U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–096 PDF 2009

TUMORS AND CELL PHONE USE: WHAT THE

SCIENCE SAYS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

Serial No. 110–169

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JACKIE SPEIER, California

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DIANE E. WATSON, California

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

JACKIE SPEIER, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JARON R. BOURKE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 25, 2009 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Marks, Ellen, Lafayette, CA; Julius Knapp, Director, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission; Dr. David

O. Carpenter, director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany; Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director, University of

Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; and Dr. Robert N. Hoover, Director, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program, National Cancer Institute ................ 11

Carpenter, Dr. David O. ........................................................................... 105

Herberman, Dr. Ronald B. ........................................................................ 110

Hoover, Dr. Robert N. ............................................................................... 199

Knapp, Julius ............................................................................................ 98

Marks, Ellen .............................................................................................. 11

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Carpenter, Dr. David O., director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany, prepared statement of ................................... 107

Herberman, Dr. Ronald B., director, University of Pittsburgh Cancer

Institute, prepared statement of .................................................................. 112

Hoover, Dr. Robert N., Director, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program,

National Cancer Institute, prepared statement of ..................................... 202

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 9

Knapp, Julius, Director, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal

Communications Commission, prepared statement of ............................... 100

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 4

Marks, Ellen, Lafayette, CA, prepared statement of ..................................... 15

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 94

(1)

TUMORS AND CELL PHONE USE: WHAT THE

SCIENCE SAYS

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kucinich, Issa, Watson, Higgins, and

Burton.

Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Jean Gosa, clerk;

Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Vic Edgerton, legislative director, Office of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich; Leneal Scott, information systems manager; Charles Phillips, minority senior counsel;

Jason Scism, minority counsel; and William O’Neill, minority senior professional staff member.

Mr. KUCINICH. The committee will come to order.

Before we begin, I just want to thank all of you for being here

but share with you that we are at a time in our Nation’s history

where there are events that have developed of great import with

respect to the economy. I felt it was necessary to go forward with

this hearing particularly because so many people made efforts to

be here and because of the importance of the subject.

There will be Members of Congress who will be coming in and

out during the course of this hearing, I am hopeful. The ranking

member, Mr. Issa, who is also very involved in some of the economic issues that we are talking about, has communicated to me

that he asked me to start the hearing without him. Usually, we

start with he and I beginning together, but with Mr. Issa’s permission I am going to begin so that we can move quickly to get the

testimony on the record of the people who are here today.

So this is the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Subcommittee on Domestic Policy. I am Congressman Dennis

Kucinich, the chairman of the subcommittee.

Today’s hearing will examine what science is saying about the

potential links between long-term use of cell phones and tumors or

other health effects.

Without objection, the Chair and the ranking minority member

will have 5 minutes to make opening statements followed by opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

appears and seeks recognition.

2

And, without objection, Members and witnesses may have five

legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record.

Cell phones have evolved from a clunky novelty to a sleek utility.

They have become indispensable and, for many, inseparable from

modern life. They are everywhere in America, Europe and some

parts of Asia.

While consumer demand for cell phones has grown and as the

technology has evolved to give consumers more options and faster

connectivity, a vigorous debate has been taking place among scientists about whether long-term use of cell phones causes tumors

in the people who use them.

Recently, the debate caught the public’s attention with the publication in July of a warning from a preeminent oncologist about the

human health effects of cell phone use. We are fortunate to have

the author of that memorandum as well as a distinguished group

of individuals as witnesses before this committee today.

I regret that the CTIA, the association of the wireless telecommunications industry, declined our invitation to testify. By

their refusal, unfortunately, they deny this Congress and the public

the benefit of their testimony and the opportunity to pose questions

and to hear answers. I hope that the wireless industry will reconsider their decision, should the subcommittee determine it would

be beneficial to hold further hearings on this matter.

However, I am grateful to the minority of the subcommittee for

identifying another highly qualified expert from the National Cancer Institute. I am confident that he will add immeasurably to the

hearing.

I am proud to say that this subcommittee’s partnership and spirit of cooperation with the minority is the rule rather than the exception, and I want to thank them, thank Mr. Issa, for engaging

in this hearing.

In exploring this topic, it is my belief that the complicated scientific questions should be left to scientists. I challenge our witnesses today to answer the questions posed by members of the subcommittee clearly and to challenge each other as well.

In typical public debates over potential links between an environmental exposure and a health problem, convention is that the message must be black and white. On one side, the charge is made, explicit or implicit, that there is no scientific doubt about a certain

health effect from the exposure of concern. On the other side, the

relevant industry defends its product with the scientific assertion

that there is no evidence that exposure to X causes health effect

Y.

Often, the reality and the science lie somewhere in between.

My hope is that we can improve the public’s and Congress’ understanding about the gray area in this scientific debate. Today, we

will let experts present the evidence, discuss the studies and describe the limitations of what is known and what can be implied

from the data that we have.

The question before us then is whether the evidence is sufficient

to merit action by regulators and legislators to protect public

health.

3

What have other national government health authorities done to

protect their people based on the same scientific data?

What should Congress or the administration do, if anything, here

in the United States?

At this point, I want to recognize and welcome the distinguished

ranking member of our subcommittee, Congressman Darrell Issa of

California.

Mr. Issa and I have worked together as partners in this subcommittee. Where we have our differences, we differ in a manner

that is collegial. But where we agree, we have opportunities to really make some profound difference.

I want to thank Mr. Issa for his presentation and for his presence here. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

4

5

6

7

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said quite rightly,

we come from different parties and we have reached different conclusions on where government should go, but when it comes to the

conclusion that science has to drive the decision process, we have

no differences.

This is an important hearing today. It is important for a number

of reasons.

First of all, I understand it has been 15 years since the last time

a hearing like this was held.

Second, as somebody who spent his career both in the military

and then more extensively for 20 years in business, producing radio

frequency products, I am acutely aware that in fact there is a link

at some point along the spectrum to cancer.

Now I say that not to say that today we will hear any conclusive

evidence as to cell phones. We don’t have that, and I think quite

frankly we deserve to get it.

But we do know that, for example, x-rays being used to measure

shoes extensively decades ago led to a higher incidence of cancer,

and in fact today, although valuable, we know to limit x-rays to

that which is essential. All our medical personnel here would say

the same thing, that we don’t unreasonably expose ourselves to xrays even though we avail ourselves of the benefits.

UV rays, there are many people in the stands today who have

suntans. If they are like me, they are natural. If, in fact, they were

gleaned from the sun, then you know that you do it at a significant

peril that has been well documented.

These rays are no different than any other rays, any other bandwidth. There is a potential for damage at some level. In many

cases, as I say, we have studied it. We know a little bit about xrays. We know about ultraviolet.

It is very clear that we need to know more about the rest of the

spectrum, at 40 hertz, 60 hertz, at 400 megahertz, at 800 megahertz and well into the gigahertz bands.

The National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society claim that no link has been

demonstrated to date. There may be no link, but it is also very

clear that if there is a link at some level in almost any radiation,

that we do need to know what is safe and unsafe.

As I said, I spent more than two decades in the business, producing radio frequency products. Our company meticulously adhered to

the FCC standards. Those standards were primarily designed to

prevent a product from interfering with other products within the

spectrum. That is a good standard and appropriate.

We need to find similar good standards for exposure to any bandwidth of any device.

I say this not to say for a moment that I know that there is a

link specifically anywhere close to the amount of radiation that is

going out today, but I would say that the wireless industry has

played no small role in the advancement and benefit to the American people. In the last 30 years, the wireless industry has changed

our lives for the better in so many ways.

Today, with great regret, we will hear from Mrs. Marks about

the fact that she deals with an impossible situation of cancer that

may or may not have been caused by the extensive use of a product

8

by—I am sorry—your son, I believe. Your husband, I apologize.

And we will hear that.

The fact is I don’t know. I do know that you are dealing with a

difficult health problem and certainly one that all of us have sympathy for today.

We owe it today to hear what we can hear and learn what we

can learn.

Mr. Chairman, I pledge to you that on a bipartisan basis in the

next Congress, we will continue the work that we have been doing

and take it to the next level of finding out what studies, what additional research we can co-author in order to find out what we cannot necessarily answer here today.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I once lived under power lines, 20,000

volt power lines. I enjoyed the extra back yard. I felt no particular

fear that the high voltage lines were going to hurt me. Today, I

still don’t.

But many people, when I went to sell that house, enjoyed the

extra back yard and were willing to pay for it. Many others looked

and said: How could you live underneath these? Don’t you know it

causes cancer?

The American people deserve their government to answer the

questions about radiation at all levels. I believe we have done it

well in some areas. I think the testimony here today will show we

have done it poorly in others.

So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence, your friendship

and certainly the 2-years we have spent working on this committee

together and yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]

9

10

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from California.

I want to now introduce our panel. First, to my left, Ellen Marks.

Ellen Marks is a realtor and a small business owner. She is the

wife of Alan Marks who was diagnosed in May 2008, with a malignant brain tumor in his right frontal lobe.

Mr. Marks could not, himself, be present today to testify about

his personal experience with cell phones and cancer. Mrs. Marks

will testify on his behalf.

Julius Knapp: Julius Knapp is Chief of the Federal Communications Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology. The Office of Engineering and Technology is the Commission’s primary resource for engineering expertise and provides technical support to

the chairman, commissioners and Federal Communication Commission bureaus and officers.

Mr. Knapp has responsibility within the Office of Engineering

and Technology for spectrum allocations and technical rules for

radio frequency devices. Previously, Mr. Knapp served as the Chief

of the Policy and Rules Division where he was responsible for FCC

frequency allocation proceedings and for proceedings amending the

FCC rules for radio frequency devices.

Mr. Knapp was Chief of the Federal Communications Commission Laboratory from 1994 to 1997 where he was responsible for

the Federal Communication Commission’s equipment authorization

program.

He served as Chief of Policy and Rules Division from 1997 to

2001 where he was responsible for developing the Federal Communication Commission’s policies and rules for mutual recognition

agreements and telecommunications certification bodies.

Next, Dr. David O. Carpenter: Dr. Carpenter is the director of

the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany as well as a professor in the Department of Environmental

Health Sciences.

A public health physician, Dr. Carpenter previously served as the

director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of

the New York State Department of Health and later as dean of the

School of Public Health at the University of Albany.

He has over 300 peer-reviewed publications in neuroscience, toxicology and environmental health. He has served as the co-editor of

the BioInitiative Report, a multi-author report on animal and

human effects of exposure to power line frequency and radio frequency, EMFs, and Dr. Carpenter earned his M.S. at Harvard

Medical School.

Next, Dr. Ronald Herberman: Dr. Herberman is the founding director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, a National

Cancer Institute-designed comprehensive cancer center specializing

in innovative approaches to cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Along with directing UPCI, he was director of the University of

Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Centers. He also serves as chief

for the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center as well as associate vice chancellor for cancer research at the University of Pittsburgh.

Previously, Dr. Herberman was official at the National Cancer

Institute including Senior Investigator in the Immunology Branch,

11

Section Head in the Laboratory of Cell Biology and Chief of the

new Laboratory of Immunodiagnosis.

Dr. Herberman received his M.D. from New York University

School of Medicine. He has served as president of the American Association of Cancer Institutes and serves on the editorial boards of

numerous scientific journals.

And, finally, Dr. Robert Hoover: Dr. Hoover is Director of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program of the Division of Cancer, Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Hoover earned his M.D. from Loyola University in Chicago and his

M.S. and Sc.D. in epidemiology from Harvard School of Public

Health.

Dr. Hoover serves on the editorial boards of three journals and

serves on many national and international committees concerned

with various aspects of epidemiology and preventive medicine. He

has been awarded the Public Health Service Commendation Medal

in 1976, the Meritorious Service Medal in 1984 and the Distinguished Service Medal in 1990.

I want to thank our distinguished panelists for appearing before

this subcommittee today.

It is the policy of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to swear in all witnesses before they testify.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have

each answered in the affirmative.

I would ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary

of your testimony and to keep that summary under 5 minutes in

duration.

I want each of you to know that while your testimony is in some

cases quite extensive, that you don’t have to give it all at this moment but that your entire testimony will be included in the record

of this hearing, so that Members will have the opportunity to be

able to digest it.

So, with that, what I would like to do is to start with Mrs. Marks

and again our gratitude for your presence here today. You may proceed.

STATEMENTS OF ELLEN MARKS, LAFAYETTE, CA; JULIUS

KNAPP, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; DR.

DAVID O. CARPENTER, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH

AND THE ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALBANY; DR. RONALD B. HERBERMAN, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH CANCER INSTITUTE; AND DR. ROBERT N. HOOVER,

DIRECTOR, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BIOSTATISTICS PROGRAM,

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE

STATEMENT OF ELLEN MARKS

Mrs. MARKS. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this critical

hearing.

My name is Ellen Marks, and I live in Lafayette, CA. I am here

today because my beloved husband and friend of more than four

decades cannot be. My husband, Alan, has a malignant brain

12

tumor and, sadly, we suspect that it is related to his long-term cell

phone exposure.

As difficult as this is for my family, I am compelled to share our

very personal story to impress upon you the dire need to legislate

essential changes concerning cell phone health risks.

Alan and I met when we were 15. He is a self-made man. He sold

flowers in front of a cemetery at the age of 13 and then paid his

own way through college and medical school.

Alan became involved in the real estate industry, and we moved

from our native Chicago to northern California in 1984. We are the

proud parents of three adult children, ages 26, 24 and 22. I wish

we could say that we lived happily ever after, but that is not the

case.

The night of May 5, 2008, we were excitedly packing to leave for

our daughter’s college graduation the next day. At 2 a.m., I awoke

to Alan’s bizarre noises and thrashing. I couldn’t wake him, and

the nightmare remains to this day.

The worst of his seizures lasted about 25 minutes. When his eyes

opened, he could not speak or understand anything asked of him

by the paramedics.

Witnessing a grand mal seizure is something you can never erase

from your mind. Arms flail. Saliva drools. Eyes roll back in the

head, and the face contorts.

At 4 a.m., in a cold, stark emergency room, I was told that my

lifelong love has a mass in his right frontal lobe, the part of the

brain that allows us to differentiate between good and bad, right

and wrong, control our impulses and relate to those you love.

Imagine the pain of telling our sons, who had raced to the hospital in the middle of the night, that their dad’s increasingly irrational behavior was not a personality problem but a lethal brain

tumor.

In the morning, I had no choice but to call our daughter and tell

her not to pick us up at the Denver airport. Imagine her despair

as she stood alone, learning that her daddy could soon die.

It is heartbreaking to think that he may not have that chance

to walk his princess down the aisle or meet his grandchildren.

Six excruciatingly long weeks later, Dr. Berger at UCSF performed a 6-hour craniotomy and resection of Alan’s oligodendral

glioma, leaving him able to walk and talk. The personality changes

remain. Titanium now holds his skull in place, and the tumor will

grow back.

It was a slow-growing tumor which caused unexplainable chaos

in our family for years. When you love someone and he becomes

another person to act strangely, acting out against those you hold

dear, you try with all your heart to find ways to help.

Alan also tried with all his heart to continue to be a loving father

and husband. He willingly sought professional help and took

antidepressants and bipolar medications for years to no avail. He,

too, knew something was wrong but just not how terribly wrong.

Now, as a family, we are struggling to understand that the now

explainable personality changes are actually an involuntary consequence of his tumor and surgery, not an easy task.

Alan has always been a brilliant man with an incredible sense

of humor and sense of responsibility to his family. He clings to that

13

sense of responsibility now and is deeply depressed by his limitations.

To me, he is still the most handsome man in the world, but the

twinkle in his eye is gone. His cell phone and the resulting tumor

have robbed us of financial security and the very pursuit of happiness. Alan, a husband, a father and a son, has been handed a

death sentence at the age of 56.

Alan had his seizure and diagnosis 10 days before Senator Kennedy. Ironically, my son, Zach, who is sitting behind me, interned

for Senator Kennedy just a few years ago. Upon hearing a report

that the Senator’s glioma may also be linked to cell phone use, our

research began.

Alan’s cell phone was a vital part of his work—always on, always

ringing, always right next to his head. I often threatened to throw

it in the garbage and how I wish I had.

He had a cell phone or the original car phone for over 20 years,

and he averaged over 30 hours monthly. The tumor is on the same

side of his head to which he held the phone.

I learned there are significant flaws in many cell phone risk

studies. I learned that in Scandinavia, where cell phones had been

used longer than here, a 240 percent increased risk of glioma has

been proven in those who use their cell phones more than 22 hours

a month. That is less than 1 hour daily.

I learned that cell phone use is exceptionally dangerous for children, and I also learned that we are nearing an epidemic of 20 to

30-year-olds who use only cell phones. If this happens, we could

lose more young people to this than any war in Iran or Afghanistan.

I am grateful that Dr. Herberman, a distinguished scientist, has

made such a courageous decision. How can we wait if waiting

means sick or dead people when we have strong evidence or any

evidence at all that there is a risk?

What happened to my husband could happen to you or, worse,

to your children or grandchildren.

I am sick and tired of hearing there is not enough conclusive evidence. My husband is conclusive evidence. I am angry as this horror could have been avoided with a simple warning.

I pray that my husband’s legacy will be that we helped divulge

the truth and that you, the leaders of our great Nation, took action.

Governments in other countries have taken steps to protect their

citizens from this travesty. I trust you will not fail us.

I beg of you not to let technological advances, invented to enrich

our lives, rob us of our lives instead.

Please demand independent studies instead of self-serving studies funded by the cell phone industry. Please demand more rigorous safety standards. Please demand that warnings about cell

phone usage and the radiation they emit be stated on every cell

phone. By doing so, you will protect our most valued resource of

all—human life.

I love my husband with all my heart and hate what has happened to him as a result of this cancer.

14

Please help save others from facing the deadly diagnosis and lifestyle which our family must endure. If not now, when? And, if not

for me, for the millions of potential victims.

I thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Marks follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mrs. Marks, for your testimony.

Before I go to our next witness, I want to note that we have two

more Members of Congress who have joined us, Congresswoman

Diane Watson from California and Congressman Higgins from New

York. So I want to thank the Members for being here, and we certainly look forward to your participation in the question and answer period.

Ms. WATSON. May I have just 1 minute?

Mr. KUCINICH. You are certainly entitled to do that. I haven’t

done this before, interrupting the testimony.

Ms. WATSON. I just want to let the witnesses know I have experienced, Mrs. Marks, what you have.

I had a niece that had two brain tumors. She grew up with a

telephone on this side and one on this side. And so, I just want all

the witnesses to know that I have gone through that experience.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

94

95

96

97

98

Mrs. MARKS. I am sorry.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.

At this point, Mr. Knapp, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JULIUS KNAPP

Mr. KNAPP. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich and members of the

committee.

It is very tough to talk after hearing that story. My heart goes

out to you and, of course, all the best for you and your family.

Mrs. MARKS. Thank you.

Mr. KNAPP. My name is Julius Knapp. I am the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC, and I thank you

for the opportunity to participate in this hearing.

As you know, the FCC is responsible for, among others, regulating telecommunications services and devices, everything from

multi-kilowatt broadcast antennas to microwatt medical implants.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

[NEPA], the Commission has established guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation. The FCC guidelines, which were first established in 1985, regulate the amount of RF radiation to which

humans may be exposed by various transmitters regulated by the

FCC.

The guidelines and methods for evaluating the environmental effects of RF have been revised as scientific knowledge in the area

has advanced and standards-setting bodies, upon which the Commission relies in setting our exposure guidelines, have revised their

maximum acceptable exposure criteria.

The current guidelines were finalized in 1997 based on recommendations and advice of Federal agencies and groups with expertise in health-related areas and in standards setting.

The guidelines were based primarily on criteria developed by the

congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection

and Measurement and the Institute of Electronics and Electrical

Engineers which is within the broad umbrella of the American National Standards Institute.

Their adoption was supported by the Environmental Protection

Agency and other health and safety agencies. Four years ago, the

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Commission’s continued reliance on its existing rules to protect the public

from potential health effects from RF exposure.

The standards guidelines specify limits for human exposure to

RF emissions from handheld RF devices in terms of specific absorption rate or SAR. For exposure to the general public, exposure of

the user of a cell phone or PCS phone, for example, the SAR limit

is an absorption threshold of 1.6 watts per kilogram as measured

over 1 gram of tissue.

To ensure compliance with the RF exposure guidelines, cell

phones must be certificated before they can be marketed to the

public. In order to receive certification, each device must be tested

to demonstrate compliance with the SAR standard. The test data

and the test methodologies are reviewed before the certification is

granted, and the test data, including the SAR values, are made

available to the public and are on our Web site.

99

In addition to establishing and enforcing the exposure limits, the

FCC provides information to consumers and to industry through

various publications and on our Web site. The FCC and the Food

and Drug Administration have developed a joint Web site to provide health-related information for consumers who are concerned

about cell phones, base station towers and other transmitters and

wireless products.

Among other things, the joint Web site includes a link to the

Commission’s data base of approved equipment and instructions on

how to find the SAR information for individual cell phones. It also

refers to outside sites that compile information on SAR for individual cell phones that may be in a more readily accessible format.

In order to ensure the continued propriety and efficacy of our RF

emissions limits, the FCC staff continuously monitors relevant

studies and literature and attends and participates in a number of

groups and pertinent standards-setting bodies.

In addition, our staff participate with scientists from the Federal

health and safety agencies in an informal Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group which was chartered in 1995 to provide a

coordinated Federal approach to health issues.

Although the Commission is responsible for setting and enforcing

limits for RF exposure from devices that we authorize, it is important to understand that we rely on the guidance from U.S. health,

safety and environmental agencies in setting those limits. The FCC

staff is not sufficiently qualified to speak with authority to the

science of health effects of RF absorption in the body.

If agencies with expertise on health effects of RF exposure were

to suggest that our standards should be modified, the Commission

would initiate a rulemaking to consider changes in the standards.

In closing, the Commission recognizes the public concerns about

cell phone use. The science concerning health effects of RF exposure from cell phones has been the subject of great study and debate. We are continuing to monitor the developments, and the

Commission stands ready to take action if it appears appropriate

to do so.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp follows:]

100

101

102

103

104

105

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Knapp.

Dr. Carpenter, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID O. CARPENTER

Mr. CARPENTER. I am very grateful for the opportunity to meet

before this committee, and I thank the chairman, Congressman

Kucinich, and the other Members for bringing me here.

Mr. KUCINICH. Sir, could you please bring that mic a little bit

closer?

Before you begin further, I just want everyone in the audience

to know that we appreciate your being here, but out of respect for

the witnesses and this proceeding, if you have a cell phone, either

turn it off or put it on vibrate, so that phones aren’t going off in

the middle of someone’s testimony.

You may proceed, Doctor.

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you.

I did testify before a committee of Congress about 15 years ago

on the health effects of power line frequency fields. It may have

been the hearing that you mentioned, although at that hearing we

were not dealing with radiofrequency radiation.

As you mentioned in my introduction, I am a public health physician, not a practicing medical doctor. And, it is important to understand that public health is a profession that tries to prevent disease before it occurs, and it is a population-based discipline.

So this issue of what do we do when we have some information

indicating a hazard, but when that information may not be as definitive as we would like, this is a critical public health issue.

Let me just summarize where I am coming from on this issue in

that I see the evidence that we have at the present very strongly

suggestive of there being a major risk of brain cancer and other

cancers as a result of exposure to radiofrequency fields. I certainly

find the evidence at present to be less than 100 percent.

But the public health implications, under circumstances where

the expansion of wireless technology, where every child is using cell

phones all of the time and when exposure are you can’t go into a

McDonald’s or a Starbucks without being in a wireless environment, the public health implications, if we don’t take actions and

this turns out to be as bad as I suspect it is, these implications are

enormous.

As was mentioned, I was one of the co-editors of the BioInitiative

Report, a report that appeared about a year ago, written by an

international team of 14 scientists who find that the reports from

our national bodies, from the FCC, are unduly conservative in our

opinion and in doing so fail to protect the public health.

Let me summarize what I see as the most important health effects. Cell phone use really began in Europe. Cell phones were first

manufactured in Scandinavia. And, in Scandinavia, cell phone use

was very common about 1980, long before most people in the

United States even knew what they were.

The studies are coming out of Scandinavia showing that if you

use a cell phone intensely for 10 years or more, you are at increased risk of developing a brain tumor, an acoustic neuroma

which is a benign growth of the auditory nerve and, in a study

106

from Israel, cancer of the parotid gland, the salivary gland in the

cheek.

This increased risk occurs only on the side of the head where the

cell phone was used for that period of time.

There are many studies of cell phone use that have not demonstrated any adverse effect. Almost without exception, these are

studies that were not done for long-term users.

And, there is a problem with all of these studies in that the exposure assessment, that being if you were asked how frequently you

used a cell phone 10 years ago, you would have difficulty answering

that question. So the research isn’t perfect.

Now there are studies from Korea showing increased risk of leukemia if children simply live by an AM television or AM radio

transmission tower. So that is another form of radiofrequency radiation.

We feel that the studies from Sweden, especially the study published in 2004 and then a more recent presentation of Dr. Leonard

Hardell that occurred at a meeting in London that I attended early

in September, showing that if a child or a young adult begins to

use a cell phone early in life, their risk of going on to develop brain

tumors is much higher than if an adult begins to use it.

In the results presented in London 2 weeks ago, Dr. Hardell reported that if a person began to use a cell phone under the age of

20, he had a 5.2fold elevated risk of developing a brain cancer. In

contrast, if one looked at all of the people in his study, the risk was

1.4.

So we call on the government to support research with good exposure assessment.

We call on the FCC to review their standards for exposure. Their

standards are presently based on the assumption, which we feel to

be fallacious, that the only adverse health effect of radiofrequency

fields is tissue heating.

And, we call on the health agencies, the NIH, the EPA, the Centers for Disease Control to issue warnings, especially to children

who are more vulnerable to any environmental insult, certainly to

radiofrequency radiation.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter follows:]

107

108

109

110

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Dr. Carpenter.

Dr. Herberman, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. RONALD B. HERBERMAN

Dr. HERBERMAN. I want to thank this committee for inviting me

to talk with you today about the important concerns that have been

raised about cell phones and our health.

As the chairman nicely summarized, I am a physician and cancer

researcher and the founding director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute [UPCI].

I am here with you today to discuss my reasons for being concerned about the potential for health effects from cell phones that

led me to develop a simple precautionary message to reduce exposure now while we develop new research to better measure the possible health impacts of cell phone and cordless phone use.

A little bit about the UPCI: It is right by the National Cancer

Institute [NCI], among the top 10 cancer research centers, based

on cancer research funding.

For two decades before coming to Pittsburgh, I worked for the

NCI with teams of innovative researchers. I have published more

than 700 peer-reviewed articles. Although I am a physician scientist, I need to point out that I am not, as Dr. Carpenter, an expert on cell phones and cancer risk.

As history tells us, there are examples where delays in reducing

exposure to cancer-causing substances have led to large increases

in cancer. Tobacco use is one striking example.

Mindful of lessons learned, the UPCI Center for Environmental

Oncology began a process more than a year ago of reviewing evidence on the possible association of brain cancer with the long-term

use of cell phones. During this process, I became aware of a growing body of scientific evidence indicating that long-term frequent

use of cell phones, which receive and emit radiofrequency [RF] signals, may be associated with an increased risk of brain tumors including malignant gliomas, the type of tumor that Senator Kennedy recently developed as well as Mr. Marks.

This particularly concerned me since, in the United States today,

more than 9 out of every 10 adults use a cell phone, a remarkable

number that has doubled in just the past 5 years. Worldwide, there

are 3 billion regular cell phone users including a growing number

of children.

Generally speaking, it is important to stress that children are not

just little adults. They often are much more vulnerable to the effects of environmental exposures. For cell phones, this matters because the skull of children is much less dense than the skull of

adults and modeling research has shown that cell phone RF signals

are observed much deeper into the brains of children.

In contrast to the United States, as Dr. Carpenter has pointed

out, in the Scandinavian countries, widespread cell phone use has

been prevalent for more than two decades. Dr. Leonard Hardell, a

distinguished oncologist, finds that people who have used cell

phones the most have double the chance of developing malignant

brain tumors and also tumors on the hearing nerve called acoustic

neuromas.

111

Dr. Hardell has also, as Dr. Carpenter just summarized, recently

reported that teenagers who use cell phones have five times more

brain tumors by the age of 29.

I recognize that many studies do not show any association, but

most of these negative studies have followed people for a relatively

short period of time. It seems likely that brain cancer can take 10

or more years to develop. In addition, few studies have controlled

for cordless phone use, and these cordless phones also release RF

signals.

In population-based research, clearly methods always matter. My

concerns about the use, about the risk for developing brain tumors

from long-term cell phone use and my particular concern about

risks for children, coupled with the knowledge that experts in several other countries had issued precautionary advisories, led me to

issue an advisory in July to our physicians, scientists and staff.

The advice was straightforward and has been widely shared by colleagues and news outlets around the world.

Within a week of the distribution of the precautionary memo to

our staff, the Israeli Health Ministry endorsed our recommendations. Our warning has also been translated into German, Portuguese and Spanish.

Our advisory recommends that you use cell phones but carefully.

Don’t keep them turned on and on your body all the time. Use an

earpiece, a headset or a speaker phone mode.

Based on the current body of evidence as a physician scientist

who has devoted my life to preventing cancer and saving lives, I

cannot tell this committee they are definitely dangerous, but I certainly cannot tell you that they are safe.

How are we going to resolve this important matter?

Should we simply wait and watch or should we take simple precautions while we undertake additional, more definitive research

that will tell the whole story?

I urge this committee to work collaboratively with the cell phone

industry so that independent researchers at our institution, M.D.

Anderson Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Institute and

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences will be better

able to produce the best, most accurate study of cell phone use and

health effects.

The future of our children and grandchildren, I believe, demands

that we work together to understand the potential risks from cell

phones and, if necessary, to develop effective solutions to reduce future health threats.

And, in closing, I would just say that I find the old adage, to be

better safe than sorry, to be very apt for this situation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Herberman follows:]

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Dr. Herberman.

I want to note that Congressman Burton from Indiana is with us.

In a previous Congress, he was chairman of the full committee. So

I appreciate Mr. Burton’s presence here.

Dr. Hoover, you may proceed.

Then after Dr. Hoover, we are going to go questions of the witnesses. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT N. HOOVER

Dr. HOOVER. I am Bob Hoover. I am the Director of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program at the National Cancer Institute,

and I will be talking briefly about the scientific evidence on the

topic of cell phones and the risk of brain cancer. As an epidemiologist, I will be focusing today on studies of risk in human populations.

It is also important to note that on the biologic side, radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is billions of times lower than

the energy of x-ray photons. As such, its effect on the body, at least

at this time, appears to be insufficient to produce genetic damage

typically associated with developing cancer.

Alternative mechanisms have been suggested, but to date these

offer no alternative mechanism of how this exposure might result

in cancer vetted adequately.

From the epidemiologic side, descriptive data from the large network of population-based tumor registries funded by the National

Cancer Institute reveal that there has been no increase in the incidents of brain or other nervous system cancers from 1987 through

2005, the time period when cell phone use increased by about 10-

fold.

From the analytic side, the earliest analytic epidemiologic studies

including the one conducted by the National Cancer Institute, selfreported frequency and patterns of cell phone use were compared

between patients diagnosed with brain or nervous system tumors

known as cases and patients or controls with other diseases, an investigation known as a case-control study.

These studies found no convincing evidence of association between cell phone use and glioma, a malignant tumor of the brain

or from a meningioma or acoustic neuroma, two largely benign tumors of the nervous system.

These early studies pointed out that future investigations would

be needed to evaluate potential effects of long-term use as well as

changing cell phone technology. As a result, a new generation of

cell phone studies is emerging.

However, brain cancer is a very difficult disease to study well,

epidemiologically. Much of the disease is rapidly fatal, and the

tumor in its treatment can impair cognitive function. Cases may cooperate at different rates than controls, and answers to questions

may be altered in someone who knows they have a specific condition.

Given all of this, it is not surprising that there is a fair amount

of inconsistency within and between many of these studies, both in

quality and in findings. Because of this, I will focus only on the

larger and better designed of these studies.

200

Perhaps the most notable of these is a large collaborative project

that includes individual studies from 13 countries, collectively

known as INTERPHONE. Analyses of data from individual centers

and those pooled from some but not all of the individual countries

have been published.

These individual studies have found no evidence of an overall increase in the risk of any type of brain tumors associated with the

first 10 years of cell phone use.

In addition, no increased risk has been found in relation to several measures of exposure including time since first use, lifelong,

lifetime years of use, the number of calls, the hours of use and the

use of analog versus digital phones.

A somewhat increased risk has been found in some studies for

tumors diagnosed on the same side of the head that the cell phone

was used for those with more than 10 years of cell phone use, but

these are based on small numbers, generally less than 5 percent of

the cases under study, and are consistently seen across all the

studies.

Many of us are hopeful that the combined INTERPHONE analysis, including all the centers in the original study, which is now underway, will provide a much larger number of long-term users

which will allow an evaluation of different exposure metrics and latency, a formal assessment of the consistency in study-specific results and more comprehensive and statistically stable estimates.

This could bring some clarity to the current state of the science.

In another noteworthy study, Danish investigators followed up

cell phone subscribers over time and found no increased risk of

brain tumors among the subscribers. This type of study, called a

prospective study, has the advantage of not having to rely on people’s ability to remember their past cell phone use which could be

inaccurate or biased.

We do know that cell phone use is increasing rapidly among children and adolescents. They are a potentially sensitive group because of their small head size and could result in higher radiofrequency exposure, and the young brain may be more sensitive.

To date, there are no published studies in the peer-reviewed literature regarding the risk of cancer and cell phone use in children.

However, there are ongoing studies in Europe that will soon provide information on the risk from cell phone use among children.

In summary then, thus far, brain cancer incidence trends in the

United States are unrelated to patterns of cell phone use. Most

analytic studies indicate no overall increased risk of brain tumors

within the first 10 years.

There are inconsistent findings of increased risk across many different ways of measuring increased dose. There are some isolated

findings of increased risk in some dose and population subgroups,

but larger studies and replication and different study designs are

needed to sort out the roles of chance and bias from those findings

that are really worth pursuing.

Potential risks associated with childhood exposure have not been

assessed. Insight into these last two points may come relatively

soon from ongoing analyses of the overall INTERPHONE Study

and from the northern European case-control study of childhood

cancer.

201

I thank you for the opportunity to present and look forward to

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hoover follows:]

202

203

204

205

206

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank you, Dr. Hoover.

I want to thank each of the witnesses. We are going to go to

questions from Members.

I would like to begin by asking the scientists who are here, I believe every one of you agrees that the science is not conclusive on

a connection between cell phones and human health effects. Nevertheless, some scientists look at inconclusive data and see something

of concern while others look at that same data and conclude there

is no connection.

For the lay person, can you, scientists, please explain how is that

possible?

Dr. Carpenter, do you want to start?

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, I wear both hats. I am also a laboratory

scientist, and the tradition in laboratory science is that one keeps

doing experiments until you get results that show a consistency

where there is no greater than a 5 percent chance that your result

could be due to statistical variability.

As a public health official, I look at this issue quite differently

because I agree that I don’t think that the overall evidence for

brain cancer from using cell phones reaches quite that 95 percent

confidence limit.

But as a public health official, are we at the same place we were

with smoking and lung cancer 30 years ago?

In fact, as Dr. Davis in a recent book demonstrated very clearly,

the Nazis in the thirties had definitive evidence for a relationship

between smoking and lung cancer. We, in the United States, ignored that evidence and did nothing until the Surgeon General’s

report in, what, the late seventies.

And, I see this from the public health perspective as being very,

very important, that we urgently need more research. I totally

agree with Dr. Hoover. I think this INTERPHONE Study has some

potential, but there are some problems with that as well.

We have almost no U.S.-funded research in this area.

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Herberman, would you care to respond?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Yes. Thank you.

I think there are several issues that I would like to bring up.

One is although there have been a number of different studies, I

point out that the large majority of the negative studies are actually not independent of each other but have used the same methods.

Mr. KUCINICH. What does that mean?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Well, particularly, about six different countries

that participated in the INTERPHONE Study used exactly the

same design. So if there are flaws in the design, these would be

replicated across each of those studies.

One of those which is often cited, the Danish Cancer Society

study and Dr. Hoover referred to that, used a very large number

of people, but it excluded all business users from the study. That

study actually started with about 700,000 cell phone users but excluded the 200,000 who were the business users and, most likely

during that era, the most heavy users of cell phones.

They also defined a user as someone who made a simple one call

a week. That is not the type of exposure that I am concerned about.

207

They also didn’t evaluate in most of these studies the use of

cordless phones which, as I said in my testimony, also involves radiofrequency signals.

Last, let me try to address some of the comments that Dr. Hoover just made. As he nicely summarized, most of the studies that

look at the data mainly looked at exposures of less than 10 years.

But, as I said in my testimony, I believe it is most likely that the

latent period before cancer would develop from such exposure

would be probably more than 10 years.

I also note that Dr. Hoover failed to discuss the studies by Dr.

Leonard Hardell, and I noticed in the cancer bulletin that the NCI

just published within the last few days, that among their references the Hardell studies were omitted.

I think that this is a major lapse of turning a blind eye to the

studies that concern me the most.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank Dr. Herberman. We are going to

have a chance to get back to you and to Dr. Hoover, excuse me,

when I ask the next round of questions to the witnesses. But before

my time is up, I want to ask Mrs. Marks if you have any response

to what you have just heard, and I would just ask you to keep it

brief.

Mrs. MARKS. Well, my response would be that I am not a scientist. I am a human being, a mother, a wife.

I do know from my research and from talking with doctors and

scientists worldwide that there are major flaws even in this

INTERPHONE Study. I have in front of me something right here

that says: The INTERPHONE Studies always find a statistical significant elevated risk when a cell phone has been used for 10 or

more years on the same side of the head where the tumor was

found.

I am sorry, but I am not understanding the lack of correlation

here.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. You know what, in deference to Dr. Hoover,

who may have a different opinion, I will give you a brief response

to what was said here.

Dr. HOOVER. You want me to respond to that, rather than the

question?

Mr. KUCINICH. You can respond to your colleagues here.

Dr. HOOVER. OK. Yes. Certainly, Dr. Hardell’s studies, Dr.

Hardell has made important contributions, and he was one of the

first in the field.

As I mentioned in my statement, however, that as more studies

have come out and more diverse findings have emerged, there is a

capability of segregating studies by quality.

I think to Dr. Hardell’s credit, he attempted to do something very

fast and get an answer very quickly. He used a method of pursuing

prevalent cases in his early studies that effectively ended up eliminating everybody who died quickly or had a significant impairment.

And then, I think his first study had about less than 30 percent

of the total number of cases.

So there have been, over time, studies to address those kinds of

issues and also have more long-term users. So I certainly focused

mainly on those.

We could have a discussion all day.

208

Mr. KUCINICH. We are definitely going to go to more questions.

Dr. HOOVER. Right, so I think that.

The issue of the metric and the dose is that I think tobacco was

mentioned a couple of times. With tobacco and with ionizing radiation, for example, there are associations with virtually any dose

measure you use, with dose rate, how many cigarettes per day,

with total duration that you smoked, with total pack years, with

age that you started, with time since you stopped. Those are all.

With those kinds of data, it makes it really easy to think there

is really something going on thus far.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank you, gentlemen. Unfortunately,

my time to ask questions has expired a couple minutes ago.

We are going to go to Mr. Burton, and then after Ms. Watson we

are going to go to another round of questioning. You will have more

of an opportunity to expand on that.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Three billion users worldwide, you are not going to put this genie

back in the bottle. It is a problem that is not going to go away, if

it is a problem.

What I would like to know is, first of all, is there any scientific

research going on right now that would allow cell phones but not

used in the proximity that they are now?

I think one of you said that this little piece that I put on my ear,

that it would be much safer. Doesn’t it have radio waves connected

to it at all?

Mr. KUCINICH. Any of the witnesses can respond.

Mr. BURTON. An ear receptacle like this, does it have radio

waves?

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, it does.

Mr. BURTON. So the risk is still there?

Mr. KNAPP. If I could just add, it is about one-twentieth of the

power from a normal cell phone.

Mr. BURTON. Well, then I am going to be using that a lot more.

The other thing is you mentioned it could cause brain tumors,

ear tumors. I presume the jaw and anything that is in close proximity would be at risk for some kind of cancer.

What about if you carry it in your pocket? You know men and

women carry these things around in their pockets. They don’t have

them sticking out in the air some place. What about other forms

of cancer that might be caused?

I know you are speculating. I would just like to know what you

think about that.

Mr. CARPENTER. If I could answer that, the cancer that we see

with power line frequencies that has been seen with radiofrequency

fields in Korea from AM radio transmitters is leukemia.

There is one report of an increase in prostate cancer in men that

wear their cell phone in their belt.

My suspicion—I think it needs much more study—is that leukemia is the most vulnerable cancer, that beyond that, if you have

a localized exposure as you do with use of the cell phone at the ear,

you get cancer of the organs around there. If you wear it in your

belt, you are radiating your pelvis.

209

So, again, we need more research, but I think this is more likely

to be a general proximity.

Mr. BURTON. Assuming that your thesis is correct, what can we

do about this?

I mean people are going to want to communicate because they

are used to it now, and they like carrying it around. They like to

be able to get a hold of their husband or their wife or their kids

in a moment’s notice and know where they are and talk to them

about issues that are important to them. So I don’t think this is

going to change.

So what can be done to make these things safer if that is the

problem?

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, I agree. I don’t think we are going to go

back to the pre-wireless age. I wouldn’t even advocate that, and I

think it really depends on the combination of industry finding ways

to manufacture products that don’t have as much radiation plus

government finding ways of lowering the exposure limits that are

considered acceptable.

Mr. BURTON. To your knowledge, any of your knowledge, are any

companies doing research on home phones—everybody has a phone

they are carrying around in their home as well—on home phones

as far as radiation is concerned and the cell phones?

Are any companies, to your knowledge, working on that or doing

research to find out if they can cut down the amount of radio waves

that are emanating from these things?

Anybody? Does anybody know? If you don’t know, just tell me.

Mr. KNAPP. I believe that some of the industry companies, in

particular, Motorola, has done research along the way. Whether it

is focused on reducing the power of that, I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Kids are sitting in front—this is a different

subject but I think it is relevant to talk about it. It is related.

Kids sit in front of computers all the time. I mean they are constantly there, either studying or playing games. I mean they are

watching that. Many of them, most kids I think today, the younger

ones, are using those more than they are watching television even.

This exposure from a computer, does that emit radio waves and

is that a threat as well?

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, if I can answer that, if it is a wireless

computer, yes. If it is wired, there is a little bit of radiofrequency

radiation in any computer screen, any television screen, but there

is not significant exposure.

So wired devices, a wired telephone is not going to release any

radiofrequency radiation. Most computers are not going to unless

they are in the wireless mode.

Mr. BURTON. I am about out of time. The phones that we have

at home, everybody has a mobile phone they are carrying around

their house. My wife loses it all the time, and I hope she is watching. Do they emit as much radiation as the cell phones?

Mr. KNAPP. Generally not, and the reason for that is your home

phone is only trying to go maybe 100 feet or so as opposed to a cell

phone that has to get back to a tower that might be a mile and

a half away. So it is generally much less.

Mr. BURTON. I think I have run out of time, but you are telling

me that this little device, if we use it and if we keep the cell phone

210

away from vital organs in the body, we reduce our risk, according

to you, fairly dramatically. OK.

Mrs. MARKS. Can I make one comment, please?

Mr. BURTON. Sure, sure.

Mrs. MARKS. What we have all purchased since this happened

with my husband are ear buds with a little microphone. They are

$10 and plug into your cell phone.

Remarkably, my husband stopped using his cell phone to his ear

upon the diagnosis, and at his first MRI his tumor had not grown

as aggressively as the doctors had suspected.

So one thing we might want to consider—I don’t know if it is coincidence or not—is buy some ear buds and plug them into your

phone. I think that could help tremendously. I hope the scientists

agree with me.

Mr. BURTON. Can I ask one more?

I carry these things in my pocket all the time. I don’t want to

get prostate cancer or anything else. I don’t think anybody else

does.

Is there any kind of a device that is around, like a lead device

or something that you could put around these things that would

keep them from emitting—I mean people are going to ask these

questions—that would keep them from emitting in the kinds of

ways that might endanger people?

I see Dr. Hoover is squirming all over the place with this thing,

but I would just like to know from your perspective.

Mr. CARPENTER. I was given a little woven net at this meeting

in London 2 weeks ago that really does prevent the radiation from

getting out. Now I don’t know how practical that is in terms of if

you carry it in your pocket, you want to be able to receive a call

if it comes in, but there are some devices.

Mr. BURTON. What is that substance? What is that thing made

out of?

Mr. CARPENTER. I am not sure what it is made of, but it is just

a little woven pocket that you slip——

Mr. BURTON. And it cuts down the amount of radiation.

Mr. CARPENTER. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes the Congresswoman from California, Congresswoman Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this

hearing.

As I mentioned up front, I have experienced that not only in my

own family, with several of my friends. I think many of you know

of the late Johnnie Cochran, and there is a lot of concern about

what brought on his tumors and caused his death.

But when I came in, Mrs. Marks, you were speaking. What kind

of work did your husband do?

Mrs. MARKS. My husband went to medical school, and then he

switched careers. He is a real estate developer and broker.

Ms. WATSON. I see.

Mrs. MARKS. And used to be involved in the financial end of real

estate.

211

Ms. WATSON. So he had that phone at his ear 24–7, I would

imagine.

Mrs. MARKS. He did.

Ms. WATSON. Yes.

Mrs. MARKS. Yes. It was a vital part of his work.

Ms. WATSON. You know I have been doing a visual study myself

because of my 39-year-old niece. She had a tumor, cancerous tumor

on her left ear first. It was removed, and 3 years later it appeared

again on the right side.

I was told by the doctor that the cancer stayed under a flap in

her cranium. So I just want to say if the cancer is in the body, the

cells can remain there, and he said that it just went elsewhere and

appeared again.

Mr. Knapp, you mentioned in your testimony that as the FCC is

the primary regulator of cell phones, the Agency gets its information about evolving science around cell phones and tumors or other

health effects from other agencies, primarily from the FDA. Do you

know if there is any staff person who has a background in health

or biological sciences, any expertise, at the FCC?

Mr. KNAPP. At the FCC, not in the area of analyzing biological

data or medical science.

Our focus is on the implementations. Once the standard is in

place, we have the engineers who can make sure that the products

comply with the standards.

Ms. WATSON. Well, how often does the FDA discuss information

with the FCC on science of health effects and your research and

how does this exchange occur? Do they communicate and coordinate?

Mr. KNAPP. It happens at many levels. Staff from FDA and FCC

both participate in some of the standards-setting organizations that

deal in this field.

There is an interagency working group that includes FDA, EPA,

OSHA, all the agencies involved in this that communicates about

four times a year.

And then we also have informal staff to staff meetings to discuss

broad topics of interest between our agencies—radio devices, including any changes on RF exposure. That meets two to three

times a year.

Ms. WATSON. So they do share with you, information.

Mr. KNAPP. Absolutely.

Ms. WATSON. If so, does the FCC issue new rules pertaining to

the cell phones and how would the Agency be able to deliberate

upon public comments pertaining to health effects?

I mean I am sure they get lots of calls. What happens as a result

of obtaining this information?

Mr. KNAPP. Typically, what happens, we will participate in these

meetings and ask for advice from those health agencies as to is

there something we should be doing, should we have a standard

that is adopted, should it be changed. And thus far, we haven’t gotten guidance to change that from the other agencies.

As far as were we to be in the position of trying to evaluate that,

we really don’t have the expertise to tell which level causes which

effects and which studies are valid on the medical side.

212

Ms. WATSON. I think I heard somewhere on the panel that some

countries are issuing warnings. Does anyone on the panel know

what countries and what kind of warnings they are issuing?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Yes, I would be happy to speak to that.

Before I issued my advisory back in late July, several countries

in Europe had put out such precautionary advisories. They were

specifically Germany, France and Sweden and also the Province of

Ontario.

And after my advisory was issued, the Government of Israel also

came out with parallel recommendations.

I would also, if I could just take another minute, I would like to

address one point about what you are raising about the FCC regulations. Mr. Knapp has referred specifically to the SARs which are

helpful indications of the amount of absorption that occurs from the

radiofrequency into the brain.

I point out that these are based on adults and, as I said in my

testimony, there is quite striking evidence that if you do the same

type of absorption studies in children, the amount of absorption

into the brain is considerably greater.

I actually brought a visual model to demonstrate what Professor

Ghandi, who did studies along these lines, has actually shown, and

his studies have been confirmed by French Telecom.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, can we have a little more time to

see these models?

Mr. KUCINICH. We are going to go to another.

Dr. HERBERMAN. This would take one, just a couple of seconds.

Mr. KUCINICH. Sure, of course. Yes, we are going to go to another

level of questioning, but please proceed.

Dr. HERBERMAN. If I could just show, this is the model of the

brain that shows the amount of absorption into the brain of an

adult. It only goes about 2 inches into the brain.

This is a model of the same part of the brain near the ear of a

5-year-old child. This goes pretty far into the brain, and I think

that is something that the FCC should consider to talk about the

amount of absorption in the brains of children as opposed to adults.

Mr. KUCINICH. Could staff bring that model up here for a

minute?

Mr. BURTON. Can we get pictures of that. Is there any way?

Ms. WATSON. I saw some pictures.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would staff bring the model up here? I just want

to take a look at it.

The gentlelady’s time has expired on this round. We are going to

come back. We are going to take another round here.

Mr. BURTON. Can I make an inquiry? Let me just make an inquiry. I don’t know whether it is possible, but is there any way

with our copying devices to make copies of that so we can take

those with us?

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Herberman.

Dr. HERBERMAN. Actually, within my written testimony, we have

a photograph showing the same thing.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Just for the record here, this model, Dr.

Herberman, is an adult brain model. Is that what you are saying?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. On this model, where is the cell phone?

213

Dr. HERBERMAN. The thing sticking out on the side is supposed,

the cardboard thing.

Mr. KUCINICH. The cell phone is right here.

Dr. HERBERMAN. Right there.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. The cell phone is here. We are trying to keep

this close to the model.

The cell phone is here, and you are saying that the directed energy from that cell phone goes in like this and then expands out

into the tissue of the brain.

Dr. HERBERMAN. Right. Yes, and this shows.

Mr. KUCINICH. So I am just turning it in another view. That is

what an adult brain. What is your basis for that?

Are there studies that prove this? Is that what you are saying?

Dr. HERBERMAN. This was done with models in which radiofrequency signals that are in the same range as the commonly used

cell phone were used for this.

Mr. KUCINICH. Now this would be a model of a child’s brain at

what age?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Five years old.

Mr. KUCINICH. A 5-year-old child.

Do you have research that shows, public health research, Dr.

Carpenter, that 5-year-old children will use a cell phone? Is that

possible?

Mr. CARPENTER. I have had inquiries from parents of 2-year-old

children who have given their child the on cell phone to play with.

I don’t think most 5-year-olds are making phone calls, but when

kids get in elementary school, they begin.

Mr. KUCINICH. So, OK. Now here, we have seen the effect. Here

is the adult brain effect of use of the cell phone, and then we look

at the child. Again, so the cell phone is here, is that right?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. The cell phone is here, and it is a very deep penetration, you are saying. Now is this kind of penetration of the energy of a cell phone, the radiofrequency, the radiation, we are saying. Would you say that, from looking at this visually, is it your

testimony that most of the brain of a child would receive some of

this energy?

Dr. HERBERMAN. That is correct. Most of the brain, at least on

that side of the head, would be absorbing that energy, and it is a

simple explanation for it. One is that the skull is considerably thinner in a child, and it doesn’t reach maturity until the twenties.

In addition to that, the nerves in the brain in an adult are protected by a myelin sheath. In children, the myelin has not fully developed. So there are several reasons for the increased absorption

in a child.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to talk a little bit more about children

here. You are saying that children are more vulnerable, just no

question about it. I mean you presented models here which demonstrate that. You say there is research that backed that up.

This is a model of a 5-year-old. Now are children 10 years old

vulnerable?

Dr. HERBERMAN. This was actually done as part of the same

modeling experiment and, as you might guess, the model of the

214

brain of a 10-year-old is somewhere in between that of a 5-yearold and an adult.

Mr. KUCINICH. Children, 15 years old, we are talking teenagers,

young teenagers, do they have a vulnerability? Is it your testimony

they have a vulnerability?

Dr. HERBERMAN. I believe they still are more vulnerable than

adults because of the myelin.

Mr. KUCINICH. You believe or you know, Doctor? Doctor, you believe or you know?

Dr. HERBERMAN. This has not been directly studied, but I think

from other biologic information I know that there is not as much

myelin protection to a teenager as there is for an adult.

Mr. KUCINICH. One of the things that occurs to me, and my colleagues I think would probably support this, is it is customary in

our society to look at various products or substances and say that

children should not be permitted to have access to them or to use

them.

For example, States have passed laws that restrict children from

being able to purchase cigarettes. States have laws that restrict

children from being able to purchase alcohol. We even have national standards that restrict children’s access to being able to

watch certain types of movies.

Should there be, and I would like to have a response from the

doctors who are here, is it your judgment that as a precautionary

measure, there should be national standards of either warning or

precaution relating to the use of cell phones for children of any

age?

Dr. Carpenter.

Mr. CARPENTER. I would certainly support warnings in precautionary levels. I wouldn’t say that the evidence is so overwhelming that absolutely prohibiting them.

I do have Dr. Hardell’s slide that he presented 2 weeks ago,

showing that the risk for people under the age of 20 when they

start to use their cell phone is increased by 5.2 fold whereas for the

overall population, including that group, there is only a 1.4 percent

increase in risk.

I think the evidence is certainly strong enough for warnings that

children should not use cell phones.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you recommend that we would take strong preventive action now based on evidence in hand?

Mr. CARPENTER. Absolutely, because the failure to do that is

going to lead us to an epidemic of brain cancer in the future.

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Herberman, would you respond?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Yes, at a couple of levels. One is I think the

statements from the wireless phone industry, when they sell cell

phones, should include the data about the specific absorption rates

for children as well as adults so that people will be better informed

about this issue.

And, second, that is why, as one of the precautions that I have

advised and several other countries have advised, is to warn that

children, particularly young children, should limit their cell phone

use.

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Hoover, do you have a response?

215

Dr. HOOVER. I think it does depend on whether there is a risk

or not.

Mr. KUCINICH. What depends on if there is a risk?

Dr. HOOVER. Pardon me?

Mr. KUCINICH. What depends if there is a risk?

Dr. HOOVER. Whether you would make a recommendation or not.

I have not had the opportunity to see Dr. Hardell’s study, but presumably it will be in the peer review literature soon, and I can

take a look at it.

And there is, I think, a very good study that is being concluded.

Its field phase is December, and probably we will have data in

early 2009 or mid-2009 which should go a long way toward telling

us if there is a risk among children.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Dr. Hoover.

The Chair recognizes, once again, Mr. Burton of Indiana.

Mr. BURTON. You know when I look at these models, these

brains, how did they come up with this? How did you decide how

far the radiation was going?

I mean you obviously didn’t cut somebody’s brain open. How can

you tell that the danger is this severe with a child and how severe

it is with an adult?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Well, this was not actually done with brains.

This, as described in the publication by Professor Ghandi and the

reference for that is in the appendix to my written testimony, was

making a model of what is known about the thickness of the skull

and other characteristics of the brain of a child compared to an

adult and then using radiofrequency signals that mimic the type of

radiation that one gets to the ear by holding a cell phone to the

ear. So it is modeling data rather than actual human or brain data.

But it has not only been done by Professor Ghandi. As I said,

French Telecom came out with a study recently that confirmed Professor Ghandi’s results. So I believe it is quite credible.

Mr. BURTON. I am not disputing that at all but when you start

talking about putting warning labels on products. I think you are

probably correct, but I am playing devil’s advocate here.

Shouldn’t you do some tests on possibly animals by putting some

kind of a device similar to a cellular phone near their ear and

watch the result of that?

I mean I still don’t understand how you can be really accurate

from just a model without actually seeing the effect on a living organism.

Dr. HERBERMAN. I can’t specifically respond to this, but maybe

Dr. Carpenter can.

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, in this, I have this publication here. What

they did was construct model brains of the composition that you

would have of these different ages and then put probes in to measure the penetration of the radiofrequency fields.

Now, unfortunately, those probes, they are not small. So actually

putting them into, say, a monkey brain would be technically complicated, but I basically do agree with you that it would be much

better to have real measurements in a living brain.

Mr. BURTON. Is there anything in the human skull or brain that

is substantially different than the test model? The reason I am askVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:14 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50096.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
216

ing that is because the test model may show these things, and is

it conclusive that the human brain will have the same reaction?

Mr. CARPENTER. There certainly is always the possibility that

your model is inaccurate. I acknowledge that.

This was done to the best of the understanding of the electrical

characteristics of the skull and the brain tissue by Dr. Ghandi. He

is a member of the IEEE. So he is an expert in the physical properties of these fields.

Mr. BURTON. So there is no doubt that the radio waves are penetrating. Whether or not this is entirely accurate may be questionable, but there is no question that the radio waves are going into

the brain and could cause tumors.

Mr. CARPENTER. That is precisely how I see that result.

Mr. BURTON. One more thing, I was asking about us carrying

these phones around, and I carry two phones and a computer. It

scares the dickens out of me.

But when you carry those in your pocket, what evidence is there

that the radio waves will penetrate far enough to get to your vital

organs? They are not on the surface.

Dr. HERBERMAN. If I could address that, there is not a lot of data

about this, but I have been struck by two reports that I think are

relevant. One was a study from the Cleveland Clinic that reported

that men who carried cell phones around in their pocket had lower

sperm counts, and another report indicated that by taking bone

marrow from the hip on the side where the cell phone is kept in

the pocket had lower bone marrow counts for generating bloodforming cells.

So I think this is suggestive evidence, but more needs to be done

to be certain about that.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. MARKS. Can I make a comment as a parent about the children issue?

Mr. KUCINICH. Please proceed.

Mrs. MARKS. There was a report in our local newspaper recently

on opening day of school that between 80 to 90 percent of the children in elementary school came back to school with cell phones.

I have also heard from Lloyd Morgan, who is a scientist and was

recently in London at the conference that Dr. Carpenter and Dr.

Hardell were at, that children are sleeping, and teenagers, with

their cell phones underneath their pillows. I can’t imagine that

would not be a risk, considering what I have heard today.

I also called AT&T for my husband’s cell phone records. And,

while I was on hold AT&T, has a recorded message playing, and

one of the things that they say is please limit the amount of time

that your child uses a cell phone. I would like to know why they

are saying that.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady for her additional comments, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. You know you have given us such food for thought.

Just through my observation, I am seeing that we suffer under a

great deal of risk, given the kinds of radiation-contributing devices

we have in our homes and around our children and that flesh that

seems to be absorbent, so absorbent when you are young is exposed

to it, 24–7, in every room in their homes.

217

This is a question and whoever might address it, I would appreciate it. Can the use of high frequency wireless network routers in

the home be a potential health hazard as well?

Mr. KNAPP. The FCC also authorizes those kinds of devices. The

power levels, again, are generally much lower. We do look at them

to make sure that they are either going to comply with a SAR

standard or an RF exposure risk.

Generally, there are two things that reduce any risk from those

kinds of products: the lower power level and the separation. So we

don’t have those products up against our bodies.

Ms. WATSON. I note that in a lot of businesses now they have a

screen they are putting, separating the human from the screen on

the computer. Do you know those screens they are putting in front

of the television screen, any of you?

Mr. KNAPP. I am not sure exactly which screens you mean but

the old picture tubes.

Ms. WATSON. The picture tubes and then there is a screen they

are using.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, but the screens that are used today, the LCD

screens and the plasmas, generally don’t pose a risk that I am

aware of. They don’t use the kind of radiation that the old big picture tubes did.

Ms. WATSON. The old ones.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

Ms. WATSON. New technology is reducing the risk.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.

What are the trends in brain cancer rates for young adults and

children, Dr. Hoover? Dr. Hoover, do you have information about

that?

Dr. HOOVER. Yes. The rates in children went up a little bit in

going from the 1970’s to the 1980’s.

Mr. KUCINICH. From when?

Dr. HOOVER. From the 1970’s to the 1980’s.

And then, as for the total rate, have been pretty level from the

late eighties until currently or until 2005 which is our recent data.

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Herberman.

Dr. HERBERMAN. Yes. We have been looking at this issue and

are, in fact, preparing a publication related to this.

Mr. KUCINICH. Could you bring that mic a little bit closer.

Dr. HERBERMAN. Yes. We are actually carefully looking at the

studies from the SEER Registry that the NCI and the CDC maintain. And what I have been struck by is an increased rate over the

last 10 years or so, particularly for individuals in the age range between 20 and 29, and this would fit perhaps with the Hardell data

that Dr. Carpenter was alluding to and again is of concern.

Mr. KUCINICH. Is the latency for brain cancer longer than? Is

there a latency period of the cancer involved here?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Well, we can’t really be certain, but based on

general experience with tumors of this type and others I am estimating that a latent period of 10 years or more is a very likely

thing. But we need more evidence about that.

218

Mr. KUCINICH. If brain cancer was associated or is associated

with cell phones, when would this exposure become evident in the

human population?

Dr. HERBERMAN. If it takes indeed more than 10 years as I am

surmising, then it would probably be another 5 years or more in

the United States, at least, before we would see the effects of the

almost ubiquitous use now of cell phones.

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Carpenter, would you like to respond?

Dr. HOOVER. I was just saying that I could certainly provide.

Mr. KUCINICH. Excuse me, Dr. Hoover.

Dr. HOOVER. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. I directed a question to Dr. Carpenter. I will come

back to you. You will have every opportunity to respond, and I

would like you to just follow procedure, and everything is going to

be fine.

Dr. Carpenter.

Mr. CARPENTER. I am afraid I don’t have any specific information

on rates in children.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Dr. Hoover.

Dr. HOOVER. I was just going to say that I can certainly send the

rates from the SEER Program to the committee for the record

when I go back, the age specific rates over time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much. Also, when you send that,

Dr. Hoover, the subcommittee unfortunately did not receive a copy

of your written testimony and, of course, it is customary to provide

the committees with written testimony before a witness appears.

That didn’t happen, and I am asking on behalf of the subcommittee

if you will provide this subcommittee with your written testimony

within the next 5 business days, so we may include it in the record

of this hearing.

Dr. HOOVER. We did send you the NCI fact sheet which was generated by myself and others which would basically the substance

of such a written record.

Mr. KUCINICH. Maybe it wasn’t explained to you but a narrative

explaining that is also helpful. So if you could submit to the subcommittee, written testimony, we would be very grateful.

Dr. HOOVER. OK, good. We did clear it with the committee, the

subcommittee because of the kind. I know we were a substitute for

somebody else.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am grateful that you are here. Thank you, Dr.

Hoover.

I would like to ask a question that may seem technical, but it

has very serious implications. The FCC sets an absorption level

called the specific absorption level of 1.6 watts per kilogram. That

is the exposure limit. Is that correct, Mr. Knapp? Just yes or no.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. That number was calculated, assuming that

the only way radiofrequency emissions could inflict harm would be

to heat the tissue similar to the way that a microwave heats food.

And this question is directed to any of the witnesses. What evidence is there that cell phones can cause biological responses in

ways that do not involve heating of the tissue? What health effects

or biological responses are potentially implicated?

219

Which of the witnesses would like to answer that question?

Dr. Carpenter.

Mr. CARPENTER. There are literally hundreds of experimental

studies and animal model systems and in isolated cells that show

biological effects of radiofrequency radiation at levels that do not

cause tissue heating. Not all of those effects are necessarily harmful.

I think the strongest evidence that there is reason to be concerned in humans is the evidence on the association between brain

tumors and cell phone use because while the energy of the cell

phones has gone down over time, the evidence is really quite

strong.

And, I should say that this is not just Dr. Hardell. There are

studies from other investigators in Finland, in Sweden, in Germany, in France that show this elevation in brain cancer risk after

more than 10 years of exposure, but I think that evidence is what

concerns me most because those are exposures that fall within the

current FCC guidelines.

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Herberman, do you wish to respond?

Dr. HERBERMAN. Well, I have very much enjoyed the opportunity

to review the publications in the BioInitiative Report that Dr. Carpenter played a lead role in, and I have been impressed that there

are quite a number of studies, both at the cellular level but also

at animals levels, indicating that there is effects and damage.

And the thing that has struck me the most, and I think this is

important to have in the record, is there are several reports from

very experienced, credible scientists of damage to the DNA which

we know is a central mechanism for developing tumors and malignant cancer. This is surprising at one level because one wouldn’t

have expected that from non-ionizing radiation which the radio frequencies are.

Mr. KUCINICH. How would that happen? We are laymen here, if

you could just very briefly describe how it is possible that the radio

frequencies from a cell phone could conceivably have an effect on

changing or damaging DNA.

Dr. HERBERMAN. My favorite hypothesis about this, but it needs

to be experimentally tested, is that this could be generating what

we refer to as reactive oxygen species to separate the oxygen from

the hydrogen in water which then has the ability to damage the

DNA. And this needs to be demonstrated, but I think this is a very

plausible explanation.

Mr. KUCINICH. Dr. Hoover, your response?

Dr. HOOVER. Yes, there are certainly biological effects of radio

emissions, and I think I agree with the others that the question is

are they things that might be related to cancer risk. And that is

what hasn’t been vetted well yet in the laboratory and which would

be really useful to understand underlying biologic mechanisms.

I know that very recently there has been these reports of ability

to actually do genetic damage, and some of them I guess are currently under scrutiny as to whether they might be withdrawn or

not. So I think the area is actually still evolving.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Dr. Hoover.

Mrs. MARKS. Can I answer that as a lay person because one scientist did explain it to me?

220

Mr. KUCINICH. Sure.

Mrs. MARKS. I was explained that cellular radiation is—and

please correct me if I am wrong—the only technology now that we

have that combines two different radiation waves. They travel in

two different paths or two different waves. Am I correct in saying

that, and it combines the two?

Mr. KUCINICH. Would anyone like to respond?

Mrs. MARKS. And our brains are not equipped to handle that?

Mr. KUCINICH. Would anyone respond to that?

Mr. KNAPP. It just gets a little complicated, very technical. There

is a electrical and a magnetic component to a wave. So, technically,

that is true.

Mr. KUCINICH. So radio frequencies and electromagnetic?

Mr. KNAPP. Except that it is the radio portion of the wave that

propagates through space.

Mr. KUCINICH. Is what she said essentially true?

Mr. KNAPP. That there are two components to it, yes, a magnetic.

I am sorry that it is getting so technical.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, no. I mean actually technical relates to

science relates to health effects. So here we are.

Mr. KNAPP. There is a magnetic component that usually propagates a very short distance.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Knapp, one of the concerns about the current

specific absorption rate is that they assume the person who is exposed is a 6-foot tall man. Does that make the allowable exposure

limit higher or lower?

Mr. KNAPP. The limit is a flat limit. So it doesn’t vary. It is for

the device.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Knapp, we just heard testimony that there

are varying effects based on the thickness of, let’s say, the adult’s

skull versus a child’s skull. Isn’t that the testimony we have heard

here? So you have heard that testimony.

There is established by the FCC a specific absorption rate. What

do you have to say, now that you have heard this testimony?

Do you think that the allowable exposure limit should be higher

or lower or, based on what you have heard, is there evidence that

children are more vulnerable than adults and that might cause the

FCC to have to take that into account when construction your specific absorption rate which is the exposure limit that you enforce?

Mr. Knapp.

Mr. KNAPP. The standard that is in place is based on an industry

recommended and recommended by other Federal Agencies accepted standard. It has a margin built into that standard.

Mr. KUCINICH. When was that standard developed? When was

the baseline for that standard?

Mr. KNAPP. In 1997. There has also been ongoing work. The

IEEE has developed a subsequent standard, but it is actually more

lenient than our current standard.

Mr. KUCINICH. When you say that the industry recommended it,

did you just testify to that?

Mr. KNAPP. When I said industry, perhaps that was an imprecise

word because these were an IEEE committee that is open to all.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would you explain to people what the IEEE is?

221

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. It is a professional society that develops standards, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. It follows

the American National Standards guidelines, so that it has to be

open to all who want to participate. It includes members of government, users and manufacturers and health specialists. So it is developed by a broad range of experts.

Mr. KUCINICH. This was established, as you said, 1997.

Mr. KNAPP. Correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. You have heard testimony here in September

2008, 11 years later, that indicates that with respect to children

there is an increased likelihood of adverse health effects. Having

heard that testimony, how would you choose to proceed with respect to the exposure limits that the FCC sets on a specific absorption rate?

Mr. KNAPP. The FCC doesn’t have the expertise to evaluate

whether the standard is an appropriate protection level for the

cases that were discussed here.

Mr. KUCINICH. So where do you get the expertise?

Mr. KNAPP. From, I think, the other Federal Agencies that are

conducting ongoing research.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Thank you, Mr. Knapp.

Congresswoman Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a nexus right into the question that is on my mind. Any of

you, can you tell us about the research and the studies that are

currently taking place and when can we expect results and are

there any being initiated through one of our Federal Agencies?

Who would like to respond?

Mr. CARPENTER. I think I can probably answer that well. There

are a number of studies. As already been mentioned, this INTERPHONE Study, it is a partnership between the World Health Organization and the cell phone industry. It is going on in a number

of countries in Europe, also in Israel and Australia.

The report was expected about 2 years ago, and there have been

preliminary reports released from some of the studies. And the latest gossip, at least, is that the members of the committee that are

supposed to write the final report cannot agree, and nobody knows

when this final report will be out.

One of the surprising findings is that for short-term use, many

of these studies are showing a protective effect, in other words,

fewer cases of brain cancer. That doesn’t have any biologic sense.

So it probably indicates a fault in the design of all of those studies.

Ms. WATSON. When you say short-term use, what do you mean?

Mr. CARPENTER. Less than 10 years.

Ms. WATSON. Using a cell phone for less than 10 years.

Mr. CARPENTER. That is correct.

Now some of those studies are getting information on more than

10 years, but apparently what they are finding is that it looks like

in the short term it protects you from brain cancer. And then as

time goes on, as you use it longer and longer, it gets near. It gets

higher, but it never gets to statistical significance in all of the studies.

222

So that may reflect a real increase in risk with prolonged time,

but it is still uncertain, and we are waiting for the full results to

come out which may come out sometime in the next year.

Ms. WATSON. Would there be a difference in a person, say, that

uses a cell phone?

When you said short-term use, I am thinking of the use of the

cell phone by an individual, not the years that cell phone has been

used by an individual but the use of time on your cell phone.

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, our understanding is that like any other

environmental exposure, it is both how much time for how many

years and also there is a factor of we are not all the same genetically.

Ms. WATSON. The length of calls.

Mr. CARPENTER. So there is a matter of variations and susceptibility, and these are all issues that have to be factored in, and that

is why you need a large number of cases to really factor out the

things that influence the risk of cancer.

Ms. WATSON. You mentioned the World Health Organization and

other countries. Are there any studies being initiated here, FCC,

FDA, at universities?

Mr. CARPENTER. I am not aware of any studies in the United

States. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

did support a program on EMFs, but that ended in the late 1980’s,

1990’s, and there has been almost no attention to this issue in the

United States. And this, in my judgment, is urgently needed with

the best possible exposure assessment.

Dr. HERBERMAN. If I could just add a little bit to what Dr. Carpenter said.

Ms. WATSON. Please.

Dr. HERBERMAN. I agree completely with what his last remarks

were. We urgently need such a study, and that is what I was alluding to at the end of my testimony.

One of the things that my colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute are planning, particularly together with

epidemiologists at M.D. Anderson Cancer Institute, but it would require the cooperation of the wireless industry, would be to obtain

the billing records of use.

We know from other types of medical outcome studies that billing records are the most accurate, objective indication of use of various procedures and, rather than rely on likely faulty recollections,

the billers get it right all the time.

They have the records of how much, how long, and that type of

information that could be linked with other information that you

have to get a history on—like is there also use of cordless phones

and how much is that used—would, I think, take us a substantial

distance toward a better, more definitive study than the ones that

have been done so far.

Ms. WATSON. Would you yield me just another second to kind of

summarize what I am thinking?

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentlelady may proceed.

Ms. WATSON. I think back to the years that it took us in California to study the effects of tobacco, 14 years, and California was the

first State to come out with the no smoking policy. I remember

under Governor Jerry Brown, it was no smoking on planes in CaliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:14 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50096.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
223

fornia air space. It has spread now globally—lead, asbestos and so

on.

I am thinking is the industry so powerful that they have not

wanted to engage in looking at the risk that comes about from high

technology?

What I think we ought to do and certainly our chairman is very,

very experienced in coming out with innovative approaches, but I

think we ought to, as a committee, recommend to the FCC or the

FDA or the National Institutes of Health that we start looking into

these studies.

I think we need to drive this, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.

Mr. KUCINICH. Just to respond to my colleague, Congresswoman

Watson, we will.

I also want to let you know that staff has informed us that most,

if not all, cell phones currently come with some kind of a warning

from the FDA. That may be because of more research that might

be more recent than the FCC relies on for its specific absorption

rate.

So one of the things we will need to do is to get these agencies

to communicate with each other. That is No. 1.

But something that has come from this committee, I am going to

comment on when I conclude these questions.

I want to just ask you to put yourself in a mother’s or father’s

shoes. You are told to protect your children from certain TV programs, chemicals in the water and food, chemicals in the air. Parents have to protect a child from more things than we could even

mention here today.

Now what we are doing in this hearing is empowering people

with scientific information to further protect themselves. But is

that realistic?

Should the onus be on the cell phone user or should the onus be

on the companies that profit from this technology? Should they

bear some burden? What should they do?

I would like to hear a response to that question, starting with

Dr. Hoover and going down the line to Mrs. Marks, and if you

could each keep your response brief.

Dr. HOOVER. Well, I think certainly knowledge, particularly

knowledge disseminated to the public, is good and people can actually make personal decisions because obviously personal decisions

about risk are widely variable. Even in this area, there are still

people who talk on cell phones when they are in cars, and there

is overwhelming evidence that is a very bad thing to do.

So I think that there is value to pushing out good information

of what we know and what we don’t know, so people can make

those kind of risk decisions themselves.

I think in the area of making public health recommendations it

is a lot trickier because the standard is usually quite a bit higher

mainly because people believe that if it comes out as a public

health recommendation, there is a whole lot of science behind it.

We undercut ourselves if we don’t demand that sort of science to

make our public health recommendations.

I know I have been embroiled in Saccharin and bladder cancer

and coffee drinking and pancreatic cancer, which had a fairly large

constituency and evidence that someone should do something, but

224

the science was not there yet. And as the science got there, it became less true.

So I believe that there are two paths to go down. One is to get

the information out so that people can make, can see what the level

of evidence is and isn’t and make personal decisions and to improve

on what is really currently lack of adequate scientific evidence to

move to a solid public health recommendation.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Dr. Herberman.

Dr. HERBERMAN. I would urge that this committee use its powers

of persuasion with the cell phone industry to fully cooperate in the

design of independent studies done by academia as I described a

minute ago to really get the answer. If the answer is that there is

no connection between cancer and cell phone use, I would be absolutely delighted.

But I think we have to get the answer, and getting the billing

records and cooperation of the industry I think is very important.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Dr. Carpenter.

Mr. CARPENTER. I think there are three levels that are important. Certainly education of the public is important.

I think that it is really incumbent on the industry to take steps

to find ways in which we can still use our cell phones but without

greater risk.

And then, finally and perhaps in my judgment most importantly,

I think there is a major responsibility of government, and I would

point to my colleagues at the FCC. Their assumption that there is

no adverse effect except tissue heating is simply wrong, and it

comes from—as Mr. Knapp said—the IEEE.

This is a bunch of engineers. They are not people that have

health background. They may have some health advisors, but it

isn’t the engineering community that should be setting the health

standards.

And I am firmly convinced that the ultimate protector of the public has to be government. There are a number of other government

agencies involved, but I think all three things are important.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Knapp.

Mr. KNAPP. The standards that we are applying are based on

what has been recommended not only by the IEEE and supported

by other Federal Agencies, but that is what we have been advised

is the appropriate level, and that is where we are applying to ensure that the products do comply with those levels as they go out

the door.

We absolutely support continuing research into this. In fact, the

FDA had tasked the National Academies to make recommendations

for further study, and one of the first areas that they identified was

continuing research relevant to this. And we completely support

the further analysis of this issue.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mrs. Marks.

Mrs. MARKS. Well, as a parent, I feel that the responsibility lies

with our government and the cell phone industry.

I am unaware of the thing that you mentioned about the FDA.

I didn’t feel that this fell entirely under their jurisdiction. I am not

225

aware that they are supplying warnings. So perhaps I am wrong,

but I wasn’t aware.

Mr. KUCINICH. I have been told by staff that there is some language in some of the instruction manuals for the cell phones, but

language in an instruction manual which you may not really see

is a little bit different than a warning.

Mrs. MARKS. Right. Also, I worry terribly about children, but I

feel that their parents should be the ones regulating their use per

government and cell phone industry warnings.

I also worry terribly about children who are going to be losing

parents to this, such as my children. As much as I love children

and I want to protect them, I think that we have to consider that

also.

And I thank you, and I hope that we can make some changes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Does my colleague, Congresswoman Watson, have any closing remarks here?

Ms. WATSON. Let me just say how much I appreciate the testimony here today. I think it opens up our eyes as to what our responsibility should be. Government plays a tremendous role.

I am thinking about China and the babies that have died and

gotten sick because there wasn’t the oversight or the monitoring

and what they put in the formula, and I think about Similac in the

1970’s that was given to babies in Africa.

I am just saying where is the public’s responsibility and government’s responsibility to protect the public’s health?

I am just appalled that studies have not been initiated, and I

think I know why—because industry now and people have made

millions off of these high technological devices without really taking time to look at their long-range effect.

I think that it is incumbent on us, Mr. Chairman, and I know

that you share those thoughts as well. You demonstrated them in

the past. So thank you very much, and I would like to thank our

witnesses for the time they spent with us today.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.

I want to note for the record, apropos of what Dr. Herberman

and Dr. Carpenter have mentioned, that in preparing her testimony, that Mrs. Marks did submit to this subcommittee extensive

medical records of her husband, extensive cell phone records of her

husband.

The committee will, of course, review those because it may be

that a kind of evidentiary track will be quite significant in being

able to continue our work to be able to see if there is a case made

for stronger action.

I want to say in conclusion, I certainly thank all the witnesses.

Each of you has brought something to this hearing that has been

quite important.

Mrs. Marks, your family has suffered greatly, and I just want

you to know on a personal basis that I am very impressed with

your courage in coming here and telling this story. It can’t be easy

to do that.

Mrs. MARKS. It is not, and I thank you.

226

Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to note that, that it is much appreciated that you would care enough to bring your story to this committee and to back it up with facts.

Each of the witnesses has presented information that is going to

be very valuable to us. I want you to know that this subcommittee

will continue to retain jurisdiction over this matter.

We will continue to seek the cooperation of the industry. They

will be given another opportunity to testify, and they will be asked

to provide records with respect to these health issues. So we are

not going to let this matter rest.

I want to take a note particularly about what information has

been presented with respect to the possible adverse health effects

concerning children. That is an area that has, I think, some urgent

import, and I will be discussing this matter with other congressional leaders with respect to that.

I want to thank each and every one of you for your presence.

I am Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

This has been a hearing of the subcommittee on the topic of ‘‘Tumors and Cell Phone Use: What the Science Says.’’

Again, thanks to all of you in attendance.

This committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ