Global wireless gatekeepers have been on high alert in recent weeks, preparing for next month’s
publication of a U.K. study linking mobile phones to short-term memory loss and prepping for an April 5 court date on
appeals to the FCC’s radio-frequency radiation exposure standard.
A big dilemma for U.K. and U.S. wireless
lobbyists is damage control. The industry wants to get out in front to discredit Brit news coverage of the research, a
response it considers both professional and responsible.
But the U.K.’s Federation of Electronics Industries feels
somewhat restricted because findings of Bristol University’s Dr. Alan Preece will not be printed in the International
Journal of Radiation Biology until April.
But, alas, bullet points and a comment-on-the-record have been crafted for
Brit tabloid consumption: “It is difficult for the FEI to comment on unpublished research, but we are aware of
the work of Alan Preece at Bristol, and are confident if approached directly, he will confirm that the recent press
speculation completely misrepresents his results. In due course, when the paper is in the public domain, the FEI will be
in a position to offer its own comments.”
Preece, for his part, brilliantly proved the industry and the U.K.
press right in one fell swoop: “There is no need to worry,” the Birmingham Post quoted Preece as
saying. “The effect quickly goes and there is not evidence of a long-term effect.”
The research, if true,
would confirm Bill and Hillary Clinton as avid mobile phone users. It would explain Hillary’s forgetfulness about Rose
Law firm billing records and her husband’s extensive memory lapses during Starr questioning about l’affaire
Lewinsky.
… In retrospect, it does seem a bit simplistic and implausible that House telecom subcommittee
Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association would throw in the towel so
early in the E911 debate and strip federal land antenna-siting provisions from the bill to avoid a row with the National
League of Cities, National Association of Counties et al.
A little birdie now tells us the new-and-improved National
Park Service antenna-siting policy was part of a backroom deal that led to the removal of the federal land siting
language from the bill.
… Like that one, here’s another: Seems ‘build-to-suit’ tower firms are going into local
communities and declaring they cannot be denied permits for health-related reasons because they are covered by Sec.
704 of the telecom act. Are they? While they may own or lease antenna sites to carriers, it’s unclear whether legal rights
and limitations of 704 extend to tower companies that serve, first, as real-estate agents and, later, as landlords for
common carrier wireless utilities. Sec. 704, if you recall, lets locals reject tower applications for noncompliance with
FCC RF guidelines. City planners will catch on soon and lawsuits will fly.
… Shareholders of Orbital Sciences
Corp., parent of Orbcomm, are on the warpath on charges the company overstated revenues and earnings.
