National Toxicology Program RF EME Study-Partial Results


Today the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a preliminary report on a multi-year study of radio frequency emissions on test rats.  The report, available here.

The pre-print abstract says,

The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has carried out extensive rodent toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at frequencies and modulations used in the US telecommunications industry. This report presents partial findings from these studies. The occurrences of two tumor types in male Harlan Sprague Dawley rats exposed to RFR, malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart, were considered of particular interest, and are the subject of this report. The findings in this report were reviewed by expert peer reviewers selected by the NTP and National Institutes of Health (NIH). These reviews and responses to comments are included as appendices to this report, and revisions to the current document have incorporated and addressed these comments. Supplemental information in the form of 4 additional manuscripts has or will soon be submitted for publication. These manuscripts describe in detail the designs and performance of the RFR exposure system, the dosimetry of RFR exposures in rats and mice, the results to a series of pilot studies establishing the ability of the animals to thermoregulate during RFR exposures, and studies of DNA damage. Capstick M, Kuster N, Kühn S, Berdinas-Torres V, Wilson P, Ladbury J, Koepke G, McCormick D, Gauger J, Melnick R. A radio frequency radiation reverberation chamber exposure system for rodents Yijian G, Capstick M, McCormick D, Gauger J, Horn T, Wilson P, Melnick RL and Kuster N. Life time dosimetric assessment for mice and rats exposed to cell phone radiation Wyde ME, Horn TL, Capstick M, Ladbury J, Koepke G, Wilson P, Stout MD, Kuster N, Melnick R, Bucher JR, and McCormick D. Pilot studies of the National Toxicology Program’s cell phone radiofrequency radiation reverberation chamber exposure system Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, Winters J, Hobbs CA, Shepard KG, Green A, Kissling GE, Tice RR, Bucher JR, Witt KL. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure.

While you are considering the linked preliminary report, take into consideration the facts that the report released today is not a final report, and is not peer reviewed.  There are also additional papers yet to be published so this first report is not complete.  Also interesting is the “Additional Response” by John Bucher, Ph.D. on the last page of this preliminary report.



CTIA Sues City of Berkeley Over POS RF Warning Ordinance

In a move surprising no one who has studied history or the CTIA v. San Francisco case from July, 2010, CTIA, one of the two main wireless industry trade associations, has sued the City of Berkeley over its ordinance titled, “REQUIRING NOTICE CONCERNING RADIO FREQUENCY EXPOSURE OF CELL PHONES.”

The ordinance, codified at Chapter 9.96 of the City’s Municipal Code requires sellers and lessors of cell phones to provide the following point of sale notice:

The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:

To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet
radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone
in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and
connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines
for exposure to RF radiation. This potential risk is greater for children.

Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information
about how to use your phone safely.

If you would like to read the CTIA v. Berkeley compliant, filed on June 8, 2015, CLICK HERE.  (PDF; about 1.5 Mb)

The complaint’s first paragraph sets the tone: “The City of Berkeley, California (“the City”) may be entitled to its opinions, however unfounded.” Enjoy the rest of the complaint, which is framed as a First Amendment ‘freedom not be forced to speak’ claim.

CTIA seeks the following:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
(A) Enter a judgment declaring that Berkeley’s required disclosure regarding RF
Exposure, codified at Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 9.96, impermissibly abridges CTIA’s
members’ First Amendment rights;
(B) Enter a judgment declaring that Berkeley’s required disclosure regarding RF
Exposure, codified at Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 9.96, is preempted by federal law;
(C) Enter an injunction barring Defendants the City of Berkeley, California and Christine
Daniel, the City Manager of Berkeley, California, from enforcing or causing to be enforced Berkeley
Municipal Code Chapter 9.96 in order to prevent imminent and irreparable injury to CTIA’s members and harm to the public;
(D) Grant CTIA such relief as it deems just and proper, including an award of reasonable
attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action.

By the way, that last prayer for relief–for reasonable attorney’s fees–lead me to wonder what reasonable might be. It turns out that the CTIA’s lead attorney on the suit, Theodore B. Olson made some news in his own right about his own fees. It was highlighted in a National Law Journal article published on January 5, 2015 which said, in relevant part,

“Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, with an $1,800 hourly rate for Theodore Olson, an outlier, had the highest rate the NLJ could find in public records.”

Read more HERE.


PS: Interestingly, CTIA sued the City and the City Manager (in her official capacity) but they didn’t sue the members of the City Council (in any capacity) who actually voted for the ordinance.  Hummm.  jlk

PPS: I’d like to be able to charge $30 per minute for my own wise legal counsel.  Any takers? jlk


A Tin Foil Hat with Every Vote

Candidate Kevin Moddus, sans his tin foil hat.
Candidate Kevin Moddus, without a tin foil hat.

UPDATE: Seems like the voters in the 33rd were not looking for rolls of tin foil.  Mr. Mottus received just 2.4% of the votes cast.  He came in 7th.  The 6th place candidate had a hair shy of 3-times as many votes compared with Mr. Mottus.

Meet Mr. Kevin Mottus. He is running for Congress to fill the 33rd Congressional Seat here in Los Angeles being vacated by 40-year veteran congressional Henry Waxman.

I don’t think Mr. Mottus will be getting any campaign donations from the PCIA, CTIA, or the California Wireless Association.

Mr. Mottus seems to think of brain cancer as his chief opponent in the race for the 33rd District seat, and that cancer is from only one possible source.  Yup.  You guessed it.

The campaign website of Mr. Mottus makes clear his big issue — the one that populates the majority of his front page, and is reenforced by an entire  page devoted to scare videos.  He asserts that “[w]ithout any actual Safety Standards in place for this Technology, we are being used as a Massive Human Experiment on the long term Health Effects from RF Radiation Exposure from Wireless.”

Gee, I thought 47 C.F.R. 1.1307 et seq were those actual Safety Standards.


Listen to the recorded message Mr. Mottus bombarding via autodialers to 33rd District residents:


Major New Long Term RF Safety Study of Cell Tower Communications

The latest major scientific report to address the issue of  cellular communications from cancer comes from England.  There, the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (“MTHR Programme”) released a report prepared for the Department of Health discussing its 11 years of research regarding whether cellular communications radio frequency emissions impact public health.

The report’s basic finding is that there was no link between cellular communications (from base stations or handsets) and adverse health effects in humans such as cancer.

The science underpinning the reported results is impressive.  Some 60 peer-reviewed papers have been generated by this study funded through the MTHR Programme.

Quoting from the report:

 Over a period of 11 years, the MTHR Programme has supported 31 individual research projects that between them have resulted in almost 60 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. All but one of the research projects is now complete, and the Department of Health has decided that this is an opportune time to bring research on mobile phones and health into its mainstream research portfolio.

. . .

In this report we discuss the work we supported to investigate whether maternal exposure to base station emissions during pregnancy could affect the risk of developing cancer in early childhood. A second project investigated the risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile phone use. Neither of the studies identified any association between exposure and an increased risk of developing cancer. These findings appear to be consistent with the results from other recent studies examining similar endpoints.

Of particular interest is that the MTHR Programme studied whether signal modulation produced any different study results compared to an unmodulated carrier wave (“CW”).

A key question in this area is whether the modulations applied to radio signals to enable them to carry voice and data communications can elicit specific effects that are different from those of the carrier frequency alone. We supported three projects to examine this issue in different ways, including one that tested whether a wide range of cells and tissues could demodulate the signal. None of the projects found any evidence that modulated signals produced different effects from the carrier frequency. When taken together with the findings from the provocation studies we supported, which also compared modulated signals with carrier frequencies, we believe that these results constitute a substantial body of evidence that modulation does not play a significant role in the interaction of radiofrequency fields with biological systems. This conclusion has extremely important implications and should facilitate the pooling of data from different studies and allow conclusions to be drawn with greater confidence.

Not surprisingly, the report concludes that further research should be conducted, and establishes five priority areas for that future research:

a     Studies of long-term behavioral/neurological outcomes  in children and/or adolescents in relation to mobile phone usage,

b    provocation studies on children,

c    provocation studies to identify neurobiological mechanisms underlying possible effect of mobile phone signals on brain function, including sleep and/or resting EEG,

d   studies in suitable animal models of the effects of early-life and prenatal exposure on development and behaviour,

e  studies in suitable animal models of effects on ageing and neurodegenerative diseases.

(The spelling above is that used in the report, which is written in British English.)

If you would like to read the MTHR 2012 report and/or the prior MTHR 2007 report, I’ll be happy to send them to you automatically via email when you fill the appropriate form(s) below.

PLEASE FILL OUT ONLY ONE FORM AT A TIME.  Then you can fill out the other form if you’d like.

For  a copy of the MTHR 2012 report, please fill in the form just below.  The 2012 report will be emailed to you as soon as you press SEND.

    Your Full Name (required)

    Your Email Address (required; this is where we will email the report)

    If you'd like to leave us a message you can type it here (optional):

    To prove that you're a real person, rather than an automated BOT, please fill in the blank:

    If you would like a copy of the MTHR 2007 report, please fill in the information below.  It will be emailed to you as soon as you press SEND.

      Your Full Name (required)

      Your Email Address (required; this is where we will email the report)

      If you'd like to leave us a message you can type it here (optional):

      To prove that you're a real person, rather than an automated BOT, please fill in the blank:



      A Disingenuous and Dangerous Stunt

      Last night I watched a tower siting appeal hearing before the City Council of Albany, California.  During the hearing, a resident came up to the speakers podium. As part of his public comment, the resident attempted to make a comparison between cell site emissions and the emissions from a microwave oven.  To hammer home his point, he brought in and set up a special microwave oven  in the front row of the Council Chamber.

      Trying to make a point attempting to compare cell tower emissions to those from a microwave oven, the resident told the City Council that he modified the microwave oven to bypass all of the safety mechanisms.  All microwave ovens come with at least two safety interlocks that immediately shut down the microwave oven if the door is opened during the cooking cycle.

      The resident then proceeded to make his point by operating the microwave oven by cooking what he identified as a grilled cheese sandwich–with the microwave door open and the microwave cavity pointed at the City Council and staff.

      albany.cheese(Screen capture from KALB TV at 0:57:47 into the meeting)

      In my opinion, the resident’s ‘demonstration’ was a disingenuous  and dangerous stunt.  I have never seen such a stunt in 29 years of public service.

      It is meaningless to attempt to compare the emissions from a 900 watt microwave oven emitting into a focused cavity resting on a chair in a meeting hall with a cell site professionally engineered to comply with federal standards (this is the disingenuous part).

      While the microwave emissions may not (or may, for that matter) have exceeded the FCC’s/FDA’s standard beyond a measurable distance, no inquiry was made by the resident as to whether anyone nearby was using a pacemaker (this is the dangerous part).

      Moreover, the use of an electrical extension cord to power an appliance (and to do so in a public meeting area) violates various electrical and other safety codes.

      Had I been at the meeting in person, I would have stepped in to prevent or stop the stunt.

      To pound the key points home:

      1. Don’t do what this resident did…don’t ever endanger the public trying to make a point;
      2. Don’t do what this resident did…don’t ever bypass safety interlocks intended to protect the public trying to make a point;
      3. Don’t do what this resident did…don’t ever violate safety codes trying to make a point;

      Look, I’m all for the public expressing views at a public hearing.  I am, in fact, a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of public participation in the government process.

      Heck, I can live with the disingenuous participation part since it is still a public viewpoint, and even disingenuous public viewpoints are important in an open public debate.

      What I do not support, however, are expressions of public participation in the government process in ways that are dangerous and/or illegal.

      That’s my opinion on this resident’s stunt.  What’s yours?



      FCC Likely to Revisit RF Emissions Safety Rules

      Wireless Week is reporting that the FCC may open an inquiry into its RF emissions safety standards.

      WW reports that Chairman Julius Genachowski is circulating a draft inquiry among the Commissioners that may (and is likely to be) voted on by the full Commission to require a in-depth review of the FCC’s existing environmental RF rules. Those rules are found at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 et seq., and discussed in terms approaching plain English in the Commission’s widely-used publication, “Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance” (which I co-authored and co-edited).

      If the Commission takes over the reins on this hot potato subject, it’s my opinion that the Commission is very unlikely to change the existing rules regarding cell towers, but it make take a closer look at the rules regarding Specific Absorption Rate (“SAR”) which govern cell phone handsets.

      Should the Commission proceed forward, I would expect the review process to take upwards of a year to complete.  During this period, it’s very likely that segments of the public will call on local governments to halt cell siting reviews and permitting pending the outcome of the FCC’s review.  The simple answer is that unless the FCC directs state and local governments to halt siting reviews (somewhere around a 0.00000% chance, in my view), the usual local processing of wireless site permits should continue unchanged.

      Remember that under Section 704 of the Telecom Act, local governments are permitted to determine planned compliance with the existing FCC rules.  Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act would suggest that the authority in Section 704 is only applicable to emissions safety reviews of new wireless sites, and perhaps not applicable to “collocations” at “eligible facilities” (whatever those terms mean as they are not defined by Congress).

      Finally, I expect that if the Commission moves forward with a review of RF emissions safety, it’s quite likely that the wireless industry—freshly emboldened by its facial win with Section 6409(a)—will use the inquiry as a means to promote their notion that no RF safety reviews should be conducted or considered by state and local governments.

      Stay tuned…this may well get interesting.


      TWC Deploys WiFi in SoCal

      Coming to (or already arrived at) a utility pole really near you in Southern California…  Time Warner’s new WiFi system!

      With $15M of new strand-mounted WiFi access point equipment supplied by BelAir Networks, this new network is apparently intended to provided wide area WiFi coverage in TWC’s service areas.

      Presently, TWC’s SoCal deployment is spotty at best, but this is just the beginning:

      TWC WiFi So Cal Coverage 2011-09-25So, you’d like to see what the BelAir wireless access points look like installed in SoCal?  Here are two photos taken in Santa Monica by yours truly:

      TWC WiFi Access Point on Montana Avenue in Santa Monica
      TWC WiFi Access Point on Montana Avenue in Santa Monica
      TWC WiFi Access Point on Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica
      TWC WiFi Access Point on Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica

      Belair Networks web site points to an interesting piece on the new network posted at FierceWireless: it’s worth reading.

      Of course, a few tiny technicalities pop into my head with this deployment.

      First, since this is not a cable service, and this is not a personal wireless service, under what regulatory authority does a statewide cable TV franchisee (like, for example, Time Warner) install these wireless access points in the public right-of-way?

      Another interesting issue is that I’ve been saying for years that cable operators have to do away with subscriber drop cables.  Is this the door-opener for a last mile (really, last 100 feet) drop cable replacement?  Given that the node locations only cover a couple of blocks around the access point (I’ve checked by measuring signal strength on the SSID “TWCWifi”), the coverage v. capacity trade off looks favorable.

      Wireless drops mean no more…well, fewer at least…truck rolls.  This is because in a wireless drop environment most new service installs and disconnects will required the subscriber to pick up and return the box to the cable office.  And without aging cables inside walls going bad, cable service quality should/may should be enhanced.

      But wireless drops also require a switched channel selection process for most channels, especially for the lesser viewed channels, coupled with multicasting for the most commonly viewed non-premium channels.

      It’ll be interesting to see the reactions of those who are concerned about or opposed to ANY wireless site RF proliferation given the signal strength involved versus the fact that these radios will be in installed residential area front yards, back yards, and side yards just feet from occupied structures.

      The cable world is certainly changing…it’s becoming wireless, too.



      Orgonite: The Cure for Cell Towers!

      I’ve just learned about an amazing but little known homemade compound structure that can protect people from cell towers. It’s called Orgonite, and you can make it at home.

      According to the following text I found on the Internet, Orgonite has amazing properties! According to the Orgonite web site:

      Orgonite: A proven effective solution.

      This is a purely informational site about orgonite, a simple compound anyone can create in their backyard with fairly inexpensive, widely-available materials which balances ambient energy by turning the negative energy into positive energy, with many easily-confirmed effects. Orgonite does this continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without electricity.

      Quick Facts About Orgonite:

      * Simple. Easy to make. Works continuously.
      * Turns negative energy into positive energy.
      * Purifies the atmosphere, detoxifies water, ends drought.
      * Helps plants grow better, repel pests & require less water.
      * Mitigates harmful effects of EMF radiation.
      * Disarms and repels predatory forms of life.
      * Inspires a pleasant demeanor and balanced, happier moods.
      * Frequently remedies insomnia and chronic nightmares.
      * Helps awaken your innate psychic senses.

      The Orgonite web site goes on to describe the apparent magical properties of this homemade compound in connection with suppressing the negativity associated with cell towers:

      It has been the experience of many chembuster enthusiasts that the widespread deployment of digital cellular communications towers across the populated areas of the world in the last several years has created a thick blanket of DOR/negative energy which saturates our homes and communities, promotes drought, negativity, fear, etc., and significantly hinders chembuster operation (among many other detrimental effects).

      However, it has been widely experienced that these negative effects can be disabled and chembusters can be made to start working properly again simply by tossing or burying small muffin-sized chunks of orgonite called TowerBusters (TB’s) near all the cellphone towers in their area, an increasingly-popular activity which has become known as “gifting”, and is conducted literally all over the world now by thousands of selfless and highly-dedicated individuals and Internet-organized groups.

      This site is intended to provide a basic, accurate, efficient introduction to orgonite for those interested in learning more about it. If you wish to perform further research, we have a comprehensive list of informational resources in our Further Reading section.

      The positive, self-empowering effects of working with orgonite quickly become obvious to those who choose to make and use it. If you are interested in seeking your own confirmations of it’s effectiveness, please visit our section on How to Make Orgonite to find out how you can begin to improve the energy and create real beneficial changes in your home and community.

      Here’s a video of someone “gifting” a cell tower:

      So, now that you know about the amazing benefits that are achieved with Orgonite,would you like to make your own Orgonite Tower Buster? It’s so easy, and requires only the least amount of brainpower. When you see how Orgonite is made you’ll understand what makes these pucks so effective, especially if you inhale the fumes while mixing up a batch! (Which I certainly DO NOT recommend!)

      You can visit the ‘how to make it page’ at the Orgonite web site by clicking here. It has step-by-step photo-illustrated instructions that you’ll find to be infinitely valuable, and oh-so-detailed!

      To see a short video on how to mix up a batch of Orgonite ‘muffins’ to place around cell towers, click watch video below!

      Okay, now you know all you need to cure yourself of the fear of cell towers!


      PS: I had intended to post this message exactly two days ago, but I was too busy out shopping for magnetic bracelets and magical amulets. I found both, so now I’m feeling even better! jlk

      PPS: Remember, if you read it on the Internet, it has to be true. jlk


      CTIA’s Worst Fear: Point-of-Sale Access to Consumer Information

      The Cellular Telephone Industry Association (the CTIA) sued the City and County of San Francisco on July 23, 2010 in an attempt to overturn the City’s new ordinance requiring disclosure of the “Specific Absorption Rate” (SAR) data.  The Ordinance is titled the “Cell Phone Right-to-Know Ordinance” (Ordinance No. 155-10).

      So what is a SAR, anyway?

      As the FCC says,

      Working closely with federal health and safety agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the FCC has adopted limits for safe exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy. These limits are given in terms of a unit referred to as the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is a measure of the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The FCC requires cell phone manufacturers to ensure that their phones comply with these objective limits for safe exposure. Any cell phone at or below these SAR levels (that is, any phone legally sold in the U.S.) is a “safe” phone, as measured by these standards. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).


      Every cell phone sold in the U.S. must comply with the FCC regulations requiring compliance with the SAR rule, and public disclosure of the SAR value via the FCC’s web site, and sometimes at other web sites.

      It’s the ‘public disclosure’ part is just what the CTIA (and the wireless industry that funds it) is so afraid of.

      So what, exactly, has San Francisco done to tick-off the CTIA?

      San Francisco adopted an ordinance requiring easily accessible point-of-sale disclosure of the SAR value for each phone sold or leased in San Francisco by retailers.

      For the purposes of the ordinance, a retailer is someone who sells or leases cell phones to the public within the City,  or anyone who offers cell phones for sale or lease within the City. Retailers, as defined in the ordinance, specifically excludes anyone selling or leasing cell phones over the phone, by mail, or over the internet, and also excludes anyone selling or leasing cell phones directly to the public at a convention, trade show, or conference, or otherwise selling or leasing cell phones directly to the public within the City for fewer than 10 days in a year (i.e, a person who sells his or her old cell phone to someone else, for example).

      So, what does the ordinance require?

      First, it requires that any cell phone service provider (think: Verizon, AT&T, MetroPCS, etc.) provide the City with a list of their retailers located in the City.  That list must be updated annually.  (Ord. Sect. 1102.)

      Tough to do?  I think not.

      Second, if “a cell phone retailer posts display materials in connection with sample phones or phones on display, the display materials must include … three elements: (1) The SAR value of that phone and the maximum allowable SAR value for cell phones set by the FCC; (2) A statement explaining what the SAR value is; and (3) A statment that additional educational materials regarding SAR values and cell phone use are available from the cell phone retailer. ”

      To promote uniformity, the City will adopt regulations specifying the content and format of the three elements just listed.

      Third, the ordinance sets the minimum physical size, and the type face and minimum point equivalencies for the notice.  (Ord. Sect. 11043.)

      Fourth, the ordinance phases in over the period between now an May, 2011, and does not begin enforcement actions against non-compliant persons until August 2012.  Even then, before any fines are imposed, the retailer will have 30 days to come into compliance.  And even if fines are imposed, the ordinance specifically says that fines are the only penalty…no jail time for violations.

      That’s what the wireless industry finds to be simply egregious, but they frame their argument in terms of, well, PR spin.  Just read the  first line of that portion of the CTIA’s press release about it’s law suit. The quote, attributed to John Walls, their VP of Public Affairs is:

      CTIA has filed this lawsuit to prevent consumer confusion. The problem with the San Francisco ordinance is not the disclosure of wireless phone SAR values – that information is already publicly available. Consumers can learn a device’s SAR value from a number of public sources, and the value is often included in user manuals and listed on the websites of manufacturers and the FCC. CTIA’s objection to the ordinance is that displaying a phone’s SAR value at the point-of-sale suggests to the consumer that there is a meaningful safety distinction between FCC-compliant devices with different SAR levels.

      “The FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are ‘safe.’ The FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis, and its standard for RF exposure is based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. Furthermore, according to the experts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the available scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cell phones. As the FDA states on its website, ‘[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.’

      “In contrast, the message conveyed by the San Francisco ordinance to consumers is that the FCC’s standards are insufficient and that the safety of an FCC-authorized wireless device depends on its SAR level. Therefore, the ordinance contradicts the thorough review of the science by the FCC, FDA and other U.S. and international expert agencies, and will send consumers the false message that there is a safety difference between wireless devices that comply with the FCC’s stringent standards.

      “The wireless industry is committed to consumer choice. That means providing consumers with the best information to assist them in making the right choice for them when purchasing a device and services.  The San Francisco ordinance, by conveying a misleading impression about the relative safety of wireless phones, will hinder – rather than assist – consumers in making their choices.”

      (Emphasis added)

      I love the in-your-face PR spin that the “CTIA has filed this lawsuit to prevent consumer confusion.” It’s classic misdirection. Consumer’s are confused because, ah, the same metric is presented in the same way across different handsets? And that metric is available at the very moment the consumer is considering what, exactly, to purchase? Yup, that would confuse me, too.


      Cell_Phone_Label_StandardI’d like to offer my own idea for a label, and one that is instantly recognizable to anyone who happens to ingest food on a fairly regular basis.  A label, like I show below, could provide basic information to consumers at the time and point of sale, just when and where the CTIA would rather you not have that information. There could be room for other optional data about phone-specific features as I’ve suggested.

      We learned to first live with, and then to realize the immense value of consumer information at the point-of-sale for all sorts of consumer food goods, and later at fast-food restaurants.   Consumer’s have not stopped buying groceries, nor have they stopped dining at Micky-D’s, but if they want the consumer information about what they’re going to eat, its right there for them when they are making their buying decisions.

      Does any rational person believe that consumers will stop buying cell phones in San Francisco if the ordinance goes into force?

      Nope, me neither.

      Finally, I believe that consumer rights’ groups should be banding together to oppose to the CTIA’s lawsuit as it is an attempt to bar a government from requiring consumer-oriented disclosure of public record information. The chilling effects that would result could deal a real knock-out blow to smart, informed consumerism.

      To read the law suit and the City’s ordinance at the heart of the suit, click on this link.

      For more information on SAR from the FCC, start at these sites:


      Major New RF Safety Practice Guide

      The Public Law Journal of the State Bar of California has published Jonathan’s Kramer paper, “A Practical Guide to Radio Frequency Emissions Safety.” The article appears in the Summer 2009 edition (Vol. 32, No. 3).

      This guide discusses how local government agencies can properly and effectively deal with RF safety issues that come up in connection with wireless siting cases (primarily cell sites, but also broadcast, ham radio, and commercial two-way users, as well).

      While written primarily for California public law attorneys, attorneys around the country will find many important and useful gems in the article.

      The editor of the Public Law Journal has kindly granted permission for me to reproduce the article in PDF format.

      Please follow this link to download the article download page.