Subject: EMF Conference Part I (fwd)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 212854 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
......Richard sends a very thorough report of the first day of the
conference he is attending (below).....What I am afraid Richard may
not know ... is that this conference (inspired, in part, by Rapocholi
of the World Health Organization) is not an unbiased, objective conference
aimed at "seeking the truth" concerning the EMF hazards ... it is a
conference to ***indoctrinate*** a cadre of "disciples" who will go out
and "spread the word" that this EMF hazard is not real -- nothing really
to worry about....."Overblown" is the fad word that the industries are now
using......Thanks Richard!......guru....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 20:36:44
From: "Richard W. Woodley"
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Cc: Hunter.Ian@TBS-SCT.GC.CA
Subject: EMF Conference Part I
Day 1 Impressions
Well my first impression came from reading over the delegate list - heavily
dominated by industry - cell phone industry in particular - with some
government and academics - I was the only EMF activist there although there
was also a Consumers Assocuation representative and at least one public
health oficial.
A large part of the presentations concerning risk communication seemed to
be focussed on how industry can do a better PR job of convincing the public
there is no risk or justifying that position, although much of it was
couched in coded language.
I get the impression industry is running scared - "Public Outrage" and
"Outrage Bias" were terms often used. There is a real push to contain
public concerns before they reach the stage of public outrage. this is
apparently very prevalent in the UK where Dr. Coghill was used several
times as an example, although not mentioned by name.
There was though at least one presentation stressing the importance of
meaningfull public consultation.
There was also mention of the concept of uncertainty and who should bear
the burden of uncertainty - indusry or public.
I did get a chance to put forth my views by questioning presenters and at
the Public viewpoint panel (see end of this message). One of the things I
stressed is that we cannot get anywhere until industry accepts that EMFs
are a hazard - then perhaps we can enter into a dialogue on what the levels
of risk are, what are acceptable levels and what can be done to reduce the
risk.
There was reference to the Swiss Reinsuance Electrosmog document be a very
good document - from one of the more neutral presenters. It is available
for download at:
http://www.swissre.com/download/download.cgi/download/public/elek-e.pdf?cont
ent=Electrosmog+-+a+phantom+risk
Another reference was made to the Royal Society of Canada RF study. More
information available at:
http://www.rsc.ca/english/aug-98-new.htm
OF IMPORTANCE !!!
The next new technology to hit Canada in the first quarter of next year
will be "Multipoint Communications Systems" a wireless technology that will
apparently put a transmitter on EVERY TELEPHONE POLE.
Tommorow they look at the NIEHS program and prudent avoidance among other
subjects
------------------------
World Health Organization
International Seminar & Working Group Meeting on
EMF Risk Perception and Communication
August 31 - September 4 1998. Ottawa, Canada
Remarks to Public Viewpoint Panel
Richard W. Woodley, Webmaster
Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service
The Politics of EMFs - An Activists Viewpoint
What is the public viewpoint on electromagnetic fields. From my
persepective as an actiivist I see it as one of confusion. Confusion by
reading about study after study pointing to a link between EMFs and health
risks such as cancer and leukemia and seeing contradictory statements from
various agencies saying “there is no definitive proof” of such risks.
Why is the public subjected to this. It is because of the politics of
EMFs. The politics of EMFs that sees reports linking EMFs and health
suppressed by the White House,. The politics of EMFs that sees agencies
releasing reports with press releases that downplay or even contradict the
findings of health links that are contained in the reports.
The latest piece of confusing information the public has been exposed to
is the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel finding
that EMFs are a “possible” human carcinogen. What does that say to the
public - nothing. Bombarded with news stories about studies linking all
sorts of things, including common foods, to cancer the typical public
response is “so what - everything causes cancer these days”.
However, if the truth be known, in my humble opinion, that is not the
message the panel intended to convey. I believe they would not have
examined the massive amount of reports and studies out there, and agonized
over them just to say something as innocuous as that. I believe that they
really want to convey the message that EMFs are PROBABLY, not possibly, a
human carcinogen, but the politics of EMFs prevented them from going that
far.
What the public deserves to hear is the truth. Not everyone exposed to
EMFs is going to get cancer, indeed most won’t. But there is now
overwhelming evidence that those who are exposed have a much greater risk
of cancer, leukemia and other heatlh problems. Indeed the studes indicate
that children, in particular, exposed to higher EMF levels have two to
three times the liklihood of getting cancer or leukemia.
What the public wants to know - is what are we going to do about it. When
are we going to do the research necessary to find out how EMFs are linked
to health problems so we can find out what we need to do to reduce the
risks. And when are we, as a society, going to start taking serious prudent
avoidance measures.
We know we cannot eliminate the risk, just as we cannot elimate the risks
associated with driving automobiles, because no more are we going to ban
electricty than we are going to ban cars. But we can take measures to
reduce it, especially when children are concerned. For example, nobody
would allow a 100 kilometre an hour highway beside a school so why do we
allow high voltage power lines beside schools.
So what is holding us back. It is the politics of EMFs. The public
deserves better than to be subjected to the politics of EMFs.
********************* Richard W. Woodley *********************
woodley@igs.net *********** http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ab190/
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Capital Freenet Information Provider
Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/bridlewood-emfinfo/
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