Subject: (Dumpe) (Ozaktas) (Suzanne) Gaussmeter & telephones (fwd)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 123415 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
......Note -- the kind of response one gets from our RICH health
bureaucracies when these EMF/health issues are raised......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org................
...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
.................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
.........DOYOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????........
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:11:36 -0400
From: Bdumpe@worldbank.org
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: Haldun Ozaktas , azul@flash.net,
dlhelp@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: (Ozaktas) (Suzanne) Gaussmeter & telephones (fwd)
Roy, et al: In the essence of saving time, I lumped these 3 related emails you
sent and will provide a round-robin response. It is recognized that Haldun
(electrical engineer?) and Suzanne are addressing the magnetic field (measured
in milligauss) of remote (now over 900 MHz) home phones. On the other hand, ABC
News is honing in on cellphones radio frequency (RF) emissions from cellphones
(836 MHz - 2.5 GHz; 29 GHz for satellite phone).
Haldun: I am extremely electrosensitive. This is a neuro-chemical-biological
disorders aflicting several thousand people exposed to RF worldwide. **Except if
one is electrosentive? Haldun, if RF multiplicity continues EVERYONE will be
electrosentive. Then what will be the use of this technology?
Roy: Recently you broadcast an email regarding the work of US Wireless in trying
to get information from the FCC on the bio-effects of cellphone RF. Yesterday I
obtained correspondence between this company and federal officials. Truly, it is
cause for alarm. One would think that, coming from industry, the government
would be as terribly concerned about the RF effects close to cellphone users
(near field) as US Wireless is in good conscience. But federal officials have
merely passed the buck, and/or evaded the issue.
I spent ALL day yesterday, and a good part of this morning, communicating with
FCC, FDA (which is particularly responsible for bio-protection of the public),
Congress. etc. All to whom I spoke are spaced out, non-responsive, unaware of
the correspondence. Why not? When Reynard of Florida filed a lawsuit after his
cellular phone heavy user wife died from brain cancer, the FDA immediately
issued a TALK PAPER, which stated **Cellphones are safe.** Mind you, Bob
Cleveland (biopysicist) of the FCC performed a study in which he found that a
cellphone next to the head alters brain signals and brain tissue, etc. The
president/CEO of US Wireless is an electrical engineer, and the way he writes
showing the potential for bio-effects from cellphone RF, it would not surprise
me if he has been a NASA spacecraft engineer. This CEO has a genuinely
legitimate concern for humanity. Federal agencies, whose job is to protect the
public, have ignored him; absolutely on purpose. And you know what McCain's
office did with the US Wireless letter? They sent it to FCC. I will continue to
pursue this serious problem.
Haldun and Suzanne are discussing gauss (fields). US Wireless, which makes
cellphone antennas, is worried about the effect of cellphones on medical
implants (near field). They want to know: Are the FCC guidelines [not a standard
which no federal agency has created] strict enough to protect cellphone users,
who have implants, from medical instrument malfunction;sudden death?? Ugh.
Federal agencies never though of that.
Bert
<<<>>>>
Hi everybody:
I just saw the morning news report on cell phone safety (cancer
risk) by ABC TV news.....
The "x-generation" scientist who gave the report did a better job (than
we have been seeing) in presenting "a balanced view" of the subject.....
HOWEVER, he UNbalanced it badly in one sense! He (in effect) told
the public that there is no reason to worry about a cancer risk from cell
phones because they transmit in the microwave portion of the EMR spectrum
-- which has not (yet) been identified by science as a cancer causing
portion of the spectrum....
That is "old fashioned" science! Worse!! It relies upon the very theory
(as to what "can" cause cancers) that is very much under challenge by the
science that is being uncovered in the EMF/EMR research.....
It, in effect, says: We are not going to believe this new
(hormone-causal) cancer science.... Stick with the science of 20 or 30
years ago..... Therefore, micro-wave frequency is safe.... It
does not cause or promote cancer.... Use (buy!!!) your cell phones.....
Sophistry......
He also said, however, that (like tobacco 20 or 30 years ago) we are
finding out that our ASSUMPTIONS could be wrong ... AND he said that, for
his own usage -- HE WAS USING THE CELL PHONES AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE!!!
....(We have heard the same thing recently from a group of scientists in
Great Britain!!!)
Contradictory??? Yes!!! But he probably felt that he HAD to do that
in order to not offend his "electronic" industry advertisers.... We
should all resent that kind of "defensive" reporting by our news
media.....
The whole point is, of course, that "science" is grudgingly, slowly --
"kicking and screaming" in its denial of the evidence and its
unwillingness to change its past theory -- coming to the realization that
the old "theory" is wrong!
EMR frequencies **below visible light** (i.e., non-ionizing radiation) in
the EMR/EMF spectrum CAN either "cause" or "promote" cancer!!!!! That
is what the research of the past 20 years or so is showing....
Perhaps if the scientist making this report had gone on to explain that
there are other ways to cause or promote cancer than the "old fashioned"
way -- DNA damage. In other words: Cancers can also be caused or
promoted through disruptions of our hormone systems -- which seems to be
what is happening in the case of non-ionizing radiation.... Such as the
action of the cell phone microwaves which appear to be resulting in brain
tumors or cancers.....
So, overall, this report deserves a grade of C+ in my opinion....
Clearly, it kow-tows to the powerful industry influences (as virtually all
such reports do).... But, I do give the reporter an "A" for speaking up
and saying (as the Britishers have recently said) -- that HE was using his
cell phone as little as possible..... GOOD public advice!!! He should
also have added: that it is time for "warning labels" to be attached to
our cell phones....
I have told my x-generation children: If you feel that you MUST have a
cell phone, mount it in your automobile with the antenna on the outside as
far as possible from the driver..... I do not have a cell phone.....
Cheerio....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org................
...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
.................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST?????.........
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