Subject: Microshield claims unjust criticism (Wilson)..
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 114106 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: microshld@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------
Les:
Sorry, I cannot run this one in keeping with my policy of maintaining
no commerical solicitations on EMF-L..... What I can suggest - if
you want to work with my webaster on the website - we can set it up for
you to be reached by an ad-link from the website.....
That would cost $150 for three months....
Cordially,
Roy
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:10:16 EDT
From: MICROSHLD@aol.com
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Re: Which report on shielding devices
Roy,
Sorry for the confusion, there is a consumer Association magazine called
'Which" and recently they reported on mobile phone shields, there has been a
lot of media coverage on the fact that handsfree earpieces were shown to
increase radiation.
The Microshield was tested using the wrong case yet still achieved a 70%
reduction. In there verdict they made the wrong assumption that if the case
reduced the radiation then the phone would power up and the resultant level
could be higher.
I have sent to you our response to their article which we respectfully
request you post for your members to see.
MICROSHIELDS RESPONSE TO 'WHICH' REPORT
LEADING MOBILE SHIELD MANUFACTURERS CALL FOR REGULATION OF SHIELDING
DEVICES
The Microshield case was recently tested for the Consumer Association's
'Which' magazine with the results reporting a 70% reduction in radiation.
The Association have acknowledged that their tests where conducted using
the wrong cases, which actually make the results all the more impressive.
We did offer several weeks ago to pay for further testing but our
suggestion was not taken up because of publishing deadlines. The results
for the Microshield a 70% reduction were the highest recorded for the
shields on test. They concluded that stick on devices like the Techno-AO
and the Zeropa as well as cases such as the Aegis guard, did nothing at
all to reduce radiation levels.
The Radiation Rabbit showed reductions of less than 50%, whilst hands
free earpieces actually increased radiation into the head by over 300%
Microshield have known for some time that hands free earpieces were of
no use in reducing radiation. Apart from amplifying radiation to the
head, independent research has also detected higher levels in the torso
if the phone is worn on the belt
Which's assessment of the Microshield conjectured that although it
reduced radiation by 70% in one direction, "perhaps in real life the
shield could just make the phone boost its output to compensate for the
shielding effect and instead of protecting the user from radiation, it
might make it worse". This was in fact pure supposition on there part as
no tests were conducted to confirm this hypothesis. This incorrect
assumption has also been levelled at Microshield by the cellular
industry on numerous occasions, however independent expert testing by
organisations including British Telecom plc, Microwave Consultants Ltd
and the National Physical Laboratory have consistently disproved this
hypothesis and shown that the resultant radiation level has always been
significantly lower 360 Degrees around the phone and not just in one
direction. These tests demonstrate that the Microshield reduced the
radiation absorption into the head by up to 99%, this absorbed radiation
is not required for mobile phone function it is undesirable and
unnecessary.
A director of the NRPB in the UK's Parliament last year made reference to
the possibility that a phone using a shield would cause a phone to
increase its power and negate any beneficial effect. Microshield
threatened legal action but were advised that, the comments were meant
as a generalisation and not specifically directed at the Microshield
device. The NRPB also stated that Microshield had no legal redress
anyway, as the comments had been made in the House of Commons and were
therefore covered by parliamentary privilege.
However after reviewing our tests, the NRPB wrote to Microshield
officially exonerating our product from their criticism and also
confirming that: "We accept you have taken care to design your product
properly and that its performance has been independently tested at
reputable laboratories. We also note that these results indicate
significant reductions in radiation absorption levels in the user"
Even though the Consumer Association recorded a 70% reduction, they
suggested that our shield may increase radiation exposure and users
should not waste their money. Microshield had provided the association
with the entire aforementioned independent test results well in advance
of publication, but these were not reviewed.
The Microshield is the most tested shielding device in the World, and
has always proven to drastically reduce radiation absorption in the
user, the "waste of money statement" whilst true for other devices does
not apply to the Microshield.
At a time when the consumer is searching for a means of limiting
exposure this evaluation directed towards a proven solution is
irresponsible, damaging and is not in the interests of the consumer.
We have discussed our position with our legal advisors and we
confidently expect a full retraction.
Microshield is in close contact with the Government's Independent Expert
Group on Mobile Phones and has recently submitted at their request, a paper
on shielding devices.
Whilst scientific evidence remains unclear, proven shielding devices are
essential for personal protection and controls on manufacturers claims
are required. Microshield now believes there is an urgent need for the
introduction of a meaningful standard to be applied to all shielding
devices, and will be lobbying the Expert Group to include this in their
recommendations to the British Government
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com