WASHINGTON-The Environmental Protection Agency has given the Federal Communications Commission’s new radiofrequency radiation standard a clean bill of health, an endorsement sought by the wireless industry after a government scientist suggested that even under stricter exposure guidelines consumers may still face potential health risks from pocket telephones.
“I would like to reiterate EPA’s support of the FCC’s final exposure guidelines issued in August as providing adequate protection of public health,” said Mary Nichols, assistant EPA administrator for Air and Radiation.
The wireless industry and the Electromagnetic Energy Association had pressed EPA for months to publicly restate its backing for the new hybrid RF exposure guideline as expressed by EPA head Carol Browner in a letter to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt last July.
“Frankly, we’re just pleased to see they came out to reiterate their original support,” said Sheldon Moss, government relations manager for the Personal Communications Industry Association.
Much confusion and anger were created when Norbert Hankin, an associate under Nichols, told David Fichtenberg of Washington state in an Oct. 8 letter that the new RF standard does not protect against potential nonthermal health risks, like brain cancer, from long-term exposure to highly popular pocket telephones.
There are 45 million wireless phone users, most of whom carry pocket phones that-unlike car phones with disengaged antennas-subject subscribers’ heads to RF emissions because antennas in pocket phones are contained in the handsets.
To industry, Hankin’s statement was troubling because it implied the new RF exposure guideline-which EPA helped craft-left wireless subscribers vulnerable to potentially harmful bioeffects. He is correct, however, in stating the FCC’s RF guideline does not cover nonthermal effects from pocket phones.
Studies are ongoing in the United States and overseas to determine whether pocket phones pose a public health risk. Congress and government regulators contend that because current research is inadequate, it cannot be ascertained yet whether such a risk exists. In the meantime, they have declined to shut down the wireless industry.
Dinah McElfresh, executive director of EEA, said the association sought a clarification of the Hankin letter and got it. But she declined further comment.
While the EPA letter is probably strong enough to assuage the wireless telecom industry-which faces challenges from environmentalists, organized labor, home owners and zoning boards in siting 100,000 antennas for new personal communications services systems-it still leaves wiggle room for other interpretations.
For example, Nichols did little to distance EPA from Hankin’s letter. In fact, she did not dispute Hankin’s interpretation. Rather, she said his letter to Fichtenberg was “incorrectly construed.”
Moreover, Nichols’ characterization of the FCC’s RF standard as “adequate” insofar as offering the public protection could be seen as less than a rousing endorsement.
The FCC, which extended the implementation of the new RF exposure guideline from Jan. 1 to Sept. 1, is poised to act on petitions that challenge various aspects of the hybrid standard and to issue technical guidelines for compliance.
The agency also may propose a mechanism to address differences between carriers and zoning regulators over compliance with RF siting provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
