Non-Ionizing Radiation

Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together – radiating - through space at the speed of light. Generally, two things can happen when radiation is absorbed by matter: ionization or excitation.
• Ionization occurs when the radiation carries enough energy to remove an electron from an atom or molecule. This is ionizing radiation.
• Excitation occurs when the radiation carries only enough energy to excite the motion of the atoms or molecules. This is non-ionizing radiation and is the subject of this narrative.

Types of non-ionizing radiation include near-ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwave, radiofrequency (RF), and extremely low frequency. Current concerns focus primarily on RF radiation and microwave radiation, a subset of RF radiation.
As RF related devices become more prevalent, and more powerful devices are created, the implications for insurance companies could also increase. If a conclusive link is made between the electronic devices we use every day and brain cancer or other injuries, then companies will face enormous claims for workers compensation and injury liability.

Background

The terms “electromagnetic field” or “radiofrequency (RF) field” are used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic or RF energy. The most important use for RF energy is related to the provision of telecommunications services. Radio and television broadcasting (AM/FM), cell phones, radio communications for police and fire departments, satellite communications and global positioning systems, baby monitors, and cordless phones are just a few examples. Non-communication applications include microwave ovens, radar, industrial heating and sealing and more. RF waves can be characterized by a wavelength and a frequency. The wavelength is the distance covered by one complete cycle of the electromagnetic wave, while the frequency is the number of electromagnetic waves passing a given point in one second.

Injuries and Damages

The risk of injuries and damages from non-ionizing radiation is most commonly thought of in relation to cell phones, RF antenna systems, microwaves and extremely low frequency radiation from power lines.

Cell Phones
Cell phones have become an integral part of our society. Although they have greatly improved communications, controversy still surrounds cell phone use, particularly whether cell phone radiation is dangerous to humans, possibly causing cancer in the form of brain tumors. Cell phone litigation is discussed below.

RF Antenna Systems
RF antenna systems are everywhere, including on the rooftops of commercial and municipal buildings, the peaks of water towers, and even church steeples. Third-party workers like painters, roofers, HVAC technicians, and electricians who work near RF antenna systems are the most likely to be exposed to high levels of RF radiation. While Federal Communications Commission licensees maintaining RF transmitting antennas generally have protocols in place requiring that the antennas be powered down during routine maintenance work, these protocols do not cover third-party workers who work near these antennas and are often unaware of the potential dangers.

The risks posed by RF antenna systems are thought to vary by the power of each transmitter and the number of transmitters present. Although transmitters can radiate at high power levels, most do not radiate significant power in any one direction. Studies of rooftop base-station antennas have concluded that maintenance personnel or others with access to high-powered paging antennas on rooftops could be exposed to high levels of RF radiation. For sector-type antennas, exposures to high levels of RF radiation are only likely if workers operate very close to or directly in front of the antennas. Some governmental agencies have reported that antenna maintenance workers who climb antenna structures for painting, repairs, or other purposes could be exposed to high levels of RF energy, especially when multiple and powerful transmitters are present.

The effects of exposure to RF radiation are uncertain and vary by degree of exposure. There is no substantial scientific agreement that the low levels of RF energy encountered by the public every day can have side effects for humans or that wireless phone use causes cancer or other conditions. It is generally agreed, however, that extremely high levels of RF radiation can cause harmful biological effects in humans by increasing body temperatures and heating biological tissue. Some say that the side effects of over-exposure to RF radiation include cognitive disorders, memory lapses, headaches, or attention disorders, although none of these alleged side effects has yet been confirmed by widely accepted scientific evidence. Despite extensive research into the biological effects of RF radiation sponsored by government agencies such as the Department of Defense, there is not yet a confirmed link between RF exposure and cancer or certain other ailments in humans.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a “2B” substance, which means that the “agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans”. Other substances in the “2B” group include coffee, asphalt, and gasoline.

Microwaves
Microwaves occupy the upper part of the radiofrequency spectrum and have a wide range of applications, including speedometers, telecommunications, medical treatment of muscle soreness, and the curing of rubber and resins. The most common consumer use of microwave energy is in microwave ovens. The Food and Drug Administration has regulated the manufacture of microwave ovens since 1971 and has ruled the ovens safe for use if they meet the federal standards for leakage, which are set far below the levels known to harm people. While research continues regarding the effect of low level microwave radiation, it has been established that accidental exposure to high levels of microwave energy -- much more than the allowable oven leakage -- can cause damage to human eyes, testes and sperm by heating body tissues.

Extremely Low Frequency Radiation
Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are a combination of electric and magnetic fields of energy that surround any electrical device that is plugged in and turned on. EMFs are found near power lines, wires, and other electrical devices. The fields from power lines have a much lower frequency than other types of EMF such as microwaves or radio waves; EMF from power lines is considered to be Extremely Low Frequency (ELF). While studies have not clearly shown that exposure to ELF radiation increases cancer risk, some scientists advise the public to limit the amount of time spent in proximity to EMF sources and to increase the distance from the source when possible.

Legislation and Regulation

The Federal Communications Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are the agencies primarily responsible for regulating RF safety and health standards for workers and the general public, including the monitoring and investigation of issues related to RF over-exposure.

Liability and Insurance

As the number of RF radiation transmitting antenna systems increases, the insurers providing coverage for affected workers, their employers, and the managers of buildings outfitted with antennas might feel the effect of additional injuries caused by RF radiation -- if those injuries are clearly linked to over-exposure to RF radiation.

Even without definitive proof that over-exposure to RF radiation is a cause of worker injuries, employers may find it difficult to deny workers compensation benefits for certain injuries. In a 2007 case, AT&T Alascom v. Orchitt, 161 P.3d 1232 (Alaska Sup.Ct., 2007), the court ruled in favor of John Orchitt, an AT&T employee who claimed that over-exposure to RF radiation on the job caused him head, brain and upper-body injuries. Recognizing a link between RF over-exposure and psychological injuries, the court required AT&T Alascom to pay Orchitt temporary total disability and medical benefits.

Despite the large number of cell phone users worldwide, concern for cell phone radiation is a relatively niche issue. Additionally, because the link between cell phones and cancer is not universally agreed upon, liability concerns are not well-established. Defendants in litigation are most likely to be cell phone makers, but government agencies could be sued for the alleged omission or of covering up of data related to damage possibly caused by cell phones.

Health insurers usually cover medical treatment for brain cancer, which is alleged to be the greatest danger of cell phone use. Most insurance companies have not seen the need to address electromagnetic radiation specifically, but in 2015 Lloyd’s of London developed a clause excluding any liability coverage for claims “[d]irectly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

Litigation

Litigation over whether cell phones may cause cancer or other health problems continues, as does debate within the scientific community regarding whether or not the radiation emitted by cell phones is dangerous. The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control have generally noted that while some research has raised questions and concerns about the risk of cell phone use, most studies have found no association between cell phone use and brain tumor risks. Plaintiffs in cell phone litigation have the burden of showing a causal relationship between their cell phone use and their alleged injuries, something that has been difficult in the absence of a scientifically established causal link, and uncertainty about what standards to use for the admissibility of expert testimony, as demonstrated by a few well-known rulings:

Reynard v. NEC Corp., 887 F. Supp. 1500 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
David Reynard sued several parties alleging that the phone caused or accelerated the growth of a brain tumor in his wife. According to Reynard, the shape of the tumor bore a striking resemblance to the shape of the cell phone’s antenna and was angled the same way his wife held her phone. The court rejected his claim on the basis of the uncertainty of the evidence.

Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 769 (D. Md. 2002), aff’d Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 78 Fed. Appx. 292 (4th Cir. 2003)
Dr. Newman and his wife sued cell phone manufacturers and vendors alleging that his use of a cell phone caused his brain cancer. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiffs had not submitted admissible reliable or relevant evidence on causation.

Motorola Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2016)
Multiple plaintiffs sued cell phone makers, trade associations and service providers, claiming that cell phones cause brain tumors. The court consolidated thirteen cell phone cases to consider which were the best standards to apply to the issue of the admissibility of expert testimony. The court adopted the standards expressed in Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702, abandoning the “Dyas/Frye test” that had formerly been applied. The court found that Rule 702’s expanded focus on the reliability of the principles and methods made it a preferable rule to the Dyas/Frye test. The court emphasized that Rule 702(d) is concerned with the reliability of the “principles and methods” applied by the expert, going further than the Dyas/Frye test by expressly requiring the court to determine whether “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” This, the court stated, would lead to better decision-making by juries and trial judges. The court remanded the thirteen consolidated cases for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Future Outlook

While most government agencies and research organizations have not found a causal relationship between non-ionizing radiation and negative health effects such as cancer, they do support further research, especially in the area of radiofrequency risks. In March 2010, a study known as “COSMOS” was launched. COSMOS will follow 290,000 cell phone users for 20 to 30 years in an attempt to identify health issues linked to long term mobile phone use.

Due to the controversy in the scientific community, insurers have yet to come to a solid position on the true risks of non-ionizing radiation. However, a report released by Swiss Reinsurance (Swiss Re SONAR — Emerging Risk Insights, June 2013) referred to electromagnetic radiation as an emerging risk that in the next decade has the potential for financial, reputational or regulatory impacts.

If there are major risks associated with over-exposure to non-ionizing radiation, they are likely growing simply because the utilization of non-ionizing radiation is growing. Until new technology minimizes the risks or science proves the lack of risk, insurers benefit from keeping informed about developments regarding non-ionizing radiation.

In the News

2017

• Tips for avoiding cellphone radiation - Laura Kelly, The Washington Times (12/19/2017)
  California health officials are offering guidelines on limiting exposure to radiation from cellphones, updating recommendations from a previously secret report that a court order be made public earlier this year. . . . “This is a response to concerns that have been expressed to us, over and over again, by the general public,” California Department of Public Health Director Dr. Karen Smith told the Huffington Post this week. “Our response is, if you have a concern, here are some very practical things you can do.” . . . The recommendations generally advise limiting physical contact with mobile phones, especially for children and young adults. They include background information on the type of radiation cellphones emit and current research on possible health risks. . . . It’s an expanded version of a 2014 draft that the Public Health Department was ordered to publish in March, following a lawsuit to make the guidelines public. . . . In its defense, the health department denied any conspiracy in keeping the draft private. Instead, it said it didn’t want to cause unnecessary panic, noting that national guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the time emphasized a lack of rigorous scientific data on a connection between cellphones and disease.

2016

• Is 5G technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiation - Jim Puzzanghera , LA Times (08/08/2016)
  

   As wireless companies prepare to launch the next generation of service, there are new questions about the possible health risks from radiation emitted by cellphones and the transmitters that carry the signals.  . . . Concerns about the potential harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation have dogged mobile technology since the first brick-sized cellphones hit the market in the 1980s.

2015

• Electomagnetic hypersenstivity to mobile and wifi is 'serious handicap', French court rules - Henry Samuel, The Telegraph (08/27/2015)
  A French court has ruled that electromagnetic hypersensitivity to mobile and wifi waves is a "serious handicap", setting a legal precedent that lawyers say could lead to "thousands" of claims.

2014

• Md. group forms to fight cell towers at schools - Bucks County Courier Times (10/04/2014)
  A new group, made up of residents and activists from across Maryland, has formed to help Prince George's County residents who are fighting the county school system's plan to build cellphone towers on school property.
• Intensive mobile phone users at higher risk of brain cancers, says study - The Guardian (05/13/2014)
  People who use mobile phones intensively appear to have a higher risk of developing certain types of brain cancer, French scientists have said, reviving questions about phone safety.

2013

• Hidden Insurance Risk Lurks in Property Leases - Gloria Vogel, CFA , Claims Journal (08/21/2013)
  RF radiation injuries should be of concern to insurers, especially since their exposure to the risk is hidden within the lease contracts between the commercial wireless service providers (CWSPs) and landlords who lease space to those CWSPs for antenna systems.

Additional Items