>> i have been asked to appear today to provide my independent assessment of the science related to the potential health effects of wireless telephones. i am the leading scientist of the health science center. i have years of experience in health risk assessment. i earned a ph.d. from the university of oklahoma and a master of sciences in epidemiology. much of my research is about integrating this information with that of the other disciplines to determine if human exposure can prevent a hazard to human health. at the environmental protection agency, i have evaluated research with chemical components. er. they were idea to develop

standards -- and water quality standards, exposure limits. i prepared evaluations for chemicals, for radio frequency, and i have published in peer reviewed literature. i have been active in increase standards. i served an advisory committees to government and regulatory organizations regarding health evaluations of chemicals and of electromagnetic fields. a little background of cellular phones, using radio waves, and it's the range on the it's the range on the electromagnetic broadcast radio, television, and other devices including cordless phones, baby monitors and

microwave ovens. radio frequency energy is not radiation in the same sense as for high-frequency x-rays. there is a standard scientific approach used to determine whether on exposure source poses a health risk. this process requires that all of the published literature be considered which will include studs that reported effects and those that have not. this is a method i used for evaluating the radio frequency research throughout my career. in this appropriation after the literature is compiled, each studies evaluated and more studies given to those of better quality because they are more

reliable. this approach is designed 0 to ensure that study ares not singled out to support a preconceived point. as for any health assessment, the relevant research includes many different methods, studies in animals, experimental steweds of human volunteers, and epidemiological studsies. each of these approaches hays strengthss -- has strengths and limitations, and numerous studiesogy the different approaches have been conducted over the past 50-years. several scientific organizations -- these include government agencies and professional organizes -- have used this procedure to assess the potential for health effects from rf exposure, and some of them have set exposure limits to ensure safety of the public and

workers. these expert groups include scientists with different skills. while the conclusions vary, all of the agency reports that assess the evidence using the comprehensive approach use -- reach similar conclusions, that the current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that wireless phones cause cancer or other health effects. a few examples follow. this -- the agencies that have regulatory authority are the fcc, and food and drug administration, the fda, and they have both reached similar concludes. the fcc concluded there's not scientific evidence that pews that wireless use leads to cancer, and the other study does

not link cell phones with health problems. the conclusions are reached by commissions around the world, including the health council of the netherlands, and the european commission has a committee called the scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks. the w.h.o. organization has a study. and the institute of electronic enter -- engineers reviewed this in 2005. but the most recent one was in 2009. the international commission of nonionizing radiation protection has reviewed all of the evidence and one of it -- one section of the report is a study in 2009,

and his summary he wrote in the last few years the epidemiologic evidence of risk has grown considerably. in our opinion, overall, the studies published today do not demonstrate risk for any tumor of the brain or head tumor. ...

>> my background is in the record, and my statements as well. i'm going to speak to you today as a scientist, as a citizen, and as a grandmother. i am deeply concerned about the violation of basic human rights when it comes to where we are in cell phone research today. democracy rests on the right to know, on the for the given consent of the governed to be governed. and we lack the information about a basic technology, our right to know it is violated. why are of the government's issuing warnings? why are they issuing concerns about this particular issue? i think, as you began your

remarks about tobacco, it is important for us to recognize that there is no one in this room today who doubts that we should have acted sooner about tobacco. about tobacco. when we should have acted one candidate but as i say in my book we certainly could have acted in the 1950's and when president nixon started the war on cancer and 61 an admirable act he ignored tobacco although the general warned about its dangers in 1964. i think it is fair to say we have a level playing field in this issue and absence of the epidemiology evidence isn't proof there's not a problem rather it is a reflection of the fact we do not have a level playing field that does united states today has not published a new epidemiological study of brain cancer and cell phones since 2002. although the nimh budget doubles under senator specter's leadership's the budget for the

national institute of environmental health sciences recently doubled it took 11 years to get there and that is the institute the discharge between the study i would point out the study we heard about from dr. booker was originally proposed in 2002 and now we hear because the delays which i need not tell you why they occurred because those delays the study results will not be available until 2014 and we are talking about a technology that affects every single one whether we are accusers or inadvertently exposed. now the doctor told you wife and in detail why epidemiology is difficult. i want to add the data involved a single exposure to an atom bomb that took 40 years before he could find the affect. we are talking about cell phones many of us are using all the time and children are using unprecedented levels and we have never been exposed it at this level in our lives. i want to also tell you

unfortunately there has been a history that i think we need to recognize when professor henry developed the pioneering damage that shows you a tale of dna when its damaged it developed that a 1994 if they had been more modest it would have been called the lions but it's called the common essey. he is with us today. when they developed that a 1994 they showed radiofrequency exposure to brain cells could be damaging in terms of the common. the response which has been documented and is in my book as well as other places was this first day went to the nih and tried to get funding revoked. then they went to the journal that accepted the article's publication -- >> huessy de? >> the industry working against seeing this published and i have the details of the firm and individuals that wrote the memos

in my book i will be happy to attach for the record. then the lobbyists tried to get the article on accepted in a journal in a finally the high your other scientists to do advocacy research to invalidate the science and when those scientists confirmed the work it was never published. a similar story can be told today in europe about a major multimillion-dollar supporting study called the reflex program that was a multi laboratory study in many countries that also showed evidence radiofrequency signals at precisely the level of today's phones could damage dna contrary to the assertion only ini radiation can damage dna and those researchers were subject to the same kind of attacks and have recently been exonerated by independent review by the medical university of vienna so i think it is clear the united states needs to catch up. we need to catch up with

european allies and see that we issue warnings for children as well and i have a simple proposal we definitely need major research on this issue. on like tobacco almost everybody in the world is using a cell phone today. we need research desperately but how are we going to find that in this difficult time i have a simple proposal. we can place a 1 dollar user fee on a cell phone every year for three years. there isn't one parent in this room that wouldn't like to know what a cell phone would mean for their child's brain in the future. the 1 dollar fee should support international and independent research because unfortunately we have not had independent research in this area and finally i believe it is appropriate at this time to ask the fda and ftc to review standards come existing standards for cell phones are based on causing heat avoiding the injury of a thermal effect

and the we phones are used today unfortunately some cases of ours it is time to show a new approach. thank you very much for your interest. i think you have done the world great service by bringing us together and i want to say i am not alarmed, i am concerned because the world has changed very capitally and we have the right to know what that change might mean for our health and that is our grand children. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, dr. davis. now we turn to the environmental working group and i might just say that we've called this hearing at the suggestion of

senator specter before this study came out last week. please proceed. >> mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee im a scientist at environmental working group and organization based on iwo. holding this important hearin last week, we released the results of a 10-month investigation of the studies and government adviser is an industry documents on the effects of cell phone radiation. the studies published during the first two decades of cell phone use produced few definitive conclusions on cell phone safety. but research where scientists are for the first time able to

study people who have used cell phones for many years suggest the potential for serious safety issues. more research is essential. week as the environmental working group are still using our cell phones, but we also believe that until scientists know much more about cell phones, it is smart for consumers to buy cell phones with the lowest emissions. cell phones and hand-held the prices are part of everyday life. in 2008, the number was 270 million. the market's have gone so has the urgency that is all phones are well understood and cellphone radiation scandals to protect public health.

cell phone companies label their products so that consumers can make informed choices and point-of-sale and the government requires disclosure. currently most people are given no information at all about radiation. we created an interactive consumer guide to sell some radiation covering over 1200 phones. in the 64 hours following the publication of the review and radiation database 42,000 people access the web site numerous news articles and broadcast news. the response from the public which was the consumers' interest in the cell phone safety. much more research is essential,

however in response to the information available over the potential cellphone radiation government agencies in different countries have helped consumers reduce exposure to the saloom radiation especially young children. for a simple, in 2005 united kingdom department of health stated in consumer advisory, quote, chief medical officers strongly advise when children and young people lose mobile phones they should be encouraged to use mobile phones for ascent purposes only. ebal calls short, prolonged exposure and should be described. in contrast the food and drug administration of the federal communications commission have all but ignored evidence that long-term cell phone use may be risky. the fcc said cellphone radiation standards 17 years ago when a few people used cell phones the

standards failed to provide adequate for cellphone radiation exposure and do not account for risks to children. the science itself on risks we recommend a number of actions to the cellphone radiation and putting use low radiation phone, use a hand set and let children cell phone use. in conclusion, ewg believes government should support additional research into this question and allows the public has the rights to know what levels of radiation they may be exposed to, what is the potential risk and what precautionary measures consumers can take to protect themselves and their families for the health effects of cilluffo radiation. thank you. i welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may

have. >> thank you very much, doctor and i will start the first round of questions. thank you. i was looking at the summary of your working group last week. you have a tracking tool that allows visitors to track to the contract smart phones. is that list available? can i look and see what models would below list and would be highest? >> yes, the database is available for consumers for anybody on das ewg website. it is searchable, consumers can look for a specific model with highest radiation output, so it is a tool that has had immense success of the five days since it has been released.

>> you also say that you're finding is text and trump's talking. that is your first tape, right here. but taxing costs money. it costs more money than talking on the phone. [laughter] right on cue. [laughter] are you going to answer? [laughter] so you would say text rather than talk but i want to point out expensive. well, you know, it seems to me we have these studies and i am getting some carries information today that there are some studies that seem to indicate to

me that there are findings that show some people have been exposed long periods of time have higher levels. is that a fair statement i made that there are studies that show people have longer-term uses of cell phones compared to another group of higher incidences of brain or had cancers? no, yes? yes, doctor. >> this statement is correct. i think when you look at the data you see the first ten years nothing happened however many you look at the individual

studies out there you do see something after tenures with views as you said before holding the phone on the same side and the study also shows increased risk for people in the high category. however what we need to understand is standards for research the studies are based on few users because very few users have been using the phone more than ten years. therefore, i have public health is a public health practitioner and researcher. obviously for the research enough. there is a discussion whether these observations are true or whether they are methodological problems. so as a researcher i do say we have and something is going on however we need more research but as a public health practitioner i am saying wait a

minute this is a red light and we must do something. and especially since this something is very easy to implement because all we need to do is put herself loans away from our body. >> dr. davis you said, again following up on this, you cite the doctor's study and say that the phone has studied people where persons have used phones heavily for a decade or longer there is evidence of significant increased risk nearly doubled risk of malignant brain tumors. is that the correct interpretation? >> i cannot comment on the overall result because the overall results or under review and are not published yet. but is -- would use it is correct when he will get individual studies published of

the overall results. >> but again those are based on -- >> those are based on people who are long-term users. the term long-term user is not very correct because we are talking about people who talk more than ten years. >> dr. davis, you said the one researcher studied young people who began using cell phones as teenagers. professor leonard of sweden has found those who started to use cell phones heavily before age 20 have four to six times more brain tumors than by the time they reach their 30's. can we get documentation on that? >> absolutely. tomorrow with the international conference held a few blocks away i invite your staff to attend at 8:00 in the morning and there will be speaking where he will present not only that result but additional analyses of new cases.

you have to understand in the scandinavian countries and israel the have been using cell phones a lot longer and a lot more heavily than we have. so unfortunately, they have some of the data. i should also add one of the most troubling findings in a series of studies produced in the united states this is one study done optimistically at a fertility clinic and in hungary and other countries fighting reduced sperm count and young men who keep their phones in their pockets which unfortunately many do even though if you read the advice and the blackberry it says keep the phone 1 inch away from your body, actually .98 in case you want to be precise. but the reality is very few people do that and lots of young men keep their phones in their pockets particularly in the summertime and the cleveland clinic published a study showing reduced sperm count and that isn't the only such a study but

only the most recent one. >> let me ask the question i asked dr. bucher. i've got my blackberry which we use all the time. again i will go down the line. if you were to use a blackberry like i do and are calling people, if you had the option of putting it up to your your like this and talking or you could use an earphone like this with a speaker down here what what you do? >> i personally and my institution is advising to reduce your pieces is that of keeping small phones to the head. it is a very cheap way to reduce exposure to sulfone radiation so i would use an earpiece. >> any difference? >> same thing.

>> i recognize the use of the phone would decrease a person's exposure. i don't think -- i can't agree it reduces the risk because i don't think the total picture of all the studies taken together with all of the complications i don't think this assessment suggests there is risk from using a cellphone. >> dr. davis? >> i brought my earpiece but i want to go on to read what the site since the doctor suggested to the contrary the site since the scientific evidence doesn't show danger to any users of cell phones from exposure including children and teenagers. the steps adults can take to reduce the exposure apply to children and teenagers as well. bullets, reduce the amount of time spent on the cell phone, bullets, use speaker mode or set to place more distance between the cell phone and continuing to

read from the site. some groups sponsored by other national governments have advice to children be discouraged from using cell phones at all in 2000 and the recommendation was strictly precautionary and not based on scientific evidence any health hazard exists from the fda website. it's in my testimony submitted for the record. the question we have to ask is what is evidence? do we insist the only evidence we will accept is when we have enough sick or dead children? i hope that is in the case and that we have made progress as a society to take the kind of precautions our colleagues in israel and finland and other nations are taking today. and i especially want to thank my colleague who is himself a scientist, physician, researcher and brain tumor survivor. so his interest in the issue is

quite intense and personal. based on our. extensive science, we recommend a headset such as the when you hold in your hand. the bluetooth itself and its radio frequency radiation. the distances shorter, so that the amount of radiation but is smaller than what the cell phone would put out. our colleagues in israel recommend a wired your piece such as when you colhave.

we can give you the government websites for many european countries and we have had some recommend both, some recommend just wired, and we feel that either had said would be better than holding the telephone to the year. -- holding the phone to the yeaear. >> if you are using a bluetooth and you have the phone away from your body and you turn off when you are not using it, it gives you much less exposure, but the problem is that most people who use a bluetooth have the phone at their hip, right at their bone marrow, and have it on all the time, and that is what we're concerned about. >> and it is -- any difference between this and bluetooth? >> no comment. >> usually the bluetooth is better than the cell phones itself, but there are situations

where the bluetooth involves higher emissions than the cell phone itself, such as when the recession is really good. because the blue tooth is always constant exposure when the cell phone adapts with a base station all the time besides we are worried when people where the blue tooth it is so comfortable it is become part of your body they will talk more and more and therefore overall exposure will be higher. >> blue tooth is because you don't have the wires and we don't have the slightest idea what this continues exposure of the area can achieve in and do time. therefore it is much easier to remember dr. davis mentioned when people have blue to the

interior they usually keep the cell phone somewhere in their pocket and then the area next to the cell phone is exposed. the different areas will be exposed, not the head but somewhere else. >> what is the strongest evidence and you know about the alleged connection between the use of a cell phone and a brain tumor? >> the strongest evidence doesn't come from human studies and that is the problem when we are looking at the information we have to rely on evidence such as the default by the national institutes of environmental health sciences in this country and researchers in europe. in the recent project and others. if we look at experimental

studies we have strong evidence. if we look at human studies as commented -- >> tell about the experimental study. >> here we go. this is a model of the brain and while the precise information in here has been debated this is approximately of the absorption that gets into the head of a 5-year-old and this is about the absorption of the blue line -- >> that establishes there is more absorption -- wait a minute, just answer the question. that establishes more absorption from a 5-year-old but that isn't my question. my question is what is the strongest evidence you have that exposure to a cell phone causes cancer? >> the process of cancer arises from different insults to our dna, the basic building blocks of genetic material inside of ourselves. researchers have shown that radiofrequency frank signals can

cause heat shock proteins the body forms in response to stress -- >> wait a minute. we don't have time for this. we have five minutes. >> i think i can do with in five or less. >> just answer my question. what is the strongest evidence you have an exposure to a cellphone causes cancer? >> the work that has been donner it shows a double strand breaks in dna after expos are to cellphone radiation is very strong evidence experimentally. if we tie that with human studies that have looked at people that have tenures exposure or more we put them together and have strong evidence. >> well, the doctor testified

that you see something after ten years but says that there are so few involved she can't draw a scientific conclusion. is that an accurate statement? >> regarding the ten years, yes. but first of all i would like to say i am not sure that there is an association. i cannot be sure based on the current epidemiological data. but what worried me was that in my study i saw consistent positive results and they always appeared where there was a possibility. they do not appear in this group or that. the appeared in more than ten years and on the same site where the phone was held and they appeared for the heavy users and in rural areas compared to urban and this also had ability because where it is more dense the exposure is low were so the fact that all of these indications appeared where they should have appeared told me it

was a red light. but as a scientist this isn't enough for causality but is indication that according to my judgment it is enough in order to advise the precautionary principal. >> it is not enough to conclude a causal connection; is that right? >> writes, for the causal association the criteria are much more strict. >> doctor, you've testified the evidence doesn't demonstrate connection between cell phones and cancer. now it is much harder but what would you answer as the evidence demonstrate that there is no connection between the cellphone and cancer? >> that is a very important

observation >> i've made an observation. i've asked a question. i am not having much luck with answers. >> i think the strongest evidence isn't any single study. the strongest evidence is there is a body of research where we have looked at whether certain studies that showed anything can be replicated, whether we have looked at consistency across studies and where there have been more than 40 animal studies that use different measures to assess the long-term risk. evidence doesn't come from any single study to the evidence comes from careful review looking at the strength and weaknesses together and putting the data together. this is supported by the fact the phone studies as dr. sadetzki states taken together do not -- are not showing an association between use and cancer.

so the answer -- >> not strongly suggest shoving between the use and cancer. >> it doesn't show. >> but that isn't a demonstration that there is no connection. >> exactly. what is important is that in the background context of what we know about the nature of the sick of the strength of the signal, how it interacts, they're has been research going on over 50 years although the research the last 20 years is of course used to improve. >> i had a hearing that had similar question. the question was is there evidence there was no conspiracy on the assassination of president kennedy. you don't see the connection, but proof of an negative is very

different from the proof of a positive. and when you baliles it all down, what i hear is not a whole lot of disagreement on this panel. you, dr. erdreich, say that there is so little question that you wouldn't take any precautions. i find that -- wait, i'm not negative -- finished. when i am finished i will pause. but where you in up with all the verbiage you do not say evidence demonstrates there is no connection. is that if your statement that your testimony?

>> part of that is it your statement. >> which part is it? >> the part i said there is absolutely no risk whatsoever. >> that wasn't part of my question. that was an observation before. >> your statement that it's hard to prove a negative -- >> let's go back to my question is it a fair summary of your testimony that there is -- the evidence does not demonstrate the absence of connection between exposure and cancer? >> the evidence does not -- excuse me, have to take the liberty of rephrasing. >> the evidence does not demonstrate there is no connection between the use of a cell phone and cancer?

>> he said the evidence doesn't demonstrate there's no connection. is that what he meant to say? i'm sorry. >> a fair statement that your testimony is the evidence doesn't demonstrate there is no connection between the use of a cell phones and cancer. >> the scientific evidence could never demonstrated a total no connection. >> that i take your answer to be correct. let me tell you where i come out what comes through to me is we don't know what the answer is. dr. sadetzki raises a lot of red flags that says it isn't

butterweed to sell phones but how we use them. she isn't advocating self loans. and dr. davis who drew almost as much applause as a senator harkin -- [laughter] -- made the comment she is not alarmed but is concerned. and the issue of precautions comes through to me with the exception of dr. sadetzki's testimony that the cautions are worth taking, more than [inaudible] -- i have concern for feeding into cancer or precautions are not a bad idea. it may not be a good idea but they are not a bad idea. and the issue of children we

ought to look at is the sensitivity of the issue. we have the duty to do more by protecting children. the question boils down to what studies are necessary because nobody knows. and the question as to whether the people who sell sell phones ought to be taking more studies. that is the heart of the question. whether there is enough risked to people who provide this alfonson and whoever does that my recommendation is of the study the the testimony very carefully and that more is to follow. one final question, dr. davis. does your invitation to appear

at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning to hear this fellow from overseas extend to everyone? if it is on the web, we can sleep in? [laughter] >> yes. >> thank you very much. distinguished panel. >> let me follow up and another thing. first of all, i know that we don't have jurisdiction over the fda here, or the fcc. >> when does that stop? [laughter] [applause] i said one has that stop to you? c-- when has that stopped

you? >> you did not hear my follow- up. because of my chairmanship on another committee, but to have jurisdiction over the fda. [applause] but with my friends at nia, it is this, doctor erdreich stated, something i've wondered about for a long time, that the energy is not the same as those used for high-frequency x-rays because the emissions are so much lower and unable to change the dna of cells. you have any definitive proof that this rf energy is unable to change the dna of cells? dr. davis said a study by professor hagee and sing is we

could produce defect since 1994 so i have two different things and i said i will pursue this beyond this panel with an eye each to see if we have a definitive answer. dna is harmed by low frequency. did you have any further views on that? >> i can't hear you. >> this brings the part of the spectrum because it isn't known to cause the changes we talked about. there have been mentioned a study. it isn't the only study, and the agency's i've been involved with the headlines read about that have reviewed have concerned all the studies on this question and the have not concluded that it's been proven to affect the dna of cells, and the second part is the stronger evidence -- the strongest evidence you can get

is from humans but this difficulties and epidemiological studies and animals. most agencies and authorities that do evaluate health risks think these studies are important but it is quite a stretch to say that what happens can happen in human beings or animals. >> dr. sadetzki, yes? >> i don't want to get into the discussion to we have mexican or not work we still need to improve the eckert mechanism and what to mention briefly if the low frequency was determined by the international association for cancer research could have been 2006. >> what -- >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry.

it is some of the body of the who which classifies carcinogens and they have different levels of carcinogens spaulding such as smoking or ionizing and ending buy not a coughing suited to this low frequency which is often the spectrum of low energy, was determined by this organization in june, 2006 it is possible. >> possible. >> yes. >> dr. did you have something you wanted to add about this? >> we don't have the precise knowledge what the dna is damaged. there can be to wheys way is how we observe dna. the lawyer of the issue itself could interfere with process of

dna itself. normally all the time damage occurs spontaneously, and this could either interview with process of repair and fragments of dna, or it could damage. however, as was mentioned earlier there are indications from some countries that no one can produce and action if special molecules which are chemically active called free radicals and those molecules could indirectly damaged so we have the options for the mechanism. right now we don't know which one of them is the correct one and the humanity is the most important and valuable for us.

however this suggests this new direction to namely making experiments and human volunteers. this is a small audience of a scheme of people to the mobile phone location. take a sample and examined for example dna damage. we've done these kind of experience not only dna but -- [inaudible] it is possible to do and permitted by the experimentation. >> do you have any more?

i just had a couple of follow up things. >> dr. sadetzki and you have i was trying to get through all of these, and you recommended holding the phone away from the body. we've already gone over the ear piece that. dr. sadetzki, you said the same thing of speaker or phone or hand for the phone, keeping it from the body. dr. davis, you said a cell phone should not be kept any closer than an inch to your body, is that we use it? where does that come from? >> that actually comes from the blackberry manual as well as on iphone, which nearly none of us

does, that is what they say. so while calling for warning labels as i am i am simply calling to codify the industry is telling about siltstones. and i but also add when i was privileged to work with ronald herbert hoover men as cancer institute, he looked at the evidence on this issue as one of the world's most distinguished cancer biologists and concluded it was appropriate to warn the staff to take the simple precautions, the same precautions israel was recommending, the same precautions finland, denmark and sweden replicated. >> let's face it, now my wife has a blackberry. she keeps it in her purse. [laughter] fine. we all have these pollsters, right? we put them on our belts. are you telling me i should not wear a blackberry that close? >> actually, the pollster may get enough difference. that's why blackberrys is 1

inch. an inch is -- you get some distance. that's why they recommend you use their holsters. but the reality is we don't know, and as scientists it shouldn't be my job to tell you -- >> i don't have an answer between my holster. [laughter] you know, they recommend their holster. this is a question i guess we all to ask the appropriate agencies to get involved. dr. shriver is working with senior french officials and the government as well as in the telecom industry because they are working in the telecom industry in france at least to make the kind of changes they think are appropriate, and i would hope this hearing will lead to a new day of cooperation because we need the cooperation of the industry to solve this problem. we really do. >> my last thing is this. cellphone technology is changing almost every day now,

blackberrys. now you do everything. get their computing devices. i'm not an expert in this, with what i do with this and everything else emits more than what my old self and use to which i just talked to people on. is that true? >> i don't think we know. in fact not necessarily because so long as you are holding it out here and actually are going to get less exposure this is what we are concerned about right now and this is where we need the fda and fcc to look in carefully because the current standards are based on the standards for a 200-pound man with an 11-pound head talking for six minutes to avoid heat. that's not relevant to my three year old granddaughter who loves to play with a cell phone and that is the problem we have. current standards are set for a very large, big man, and not for

me or other people of the world today. in brazil for example there are 127 cell phone users and under them are under age 20. thank you. under 20 million. thank you. >> the last thing i want to say, doctor, i don't have that list. describe for me just a little bit, the testing you would do. que tested 1200 different phones? >> just to clarify what we have done, we have conducted a science review of over 200 publications. there's peer reviewed studies, government advisers, and that is an hour cellphone report. we have also compiled information on over 1200 phones. they did not test the phones. they looked for that information in all publicly open sources. we did succeed.

as for some we did not and they decided this government does not require disclosure and consumers have to go through owners and time-consuming tasks to find out what the model may need. >> there's no government agency to put up this kind of information? about how much our frequency is put out by the different phones? the fcc doesn't publish that? >> the fcc does maintain the database, or a document associate it with every phone. every phone models would be identified by assisted usaid. but with regard to location and formation is cellphone users pass to know their social ideas of the steps or by phone, go to the office, this isn't available at the point of sale or the readily available of application. sprick i want to see eye for list. somebody ought to at least know

the difference in the ratings are. to last things, senator specter and i both have to leave but dr. davis. >> you just need to know that they reported essays are, of propes can be affected by two to four. there is no monitoring. there is no surveillance. the only time the fda can act is a hazard has been reported as happened in the case of the algae look phoning canada last year where a quarter of a million phones were recalled because they are found to have higher emission rates so even though they may be publicly available in the ewg is combined. is it at that sar or goblet. >> he wanted to add something, dr..

>> on every phone in the market. >> you are doing that now? >> for four years now. the second thing, i don't think that an inch would be enough. i would like to see the phones beach further from the body and you ask how it will be done and this is a very legitimate question. i think that if the companies need to do it, they have such clear engineers. it's a difficult problem i see it as a minor problem. i think it can be done very easily with few engineers sitting together in the room for half an hour. [laughter] >> senator specter, anything you want to add? >> seeking what we can do on monday afternoon of the senators are intent -- [applause]

>> thank you. i found this very interesting and challenging and we will do something about this. the committee will stand adjourned. >> in a few moments, a look at today's headlines and your calls, live on "washington journal." federal reserve chairman ben bernanke is at the brookings institution, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the house is in at 10:30 for a general speeches. legislative business is at noon reporte. we will look at trade between the u.s. and china with nicholas lardy from the peterson institute of international economics. at 8:30 eastern, john fund