For links to related news coverage see:
California’s Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage



Oct 3, 2018

Note: The final version of this paper will be available for dissemination soon.
 California Department of Public Health Study of Cell Phone Radiation Exposure
The cell phone radiation exposure study discussed below in conjunction with my successful Public Records Act lawsuit played key roles in the California Department of Public Health’s decision to publish its landmark cell phone safety guidance document, “How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones,” in December, 2017.

Environmental Health Trust issued the following press release about the CDPH study today:
New California State Study Reveals That Cell Phone Use 
in Poor Reception Increases Microwave Radiation 10,000 Times
Teton Village, WY — (SBWIRE) — 10/03/2018 — A new research paper to be published in the journal Environmental Research today by California Department of Public Health (CDPH) research scientists finds that using cell phones used in areas of weak reception can result in microwave radiation emissions 10,000-fold more intense than in areas with strong network signals. In “Real World Cellular Phone Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure,” the scientists tested the microwave radiofrequency radiation levels from almost two dozen different cell phones in “real-world” situations to understand the difference in cell phone radiation exposures people can get in different situations. The paper concludes with “straightforward” recommendations that the public avoid using cell phones when signals are weak, and also recommends that people should limit overall cell phone exposure by using speakerphone, choosing texting rather than voice calls and distancing the phone away from the body, even in areas with strong network signals.


The authors state that “precautionary use of cell phones could lessen a user’s radiofrequency EMF exposure by a factor of up to 10,000.”


In the study funded by the California Department of Health, the research team conducted measurements of the power density exposures of the radiofrequency radiation generated from 22 different cell phone models for calls received under both strong (three or four bars) and weak (one or two bars) reception signal conditions. The researchers tested the radiation directly near the phone and also at several distances away from the phone up to 18 inches (48 cm). They also measured radiation levels from wireless headpieces and discussed relevant scientific research on health effects from phone radiation that informed their study.
The study finds that:
  • Microwave exposures depend not only on the distance from the user that phones are held but also the strength of the signal.
  • Cell phones used in areas of weak reception can result in microwave radiation emissions 10,000-fold more intense than in areas with strong network signals.
  • When used with a weak signal (1 to 2 bars), radiation exposures from all phones were higher intensity by up to four orders of magnitude in comparison to exposures from a strong signal (4 to 5 display bars).Even at distances of more than a foot and half (48 cm), microwave radiation was much higher intensity when signal reception was weak when compared with closer distances in areas with strong signals (2 inches, 4 cm).
  • Headset measurements were 10 to 400 times lower than near-ear measurements of the phones to which they were connected but nonetheless the authors still recommend removing the wireless headset from the ear when not in use and reducing overall talk and listening times.
  • Recent studies indicate that the RF EMF [radiofrequency electromagnetic field] exposures from cellular phones can have a negative impact on animal cells and cognitive and/or behavior development in children. Case-controlled epidemiologic studies have found evidence for increased risk for glioma and localization of the glioma associated with the consistent exposure site of regular mobile phone use.
  • Recent research indicates that equivalent exposures result in proportionally higher cell phone radiation deposition into children when compared to adults.
  • Even though texting increases the distance between the brain and the cell phone, phones are still held close to the body for hours a day. This can create a different exposure that “may cause unknown effects to other organ systems.”
  • Future research should consider exposures of children and adults who are in close proximity to persons who are using a cell phone, requiring RF measurements from the back and sides of the cell phone.
  • The public should follow the CDPH cell phone radiation guidance which tells all persons not to keep phones in the pocket and also includes other practical steps to reduce exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
  • Precautionary use of cell phones such as speakerphone and maintaining a distance between the phone and the body could lessen a user’s radiofrequency EMF exposure by a factor of up to 10,000.
“This important study shows the need to keep wireless devices away from the body, especially whenever we encounter areas of weak signal every day, such as when we are in an elevator, in a traveling car, in the basement or interior rooms of a home. Limiting cell phone use in weak signal areas potentially reduces RF EMF exposure by up to a factor of 10,000,” stated Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President of Environmental Health Trust.
The study was funded by the California Department of Health when the Department was developing advice to the public about why and how to reduce microwave exposures and was considering listing cell phone radiation as a suspected cause of cancer under Proposition 65, the state’s advisory list of suspected cancer causes. California State initially began drafting recommendations on how state workers should reduce cell phone exposure in 2009, and over the years the information was edited into a document for the public rather than workers. A lawsuit by the Environmental Law Clinic of Berkeley Law School [and the First Amendment Project (Moskowitz vs. California Department of Public Health)] resulted in the release of more than 100 pages of CDPH drafts of cell phone guidance, and the final CDPH guidance was finally released to the public soon afterwards in December 2017.
“Using a wired phone, rather than a wireless cell phone whenever possible is the best way to minimize your exposure,” stated Theodora Scarato Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust who recommended that at home people should keep their landlines or consider a Voice Over IP (VOIP) phone service if a copper landline is not available in their area. Scarato pointed out that over two hundred scientists have called on the United Nations to take urgent action on this issue due to the current body of evidence and that over a dozen countries have official policies to educate and minimize exposure to the public.
The paper entitled “Real World Cellular Phone Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure” by Stephen Wall, PhD; Zhong-Min Wang, PhD; Thomas Kendig, BS; Dina Dobraca, MPH and; Michael Lipsett, JD, MD will be published in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Research.
Final Version of CDPH Cell Phone Safety Guidance Document


California Department of Public Health.”How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones.” December, 2017. http://bit.ly/CDPHguidance

Real World Cellular Phone Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure
Wall S, Wang Z-M, Kendig T, Dobraca D, Lipsett M. Real World Cellular Phone Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure. Environmental Research. 
Available online 3 October 2018.

Highlights

• Cellular phone RF EMF power density exposures in weak signal environments were between one and four orders of magnitude higher than in strong reception environments.

• RF EMF exposure levels under weak reception signal conditions at 48 cm were similar to strong reception signal conditions at 4 cm near ear distance. 

• Under weak reception signal conditions, power density drops by 90% at 16 cm typically used for speaker phone or texting modes compared to a 4 cm near ear exposure.

• Depending on Bluetooth headset model, exposures were 10 to 400 times lower than direct near ear exposure from the cellular phones.

• Exposure reduction measures include increasing distance from cell phone especially in weak reception environments by texting or using a headset, and avoiding close cell phone proximity for extended periods.

Abstract 

In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) from cellular phones as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute have both reported that RF EMF significantly increases glioma and Schwannoma of the heart in rodent studies. Recent studies indicate that the RF EMF exposure from cellular phones have negative impact on animal cells and cognitive and/or behavior development in children. Case- controlled epidemiologic studies have found evidence for mobile phone use and increased risk for glioma and localization of the glioma associated with the consistent exposure site of regular mobile phone use. Understanding the exposure level, or power density, from RF EMF emitted by cell phones under real-world usage and signal reception conditions, as distinct from the published measurements of maximum Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values, may help cell phone users decide whether to take behavioral steps to reduce RF EMF exposure. 
Exposure measurements were conducted on phone models from four major mobile network operators (MNOs) in the USA for calls received under strong and weak reception signal conditions, near the phone face and at several distances up to 48 cm.

RF EMF exposure from all phones were found to be greater under weak (1–2 display bars) than under strong (4–5 display bars) reception signal conditions by up to four orders of magnitude. Notably, RF EMF exposure levels under weak reception signal conditions at a distance of 48 cm from the phone were similar to or greater than those detected under strong reception signal conditions at a distance of 4 cm. Under weak reception signal conditions, power density reductions by 10 times occurred at 16 cm typical for speaker phone or texting modes over the 4 cm near ear exposure.

Reduced and precautionary use of cell phones under weak signal conditions could lessen a user’s RF EMF exposure by a factor of up to 10,000. Bluetooth headset power density exposures were 10 to 400 times lower than those of the phones to which they were connected and dependent on the headset rather than the connected mobile phone. The new CDPH guidance includes practical steps both adults and children could take to reduce exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones.

Conclusion

The results of this study, based on typical strong (4-5 display bars) and weak (1-2 display bars) cell phone reception signal environments, suggest a number of self-protective measures to reduce RF EMF exposure. Due to the higher emission levels for cell phones operating in weak reception signal environments, avoiding or limiting cell phone use under these conditions is the most obvious measure to reduce exposure. Since this may often be impractical, using the cell phone at a moderate distance by employing speakerphone mode, wired headset, or by texting rather than talking can reduce RF EMF exposure by up to two orders of magnitude in weak reception signal areas. Bluetooth headsets allow the greatest separation from the cell phone during conversations and, although these headsets do emit RF EMF, the power density is as much as 400-fold lower than those from the cell phone itself. EMF exposures are much lower for cellular phones under strong reception signal conditions. Still, limiting cell phone talk time even in strong reception signal areas and avoiding using Bluetooth headset except while on a call are straightforward measures to reduce exposure. Even though texting increases the distance from the cell phone and the same orientation is used for web-surfing, the different nature of the transmitted signal may cause unknown effects on other organ systems. Further research is also needed to assess exposures of those in close proximity to a cell phone user, which would require measurements of RF EMF power density from the back and sides of the cell phone. Cellular phones have become an integral part of the fabric of modern life; however, additional research findings are needed to delineate how best to use these devices to ensure protection of public health. As a resource for guidance on the use of Cell Phones, the California Department of Public Health has published “How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones” (CDPH 2017), including a discussion of why there is concern about exposure to RF energy from cell phones, and how straightforward modification of Cell Phone use practices can effectively reduce RF exposure. The use practice guidance for mobile phones provided includes: Keep your phone away from your body by texting or using headset, remove the headset when not on a call, reduce cell phone use when the reception signal is weak which could result in higher RF EMF exposure, and avoid close mobile phone proximity for extended periods such as overnight.



Related Posts 




Jan 4, 2018


A side-by-side comparison of the cell phone safety guidance published by CDPH in December, 2017 with the original draft prepared in June, 2009 can be viewed at http://bit.ly/CDPH2017vs2009.



Dec 13, 2017 (Updated Dec 14, 2017)

MORE INFO HERE  Tenth Circuit briefs filed

California Issues Cell Phone Radiation Warnings 

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a press release to announce their long-awaited cell phone warning document on December 13, 2017. The long-awaited document forewarns the public about health risks from exposure to cell phone radiation and provides tips on how to reduce exposure.
This document originally prepared in 2009 by health professionals within the CDPH Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control underwent numerous revisions but was never published by CDPH until now.
In March of this year, the Sacramento Superior Court ordered the CDPH to release the draft documents to Dr. Joel Moskowitz, the plaintiff in a law suit filed under the California Public Records Act by the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley Law and the First Amendment Project.
To comply with the court order, CDPH released 27 versions of the document and reimbursed legal expenses. The most recent draft, dated January, 2015, contained a bold watermark, “Draft and Not for Public Release” and a footnote, “Document released pursuant to Moskowitz v. CDPH, Sac. Super. Ct. No. 34-2016-80002358.”
In July, the California Brain Tumor Association held a demonstration in Sacramento outside of CDPH to call for the public release of the cell phone warning document.
The document that CDPH published today understates the health risks from long-term exposure to cell phone radiation because the preponderance of the research finds that cell phone radiation poses a major risk to human health. In February of this year, the agency argued in a court hearing (Moskowitz v. CDPH) that it was afraid of creating panic among the public if the Department were to disclose the health risks from cell phone radiation exposure.


The Federal Communications Commission, the agency responsible for regulating cell phones, relies on industry-generated guidance that is two decades old. More than 230 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and health have signed a petition calling on all nations to adopt stronger regulations and disclosure to the public about the health risks of electromagnetic fields.


Excerpt from cell phone warning document issued
by California Dept of Public Health on 12/13/2017.
July 24, 2017



Exposing California’s Cell Phone Risk Cover-Up

Ecological Options Network, Jul 21, 2017      (10 minute video)
Opposing telecom totalitarianism in Sacramento, cell phone safety advocates Ellie Marks, Cindy Franklin, and Toni Stein denounce the California Department of Public Health’s refusal to release to the public its own cell phone safety advisory.
They also explain how the bill, SB 649, now moving through the legislature–and similar bills being pushed in states around the country–would eliminate any local authority over cell tower placement and result in toxic antennas lining every block leaving the public with no legal recourse.





June 19, 2017

What prevents CDPH from adopting the cell phone guidance document?



Following my successful public records lawsuit against the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), reporters have posed two key questions:


(1) “Why did the
State of California suppress the CDPH cell phone radiation safety guidance document (aka “fact sheet”) from 2009 to 2015?”
(2) “Why won’t
the State adopt the fact sheet now since the evidence is much stronger for cell
phone radiation health risks?”
Unfortunately, the documents that
the Department released due to the Court ruling do not answer these questions.
My interviews with key informants
suggest that it was due to suppression by “political appointees.” Opposition to
releasing the document came from within the Department and from at least one
other agency within the state government.
In October, 2009, the CDPH conducted
a webinar on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures and health effects which may
shed some light on the motivation for suppressing the fact sheet. A presentation
was made by the former chief of the CDPH Division of Occupational and
Environmental Health, the division that prepared the cell phone guidance
document earlier that year.
Although Raymond Neutra, MD, MPH,
DrPH, had retired from CDPH two years earlier, as the former chief of the CDPH
EMF Program, he was asked to present the reasons for precaution regarding cell
phone use.  He served on scientific
advisory boards for the National Institutes of Health and the World Health
Organization and was considered an international expert in electromagnetic fields and health.
Dr. Neutra posed the following question,
“How certain must we be of how much ill-health from cell phones, cordless
phones and base stations before we would opt for cheap or expensive
protection?”
Speaking as a private citizen, he
argued we shouldn’t need certainty to lower our exposure 100-fold. 
He presented the
following precautionary recommendations:
• Keep cell phone off most of
the time
• Use ear piece or speaker
function
• Place on table 3 feet away
before turning on
• Write down phone messages
• Return calls, then turn off
• Keep it off in bus when others
might be exposed
Next, he addressed the reasons why
government requires more certainty before recommending precaution:
• Industry lawyers and lobbyists
afraid that precautionary government recommendations
will support tort law suits
• Industry afraid that “alarmed”
citizens will push for more
• Lobbyists pressure government
not to issue them
I would argue that although we now
have substantially more evidence that cell phone radiation is harmful, the
telecommunications and wireless industries have much greater political and
economic power at the state and Federal level. Moreover, industry motivation to
suppress precautionary policies is likely as strong as ever. 
Thus, we should
not be surprised that governments fail to provide the public with precautionary
recommendations about cell phone use. Nor should we surprised that wireless radiation
regulations have not been updated since 1996.
The slides for Dr. Neutra’s 2009
presentation can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/neutra2009.



In January, 2010, Dr. Neutra appeared in a one-minute public service announcement, Cell Phones: Teens in the driver’s seat,” in which he provides precautionary health advice to adolescents about how to use cellphones more safely. He stated in the film:

“We’re starting to get some evidence that the electric and magnetic fields from cell phones can cause brain cancer, affect sperm count and cause other health problems.”


June 1, 2017

Melody Gutierrez.”New records show how state reworked secret cell phone warnings,” 

In March, the San Francisco Chronicle was the first newspaper to report on a lawsuit we filed against the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to obtain a cell phone safety guidance document that was never released to the public (Moskowitz v CDPH)


The Chronicle also published an editorial in March encouraging the state to release this cell phone safety information to the public,



In May, the Chronicle reported the outcome of our case. CDPH released 27 versions of a cell phone safety “fact sheet” originally created in 2009 and updated through 2014. The documents were released to us in compliance with a court order.


“Newly released public records show that California public health officials worked for five years on a set of guidelines to warn the public about the potential dangers of cell phones, revising their work 27 times with updated research before abandoning the efforts without ever making their concerns public until ordered by a judge.”
CDPH refused the Chronicle’s public record request just as it previously denied our public record requests:
The Chronicle submitted a public records request to the health department in March, asking for emails or documents related to why the cell phone guidelines were never approved to be made public — and to see whether there was any outside influence. The department refused to release records, saying those that existed were protected by attorney-client privilege.”
In response to a request for an interview, CDPH issued a written statement to the Chronicle which indicated that the Department still does not intend to adopt and distribute to the public its cell phone safety guidelines:
The statement from the California Department of Public Health said there are no plans to post the guidelines on its website.”

May 22, 2017





California Department of Public Health Releases
Secret Cell Phone Safety Guidance

The San Francisco Chronicle published this news story online May 19, 2017.

The California Attorney General’s Office released 27 versions of a cell phone radiation safety fact sheet prepared by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) initially in 2009 and revised multiple times through January, 2015.
The State has never adopted this fact sheet nor released it to the public due to suppression by “political appointees” according to my sources.
The recommendations in the final version of the fact sheet are sound. CDPH should adopt and disseminate the fact sheet now. The public has a right to know the information that the Department’s health professionals have been trying to share with them since 2009. I further recommend that the fact sheet be updated annually consistent with the latest research.
The fact sheet is based upon reviews of the research conducted by the CDPH Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control between 2009 and 2014.
The original document reflected a consensus of the Division (Document 25, file date: 6/17/2009; pp.104-109). The fact sheet summarized research on the health effects associated with exposure to cell phone and cordless phone radiation. It provided recommendations to the California Department of General Services, the “business manager” for the State, regarding cell phone purchases. The fact sheet also included safety tips for state employees and the general public, especially children, about safe use of phones to minimize exposure to wireless radiation.
The final version of the fact sheet omits recommendations to the Department of General Services and does not discuss cordless phones (Document 1, file date 1/26/2015; pp. 6-8).
In 2014, I submitted three requests to the CDPH under the California Public Records Act for this information. All three requests were denied.
In 2016, the UC Berkeley School of Law Environmental Law Clinic and the First Amendment Project filed a lawsuit on my behalf in the Sacramento Superior Court. 
On May 12 of this year, the Attorney General’s office mailed us 27 documents to comply with the March 13 court ruling.
The case is Dr. Joel Moskowitz v. California Department of Public Health (#34-2016-80002358).
Supplemental materials
March 15, 2017

Court orders California Public Health Dept. to Release 
Cellphone Radiation Safety Document


The Sacramento Superior Court has ordered the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to release the Department’s cell phone use guidance document without superimposed markings.

MORE INFO HERE  San Diego Stop 5G Rally Info

This cell phone radiation safety document, originally prepared in 2010 by health professionals in the CDPH Environmental Health Investigations Branch, has been suppressed by political appointees over the years.

On March 13, Judge Shelleyanne Chang re-issued the tentative ruling she made prior to the hearing:

And she appended the following section to the Court’s final ruling:
The judge did not consider the document a “preliminary draft” because the document was maintained by CDPH staff since 2010, and the substance of the document changed little over time despite multiple updates by staff.
The court order, dated March 13, 2017, is labeled “Ruling on Submitted Matter and Order: Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declarative Relief.” 


The ruling can be downloaded from http://bit.ly/MvCDPHfinal.
The unaltered cell phone use guidance document will be available here when the CDPH complies with the Court order.
March 4, 2017



“Warnings on Cell Phone Use”

aka “State kept secret guidelines on cell phone use”
Photos from the San Francisco Chronicle front page and the Editorial appear below along with links to news coverage of this story.



March 2, 2017 (Updated 10:10 PM)


Last May we sued the California Department of Public Health for a cell phone safety guidance document under the California Public Records Act. The document was originally prepared in 2010 and has been updated several times but never released to the public.

Late this afternoon, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) emailed a cell phone guidance document, entitled “Cell Phones and Health,” to Melody Gutierrez, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle who attended our court hearing. 


This “fact sheet” summarizes research on cell phone radiation health risks and provides safety tips on how to reduce cell phone radiation exposure. The document highlights a potentially greater risk to “pregnant women, children, and teens.” The safety recommendations are similar to those issued by the Connecticut Department of Public Health in May, 2015.


We are grateful to see CDPH’s cell phone guidance document
after a long battle for it. 



The CDPH document is marked “released pursuant to Moskowitz v. CDPH, Sac. Super. Ct. No. 34-2016-8000-2358″ and “Draft and Not for Public Release.”


Apparently, CDPH does not intend to appeal the merits of the court’s ruling that the document must be disclosed. However, the manner of release is troubling. CDPH has not waited for the court to finalize its ruling and determine whether CDPH may indicate that the document does not (as it argued at the hearing) represent its current, official position.  Rather, the agency has “jumped the gun” and stamped new lettering in huge dark letters across the face of the document so as to make it virtually illegible. Further, that lettering states that the document is “draft and not for public release” when the judge’s tentative ruling stated exactly the opposite —   that the document was not a draft, and must be publicly released. 


CDPH has essentially created a new document rather than produced the document as-is, in violation of the Public Records Act. To the extent that CDPH wanted merely to indicate that the document does not represent its official position in early 2017, the fact that the document is dated “April 2014” should make that plain.

An account of our attempts to obtain the document and the lawsuit filed by the UC Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic and the First Amendment Project on my behalf appears below. The judge’s tentative ruling on our lawsuit is available (see link below). 


Excerpt from the tentative ruling.
Why has the California Department of Public Health 
suppressed a cell phone radiation safety document since
2010?
In 2010, health professionals in the Environmental Health Investigations Branch of CDPH prepared
a cell phone guidance document that summarized the science regarding the
health risks from cell phone radiation and provided precautionary
recommendations to the public for limiting personal exposure.
 
Why was this document never officially released to the public?
I learned about the existence of the document in late 2013. In January, 2014, I submitted a formal request for
the document to the CDPH under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
Dr. Richard Kreutzer, the Division Chief for Environmental and
Occupational Disease Control in CDPH, contacted me three days later. He
informed me that the document was recently revised and was under review by the
State. He asked me to withdraw my
request since the final approved version should be available within three weeks. When I asked how long the document had been
under review, he responded that the review was “freshly re-started this
year,” and that the current draft is similar to a previous version “that stalled three years ago” while under review by the State. 
I opted not to withdraw my request.


In April, 2014, I spoke to the Deputy Director for Legislative and Governmental Affairs at CDPH. She informed me that the document was under review by a “state agency outside” of CDPH. She implied that the document had cleared CDPH’s approval process and promised to provide me with periodic updates regarding its status.


In June, 2014, since no one contacted me and the document had not been
released, I submitted a second request under the CPRA. The CDPH denied this request
arguing that they are exempt from disclosing “preliminary drafts,” and that the
public interest in nondisclosure exceeded the public interest in disclosure of
this document. 



In September, 2014, based upon my information an investigative
reporter from the
New York Times requested the document, but his request was also
denied.  
My final CPRA request was submitted in January,
2015. CDPH denied this request and provided a new rationale: “In light of the updated guidance issued
by the CDC [federal Centers for Disease Prevention and Control] in June of
2014, CDPH has chosen not to issue a guidance document on radio frequency EMF
and cell phones.”
After my final rejection, I interviewed several CDPH health
professionals who were familiar with the cell phone guidance document. All
thought the document should have been published by the Department. None could explain why the State suppressed the document or why the Department refused to release it to me.

Based upon this information, I decided to sue the CDPH for the
cell phone guidance document.  The environmental
law clinic at the University of California, Berkeley Law School and the First
Amendment Project are representing me pro
bono
. In May, 2016, we filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the County
of Sacramento. 
The case was assigned to Judge Shellyanne Chang.


CDPH asserted that “[t]he public’s health may be harmed” simply by release of the Document (Starr Decl., ¶ 19(a)) … that the memo “will needlessly confuse, and possibly alarm, cell phone users” (id., ¶ 24; same); and even speculates that release of the Document will cause both those with and without cancer to flood physicians’ offices to ventilate hysterical fear of cell phones (Id. at ¶ 27). 


In its opposition brief, CDPH confuses the public and private interests in withholding the document, suggesting that the public interest in receiving advice about safe cell phone use must be discounted “[because] a portion of the public, namely the wireless industry and cell phone manufacturers . . . likely have no interest in the dissemination of the cell phone guidance document” (p. 15). 


Judge Chang held a hearing on
February 24, 2017. 
Prior to the hearing, she issued a seven-page tentative ruling in which she over-ruled eight of the nine objections submitted by the Attorney General on behalf of the CDPH. The tentative ruling granted our petition and directed CDPH to release
the Cellular Phone Use Guidance documentation.


We are waiting for the judge’s final ruling on the case.

https://www.saferemr.com/2017/03/cell-phone-safety-guidance-from.html