United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
NOTICE OF EXEMPT SOLICITATION
Pursuant to Rule 14a-103
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
Name of the Registrant: Alphabet Inc.
Name of person relying on exemption: Environmental Health Trust
Address of person relying on exemption: 8070 Georgia Avenue, Suite 301, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Written materials are submitted pursuant to Rule 14a-6(g)
(1) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Submission is not required of this filer under the terms of the Rule but is
made voluntarily in the interest of public disclosure and consideration of these important issues.
Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”)
Vote Yes: Item #5
Stockholder Proposal Requesting a Report on Electromagnetic
Radiation and Wireless Technologies Risks
Annual Meeting: June 7, 2024
The Environmental Health Trust1
recommends that Alphabet Inc. investors support shareholder proposal (Item #5) included in the Company’s 2024 proxy statement.
SUMMARY
The shareholder proposal states:
Resolved, Google shall issue an annual report, at a reasonable expense
and excluding proprietary information, on the health effects and financial risks associated with electromagnetic radiation and wireless
technologies and compare its safety performance to the other wireless device developers, operators, and manufacturers.
Google sells numerous wireless devices. Radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from
such wireless products is believed by many market participants and experts to pose significant health, liability and reputational risks.
It is in Alphabet shareholders’ best interest for the Company to demonstrate how it is taking meaningful steps to address the safety
of the wireless products it markets, and to prove that those products are (i) reasonably used in compliance with both existing and recommended
health safety guidelines, and (ii) that insurance is in place now and is reasonably available in the future against such risks.
It is also past time for the Company to “compete on safety,” regarding
these products.
The Company's statement in opposition to this proposal downplays the issue. It is
not even clear whether the company is insured or under-insured in this matter. Nor is it clear that the Company has made an effort to
place in the market products that are increasingly safer than that of the competition. However, the substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed,
published scientific literature provides mounting evidence of serious health risks to humans and the environment from long-term exposure
to wireless radiation at levels emitted by wireless devices, even with current regulations and disclosures. The Company's current risk
factor and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) public disclosures neglect fulsomely address these health risks and concomitant
financial and reputational liabilities.
_____________________________
1 The Environmental Health Trust is a 501(c)3 think tank that promotes
a healthier environment through research, education, and policy. We work with world-class experts to conduct cutting-edge research that
can help inform improved safety standards for sources of pollution, including devices that emit microwave radiation. The filer of the
shareholder proposal and investor in Alphabet, Inc,, Lendri S. Purcell, is a board member of the Environmental Health Trust.
The requested disclosure is needed for investors because:
| ● | Research on Impacts on Children: Hundreds of scientists from leading research institutions
and medical practitioners have called upon governments, regulatory bodies, and wireless companies to reduce public exposure to wireless
radiation, especially for children who are more vulnerable due to their developing physiology and their longer expected period of exposure.
Many countries have substantially stricter safety limits for the environmental RF exposures created by wireless networks than those in
the U.S.2 |
| · | Federal Court Order: U.S. RF exposure regulations have not materially changed since they were implemented 28 years ago by the
Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). The FCC on August 13, 2021 was subjected to a federal court Remand in the
case Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC regarding these very same ancient and materially unchanged human RF exposure rules.
The Court also noted the FCC’s reliance on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and stated the FDA’s “conclusory statements
do not constitute a reasoned explanation” as “they offer “no articulation of the factual . . . bases for the FDA’s
conclusion.” The FCC has yet to respond to and resolve the Remand, including failing to subsequently publish a full and comprehensive
scientific review of those same ancient regulations in response to the Remand. Likewise, the FDA has yet
to materially respond to the ruling. |
| ● | Consumer Notice Failures: Company RF exposure warnings currently exist to inform consumers that they must maintain a
specific separation distance between their body and their Google phone or wireless device. However, these instructions are not always
prominently displayed. Many consumers are likely unaware of the existence of this “warning” due to it taking multiple
steps in many cases for a determined consumer to search for and locate the warning. Even upon finding it, the regulatory language
is sometimes densely written and hard to understand, and thus ineffective as a notice to most users or prospective users. |
| ● | Real World Uses of Company Devices Often Do Not Match Guidelines: The RF exposure compliance recommendations sometimes state
that Google’s cell phone should be operated no closer than 5mm from the body. A simple online search for Google devices near people
results in videos3 showing consumers using Google wireless phones tucked into exercise clothes and bras and otherwise in direct
bodily contact or in close-proximity positions (closer than the RF exposure compliance test position) which could potentially allow RF
exposures that exceed regulatory limits. |
_____________________________
2 Googles phones and wireless products create
ambient RF exposures. Many countries have limits for ambient environmental exposures much more stringent than the US. See Rianne Stam,National
Institute for Public Health and the Environment, the Netherlands Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic fields (power
frequency and radiofrequency fields), 2018https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2018-11/Comparison%20of%20international%20policies%20on%20electromagnetic%20fields%202018.pdf
; See a country comparison at https://ehtrust.org/u-s-government-regulations-on-cell-tower-radiation/; While the US cell phone local SAR
limit is lower than ICNIRPs limit, the FCC has long allowed cell phone compliance tests to use separation distances up to 25 mm, which
can result in an actual SAR much higher at closer distances.
3 Baby
Say First Word OK GOOGLE - Bebe Llamando a Google - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d3oa6AaEW3o;
Baby girl and google home mini Mommy Pinky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e48acE0hRUE; Hey Google
ABC, Guy with Dreams https://www.facebook.com/reel/3483497335260544; Kids Ask Google home Tech Family
Time https://youtu.be/i9ZPJFkP6mg?si=xIyylHfmfiLuWK8L&t=103;
Regarding Pixel phones https://9to5google.com/2021/11/15/google-assistant-on-pixel-6-is-randomly-placing-phone-calls-for-some-heres-how-to-stop-it/
; See also: New York Times on how the Pixel Fold "actually closes completely with no noticeable gap, which creates a more streamlined
look and protects the screen more effectively when the device is in a pocket or bag." https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/google-pixel-fold-review/;
If you have your phone in your pocket https://youtu.be/Vvq8vKXRZLE?si=Fa6GkM66HOEavYyn&t=135;
pocket friendly google https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCc9XAGsdG0; https://fi.google.com/about/phones/samsung-galaxy-z-flip5?pli=1 "Pocket
sized with big personality" ; https://blog.google/intl/en-ca/products/devices-services/pixel-updates-io-23/
New Pixel devices for your pocket and your home."
| ● | Studies Document Harm: Consumers may suffer injury or disease as a result of exposure
to the Company’s devices, and the networks servicing those devices, which could result in lawsuits leading to financial risk to
Google and Alphabet.4 Yet Google has not prominently disclosed: |
| ○ | Is it insured against liabilities from exposure to its RF products. If it is insured,
is it under-insured? |
| ○ | Has the Company ever conducted "real world usage" testing, including
the proximities of exposure many consumers would face with common usage (2 mm, 1 mm and 0 mm separation of the wireless device from the
skin)? |
| ○ | Has the Company researched and published the impacts of its products on babies and children? Has the Company acknowledged that
babies and children have thinner skin, thinner skulls and that their developing brains and organs may be more susceptible to RF radiation
from their devices and the networks that support those devices? |
| ○ | Has the board or management ever contemplated hardware and software changes to "compete
on safety", ie., developing and marketing RF emitting products safer, with less RF radiation, than those of its competitors? |
| ○ | Has the board or management researched the RF Exposure guidelines in Switzerland and other countries to determine why those
countries have often dramatically different guidelines and regulations? |
Now is the time for Alphabet to improve and to clearly report on its efforts to manage
the risks of wireless radiation exposure from Google’s wireless devices, mitigate its financial and reputational risks, and educate
its customers of the health risks when Google’s products are not being used consistent with the consumer warnings.
We recommend that shareholders vote YES on proposal # 5 which requests Google
to issue an annual report on the health effects, safety issues, and financial risks related to Google’s wireless products.
_____________________________
4 Research
regarding these conclusions includes and is not limited to: Lin, James, Health Matters: A Paradigm Shift, IEEE Microwave Magazine,
December, 2023, A Paradigm Shift? [Health Matters] (researchgate.net); Miller, A. B., Sears, M. E., Morgan, L. L., Davis, D. L., Hardell,
L., Oremus, M., & Soskolne, C. L. (2019). Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation
Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Frontiers in Public Health, 7;
Electromagnetic Fields of Wireless Communications: Biological and Health Effects
Edited By Dimitris J. Panagopoulos,
CRC Press (2022), https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003201052
The shareholder proposal requests the Company to issue an annual report on how
it is addressing the health effects and financial risks associated with wireless radiation exposure arising from the use of its wireless
devices.
An enormous body of peer-reviewed, independent scientific research has been published
in recent years linking human and animal wireless exposures to a myriad of serious health impacts5 from cancer6
to memory,7 brain development,8 endocrine system,9 thyroid,10 testosterone,11 reproduction,12
and DNA/genetic damage.13,14 Additionally, recently published reviews document evidence of RF radiation’s negative impacts
to wildlife,15especially pollinators16, as well as plants,17 and trees,18 and recommend RF
mitigation measures.19
_____________________________
5 McCredden,
J. E., Cook, N., Weller, S., & Leach, V. (2022). Wireless
technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care.
Frontiers in Public Health, 10
6 Choi, Y.-J., Moskowitz, J. M., Myung,
S.-K., Lee, Y.-R., & Hong, Y.-C. (2020). Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8079.; Shih,
Y. W., Hung, C. S., Huang, C. C., Chou, K. R., Niu, S. F., Chan, S., & Tsai, H. T. (2020). The
Association Between Smartphone Use and Breast Cancer Risk Among Taiwanese Women: A Case-Control Study.
Cancer management and research, 12, 10799–10807; West, J. G., Kapoor, N. S., Liao, S. Y., Chen, J. W., Bailey, L.,
& Nagourney, R. A. (2013). Multifocal Breast Cancer
in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones.
Case reports in medicine, 2013, 354682.
7 Foerster, M., Thielens, A., Joseph, W.,
Eeftens, M., & R, öösli M. (n.d.). A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory
Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Environmental Health Perspectives,
126(7), 077007.
8 Aldad, T. S., Gan, G., Gao, X.-B., &
Taylor, H. S. (2012). Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones
Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice. Scientific Reports, 2(1), 312.
9 Sangün, Ö., Dündar, B.,
Çömlekçi, S., & Büyükgebiz, A. (2015). The Effects of Electromagnetic Field
on the Endocrine System in Children and Adolescents. Pediatric Endocrinology Reviews: PER, 13(2), 531–545.
10 Alkayyali, T., Ochuba, O., Srivastava,
K., Sandhu, J. K., Joseph, C., Ruo, S. W., Jain, A., Waqar, A., & Poudel, S. (2021). An Exploration of
the Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted by Mobile Phones and Extremely Low Frequency Radiation on Thyroid Hormones and Thyroid
Gland Histopathology. Cureus, 13(8).
11 Maluin,
S. M., Osman, K., Jaffar, F. H. F., & Ibrahim, S. F. (2021). Effect
of Radiation Emitted by Wireless Devices on Male Reproductive Hormones: A Systematic Review.
Frontiers in Physiology, 12.
12 Gautam
R, Pardhiya S, Nirala JP, Sarsaiya P, Rajamani P. Effects
of 4G mobile phone radiation exposure on reproductive, hepatic, renal, and hematological parameters of male Wistar rat. Environ
Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023 Dec 16; Kim S, Han D, Ryu J, Kim K, Kim YH. Effects
of mobile phone usage on sperm quality - No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Environ Res. 2021 Nov; Jangid, P., Rai, U., Sharma, R. S., &
Singh, R. (2022). The role of non-ionizing electromagnetic
radiation on female fertility: A review. International
Journal of Environmental Health Research, 0(0), 1–16.
13 Panagopoulos, D. J., Karabarbounis, A.,
Yakymenko, I., & Chrousos, G. P. (2021). Human-made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced-oscillation and
voltage-gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review). International Journal of Oncology, 59(5), 92.
14 Smith-Roe, S. L., Wyde, M. E., Stout,
M. D., Winters, J. W., Hobbs, C. A., Shepard, K. G., Green, A. S., Kissling, G. E., Shockley, K. R., Tice, R. R., Bucher, J. R., &
Witt, K. L. (2020). Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female
rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 61(2), 276–290.
15 Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. C., & Manville,
A. M. (2022b). Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: How species
interact with natural and man-made EMF. Reviews on Environmental Health, 37(3), 327–406; Cucurachi, S., Tamis,
W. L. M., Vijver, M. G., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., Bolte, J. F. B., & de Snoo, G. R. (2013). A review
of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Environment International, 51, 116–140.
16 Thill A, Cammaerts MC, Balmori A. Biological
effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Environ Health. 2023 Nov 23; Thielens,
A., Bell, D., Mortimore, D. B., Greco, M. K., Martens, L., & Joseph, W. (2018). Exposure of Insects to
Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 3924. More
at https://www.wildlifeandwireless.org/science
17 Halgamuge, M. N. (2017). Review:
Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 36(2), 213–235.
18 Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente,
A., Breunig, H., & Balmori, A. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base
stations. Science of The Total Environment, 572, 554–569.
19 Jérémy S. P. Froidevaux, Laura Recuero Virto, Marek
Czerwiński, Arno Thielens, and Kirsty J. Park Addressing Wildlife Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields: Time for Action Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2024, 11, 1, 3–4 ; Balmori A. (2021) Electromagnetic
radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Science of the Total Environment. 767: 144913
Scientific groups20 and medical organizations,21 including
the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have issued recommendations to reduce children’s exposure because RF radiation penetrates
deeper in children's brains and bodies,22 and their rapidly developing brains are more susceptible23 to adverse
health impacts. Lawsuits24 have alleged health damages from the wireless emissions, and international court cases have settled
with compensation.25
_____________________________
20 International Commission on Biological
Effects of EMF https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9; Kelley, E.,
Blank, M., Lai, H., Moskowitz, J., & Havas, M. (2015). International Appeal: Scientists call for protection
from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European Journal of Oncology, Volume 20, 180–182, EMF Scientists
Appeal https://www.emfscientist.org/; 2020 Consensus Statement of UK and International Medical and
Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation https://phiremedical.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-Non-Ionising-Radiation-Consensus-Statement.pdf;
Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.986315
21 Austrian Medical Chamber, Cyprus Committee
on Environment and Children’s Health https://paidi.com.cy/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Com-Pos-EN_-F.pdf;
Santa Clara California Medical Association https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/LiveBlog/3697/SCCMA%20Best%20Practices%20for%20Safe%20Technology%20in%20Schools%20Recommendations%20%2021423.pdf?ver=CwFQFTHs4ZuDmjDYrsLXzQ%3d%3d;
California Medical Association resolution is reviewed in the article Shallow Minds: How the Internet and
Wi–Fi in Schools Can Affect Learning https://www.sccma.org/Portals/19/assets/docs/Shallow%20Minds%20SCCMA%20Article.pdf?ver=4UVRmelW8mFMVHnhaU4Rnw%3d%3d;
California Department of Public Health 2017 cell phone advisory https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell-Phone-Guidance.pdf
Press release https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR17-086.aspx
22 Fernández, C., de Salles, A. A.,
Sears, M. E., Morris, R. D., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus
adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research, 167, 694–699; Mohammed, B.,
Jin, J., Abbosh, A. M., Bialkowski, K. S., Manoufali, M., & Crozier, S. (2017). Evaluation of Children’s
Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields of Mobile Phones Using Age-Specific Head Models With Age-Dependent Dielectric Properties. IEEE
Access, 5, 27345–27353.
23 Davis,
D., Birnbaum, L., Ben-Ishai, P., Taylor, H., Sears, M., Butler, T., & Scarato, T. (2023). Wireless
technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks. Current
Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 53(2), 101374; Redmayne, M., & Johansson,
O. (2015). Radiofrequency exposure in young and old: Different sensitivities in light of age-relevant natural
differences. Reviews on Environmental Health, 30(4), 323–335.
24 Murray, et al. v.
Motorola et al.https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/app/RegisterOfActions/#/A63BB82B16CD8E57D139B5E53C80B25C8A139A48AB24C42CB538F841709BAED0/anon/portalembed:
Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South, LLP, Press Release: In New Attack on Telecom Secrecy,
Family of Pastor Alleges Cell Phone Radiation Link to His Deadly Brain Cancer (April
8, 2021);
April Marie Walker, et al., v. Motorola Complaint https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/april_walker_complaint.pdf
25 In 2017, the Italian
court of Ivrea ruled that the long-term use of a company-issued cell phone caused Telecom employee Roberto Romeo’s non-cancerous
brain tumor and he was ordered to receive compensation; https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/21/italian-court-rules-mobile-phone-use-caused-brain-tumour;
in 2012, the Italian Supreme Court affirmed a ruling granting a workers compensation claim to the
National Institute for Workmen’s Compensation https://microwavenews.com/news-center/italian-supreme-court-affirms-tumor-risk.
Very significantly, many wireless telecommunications companies have reportedly been
unable to get insurance to comprehensively cover liabilities related to health damages from exposure
to radiofrequency emissions.26
The world’s leading commercial insurers have recognized the risks of wireless
radiation exposure for years now, ranking 5G and wireless radiation as “high” risk,27
comparing the issue to lead and asbestos,28 and they have excluded liability coverage for
such risks. Even the Lloyd’s of London marketplace will not insure those risks. For example, a 2019 Report29 by Swiss
Re Institute classifies 5G mobile networks as a potentially “high” “off-the-leash” risk, listing potential
health effects from RF as one of the factors in addition to cybersecurity, data privacy and espionage :
Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic
fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence . . . as the biological
effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.
General commercial liability
insurance policies commonly have “electromagnetic field exclusions” applied as the market
standard,30 and “electromagnetic fields” have been defined as a “pollutant” alongside radioactive
waste and hazardous chemicals.31
As a result, companies that manufacture and/or sell wireless
devices or wireless services may be uninsured or underinsured for potential liability from lawsuits for personal injury or other damages.
They also may face the risks of current or future regulation, consumer backlash, and potential disruptions related to not redesigning
devices before regulations change or markets shift. Google provides wireless devices. Yet, in our opinion, Alphabet’s SEC filings
and other public disclosures do a poor job of disclosing such risks to investors and the public. The proposal seeks a remedy to this disclosure
gap.
_____________________________
26 Roseanne
White Geisel, (2007) Insurers exclude risks associated with electromagnetic radiation, Business Insurance.
27 https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/.
28 Lloyd’s
of London Report on Electromagnetic Fields “Electromagnetic fields from mobile phones: recent developments,” Lloyd’s
Emerging Risks Team Report, November 2010; 2016 Austrian Accident Insurance
Institute (AUVA) ATHEM Report “Investigation of athermal effects of electromagnetic fields in mobile
communications.” ; Business Insurance (2011) White paper explores risks that could become 'the
next asbestos,' https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20110517/STORY/110519944/White-paper-explores-risks-that-could-become-the-next-asbestos–
See also Factsheets on Legal Liability of Cell Towers at https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Legal-Liability-Cell-Tower-Radiation-Health-Effects-3.pdf.
29 Swiss Re
5G Report”Off the leash – 5G mobile networks” https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019/SONAR2019-off-the-leash.html
PDF https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Swiss-Re-SONAR-Publication-2019-excerpt-1.pdf
30 Complete
Markets “Electromagnetic Fields (Utilities) Liability Insurance,” https://completemarkets.com/Electromagnetic-Fields-Utilities-Liability-Insurance/Storefronts/;
Electromagnetic Field Insurance Policy Exclusions Cell Phone Radiation and EMFs - Environmental Health Trust.
31 Commercial
insurance Employee Benefits Personal Insurance Risk Management Surety "When to Include Contractors Solution
Liability" August 29, 2018
https://www.psfinc.com/wp-content/uploads/psfinc/2018/08/PSF_Construction-Pollution-Liability.pdf.
The fact that Company’s wireless devices may comply with the FCC’s
ancient 28-year-old wireless radiation exposure guidelines is insufficient for protecting against financial and reputational risks, especially
because it is unclear that (i) real world usage matches suggested usage, or (ii) the ancient guidelines are sufficient for human and environmental
health.
Alphabet’s opposing statement (paragraph 2) contends that its “devices
meet regulatory requirements.” This response in our opinion is insufficient for a socially responsible corporation. Compliance with
the U.S. government’s FCC regulations on wireless radiation exposure does not ensure that the health of a Google consumer will not
be harmed, especially after years of use. Google’s products are used by people for hours a day, with many devices creating 24/7
exposure (such as Wi-Fi routers and cell phones connected to routers and networks). The FCC's RF human exposure limits are designed,32
however, only to protect users against the heating effects of short-term exposures, not the biological impacts arising from long-term
exposure. Nor is it clear that cell phones and supporting networks are being systemically utilized in a manner that complies with the
ancient FCC RF exposure limits. Worse, the FCC’s RF exposure limits and supporting regulations have been under federal court Remand
since August 13, 2021.
The current FCC’s limits, adopted in 1996, are significantly based on decades-old
animal studies that used RF exposure times of under an hour.33 Data on long-term exposure was not prominent in 1996.
This is why Norbert Hankin of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Radiation Protection Division stated34 that “federal
health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures.” Aware
that the FCC’s 1996 limits lacked the underpinning of solid scientific data regarding long-term health effects, the Federal Drug
Administration nominated the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health
to initiate experiments exposing animals to long-term cell phone radiation because:
… the existing exposure guidelines are based entirely on protection
from acute injury from thermal effects of RF exposure, and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposures.
There are limits to what activities federal agencies have undertaken regarding the
issue and a lack of published government scientific reports that address all of the up-to-date science.35
_____________________________
32 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2022).
The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation
and exposure guidelines. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 41(2), 230–255; Lin,
J. C. (2023). Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency exposure guidelines and standards.
Environmental Research, 222, 115369 ; Amy M. Dargo, Justin W. Wilkerson, Thaddeus P. Thomas, Benjamin T. Kalinosky,
and Jason A. Payne “Computational modeling investigation of pulsed high peak power microwaves and the
potential for traumatic brain injury,” Science Advances Vol. 7, No. 44 (Oct. 29, 2021).
33 International
Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), (2022). Scientific
evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications
for 5G. Environ Health. Oct 18;21(1):92.
34 https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-Hankin-Letter-2002.pdf.
35 FCC’s human exposure limits for
RF have not been evaluated via a complete scientific review of all recent bioeffects studies by U.S. agencies with health and safety expertise.
The FDA has a literature review (not a systematic review) limited to only cell phones (not Wi-Fi nor full body environmental exposures)
and cancer studies (with study publication dates only to 2018), which omits any review of 5G technology and importantly, omits review
of studies that focused on non-cancer health impacts such as those related to reproduction and the brain. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientists-Letters-to-FDA.pdf;
Full FDA Report https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/FDA-Declaration-EHTRUST.ORG-December-14-2021.pdf;
The EPA’s researching into the issue was defunded decades ago and its last
research review on biological impacts was dated 1984. On July 8, 2020, EPAs Lee Ann B. Veal wrote Theodora Scarato that "EPA’s
last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate
for radiofrequency matters.” https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-Director-Letter-on-EMFs-to-Theodora-Scarato-July-8-2020.pdf
; The National Cancer Institute has repeatedly stated that “Neither the literature reviews, nor the fact sheets, make safety determinations.”
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/NationalCancerInsituteResponsetoMCPSparentInquiryaboutMontgomeryCountySchoolsStatement.pdf; On
July 1, 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration wrote that, “RF emissions are not on OSHA's active regulatory agenda,
so we have not conducted a comprehensive literature review or risk assessment on RF hazards.” The CDC has no research reports or
activities related to EMF bioeffects and EHT’s FOIAs show some CDC webpages on RF were drafted with the help of an industry
consultant https://ehtrust.org/the-cdc-hired-an-industry-consultant-to-develop-website-information-for-the-public/. Thus, there
are not any published systematic reviews on cell phone or wireless radiation health effects that has considered the totality of the up
to date research performed by scientific experts in U.S. agencies at all.
The FCCs 1996 human exposure limits are the subject of a major legal case, Environmental
Health Trust (EHT), et al. v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).36 On August 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC had acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it terminated an inquiry in 2019 regarding the need to update
its 1996 RF exposure guidelines. The court also heavily criticized the FDA. This influential appellate court found that the Commission
failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure
to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer. It ordered the FCC, on Remand, to issue a well-reasoned decision based on an examination
of the record evidence specifically regarding the unique vulnerability of children whose brains and developing bodies are more susceptible
and the impacts of long-term RF exposure on all persons. Further, the court required the FCC to examine non-cancer evidence such as studies
documenting impacts to the neurological, cardiac, reproductive, immune and endocrine systems as well as exacerbation of medical conditions
in those already medically vulnerable. In addition, the court ordered the FCC to examine environmental impacts (i.e., negative impacts
on the birds, bees, and trees). The court also found that the FCC had failed to address critiques of its cell phone and wireless device
test procedures which do not ensure that phones are tested in body contact for pre-market RF compliance. Despite the court mandate, issued
in 2021, nearly three years later the FCC has not issued the required justifications.
The Remand is outstanding and unresolved. The FCC’s failure to act in
response to the landmark ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the inadequacies of the FCC’s 1996 guidelines and
the risks Alphabet faces in relying upon those guidelines for liability “protection” without further adjustment or disclosure.
Hundreds of scientists caution that regulations must be strengthened due to mounting
scientific research pointing to serious health impacts from everyday cell phone and wireless exposures.
In its statement opposing this proposal, Alphabet states that scientific research
and “consensus” supports current regulatory limits. In fact, hundreds of scientists, doctors, and public health experts37
are calling for strengthening the current regulations, due to their lack of protection38. Literature reviews have found that
the majority of studies39 reviewed identified a broad range of adverse impacts40 associated with RF exposure.
_____________________________
36 https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/$file/20-1025-1910111.pdf
37 See footnote 19 and 20.
38 For example: Electromagnetic Fields of
Wireless Communications: Biological and Health Effects
Edited By Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, CRC Press (2022), https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003201052
39 Leach, Victor, Weller,
Steven and Redmayne, Mary. "A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation" Reviews on Environmental Health, vol.
33, no. 3, 2018, pp. 273-280.https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2018-0017; McCredden JE, Weller S and
Leach V (2023) The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies. Front. Public Health 11:1058454. doi:
10.3389/fpubh.2023.1058454; Dr. Henry Lai’s 1/2024 analysis https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html.;
Sivani, S, and D. Sudarsanam. (2012): "Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from
cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem-a review." Biology and Medicine 4, no. 4 202-216.
40 Repeated exposures are associated with
biochemical changes, which can lead to health effects over time. For example, research repeatedly associates RF exposure to oxidative
stress, understood to contribute to numerous impacts such as cancer, reproductive and neurological damage. Schuermann, D., & Mevissen,
M. (2021). Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences
for Health. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(7), 3772; Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel,
D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity
radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35(2), 186–202; Georgiou, C. D., & Margaritis,
L. H. (2021).
As noted above, the DC Circuit, in EHT, et al. v
FCC ,41 found the FCC to have inadequately addressed the issue of children’s vulnerability. This issue had
been highlighted in repeated letters from the American Academy of Pediatrics42 calling for RF limits to be updated:
Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use
patterns specific to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based
on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.
Numerous published research studies43 have linked negative health effects
to exposures occurring well below the FCC limits and issued science-based recommendations to significantly strengthen RF limits so that
they adequately protect against the biological impacts documented in the research. As an example, Lai and Levitt’s review of 112
low-intensity studies44 found that biological effects of RFR could occur at a median specific absorption rate (0.0165 W/kg),
far lower than the “fundamentally flawed” and “insupportable” FCC limits. A study
by U.S. Army and Air Force Research Laboratories found that high powered pulsed microwave exposures could reach the same threshold
pressures of explosive blast brain and football head impact injuries even at levels compliant with current FCC RF limits.45
_____________________________
41 9 F.4th 283 (D.C. Cir. 2021); https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/$file/20-1025-1910111.pdf.
42 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
to FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg calling for a review of RF guidelines (8/29/2013); AAP
Letter to the FCC Chairman calling for the FCC to open up a review of RF guidelines (7/12/2012); AAP Letter to US Representative
Dennis Kucinich in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act (12/12/2012), Letters at https://healthytechhome.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/201/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Letters-to-FCC-and-Congress-.pdf.
43 Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I.,
Burgio, E., & Carpenter, D. O. (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing
radiation: An international perspective. Environmental Pollution, 242, 643–658; Electromagnetic Biology and
Medicine, 41(2), 230–255; Examples include a 2023 study of the Air Force Bioeffects Lab in Texas found epigenetic effects with 114
genes “significantly differentially methylated,” in human skin cells after exposure to 900 MHz radiation —a frequency
commonly used in wireless communications. The exposure was very low, less than 0.01 W/Kg —a fraction of 4W/kg, the level that current
FCC standards assume to be the threshold for harmful RF effects. Cantu, J. C., Butterworth, J. W., Peralta, X. G., Payne, J. A., &
Echchgadda, I. (2023). Analysis of global DNA methylation changes in human keratinocytes immediately following
exposure to a 900 MHz radiofrequency field. Bioelectromagnetics, 44(3–4), 77–89. A Jacobs University study which found
RF exposure at levels far below FCC limits more than doubled the numbers of liver and lung tumors in carcinogen-exposed mice. Lerchl,
A., Klose, M., Grote, K., Wilhelm, A. F. X., Spathmann, O., Fiedler, T., Streckert, J., Hansen, V., & Clemens, M. (2015). Tumor
promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Biochemical and Biophysical Research
Communications, 459(4), 585–590.; Panagopoulos (2024) found mobile phone EMF exposure
at a power density ~136 times below ICNIRP and FCC limits, significantly enhanced the genotoxic action of gamma radiation and concluded
with recommendations that RF exposure limits should be lowered by over 40,000 times. Panagopoulos DJ. Mobile
telephony radiation exerts genotoxic action and significantly enhances the effects of gamma radiation in human cells. Gen Physiol
Biophys. 2024 Mar;43(2):103-120. doi: 10.4149/gpb_2023036. Epub 2023 Dec 8. PMID: 38099580.
44 Lai, H., & Levitt, B. B. (2022).
The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation
and exposure guidelines;
45 A. M. Dagro, J. W. Wilkerson, T. P. Thomas,
B. T. Kalinosky, and J. A. Payne, “Computational modeling investigation of pulsed high peak power microwaves
and the potential for traumatic brain injury,” Sci. Adv., vol. 7, no. 44, pp. 1–10, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.
abd8405
In 2011, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) designated
wireless RF radiation as a class 2 B “possible” carcinogen.46 Many scientists state that additional studies have
corroborated the association, and they conclude the current evidence base is robust enough to determine that RF is now at least a probable,
if not proven, human carcinogen.47
Published analysis of the $30 million NIH’s
National Toxicology Program animal study concluded that U.S. government FCC limits should be lowered by 200 to 400 times to protect children
according to current risk assessment guidelines.48 In addition to brain cancer, Yale research49 funded by the American
Cancer Society found thyroid cancer to be associated with higher hours of cell phone use in people with genetic susceptibility. Many scientists
state that evidence of the link between cancer and RF is robust enough to say that RF is now at least
a probable, if not proven human carcinogen.50
_____________________________
46 May 11, 2011 Press release https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf;
IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. (2013). Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 102(Pt 2), 1–460.
47 Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019).
Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in
rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz.
International Journal of Oncology, 54(1), 111–127; Miller, A. B., Morgan, L. L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. L. (2018). Cancer
epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environmental
Research, 167, 673–683; Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2017). Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless
Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. BioMed Research International,
2017, 9218486; Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (European Parliament), & Belpoggi, F. (2021). Health
impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological
studies and in vivo experimental studies. (PDF) Publications Office of the European Union;
Peleg M, Berry EM, Deitch M, Nativ O, Richter E.(2022) On radar and radio exposure and cancer in the military
setting. Environ Res. 2022 Oct 21:114610; Lin, J. C. (2023). Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency
exposure guidelines and standards. Environmental Research, 222, 115369. Note also publications arguing that ICNIRP and FDA criticisms
are unfounded at Melnick, R. L. (2019). Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study
on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings
of adverse health effects. Environmental Research, 168, 1–6 and Melnick, R. (2020). Regarding
ICNIRP’S Evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s Carcinogenicity Studies on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
Health Physics, 118(6), 678–682.
48 Uche, U. I., & Naidenko, O. V. (2021).
Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark
dose approach. Environmental Health, 20(1), 84. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones;
Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019). Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports
on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body
radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz. International Journal of Oncology, 54(1), 111–127https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2018.4606
49 Luo, J., Li, H., Deziel, N. C., Huang,
H., Zhao, N., Ma, S., Ni, X., Udelsman, R., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Genetic susceptibility may modify the
association between cell phone use and thyroid cancer: A population-based case-control study in Connecticut. Environmental Research,
182, 109013.
50 Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2019).
Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in
rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz.
International Journal of Oncology, 54(1), 111–127; Miller, A. B., Morgan, L. L., Udasin, I., & Davis, D. L. (2018).
Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph
102). Environmental Research, 167, 673–683; Carlberg, M., & Hardell, L. (2017). Evaluation
of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation.
BioMed Research International, 2017, 9218486; Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (European Parliament),
& Belpoggi, F. (2021). Health impact of 5G: Current state of knowledge of 5G related carcinogenic
and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies. (PDF)
Publications Office of the European Union; Peleg M, Berry EM, Deitch M, Nativ O,
Richter E.(2022) On radar and radio exposure and
cancer in the military setting. Environ Res. 2022 Oct
21:114610; Lin, J. C. (2023). Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency exposure guidelines and standards.
Environmental Research, 222, 115369.
Chris Portier, PhD, former Director of the U.S. National Center for Environmental
Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
who served on the WHO/IARC panel, submitted a comprehensive review51 of the scientific
research in a major cell phone/brain cancer lawsuit, concluding:
The evidence on an association between cellular phone use and the risk
of glioma in adults is quite strong . . . in my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal
and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas
and neuromas is high.’
The European Parliament requested a research report, Health
Impact of 5G,” that concluded that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and
clearly affect male fertility, with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses, and newborns.
The Company’s consumer disclosures and warnings are not proof that consumers
mitigate the health risks arising from exposures.
Several of Google’s wireless products, such as speakers and routers, come with
Safety & Regulatory Information which warns that the user must keep a distance of 20 cm (about 8 in), meaning the user
should stay at least 20 cm away from the product to avoid overexposure to wireless radiation transmissions from the product. Most users,
however, are likely unaware of this important consumer safety information because it is buried among technical material.
For example, the Safety & Regulatory Guide for the Google
Home Speaker52 states:
To satisfy FCC exposure requirements, a separation distance of at least
20 cm should be maintained between the antenna of this device and persons during device operation. Operations at closer than this distance
are not recommended.
The Safety & regulatory information (Pixel &
Pixel XL 2016)53 states:
Maintain a minimum separation distance of 1.0 cm (0.4 in) between your
body and the phone.
The Safety & Regulatory Guide for Pixel 8 &
Pixel 8 Pro Smartphone54 includes the RF measurement (SAR) for a phone “against body with 1.0 cm (0.4 in)
separation” inside a long paragraph. A few sentences later, the guide says “Keep the device away from your body to meet the
distance requirement.”
_____________________________
51 https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Expert-report-Christopher-J-Portier-Murray-v-Motorola-3-1-2021-1.pdf.
52 https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/7055908?hl=en&ref_topic=10083520&sjid=18041804849223330869-NA#zippy=%2Cgoogle-home.
53 https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/7022290?sjid=16495972913101241406-NA.
54 https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/13662136?hl=en&ref_topic=7083615&sjid=7353392607517584623-NA.
Consumers who do find and read this text may not understand that the reason for the
“distance requirement” is that the phone was pre-market tested for RF limit compliance with a distance between the phone and
the body phantom. If consumers hold the phone model closer than 1.0 cm from their bodies, they could be exposed to wireless radiation
that exceeds the FCC RF exposure limits as the model was apparently not premarket compliance tested closer than 1 cm.
Other Google devices, including the Pixel Fold
smartphone55 and Google Pixel Watch 256 include guides that have a section
on “Radio Frequency Exposure,” stating:
To reduce the amount of exposure to radiation, it is recommended
to:
| ● | When in use, keep the phone away from the belly for pregnant women, and away from the lower abdomen
for teenagers. |
| ● | Use the built-in speaker, a hands-free kit, or any other similar accessory to keep your mobile
device away from your face and body. |
| ● | Provide reasonable use of the mobile phone by children and teenagers, for example by avoiding
night calls and limiting the frequency and duration of calls. |
These RF exposure warnings are easy to understand and clearly worded. However, not
all of the manuals for the Company’s wireless devices use similar text. Nor is it clear that the Company conducted pre-market and
post-market surveillance to determine consumer compliance with the recommended safe usage of its wireless products.
The RF exposure information the Company provides in its Safety & Regulatory guides
should be more prominently displayed to inform consumers and worded more clearly to advise consumers not to carry the cell phone pressed
against a body part (e.g., abdomen, breast, leg).
Most consumers reportedly do not carefully read the printed safety booklet, nor do
they look deep in the Settings function to find the RF information. Google’s webpage “Set up
Google Nest or Home speakers or displays for your child”57 omits the RF instructions.
Consumers use the Company’s wireless phones and devices in ways that could
result in their exposure to RF radiation exceeding the FCC’s regulatory limit.
Many cell phone users keep their cell phones in their shirt or pants pockets or tight-fitting
exercise or leisure clothes, and women may carry them in a bra. However regulatory agencies do not require cell phones and wireless devices
to be pre-market tested for compliance with RF Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits while the wireless device is in contact with the
body (such as in a bra, pocket or Spandex pants). Instead, manufacturers bringing a cell phone or wireless device to market in the United
States have long been allowed to use a separation distance58 for its premarket RF radiation SAR test. That separation distance
is clearly not aligned with many real-world uses of many of the products that Google sells.
_____________________________
55 https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/13380503.
56 https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/13844710?sjid=7353392607517584623-NA#Regulatory-US.
57 https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9159927.
58 The allowed test separation distance
has ranged to up to 25 mm over the years. October 23, 2015 General RF Exposure Policies for Equipment Authorization
https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=f8IQgJxTTL5y0oRi0cpAuA%3D%3D&desc=447498%20D01%20General%20RF%20Exposure%20Guidance%20v06&tracking_number=20676
states, “this distance is determined by the handset manufacturer according to the typical body-worn accessories users may acquire
at the time of equipment certification, but not more than 2.5 cm, to enable users to purchase aftermarket body-worn accessories with the
required minimum separation. Currently guidance is in a transition, and the November 29, 2021 447498 D04
Interim General RF Exposure Guidance v01 https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=Z0Stk%2FPOk2hqHgYJNt%2FRlQ%3D%3D&desc=447498%20D04%20Interim%20%20General%20RF%20Exposure%20Guidance%20v01&tracking_number=20676
states, “A test separation distance not exceeding 5 mm shall be applied to determine SAR-based test exemption or SAR values,”
and “A test distance of up to 10 mm may be applied if prior approval from the FCC is confirmed via a KDB inquiry that smaller distances
are not possible for normal operation of host devices in a platform.”
Unlike the U.S., France has a systemic post market cell phone and wireless device
surveillance program59 which has so far forced 48 devices to be software updated or withdrawn from the market due to RF limit
violations.60 When they tested phones in body contact positions (0 mm), most exceeded limits.61 Research
analyzing data from French government’s post market radiation compliance SAR tests of Motorola, Apple, Samsung, and other manufacturers’
cell phone models found that many phone models could exceed FCC’s RF radiation exposure limits when SAR tested in 0 mm positions
mimicking direct contact with the human body and in some cell phone models, the RF exposure from body contact SAR tests were estimated
to exceed FCC RF exposure limits (SAR body limits) up to 11 times.62
Besides the French government’s body contact testing, the FCC has tested several
cell phone models at a 2 mm (0.08 in) distance from the body. The FCC’s laboratory testing found that several models exceeded the
RF limit of 1.6 W/kg when RF Body SAR tested at 2 mm.63 However, because the FCC’s regulations do not require pre-market
compliance tests at 2 mm or 0 mm distance, the cell phone models were not considered to be out of compliance. The FCC’s 2mm cell
phones test findings exemplify how phones can be compliant when tested in artificial laboratory conditions but exceed limits in real world
usage positions.
Online media64 shows Google consumers using devices in close proximity
to the body.
_____________________________
59 ANFR-Le DAS, c’est
quoi? https://www.anfr.fr/maitriser/equipements-radioelectriques/le-debit-dabsorption-specifique-das/le-das-cest-quoi SAR
tests https://data.anfr.fr/.
60 List of cell phones withdrawn or updated.
Phonegate Alert https://phonegatealert.org/en/list-of-mobile-phones-with-non-compliant-sars-removed-or-updated-in-france-2/
61 https://ehtrust.org/questions-answered-french-cell-phone-data-release-phonegate/.
62 Gandhi, O. P. (2019). Microwave
Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body. IEEE Access, 7, 47050–47052.
63 The FCC SAR test data was released under
FOIA at https://ehtrust.org/environmental-health-trust-foia-project/; EHT's
Appeal Letter to the FCC; https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/EHT-Scarato-Appeal-RE_-FOIA-Control-Nos.-2023-000281-and-2023-000325_-FCC-2-mm-Cell-Phone-Radiation-SAR-Tests-December-28-2023-.docx.pdf
; FCC Letter on Cell Phone Radiation Tests Exceeding Limits https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/FCC-Letter-on-Cell-Phone-Radiation-Tests-Exceeding-Limits-Appeal-by-EHT-ehtrust.org-.pdf,
See SAR test findings of the 2 mm tests at https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/FCC-cell-phone-radiation-tests-foia-.jpg.
64 Devices closer than the RF exposure stated
distance: Baby Say First Word OK GOOGLE - Bebe Llamando a Google - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d3oa6AaEW3o;
Baby girl and google home mini Mommy Pinky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e48acE0hRUE; Hey Google
ABC, Guy with Dreams https://www.facebook.com/reel/3483497335260544; Kids Ask Google home Tech Family
Time https://youtu.be/i9ZPJFkP6mg?si=xIyylHfmfiLuWK8L&t=103; Pixel
6 screen *constantly* turning on in pocket https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/179900717/pixel-6-screen-constantly-turning-on-in-pocket?hl=en;
https://lifehacker.com/how-to-stop-your-pixel-from-unlocking-in-your-pocket-1849546190; Google
Pixel Fold puts a tablet-sized screen in your pocket for $1799 - Liliputing https://liliputing.com/google-pixel-fold-puts-a-tablet-sized-screen-in-your-pocket-for-1799/
..
Has the Company conducted “real world usage” testing, including and not
limited to SAR testing at 2 mm, 1 mm, and 0 mm? While the shareholder proposal provides the Company with full discretion in preparing
the proposed report, and does not dictate any particular data points, the results of 0 mm RF SAR tests for the Company’s wireless
devices would certainly be useful data points to ensure that the wireless devices do not exceed the FCC’s and other regulatory bodies’
RF limits when used close to the body.
The Company is exposed to regulatory risk as the rules begin to tighten in some
jurisdictions before others.
Regulatory requirements may change, requiring a more stringent approach. The EU used
to allow an up to 25 mm (1 in) separation for cell phone SAR tests. Then the European Commission concluded65
that allowing the 25 mm distance failed to meet the regulatory requirements for health and safety. In
2016, the European Union laws were strengthened66 and manufacturers had to ensure
the RF SAR test separation distance was no higher than 5 mm (0.2 in). Although the regulations have not been tightened since, French Ministers
announced67 their recommendation that the regulation be further strengthened to ensure
SAR phone tests at 0 mm (body contact position) in 2019, and many European organizations are advocating for the update. In contrast, the
FCC has long allowed separation distances up to 25mm distance in their cell phone premarket tests and still has not yet fully transitioned
to 5mm.68 Further, several wireless products have instructions to maintain a 20 cm distance and the FCC does not ensure SAR
testing at closer distances or body contact, despite people using devices closer than 20 cm.
The fact that FCC’s 1996 regulatory requirements do not consider real-world
usage positions (0 mm between phone and body) was highlighted years ago by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in its Report on
Mobile Phone Health Issues69 that states:
Some consumers may use mobile phones against the body, which FCC does not
currently test, and could result in RF energy exposure higher than the FCC limit.
Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recognized the importance
of the fact that pre-market RF test separation distance does not reflect real-world use positions. That was one of the central holdings
to the Court’s mandate in Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, 9 F.4th 893, 908 (D.C.
Cir. 2021), that the FCC reconsider and issue well-reasoned conclusions regarding the record evidence of science on the health effects
of wireless radiation regarding non-cancer diseases, children’s vulnerability, the environment, and its device testing procedures.
_____________________________
65 ANFR
strengthens the monitoring of exposure to the electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones and tablets (SAR),
https://www.anfr.fr/en/anfr/news/all-news/detail-of-the-news/exposure-to-electromagnetic-fields-anfr-strengthens-the-monitoring-of-exposure-to-the-electromagnetic-fields-emitted-by-mobile-phones-and-tablets-sar.
66 Directive https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0053.
67 https://sante.gouv.fr/archives/archives-presse/archives-communiques-de-presse/article/le-gouvernement-agit-pour-limiter-l-exposition-aux-emissions-de-certains.
68 October 23, 2015 General
RF Exposure Policies for Equipment Authorization https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=f8IQgJxTTL5y0oRi0cpAuA%3D%3D&desc=447498%20D01%20General%20RF%20Exposure%20Guidance%20v06&tracking_number=20676
states, “this distance is determined by the handset manufacturer according to the typical body-worn accessories users may acquire
at the time of equipment certification, but not more than 2.5 cm, to enable users to purchase aftermarket body-worn accessories with the
required minimum separation. Currently FCC guidance is in a transition, and while new proposed guidance has a 5 mm distance, the 2015
policy with 25 mm seems to still be allowed. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?switch=P&id=20676
69 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-01-545.pdf.
Conclusion
The Company’s inadequate disclosures on wireless health issues could pose
financial, reputational, competitive, and regulatory risk. Proactive disclosures and decisions could present beneficial opportunities,
including if the Company decided to rigorously “compete on safety” with regard to Human RF exposure.
The Company has developed extremely rigorous compliance and hazard screenings beyond
regulatory requirements for certain toxic chemicals. Investors can encourage the company to take a similar leadership role regarding wireless
RF radiation. It is time for the company to unambiguously “compete on safety” regarding the wireless radiation emitted by
its products, especially with an open federal court Remand concerning the FCC’s regulations, and limited information about
the Company’s ability to obtain adequate insurance against human rf exposure liabilities.
We recommend that you vote “FOR” Item 5 on the proxy, the shareholder
proposal requesting an annual report on the health effects and financial risks and insurance coverage associated with electromagnetic
radiation and wireless technologies and comparing its safety performance to the other wireless device developers, operators and manufacturers.
The Company’s existing RF compliance, health and safety procedures regarding
its wireless devices lack the transparency and analysis necessary to determine whether and to what extent its products could or do cause
negative health impacts to users and others who are exposed to the products’ wireless radiation. The issue is becoming increasingly
contentious and fraught with risk. An annual report would provide clarity and act as the first step in identifying, addressing, and remediating
financial and reputational risk.
THE FOREGOING INFORMATION MAY BE DISSEMINATED TO SHAREHOLDERS
VIA TELEPHONE, U.S. MAIL, E-MAIL, CERTAIN WEBSITES, AND CERTAIN SOCIAL MEDIA VENUES, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS INVESTMENT ADVICE
OR AS A SOLICITATION OF AUTHORITY TO VOTE YOUR PROXY.
PROXY CARDS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE PROPONENT OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH TRUST. TO VOTE YOUR PROXY, PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON YOUR PROXY CARD.
16
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024