All Products
View All
Air Tube Headsets
ElectraHealth Exclusives
Sales & Specials

EMF Meters
View All
Dirty Electricity Meters
Radiofrequency (RF) Wireless Meters
Electric Field (AC) Meters
Magnetic Field (AC) Meters
Body Voltage Meter Kits

Services
View All
Phone Consultations
On-Site Inspection - Analysis - Remediation

Filters
View All
STETZERiZER Original
DNA Filters

Shielding Products
Shielding Paint
Bed Canopies
Shielding Fabrics

Power Cables & Adapters
View All
Power Strips
Extension Cords
Device Cords

Networking
View All
Wired and WiFi Routers
Ethernet LAN Cables
Grounding Adapters
Cat 6
Cat 7

Books and Videos

Professional
View All
Pro Meters
Pro Meter Accessories
Pro Miscellaneous
ElectraHealth EMF Newsletter with The EMF Explorer's Exclusive Content, Promotions, Specials Signup

RISK-FREE
Your Stetzerizer Filter purchase is covered by a 60 day no questions 100% satisfaction guarantee!!!
60 - Day 100% Satisfaction Guarantee on all Stetzerizer products!!!

Stetzerizer Filters do not wear out or ever need replacement. They are a one-time investment for a lifetime of healthier living.

Shopper Award



Would you prefer to make easy monthly payments on your order? We accept PayPal's Bill Me Later, allowing you 6 months interest free financing. Just place your order as normal, choose PayPal as the payment method, and follow the Bill Me Later link.

U.S. Dept of Interior Declares FCC Exposure Standards “Out of Date and Inapplicable”

Posted by Bob on 3/25/2014 to Wireless
Original Source

The U. S. Department of Interior (DOI) has declared that exposure standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are “out of date and inapplicable today.”

After reading the information provided in this blog article, maybe we can start a campaign to have some personnel transferred from the Department of Interior to the FCC.  The people at the DOI seem to have a better grasp on the hazards of radiofrequency (RF) radiation and might be more inclined to take measures to protect humans as well as fauna and flora.

What follows are excerpts from a letter dated February 7, 2014, from the United States Department Interior and addressed to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the United States Department of Commerce. This letter highlights the Interior Department’s concern that cell tower RF radiation emissions have had negative impacts on the health of migratory birds, their offspring, and other wildlife species.


“The Department believes that … proposed procedures are not consistent with Executive Order 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, …  The Department, through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), finds that the proposals lack provisions necessary to conserve migratory bird resources, including eagles.  The proposals also do not reflect current information regarding the effects of communication towers to birds.”

“The Department recommends revisions to the proposed procedures to better reflect the impacts to resources under our jurisdiction from communication towers.  The placement and operation of communication towers, including un-guyed, unlit, monopole or lattice-designed structures, impact protected migratory birds in two significant ways. The first is by injury, crippling loss, and death from collisions with towers and their supporting guy-wire infrastructure, where present.  The second significant issue associated with communication towers involves impacts from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by them.”

Background

“Radiation studies at cellular communication towers were begun circa 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds.  Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007).  Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges – 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States.

… [T]he 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. This is primarily due to the lower levels of radiation output from microwave-powered communication devices such as cellular telephones and other sources of point-to-point communications; levels typically lower than from microwave ovens.  The problem, however, appears to focus on very low levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.  For example, in laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos – with some lethal results (Manville 2009, 2013a).

Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002).  To date, no independent, third-party field studies have been conducted in North America on impacts of tower electromagnetic radiation on migratory birds.

With the European field and U.S. laboratory evidence already available, independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to begin [examining] the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species.”

Discussion

“There is a growing level of anecdotal evidence linking effects of non-thermal, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication towers on nesting and roosting wild birds and other wildlife in the U.S.  Independent, third-party studies have yet to be conducted in the U.S. or Canada, although a peer-reviewed research protocol developed for the U.S. Forest Service by the Service’s Division of Migratory Bird Management is available to study both collision and radiation impacts (Manville 2002).

As previously mentioned, Balmori (2005) found strong negative correlations between levels of tower-emitted microwave radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the vicinity of electromagnetic fields in Spain.  He documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death in House Sparrows, White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and other species.  Though these species had historically been documented to roost and nest in these areas, Balmori (2005) did not observe these symptoms prior to construction and operation of the cellular phone towers.  Balmori and Hallberg (2007) and Everaert and Bauwens (2007) found similar strong negative correlations among male House Sparrows. Under laboratory ‘conditions, DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised troubling concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos – with some lethal results (Manville 2009).  Given the findings of the studies mentioned above, field studies should be conducted in North America to validate potential impacts of communication tower radiation both direct and indirect – to migratory birds and other trust wildlife species.”

The content of the above-mentioned Department of Interior (DOI) letter is encouraging in that it reveals that at least some people within our government seem to understand (and acknowledge) the potential hazards associated with radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions.  However, much of the content of the DOI letter is not new; most of the same documented concerns can be found in a presentation given by Albert Manville II, Ph.D. of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during a Congressional staff briefing in 2007 (link below).


Additionally, in a paper from 2009, Manville has a section entitled, “Possible Tower Radiation Issues,” where he states:

“Virtually unknown, however, are the potential effects of non-ionizing, non-thermal tower radiation on avifauna, including at extremely low radiation levels, far below the safe exposure level previously determined for humans.  These ‘safe’ levels were based on thermal heating standards, now inapplicable.  The standards are now more than 25 years out of date, and the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) office tasked to direct human safety issues was eliminated due to budget cuts in the early 1980s. No government agency currently monitors the rising background levels of electromagnetic radiation (EMF).  Current safety standards assume that non-ionizing radiation is safe if the power is too weak to heat living tissue.  However, since the 1980s, growing amounts of published research are showing adverse effects far below a thermal threshold—usually referred to as ‘nonthermal effects,’ especially under conditions of long-term, low-level exposure.”

“In 2002 in the U.S., T. Litovitz (2002 pers. comm., DeCarlo et al. 2002) raised troubling concerns about the impacts of low-level, non-thermal radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos (Gallus domesticus) under laboratory conditions (DeCarlo et al. 2002).  Litovitz noted deformities, including some deaths of the embryos subjected to hypoxic conditions under extremely low radiation doses.  These included doses as low as 1/10 000 below the allowable EPA ‘safe’ level of radiation.”

“Although Beason and Semm (2002) tested the natural responses of Zebra Finches (Taeniopygia guttata) to 900 MHz radiation under laboratory conditions and showed that 76% of the neurons responded by 3.5-times more firings, no studies have yet been conducted in the U.S. on potential radiation impacts to wild bird populations.”


In a document issued by the FCC in March 2012, entitled “Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program,” it is stated that:

“[L]aboratory studies have been interpreted to suggest that non-ionizing RF radiation at levels far below the existing exposure guidelines for humans may have harmful effects on wild birds.  However, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that there may be adverse impacts on migratory bird populations due to RF radiation emissions.” 

There appears to be no basis for the FCC to draw the conclusion that “evidence is insufficient.”  The FCC merely makes that conclusion.

An apparent explanation for the FCC conclusion would be the sentiment indicated earlier in the report that “at relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, the evidence for harmful biological effects on wildlife is unproven.” [emphasis added]  This expresses the non-conservative and irrational logic used for humans regarding RF exposure, that unless almost unattainable “proof” can be obtained, no actions may be considered or taken to protect a species, i.e., … substantial evidence less than absolute “proof” is “insufficient” to support a finding of adverse impacts.

I suppose the real question is how long can the substantial evidence of adverse effects “fall upon deaf ears” at the FCC and elsewhere?
comments powered by Disqus

 The EMF Explorer
 Dirty Electricity
 "Smart" Meters
 Wireless

 Mobile phones are 'cooking' men's sperm
 Tips on How to Save Energy and Money without a ‘Smart’ Meter
 Families Punished by ‘Smart’ Meters and Time-Of-Use Rates, Recent Study Confirms
 TEDx Talk: “Wireless Wake-Up Call”
 A Message to Dads about Wireless Safety
 EMF Controversy Exposed
 Li-Fi has just been tested in the real world, and it's 100 times faster than Wi-Fi
 Electromagnetic Radiation Soup
 Effects of GSM EMR on permeability of blood-brain barrier in rats
 Psychiatric symptoms associated with exposure to non-ionizing EMR from mobile telephones
 Italian town shuts down school Wi-Fi over health fears
 Electromagnetic Radiation : ‘Wake-Up Call’ For Everyone
 Smart meters: boon or boondoggle?
 Summary of Evidence on Smart Meter Fires
 The REAL tin foil hat: RF protection for your head
 Study: EMF Radiation generated by mobile phone base stations associated with type 2 diabetes
 Protect yourself from health dangers of exposure to wireless networks
 Wait, so cell phones cause brain cancer after all?
 Study: Impairments in spinal cord of male offspring rats following exposure to a continuous 900-MHz EMF
 'Smart Meters:' Easy Targets for Hackers
 New Itron OpenWay Riva ‘Smart’ Meters Combine RF Mesh, PLC and Wi-Fi Communications and Poll Data Once per Second
 ‘Catastrophic’ Failures Expected with ‘Smart’ Meters
 Congressional Testimony: ‘Smart’ meters only have a life of 5 to 7 years
 T-Mobile wants to turn your house into a cell tower, and why you should think twice about letting them
 US pushes for spectrum for 5G, civil drones, flight tracking
 Study shows radioprotective effects of a natural leaf extract
 Practical Tips to Reduce Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure
 An Inside View of a "Smart" Meter
 Should babies and toddlers use mobile devices every day?
 4G/LTE in Unlicensed Bands - Adding Electromagnetic Radiation to an Airspace Near You

 March 2016
 February 2016
 January 2016
 December 2015
 November 2015
 October 2015
 September 2015
 August 2015
 July 2015
 June 2015
 May 2015
 April 2015
 March 2015
 February 2015
 January 2015
 December 2014
 November 2014
 October 2014
 September 2014
 August 2014
 July 2014
 June 2014
 May 2014
 April 2014
 March 2014
 February 2014
 January 2014
 December 2013
 November 2013
 October 2013
 September 2013
 August 2013
 July 2013
 June 2013
 May 2013
 April 2011