Subject:  Re The More You Watch, the Less You Know (fwd)
Date:     Mon, 20 Apr 1998 220727 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:53:27 +1000
From: Mark Millman 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: The More You Watch, the Less You Know (fwd)

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=85"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"=85prompts 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.=20
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.=20
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.=20

Mark Millman



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