EHT Executive Director Theodora Scarato’s 2019 Letter to the EPA details inaccurate and misleading information on the EPA website and asks for corrections. She wrote several times since 2019 and still has not received a response.
Excerpts
April 30, 2019
Questions RE: Radiofrequency Radiation
Dear EPA Director Edwards and Fellow Directors,
Thank you so much for answering our questions in regards to the EPA’s review of 5G, cell phone wireless and other radiofrequency radiation. In your July 8 2020 letter you clarified that the EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters, and the EPA is not aware of any EPA reviews that have been conducted on the topic of trees, birds and bees. You stated that EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (EPA 600/8-83-026F). The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.
In light of your response I would appreciate a response to my follow up questions.
In regards to the recent changes made to the EPA web pages that host public information on cell phones and wireless radiation. We have outlined several inaccurate and misleading facts currently on the EPA webpages and we have documented industry consultant influence on the information presented on the webpage.
The EPA webpages we are referencing are the following newly posted in 2019 EPA webpages.
The American people have a right to clear, factual and up to date information on the health issues related to cell phones, wireless and 5G. In light of the push to install over 800,000 new 4G/5G transmitters in US neighborhoods without any health or environmental review, we write the EPA to ensure transparency for the public.
The EPA stated in their July 8, 2020 letter that the EPA does not have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters no research review has been done since the 80s- a review that did not include an understanding of impacts to birds and insects.
- Why doesn’t the EPA clarify on their website that they have not done a review of the health or environmental impacts?
2.Why doesn’t the EPA clarify that the current FCC regulations are not based on a review of impacts to birds, bees and trees? This seems to be quite important clarification as FCC limits are not applicable to wildlife, birds, bees and trees?
See https://www.epa.gov/radiation/where-can-i-find-information-about-cell-phone-safety-concerns
——-
Appendix I: Documentation of inaccurate and misleading information on the EPA website
False/Misleading #1 “ While some studies have shown a correlation between the occurrence of certain adverse health effects and long-term use, a definitive cause and effect relationship has not been established.” (Found in Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)
Fact: The US National Toxicology Program studies on radiofrequency radiation found increased cancers and their conclusions in regards to the confidence of the association were as follows:
- Malignant schwannoma in the heart in male rats “clear evidence”
- Malignant glioma in the brain in in male rats “some evidence”
- Tumors in the adrenal medulla of male rats GSM “some evidence”
- Additional findings in rats include: Low birth weight, Cardiomyopathy in the right ventricle in both male and female groups, DNA damage found in specific tissues including the brain.
- Why does the EPA website have inaccurate information?
Lastly, the EPA website text itself has inaccurate information. For example it states that there are not replication studies showing harm when in fact there are replication studies such as a study out of Jacobs University that found a tumor promotion effect Lerchl 2015 and the study out of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute that found memory impairments in teenagers (Foerster 2018). Equally important, the webpage on powerlines was edited to now state that the research has not been repeated when in fact the association between magnetic fields and childhood leukemia has been repeatedly replicated, so much so that several countries limit new buildings on area with magnetic fields over 3 to 4 milligauss and/or within 50 feet of high voltage power lines.
https://ehtrust.org/letter-to-the-epa-to-correct-their-webpages-on-emfs-and-wireless/ Source: Environmental Health Trust
