Subject: More Confusion about the cell phones (Kramer)..
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 141321 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: Roy Beavers
--------------------------------------------------
........From EMF-L.......
Mostly "old stuff" -- but it does give us another name to be added to the "usual
suspects" list: Catherine Maroney, M.A., MPH, American Council on Science and
Health (ACSH)...... The ACSH -- if you don't already know -- is a well known
(indirectly) industry-funded "watch-dog" organization..... They patrol the
"science scene" on behalf of protecting industry interests..... Much like a
similarly titled (and tobacco industry funded) "Council" for the tobacco industry
for many years...... This bunch, I believe, was originally created to "watchdog' industry
interests viz. chemical/environmental problems...... Their **reputation**
for a lack of "science" objectivity is beyond dispute......
Others "out there" may know more..... P.S. Dr. Koop's website recently declared
bankruptcy and sought court protection...... They are probably "staying in
business" now with the benefit of special interests funding.....
guru.....
.......sign-off below......(Thanks David...)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Confusion
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:15:06 -0500
From: "M. David Kramer"
To: Roy Beavers
Roy,
It is no wonder that consumers are confused and it is so
difficult to change things.
Within a few days after the Australian test report about
headsets and news reports about the neurologist suing
Motorola, etc. appeared, the British government distributed
a report about headsets that contradicted the findings of a
British consumer organization (Which?). The full test report
can be found at the following url and requires Adobe Reader
for viewing:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/sartest.pdf
Like the Australian study, these tests were conducted using
SAR procedures.
Which? disputed their findings and responded by saying "SAR
is a measurement of energy that is absorbed, but we measured
emissions (they have yet to explain how). There are also
questions over SAR tests, their value and the methods used.
Different laboratories can get different results." Which? is
correct about this and a number of British newspapers stated
today this merely adds to consumer confusion.
Also today, the following paper was posted on Dr. Koop's web
site. For those who are not familiar with Dr. Koop, he is
the former United States Surgeon General who initiated a
very effective campaign against the tobacco industry. For
many people, information presented on his web site is
regarded as the gospel.
As you will see, this paper is incorrect and misleading.
Unfortunately, it will be believed by most visitors to Dr.
Koop's web site.
Best regards,
M. David Kramer
Aegis Corporation
http://www.goaegis.com
Don't Hang Up Your Cell Phone Yet
Aug. 8, 2000
Catherine Maroney, M.A., MPH
American Council on Science and Health
We see and hear them everywhere. Cellular phones are
commonly spotted in the hands of drivers, and their ring is
an all too familiar sound in restaurants and movie theaters.
But among the estimated 100 million Americans who use mobile
phones, there is concern that these phones might cause
cancer or other health problems. This fear exists despite
the fact that, overall, the evidence for a causal
relationship between electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell
phones and cancer is weak to nonexistent.
In an effort to combat public fear, the Food and Drug
Administration recently collaborated with the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) to
investigate whether cell phones pose a significant health
risk. The CTIA will fund a $1 million research program, and
the FDA is expected to provide research recommendations and
scientific oversight.
The U.S. government, however, cannot conduct expensive
research into every wild claim set forth. In fact, the
overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that cell
phones are not hazardous, with the exception of an increase
in the number of automobile accidents that occur while
drivers are talking on them. Only if cell phones are shown
to emit radiation at a level that might be dangerous to
human health should the FDA get involved to make sure the
phone industry takes the proper steps to ensure public
safety.
Media hype has contributed to the public's growing belief
that EMFs from cell phones can cause brain cancer, despite
weak scientific evidence. News headlines with titles such as
"Hold the phone ... far away!" and "Cellular phone users are
dialing for trouble,' often cite studies in which laboratory
rats were exposed to large doses of radiation for long
periods of time. The general public, however, typically does
not understand that these findings cannot be directly
extrapolated to humans.
The government is participating in this investigation in
order to alleviate public fears. Unfortunately, this
involvement might turn out to be counterproductive, as the
public may interpret the FDA's involvement as a sure sign
that this must be a problem of a serious nature.
Is there a valid biological hypothesis that suggests cell
phones are hazardous enough even to warrant a closer look?
Few studies suggest that EMFs from cell phones have
biological effects, and even those are flawed in design. In
contrast, there are numerous studies indicating that EMFs
from cell phones do not pose a risk.
But scientists cannot confirm that cancer development from
exposure to cell-phone radio waves is impossible under all
situations. In other words, we can never say "never" or
"always," and to do so would violate the basic tenets of the
scientific method. For example, although the FDA has stated
that the available evidence does not demonstrate any adverse
health effects associated with mobile-phone use, it also
cautions that there is no proof that cell phones are totally
risk free either.
So if they can never prove the negative, then scientists,
especially those in need of renewed funding, will continue
to look for the needle in the haystack. This process is made
easier with the available technology -- investigators can
now detect even trace amounts of potential carcinogens in
the environment. What consumers are often unaware of,
however, is that many of these risks are hypothetical,
rather than real, and both natural and synthetic substances
that are carcinogenic in rodents abound in our everyday
environment.
We cannot wait until something is proven not to cause cancer
to feel comfortable with the technology -- such proof is
impossible. In the meantime, we must ask ourselves if time
and money should be spent on investigating EMF exposure from
cellular phones when it is highly unlikely to be a true
health risk.
American Council on Science and Health
http://www.acsh.org/
Date Published: Aug. 8, 2000
Date Reviewed: Aug. 8, 2000
Founded in 1978, and directed and advised by the world's
leading scientists, physicians, and policy advisors -- ACSH
is is a nonprofit, consumer education organization dedicated
to providing the public with mainstream scientific
information on issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals,
pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health.
This information is not intended to be a substitute for
professional medical advice. You should not use this
information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease
without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider.
Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions
or concerns you may have regarding your condition.
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com