How the Lack of
Radio Frequency Radiation Safety
Impacts the Insurance Industry
Summer 2009
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
The Problem of RF Radiation Over-exposure
“Substantial liability exists for the insurance industry
concerning wireless transmission sites
and third-party workers”
•
The proliferation of wireless antennas across the United States has created a human health hazard for
third-party workers, and by extension, the insurance industry.
•
On a daily basis, thousands of third-party workers are compelled to work in close proximity to “RF
radiation” transmitting antennas without their knowledge or understanding of the health risks.
•
RF emissions can extend from one foot to twenty feet or more from the face of an antenna. There is no
“rule-of-thumb” regarding the exposure distances, each antenna system is unique.
•
RF radiation is tasteless, odorless, and invisible, and in all but a few instances, third-party workers will not
be aware of their RF over-exposure injuries until the plaintiffs’ bar brings it to their attention.
•
Stakeholders in the RF radiation over-exposure issue includes: workers, employers, FCC licensees
(commercial or governmental), property owners, utility companies, federal, state and local governments,
school districts, universities, and regrettably, the insurance industry.
•
Currently, no comprehensive method of RF radiation safety has been implemented to prevent RF radiation
over-exposure injuries to third-party workers.
2
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
What are the FCC RF Exposure laws based upon?
“FCC human exposure regulations are based on
long-standing, uncontroverted science
and is not subject to dispute”
•
FCC regulations require all FCC licensees to ensure their RF emissions do not expose any
person above the FCC “human exposure limits.” Unfortunately, this is uniformly ignored.
•
IEEE developed RF radiation human exposure limits which were adopted by the FCC in
1996.
•
The IEEE science established that RF radiation exposure causes “behavior disruption”
including: reduced brain function, memory loss, depression, mood disorders, sleep
disorders and impaired or diminished cognitive function.
•
AT&T Alascom v. Orchitt is the initial legal precedent recognizing the causal link between
an RF radiation over-exposure and these psychological injuries.
3
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
What are the primary regulatory standards of which
all FCC licensees must observe?
•
As a condition for obtaining and maintaining a license to transmit, wireless
carriers must certify that they will not expose persons above the FCC RF
human exposure limits. 47 CFR 1.1307(b), 1.1310
•
OSHA’s General Duty Clause provides that employers (including property
owners) must provide a workplace free of recognized hazards which may
cause serious harm. 29 USC 654, Section 5(a)(1)
RF radiation exposure in excess of OSHA and FCC limits is a recognized
hazard
•
4
Copyright 2008 RF CHECK Inc
What has been the norm to protect 3rd party workers
from RF radiation over-exposure?
“There are two ineffective methods of safety to
protect workers from being harmed from
RF radiation over-exposure”
Locks sound like a good idea; just restrict access and no
one will be over-exposed to RF radiation. Wrong.
Restricting access may only protect vandals from RF
over-exposure. Third party workers are always provided
access to perform their duties, often near RF antennas.
Signs seem like a good idea also. However they are
often missing, posted in the wrong place, misleading, or
too ambiguous for workers to understand. Signs are also
plainly ignored. Workers go to a job site to perform a
task, that’s what is on their minds, not signs.
5
Who places the insurance industry at financial risk
and…
The ease in which the insurance industry
will be financially damaged
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Who places the insurance industry at financial risk from
RF radiation over-exposure?
“Those that transmit, those that host, and those that
may be physically harmed from RF radiation”
•
FCC Licensees (Commercial and Governmental): FCC licensees create an environmental
hazard that the law requires them to mitigate. Veiled in a poorly conceived health & safety
practice, they place the responsibility for RF safety on to contractors, workers and others.
•
Property Owners: Property owners are responsible to ensure that no one is harmed while
on their property. When they permit employees or third-party workers with little or no RF
radiation training access to their property, they have potentially created a significant liability.
•
Employers and their employees: All employers are required to provide a safe work place
free of any recognized hazards for their employees. However, unless the employer is an
FCC licensee, they have little or no knowledge of hazards associated with RF radiation overexposures and are at a loss when it comes to being able to protect their employees.
Employees have been, and will be, over-exposed to RF radiation.
•
State and Local Governments: Their multi-layered liability emanates from their various
roles as an FCC licensee, a property owner and as an employer.
7
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Why RF over-exposure cases will be easy to prove
and financially damaging to the insurance industry.
“There are decades of RF over-exposures,
numerous claimants, and an abundance of proof”
•
Third-party workers are routinely over-exposed to RF radiation emissions in
violation of the FCC RF human exposure limits.
•
The RF over-exposures have occurred on a daily basis spanning many years
and has created an incredibly large pool of potential claimants.
•
Due to the subjective nature of proof in RF over-exposure cases, no objective,
scientific medical test exists to eliminate claimants as is/was available in the
asbestos litigation.
•
Plaintiffs’ bar, once educated on RF over-exposure to third-party workers, will
emulate asbestos litigation.
•
Sympathetic juries could render staggering judgments to punish all those who
have profited at expense of others’ health. This is especially true, in light of the
fact, that RF CHECK’s comprehensive, no-cost solution was available.
8
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Difference between cell phone lawsuits
and the inevitable cell site litigation
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Cell phones were proven safe, why should cell site antennas
prove to be a problem?
“There’s a huge difference between past cell phone litigation
and what will arise from third-party RF over-exposure cases.”
•
Current manufacturing standards make it virtually impossible for a person to be over-exposed from a cell
phone. In contrast, a third-party worker can be easily over-exposed to RF radiation from wireless
antennas without any knowledge of the over-exposure. The magnitude of RF radiation exposure from a
wireless antenna can be hundreds of times greater than the amount of RF emitted from a cell phone.
•
Cell phone RF litigation was based upon the assertion the phones’ RF emissions cause brain cancer.
Science has yet to produce reliable and relevant evidence of the causal link between cell phone use and
brain cancer. In contrast, science has established the causal link between wireless antenna RF overexposure and psychological injuries. This science is long-standing, uncontroverted and not the subject of
dispute.
•
Successful defense of cell phone litigation was based upon the fact the FCC RF maximum permissible
exposure (MPE) for the devices was not exceeded. In contrast, third-party workers’ lawsuits from wireless
antenna RF over-exposure will demonstrate that FCC RF exposure limits are exceeded thousands of
times each day in violation of the law.
10
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Examples of different types
of wireless antennas
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Stealth Antenna Sites
Third-party workers are often unknowingly over-exposed to RF radiation, especially
at stealth wireless transmission sites. It is the FCC licensee’s responsibility to
ensure no one, regardless of employment, is over-exposed to the RF radiation from
their antennas.
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Rooftop & Building Mounted Antennas
Although locks are often used to prevent access to roof tops and signs are used to
notify workers of RF emissions, both fail at ensuring workers are protected from
RF radiation over-exposures.
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
Pole Mounted Antennas
Wireless antennas are everywhere; from utility poles to stadium, parking lot, and municipal light
structures. Third-party workers are not provided the same level of care as the FCC licensee’s
employees who receive RF safety training and the benefit of antenna power downs.
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
How RF CHECK’s patented solution
will protect the financial interests
of the insurance industry
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
“In protecting the financial interests
of the insurance industry against long lasting
RF radiation over-exposure claims, litigation,
and large payouts, all participants within the
wireless ecosystem must first be protected
from the physical or financial harm
of RF radiation over-exposure.”
16
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
To accomplish this goal, RF CHECK has spent millions and five years
of R&D to perfect a patented National RF Radiation Safety protocol that
will ensure all workers have the necessary training, certification and
dynamic site specific safety information to protect themselves
from RF radiation at every wireless site in the United States.
All others involved, directly or indirectly with wireless, will be
furnished the necessary tools specific to their individual needs
through RF CHECK’s proprietary database system. This will assist in
protecting their financial interests and the health and safety of workers.
RF CHECK furnishes its RF safety system to all parties, including
the insurance industry, at no cost to them. RF CHECK is funded
from an insignificant surcharge on wireless subscribers’ bills.
17
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
An example of how RF CHECK’s National Worker RF Safety Protocol functions.
Before RF CHECK…the worker on the left is being over-exposed to RF radiation.
After RF CHECK…the worker on the right performs his task free from RF radiation.
Before
After
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc
End of presentation
Copyright 2009 RF CHECK Inc