Subject:  Industry is not all bad (fwd)
Date:     Thu, 30 Apr 1998 171551 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------

Ed:

Re: the message forwarded below.....

Why did the industries take these measures if they deny that there
is such a thing as an EMF hazard?????????  And, of course, are these
measures adequate???  Many of them are not.  When they do take these
measures, more often than not it is to promote sales ... NOT because
they have any concern about public health exposures......  (Beyond
litigation concerns, of course, which do not "frighten" very many
industry managers or lawyers under the U.S. system of law.....)

Ed, what is holding up the power companies from taking "adequate"
measures??????

Earlier this week I forwarded a message about industry/science
collusion vis-a-vis the CO2, earth warming issue.  I have in my files
another such message relating to the "sickening" tobacco industry/science
collusion story.  (Wait until you read that one!)  Most of the readers of
this list know well the _tetraethyl-lead_ industry/science/government
collusion history......  Those few examples do not exhaust the list,
but they do provide enough condemning evidence to know the way the system
"works" in the U.S.

It will take much more, Ed, than the following to turn the industry-record
on EMF into "good guys" in my mind.....  The science record on EMF does
not reveal very many "good guys" either....  (For the record:  I do not
count scientists who fail to expose _false press releases_ --  like the
one we saw last week put out by NCI which flatly contradicted the science
summary of their results -- as "good guys.")

Why must we (the public) live this way????  Because our system is
one of money, profits, pay-offs, industry provided/controlled 'research
funding' and a political system that is corrupted by campaign funding
rules which give industry the means to BUY the outcome they want -- an
outcome that is not democratic in its end result ... but is
oligarchical....

Cheerio.....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:28:27 -0500
From: Edward Maxey 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Industry is not all bad

Hello Roy Beavers, 

It is a mistake to believe that epidemiology has not influenced
manufacturers
of electrical equipment.  The MPR2 standard derived from Swedish
studies. 
Marketers of computer monitors widely advertised compliance with the
MPR2
standard until recently.  It seems to have become so accepted that few
have
bothered to publish it after March, 1997.

Here is the MPR2 standard:

ELF magnetic      250 nT @ 50 cm
(Band I)          around display

VLF magnetic      25 nT @ 50 cm
(Band II)         around display

ELF electric      25 V/m @ 50 cm
(Band I)          from front of display

VLF electric      2.5 V/m @ 50 cm
(Band II)         front, back and sides

The New York Public Schools adopted the MPR2 standard in the spring of
1991,
with the exception that a more stringent TCO standard (200 nT @ 30 cm on
user
axis [which equates to 2 milligauss @ 11.8"]) was applied to the Band I
magnetic component.

Electric blanket manufacturers began to produce low magnetic field
products
when epidemiological studies revealed a hazard.  They did this by
placing
supply and return current carriers in close proximity throughout the
blanket. 

Low magnetic bar code readers are also being produced.  Most bar code
readers
register 15 to 30 when a milligauss meter is placed on them.  This
condition
was corrected in a local grocery.  Their new bar code readers now
register
under a milligauss. 

Warm regards,

Ed
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html