WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission is believed to be leaning toward radio frequency radiation exposure guidelines that incorporate Environmental Protection Agency recommendations, a policy shift the wireless telecommunications industry and others oppose and believe is politically driven by FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and EPA head Carol Browner.
A decision is expected by June, presumably to give the FCC time to rule on any challenges before the early August deadline mandated by the new telecommunications law.
Hundt, Browner and their advisers met Dec. 5 at EPA headquarters at which time the FCC chairman, according to a government source, asked Browner whether EPA’s position on RF radiation exposure guidelines had changed since 1993 when it argued in favor of 1986 exposure criteria espoused by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements over that crafted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and adopted in 1992 by the American National Standards Institute.
Browner, according to the source, said EPA still stands by NCRP’s RF radiation exposure guidelines. The FCC proposed initially to certify the IEEE/ANSI standard.
Both Browner and Hundt have close ties to Vice President Gore. Browner was a legislative director for Gore when he was a U.S. senator, while Hundt’s relationship with the vice president goes back to their prep school days in Washington, D.C.
Some proponents of the 1992 IEEE/ANSI standard insist that only a political deal can explain why the FCC would opt for some or all of the 1986 NCRP standard. They question, too, whether EPA has the legal authority to intervene.
FCC and National Telecommunications and Information Administration officials vigorously urged EPA to craft RF radiation exposure guidelines throughout the 1980s. EPA launched a rulemaking, but dropped it for fiscal and policy reasons.
More recently, EPA and other federal health and safety agencies halted efforts to draw up RF radiation guidelines because of the budget crunch.
The wireless telecommunications industry broke off ties with EPA when it learned of the agency’s support for the 1986 NCRP standard, which leaves room for uncertainty about the safety of wireless phones unlike the 1992 IEEE/ANSI standard.
EPA argues the NCRP exposure criteria is more protective of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation than the 1992 IEEE/ANSI standard, but critics argue otherwise.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association said the EPA approach “will create unnecessary confusion and complexity, could delay the deployment of new digital technologies, and would not provide increased protection of public health.”
CTIA, IEEE, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Raytheon Corp. are among those lobbying the FCC against approving any aspect of the NCRP standard.
“There is research that shows there’s biological effects at non-thermal levels,” said Norbert Hankin, a physicist at EPA.
As a consequence, there is a sense that FCC officials feel they cannot approve tighter RF radiation guidelines without the blessing of EPA.
“We’re just trying to find out what are the appropriate guidelines,” said Robert Cleveland, a scientist in the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology.
“CTIA believes that the ANSI/IEEE standard is technically sound and scientifically based, is supported by a broad consensus of knowledgeable experts, and will assure safe use of the vast array of cellular and PCS [personal communications services] entering the marketplace,” the association stated.
The health issue has gained national prominence in recent years with the filing of lawsuits claiming cellular telephones cause brain cancer. No judgments have been rendered against any wireless carrier or manufacturer to date.
A 1994 congressional investigation found that while there was no reason for alarm, research was insufficient to determine conclusively whether pocket phones pose short-term or long-term dangers to consumers.
The wireless telecommunications industry has pledged $25 million toward research in hopes of ascertaining whether pocket telephones pose a public health risk.
Results from that research are expected over the next two years, though some in the scientific community-even those who believe phones are safe-are skeptical about how much weight will be given to industry-funded studies and suggest that all the money thrown at wireless cancer research is a politically convenient way to the keep the issue out of the line of fire.
More than 36 million wireless telephones are in use today, with thousands of new subscribers signing up daily.
Additional research is being sponsored by the wireless industry to resolve interference to hearing aids, cardiac pacemakers and other medical devices from the operation of digital pocket telephones.
