Subject: Consumers need cell phone testing (Kelley)..
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 191002 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
........This may be the most honest and most balanced press report we have
seen on the cell phone issue..... Well done, Business Week!! Nevertheless,
guru inserts into the text below ... a strong comment of **condemnation**
against the words of Mays Swicord...... He is guilty of employing the
Bill Clinton technique of dishonesty.....!!! You know, "using the words I
used, it was true ... though I (consciously) misled the American people"....
Watch for: ***** below....guru.....
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Business Week -- consumers need cell phone testing
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:51:17 -0700
From: Libby Kelley
To: post-to-advisors@ccwti.org
To All -
This article is from the Aug 14 issue of Business Week. NEWS: ANALYSIS &
COMMENTARY
Commentary: Cell Phones: We Need More Testing
Back in the early 1980s, there were 35 researchers at the Environmental
Protection Agency exploring the biological effects of radiation from cell
phones and other devices. But by 1987, budget cuts had shut the program
down. Since then, the Federal Communications Commission and the Food & Drug
Administration have regulated wireless communications with a feathery touch.
This hands-off approach no longer seems appropriate. Despite repeated
safety assurances from the cell-phone industry, scientists keep turning up
disturbing signs. On July 31, a survey of recent safety studies was
released by George L. Carlo, a pathologist and professional research
administrator who ran a $25 million industry-funded risk investigation.
Some studies in the survey--which appeared on the respected medical Web
site Medscape--showed evidence of gene damage in blood cells exposed to
cell-phone radiation. Others indicated heightened tumor rates in cell-phone
users. ''At the very least, the data say that claims of absolute safety
would be irresponsible,'' declares Carlo, who now runs a for-profit
research company called Health Risk Management Group.
LEGAL ACTION. Carlo's report doesn't prove that cell phones cause cancer or
other diseases. But many experts echo his concerns. Leif G. Salford, a
professor of neurosurgery at the University of Lund in Sweden, found that
microwave radiation at cell-phone frequencies can weaken the blood-brain
barrier in rats. In May, a British government report recommended that
children not be exposed to mobile phones. Italy and Switzerland have
slashed allowed radiation emissions from cellular base stations.
Belatedly, the U.S. government is also taking action. In early June, partly
in response to recent studies, the FDA announced it would help supervise a
new industry-sponsored research program. And in July, the industry
announced plans to provide labels disclosing how much radiation phones emit.
But for an industry struggling to boost consumer confidence, these steps
may be too little, too late. It is certainly past time to keep the issue
from spilling into the courts. On Aug. 1, Christopher J. Newman, a
41-year-old neurologist who developed a brain tumor, sued Motorola Inc. and
several wireless carriers in state court in Baltimore. The suit alleges
that the companies failed to disclose known radiation hazards from
cell-phone use. And lawyer Peter G. Angelos, who helped win huge
settlements against the asbestos and tobacco industries, told Business Week
he has been approached by several brain-tumor victims. He won't file suit
unless he's ''90% sure'' of victory, but says he is ''very intensively''
studying this area.
The FDA's participation in a Cooperative Research & Development Agreement
(CRADA) with the cellular industry is an encouraging step. Unfortunately,
the effort is flawed. It's troubling that the industry is picking up the
bill and will choose which proj-ects receive funding. With cellular
companies adamantly insisting that the phones are safe, only research that
is designed and funded independently--presumably by the government--would
have full credibility. ''How can [the FDA] claim to be impartial if they
are taking a lot of money from industry to do research?'' asks Dr. W. Ross
Adey, distinguished professor of physiology at the Loma Linda (Calif.)
School of Medicine.
The industry, for its part, finds plenty of fault with Carlo, the man
fanning the latest round of concerns. Some of the findings he posted last
week have not yet been replicated. And a top researcher in the program he
administered challenges his interpretation of the brain-tumor data. What's
more, Carlo is on disputed ground in his claim that low levels of radiation
alone--as opposed to heat from the cellular handset--could cause medical
problems. Motorola director of biological research, Dr. Mays L. Swicord,
insists there is no ''repeatable or established'' evidence of biological
effects from cell-phone radiation.
********Begin guru's comment********
[First, in the report above, the columnist should have informed his readers
of Mays Swicord's connection with Motorola. Second, take careful note of what
Swicord actually said: "no 'repeatable or established' evidence of biological
effects from _cell phone_ radiation."
This makes it possible for Swicord to take the same (VERY UNscientific) path
that the other industry zombies (like Moulder) routinely take -- i.e.....
......Let's just talk about what we know of the risks **in terms of the cell
phones, themselves!!** (Where almost NO legitimate, independent research has
taken place......)
......That way ... we don't have to talk about the biological effects that
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED in other RF/MW exposure situations.....!!!
Yet, it is THOSE results -- being ignored by the zombies -- which raise the
concern of most INDEPENDENT scientists who have examined this cell phone issue.
Henry Lai makes that point in the next paragraph.
It requires more than just a "leap of faith" -- it requires a **vested
interest** -- to assume (as zombies Swicord, Moulder, etc., apparently do) that
the dangers which science is now discovering in other RF/MW exposure situations
will not ALSO prove to be hazardous in the cell phone environment....!!!
This is particularly true when the close proximity of the cell phone antenna to
the head is taken into consideration.......guru.......] ******End comment****
Henry Lai, research professor of bioengineering at the University of
Washington, disagrees: Looking at about 200 research papers published since
1996 on the impact of microwave radiation, he found that 80% of them
reported biological effects. ''These include behavioral effects on brain
function, effects on the immune system, and genetic effects,'' he says. Lai
has also found DNA damage in rats exposed to microwave radiation at power
levels similar to those produced by cell phones.
Who's right? There isn't enough information yet to judge. As Sweden's
Salford puts it, cell phones constitute ''the world's largest biological
experiment ever.'' Only well-designed and supervised science will tell us
whether and how cell phones affect human cells--and calm consumers'
increasingly frayed nerves.
By Norm Alster
Alster covers technology for Business Week in Boston.
[........"The world's largest biological experiment ever.".....Amen, amen,
....guru.....]
_
Libby Kelley
Executive Director
Council on Wireless Technology Impacts
aka ~ Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about
the FCC's Radiofrequency Radiation Health and Safety Rules
*** PLEASE RESPOND OUR POLL ON CELL PHONES and CELL TOWERS.
HELP US SPEAK "TRUTH TO POWER" !!
____________________________
Website: http://www.ccwti.org
Phone - 415-892-1863
Fax - 415-892-3108
Address:
936-B Seventh Street, # 206
Novato, California 94945
EMR NETWORK MEMBER http://www.emrnetwork.org
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com