believe is a good deal appeared however, small businesses and agribusinesses are struggling in this economy, and with the proposed legislation and other laws coming on, the burden is more and more on the small business owner to enforce these types of issues, and it makes doing business as a small business or micro business owner very tough. that would be my comment. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker please. >> my name is lloyd morgan. i am the senior research fellow with environmental trend -- fund trust in its campaign for safer cell phones. this ordinance goes to the very heart of democracy, and that is the right of citizens to know the cell phones event micro -- in the micro radiation, which is a class 2b carcinogen. the cell phone industry has challenged our right to know in

federal court. i would urge this committee to uphold the right to know, and i would also urge supervisor elsbernd to recuse himself from the vote in order that the $5,000 at&t donation to his designated charity is not seen as a quid pro quo. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: next speaker please. >> i want to thank the department of the environment and the city attorneys for your efforts to save this necessary legislation. you are helping raise awareness not only in san francisco. states from pennsylvania to oregon and other countries from iran to israel are issuing warnings to their citizens of

the safety precautions from cell phone use. on may 31, as melanie told you, the highly esteemed conservative world health organization classified cell phones as possible carcinogens based on industry-funded studies and independent studies proving that long-term cell phone use can cause lethal brain tumors. so we have the evidence, and we have many san franciscans, including children, using cell phones on a daily basis. and they are unaware that the sec and manufacturers are hiding in tiny print in the back of the cell phone manual not to hold the phone to the body. this is information that everyone should have the right to know. you are doing the right thing, and since my husband was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor at treated by experts to his long-term cell phone use, i have been touched deeply by

hearing from -- i cannot even tell you have many. i have a list of close to 1000 victims of this, and it is just devastating. these people did not have the right to know, and i would appreciate if you would vote yes and take this to the board of supervisors, and i thank you so much. supervisor avalos: thank you for your comments. just to discuss a board rule -- we need to direct our comments generally to the committee and not to any individual supervisor. next speaker please. >> i am a citizen, and my car was in, but i did not hear it. anyways, i support this. i hope you vote for it, and i ask you sincerely to vote for it today. i think it is a win-win. i have a ph.d. in environmental engineering, and i have been studying as well as working this

issue for a number of years. i think it is a win-win for the manufacturers and the business as well as for citizens. i actually believe it is a relationship-building task. i have published work on extended producer responsibility, and that is what this is about is those that are gaining dollars and wealth off of these products have an extended producer responsibility to inform us as citizens to buy the product and who come to use the products in good faith effort, we believe that there is a need for those that sell us the product to extend information on how to use them in the best way and in the safest way. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you.

next speaker please. i will call a few more names. [reading names] >> i am a recent graduate of the university of san francisco. i studied media studies and journalism. what started to realize when i started to look at this issue is that i am just getting started compared to most people in this room. i spoke and professors at stanford, berkeley, ucla, usc -- all specialists within neurology, and while all of them might not agree that cell phones caused cancer, every one of them has agreed that precaution needs to be paid. there is a lot that can be done

in terms of our government was -- laws, things we can do. at least 1 people, especially children. i spoke with a 10-year-old girl the other day about her first cell phone a week ago, and it was amazing that she knew more facts about ways that she can keep state then nancy pelosi who are spoke with last week. she new ways she could shut off her phone in her pocket. she knew to use speakerphone. when i spoke with the environmental adviser to nafta, he showed me a protective built that he had around his stomach with magnets that supposedly protected him against this. i know a number of different people in ucla, a former professor, who started aviation protected case. i think if there are these things on the market, it is definitely a sign that there needs to be more information provided at a point of sale.

currently, i buy a can of mayonnaise and get more information off of that than i can for a cell phone. i want to thank you for your time in the great feedback and information we have had trying to get this law passed. i just want to thank you again for being here and hearing me speak. >> mr. chair, members of the committee, i am with the environmental working group. when the board passed the current ordinance last summer, it was obviously because of overwhelming concern of the public's right to know and concern about the potential long-term health effects of cell phone radiation. this concern, i believe, was confirmed -- i left my mouth apparently at home today -- by the world health organization, but at the same time, this is an incredibly complex issue.

i think the revised ordinance reflects these complexities and response to them in a nuanced way. i think it is also less burdensome to retailers. i do not think that the burdensome is that significant, quite honestly. the ordinance will ensure that all consumers in san francisco will receive easy to understand information about cell phone risks. there are several steps they can take to reduce exposure, which is quite hard to find in a real detailed way. certainly from a government entity. this ordinance really remains a landmark right to know measure, and i urge you to vote yes. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the public who want to comment, please come forward? >> good morning.

i strongly oppose this ordinance because it is such a burden to our retailers because it is a lot of work. it is basically not necessary. fcc has approved all the phones as safe for consumers. why do we have to do it again? it is really hard when san francisco already, all across the bay area, the economy is bad. people are struggling to buy cell phones, spending money, and putting this on our retailers is just a burden. if a customer wants to know, the information is available. onon the back of the phone. if it is mandatory, i do not think that it is necessary. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you

very much. >> good morning. my name is charles. i work for one of the bleak -- retail arms of the wireless neighborhood. i came before this crew last year speaking on behalf of our sub dealers. our numbers have been declining because of the economy and the overall challenges of doing business here. right now i am the district manager for wireless neighborhood. located down the peninsula. we had been searching in san francisco. this is one of the issues that we are taking a clear look at. we are challenged by the changes

in here, putting up direct potential links to cancer when we do not think that there is a determination on that. the fear factor, a consumer is going into a look cashen -- look into -- is going into look. certainly while i am well versed on this subject, a customer just came in and asked about the sar rating. trying to speak to that end clearly give them the information, if someone has that fear, it makes sense. when you start to attach raising about potential links to cancer when those determinations have not been killed -- not been clearly stated, that is when you

get a challenging environment. it is difficult to survive in the retail environment right now. i am a parent. if there is a clear link, i want to understand that. to put up that poster, the fear factor creates a challenge. we are completely opposed to that. supervisor avalos: >thank you very much. anyone else that would like to comment, please come forward. >> members, i have some letters of opposition here from various business groups and individual retailers.

the fcc, after consultation, has adopted standards governing emissions from cell phones. the sec has asserted that its standards represent the best scientific thought and are sufficient to protect the public health. no wireless device may be offered for sale or lease unless the device has been authorized in accordance with the fcc regulations. moreover, standards incorporate considerable precautionary factors. leading national and international health and safety organizations have concluded that there are no adverse health effects for cell phones. the fda concludes that the scientific evidence does not show a man -- danger to any users of cell phones, including children and teenagers. additionally, they stayed in

their consumer fact sheet that recently some health and safety interest groups have interpreted certain reports to suggest that wireless device use might be linked to cancer and other illnesses. while these assertions have gained increased public attention, currently no scientific evidence establishes a link between wireless device used in cancer and other illnesses. third, in its june updated fact sheet on this issue, the world health organization concluded that there was no adverse health effect caused by mobile phone use. rather than providing information to consumers about products, this proposal is the clear message considered by this

issue. these devices being safe for consumer use. as such it does not mean a fundamental purpose of consumer product information, which is to better inform consumers about the products. instead it is a contradiction to establish levels challenging the efficacy of the u.s. government's determination on a wireless device safety. as noted by the fcc, some parties to recommend taking measures to further reduce exposure to this energy. the sec does not endorse the need for this practice. the federal government's jurisdiction over radio communications is predicated on a finding that national regulation is appropriate and essential. supervisor avalos: thank you

very much. supervisor mar: thank you for your testimony. let me ask a question to the industry. i know that many local activists appointed clinton to a number of studies. they say that at least five studies in the last four years, the study from the journal of epidemiology a couple of years ago, they are showing that there is a potential link. especially when they look depth the impact had on children that do not know any better. a number of studies are showing that there is potential public health risk. you are saying that there is no health risk at all. as the parent of a young child

who also has a cell phone, i worry. i do see a number of studies cited by the environmental working group and they give me pause when i think about protecting the children's health. can you just respond to those four or five studies? >> can you give me the names of all five? supervisor mar: i will read them off -- >> just the names of the authors. supervisor mar: [reads names] showing an increased risk of [unintelligible] for people that used cell phones for more than 10 years. and 80% risk of [unintelligible] on the same side of the head for people that had used cell phones

for 10 years and longer. [read names] showing a risk of [unintelligible] tumors on the side of the head with a phone is used. lastly, [reads names] on the environmental health perspective, showing 59 peer review publications from your industry being 10 times less likely to show adverse effects compared to studies funded by public agencies and other groups. >> first, we do not fund any studies in the united states. what we rely on is what the experts agencies on this issue say about this issue. the fda, the fcc, the national

cancer institute, they have all said that there is no as it -- no evidence -- supervisor avalos: studies show the opposite of what you just said. >> that puts them on par with coffee and pickled vegetables. when you really look at it. supervisor mar: children do not put them next to their heads or a salivary glands, so i think there is a difference. whether that is in the classification created by the world health organization. in their updated fact sheet on this issue, june of 2011, they have said that there is no adverse health effect.

>> pickled vegetables, coffee, car exhaust. i would say that that is a bit different. let's when you look at the totality of the science in this area, that is what we do -- >> when you look at the totality of the science in this area, that is what we do, looking at the science, whether it is the expert agencies at the fda, fcc, nyosh, osha, they constantly reviewed the literature on the subject. that is what we have to look at as an industry. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. other members of the public, please come forward.

>> good morning. we represent a variety of retailers that operate within the state. including walgreen's, best buy, 7/11. the exposures from this are unnecessary and misleading. placing the onus for compliance on retailers, forcing them to display materials and informational posters as well as providing customers with informational fact sheets that will be developed by the department. we believe that this responsibility is misplaced. small convenience stores, neighborhood stores, pharmacies, this ordinance applies that they are selling a

dangerous product when they are not. this also creates potential liability for large and small retailers alike. many of the products sold in this retail environment have a variety of disclosures in the user's guide. in our environment, if we were mandated to post those warnings in the stores, customers would become overwhelmed and confused. the prime example, warnings were plastered all over our store, get consumers pay no attention. those warnings are also posted here are around city hall. yet here we all are, presenting

testimony. in closing i would like to say that we oppose this ordinance and request your no vote because it places a huge burden on retailers at a time when they can least afford it and has no measurable public benefit. supervisor avalos: may i ask you a question? i share some of your concerns about the accuracy and reliability. the prop 65 argument is almost an argument for it. no one is going to pay attention to it. it must be limited in size. 11 by 17 is not that big. the piece of paper that has to go, you make copies and you stick it underneath the cash register, you stick it under the

advertisements in the bag that try to get me to come back and buy something else. i absolutely appreciate that point, but in terms of the burden? is it really that burdensome? >> in many cases, it is. there are a number of requirements depending on the type of store the to our. depending on the type of retail establishments that you are you may not have the wall space or the physical space for the disclosure. pharmacies, walgreen's, wall speak -- wall space is very limited in pharmacies. they like when consumers to look around and see the different products for sale. when we start going down this

path of disclosure, the question is, when does it end? where does it stop? in terms of the pamphlet at the register, if the court fails to provide that information to a customer, you are opening yourself up to liability. which we have serious concerns about. >> i am a member of the public and i have come before you to encourage you to support this basic measure toward consumer education regarding choice in use of cell phones. i have no agenda. i have a teenage daughter, we got one for her, 15.

i did the research. i have no desire for pervasive governmental involvement in personal choice, but it seems to me that anything regarding the safe use of the radio frequency transmitter is a minimum regarding consumer protection. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. other members of the public that would like to comment? thank you. >> good morning. i am a bay area resident that happens to have purchased my cellphone here at the apple store. i have been following this legislation since its inception and i am in strong support of limiting consumer exposure to energy from the fcc, making it available to those that seek the information, preferring a more precautionary approach to cell phone use.

like most consumers, i did not pay particular attention to the safety section. out of concern, later, i was able to go online and find a supplemental died for my iphone. looking at the small print i was able to find information telling me i should hold my phone sideways, 1 inch away from my head. i can only use approved clips. i should position the antenna toward my shoulder to limit by exposure. as you can see, this is a lot of information. i urge you to support this new legislation. you have the opportunity to set

the bar very high on personal safety. hopefully other cities will follow suit. thank you for your time. >> good morning. i am a local business owner. business is tough. we are trying to bring traffic in. we tried to bring in as much information as possible. we give them as much information as we can about the device, the plan, everything that has to do with the cell phone. one thing that i do not recommend that we do, we are not doctors or scientists. my employees are getting paid $9 an hour. they are not experts in the

environmental protection. they do not know about radiation. positive, negative, anything like that. if we post posters -- let's say that a consumer has a question about it that we cannot answer properly. we hold that liability. something goes wrong? they blame it on radio frequencies? we are held liable. i honestly think that the notices in the phone, the notices in the boxes, it is information enough. it is like asking 7-11, who sells cigarettes, for every single person that buys a pack of cigarettes, telling them it will kill them. but there is no proof that the radio frequency causes cancer.