Subject: Re The More You Watch, the Less You Know (fwd)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 101547 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:08:13 -0400
From: Bertha Dumpe
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Cc: markman@bit.net.au, pdepippo@aol.com, gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
Subject: Re: The More You Watch, the Less You Know (fwd)
Roy: Generally, I delete your "round the world" logo to conserve space. But
I'm leaving now to signify that you've done just that. You've brought the
words of wisdom from Mark Millman, what-ere his profession, from down
yonder, crocodile dundy country, to this EMF saturated network. I keep
thinking how wonderful it is, and how much work you put in, that you have
undertaken the job of providing this communication network. We cannot thank
you enough.
To refresh the mind below are his succinct words. .
---------------------- Forwarded by Bertha Dumpe/Person/World Bank on
04/21/98 09:01 AM ---------------------------
rbeavers@llion.org on 04/20/98 11:07:27 PM
Mark Millman wrote:
>>>>Roy,
I was reading Dr John Goldsmith's reply to Dr Cvijovic's question
about safety regulations and it reminded me of a point I have wanted to
make for a long time about the EMF debate. In John's reply, the
statement?"There is a perennial battle over whether a drug or industrial
agent or process has been proven to be safe, by those who want to produce
or sell it, or has to be proven unsafe by some agency which is responsible
for regulation"?prompts me to raise the issue of
accountability by the computer industry which I believe are making
"unsafe" products and are under no pressure to assure the public of
their safety. The cellphone industry has made huge money from technology
and is now starting to face some of the "heat" from investigations into the
safety (or not) of cellphones and transmission towers. If computers are
safe, why do we see a proliferation of "anti-radiation screens" and recent
entries on the market such as "radiation goggles". Surely there is enough
evidence around now (epidemiological and otherwise), to put some pressure
on the big boys like IBM, Compaq and Digital and others to say "how about
you start putting up some money for EMF research". It's also interesting to
observe the process by which accountability is dealt with. If the item in
question is essential to our daily lives, like computers and AC power then,
the desire to solve the problem is continuously thwarted by a parade of
obstacles. Just read Paul Brodeur's book, "The Great Power-Line Cover Up"
and you will see first hand what lengths the utilities and government
health organisations will go to, to
"not" find a problem. The line is used over and over again. "There is
not sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a problem". The latest
statement from Dr Michael Repacholi in John Goldsmith's reply, is a case in
point. Also, this same person has been trotting out the same message since
the early eighties. The point relating to the two investigative reporters
being sacked, is also a sign of the times. Big money interests will always
find a way of burying the truth.
To keep the message as short as possible, and to avoid going off on
tangents, I will just reinforce the point that anyone making money out
of devices which are now questionably safe, (e.g. copiers, fax machines
etc) should be included in the "accountability" stakes.
Mark Millman<<<<
Mark, at first I thoughtn I was the only one in the world addressing the
VDT (or VDU overseas) issue. But then Peter De Pippo made himself known on
this network, and now you. The ranks are swelling. I've sent my book
(X-Rayed Without Consent) on the VDT - EMR issue to Don Maisch in Tasmania.
Even though postage will cost US$20, I'll gladly send you the book if you
like. In it you'll find reasons and discussions of everything you mentioned
above.
IBM, the industry leader of all time (like RJ Reynolds of the tobacco
industry), as such must accept responsibility for the debacle it has
created. IBM was singularly responsible for putting people in front of VDTs
(1972) when, 4 years after General Electric was forced to recall 150,000
"defective" (x-ray radiation oozing) television sets. The TV sets were
blamed for injuring ONLY 30 known children at US Air Force bases. The
Rdiation Act of 1979 came out of this x-ray problem. The first videos
attached to computers were black/white small television screens. Industry
figured only color TVs were the problem, and industry attorney Edward Day
told Congress so. In 1979 and again in 1981 the AFL-CIO complained to
Congress that the computer videos caused cataracts, musculoskeletal, and
back injuries in journalists. Congressman Albert Gore, now the US Vice
President, as chairman of the technology committe which to this day he has
never abandoned, presided over both basically the same hearings (1981
hearing in my book). After Gore told IBM "to look at the front end of the
technology before it pervades the world," IBM form the Center for Office
Technology (COT) to mediate and allay the fears of VDT users who have never
stopped blaming VDTs for their ailments. COT, still in existence, continues
to hold ergonomic conferences on which they copy me. Since I've been
outspoken about the VDT health hazard to the point IBM once said to me
"what else is wrong with our units?" I'm not allowed to speak at
conferences. I don't attend.
Wang Industries, for which I wrote 4 text and lab books (published by
Harper & Row), asked me to present ergonomic solutions. That came to an
abrupt end when I talked about the hazards of VDT radiation emanating from
the screen. Around 1981, Wang shipped several thousand VDTs to Australia.
Users soon developed carpal tunnel or repetitive strain injury (RSI).
Australian Embassy here asked me to help. But when I said it was screen
radiation, the Scientific Attache ceased communications saying it was a
political proble.Australia government down yonder would hear none of it
although they evidently suspected the cause of RSI. At a Swedish conference
in 1986, Australian officials said, "We had no RSI in our country until
clericals switched from typewriters to computers (Wang)." They did their
own troubleshooting, but would not admit the cause. This is true of every
government. Here our Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has called VDTs,
since 1981, alphanimeeric devices (only display data). FDA maintains "no
law exists to regulate VDTs." But there is, the Radiation Act of 1968 which
regulates ALL CATHODE RAY TUBE DEVICES (medical, military, commercial,
consumer). Today all VDTs display or are capable of displaying graphics,
movies, TV shows, etc. Yet, FDA ignores this fact.
The end is in sight. Since industry has boldly bombarded the world with
satellites and microwave towers this has become the vehicle to spotlight
the VDT problem. Why? Because radiation laws forbid the whole body
irradiation of whole world populations. We are marching on this. They stars
are right, the pieces in place, the Acts enacted for us to move forward on
the hazards of VDTs.
Mark, thanks for making your sober point. Be sure VDTs will prove to be the
straw that breaks the camel's back. Everything is built on the VDT
technology. When the hazards are investigated and it falls, the electronics
industry will crumble. This has always been their greatest fear which is
why layers and layers of industry groups (like George Carlo's WTR formed by
IBM) have sleepless nights. My group (Ergotec) has been on top of the VDT
problem since 1980. We will soon see fruition.
Regards -- Bert
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