Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Kucinich to introduce bill for cell phone radiation research, warning label

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) said Wednesday that he will introduce a bill for a federal research program on the affects of cellphone radiation on users. The bill will also call for a warning label for mobile phones, as a growing body of research around the world indicate potential links between long-term use and cancer.

The bill comes after The Post’s report Tuesday outlining the growing controversy over cellphones and health. The story looks into the lobbying effort against bills across the country that would require warning and radiation data labels for cellphone retailers and San Francisco's move as the first place in the nation to require retailers to disclose radiation levels of the phones they sell.

“Some studies find links. Some don’t. But studies funded by the telecommunications industry are significantly less likely to find a link between cellphones and health effects. We need a first-class research program to give us answers,” Kucinich said in a statement. “Until we know for sure, a labeling law will ensure that cellphone users can decide for themselves the level of risk that they will accept”

Kucinich, who held a hearing on the topic in 2008, said much of the current research on cellphone radiation is being done outside the United States. Federal regulations on how much radiation devices can emit – such as the Specific Absorption Rate set by the Federal Communications Commission – are outdated.

His bill will call for a fresh look at regulatory standards on how much radiation a cellphone can emit. The FCC’s guidelines for SAR, an absorption limit set at 1.6 watts per kilogram of tissue, were determined in 1997 and were designed around testing for a male adult model. Those standards, according to some epidemiologists, do not take into account other affects of radiation on tissue and do not take into account the fastest-growing segment of cellphone users: children.

Kucinich cited the 13-nation Interphone study (the U.S. did not participate) that found that while there is no conclusive link that long-term cellphone users were more prone to cancer, the heaviest users could be more vulnerable.

“Consumers have a right to know whether they are buying the phone with the lowest – or the highest – level of exposure to cellphone radiation. They also deserve to have up-to-date standards, which are now decades old,” Kucinich said.

Kucinich said in an interview that he will introduce his bill when Congress resumes session in two weeks. He said he has several co-sponsors.

"There is a high degree of interest in this among my colleagues," he said.

This post has been updated since it was first published.

By Cecilia Kang  |  June 30, 2010; 2:36 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Immigration patrol steps up fight against online movie piracy
Next: Update: Spokeo's consumer profiling prompts complaint to FTC


Goodluck Dennis! I hope this passes and does some good!

That said... We should do this with other things like mandatory "seatbelts". It is absolutely foolish to believe that a seatbelt will protect everyone, everytime. We, the people" should decide to wear them or not, NOT the government. Let's KILL these stupid mandatory laws forever!

Posted by: darbyohara | July 1, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

This is just another outrageously stupid way for our lawmakers to waste our tax dollars. Why don't they just finish the job with a law saying that all free will is banned. Then you can get on to bigger, more important voting yourselves a raise and creating more jobs with-in the government that produce nothing to pay the bills you keep running up!

Posted by: fisherisle | July 1, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Dear God, please tell these morons in DC that their job is not to mandate every detail of our lives. Term limits, term limits, term limits.....let's fix it so we don't have to deal with lifetime politicians who are so entrenched in the system that they have to look up to tie their shoes!!

Posted by: mom25 | July 1, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Well-known physics tells us that the wavelength of the radiation emitted by cell phones can not cause cancer--the energy of a radio-frequency photon is not great enough to break a chemical bond. Radio energy can cause trivial heating of the brain, which is instantly cooled by the blood flow to the brain.

Therefore, all this activity is a waste of time and money that could/should be put into areas of greater and demonstrable risk, such as plastic precursors (BPA) in our food supply.

While I am not a statistics expert, as I understand it the greater the number of studies (or the more variable in a particular study) increases the probability of a particular study or variable picking up outlier events--statistical clusters for instance. Thus, in the absence of a physics-based mechanism for genetic damage, I interpret the uncertainty of the studies that have been done as reflecting statistical noise.

This is a case where our representatives poor grounding in science and technology causes needless distractions and costs associated with illogical policy.

Posted by: beebopareebop | July 1, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

What else would one expect from this moron!! And while Rome burns Nero fiddles.

This is exactly what is wrong with this current pack of politicians that are running loose in the halls of Congress. There isn't anything that they don't think BIG GOVERNMENT shouldn't have its claws in.


I don't need you to tell me if my phone might hurt me, or if smoking might kill me, or any of the other nonsense you think you need to tell me about.


Posted by: Richard_FL | July 1, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

The whole concept of wireless communication is based on radiation of radio waves. The radiation is not some byproduct of using a cell phone; it's how they work. Comparing cell phones by the amount of radiation is pointless. The government, through the Telecommunications Industry Association, dictates the power output of cell phones. All GSM(AT&T and T-mobile) cell phones will radiate the same power, just as all CDMA(Verizon and Sprint) cell phones will radiate the same power. GSM phones transmit higher power than CDMA phones, but GSM phones only transmit 14% of the time when in use, while CDMA phones transmit 100% of the time. There is no fair comparison of radiation exposure between the two technologies. To muddy the waters further, cell phones have adaptive transmit power control that adjusts the power depending on how close they are to the cell tower. Putting labels on cell phones for radiation will only confuse consumers and provide no useful safety information.

I would not be a bit surprised if this was initiated by one of the big wireless service providers to steer potential customers from the competition by scaring them about the radiation. It is not uncommon for big corporations that are in bed with ignorant politicians to try to get a competitive advantage by using government regulation. Recall Thomas Edison, who sold DC power systems, tried to scare people away from AC power by electrocuting elephants and horses on the streets of New York. AC power systems that were sold by Westinghouse were far safer,cheaper, and more efficient.

Another example is American cheese. By law American cheese has to be labeled as "processed cheese" as if it is somehow unnatural. Traditional cheese only uses the milk curd, while American cheese adds back in the whey. Cheese lobbyist (yes they existed) wanted American cheese labeled "embalmed" cheese, because they were scared to death of the popularity of Kraft American cheese. Labeling it processed cheese was the compromise. Why bring up cheese? The story IS about Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by: boboli | July 1, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me?!??! " a growing body of research around the world indicate potential links between long-term use and cancer." WRONG! The sentence should be "as a growing body of research around the world keeps indicating no potential links between long-term use and cancer."

Posted by: tyronej | July 1, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Ok.....unemployment is nearly 10%, jobs disappearing daily, we're spending our country into oblivian, we've millions of gallons of oil spewing into the gulf....and what do we get? Warning labels for cellphones?! Why do we tolerate these idiots?

Posted by: rnw1015632 | July 1, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Ms. Kang, you have a few facts wrong about the exposure standards. The FCC's maximum permitted SAR for radio frequency emissions is 0.4 W/kg for occupational exposure, and 0.08 W/kg for public exposure which includes cell phone users. The generally accepted threshold at which adverse effects (primarily behavior changes and heating of tissue) are known is at an SAR of 4 W/kg. This is a standard that has been adopted by scientific bodies around the world. The FCC maximum exposure limit for the public corresponds to one-fiftieth of that 4 W/kg threshold.

Also, your statement that the exposure standards are based solely on average male adults is not true. Human size is relevant only with respect to whole-body exposure. The whole human body absorbs RF fields much more readily around the FM broadcast band than at the much higher cellular frequencies. For this reason, the FCC adopted a much more restrictive exposure limit in the frequencies between 30 and 300 MHz, which corresponds to the entire range of human height of all ages.

Studies of mammal (including human) exposure to RF fields have been done since the 1950's, and cellular RF is not significantly different from any other radio signals that humans have been exposed to over decades (from TV and radio transmitting towers, for example). With regard to a possible link between radio frequency (RF) energy and cancer, an independent commission in the UK (referred to as the "Stewart Commission") concluded in 2003 that "the biological evidence suggests that RF fields to not cause mutation or initiate or promote tumour formation, and the epidemiological data overall do not suggest causal associations between exposures to RF fields, in particular from mobile phone use, and the risk of cancer."

Posted by: BenE1961 | July 1, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse


How about introducing a bill to have every judge look up the legal definition of "Exempt income" that is ALREADY WRITTEN into tax law.


How about it, Sheeple?

Posted by: peabodyhere | July 1, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Dear Moonbat . . . Rep. Cucinich, perhaps a more realisitic, useful tagging should be posted on the office doors of all 535 Congress members, something on the order of: Anyone proceeding beyond these doors runs the risk of contracting the Politicianus Ingnoramus Syndrome more commonly known as Electionitis or Democrapititis. That may save billions of lives world over. Either that or phone home so your spacecraft can ferry you back to your home planet.

Geez! November 2, 2010 is quickly becoming the new July 4th for this country!

Posted by: METAIRIEMAN55 | July 1, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

There's no denying that cell phones emit radiation. It's certainly true that enough radiation directed at one spot can cause tissue damage in living creatures. However with the limited resources available, it makes more sense to work on the issue of cell phone use while driving. At this point we know for certain far more people are being hurt and killed as a result of people texting and talking on the phone while behind the wheel.

Posted by: thw2001 | July 1, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Ahh yes, good old freak show Kucinich pushing JUNK SCIENCE again.

Why do the Dems hate cell phones? Are they going to try to take your phone away? You can COUNT on it. There has to be an ulterior motive with all this Cell Phobia. They want to scare us for a reason.

As a ham radio operator and someone who spent YEARS as a Navy Radioman, I know this is BS. The power levels are WAAAAYYY too low to have any effect. Read up on SAR (Specific absorption rate) and then get back to me Kucinich.

Posted by: hihi22 | July 1, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Given the lack of scientific evidence linking cell phone use to cancer and that no new significant findings of any sort has come to light on this subject since 1997, and given that the current FCC standards have a 50-times safety factor already built in, in my opinion it would be pointless to revisit the standards, and even more pointless to put warning labels on cell phones.

Posted by: BenE1961 | July 1, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

How many warnings can you digest. A child knows of the boy who cried wolf. Wish our elected officials did.

How many times have people laughed at, 'This product contains chemicals known in the state of California to cause . . .' Then completely ignored it.

Now we the people of America can all look as silly as California!!

Posted by: tojerrygregoire | July 1, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: shazzamm | July 1, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Dennis is just upset he doesn't have an excuse for governmental control of another aspect of our lives. He and his progressive cabol would love limit cell phone "radiation" exposure, as this will decrease peoples' ability to communicate ideas and inform others of news, etc. A study financed by the government will be no less beholden to the outcome the government desires than those studies Dennis deplores. Dennis and his ilk not only inhaled, they forgot to exhale.

Posted by: jeeprn | July 1, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Thanck god ther dooing this. Us stoopid peepl ned gubberment 2 keep us saff. my seluler fone cood kill me, just like mcdonalds fud to. if thay didnt tell me that there fud was makeing me fat I wouldunt have none. Sins gubberment keps me alive I can rerperdoose and have lots of kids and dum down the popularation. (P.s I wents to publik skools.)

Posted by: Liberalism_is_a_Disease | July 1, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Um, Cecelia, I gave up after 2 errors in the first paragraph. Your words:
"Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) said Wednesday that he will introduce a bill for a federal research program on the affects of cellphone radiation on users. The bill will also call for a warning label for mobile phones, as a growing body of research around the world indicate potential links between long-term use and cancer."

"affects" should be "effects" Additionally, "a ....BODY....indicate" should be "a.....BODY....indicates"
Got any editors there? If not, maybe you should take a course yourself.

Posted by: KansasGirl2 | July 1, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Dennis has to do this for three reasons. First, he needs a girlfriend. Second, the aliens from the Trogblatt system told him to. Third, warning labels imply a danger. Now, everybody with male pattern baldness or a pimple can sue the cellphone makers, designers, distributors, marketers, second-hand users, etc and the trial lawyers can make trillions. The trial laywers (think John Edwards) are the among the biggest donors the Dems have. This is just another scam to transfer money from productive people to the parasites at the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Truthmonger1 | July 1, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

In New Scientist vol 180 issue 2417 (18 October 2003, page 10) issue (link: we are told about repair enzymes that scan DNA using an electric pulse.

Maybe the low energy microwaves and/or the electromagnetic fields created by mobile phones are sufficient to disrupt this "electron scan". Therefore mobile phones may not be causing extra damage to cells, but they may instead be preventing existing damage from being repaired.

Any scientific testing as to whether mobile phone radiation causes cancers in mice (or people) therefore needs to test a minimum of four scenarios:

1) Mice in the presence of BOTH mobile phone radiation AND a mutagenic substance.
2) Mice in the presence of ONLY mobile phone radiation and NO a mutagenic substance.
3) Mice in the presence of NO mobile phone radiation BUT a mutagenic substance is present.
4) Mice in the presence of NO mobile phone radiation and NO mutagenic substance.

The null hypothesis would be that 2 = 4 < 1 = 3

If mobile phone radiation is preventing existing damage from being repaired then I would anticipate that 2 = 4 < 3 < 1

Kris Ericksen

Posted by: skf123 | July 1, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The Swedes are top drawer in science. They did their best to show that all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, including cell-phones, caused something. THEY FAILED. All kinds of work tried to find a molecule in the human body that absorbed EM radiation but failed. The only thing that absorbs EM energy is good old water. Witness the "radar range". The radar range heats water which limits it's usefulness in cooking. Try cooking a steak with a radar range, it is a loser unless a special plate is used that absorbs the energy to cook the meat.

Posted by: band | July 1, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Cecelia, got to go along with tyronej. There simply is no growing body of research that you claim. You don't want to be throwing unfounded statements like that around.

Posted by: Bob_Dobbs | July 1, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

I see value in having the NIH study the issue. Why have telecom companies do research when there is for sure a conflict of interest. We need good scientific studies done. If in creating the bill for research funding there is, at the same time, warnings required that's putting the cart before the horse. Do the research and if warranted, have warnings.

Posted by: deckstro | July 1, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Cell phones and cell towers are weapons, weapons against humanity. The sooner people figure this out, the better off we all are.

Studies now confirm, without a doubt, cell towers and phones are killing bees. Bees are the canary in the mine.

We now have undeniable confirmation cell phones and towers cause cell damage. Live blood analysis after exposure indicates over 110 DAYS of cell death from just 17 minutes of usage.

All of this is a hard pill to swallow because people are addicted to their little toys. The frequencies/pulse rate they give off causes 'de-switching' of the brain hemispheres, effectively making them 'addicts'. Higher faculties are void in heavy cell users, and they become addicted to them.

Expect a lot of resistance to the truth. People just can't admit when something is killing them, addiction. If you knew what your cell phone was really doing to you, you'd toss it in the trash, I did.. I don't even allow people with cell phones in my home, they can leave them in the car.

Posted by: pcdoctor1921 | July 1, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Sounds good to me. Hopefully they will create no cell phone zones in hospitals, restaurants and other indoor areas where the radiation can harm others. This is worse than second hand smoke...geez we cannot even see what is harming us!

Posted by: dont_tread_on_me | July 1, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Ya know, I think Kucinich always has kooky ideas that but I will say that at least I believe he is genuine - he does and says what he does because he thinks they are right (there can almost be no other reason for some of his ideas).

Contrast this, however, to Mr. Obama's pompous approach which would be to lecture us on our dangerous, cancer-inducing lifestyles via his cell phone while smoking a Camel.

Posted by: scotty8 | July 2, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

How about we put a warning on the buffoons in the (BHO) US Gov;
"These clowns will steal your money and crash the country, elect at your own risk."

Posted by: JerzyBoy1 | July 2, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I have been saying this since Jan. 2009. I have Oral Cancer of the tongue. I always had a red mark on my cheek the same side of the cancer, when I used my cell phone. I've had a cell phone for 12 years. No one would believe me not even my doctor or lawyer. It started out as a lesion within a month it turned into squamous cell cancer. I had surgery at Moffit Cancer Center in FL and my lymph nodes removed.

Seems to me no doctor or attorney wants to go against a cell phone company.

I hope Rep. Kucincich bill passes.

We need to put this information out there.

Thank you,

Posted by: ConnieFL2000 | July 2, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I don't think that iPhone 4 users are going to appreciate having a ugly sticker on their pretty phones. I think we should put stickers on stupid politicians. Something like: "Reelect only at the risk of everyone"

Posted by: daveKnows3 | July 2, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Ladies and Gentlemen: We can not prove that something is unconditionally safe. However, based upon what is known, cell phone radiation is even less dangerous than a warm ray of sunshine.

People have been researching the effects of electromagnetic radiation on biology since the dawn of radio. So far, the only known effect is localized heating: what your microwave oven does.

Researching cell phone radiation effects is a foolish waste of resources. It has been studied for decades. Despite the occasional spurious positive statistical sampling artifact, there has been little evidence of any common problem. In other words, a repeatable, consistent correlation has not yet been found. For every study that shows a positive result, other follow-ups have shown that there is no correlation.

We do not need more research of this sort. We might as well spend money on having mathematicians prove that 1 + 1 = 2 for all the good it would do.

Really, I wish there were something I could say to those of you who remain unconvinced, besides READ THE DAMNED RESEARCH THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE!

This is an illiterate, unscientific effort to divert researchers from more productive endeavors. PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

Posted by: ab3a | July 2, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Congress is more hazardous to our health than cellphones. Witness the SHOVING of obonzocare upon us. Many productive lives will be lost needlessly as a result of this obamanation.

Posted by: martifr | July 2, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats are merely setting the stage for their trial lawyer sycophants to destroy the telecommunications industry with a trillion dollar class action lawsuit. Maybe after the shylocks have stolen all the money, Oilbama can nationalize the industry like his hero Hugo Chavez.

Posted by: TheMSMControlsUs | July 2, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

International Journal of Radiation Biology
2006, Vol. 82, No. 6, Pages 443-450 , DOI 10.1080/09553000600840922

Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task

ProfessorChristina M. Krause, PhD1,2†, Christian Haarala Björnberg‌2,3, Mirka Pesonen‌1, Annika Hulten‌2,4,Tiia Liesivuori‌2,3, Mika Koivisto‌2,3, Antti Revonsuo‌2,5, Matti Laine‌2,4 and Heikki Hämäläinen‌2,3
1Cognitive Science Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
2Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience
3Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku
4Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku
5Department of Philosophy, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
†Correspondence: ProfessorChristina M. Krause, Cognitive Science, Department of Psychology, POB 9, University of Helsinki, 00014, Finland, 358 9191 29670/358 500 699972

Purpose: To assess the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by mobile phones (MP) on the 1 – 20 Hz event-related brain oscillatory EEG (electroencephalogram) responses in children performing an auditory memory task (encoding and recognition).

Materials and methods: EEG data were gathered while 15 subjects (age 10 – 14 years) performed an auditory memory task both with and without exposure to a digital 902 MHz MP in counterbalanced order.

Results: During memory encoding, the active MP modulated the event-related desynchronization/synchronization (ERD/ERS) responses in the 4 – 8 Hz EEG frequencies. During recognition, the active MP transformed these brain oscillatory responses in the 4 – 8 Hz and 15 Hz frequencies.

Conclusions: The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children.

Posted by: berenger | July 2, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Current standards have
ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and
thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms
of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF
signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently
protective of public health with respect to chronic
exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies
that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony).
The collective papers on modulation appear to be
omitted from consideration in the recent WHO and IEEE
science reviews. This body of research has been ignored
by current standard setting bodies that rely only on traditional
energy-based (thermal) concepts.

Other research groups have also examined the effects of
cell phone radiation on the central nervous system, including
Borbely et al. [124], Huber et al. [125], Loughran et al.
[126], and D’Costa et al. [127], who found changes in sleep
EEG patterns and other measures during or after short-term
exposures, while others, such as Fritzer et al. [128] exposed
for longer time periods found no changes in sleep parameters,
EEG power spectra, correlation dimension nor cognitive
function. The work of Pritchard [129] served as the basis to
examining correlation dimensions, which is opening a potentially
fertile avenue for investigation. Although this approach
provides more indepth information on ongoing processes
and function, it has not yet been used to address potential
consequences associated with long-term cell phone use.
The papers published in the 1960s through 1991, described
in earlier sections of this paper, foreshadowed the more recent
publications in 1999 through 2008 showing response time
changes, or associated measures, in human subjects during
exposure to cell phone-generated radiation. It is unfortunate
that essentially none of the earlier studies was acknowledged
in these recent reports on cognition, reaction time and
other measures of central nervous system processes.Without
guidance from this extensive earlier work, particularly those
demonstrating the variety of exposure parameter spaces that
must be controlled to produce repeatable experiments, the
development of the mechanistic bases for non-thermal effects
fromEMFexposures will be substantially delayed. The omission
of the recognition of the exposure conditions that affect
the biological outcomes continues as recently as the National
Academy of Science 2009 publication [130] of future directions
for research, which emphasizes the modest perspective
in the results from committee members working at the limits
of expertise, as anticipated by Slovic [100].

Posted by: berenger | July 2, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"Kucinich cited the 13-nation Interphone study (the U.S. did not participate) that found that while there is no conclusive link that long-term cellphone users were more prone to cancer, the heaviest users could be more vulnerable."

Here is how heaviest user was defined in the study:

PEOPLE who use their mobile phones for at least 30 minutes a day for 10 years have a greater risk of developing brain cancer, a landmark study has found.

The chance of suffering from a malignant tumour is increased by more than a third with prolonged use, according to a long-awaited report by the World Health Organisation.
A new piece of research, backed by the European Union, has been launched to investigate possible links between brain tumours in children and mobile phone use.


How many of us fall into this category or use our phones much more often? We are all at increased risk of brain tumor.

That's right, one half hour or more on average per day puts you at a much higher risk. People, think of your children--especially if you use your cell phone while you and they are in the car.

Posted by: berenger | July 2, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Dennis J. Kucinich - traitor JUDAS who sold his vote to Obama STALIN.

Dennis J. Kucinich , you are a rat , a scum and a traitor. You are a low life liar and a traitor to America.

Dennis J. Kucinich , rot in hell with your 30 pieces of silver and your air force one ride.

Posted by: mickrussom | July 2, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of the Stewart Report, I think Bene1961 isn't telling the whole truth:


There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines (paragraphs 5.176–5.194, 6.38).


There are additional factors that need to be taken into account in assessing any possible health effects. Populations as a whole are not genetically homogeneous and people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental hazards. There are well-established examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some groups, which could influence sensitivity to disease. There could also be a dependence on age. We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.35–6.42).


In the light of the above considerations we recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.35–6.42).


We are concerned about the indiscriminate use of mobile phones in hospitals and other sites where the RF radiation could possibly interfere with sensitive equipment...This guidance should include the placing of visible warning signs at entrances to buildings to indicate that mobile phones should be switched off (paragraphs 4.6, 6.91 and 6.92).

... However, there is now evidence that effects on biological functions, including those of the brain, may be induced by RF radiation at levels comparable to those associated with the use of mobile phones...


On the basis of the current state of knowledge we recommend that priority be given to a number of areas of research related particularly to signals from handsets (paragraph 5.270). These should include the following:

effects on brain function.
consequences of exposures to pulsed signals.
improvements in dosimetry.
the possible impact on health of sub-cellular and cellular changes induced by RF radiation.
psychological and sociological studies related to the use of mobile phones.
epidemiological and human volunteer studies (paragraphs 5.249–5.264), including the study of children, and individuals who might be more susceptible to RF radiation (paragraphs 4.37, 6.29 and 6.30).

We recommend that Government circulates a leaflet to every household in the UK providing clearly understandable information on mobile phone technology and on related health aspects, including the use of mobile phones while driving.

Posted by: berenger | July 2, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Cecilia Kang for this important news story. There are indeed thousands of research studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic fields. People addicted to technologies may resist hearing this, but the truth is out on this, particularly with regard to cell phones and brain tumors, salivary gland tumors and accoustic neuromas. It is commendable of Congressman Kucinich to take a stand for legislation that will warn consumers of potential risks of cell phone use, and also that will initiate a research program to further study the effects on health from cell phone use and evaluate the adequacy of current exposure standards. Thank you, Congressman Kucinich, for looking out for public health above corporate interests, and not being intimidated into compromising our health by powerful telcom industry interests, including those that have replied here to Ms. Kang's article. I encourage readers who have not looked at the science on this to read the report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern" found at AND to read the QG article from Feb 2010 which summarizes the history of cell phone science suppression at

Ladies and Gentleman, this is a toxic cover up that will go down in history as one of the most important. Please live safely by knowing the facts.

Good resources:

Posted by: HealthAdvocate1 | July 3, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company