Monday, April 29, 2013

Sign the Petition to Have the EPA -- and not the FCC -- Set and Regulate the Wireless Industry EMF Standards


Chairman Rockefeller, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation: Hold hearings to fire FCC and hire EPA to set RF radiation safety limits

Petitioning The President of the United States 

Chairman Rockefeller, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation: Hold hearings to fire FCC and hire EPA to set RF radiation safety limits

    1.  
    2. Petition by
      The EMRadiation Policy Institute
    2.  
  2.  

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.
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).
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.
Recent discussion of Thomas Wheeler as a potential candidate for Chairman of the FCC is of paramount concern. This proposal further highlights the need for the responsibilities for protecting the public health and safety to be moved to an agency with that expertise and focus, one 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 (TCA 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 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.)
About the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The EPA was created by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
(NEPA) 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. (1969). NEPA's basic policy is to assure that all branches of government give proper consideration to the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that may have a significant environmental impact.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 provides EPA with a broad mandate to protect the environment from radiation - including non-ionizing radiation, i.e., RF radiation (42 U.S.C. 2021(h)): "The [EPA] Administrator shall advise the President with respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with the states."
Testimony of the EPA's first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, in 1972 during the Senate Commerce Committee hearings on the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 clarifies EPA's authority and activities to protect public health and the environment for both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation (emphasis added):
"EPA is conducting a program to protect public health and the quality of the environment from the adverse effects of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation exposure. This includes developing radiation protection criteria, standards and policies; establishing an environmental assessment program for measuring and controlling ionizing and non-ionizing radiation exposures; to initiate researchfor radiation-related investigations; and if necessary, determine what protective controls are needed to protect public health from the undesired effects of non-ionizing radiation. " (Emphasis added.)
These links show the high price we all pay for having no meaningful biologically-based RF radiation safety limits.
Video
In just 5 minutes, cardiologist Dr. Sinatra discusses why wireless radiation and electromagnetic pollution is the #1 cause of inflammation of the cells in your body; how EMF causes cell death, and premature aging; and how it can lead to diseases like brain cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, and more.http://www.heartmdinstitute.com/v1/wireless-safety/cordless-phone-use-can-affect-heart
Expert Statements and Reviews
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
http://aaemonline.org/images/LettertoLAUSD.pdf
Compilation of statements from medical organizations and experts warning about wireless
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/safeschools2012.pdf
Review of RF research - Conclusions
http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/ or full report at www.bioinitiative.org

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)