Reply to Safe Tech for Schools MCPS - Wireless Internet in Schools

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Safe Tech for Schools MCPS - Wireless Internet in Schools"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]From your own document...

[b]An important point is the radiation level. The exposure from cellular phones (personal exposure) is substantially higher and much more focused (usually on the brain) than exposures from radio/tv towers, antennas, or Wi-Fi. 
[/b]

Regarding 2B designation, please read the article titled - Cell phones are as carcinogenic as coffee written by Gopala Kovvali Ph.D, Executive Editor, Journal of Carcinogenesis.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142790/

this is from the article, which specifically addressed the media attention garnered by the 2B carcinogenic designation.

[b]n a serious note, breaking news like the link between cell phone use and cancer made a splash in the media, with little consideration given the fact that the report was a summary of the deliberations of the IARC committee and was not an outcome of any carefully planned study by the IARC. It is not always easy to communicate the intricate details of any study to the public; the philosophical and methodological broodings of an international committee are even less easy to communicate, without causing concern and confusion. In an era when the media looks for material for quick sound bites and sensational news, I believe reports like the one by the IARC must have a ‘media summary,’ just like an executive summary in a complex business report. The purpose of the studies and analyses like the one discussed in this editorial must be communicated clearly to the public, to avoid panic and encourage the public to use caution, and also suggest the limitations of the studies on complex subjects related to human health. The discipline of public health may need to evolve strategies for educating the public in an objective, yet effective manner.
[/b]

Here is the response WHO gave when asked for clarification of the Robert Baan email that was just posted.

[i][b]Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:31 AM
To: Ellen Marks
Cc: Van Deventer, Tahera Emilie; Osseiran, Nada A.L.
Subject: FW: Please clarify confusion
 
Dear Ms. Marks,
 
Your email below regarding WHO's position on health effects from mobile phone use was forwarded to me for reply. A WHO fact sheet entitled "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones" (N°193) was re-issued in June 2011 to incorporate the new classification of IARC of radiofrequency fields as possible carcinogen (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html).
 
The Fact sheet states that "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use", summarizing the current scientific knowledge. IARC classified RF fields from mobile phones as "possibly" carcinogenic (Class 2B). The evidence for an association between radiofrequency fields and adverse health effects was "evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate" (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf).
 
If carcinogenic effects had been established, RF fields would have been classified as "carcinogenic to humans" (Class 1). For further information on the IARC classification, please see http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/index.php.
 
I hope this clarifies your understanding.
Regards,
 
Dr. E van Deventer
 
Dr. T E van Deventer | Team Leader | Radiation Programme | Department of Public Health and Environment | World Health Organization | Tel: + 41 22 791 3950 | Email:vandeventere@who.int |
[/i][/b] [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics