SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Alex Formuzis (202) 667.6982 or alex@ewg.org
Federal cell phone radiation standards are outdated and may not protect public health, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today. The watchdog agency noted that the Federal Communications Commission set its radio frequency energy exposure limits more than 15 years ago in the early days of cell phone technology.
The new report confirms what Environmental Working Group has been saying since 2009: The FCC's cell phone rules are based on old science and outmoded assumptions and are in serious need of an overhaul.
Federal cell phone radiation standards are outdated and may not protect public health, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today. The watchdog agency noted that the Federal Communications Commission set its radio frequency energy exposure limits more than 15 years ago in the early days of cell phone technology.
The new report confirms what Environmental Working Group has been saying since 2009: The FCC's cell phone rules are based on old science and outmoded assumptions and are in serious need of an overhaul.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its report following year-long investigation into the adequacy of the FCC's rules that was requested by Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that has oversight authority over the FCC and the telecommunications industry.
Among GAO's top findings: The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) radiofrequency (RF) energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research, and testing requirements may not reflect maximum exposures in all usage conditions. FCC set its RF energy exposure limit for mobile phones in 1996 based on recommendations from federal health and safety agencies and international organizations.
The GAO recommended that the FCC:
* Formally reassess its current RF energy exposure limit - taking into account the effects on human health, the associated costs and benefits and the opinions of relevant health and safety agencies - and revise the limit if necessary.
* Reassess whether mobile phone testing requirements correctly measure maximum RF energy exposure as cell phones are actually used, particularly when they are held against the body, and update its testing requirements as needed.
"The FCC has been wearing a blindfold for more than a decade, pretending that while cell phones were revolutionizing how we communicate, the agency didn't have to take a hard look at what this meant for its so-called safety standards," said Renee Sharp, director of Environmental Working Group's California office and senior scientist. "Finally, the FCC has been taken to task for this grave oversight, and we hope and expect it will use the GAO's findings to update its safety standards for wireless devices."
"We're thankful to Representatives Markey, Waxman and Eshoo for requesting this important report," said Jason Rano, EWG's director of government affairs. "They have all been champions of public health and the public's right to know, and the information provided in this report demonstrates the need for the FCC to review its cell phone safety standards."
FCC's current standards - which have never been updated - allow 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the body as a whole, do not account for the possible risks to children's developing brains and smaller bodies, and consider only the impact of short-term cell phone use, not frequent calling over decades. On June 15, the FCC announced that it was considering conducting the first official review of its standards since they were originally developed, but no final decision has been made.
"In 1996, tweens and teens were not consumers of wireless technology, but today it's hard to find a group of young people who aren't armed with the latest mobile device," said Sharp. "Those populations who are now talking and texting daily were not considered by the FCC when it devised its safety standards fifteen years ago."
The GAO released its report just days before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear a groundbreaking cell phone case. At issue is whether the city of San Francisco can require cell phone vendors to provide consumers with a one-page fact sheet about potential health risks of cell phone radiation and advice on safer cell phone use. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, the cell phone industry's leading trade group, is suing the city to prevent the law, enacted in July 2011, from being enforced. The case is scheduled to be heard on Aug. 9.
In May of last year, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use.
In addition to calling for updated federal standards, EWG has lobbied for greater disclosure of cell phone radiation exposure to consumers, supported right-to-know initiatives and recommended simple steps that cell phone users can take to decrease their exposure, such as using a headset and texting rather than talking.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982Floridians and reproductive rights advocates responded with alarm on Friday to Tampa Bay Timesreporting that Florida law enforcement officers have been sent to the homes of multiple voters who signed a petition to get an abortion rights measure on the November ballot.
While Isaac Menasche told the newspaper that he isn't sure which agency the plainclothes officer who came to his home is with, fellow Lee County resident Becky Castellanos said Florida Department of Law Enforcement Officer Gary Negrinelli showed his badge and gave his card.
Both visits were about potential fraud related to the petition for Amendment 4, which would outlaw pre-viability abortion bans in Florida. Menasche was asked if he signed the petition, which he had. Negrinelli inquired about Castellanos' relative, who also signed the petition.
"This is pure voter intimidation, just like with the 'election police' in 2022. It's Gestapo tactics."
The officer inquiries appear "to be part of a broad—and unusual—effort by Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration to inspect thousands of already verified and validated petitions for Amendment 4 in the final two months before Election Day," the Times reported.
The Republican governor signed the state's six-week ban that would end if the ballot measure passes. He has also faced criticism for creating an Office of Election Crimes and Security, whose work has led to the arrest of Floridians who believed they were legally allowed to vote following the passage of a referendum that restored voting rights to many people with past felony convictions.
As the Times detailed Friday:
Since last week, DeSantis' secretary of state has ordered elections supervisors in at leastfour counties to send to Tallahassee at least 36,000 petition forms already deemed to have been signed by real people. Since the Timesfirst reported on this effort, Alachua and Broward counties have confirmed they also received requests from the state.
One 16-year supervisor said the request was unprecedented. The state did not ask for rejected petitions, which have been the basis for past fraud cases.
While Department of State spokesperson Ryan Ash said the agency has "uncovered evidence of illegal conduct with fraudulent petitions" and "we have a duty to seek justice for Florida citizens who were victimized," a representative for the coalition behind Amendment 4 criticized the state effort.
"This is very clearly a fishing expedition," ACLU of Florida spokesperson Keisha Mulfort, whose group is part of Floridians Protecting Freedom, told the Times. "It is more important than ever for Floridians to reject these authoritarian tactics and vote yes on Amendment 4 in November."
Promoting the report on social media, the ACLU of Florida added, "This is what state-authorized election interference looks like."
Democrats in the state were similarly critical. Florida state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani (D-42) shared a social media post in which Menasche described feeling "shaken" and "troubled" by the encounter with the officer.
"This is unhinged and undemocratic behavior being pushed by DeSantis and his cronies in an effort to continue our state's near total abortion ban," said Eskamani. "It's clear voter intimidation and plain corruption—continue to call it out and fight back. Vote @yes4florida and spread the word."
Responding to Eskamani, Pamela Castellana, chair of the Brevard Democratic Executive Committee, said: "This literally took my breath away. This is pure voter intimidation, just like with the 'election police' in 2022. It's Gestapo tactics. If you live in Florida you know. If you don't—please help me get the word out. Stop authoritarianism."
Journalist Jessica Valenti argued Friday that Republicans "don't care that voters want abortion rights restored—and if they need to dismantle democracy to keep it banned, so be it."
"We've seen lots of Republican attacks on pro-choice ballot measures—but what makes this one especially insidious is that it's trying to gaslight Americans into thinking that voters don't really want abortion rights restored, but that the overwhelming support is fabricated," she added.
In addition to raising concerns about the fraud allegations, Amendment 4 supporters are outraged over the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration on Thursday launching a webpage claiming that the ballot measure "threatens women's safety."
Florida Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-35) pledged that she is looking into "appropriate legal action," while Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement that "this kind of propaganda issued by the state, using taxpayer money and operating outside of the political process, sets a dangerous precedent."
"This is what we would expect to see from an authoritarian regime," added Jackson, "not in the so-called 'Free State of Florida.'"
"Dr. de la Torre will be held accountable for his greed and the damage he has caused the American people and our nation's healthcare system."
Taking aim at Steward Health Care CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre's refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday said the committee he chairs will still hold a hearing next week on the company's bankruptcy and healthcare industry greed.
"Working with private equity vultures, Steward Health Care CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre has made hundreds of millions of dollars ripping off patients and healthcare providers across the country," said Sanders, who heads the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
"This outrageous display of corporate greed has resulted in more than 30 Steward hospitals in eight states being forced to declare bankruptcy, putting patients and communities at risk," added the senator, who said the hearing is set to take place next Thursday at 10:00 am Eastern time.
"Ralph de la Torre has made hundreds of millions of dollars ripping off patients and health care providers across the country."
Steward is trying to auction off all 31 of its hospitals in order to pay down its debt. As Common Dreamsreported, the HELP committee—which includes 10 Republicans—voted 20-1 in July to investigate Steward Health Care's bankruptcy, and 16-4 to subpoena de la Torre.
"Dr. de la Torre will be held accountable for his greed and the damage he has caused the American people and our nation's healthcare system," Sanders said Friday. "Is it my hope that Dr. de la Torre will do the right thing, change his mind, and join our hearing to provide testimony? Yes. But let me be clear: With or without him, this hearing is going forward."
"We will expose his fraud, and put his greed on display," the senator added. "I look forward to hearing from patients, medical professionals, and community members whose lives have been upended by Dr. de la Torre and his private equity cronies."
Another HELP committee member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is a bankruptcy law expert, on Wednesday accused de la Torre of using Steward-owned hospitals "as his personal piggy bank."
De la Torre—who according to Steward's bankruptcy filing received more than $4 million in compensation between May 2023 and April 2024—has also come under fire for his 2021 purchase of a 190-foot megayacht believed to be worth around $40 million. That year, Steward's owners paid themselves millions of dollars in dividends.
On Thursday, CBS Newsreported that in 2017 Steward executives including de la Torre illegally conspired with Maltese officials in order to secure a hospital contract, according to a whistleblower.
While a spokesperson for the executive denied any wrongdoing, whistleblower Ram Tumuluri alleged in a complaint to the U.S. Congress that "in touting Steward's supposed competitive advantage in Malta... de la Torre boasted that he could issue 'brown bags' to government officials if necessary to close transactions."
Experts hailed the study as "groundbreaking" and "sobering" for the connections it draws between ecosystem and human health.
Bat die-offs in the U.S. led to increased use of insecticides, which in turn led to greater infant mortality, according to a "seminal" study published Thursday that shows the effects of biodiversity loss on human beings.
Eyal Frank, an environmental economist at the University of Chicago, authored the study, which was published by Science, a leading peer-reviewed journal.
Bats can eat thousands of insects per night and act as a natural pest control for farmers, so when a fungal disease began killing off bat populations in the U.S. after being introduced in 2006, farmers in affected counties used more insecticides, Frank found. Those same counties saw more infant deaths, which Frank linked to increased use of insecticide that is harmful to human health, especially for babies and fetuses.
The study was greeted by an outpouring of praise from unaffiliated scientists for its methodology and the important takeaways it offers.
"[Frank] uses simple statistical methods to the most cutting-edge techniques, and the takeaway is the same," Eli Fenichel, an environmental economist at Yale University, toldThe New York Times. "Fungal disease killed bats, bats stopped eating enough insects, farmers applied more pesticide to maximize profit and keep food plentiful and cheap, the extra pesticide use led to more babies dying. It is a sobering result."
Carmen Messerlian, an environmental epidemiologist at Harvard University, told the Times the study "seminal" and "groundbreaking."
The study shows the need for a broader understanding of human health that includes consideration of entire ecosystems, said Roel Vermeulen, an environmental epidemiologist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. "It emphasizes the need to move from a human-centric health impact analysis, which only considers the direct effects of pollution on human health, to a planetary health impact assessment," he toldNew Scientist.
Reporter Benji Jones echoed that sentiment in Vox, calling Frank's findings "astonishing" and writing that such studies could help us fight chemical pollution by corporations.
"When the link between human and environmental health is overlooked, industries enabled by short-sighted policies can destroy wildlife habitats without a full understanding of what we lose in the process," Jones said. "This is precisely why studies like this are so critical: They reveal, in terms most people can relate to, how the ongoing destruction of biodiversity affects us all."
NEW: This is one of the more stunning (and sobering) studies I've covered in a while:
It found that a decline of bats in the U.S. had come at a deadly cost to human babieshttps://t.co/M82FXxBrtO
— Dino Grandoni (@dino_grandoni) September 5, 2024
Frank, who said he started the work after stumbling on an article about bat population loss while procrastinating, happened upon an excellent natural experiment. The spread of white-nose syndrome, the fungal disease, was well tracked on a county-by-county level, leaving him with high-quality data that is hard to find for researchers who study the intersection of human and animal life.
The benefits of biodiversity on humans, and the drawbacks to its loss, are normally very difficult to quantify.
"That's just quite rare—to get good, empirical, grounded estimates of how much value the species is providing," Charles Taylor, an environmental economist at Harvard Kennedy School, toldThe Guardian. "Putting actual numbers to it in a credible way is tough."
Taylor himself is the author of a somewhat similar study that showed that pesticide use and infant mortality rose during years in which cicadas appeared; the insects do so at 13-17 year intervals.
David Rosner, a historian based at Columbia University, said the new bat study joins a large body of evidence dating back to the 1960s that links pesticide use with negative human health outcomes. "We're dumping these synthetic materials into our environment, not knowing anything about what their impacts are going to be," he said. "It's not surprising—it's just kind of shocking that we discover it every year."
Frank's claim about the cause of increased infant mortality should be taken with some caution, said Vermeulen, the Dutch researcher. He said the loss of agricultural income caused by bat die-offs could be connected to the increased deaths in complex ways.
The exact causal mechanism isn't known, Frank told media outlets, but the data shows the rise of infant mortality didn't come from food contamination by insecticides—rather, it's more likely it came via the water supply or contact with the chemicals.
Frank's other research extends beyond pesticide use. He and another researcher recently estimated that hundreds of thousands of human beings have died in India due to the collapse of the country's vulture population, as rotting meat increased the spread of diseases such as rabies.
Frank is not the first to study the impacts of white-nose syndrome on humans. Other studies have shown a reduction in land rents in counties hit by the bat plague and documented the billions of dollars that farmers have lost as their natural pest control disappeared.
The syndrome attacks bats while they hibernate. It was first identified in New York in 2006 and has since spread to much of North America. It's believed to have been brought over from Europe. It doesn't affect all bat species, but it's killed more than 90% of three key species, and bats also face a myriad of other threats, including habitat loss, climate change, and the dangerous churn of wind turbines.
Frank's bracing study should be a call to arms, experts said.
"This study estimates just a few of the consequences we suffer from the disappearance of bats, and they are just one of the species we're losing," Felicia Keesing, a biologist at Bard College, told The Washington Post. "These results should motivate everyone, not just farmers and parents, to clamor for the protection and restoration of biodiversity."