COLORADO – Durango likely to replace new ‘smart’ parking meters after issues

Durango likely to replace new ‘smart’ parking meters after issues

 

Updated: 09/29/2015 7:09 PM | Created: 09/29/2015 6:59 PM
By: Devin Neeley, Eyewitness News 4

DURANGO, CO — It has only been a year, but the City of Durango is already having second thoughts about “smart” parking meters installed downtown.

“There have been a few issues that we have been unable or unsuccessful at solving with our vendor,” said Amber Blake, with the City of Durango.

The meters accept credit cards, reloadable “smart cards” and change. But the city has been getting a number of complaints.

“Issues like not knowing that you need to press the accept button to accept the time, and people end up with a parking ticket people thing they shouldn’t have because they thought they paid for the meter,” said Blake.

Other complaints they have received are the glare on the glass making the screen hard to read, or the glass just fogging over.

“It was a little hard to look though the menu and see how much you are paying and how long you were paying for,” said out-of–town visitor, Luly Miller. She and her husband were both seen squinting and shading their eyes in downtown Durango Tuesday. Others adopted similar stances or leans to see the trouble meters.

Locals and visitors are fed up and it seems that the new meters have run out of time. Now, after less than a year, Durango is already looking to replace the 365 downtown smart meters.

“It is really about the requirements in our contract that aren’t being met and we need to make sure that our community and visitors are happy and meet their needs,” said Blake.

Next year, the city will solicit bids for new meters. By mid-2016 they hope to have prospective vendors install meters downtown for a trial period of six months to a year: like test driving a car, but longer. Public feedback will be factored into the decision to replace the meters.

So why didn’t the city try before buying last time? Reps say the city didn’t know that was an option.

The city says there is still usable life in the smart meters and will sell them once they are replaced as a way to pay for the new ones. Infrastructure upgrades to poles and meter boxes will be included in the new meters price.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3921060.shtml#.VgxTJY1dGUk

Strategies for Power Line Communications Smart Metering……NOISE……NOISE…..NOISE ISSUES CAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE POLLUTION PRESENT 24/7!!!!

Energies 2014, 7, 2377-2420; doi:10.3390/en7042377

energies

ISSN 1996-1073

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Review

Strategies for Power Line Communications Smart Metering

Network Deployment

Alberto Sendin 1,*, Ivan Peña 2 and Pablo Angueira 2

1 Division of Control Systems and Telecommunications, Iberdrola, Av. San Adrian 48,

48003 Bilbao, Spain

2 Department of Communication Engineering, Bilbao Faculty of Engineering,

University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Alda. Urkijo S/N, 48013 Bilbao, Spain;

E-Mails: ivan.pena@ehu.es (I.P.); pablo.angueira@ehu.es (P.A.)

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: asendin@iberdrola.es;

Tel.: +34-94-4664787; Fax: +34-94-4664485.

Received: 7 February 2014; in revised form: 21 March 2014 / Accepted: 24 March 2014 /

Published: 15 April 2014

Abstract: Smart

Legislation introduced that would give consumers a choice about smart meters

Legislation introduced that would give consumers a choice about smart meters

ARIZONA – BUSTED! — New Evidence in the Case of Robert Burns, The ACC Usurper

BUSTED! — New Evidence in the Case of Robert Burns, The ACC Usurper
Information & Perspective by Warren Woodward
Sedona, Arizona ~ September XX, 2015


          Last week I filed a complaint against Robert Burns with the Arizona Attorney General for usurping his elected position of Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) commissioner. New evidence has surfaced in this case. Below is the letter I wrote to the Attorney General revealing this evidence. It can be summed up in one word: BUSTED!

Warren Woodward

55 Ross Circle

Sedona, Arizona 86336

928 204 6434

September 28, 2015

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich

1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2926

Re: September 24, 2015 Complaint and Demand Quo Warranto pursuant to A.R.S. 12-2041, NEW EVIDENCE

Mark Brnovich;

           New evidence has surfaced in the matter of Robert Burns, The Usurper, that, with this letter, I am now adding to my original Complaint and Demand Quo Warranto of September 24, 2015. This new evidence comes from Burns’ own mouth.

           On September 23, 2015, Burns appeared on Arizona State University’s PBS 8 TV, the Arizona Horizons show with Ted Simons. I have enclosed a transcript of the relevant segment (and the show can be viewed here: http://www.azpbs.org/arizonahorizon/detailvid.php?id=15740 ).

           At 11:09 into the program Burns was asked by Simons about being a registered lobbyist.

           Burns stated, “So, I ended up being registered without my knowledge because that’s how the system works.” If Burns knows “how the system works” — that is, how allegedly easy it can be to be registered as a lobbyist — then he should have known to check the list of registered lobbyists at the Arizona Secretary of State’s website before filing to run for the position of Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) commissioner.

           Instead, and by his own admission, Burns waited until after he was elected to concern himself with his conflict of interest. Burns said, “I didn’t even know I was on the list. So, when I got to the commission I asked Legal, I said, this council I’m on, do I need to get away from there? And they said, yes, you need to resign.”

           Burns was too late, and what he really needed to resign from was his position as ACC commissioner. As I mentioned and cited originally, the Arizona Supreme Court has stated: “They must be free of conflict … at the point of election….” – not after the election. Additionally, according to A.R.S. 40-101, “A person … holding an official relation to a corporation or person subject to regulation by the commission … shall not be elected, appointed to, or hold the office of commissioner ….” (Emphasis mine) So Burns was ineligible even as a candidate, and as such, his subsequent election was void ab initio.

           Also, if Burns truly did not know he was a lobbyist or conflicted, then why did he ask ACC Legal about “this council I’m on?” Burns obviously suspected he was conflicted or else he would not have consulted with ACC Legal to begin with. Burns should have vetted himself to make sure he met the qualifications for office before running for office. Instead, Burns waited until after he was in office to review his conflict. In short, Burns made himself a usurper of office. He has only himself to blame.

           In the Arizona Republic newspaper article entitled, “Second Arizona Corporation Commission regulator found to be lobbyist” (which was enclosed in my original Complaint), we learn that:

“On Friday [September 11, 2015], Michael Keeling, an attorney and lobbyist representing ATIC, sent a letter to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office asking that Burns be removed as a lobbyist for the group. It said Burns requested such a removal before he took office with the Corporation Commission but that Keeling misunderstood and thought Burns was referring to the former GITA.”

[GITA = Arizona Government Information Technology Agency, ATIC = Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council. Keeling’s letter is enclosed.]

           But wait, if Burns did not know he was a lobbyist (as he stated on TV), then how he could he have asked Keeling to be removed as one “before he took office with the Corporation Commission?” Someone is not telling the truth.

           In the newspaper story and according to Keeling’s letter “Burns requested such a removal before he took office with the Corporation Commission.” But later, on TV, Burns said, “So, when I got to the commission I asked Legal. I said, this council I’m on, do I need to get away from there? And they said, yes, you need to resign. So I resigned. Had no knowledge of the lobbyist issue, and so I thought I was out of it until just recently.”

           The two stories are inconsistent. Keeling said Burns asked him to be removed as a lobbyist before Burns took office. Yet Burns said he inquired of ACC Legal after taking office and that he did not know he was a lobbyist!

           Throwing yet another inconsistent story into the misleading mix – this time from the ACC – the Arizona Republic newspaper reported in that same article:

“Commission spokesman Barrett Marson said Burns resigned from ATIC when he took office as a commissioner. He said ATIC should have terminated Burns’ registration as a lobbyist.”

           So, Burns did not know he was a lobbyist but Marson knew that Burns had resigned as a lobbyist.

           Magical! It seems like everyone but Burns knew Burns was a lobbyist.

           But there’s more. In a wacky twist, Marson evidently “proved” his statement to the Arizona Republic newspaper by providing a letter (enclosed) that Burns supposedly wrote a month after taking office. In the letter, Burns resigned from the Digital Arizona Council (DAC), a completely different outfit! So, it looks like Marson has provided evidence that, in addition to being conflicted by ATIC, Burns was also conflicted by DAC both during and after his election.

           Didn’t these guys learn in high school that the first thing you do when you’re in trouble is get your stories straight?

           So, for the reasons set forth herein as well as in my prior Complaint, you, Mark Brnovich, as Arizona Attorney General, must enforce the law and proceed in Quo Warranto against Robert Burns without delay.

Sincerely,

Warren Woodward

Cc: Phoenix FBI

“smart” meters have seriously impacted our lives. Now, Stop Smart Meters NY would like to tell your story.

Dear Friends,
As you know, “smart” meters have seriously impacted our lives. Now, Stop Smart Meters NY would like to tell your story.
A selection of our compelling stories will provide a powerful narrative against the effects of AMR, ERT and other so-called “smart” digital utility meters.
Now is the time to let legislators know that smart meter injuries are real – and that those who have suffered them are real people!
To participate in this important project, please e-mail me the following:
1. Your name as you wish it to be printed or a pseudonym if you prefer 2. Your profession 3. County of residence 4. A favorite photo, perhaps engaged in an activity you enjoy/enjoyed before your meter exposure. 5. A written statement in 50 – 100 words (no longer please) of what happened to you as a result of the installation of a digital utility meter. 6. In your e-mail please include the following statement: “The information that I am providing to Stop Smart Meters NY may be used for ‘smart’ meter educational purposes only.”
We will present these collected stories (see sample below) as we meet with New York State elected officials and New York State government agencies.
New York State still has a window of opportunity to stop this dangerous utility metering debacle – BUT NOT FOR LONG.
Please help us to complete this project as fast as possible. Call me or e-mail me if you have any questions or need assistance in telling your story.
914-478-1285
Thank you so much!
Michele Hertz www.stopsmartmetersny.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.stopsmartmetersny.org&d=BQMFaQ&c=6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA&r=xo58SQgsZFq1SyLYpKkQ0ELnVGYyphgFM77MRHZLL3c&m=GpPEXvYsy3Kg0nvE8_HApUvMxxX9-AmWRIQ_Jy1ykTY&s=Ipv72cSPh0B890_p19pnRMpCQ0Ehln4ByKMEAZgp-EQ&e=>
Smart Stories. 10 people tell how smart meters hurt their lives.

Dear Friends,

As you know, “smart” meters have seriously impacted our lives.  Now, Stop Smart Meters NY would like to tell your story.

A selection of our compelling stories will provide a powerful narrative against the effects of AMR, ERT and other so-called “smart” digital utility meters.
Now is the time to let legislators know that smart meter injuries are real – and that those who have suffered them are real people!

To participate in this important project, please e-mail me the following: 

  1. Your name as you wish it to be printed or a pseudonym if you prefer
  2. Your profession 
  3. County of residence
  4. A favorite photo, perhaps engaged in an activity you enjoy/enjoyed before your meter exposure. 5. A written statement in 50 – 100 words (no longer please) of what happened to you as a result of the installation of a digital utility meter.  
  5. In your e-mail please include the following statement: “The information that I am providing to Stop Smart Meters NY may be used for ‘smart’ meter educational purposes only.” 

We will present these collected stories (see sample below) as we meet with New York State elected officials and New York State government agencies.

New York State still has a window of opportunity to stop this dangerous utility metering debacle – BUT NOT FOR LONG.

Please help us to complete this project as fast as possible.  Call me or e-mail me if you have any questions or need assistance in telling your story.

914-478-1285

Thank you so much!

Michele Hertz www.stopsmartmetersny.org

Smart Stories. 10 people tell how smart meters hurt their lives

Stop Smart Meters! Marks 5 Years Standing Up to Utility Bullies

Stop Smart Meters! Marks 5 Years Standing Up to Utility Bullies

https://i0.wp.com/stopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/SVNASM.jpgIt’s been five years since StopSmartMeters.org was founded. Our early efforts together to get 57 California municipalities to stand against smart meters was a spark that ignited an international rebellion against the red-herring technology. This anniversary is about all of you who have given so much of yourselves for the cause. You know who you are. Thank you.

It was the summer of 2010 when we received a notice from California utility PG&E that they would be installing a “smart meter” on our home.  No one really knew back then what a “smart meter” was, but the more we did our research and heard the josh pitchforkstories of people whose health was devastated, heard about those who lost their lives in smart meter fires, and realized that this was all being covered up, we decided there was no way we would permit the installation of such a device under any circumstance. When PG&E told us with a straight face that “you have no choice,” that really crossed a line, and boiled our blood. We realized we had to drop everything and mobilize against the threat. With calls for residents in California to establish and defend “smart meter free zones,” we launched our fledgling group, immediately generating significant media coverage.

Five years later, “smart meters” have spread across the planet, despite a widespread and potent resistance and a few notable holdouts.  Truly a trojan horse technology, smart meters include an ongoing and deadly serious fire risk, health problems from dirty electricity and pulsed RF, invasive surveillance, inflated bills, and the loss of thousands of steady meter reader jobs. The “deployment” and the bullying it has required, has left a bad aftertaste of corporate rule, but it has also inspired a potent resistance movement.

One thing is for sure: the utilities had no idea of the scale of rebellion they would encounter when they started deploying these meters.  The strength of our movement is reflected in the more than 175 local groups around the world now engaged in the fight to stop and roll back the smart meter installations, according to our Global Stop Smart Meters Directory. If your group isn’t listed, please submit it by e-mailing us.

A culture of resistance to the smart grid has spread like a viral immune response, and we will be forever grateful to those who have put so much of their time and energy toward this cause.  We acknowledge the love and the empathy toward neighbors and friends that has shone like a light through these dark, scary times. That love will carry us through, and is more powerful than greed or hate or fear. While we cherish the community that has sprung up around this cause, we also grieve for the losses and injuries to our compatriots, and the divisions that the smart grid has ripped through our communities.

In 2015, the work of Stop Smart Meters! has grown and diversified.

Some of the services we provide:

Printed outreach material and low-cost EMF testing meters through our online store

– Website coverage of smart meters and related issues

– Technical and organizational assistance to those fighting smart meters
 
Accurate and relevant information to elected officials and the media

Exposés of government/utility collusion and corruption

– Practical and emotional support for injured and Electro-sensitive people

– A place for whistleblowers to discreetly report info about smart meter hazards.

We started StopSmartMeters.org in the Summer of 2010 with a vision of an informed public rising against the corrupt and arrogant utility bosses, rejecting their disastrous, wasteful green-washed false solution to the real and present danger of climate change, with local communities taking a stand and determining their own energy futures. That vision is palpably within reach, if we demand it.

The decision to toss smart meters (and the ideology that spawned them) in the dustbin of history is ours to make.  It’s a decision that utility companies have tried to convince us is out of our hands.  But we know better now— that people can and do stand up to the powerful utilities and win.  With this knowledge, and with love and empathy for all those who have suffered as a result of this misguided technology, we will never back down.

Read full article at:  http://stopsmartmeters.org/

Anti-smart meter activist well known to Arizona Corporation Commission

Anti-smart meter activist well known to Arizona Corporation Commission

September, 2015 Newsletter from Katie Singer

An Electronic Silent Spring

September, 2015 Newsletter from Katie Singer

www.electronicsilentspring.com

1. Does a window crack open? Check out Consumer Reports’ new story about cell phones and exposure to electromagnetic radiation. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/smartphones/cell-phone-radiation

2. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) wrote FCC Chair Tom Wheeler “even though the FCC recommends that wireless carriers control exposure to harmful RF radiation using safety protocols such as signs, barricades and training…these recommendations have not consistently been implemented to protect workers.” They added that because cellular antennas are now found atop apartments, schools, hospitals, churches and firestations, “RF technicians but also roofers, water proofers, electricians, carpenters, building maintenance personnel, HVAC technicians, painters, firefighters” and others are at risk of EMR exposure. While the FCC has made deploying wireless broadband a priority, including easing tower citing, these legislators don’t want that to come at the expense of safety.

This is wonderful news when legislators step up to protect workers’ rights and press the FCC to obey their own standards.

For more info, see John Eggerton’s piece with MultiChannel News, Sept. 17, 2015; http://www.wsj.com/articles/cellphone-boon-spurs-antenna-safety-worries-1412293055

http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept-of-interior-attacks-fcc-regarding.html

3. A judge has ruled in favor of Berkeley, California’s right to require SAR labeling on cell phones. Telecom corporations are appealing the ruling. http://www.saferemr.com/2014/11/berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know.html

4. Get informed about California Assembly Bill 57. It would further limit the authority that municipalities currently have to prevent the installation of new cell towers or additions to existing towers. Designed to speed up the state’s wireless facility application process, CA57 would pressure municipalities to respond to a telecom corporations’s cell tower installation request very quickly, essentially allowing installations without public notice or chance of appeal. By August 31, the bill had passed California’s Senate and State Assembly and awaited Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

Perhaps the only recourse for municipalities is to pass ordinances (ASAP) that protect rights to determine cell tower placement and zoning. Find sample zoning regs and more in Blake Levitt’s book, Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? or Environmental Hazard? Proceedings of the Cell Towers Forum, State of the Science, State of the Law (SafeGoods/New Century edition, 2001; iUniverse ed., 2007).

As Levitt explains, a tower can be placed in a residential zone that has restrictions for commercial use “unless the town’s regulations expressly forbid it.”

US Fish & Wildlife Service’s guidelines designed to protect migratory and endangered bird species may also help prevent installation of cell towers. http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Testimony-of-Albert-M.-Manville-for-Amazon-Creek.pdf

For more info about CA 57: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_57&sess=CUR and http://ab57.info/

For resources about cell tower health effects: http://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html

For more info about protective ordinances, www.BlakeLevitt.com

5. New developments re Children and Schools UK’s Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds that computers ‘do not improve’ pupil results. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796

Wi-Fi in Schools Australia has produced a video that encourages a precautionary approach to Wi-Fi in schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQryZbxlqXl&feature=youtu.be

With a new, wearable ankle monitor, you can “track your baby’s health.” Yikes! May this gadget inspire education of physicians, midwives, teachers and everyone else: children need eye-to-eye contact. Wireless devices emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that can produce long-term health effects. (www.saferemr.org; www.bioinitiative.org) http://www.electronicproducts.com/Internet_of_Things/Household/Keep_track_of_your_kids_with_these_six_gadgets.aspx

I’ve just posted a Study Guide re Regulations & Rules. http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/rules-regulations-electricity-electronics-wireless-devices-electric-telecom-infrastructure-study-guide/

I’m also revising www.electronicsilentspring.com. Intro Packets (i.e. about Cell Phones & Towers, Children, Wildlife, Medical Implants, Solar Power, EMR-exposure & Cars, etc.) are now available by clicking “Get Informed” on the homepage.

The site now has two hot lists: my own best talks http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/hot-list-1/

and international videos http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/hot-list-2/

Katie Singer’s Upcoming talks:

October 10, Saturday, 9am-1pm, I’ll speak at a conference about wireless technologies and public health, hosted by the Santa Clara (California) Medical Center, at the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts. My talk is titled “Electronics in Our Ecosystem;” it’ll report on how exposure to man-made EMR affects wildlife and our ecosystem. Organized by Cindy Russell, MD, other speakers include Victoria Dunckley, MD, Toril Jelter, MD, Joel Moskowitz, PhD and Martin Pall, PhD. The event is $10.

October 15, Thursday, 1:30 pm, I’ll speak about electronic interference with medical implants at the Santa Fe Parkinson’s Group, Christus St. Vincent Wellness Center, 490 B West Zia. People and family members living with Parkinson’s, cardiac pacemakers, insulin pumps and other implants–as well as members of the medical community are encouraged to attend. This event is by donation. For more info, contact kastclair@gmail.com.

Alternative Radio aims to air my talk, “Aiming to First Do No Harm: The Education of Electronics Users,” in November, 2015. AR features talks from speakers like Naomi Klein (about climate change), Vandana Shiva (about GMOs), Sandra Steingraber (about fracking) and others on hour-long shows that air on 300 public radio stations. Please check out AR’s broadcasts at www.alternativeradio.org, and locate the station nearest you that airs it. To listen to my talk at your convenience, http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/aiming-to-first-do-no-harm/

Thanks to everyone who’s getting informed about the dangers of wireless technologies and reducing their electronics usage and EMR-emmissions.

If you find this newsletter useful, please consider a donation of $20 or more to help it continue! http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/donate/

Very best,

Katie Singer

www.electronicsilentspring.com

Consumer Reports: Cell Phone Radiation Warnings

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Consumer Reports: Cell Phone Radiation Warnings

 Sep 24, 2015

Consumer Reports issues cell phone safety recommendations 

Consumer Reports (CR) published an article today online entitled, “Does Cell-Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?”

CR advises cell phone users take safety precautions, government strengthen cell phone radiation regulations, and manufacturers prominently display “steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation.”

According to CR, only about five percent of Americans are “very concerned’ about cell phone radiation, and few take steps to reduce their exposure. Furthermore, “many respected scientists” and federal agencies “don’t seem very troubled” about this health risk.

“But not everyone is unconcerned. In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, who in total have written more than 2,000 papers on the topic, called on the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell-phone radiation. They point to growing research—as well as the classification of cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the WHO—suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects ….”

“Some countries have taken steps to protect users, at least when it comes to children. For example, France, Russia, the U.K., and Zambia have either banned ads that promote phones’ sale to or use by children, or issued cautions for use by children.

The city council of Berkeley, Calif., has also acted. In May 2015, it approved a “Right to Know” law that requires electronics retailers to notify consumers about the proper handling of cell phones.”

CR notes that the FCC’s cell phone safety test established in 1996 protects users only from heating effects due to cell phone radiation; yet, many laboratory studies suggest that exposure to low intensity cell phone radiation can have harmful effects without raising body temperature including creation of “stress proteins” and promotion of brain tumors.

CR examined five large population studies:

“three of the studies—one from Sweden, another from France, and a third that combined data from 13 countries—suggest a connection between heavy cell-phone use and gliomas, tumors that are usually cancerous and often deadly. One of those studies also hinted at a link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas (noncancerous tumors), and two studies hinted at meningiomas, a relatively common but usually not deadly brain tumor.”

CR comments that “none of the studies can prove a connection between cell phones and brain cancers.” CR further notes that cell phone designs have changed.

[JMM: No study can prove that cell phones are safe, and many studies have found evidence for other health effects including neurologic disorders, infertility, and reproductive health effects. Moreover, some research suggests that current cell phone technologies are more harmful than earlier technologies.]

CR recommends that cell phone users take the following precautions:

  • “Try to keep the phone away from your head and body. That is particularly important when the cellular signal is weak—when your phone has only one bar, for example—because phones may increase their power then to compensate.
  • Text or video call when possible.
  • When speaking, use the speaker phone on your device or a hands-free headset.
  • Don’t stow your phone in your pants or shirt pocket. Instead, carry it in a bag or use a belt clip.”
Finally CR makes several policy recommendations:

• “The Federal Communications Commission’s cell-phone radiation test is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults, though research suggests that children’s thinner skulls mean they may absorb more radiation.

• Consumer Reports agrees with concerns raised by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Government Accountability Office about the tests, and thinks that new tests should be developed that take into account the potential vulnerability of children.

• We think that cell-phone manufacturers should prominently display advice on steps that cell-phone users can take to reduce exposure to cell-phone radiation.”

CR is a monthly American magazine that accepts no advertising. It has been published since 1936. CR is well known for its strong policies on editorial independence. As of 2007, 4.3 million people read the magazine and 2.8 million subscribed to the web site.

This article will appear in the November 2015 issue of Consumer Reports magazine.

The online version of the article is available at  http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation

Sep 24, 2015

Report Examines Cell Phone Radiation  (2 minute video)
Jean Elle, 11 PM News, NBC Bay Area, Sep 24, 2015

July 14, 2014

Consumer Reports (CR), in their 2010 annual cellphone issue, cited our meta-analysis on mobile phone use and tumor risk published in late 2009. And In their 2011 annual cellphone issue, CR continued to provide a precautionary health warning about cell phone radiation.

Shortly after the 2011 annual cellphone  edition was published, I did an hour phone interview with two of their staff and began sending CR periodic updates about the emerging science and policy developments.
CR wrote several blog pieces during 2011 (see below). However, with the exception of the current piece and a story in 2012, CR stopped covering the health risks of cell phone radiation exposure in October, 2011.
Hence, the 2012, 2013, and 2014 annual cellphone issues of CR failed to mention cellphone radiation health risks or the need to reduce exposure.
Hopefully, the new piece that CR posted on July 12 is a sign that CR has decided to once again warn its readers to take precaution to reduce their cell phone radiation exposure. Also, I hope CR will once again inform its readers about the latest scientific evidence. Moreover, CR should warn its readers that the research evidence for carcinogenicity that has been published since WHO declared cell phone radiation “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011 is now considerably stronger.
Following are comments I sent to CR today:

“… Although I approve of CR’s recent post (7/12/2014), “How to cut your exposure to cell-phone radiation,” it does not go far enough. Based upon the research, I have generated a more extensive list of risk reduction tips.  At the very least, I would recommend that CR forewarn its readers not to keep their cell phones near their genitals. We have substantial evidence that cell phone radiation damages sperm in males and some evidence of reproductive health effects  (i.e., neurological disorders) in human offspring as well as mice for females exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy.  We also have preliminary evidence of increased breast cancer risk for women who kept cellphones in their bras.”

A search of the CR web site found the following ten articles on cell phone radiation published since 2009.  To read some of these stories on the CR website requires a subscription to CR.

Cell Phone Radiation – Consumer Reports News

Jul 12, 2014 – …your exposure to cellphone radiation Find Ratings Cell phones Q. Is it true that cell phones emit dangerous levels of radiation?

” Possibly … Some studies have suggested that cell-phone use alters brain function and may increase the risk of some cancers, although the overall evidence hasn’t found a clear link. More study is needed to determine the health effects of cell-phone use, and what constitutes a safe level of use.

For now, you can reduce radiation exposure by:

  • Limiting talk time;
  • Using a speakerphone or headset;
  • Holding the phone away from your ear; and
  • Replacing some calls with text messaging or e-mail.”

Aug 9, 2012 …Commission set a limit on how much low-level radiation cell phone users are exposed to. It’s time for a…

“… Current limits may be based on out-of-date research, and its test requirements may underestimate the maximum exposure users experience when holding phones against the body, according to the GAO review, done at the request of members of Congress …

The agency has also not reassessed its testing procedures used to certify cell phones’ compliance with SAR limits to ensure that they measure the maximum exposure a user could experience …

Bottom line. “We agree with the recommendations and concerns raised by the GAO report,” says Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., director of Consumer Safety and Sustainability at Consumer Reports. “Consumers who want to take precautions should be aware of the ways to reduce their radiation exposure while using their mobile phones.” Here’s how: • Limit cell-phone use, particularly by kids. • Hold the phone away from your head and body, especially when a call is connecting.• Text or use a speakerphone or headset to reduce absorption in your head.:

Oct 19, 2011 …s “safe exposure” limits for low-level radiation absorbed from cell phones operating at their highest possible power level—known as…

“Bottom line: Despite the many questions this article raises about SAR values and whether they adequately protect cell phone users from the potential effects of cell phone radiation, the Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibilities for cell phones with the FCC, maintains that the “weight of scientific evidence” has not linked cell phones with harm except through heating tissue.

However, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently classified cell-phone radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The IARC action is based on limited evidence and doesn’t convincingly link typical cell-phone use with cancer. But it does increase the need for further study, as well as better and more visible guidance to consumers on the issue. (We contacted the FCC for this article but did not hear back by the time of publication.) “

Details emerge on possible cell-phone radiation risk
Jun 23, 2011 …on Cancer, which last month classified low-level radiation from cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” provided more details yesterday…

“A group of scientists at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which last month classified low-level radiation from cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” provided more details yesterday about how they arrived at their conclusions in a report published online in The Lancet Oncology.

Jun 1, 2011…for Research on Cancer yesterday classified low-level radiation from cell phones “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence linking…

“The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer yesterday classified low-level radiation from cell phones “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence linking cell-phone use with an increased risk of glioma, a type of brain cancer. While that’s certain to raise the level of discussion about the health effects of cell phones, government regulators remain reassuring about the potential risks …

In a statement released yesterday, John Walls, vice president of public affairs for CTIA The Wireless Association, said that the IARC classification “does not mean cell phones cause cancer.” …

Bottom line: The IARC action is based on limited evidence and doesn’t convincingly link typical cell-phone use with cancer. But it does increase the need for further study, as well as better and more visible guidance to consumers on the issue.
We will continue to monitor the research on cell-phone safety. In the meantime, if you’re concerned about radiation, you can minimize exposure by using a speakerphone or hands-free headset, holding the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reducing use, especially by children. Of course, you can also text.”

Feb 23, 2011…a new wrinkle to a long-standing concern of cell phone users, the Journal…that low-level radiation from cell phones…

“…Although, as the FDA has stated, the “weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems,” consumers continue to be concerned. The city of San Francisco recently enacted an ordinance requiring that cell phones disclose the amount of radiation emitted, and Consumer Reports has called for a national research program and more guidance for cell phone users on potential risks.”

Feb 22, 2011 -Low-level radiation from cell phones can affect brain function during short-term use, according to a report in the Feb…

“Low-level radiation from cell phones can affect brain function during short-term use, according to a report in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association…

Bottom line: We will continue to monitor the research on cell-phone safety. In the meantime, if you’re concerned about radiation, you can minimize exposure by using a speakerphone or hands-free headset, holding the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reducing use, especially by children.”

How risky is cell-phone radiation?
January 2011

“The Food and Drug Administration says the “weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems,” including brain tumors from the low-level radiation that phones emit in normal use. Yet in the past year San Francisco lawmakers have enacted an ordinance requiring that cell phones disclose the amount of radiation emitted, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) announced plans to push for radiation warnings on all cell phones.

Phone manufacturers are required by federal law to package every cell phone with information about its specific absorption rate (SAR) values. The higher the SAR value, the more radiation the body absorbs. But there’s usually no explanation provided with those numbers, not even the fact that all phones sold have levels lower than what the FDA considers a concern …Consumers Union believes a number of measures would benefit consumers:

  • The U.S. needs a national research program on cell phones and health. Rep. Kucinich has called for such an effort as part of his cell-phone safety proposals.
  • The FDA and the FCC should step up their efforts to provide better and more visible guidance to consumers on the risks, if any, of cell-phone radiation.
  • The FCC should mandate that the SAR information included with phones be more consistent. The information that’s currently provided varies greatly in its format and detail, as the photographs below illustrate.

Bottom line We will continue to track the research. In the meantime, if you are concerned about radiation, minimize exposure by using a speaker phone or hands-free headset, holding the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reducing use, especially by children.”

New cell phone models fit changing lifestyles

…January 2010 Consumer Reports Magazine. Latest on Cell phones and services Overview…of cell-phone radiation continues. A recent…

“Research into the possible risks of cell-phone radiation continues. A recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, based on research involving about 38,000 people, found a slightly increased risk of head and neck cancer among longtime cell-phone users. But more evidence is needed to understand the link, if any, between phones and cancer. We’ll keep tracking the research. If you want to minimize exposure, use a speaker phone or hands-free headset, hold the phone away from the head and body (especially when a call is connecting), and reduce usage, especially by children.”

Jan 2009…on the way. Questions have been raised about whether cell phones might elevate cancer…non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Most studies have…

“… Bottom line The Federal Communications Commission advises that if there is any risk, and at this point we do not know that there is, it is probably very small. Until more is known, people who want to minimize potential risks of radio waves from cell phones should use the speakerphone mode or a hands-free set while on calls and ask kids to do the same. They should also limit time spent on the phone and keep the antenna away from the head and body.”

            http://www.saferemr.com/2014/07/consumer-reports-warns-readers-to.html