With cell phone radiation, money talks louder than reason

Why is CTIA afraid of the WHO fact sheet #193? Photo: Looking across the Golden Gate Bridge Photo: Dariusz Leszczynski

HELSINKI, Finland, May 8, 2013 — It is a well-known truth that money talks. The newest example of this “talk” comes from San Francisco, Calif. It is not only an example of ‘money talks’ phenomenon, but it is also an example of how weak the justice system is. Having substantial amounts of money helps winning in court and serves as a deterrent for anyone wishing to challenge the existing, pro-industry, status quo.

What is happening in San Francisco? As stated in the SFGate website: ”…In 2010, the Board of Supervisors passed then-Mayor Gavin Newsom’s legislation that tried to force phone vendors to post in their stores the level of radiation emitted by their devices. But the cell phone industry fought back hard, and a federal appeals court decided last year that first-of-its-kind legislation violated first amendment rights….”

What is this information that “violates first amendment rights”?

It is the fact sheet #193 of the World Health Organization, which states that the cell phone radiation was in 2011 classified as a possible human carcinogen. Thirty international experts nearly unanimously (28 out of 30 votes) agreed on it. The full documentation of this decision, IARC Monograph 102, was just published on-line and is freely available for download.

One can wonder what is so “dangerous” in WHO fact sheet #193.

In fact the writers of this document could not decide what to say so they said it “both ways.”

In the key facts part of the fact sheet #193 they said: ”The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

In the main text of the fact sheet #193 they also said: ”To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”

Is this “money talks” talk? Why it is so difficult for the WHO to follow opinion of its own expert panel and openly and unequivocally admit that there are “red flags” and we should be careful with cell phone radiation?

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted 10 to 1 to (quote after SFGate): “… approve a settlement promising that the city would agree to a permanent injunction against the ordinance, in exchange for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association to wave their claims to attorney’s fees….”

Money talks, as shown by the comments made by Supervisor Davis Campos (as presented by SFGate): ”I am for pushing the envelope on something as important as this but I think the legal reality is such that if we do not approve this settlement, we’re talking about having to pay half a million in legal fees.

It’s a very tough situation, but the last thing I want is to have the general fund give half a million dollars to lawyers in this case.

CTIA won and CTIA will likely continue its “winning streak.”

Warning that the City of San Francisco wanted to provide for all cell phone buyers was argued as unnecessary by the CTIA. As stated in the SFGate: ”…the CTIA said such warnings could be misleading and that emissions are already federally regulated….”

Indeed, emissions are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). And it is likely that the regulations will be also in the future “liked” by the CTIA. As commented in recent post former CTIA Chairman, Tom Wheeler, was just named to be the next Chairman of the FCC.

The circle closes and money talks….

Read more from Dariusz Leszczynski in his science blogs “BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place” and “The Round-Table Initiative“.

Follow Dariusz on twitter: @blogBRHP

Disclaimer: the opinions presented in this column are author’s own and should not be automatically considered as opinions of his employer or this website.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Between a Rock and a Hard Place
blog comments powered by Disqus
Dariusz Leszczynski

Dariusz Leszczynski is an expert in the biological and health effects of cell phone radiation.

Since 2009 he publishes a science blog dealing with the issue of cell phone radiation and health: http://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com  

Disclaimer: the opinions presented in this column are authors' own and SHOULD NOT be considered as opinions of any of his employers.

Contact Dariusz Leszczynski


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus