Dear Editor:
Your article in Monday’s RCR is a great disappointment in which you misled your readers.
Somehow you have turned a story about differences in opinion between CTIA and a handful of manufacturers, regarding the assessments collected by CTIA for it’s health and safety programs, into an unwarranted condemnation of the work of Wireless Technology Research, LLC (WTR).
I don’t know where to begin to catalog the inaccuracies in your story. I guess it is the first paragraph which sets the whole tone by alleging, “the five-year, $25 million program is being mismanaged and driven as much by public relations as by science.”
In re: “mismanagement”-The management of the WTR program is independent of CTIA, by design. The WTR research is funded through a blind trust. Your article, incorrectly, turns a disagreement over the collection of funds, a part of which are used to fund the WTR blind trust, into criticism of the research itself.
You will recall that when CTIA first announced the health effects research program there was criticism because the research was not sufficiently independent from the industry. As a result, WTR was created, to be overseen by an independent group of scientists with further guidance from the Harvard School of Public Health and an international peer review board. The source of your allegations appears to be a few manufacturers who would not run WTR the same way, were they in charge. That’s the whole point, neither they nor CTIA are in charge, by design. To conclude, as you have done, that this constitutes the “prospect of the wireless telecommunications industry being accused of hiding biological health risks” is irresponsible and just plain wrong.
In re: “public relations”-Thirty one paragraphs after your “driven as much by public relations” statement, you attempt to substantiate the claim with an anonymous hearsay statement which is specifically denied by the person alleged to have made the statement. When you and I spoke, as you were preparing the article, you assured me that this would be an article based upon factual statements made on the record, not innuendo hiding behind anonymity. I am incredulous that you would put onto the public record as “fact” a statement which the person to whom it is attributed denies and in which the individual making the allegation has so little confidence that he/she refuses to attach his/her name to it.
In re: CTIA and the dosimetry research-The height of your confusion comes when you cite as evidence that “WTR is not completely insulated from industry influence” the fact that CTIA asked WTR to suspend work to select a dosimetry measurement technology to be used by CTIA’s Unit Certification Program. I tried to explain to you when we spoke that this is not part of the health effects research.
The health effects research is designed to answer the question, “Is there a problem?” The dosimetry work was part of the CTIA Unit Certification Program. The goal of the certification project was to look at multiple measurement technologies available to the Certification Program and make a recommendation. The fact that WTR was doing the certification work at all was a vestige of the pre-WTR days when Dr. Carlo was conducting the certification inquiry at the direct request of CTIA. The work continued post the creation of WTR.
The question being asked in the certification project has no relationship to WTR’s effort to answer the question, “Is there a problem?” Because the certification work needed to assess new dosimetry techniques which various manufacturers were using, and because such work would detract from the “Is there a problem?” research both in time and money, and because we were the instigator of this effort in the first place, we suggested to WTR that the certification dosimetry work could wait.
In re: funding disagreement-I spent considerable time with you explaining the blind trust which pays for the WTR work and CTIA’s funding of that blind trust. To allege in your article that the manner in which CTIA raises the funds to pay into that blind trust compromises the “commitment to maintain complete separation of the industry from the research” defies logic. The industry said it would fund the research. If we don’t raise the funds who will?
You chose to build an entire article upon the remarks of those who have some differences with the manner in which that funding has been collected and to brush off in one paragraph all that I told you. For the record, here are the facts:
When the health effect program was first put together the carriers and manufacturers agreed to split the funding. Each group was to develop their own formula for assessments and CTIA would collect the funds,
Two years ago, at the start of CTIA’s FY 95 this joint carrier-manufacturer program was expanded to include non-bioeffects work. These efforts, relating to EMC, safe driving and Tower RF issues, added approximately $500,000 to the total assessment for all manufacturers. The assessment for Lucent (then AT&T), for instance, went up about $67,000 because of the new projects. This expansion was approved by the joint manufacturer-carrier Joint Review Committee (JRC) at its May 10, 1994 meeting.
Wireless carriers have at every step of the way paid exactly the same gross amount to support exactly the same programs as have the manufacturers. When the program was expanded by $500,000 for manufacturers, it was expanded an indentical amount for carriers.
The FY’96 budget followed the same format established by the JRC’s earlier vote.
In mid-year the manufacturers cited in your article expressed their concern that they were being assessed for non-bioeffects work. It was, however, mid-year and funds had been committed with programs in place. As you mentioned, the FY’97 budget eliminates non-bioeffects activities from the manufacturers’ assessment, but not from that of the carriers.
In short, with regard to the funding matters, what’s the issue? A program was approved, changes were subsequently requested and those requests are the basis for the new budget.
The only story here is a difference as to how manufacturers should be assessed for the support of industry programs and that those differences have been addressed.
The real story is:
The wireless industry has acted in a responsible way, contributing millions into a blind trust for independent research to answer the question “Is there a problem?” with no strings attached.
The considerable research undertaken thus far, worldwide, has found no evidence linking wireless phones to health effects.
The government agencies which are following the research closely have seen no reason to intervene in either the research or the way the industry does business.
I stand by the March 8 letter you quoted in the article. The health effects program of the wireless industry stands as a model of responsible industry action. The article you wrote does a great disservice to the industry and to your publication.
Very truly yours,
Thomas E. Wheeler
CTIA President
