (3)

Dr. Ronald L. Melnick, an independent consultant, who served as a toxicologist for 28+ years at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, wrote a review of the NTP studies (see Appendix 2). He states that these studies showed “significantly increased incidences” in heart and brain cancers in rats and mice. He further refuted criticisms about the study design and conclusions: “The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR strengthens the animal-to-human association.” He also states that, “In contrast to those criticisms, an expert peer-review panel recently concluded that the NTP studies were well designed.” (4)

Telecommunications and utility companies however claim that the public has no need to worry, because exposures from RFR emissions from their meters, products and towers fall below the FCC standard.  Beginning in the 1940’s, the biological effects of Radio Frequency microwave radiation became a concern after radar workers reported harmful effects, which included headaches, internal bleeding, heart conditions, brain tumors, and cataracts.  Military scientists promoted the theory that microwave radiation is only dangerous at levels that cause significant heating in the body. In 1996, the FCC set a maximum exposure standard based on this idea. As Dr. Andrew Marino (a respected scientist with over 40 years’ experience in the area of EMF research) testified in his capacity as an expert witness to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission: “"According to the FCC, smart meters and cell phones are safe when manufactured according to the presently mandated emission levels. But the FCC defines an emission level as "safe" if it doesn't result in adverse biological effects caused by heating or cooking.  That claim is unsupportable and counter-scientific…" (5) In contrast to the United States, many other countries—such as China, Russia, Italy, France, and Switzerland—have set maximum public RFR exposure limits one hundred to one thousand times less than the FCC “safe” level, which in 2018 remains the highest in the world. (6)

A 2015 Harvard study titled, “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates”, sheds doubt on the industries’ reliance on FCC standards for safety (see Appendix 3). Janet Newton, who heads the EMF Policy Institute, a Vermont-based non-profit stated: “The FCC is not enforcing its own standard”. That group several years ago filed 101 complaints on specific rooftop sites where radiation emissions exceeded allowable levels.” (7)

Specifically regarding electric utility smart meters, PacifiCorp Project Manager and 'in-house expert' Mike Cochrane testified under oath at a 9/5/18 formal OPUC complaint hearing (minute 1:10:00 of audio transcript) that PacifiCorp's independent third-party test lab Tesco, does not test the radio frequency emissions of these meters for FCC compliance at all, and cannot verify that they legally conform even to the FCC standard. (UCR192 C.M.G. Complainant vs. PACIFICORP d/b/a PACIFIC POWER).  

We understand that the Attorney General does not have the power to set a new RFR exposure standard, but given that the FCC has failed to protect the public by developing an outdated standard, by not implementing sufficient testing to know whether equipment meets that inadequate standard, and by not enforcing their own standards – and - in light of the dangers presented by RFR to the public, we respectfully demand that action be taken to notify the public of the dangers and offer remedies. 

Specifically regarding microwave radiation risks, we respectfully demand that the Oregon Attorney General order the Oregon PUC to require all power companies, municipal power providers, gas utilities, water utilities, and wireless service providers operating in Oregon that are currently using or plan to use RFR for utility smart metering or communication transmission to:

1. Notify all of their customers that the National Toxicology Program studies and numerous other peer-reviewed studies have determined that RFR causes cancer and DNA breaks at exposure levels which are far below the FCC safety standards, and that labels be placed on all RF emitting devices which are clearly visible from ten feet away that state “Warning! Microwave Exposure!” 

2. Require that 5G technology actually be proven safe by an independent authority before the rollout can proceed further in Oregon. 

3. Establish a protocol that does what the FCC is not by directing a 3rd party to inspect each device once installed at customer locations to make sure their RFR emissions do not exceed the FCC exposure standard, and at least once annually thereafter, and impose compelling punitive penalties on companies that violate this standard.

4. Replace any utility smart meters already installed with a safe and reliable analog meter at the request of the ratepayer, or of the resident living on the property where the smart meter is located, at no extra charge to the rate payer.  

Oregonians have the right to consistently accurate, up to date information about the potential health risks from RFR inherent in utility metering and the wireless industry. 

As long time Oregon citizens, it can be difficult to know who to appeal to at the State level on this important issue besides the OPUC, which appears to have the responsibility, but which has been generally unresponsive or possibly misguided as to what their mission is or who they are mandated to serve. The citizens of Oregon depend on your office to protect their legal rights, health, and safety.  Previous appeals for help have been falling through the cracks in the structure of Oregon’s government. A reply to a recent letter sent to your office regarding microwave radiation health risks was referred to the Oregon Health Authority, possibly because this issue was deemed as not directly under the Attorney General’s jurisdiction. A review of the Oregon Revised Statutes that establish the Oregon Health Authority does not generate confidence that it will be able to do much either, without expanding it’s scope. If there isn’t a Department in Oregon Government that can address these issues, than we respectfully demand that one be created or that an existing department have responsibilities added. Attorney General Rosenblum, we are appealing to you first.

We, our children, and our grandchildren thank you for your timely attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,

Tim Westfeldt

Dale Benjamin

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Comments from Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D regarding the NTP studies.

“These studies found low incidences of malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas in the heart of male rats exposed to of the two types [Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)] currently used in U.S. wireless networks. Potentially preneoplastic lesions were also observed in the brain and heart of male rats exposed to RFR.” 

“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.” 

“Also, newly-published results by the Ramazzini Institute from the largest study on the health effects of cell phone radiation in rats replicate the brain and heart tumor results from the NTP rat study. The Institute used a different GSM carrier frequency (1800 MHz vs. 900 MHz) and much lower intensity microwave radiation exposures than the NTP study. These results suggest that the cancer effects observed in the male rats of the NTP study are robust. The NTP and the other animal studies are the missing links. These studies prove that long-term exposure to low intensity, non-thermal levels of microwave radiation can cause DNA damage and cancer in an animal model. To date, many hundreds of studies have found increased oxidative stress (including stress proteins, free radicals and DNA damage) from exposure to low intensity microwave radiation. Additional human studies have been published which find an association between long-term, heavy cell phone use and risk of glioma or vestibular schwannoma (also known as acoustic neuroma). Due to the new animal and human evidence of carcinogenicity since 2011, many EMF scientists are now calling for re-classification of radio frequency radiation either to “probably carcinogenic to humans” or “carcinogenic to humans”.” (3)

Appendix 2 – Excerpt from an abstract published by Dr. Ronald L. Melnick. 

“The National Toxicology Program (NTP) study was designed to test the (null) hypothesis that cell phone radiation at non-thermal exposure intensities could not cause adverse health effects, and to provide dose-response data for any detected toxic or carcinogenic effects. Partial findings released from that study showed significantly increased incidences and/or trends for gliomas and glial cell hyperplasias in the brain and schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in the heart of exposed male rats. These results, as well as the findings of significantly increased DNA damage (strand breaks) in the brains of exposed rats and mice, reduced pup birth weights when pregnant dams were exposed to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, and the induction of cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats clearly demonstrate that the null hypothesis has been disproved. The NTP findings are most important because the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as a “possible human carcinogen” based largely on increased risks of gliomas and acoustic neuromas (which are Schwann cell tumors on the acoustic nerve) among long term users of cell phones. The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR strengthens the animal-to-human association. Several unfounded criticisms about the design and results of the NTP study have been promoted to minimize the utility of the experimental data on RFR for assessing human health risks. In contrast to those criticisms, an expert peer-review panel recently concluded that the NTP studies were well designed, and that the results demonstrated that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RFR were carcinogenic to the heart (schwannomas) and brain (gliomas) of male rats.” (4)

Appendix 3 - From the 2015 Harvard study "Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates," by Norm Alster.

The FCC does not even enforce its own standards (from page 14 and 15):

"Remember the key clause in the 96 Telecom Act that disallowed denial of zoning permits based on health concerns? Well, federal preemption is granted to pretty much any wireless outfit on just one simple condition: its installations must comply with FCC radiation emission standards. In view of this generous carte blanche to move radiation equipment into neighborhoods, schoolyards and home rooftops, one would think the FCC would at the very least diligently enforce its own emission standards. But that does not appear to be the case.

Indeed, one RF engineer who has worked on more than 3,000 rooftop sites found vast evidence of non-compliance. Marvin Wessel estimates that ―10 to 20% exceed allowed radiation standards. With 30,000 rooftop antenna sites across the U.S. that would mean that as many as 6,000 are emitting radiation in violation of FCC standards. Often, these emissions can be 600% or more of allowed exposure levels, according to Wessel."

“The FCC is not enforcing its own standard, noted Janet Newton, who runs the EMF Policy Institute, a Vermont-based non-profit. That group several years ago filed 101 complaints on specific rooftop sites where radiation emissions exceeded allowable levels. ‘We did this as an exercise to hold the FCC‘s feet to the fire,’ she said. But the 101 complaints resulted in few responsive actions, according to Newton. Former FCC official Bob Weller confirms the lax, (perhaps negligible is the more appropriate word), FCC activity in enforcing antenna standards. ‘To my knowledge, the enforcement bureau has never done a targeted inspection effort around RF exposure,’ he said. ‘Budget cuts at the agency have hurt, limiting the FCC‘s ability to perform field inspections,’ he added.

“So what has the FCC done to tighten enforcement? Apparently, not very much. Though it does follow up on many of the complaints filed against sites alleged to be in violation of standards it takes punitive actions very rarely. (The FCC did not provide answers to written questions on details of its tower enforcement policies.)”  (7)

References

(If any of these links don’t load paste them into your browser)

1. Electromagnetic Pollution: It is Time to Assess its Impact, www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 2 December 2018 e512

2. For the complete report: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks

3. Moscowitz’ comments can be read in their entirety at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/publiccomm/moskowitz20180312.pdf

4. Melnick, Ronald L. Environmental Research, Volume 168, January 2019, Pages 1-6.

5. Expert Report [on the human health risks of EMF and Smart Meters] of Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D. before the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, August 8, 2016. http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/testimony-AAM_Report.pdf

6. Microwave Exposure Limits — Countries Comparison. 

http://www.safeinschool.org/p/microwave-exposure-limits-countries.html

7. Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates, by Norm Alster, 2015. Published by: Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA.