A high-speed 5G mobile network antenna near Montpreveyres, western Switzerland, on Sept. 15, 2019. FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images
5G is safe, an international watchdog has assured.
<p>The <a href="https://www.icnirp.org/" target="_blank">International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection</a> (ICNIRP), a German-based scientific organization that determines the impact of electromagnetic waves on people and the environment, said March 11 that there is no evidence that 5G networks pose a health risk to humans, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/bcb37920-f902-4e97-84f7-6fd69df805b5" target="_blank">The Financial Times reported</a>.</p><p>The reassurance came as the body did update its guidelines for millimeter-wave 5G, the highest frequency version of 5G which is in use in the U.S. but has not yet made it to Europe, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/12/5g-safe-radiation-watchdog-health" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. However, actually millimeter-wave 5G frequencies are usually far below the new maximum set by the standard.</p><p>"We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease," ICNIRP Chairman Dr. Eric van Rongen said in a <a href="https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/ICNIRP_Media_Release_110320.pdf" target="_blank">media release</a>.</p>
<p>The new guidelines were based on seven years of research and update guidelines last set in 1998. Van Rongen told <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51839681" target="_blank">BBC News</a> that, over the course of its research, the body found no evidence that the use of 5G mobile phone networks harmed the body beyond heating some tissue.</p><p>"We also considered all other types of effects for instance, whether radio waves could lead to the development of cancer in the human body," van Rongen said. "We find that the scientific evidence for that is not enough to conclude that indeed there is such an effect."</p><p>The new guidelines cover mobile phones that connect to frequencies higher than six gigahertz (GHz) and limit their radiation levels when they do so. These higher frequencies can deliver faster speeds over short distances.</p>
<p>According to the media release, the new guidelines add restrictions for:</p><ol><li>Whole body exposure to these frequencies.</li><li>Exposure of some body parts for less than six minutes.</li><li>The amount of time a small part of the body can be exposed.</li></ol>
<p>Van Rongen said that the 1998 guidelines were still effective for most contemporary technologies.</p><p>"However, the new guidelines provide better and more detailed exposure guidance in particular for the higher frequency range, above 6 GHz, which is of importance to 5G and future technologies using these higher frequencies," he said. "The most important thing for people to remember is that 5G technologies will not be able to cause harm when these new guidelines are adhered to."</p><p>The ICNIRP cannot enforce its guidelines, The Financial Times pointed out. It is up to governments to do that. But some have already adapted stricter measures than the body recommends.</p><p>The mobile group GSMA was happy with the ICNIRP's research.</p><p>"Twenty years of research should reassure people there are no established health risks from their mobile devices or 5G antennas," GSMA chief regulatory officer John Giusti told BBC News.</p><p>The new guidelines come as there is persistent concern about the health impacts of 5G networks. Recent conspiracy theories have even linked them to the spread of the new <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a>.</p>
<div id="7a5a7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2ad0127d76ac3dec49da7bd6c9447e0d"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1237343125300969473" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">@shockproofbeats The Covid19 and 5G slash fanfiction is pretty popular on conspiracy Facebook.
Here's one positing… https://t.co/V7FNb5cf9b</div> — Seán (@Seán)<a href="https://twitter.com/fiercemilder/statuses/1237343125300969473">1583840564.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>While there is no evidence to support these claims, there are legitimate concerns about 5G. A group of U.S. meteorologists <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/us-meteorologists-5g-2639018580.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">warned in 2019</a> that a Federal Communications Commission plan to share a radio spectrum band with 5G mobile companies could delay communications between weather satellites, slowing the flow of vital information during <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather" target="_self">extreme weather</a> events.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's 5G Network Raises Concerns for Public Health and the ... ›
- U.S. Meteorologists 'Deeply Concerned' Over 5G Roll-Out - EcoWatch ›
- 5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why You Should Care - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Japan May Dump Radioactive Fukushima Water Into the Pacific in 'Only Option' of Disposal
10 September 2019
Oceans
This picture taken on Jan. 31, 2018 from an observatory room shows storage tanks for contaminated water at the Tokyo Electric Power Company, Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima prefecture. BEHROUZ MEHRI / AFP / Getty Images
The operator of the ruined Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant may have to dump huge amounts of contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean. The company no longer has room to store it, said Yoshiaki Harada, Japan's environment minister, today, as Japan Today reported.
<p>Eight years after an earthquake and tsunami triggered Japan's worst nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, which is 160 miles north of Tokyo, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) has continued to pump water in to cool fuel cores. Once it is used and contaminated, the water is put into storage, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/asia/japan-environment-minister-fukushima-water-hnk-intl/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. </p>
<p>TEPCO has collected more than 1 million metric tons of contaminated water used to cool the nuclear reactor. "The only option will be to drain it into the sea and dilute it," said Harada at a news briefing in Tokyo, as <a href="https://japantoday.com/category/national/TEPCO-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-Fukushima-water-into-Pacific-minister-says" target="_blank">Japan Today</a>. "The whole of the government will discuss this, but I would like to offer my simple opinion."</p>
<p>Harada did not say how much water would need to be released into the ocean.</p>
<p>However, in a separate press briefing, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, said Harada's comments were "his personal opinion."</p>
<p>"There is no fact that the method of disposal of contaminated water has been decided," said Suga, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/asia/japan-environment-minister-fukushima-water-hnk-intl/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. "The government would like to make a decision after making thorough discussion," he said.</p>
<p>TEPCO is not able to say what will be done with the contaminated water, but will have to wait for a government decision, a spokesperson said, as <a href="https://japantoday.com/category/national/TEPCO-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-Fukushima-water-into-Pacific-minister-says" target="_blank">Japan Today</a> reported. </p>
<p>Besides releasing the water into the ocean, other options include storing it on land or vaporizing it, according to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/10/fukushima-japan-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-water-into-pacific-minister-says" target="_blank">Guardian</a>.</p>
<div id="9c09b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="URGSKX1576661484"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1171404421856661504" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Radioactive water from Fukushima nuclear plant may have to be released into Pacific, Japan says https://t.co/fEz3JDUyTg</div> — BBC News (World) (@BBC News (World))<a href="https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/statuses/1171404421856661504">1568119552.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Dumping the waste into the ocean will anger local fisherman and Japan's neighbors.</p><p>Last month, South Korea's government minister for environmental affairs, Kwon Se-jung, summoned Tomofumi Nishinaga, head of economic affairs at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, how the Fukushima water would be handled, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/asia/japan-environment-minister-fukushima-water-hnk-intl/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>"The South Korean government is well aware of the impact of the treatment of the contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant on the health and safety of the people of both countries, and to the entire nation," said a South Korean ministry press release.</p><p>"We're just hoping to hear more details of the discussions that are under way in Tokyo so that there won't be a surprise announcement," said a South Korean diplomat to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-fukushima-water-idUSKCN1VV0CC?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d7746964b188d00011c07cf&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. The diplomat requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of bilateral discussions.</p><p>Six years ago, when Tokyo won the bid to host the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe assured the Olympic Committee that waste and contamination from Fukushima was under control. Now, the country is facing renewed pressure to address its contaminated water problems before next summer's games, as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/10/fukushima-japan-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-water-into-pacific-minister-says" target="_blank">Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>The Japanese government has spent over $320 million to an underground barrier to prevent groundwater from reaching the three damaged nuclear reactors. However, the wall has only reduced the flow of groundwater from about 500 metric tons to around 100 metric tons per day, as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/10/fukushima-japan-will-have-to-dump-radioactive-water-into-pacific-minister-says" target="_blank">Guardian</a> reported.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><em><br></em>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" data-width="710" data-height="959" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" data-width="800" data-height="800" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" data-width="600" data-height="600" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
- Full Spectrum CBD Oil: What To Know - EcoWatch ›
- Charlotte's Web: A Review of the Certified B Corp CBD Brand ›
- Best CBD Waters: Plus All You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
- The Best Water Soluble CBD Available Online - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD for Sleep (Lab-Tested, Person-Tested Oils) - EcoWatch ›
- CBD Oil for Dogs: 7 Benefits & Treatment Guide - EcoWatch ›
- NuLeaf Naturals CBD Review | Are They Worth The Cost? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Capsules & Pills - Buyer's Guide (Update for 2021) - EcoWatch ›
- Because Price Matters: Most Affordable CBD Oils of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Strongest CBD Oils to Buy in 2021? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oils For Pain: Top 3 Brands of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Vape Pen: Top Brands of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Brian Krans
- Using accredited lab tests that mimic human tissue, reporters from The Chicago Tribune tested smartphone radiofrequency radiation emitted by 11 models of popular cell phones.
- They found most of the phones exceeded the legal limit set by the FCC of 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over 1 gram of tissue.
- Radiofrequency radiation exposure from the iPhone 7 — one of the most popular smartphones ever sold — measured over the legal safety limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators from its own testing.
- The FCC is currently investigating the reported findings.
A recent investigation has reignited debate over the safety of cell and smartphones. It's also spurred class-action lawsuits and has activists calling on federal regulators to reassess the limits of radiation allowed to seep out from radio-emitting mobile devices that are now a part of daily modern life.
<p>The Chicago Tribune recently released findings of <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-phone-radiation-testing-20190821-72qgu4nzlfda5kyuhteiieh4da-story.html" target="_blank">its own investigation</a> into radiofrequency radiation emitted by popular smartphones, including several variations of the iPhone.</p><p>Overall, Tribune reporters, using accredited lab tests that mimic human tissue, tested 11 models from four companies: Apple, Samsung, Motorola, and BLU.</p><p>The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — which regulates cell phones, among other things, in the U.S. — has set <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0" target="_blank">radiation standards</a> for cell phones at 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over 1 gram of tissue. Most of the phones the Tribune tested well exceeded that amount at 2 millimeters, or the distance your phone would be in your pocket.</p><p>"Radiofrequency radiation exposure from the iPhone 7 — one of the most popular smartphones ever sold — measured over the legal safety limit and more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators from its own testing," the Tribune reported.</p><p>Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is of a concern because, according to the FCC, "It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly."</p><p>Essentially, it operates the same way a microwave cooks food, and organs like the eyes and testes are particularly vulnerable because there's not enough blood flow to cool them down.</p><p>But there are larger concerns over how much radiation the U.S. federal government allows cell phones to emit, especially after the Tribune's reporting found they often were in excess of that.</p><p>The FCC's standards were set in 1996 and reflected the typical amount of use during that time and on a 200-pound man.</p><p>But phones back then were just that — phones.</p><p>Now with unlimited games, applications, and social media, the average time spent on smartphones is now <a href="https://www.emarketer.com/content/us-time-spent-with-mobile-2019" target="_blank">3 hours and 10 minutes per day</a>. And that's from people of all ages, sizes and genders. Some of that use borders on<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4291831/" target="_blank"> addiction Trusted Source</a>.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/fcc-investigating-smart-phone-radiation-iphones-emitting-double-reported-levels" target="_blank">Healthline</a>.</em><em></em></p>
A Cause for Concern?
<p>Ellie Marks, executive director of the nonprofit <a href="http://www.calibta.org/" target="_blank">California Brain Tumor Association</a>, is "not at all surprised by" the Tribune's findings and is happy to see class-action lawsuits being filed following its publication. She has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W7IBntK8f0" target="_blank">testified before Congress</a> on the issue, as her husband developed a brain tumor they believe was due to long-term cell phone use.</p><p>She's been arguing for the FCC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reassess their guidelines for radiation from cell phones, but FCC Chairman Ajit Pai recently announced they would be <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-358968A1.pdf" target="_blank">keeping the guidelines</a> as they currently stand. This even as the country currently looks to expand its 5G coverage across the country, which would expose more people to even more radiofrequencies.</p><p>"This cannot be left to FCC or FDA to investigate," Marks told Healthline. "The collusion and corruption between the FDA, FCC and telecom is out of control."</p><p>Marks and other advocates who have wanted regulations changed argue the FCC is <a href="https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf" target="_blank">too beholden to private interests</a> to address the issue.</p><p>"The industry, FDA and FCC keep repeating the mantra that there is no evidence of harm. That is a blatant lie, but they need to do this for liability reasons," Marks said. "There is extensive research proving cell phone radiation is causing DNA damage and cancer — not just brain, but salivary gland, thyroid, breast, damage to fetuses, damage to sperm, miscarriages, bone cancer and more."</p><p>Last November, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-jeffrey-shuren-md-jd-director-fdas-center-devices-and-radiological-health-national?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FdaUpdates+%28FDA+Updates%29" target="_blank">released a statement Trusted Source</a> saying "the current safety limits for cell phone radiofrequency energy exposure remain acceptable for protecting the public health."</p><p><a href="https://www.providence.org/doctors/profile.aspx?name=santosh+kesari&id=203907" target="_blank">Dr. Santosh Kesari</a>, a neuro-oncologist and chair of the department of translational neuro-oncology and neurotherapeutics at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, California, said that statement was based on tests on rats, which is hard to extrapolate to humans.</p><p>"There have been many studies over the decades in animal models that show some effect on cancer incidence, however all the studies slightly differ, and again, the dose exposure is more than humans are exposed to, so the relevance to the human situation remains unclear," Kesari told Healthline.</p>What You Can Do to Reduce Exposure
<p>To be safe, experts suggest the following practices to limit unnecessary exposure to radiation from mobile devices:</p><ul><li>Unplug from your usual device usage as much as possible.</li><li>Don't keep your phone next to your body, such as in a pocket.</li><li>Use speakerphone or a headset when making calls.</li><li>Don't sleep next to your phone or other devices.</li><li>Keep the phone on airplane mode when you're not using it.</li></ul><p>There are some products aimed at reducing radiation, such as <a href="https://www.safesleevecases.com/pages/anti-radiation-products" target="_blank">SafeSleeve</a> device covers that claim to block over 99 percent of RF and 92 percent of extremely low frequency radiation.</p><p>The company was founded by Cary Subel and Alaey Kumar, who began studying electromagnetic radiation as engineering students at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo a decade ago.</p><p>"Just because you can't feel, see, smell, or hear it, does not mean that the emissions from your electronics are harmless," Subel said, who added there is "strong evidence" that the FCC's limits for RF exposure levels are far too high.</p><p>While activists wait for federal regulators to address allowed radiation from cell phones, Marks continues to work with cities and states across the United States that want to give consumers information about devices' safety at the point of sale, which is often followed with lawsuits from industry saying that violates their company's First Amendment rights.</p><p>Berkeley, California, passed an ordinance that took effect in 2016. It requirs retailers of cellular devices to carry a warning: "If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation."</p><p>CTIA, trade group of devices retailers, fought the ordinance all the way to the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cell-berkeley-cellphone-radiation-9th-circuit-20190702-story.html" target="_blank">U.S. Supreme Court</a>. The city eventually prevailed and the warnings remain at cell phone retailers.</p><p>"Yes, we need new safety guidelines and experts have suggested them to no avail," Marks said.<br></p>From Your Site Articles
- U.S. Meteorologists 'Deeply Concerned' Over 5G Roll-Out - EcoWatch ›
- Is Netflix Bad for the Environment? How Streaming Video ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
'Irresponsible and Outrageous': Trump DOE Redefines 'High-Level' Nuclear Waste to 'Low-Level' to Cut Corners on Disposal Costs
07 June 2019
Politics
The Savannah River Site in South Carolina is one of three Defense Reprocessing Waste Inventories where the Department of Energy will be reclassifying nuclear waste as safer than it has for decades. Savannah River Site / Flickr
By Julia Conley
In a move that will roll back safety standards that have been observed for decades, the Trump administration reportedly has plans to reclassify nuclear waste previously listed as "high-level" radioactive to a lower level, in the interest of saving money and time when disposing of the material.
<p>The Department of Energy (DOE) <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nuclear-waste-rule-20190605-story.html" target="_blank">plans to</a> observe a new interpretation of which nuclear waste qualifies as "high-level waste," which must be disposed of deep underground to avoid contaminating the surrounding environment. Under the new standards, radioactive materials at three nuclear sites will be classified as low-risk, enabling officials to dispose of the waste in shallow pits.</p><p>The Hanford Site in Washington state, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trump-toxic-nuclear-weapons-waste-disposal-reclassify-1442573" target="_blank">all contain</a> millions of gallons of sludge and other waste following decades of use by the DOE, which reprocessed nuclear rods at the sites when the department was extracting plutonium for hydrogen bombs.</p><p>The DOE for decades classified any material that was created during reprocessing as high-level waste, but it will now label the sludge at the three sites as safe due to its level of radioactivity.</p><p>Under the new rules, the waste — which includes toxic and radioactive elements such as uranium and plutonium — can now be stored in shallow pits that may leak into the surrounding soil.</p><p>Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 presidential race, slammed the Trump administration for "unilaterally" deciding to potentially put Washington residents and their environment at risk, without consulting with the states in question — going against previous agreements between the states and the federal government.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Today the Trump Administration unilaterally changed the definition of waste stored at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hanford?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Hanford</a> and other nuclear waste sites nationwide, opening the door for the feds to walk away from cleaning up millions of gallons of toxic, radioactive waste. <a href="https://twitter.com/AGOWA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AGOWA</a> <a href="https://t.co/05FqduhDGc">https://t.co/05FqduhDGc</a></p>— Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) <a href="https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1136339598202757121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>"By taking this action, the administration seeks to cut out state input and move towards disposal options of their choosing, including those already deemed to be unsafe by their own assessments and in violation of the existing legally binding agreement," Inslee said in a <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nuclear-waste-rule-20190605-story.html" target="_blank">statement</a>. "We will consider all options to stop this reckless and dangerous action."</p><p>The Energy Department claims that downgrading the risk level of the sludge is necessary to allow for faster clean-up of the sites and to save money for the federal government — a claim which "flies in the face of sound science and judgment," according to Columbia Riverkeeper, a non-profit group which aims to protect Washington state's Columbia River.</p><p>"The Trump administration's attempt to cut corners with nuclear waste undermines effective, long-term cleanup at the Hanford Nuclear Site," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/190605-3" target="_blank">said</a> Lauren Goldberg, legal and program director at the organization. "People in the Pacific Northwest value clean water and strong salmon runs."</p><p>The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) called the DOE's move "irresponsible and outrageous."</p><p>"The Trump administration is moving to fundamentally alter more than 50 years of national consensus on how the most toxic and radioactive waste in the world is managed and ultimately disposed of," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/190605-3" target="_blank">said</a> Geoff Fettus, senior attorney at NRDC. "No matter what they call it, this waste needs a permanent, well-protected disposal option to guard it for generations to come."</p><p>At the Seattle-based newspaper The Stranger<em>,</em> Katie Herzog <a href="https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/06/06/40409900/department-of-energy-redefines-nuclear-waste-to-make-it-easier-to-dispose-of" target="_blank">wrote</a> that the DOE's action is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to "change the definition" of a problem to avoid addressing it effectively.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If you've got a problem with radioactive waste, you could clean it up, a costly and onerous process, or you could just change the definition of it. Guess which one the Trump administration has decided to do?<a href="https://t.co/YzlfcZfIaz">https://t.co/YzlfcZfIaz</a></p>— The Stranger 🗞 (@TheStranger) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheStranger/status/1136696491802652673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 6, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Recently, the Trump administration has also sought to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/07/big-attack-working-people-trump-moves-redefine-poverty-order-slash-social-programs" target="_blank">change </a>the official government definition of the poverty line to avoid paying for government benefits for struggling families, and the <a href="https://resist.org/news/trump-administration-%E2%80%98rolling-back-women%E2%80%99s-rights-50-years%E2%80%99-changing-definitions-domestic" target="_blank">definition of domestic violence</a> to limit the funds that go to agencies serving survivors.</p><p>Reclassifying dangerous elements, one critic wrote on social media, "doesn't mean it's going to make it any less harmful to the public."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">John Oliver Explains America's Terrifying <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Nuclear?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Nuclear</a> Waste Problem <a href="https://t.co/mOPJ4Nt6bc">https://t.co/mOPJ4Nt6bc</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/iamjohnoliver?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@iamjohnoliver</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/nukes_of_hazard?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nukes_of_hazard</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@greenpeaceusa</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/899628345566126081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 21, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/06/alarm-trump-energy-dept-redefines-high-level-nuclear-waste-low-level-order-save?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
liz west / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
You can add radiation to the list of pollutants for which the Trump administration is looking to loosen restrictions.
That loosening could come as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) already controversial proposal "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science," The Associated Press reported Tuesday.
<p style="">The proposal, which has been criticized by the scientific community for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-scientific-data-2550831155.html" target="_self">limiting the kinds of studies</a> the EPA can use to make regulatory decisions, could also open the door to raising the safe threshold for exposure to certain toxins, including radiation. That's because it includes a provision instructing regulators to consider "various threshold models across the exposure range" when it comes to setting rules for dangerous substances.</p><p style="">The proposal doesn't mention radiation in particular, but the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-regulations" target="_blank">press release</a> announcing the proposal quoted University of Massachusetts toxicologist Edward Calabrese, who is a proponent of raising the threshold for radiation exposure, saying doing so would save money and boost health. Calabrese, who was set to testify on the proposal at a Congressional hearing Wednesday, believes that small doses of radiation and other carcinogens can actually strengthen the body's ability to repair itself, in the way that exercise or sunlight do.</p><p style="">"The proposal represents a major scientific step forward by recognizing the widespread occurrence of non-linear dose responses in toxicology and epidemiology for chemicals and radiation and the need to incorporate such data in the risk assessment process," Calabrese said in the press release. </p><p style="">Current government regulations say that any exposure to harmful radiation could cause <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, and opponents of the change say raising that threshold could put <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear" target="_self">nuclear</a> workers, oil and gas employees, medical professionals conducting X-rays or CT scans and people living near Superfund sites or any other radiation leak at risk.</p><p style="">"If they even look at that—no, no, no," said Terrie Barrie, a Craig, Colorado resident and nuclear exposure compensation advocate for her husband and other workers at the closed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant Terrie Barrie told The Associated Press. "There's no reason not to protect people as much as possible." </p><p style="">Physicist Jan Beyea, who has done work on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident for the <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/" target="_blank">National Academy of Sciences</a>, told The Associated Press that the notion advocated by Calabrese and others, that small doses of radiation can be helpful, was "generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists." </p><p style="">The <a href="https://ncrponline.org/" target="_blank">National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements</a> reaffirmed that there was no risk-free level of radiation exposure this year after a review of 29 public health studies. </p><p style="">Up until March, the EPA's online guidance on radiation said that "Current science suggests there is some cancer risk from any exposure to radiation." But an edit in July emphasized low individual cancer risk for small doses of exposure. "According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of ... 100 millisieverts usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk," the updated guidance says.</p><p style="">EPA spokesperson John Konkus said Tuesday that the science transparency proposal would not change radiation policy. "The proposed regulation doesn't talk about radiation or any particular chemicals. And as we indicated in our response, EPA's policy is to continue to use the linear-no-threshold model for population-level radiation protection purposes which would not, under the proposed regulation that has not been finalized, trigger any change in that policy," he said.</p><p style="">Public comment on the draft proposal closed in August and the EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/osa/strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science" target="_blank">said</a> it would review the more than 590,000 comments it had received this fall.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="ca611" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KI16SU1576663886"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="941825238458777600" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Cell Phone Radiation Risks: California Issues Groundbreaking Guidelines https://t.co/Ucn0KrrVY6 @goodhealth @WHO @Healthy_Child</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/941825238458777600">1513383609.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Cell Phones in Schools? France Says No, San Francisco Educators Urge Caution
20 August 2018
Health + Wellness
Astrakan Images / Getty Images
By Olga Naidenko
As the school year begins, the movement to exercise caution in students' use of cell phones and other wireless devices is gaining international momentum.
<p>The French Parliament voted last month to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/31/europe/france-smartphones-school-ban-intl/index.html" target="_blank">ban cell phones in nursery, elementary and middle schools.</a> More than 5,000 miles away, San Francisco educators are urging the school district to make sure that students and teachers know about the state of California's guidelines for safer use of cell phones.</p><p>The French restriction on wireless devices in schools was a campaign promise of President Emmanuel Macron, who was swept into the office with a wave of popular support in 2017. It is primarily concerned with battling students' "screen addiction."</p><p>Meanwhile, the United Educators of San Francisco, which represents more than 6,000 employees of the San Francisco Unified School District, passed a <a href="http://www.uesf.org/san-francisco-educators-pass-resolution-calling-for-safer-technology-standards-for-all-san-francisco-schools/" target="_blank">resolution</a> calling for safer wireless technology standards for all schools in the city. Three years ago, a small district in <a href="https://ehtrust.org/first-us-public-school-district-limits-wi-fi-radiation-exposure-to-students-and-staff/" target="_blank">Ashland, Mass.</a>, instituted district-wide "best practices for mobile devices," but the San Francisco resolution is believed to be the first such action by a large U.S. school district.</p><p>"Peer-reviewed research has found that radiofrequency radiations emitted by cell phones and Wi-Fi routers and other wireless devices can impact the brain and the reproductive system," said Sarahn Aminoff, a teacher in the San Francisco district. "We are concerned about the health of the city's educators and about the students whose growing bodies may be more susceptible to the effects of wireless radiation."</p><p>The latest research from the federal National Toxicology Program has linked long-term exposure to cellphone radiation with <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/federal-research-raises-flags-about-cancer-risks-from-cellphone-radiation" target="_blank">brain and heart cance</a>r. And a recent study from Switzerland linked cellphone use with <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719121803.htm" target="_blank">decreased memory performance</a> in teenagers, joining a growing number of reports finding that wireless devices can affect brain function. Scientists, physicians and educators have called for caution given that most Americans, including children, use electronic devices like cellphones, tablets and smartwatches, for hours every day in a pattern that resembles <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22127/yet-another-reason-your-kids-unplug-health-risks-cellphone-radiation" target="_blank">addictive behavior</a>.</p><p>Since 2016, the Maryland State Children's Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council has <a href="https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Pages/WiFiCEHPAC.aspx" target="_blank">recommended</a> decreasing school wireless exposures "as much as feasibly practical, without negatively impacting education." The council's report included suggestions on <a href="https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf" target="_blank">ways to reduce exposure</a>, such as sitting away from Wi-Fi routers, turning off Wi-Fi on smartphones and tablets when not surfing the web, and switching tablets to airplane mode to play games or watch videos stored on the device</p><p>The San Francisco resolution draws upon the California Department of Public Health cell phone <a href="https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR17-086.aspx" target="_blank">guidelines</a> released in December. When the state guidelines were made public, California Department of Public Health Director Karen Smith said:</p><blockquote>Simple steps, such as not keeping your phone in your pocket and moving it away from your bed at night, can help reduce exposure for both children and adults… Children's brains develop through the teenage years and may be more affected by cell phone use. Parents should consider reducing the time their children use cell phones and encourage them to turn the devices off at night.<br></blockquote><p>Barbara Sattler, a professor in the University of San Francisco School of Nursing and Health Professions, expressed support for the resolution, <a href="http://www.uesf.org/news/san-francisco-educators-pass-resolution-calling-for-safer-technology-standards-for-all-san-francisco-schools/" target="_blank">stating</a>, "The health science regarding cellular technologies suggests the need for caution. A very first step would be to apply the California State Health Department Cell Phone Guidelines, particularly in settings where there may be children or workers whose exposures last their whole work day."</p><p>Other jurisdictions in the United States have explored policy options for limiting cell phone use in schools. For example, for 10 years the New York City Department of Education maintained a ban on cell phones, a <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/dept-education-ends-cell-phone-ban-nyc-schools-article-1.2134970" target="_blank">restriction that was lifted in 2015</a>, in response to concerns from parents who wanted to be able to reach their children in school in case of an emergency. Yet, <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1350.pdf" target="_blank">research</a> conducted in Great Britain by the London School of Economics supports the notion that limiting cell phone use in schools decreases student distraction and improves academic results.</p><p>EWG scientists are continuing to study the issue of wireless radiation exposure closely, scrutinizing all new research on wireless safety, including the research on different RF-emitting devices and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/07/despite-health-concerns-fcc-and-states-clear-way-next-generation-wireless" target="_blank">networks such as 5G</a>. Now that electronic devices have become an essential tool in everyday life, it is important for parents and educators to teach children to use these devices safely and respect limits on their use.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Cold War’s Toxic Legacy: Costly, Dangerous Cleanups at Atomic Bomb Production Sites
05 March 2018
Popular
Recovery Act-funded work at the Hanford Site. U.S. Department of Energy
By William J. Kinsella
Seventy-five years ago, in March 1943, a mysterious construction project began at a remote location in eastern Washington state. Over the next two years some 50,000 workers built an industrial site occupying half the area of Rhode Island, costing more than $230 million—equivalent to $3.1 billion today. Few of those workers, and virtually no one in the surrounding community, knew the facility's purpose.
<p>
The site was called Hanford, named for a small town whose residents were displaced to make way for the project. Its mission became clear at the end of World War II. Hanford had produced plutonium for the first
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear">nuclear</a> test in the New Mexico desert in July 1945, and for the bomb that incinerated Nagasaki on Aug. 9.
</p><p>
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vldkGEEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">As a researcher</a> in environmental and energy communication, I've studied the <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739119044/Nuclear-Legacies-Communication-Controversy-and-the-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Complex" target="_blank">legacies of nuclear weapons production</a>. From 2000 to 2005, I served with a <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab" target="_blank">citizen advisory board</a> that provides input to state and federal officials on a massive environmental cleanup program at Hanford, now one of the most contaminated sites in the world.
</p><p>
As U.S. leaders
<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.PDF" target="_blank">consider producing new nuclear weapons</a>, I believe they should study lessons from Hanford carefully. Hanford provides one of the more dramatic examples of problems that unfolded—and persist today—at nuclear sites where production and secrecy took priority over safety and environmental protection.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTUzMjA2Mn0.zrKS5ffRTtCygZO_eYrI3o2oE1XrEUhmmBqs2Y7wQEM/img.jpg?width=980" id="c9e50" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d96432088dc0f00092c81d72db6f767d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/ProjectsFacilities#HM" target="_blank">www.hanford.gov</a></small>
</p><p>
<strong>A Nationwide Nuclear Network</strong>
</p><p>
Hanford was one of three large facilities anchoring the
<a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/history" target="_blank">Manhattan Project</a> – the crash program to build an atomic bomb. It was part of a larger complex linking facilities across the nation. A plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, enriched uranium and operated a prototype nuclear reactor. Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico assembled a cadre of world-class scientists to design and build the weapons, using materials produced at the other sites. Smaller facilities across the nation made other contributions.
</p><p>
As World War II phased into the Cold War and the U.S.-Soviet arms race escalated, new sites were added in Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Colorado and elsewhere. Secrecy masked much of the work at these sites until well into the 1980s, with serious consequences for public health, worker safety and the environment. Nuclear and chemical wastes caused severe contamination at Hanford and the other sites, and dealing with them has proved to be difficult and costly.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg2OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNTM4NjA0OX0.GZ1jGqkAYnrBrWcpQnyUpR2o4LHznEoy1DIT74I9YTc/img.jpg?width=980" id="433e8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4c3a669d0c5378d06971e2856ba619c5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Major sites in the Cold War nuclear weapons production complex</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> USDOD</small>
</p><p>
<strong>Contamination at Hanford</strong>
</p><p>
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the U.S. had mass-produced some 70,000
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear-war">nuclear bombs</a> and warheads. <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html" target="_blank">Hanford made most of the plutonium used in those weapons</a>. Workers irradiated uranium fuel in reactors, and then dissolved it in acid to extract the plutonium produced. This method, called reprocessing, generated 56 million gallons of liquid wastes laced with radioactive and chemical poisons.
</p><p>
Hanford's nine reactors were
<a href="http://www.toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Radioactive+Contamination+of+the+Columbia+River" target="_blank">located along the Columbia River</a> to provide a source of cooling water, and discharged radiation into the river throughout their lifetimes.
</p><p>
Fuel was sometimes reprocessed before its most highly radioactive isotopes had time to decay. Managers knowingly released toxic gases into the air, contaminating farmlands and grazing areas downwind. Some releases supported an
<a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199602/backpage.cfm" target="_blank">effort to monitor Soviet nuclear progress</a>. By tracking intentional emissions from Hanford, scientists learned better how to spot Soviet nuclear tests.
</p><p>
Liquid wastes from reprocessing were stored in
<a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Tank-waste-management/Tank-monitoring-closure" target="_blank">underground tanks</a> designed to last 25 years, assuming that a permanent disposal solution would be developed later. The U.S. Department of Energy, which now operates the weapons complex and its cleanup program, is still working on that solution.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDUwODA2M30.28wTmEVe0qWKIOw6EyPNaPyZjw6uYwSUac4KnaONKCc/img.jpg?width=980" id="1d837" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="00f4ec77ca860b4413e58bc2f2e0a723" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Workers prepare to remove the core from a waste tank at Hanford in 2010.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> Hanford Site</small>
</p><p>
Meanwhile, at least a million gallons of tank wastes have
<a href="http://hanfordlearning.org/hanford-101/cleanup/tri-party-agreement/department-of-energy/" target="_blank">leaked into the ground</a>. This material, and the prospect of more to follow, threatens the Columbia River, a backbone of the Pacific Northwest's economy and ecology. <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/clock-ticks-as-nuclear-waste-storage-tanks-leak-at-hanford/" target="_blank">Some groundwater is already contaminated</a>. Estimates of when that plume will reach the river are uncertain.<br>
</p><p>
Radioactive trash still litters parts of Hanford. Irradiated bodies of laboratory animals were
<a href="https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Workers-uncover-carcasses-of-Hanford-test-animals-1225341.php" target="_blank">buried there</a>. The site houses radioactive debris ranging from medical wastes to <a href="http://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/safety/Pages/Naval-Nuclear-Transport.aspx" target="_blank">propulsion reactors from decommissioned submarines</a> and <a href="http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/pdf.cfm?accession=E0025397" target="_blank">parts of the reactor</a> that melted down at Three Mile Island. Some nuclear decision makers have called Hanford a "national sacrifice zone."
</p><p>
<strong>A Struggle for Accountability</strong>
</p><p>
In the mid-1980s, local residents grew suspicious about an apparent excess of illnesses and deaths in their community. Initially, strict secrecy—reinforced by the region's economic dependence on the Hanford site—made it hard for concerned citizens to get information.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg5MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzEyMzcyMn0.zKJ-CKGOCT9LqpwEb_VXXUrM360-o9OSXGDhTeKRmkk/img.jpg?width=980" id="2c53b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="21ab629baad3728e9fb14ff4b532dba3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Cold War-era billboard at Hanford reinforcing strict secrecy rules</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">USDOE</small>
</p><p>
Once the curtain of secrecy was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120052284" target="_blank">partially lifted</a> under pressure from area residents and journalists, public outrage prompted <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/hanford/background.pdf" target="_blank">two major health effects studies</a> that engendered fierce controversy. By the close of the decade, more than 3,500 "downwinders" had filed lawsuits related to illnesses they attributed to Hanford. A judge finally <a href="http://www.tricityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article57866938.html" target="_blank">dismissed the case</a> in 2016 after limited compensation to a handful of plaintiffs, leaving a bitter legacy of legal disputes and personal anguish.</p><p>Cleanup operations at Hanford began in 1989, but have been hamstrung by
<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-hanford-ever-be-cleaned-up/" target="_blank">daunting technical challenges and management errors</a>. The <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/2016_LCR_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf" target="_blank">current estimate</a> assumes work will continue through 2060 and cost more than $100 billion, beyond the approximately $50 billion already spent.</p><p>
A key challenge is building a facility to extract the most toxic materials from the tank wastes and enclose them in glass logs to be sent elsewhere for permanent burial.
<a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article159590304.html" target="_blank">Projected costs</a> have ballooned to more than $17 billion, and the estimated completion date is now 2036. And with the proposed <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341369-trump-triggers-fight-over-yucca-waste-site" target="_blank">Yucca Mountain</a> nuclear waste repository in Nevada mired in controversy, there is still no final resting place for these materials, which will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
</p><p>
Cleanup has progressed in other areas. The reactors have been shut down and enclosed in
<a href="https://energy.gov/em/articles/hanford-workers-enter-reactor-prepare-cocooning" target="_blank">concrete and steel "cocoons"</a> until their radioactivity decays further. Hanford's "<a href="http://b-reactor.org/" target="_blank">B Reactor</a>," the world's first large-scale nuclear reactor, is now part of the <a href="https://energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project/manhattan-project-0" target="_blank">Manhattan Project National Historic Park</a>.
</p><p>
Buffer lands around the outer parts of the site, presumably clean enough for the purpose, have been converted to
<a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hanford_Reach/maps.html" target="_blank">wildlife refuge areas</a>. And in 2015, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatory (LIGO), with a station located at Hanford, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-ligo-texts-you-to-say-its-detected-one-of-einsteins-predicted-gravitational-waves-53259" target="_blank">detected the first gravitational waves</a> predicted by Albert Einstein. LIGO scientists chose Hanford for its remote location and minimal interference from human activity.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="350cd7e117c8e9768f7a976320558cac"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8rlVHEY7BF0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>
<strong>Lessons to Remember</strong>
</p><p>
The Department of Energy now considers
<a href="https://energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites" target="_blank">many of its former nuclear weapons production sites</a> to be fully cleaned up. Some remaining sites are involved in maintaining the current nuclear arsenal and could play roles producing new weapons. Others, like Hanford, are "legacy" sites where cleanup is the sole mission.
</p><p>
There is more oversight of the nuclear weapons complex today, but serious concerns remain. Notably, inspectors have found problems at
<a href="http://www.lanl.gov/" target="_blank">Los Alamos National Laboratory</a> dating back to 2011 related to handling of <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-watchdog-identifies-new-workplace-safety-problems-at-los-alamos-lab" target="_blank">beryllium</a>, a toxic material that can cause <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a> and lung disease.
</p><p>
These issues at Hanford and other nuclear sites are reminders that nuclear weapons production is a risky process—and that in Washington state and elsewhere, legacies of the Cold War are still very much with us.
</p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cold-wars-toxic-legacy-costly-dangerous-cleanups-at-atomic-bomb-production-sites-90378" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90378/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Do You Do These 5 Things With Your Cellphone That Health Officials Say You Shouldn’t?
18 December 2017
Health + Wellness
By April M. Short
Radiation from your cellphone could be bad for more than just your mental health, California state health officials warn.
<p style="">The California Department of Public Health has just released the <a href="https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell-Phone-Guidance.pdf" target="_blank">first-ever guidelines</a> on avoiding too much exposure to the radiation cellphones emit. State officials said one of the reasons for releasing the guidelines is that statistics show cellphone use is at an all-time high, with <a href="https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/" target="_blank">95 percent of Americans using cellphones each day</a>, Pew Research Center noted.</p><p style="">Karen Smith, of the state health department, said there is widespread public concern over cellphone safety, according to a San Francisco CBS station.</p><p style="">Perhaps another reason the guidelines are coming out now is due to pressure from researchers and others.</p><p>Psychologist and UC Berkeley professor Joel Moskowitz sued the health department in 2009 for its refusal to release information on the risks of cellphone use to the public. He won the lawsuit this spring. "People are being injured and harmed by the delay in having this information accessible to them," Moskowitz <a href="https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/12/14/california-cellphone-radiation-guidelines/" target="_blank">told San Francisco's CBS News affiliate</a>.</p><p><strong>Potential Risks</strong></p><p style="">Cellphone use may increase the risk of cancer, but the scientific evidence so far is inconclusive, mainly due to the relatively short period of time cellphones have been around.</p><p style="">Cellphone radiation could be harmful due to the type of radio waves the devices emit: non-ionizing radiation. Tissues close to phone antennas—which exist inside of every smartphone—can be heated by the radiation, as the FDA, American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute all recognize. When you hold your phone up to your head, those nearby tissues include your ears and brain.</p><p style="">Some studies have linked cellphone radiation exposure with brain tumors and other brain cancers, as <a href="https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html" target="_blank">the American Cancer Society</a> acknowledges, but most studies have not shown conclusive evidence one way or another. Because cellphone use has only been widespread for a few years, as ACA noted, it is impossible for any study to conclude what the long-term health effects of exposure could be.</p><p style="">Higher levels of exposure to non-ionizing radiation are known to impact the health of human cells and DNA, but whether cellphones can expose us to those higher levels is a question researchers are still working to answer.</p><p style="">AlterNet ran an <a href="https://www.alternet.org/story/153299/radiation_from_cell_phones_and_wifi_are_making_people_sick_--_are_we_all_at_risk" target="_blank">article by Christopher Ketcham in 2011</a> exploring the widespread reports of cellphones and WiFi making people and animals sick. For the first time in human history, Ketcham noted, people are being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies from cellphones, WiFi and digital meters 24 hours a day. He quotes David O. Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the State University of New York, who said, "Radio frequency radiation has a number of biological effects which can be reproducibly found in animals and cellular systems. We really cannot say for certain what the adverse effects are in humans. But the indications are that there may be—and I use the words 'may be'—very serious effects in humans."</p><p style="">While the National Cancer Institute's official stance is that cellphones likely do not emit high enough levels of radiation to affect human health, at least in the short term, its <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet" target="_blank">fact sheet</a> on cellphone safety states: "Radio frequency exposure from cellphone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cellphone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radio frequency energy."</p><p style="">Other research shows that cellular phones could potentially <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074720/" target="_blank">lower sperm count</a>, cause <a href="https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2377-11-115" target="_blank">headaches</a> and interfere with <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089837/" target="_blank">sleep</a>, <a href="https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20070919/cell-phones-may-cause-hearing-loss" target="_blank">hearing</a> and <a href="https://fortune.com/2015/07/21/smartphone-memory/" target="_blank">memory</a> retention.</p><p style="">CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta warned in 2012 that the risks of cellphone radiation are largely unknown. See the video, below:</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="431ca5c54b18f001abd6f21c4e96738c"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GeYaN8aBfzI?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p>
<p style="">An <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/07/do-cellphones-cause-brain-cancer-or-not/534303/" target="_blank">Atlantic article</a> from earlier this year notes that a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5417432/#" target="_blank">study published in PLUS ONE</a> concluded there is a "'significant' association between long-term mobile phone use and the risk of glioma," a type of brain tumor.<br></p><p style="">"But the actual significance of the link is questionable," the Atlantic piece stated. "The data they used spanned 11 studies between 1980 and 2016, but the researchers themselves acknowledged the evidence is limited and much of the data is 'poor quality.' The biggest takeaway, then, may be their conclusion that more study is needed." As in the U.S., European health experts continue to argue over the potential risks of cellphone radiation amid lack of long-term studies. A large-scale cellphone health study, the <a href="https://www.thecosmosproject.org/" target="_blank">COSMOS</a> project, is currently working to track the phone usage and health of more than half a million people across Europe. The study began in 2007 and will continue for the next two to three decades.</p><p><strong>The New Guidelines</strong></p><p>Since the long-term risk of cellphone use is unknown, why not take some simple, commonsense steps to reduce radiation exposure just in case? This was the apparent thought process behind California's new guidelines.</p><p>The risk of cellphone radiation exposure can increase or decrease exponentially based on some simple do's and don'ts. It's a matter of tweaking a few basic habits.</p><p style="">Here are five things not to do, according to the <a href="https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell-Phone-Guidance.pdf" target="_blank">California guidelines</a> for cellphone health, <em>How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cellphones.</em></p><p style=""><strong>1. Don't hold your phone up to your ear.</strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>"Use the speakerphone or a headset instead," because "wireless (Bluetooth) and wired headsets emit much less RF energy than cellphones." The guidelines also suggest sending text messages rather than talking on the phone whenever possible.</p><p style=""><strong>2. Try not to use your phone if you're in a fast-moving vehicle.</strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>"Your phone puts out more RF energy to maintain connections to avoid dropping calls as it switches connections from one cell tower to the next unless it is in airplane mode," the guidelines state.</p><p style=""><strong>3. Avoid using your phone when you have one or two service bars showing.</strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>"Cellphones put out more RF energy to connect with cell towers when the signal is weak," the guide notes.</p><p style=""><strong>4. Don't carry your phone in your pocket, bra or holster close to your body.</strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>The guidelines suggest you carry it in a backpack, briefcase, purse or elsewhere, so that the device is kept several inches away from your body. A few inches can make a difference, it notes. Also, put phones on airplane mode when carrying them close as the devices don't emit RF energy when in airplane mode.</p><p style=""><strong>5. Never sleep with your phone under your pillow or near your head.</strong> </p><p rel="" style="">Karen Smith from the state health department suggests keeping your phone at least an arm's length away from your body when sleeping. You should also turn your phone off or on airplane mode while you sleep, the guidelines note.</p><p style=""> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.alternet.org/personal-health/do-you-do-these-5-things-your-phone-health-officials-say-you-shouldnt" target="_blank">AlterNet</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Cell Phone Radiation Risks: California Issues Groundbreaking Guidelines
15 December 2017
Health + Wellness
Pexels
By Olga Naidenko
This week, California officially issued groundbreaking guidelines advising cell phone users to keep phones away from their bodies and limit use when reception is weak. State officials caution that studies link radiation from long-term cell phone use to an increased risk of brain cancer, lower sperm counts and other health problems, and note that children's developing brains could be at greater risk.
<p style="">The state Department of Public Health was <a href="http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-may-order-release-of-state-health-report-on-10973430.php" target="_blank">forced to release the guidelines</a> in March after a lawsuit by University of California, Berkeley, researcher <a href="http://www.saferemr.com/2017/03/cell-phone-safety-guidance-from.html" target="_blank">Dr. Joel Moskowitz</a>. At the time, the department said the guidelines were only a draft, but they now are the state's official position. The Department of Public Health guidelines closely align with EWG's <a href="https://cdn.ewg.org/sites/default/files/EWGCellphoneTips.pdf?_ga=2.83145938.591334538.1513097846-1449226394.1509993531" target="_blank">Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use</a>, published in 2016.</p><p style="">In studies by the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/landmark-federal-study-cell-phone-radiation-linked-brain-cancer" target="_blank">federal National Toxicology Program</a>, male rats exposed to cell phone radiation had a greater chance of developing a brain cancer called malignant glioma, as well as developing a tumor found on the heart. Based on human epidemiological studies demonstrating increased risk of brain tumors, the World Health Organization has declared cell phone radiation <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf" target="_blank">a possible carcinogen</a>. Meanwhile, the telecom industry continues to fight efforts to inform the public.</p><p style="">In a press release, Department of Public Health Director Karen Smith said:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Simple steps, such as not keeping your phone in your pocket and moving it away from your bed at night, can help reduce exposure for both children and adults ... Children's brains develop through the teenage years and may be more affected by cell phone use. Parents should consider reducing the time their children use cell phones and encourage them to turn the devices off at night.</p><p style="">Now more than ever, Americans need real-world, relevant data on how much radiation is emitted from cell phones and the other wireless devices that pervade our lives. Until this information is publicly available, taking steps to lower exposure to wireless radiation is prudent. </p><p style=""><em><a href="https://www.ewg.org/bio/olga-naidenko#.WjQB41Q-eTd" target="_blank">Olga Naidenko</a> senior science advisor for Children's Environmental Health at the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a>.</em></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Fears of Radiation Leak Soar After North Korea Nuclear Site Collapse Kills 200
31 October 2017
Politics
North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear test site. Google Earth
Experts are issuing urgent warnings of a possible radiation leak following the collapse of a tunnel at North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear test site, an accident that reportedly killed at least 200 people.
"Should [the Punggye-ri site] sink, there is a possibility" that hazardous radioactive gas could be released into the atmosphere, warned South Korea weather agency chief Nam Jae-cheol during a parliamentary meeting on Monday, ahead of reports of the incident.
<p style="">The tunnel's collapse, first reported by the Japanese outlet TV Asahi on Tuesday, is <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-tunnel/tunnel-collapse-may-have-killed-200-after-north-korea-nuclear-test-japanese-broadcaster-idUSKBN1D018L" target="_blank">presumed to have occurred</a> as a result of the destabilization caused by Pyongyang's <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/03/need-diplomacy-more-clear-ever-after-north-korea-claims-h-bomb-test" target="_blank">powerful hydrogen bomb test last month</a>.</p><p style="">The Telegraph, citing South Korean news agency Yonhap, reported that the original incident took place on Oct. 10 though it remains unclear exactly when the secondary collapse may have occurred.</p><p style="">Business Insider's Alex Lockie <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korean-nuclear-test-site-tunnel-collapse-reportedly-kills-200-2017-10" target="_blank">reported</a> that according to North Korean sources, the tunnel initially "collapsed on 100 workers, and an additional 100 went in to rescue them, only to die themselves under the unstable mountain."</p><p style="">Lockie continued:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The tunnels in and out of the test site had been damaged previously, and the workers may have been clearing or repairing the tunnels to resume nuclear testing. Additionally, with the test site compromised, hazardous radioactive material left over from the blast may seep out, which could possibly cause an international incident.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">If the debris from the test reaches China, Beijing would see that as an attack on its country, Jenny Town, the assistant director of the U.S.-Korea Institute and a managing editor at 38 North, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-nuclear-missile-atmospheric-test-pacific-2017-10" target="_blank">previously told Business Insider</a>."<br></p><p style="">Reports of the deadly accident come on the heels of an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/after-six-tests-the-mountain-hosting-north-koreas-nuclear-blasts-may-be-exhausted/2017/10/20/ccdfa016-b50d-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html" target="_blank">analysis</a> by the Washington Post<em> </em>suggesting that North Korea's nuclear tests may have become "so big that they have altered the geological structure of the land."</p><p style="">"Some analysts now see signs that Mount Mantap, the 7,200-foot-high peak under which North Korea detonates its nuclear bombs, is suffering from 'tired mountain syndrome,'" the Post noted. "The mountain visibly shifted during the last nuclear test, an enormous detonation that was recorded as a 6.3-magnitude <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/earthquakes">earthquake</a> in North Korea's northeast. Since then, the area, which is not known for natural seismic activity, has had three more quakes."</p><p style=""><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/31/fears-radiation-leak-soar-after-north-korea-nuclear-site-collapse-kills-200" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
We are broadcasting from Washington state, where the Department of Energy declared a state of emergency at the Hanford nuclear site after a tunnel storing contaminated radioactive materials collapsed.
<p>The collapse, which was discovered Tuesday, forced hundreds of workers to take cover to avoid potential exposure. Hanford is the nation's most polluted nuclear weapons production site. The site has been leaking radioactive waste on and off for years. </p><p>The Energy Department claims no radioactive contamination has been reported so far from Tuesday's tunnel collapse. But Edwin Lyman from the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> said, "Collapse of the Earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release."</p><p>Now the Washington state Department of Ecology's Nuclear Waste Program has announced on Twitter that it has taken legal action against Hanford. We speak with Tom Carpenter, executive director of <a href="http://www.hanfordchallenge.org/" target="_blank">Hanford Challenge</a>, which advocates for workers at the Hanford nuclear site.</p><p>Watch the interview below:</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube"><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a7d4d424214c8dc6964c4d542f735aec"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bqPpFuBtgoM?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span></p><p><strong><strong>Here's a transcript of the interview:</strong></strong></p><p><strong>Amy Goodman:</strong> We turn now to our last segment, and we continue to focus on what's happening at a state and local level that's happening all over the country. Next week, we'll be traveling throughout California and broadcasting throughout there. You can check our website at democracynow.org to see where we'll be. But right here in Washington state, where the Department of Energy declared a state of emergency at the Hanford nuclear site after a tunnel storing contaminated radioactive materials collapsed, is the subject of our last segment. The collapse, which was discovered Tuesday, forced hundreds of workers to take cover, to shelter in place, to avoid potential exposure. Local station <span style="background-color: initial;">KING</span> 5 obtained this video from a worker describing the scene.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><strong>PA Announcer:</strong> All personnel report to their respective lunchrooms for further information and/or instruction. All personnel should refrain from eating or drinking until told it is safe to do so.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><strong>Hanford Worker:</strong> Well, so, it's either a drill or an emergency. Gotta take cover.<br></p><p><strong><span></span><strong>Amy Goodman</strong><span></span>:</strong> Hanford is the nation's most polluted nuclear weapons production site. The site has been leaking radioactive waste on and off for years. The Energy Department claims no radioactive contamination has been reported so far from Tuesday's tunnel collapse. But Edwin Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists said, quote, "Collapse of the Earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release," unquote. Well, now the state of Washington's Department of Ecology's Nuclear Waste Program has announced on Twitter it's taken legal action against Hanford.</p><p>For more, we're joined here in Seattle by Tom Carpenter, executive director of Hanford Challenge, which advocates for workers at the Hanford nuclear site.</p><p>Tom, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain what's taken place. I mean, given what's happening in Washington, DC, there's very little national awareness about what you're dealing with here in Washington.</p><p><strong>Tom Carpenter:</strong> Ok, so this is the nation's most contaminated site. In the state of Washington here, it was built to make nuclear weapons and plutonium for those weapons. And now we're left with this legacy of radioactive waste. And so, what recently happened on Tuesday morning was one of the facilities at the site suffered a collapse of a tunnel, holding vast quantities of very highly dangerous radioactive materials. Now, the government is saying that none of that escaped, except, you know, radiation itself into the sky, but no particles escaped. And so, now the question really remains is: Is that true? Were workers contaminated? It appears not. But what is the next—you know, what is the next shoe that's going to fall? So, what's in this tunnel, right? So, we know that there are chemicals. There are explosive materials. There could be fires that happen. So we're all watching with bated breath.</p><p><strong><span></span><strong><strong>Amy Goodman</strong></strong><span></span>:</strong> Can you explain what the PUREX is, the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant?</p><p><strong><span></span><strong>Tom Carpenter</strong><span></span>:</strong> Yes. So, this was a facility that was used to dissolve spent nuclear fuel made in nuclear reactors on the shores of the Columbia River. They had nine reactors. And this facility would dissolve this stuff in acid, separate out the plutonium. And they had this very large inventory of highly radioactive and chemical waste products left over. That's what's at Hanford now.</p><p><strong><span></span><strong><strong>Amy Goodman</strong></strong><span></span>:</strong> Can you explain the history of the Hanford site and its role in the U.S. nuclear program?</p><p><strong><span></span><strong>Tom Carpenter</strong><span></span>:</strong> Sure. Hanford was the first production facility that came out of the work at Los Alamos during World War II. So, it made the plutonium for the very first nuclear test in the deserts of New Mexico and was the plutonium dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in the Fat Man bomb. So, it went on then to make more and more plutonium. And it does this by irradiating uranium slugs and then taking that irradiated uranium, dissolving that in a process called reprocessing. And Hanford became the most contaminated facility as a result.</p><p>It's hard to—it's hard to describe exactly how bad this place is. It's got two-thirds of the nation's high-level nuclear waste. There are just 56 million gallons of this waste in underground, leaking tanks. This one little tunnel that was the subject of Tuesday's collapse was really a small thing compared to what else is out at that site. So, you can imagine a collapse of a nuclear waste tank containing millions of curies of radioactivity. You're talking about a multistate disaster. And those tanks are in no better shape than this tunnel. And that's the concern, is that the federal government spent trillions of dollars to make nuclear weapons, but it's shortchanging us on the cleanup at these sites. It's supposed to take years and years. The money is being stolen. It's a fraud factory, in a way. And, you know, so the public is really getting shafted on this one.</p><p><strong><span></span><strong><strong>Amy Goodman</strong></strong><span></span>:</strong> So, very quickly, you have sued the federal government on behalf of the workers at Hanford. We have less than a minute. Can you explain what you have sued over, what you're demanding and, with this latest accident, what needs to happen?</p><p><strong><span></span><strong>Tom Carpenter</strong><span></span>:</strong> Ok. So we brought a lawsuit along with the union at the Hanford site, the pipefitters' union in the state of Washington, to force the government to provide better protections for the workers out there who inhale chemical vapors and then get sick. And, you know, sadly, people are not being protected, even though there are some pretty grave health injuries that result. And we are demanding that people are protected with respiratory protection in the future and that they do something to protect these people. And, you know, this latest incident is a great illustration of how workers are on the front lines of harm out there.</p><p><strong><span></span><strong><strong>Amy Goodman</strong></strong><span></span>:</strong> Well, Tom, I want to thank you for being with us, Tom Carpenter, executive director of Hanford Challenge, which advocates for workers at the Hanford nuclear site.</p><p>That does it for our show. I'm heading back to New York on Friday night, as we continue our multicity <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events" target="_blank">tour</a>, Covering the Movements Changing America. I'll be speaking in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_the_new_school__1391" target="_blank">New York City</a> Friday night at The New School at the Tishman Auditorium on 5th Avenue just under 14th Street at 7:00 p.m. On Saturday—that is May 13—I'll be in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_capitol_theater_1386" target="_blank">Olympia, Washington</a>, at the Capitol Theater at 11:00 a.m., then at Powell's Books at Cedars Hills Crossing in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_powells_books_at_cedar_hills_crossing_1387" target="_blank">Beaverton, Oregon</a>, right outside Portland, Saturday night at 5:00. Then off to California, we'll be stopping in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_a_benefit_for_khsu_1398" target="_blank">Eureka</a> Sunday at noon at the Sequoia Conference Center at 7:00 p.m., <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_first_presbyterian_church_of_berkeley_1388" target="_blank">Berkeley</a> at the First Presbyterian Church, and then on Monday in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_bookshop_santa_cruz_1395" target="_blank">Santa Cruz</a>. In the evening, we'll be in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_in_palo_alto_1393" target="_blank">Palo Alto</a>, Tuesday in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_in_san_diego_1399" target="_blank">San Diego</a>, then <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_a_benefit_for_kpfk_1394" target="_blank">Los Angeles</a>, then <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_benefit_for_kcsb_and_kzaa_lpfm_1396" target="_blank">Santa Barbara</a>. And we're going beyond. We'll be in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_a_benefit_for_nmpbs_ksfr_and_kunm_1397" target="_blank">Santa Fe, New Mexico</a>. We'll be in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_book_signing_at_changing_hands_1389" target="_blank">Tempe, Arizona</a>, and finally in <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/events/2017/5/amy_goodman_at_a_benefit_for_kpft_1392" target="_blank">Houston, Texas</a>. </p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/11/workers_fear_radiation_exposure_after_nuclear" target="_blank">Democracy Now!</a></em><br></p>
Read More
Show Less
The Department of Energy declared an emergency Tuesday at a plutonium-handling facility at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state after a tunnel partly collapsed. Federal officials said, there was "no indication of a release of contamination at this point."
<p>Hundreds of Workers were told to evacuate or take cover as officials responded to reports of "a cave-in of a 20 foot section of a tunnel that is hundreds of feet long that is used to store contaminated materials," according to a <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/c.cfm/eoc/?page=290" target="_blank">statement</a> from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).</p><p>"The tunnel itself was breached. There was a 20-foot wide hole," a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-washington-nuclear-idUSKBN18524M" target="_blank">said</a> by telephone from the Hanford Joint Information Center. </p><p>The tunnel, located next to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility, also known as PUREX, is in the center of Hanford in an area known as the 200 East Area.</p><p>"The PUREX facility is one of Hanford's most contaminated areas," Dan Serres, conservation director at <a href="http://columbiariverkeeper.org/" target="_blank">Columbia Riverkeeper</a>, told EcoWatch. "It was the source for the majority of Hanford's weapons plutonium, and Hanford itself produced more than two-thirds of the plutonium in the U.S."</p><p>"The tunnel collapse is a disturbing event, and we hope for the safety of all the workers in the area," Serres continued. "Their work is critical to protecting our region and the Columbia River. Looking forward, we will be watching closely to see how the U.S. Department of Energy continues the cleanup effort in this area and throughout the Hanford site."</p><p>The Energy Department said via <a href="https://twitter.com/EnergyPressSec/status/862011423567884288" target="_blank">Twitter</a> that Sec. Perry "has been briefed on the incident." The most recent update from the DOE, said crews were continuing to monitor the air as employees were being released early as a precaution.</p><p>"This is a potentially serious event," Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-washington-nuclear-idUSKBN18524M" target="_blank">said</a>. "I can see why the site ordered emergency measures. Collapse of the earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release."</p><p>The Hanford site, in southeastern Washington about 170 miles east of Seattle, is known for being the most contaminated <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear">nuclear</a> site in the country. The facility made more than 20 million pieces of uranium metal fuel for nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River. The reactors produced plutonium for America's defense program. Production ended at the facility in the late 1980s, and cleanup began in 1989, after a landmark agreement between the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington state.</p><p>According to a report late last year from the <a href="http://www.opb.org/news/series/battleready/hanford-nuclear-radioactive-weapons-site-pollution-cleanup/" target="_blank">Oregon Public Broadcasting</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Hanford is the nation's largest nuclear cleanup site, with 56 million gallons of radioactive waste sitting in old, leaky underground tanks just a few hours upriver from Portland. After more than 20 years and $19 billion[,] not a drop of waste has been treated.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Hanford sits next to the Columbia River. It was one of the original Manhattan Project sites. Its nine nuclear reactors irradiated uranium fuel rods. That created plutonium, which was extracted with chemicals, processed and shipped to weapons factories. Each step produced radioactive waste. ...</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The stored waste has to be treated in special rooms called black cells, which are too radioactive for humans to enter. The machinery in these black cells is supposed to operate for 40 years with no direct human intervention. If something goes wrong, the cells could be damaged."</p><p>Watch here to learn more about the Hanford site:</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube"><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c14abe83854b316416cb99484515495b"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L8eDFhHpf2s?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span></p>
Read More
Show Less