Subject:  Phones & shields (Hess)..
Date:     Wed, 5 Apr 2000 173208 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


........That's about right, Paul, if the EMF science were as
exact as people want it to be (and expect it to be) ... then it
would be a lot easier to get the government to do its job --
namely:  to stop protecting the industry while passing the "risk"
to the people.....

Has it occurred to you ... that it just may be ... that there is NO
"safe" cell phone......???  At least not with the present state of
the knowledge about the EMF/EMR bioeffects......!!!

Cheerio.....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                    NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
                           

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 14:12:43 -0700
From: Paul Hess 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: phones& shields

Thank you for your responses. 
Many of the websites I visited are still inconclusive. 

It seems like there is no reliable way to evaluate phones. The SAR test
result is not consistent with reports that its lowest EMF phone, the
Motorola, has a reputation with customer complaints about symptoms. 

It also seems to be implicit in most responses that shields do not work.
True? It seems this is the last hope. 

Paul 



Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com