CTIA Sues San Fran for "Right-to-Know" Cell Phone Radiation Law

SanFrancisco.jpgCTIA-The Wireless Association is fighting San Francisco for its "Right-to Know" cell phone radiation law and claims it challenges the FCC and misleads consumers. First CTIA pulled out of San Francisco for its fall conference, moved future conferences to San Diego and now comes the lawsuit.

Their public information rep issued these statements.

"CTIA has filed this lawsuit to prevent consumer confusion. The
problem with the San Francisco ordinance is not the disclosure of
wireless phone SAR values - that information is already publicly
available. Consumers can learn a device's SAR value from a number of
public sources, and the value is often included in user manuals and
listed on the websites of manufacturers and the FCC. CTIA's objection to
the ordinance is that displaying a phone's SAR value at the
point-of-sale suggests to the consumer that there is a meaningful safety
distinction between FCC-compliant devices with different SAR levels.

"The FCC has determined that all wireless
phones legally sold in the United States are 'safe.' The FCC monitors
scientific research on a regular basis, and its standard for RF exposure
is based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international
standard-setting bodies. Furthermore, according to the experts at the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the available scientific
evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cell
phones. As the FDA states on its website, '[t]he weight of scientific
evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.'

"In contrast, the message conveyed by the San Francisco ordinance
to consumers is that the FCC's standards are insufficient and that the
safety of an FCC-authorized wireless device depends on its SAR level.
Therefore, the ordinance contradicts the thorough review of the science
by the FCC, FDA and other U.S. and international expert agencies, and
will send consumers the false message that there is a safety difference
between wireless devices that comply with the FCC's stringent standards.

"The wireless industry is committed to consumer choice. That
means providing consumers with the best information to assist them in
making the right choice for them when purchasing a device and services. 
The San Francisco ordinance, by conveying a misleading impression about
the relative safety of wireless phones, will hinder - rather than
assist - consumers in making their choices." 

###

The  lawsuit
filed  in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California San
Francisco Division to block enforcement of the San Francisco "Cell Phone
Right-to-Know" ordinance. The ordinance challenges the Federal
Communication Commission's (FCC) determination that all FCC-compliant
wireless handsets are safe by mandating that retailers post Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR) values. The ordinance misleads consumers by
creating the false impression that the FCC's standards are insufficient
and that some phones are "safer" than others based on their
radiofrequency (RF) emissions.

All phones sold legally in the United States must comply with the
FCC's safety standards for RF emissions. According to the FCC, its
standards limit RF exposures well below the level where RF emissions are
potentially harmful and thus all wireless phones are safe as measured
by these standards. The scientific evidence does not support
point-of-sale requirements that would suggest some compliant phones are
"safer" than other compliant phones based on their RF exposure test
results. San Francisco's attempt to regulate the sale of wireless
handsets improperly intrudes upon the FCC's exclusive and comprehensive
regulation of the safety of wireless handsets. The ordinance is thus not
only scientifically unsupported, it violates the Supremacy Clause in
Article VI of the United States Constitution and must be stricken.