Subject: Re Standards request from Peru (Palomino) (McLean)....
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 195100 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
.......What a very thorough answer this is!!!...... Thanks, Lynn.....
(I did not withhold the address?? Should I??)
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:39:56 +1000
From: "EMRAA (EMR Alliance Australia)"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Standards request from Peru (Palomino)....
Dear Sandra
The present Australian Standard for RFR allows the general public to be
exposed to 200 microwatts/cm2. For specific details about the standard,
you can visit the website of the Australian Communications Authority (ACA)
at http://www.aca.gov.au
The RFR standards-setting process in Australia has been undergoing a
radical transformation during recent months. When, earlier this year, the
Standards Committee TE7 - for many years responsible for setting the
standard - failed to come to agreement on a proposal for a newer, more
lenient standard, the committee was effectively disbandoned. The ACA then
mandated the existing standard (above) which will be in place till a new
standard is devised.
The ACA plans that there will be two prongs to future standards.
The first is a numerical (limits-based) standard put together by the
newly-constituted ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency). It will be devised by an 'expert' committee with one
community representative and neither this committee nor its parent body has
yet been officially established. It is worth noting that ARPANSA includes
the old ARL (Australian Radiation Laboratory) which has previously
expressed support for a more lenient standard.
The second part to the standard is a Code of Practice, allegedly to address
community concerns and implement a 'precautionary' approach. It is to be
devised by ACIF (Australian Communications Industry Forum) - an industry
body established for self-regulation purposes. ACIF has so far agreed only
to devise a code of practice for the siting of mobile phone towers. (This
is a far cry from the precautionary Code that was promised by the ACA!)
There are many problems with this process that your government would do
well not to emulate!
1. It is inappropriate to construct a new numerical standard using a
SAR-based exposure assessment. This process allows only for consideration
of biological effects at thermal elvels in the frequency range associated
with mobile phones and towers. A standard that ignores athermal effects at
these frequencies is a thermal standard only and not a public health
protection standard and cannot, as such, enjoy public confidence.
2. Previous standards have been devised on the presumption that the
exposure levels they set were appropriate because there was inconclusive
evidence to the contrary. Rather, the burden should be on industry to
prove the safety of its technology.
3. It is clearly inappropriate for industry to be involved in a Code of
Practice. To be credible, this must be devised by a balanced committee
comprised of community, union, local government and public health
representatives.
4. There is a need for a standard/Code to require a program to monitor
community health, given the fact that community health is currently the
subject of a technological experiment of unprecedented scale. This is
particularly important given that the recent NIEHS report showed that many
epidemiological studies have shown a connection between electromagnetic
radiation and health problems.
5. A Code of Practice must be precautionary and enforcable, must require
warning labels on all RF transmitters, including mobile phones, and must
not make protecting public health subservient to the proliferation of
technology.
Finally, Sandra, there is a strong push for countries to take part in the
'harmonisation of world standards' by adopting the exposure levels
recommended by the ICNIRP guidelines. EMRAA does not believe that these
levels - more lenient than our existing standard - are appropriate as there
is evidence that they are flawed. For an excellent critique of the
guidelines, I refer you to a paper by Dr. Neil Cherry, "Criticism of the
Proposal to Adopt the ICNIRP Guidelines for Cellsites in New Zealand"
(CHERRY@kea.lincoln.ac.nz).
It would also be worth you while visiting EMRAA's web site at
http://ssec.org.au/emraa There you'll find, under RF standards, a long
list of studies that have found health effects at levels far below the
existing Australian standard and ICNIRP exposure levels.
I wish you well with your research and would be pleased to provide any more
information you might like about the situation in Australia.
Best regards
Lyn McLean
At 12:46 17/08/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>......Some of our best sources need to give this special attention.....
>I also think some explanation should be given about the inadequacy of
>standards that are based on "past" assumptions..... What is a standard
>worth that ignores the latest science???.....
>
>Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
>rbeavers@llion.org.......
>.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
>EMF-L web-site can be found at:
>EMF-L archives can be found at:
>..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:24:26 -0500
>From: Sandra Palomino
>To: rbeavers@llion.org
>Subject: standards
>
>Hi Roy
>My name is Sandra I am working for the National institute in training and
>reserach for Telecommunication from Lima Peru
>Since 1998 We are carring out mesuarement of non ionizing radiation at the
>Lima city for incharge the peruvian gonvernment peruvian, for this motive
>I want to know about RFR safety standards or guidelines for exposure
>(occupational and general population)
>- Soviet Standards
>- Australian Standards
>- Canadian Standards
>Where could I obtain those standards?
>I will be very thankful for this information
>Kind Regards
>Sandra Palomino Aranda
>
>
>
>
EMRAA (Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance Australia)
Suite 16, Eton Arcade 754-760 Princes Highway, Sutherland NSW 2232
PO Box 589, Sutherland NSW 1499 Australia
Ph: +61 2 9523 4750 Fax: +61 2 9521 1477 Email: emraa@ssec.org.au
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com