Subject:  The little fact "that wasn't there" (Royds)..
Date:     Tue, 15 Aug 2000 063435 -0500
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------


Hi everybody:

Off-list, an interesting technical discussion has been taking place.  
It concerns the history of the evolution of the existing ICNIRP standards.
Let the record show:  the ICNIRP has **never** been without CONFLICT OF
INTEREST in this matter.......  I cannot understand the reliance OUR
GOVERNMENTS bestow upon this self-appointed (totally industry funded) 
group.....!!! 

Anyway, I forward below one of the messages from that off-list discussion.

First, this nice little poem by one of our readers, Jim Beal....
I found it in our archives.  It fits the situation......

The other day upon the stair
I found a fact that wasn't there.

It wasn't there again today.
Oh, how I wish t'would go away!!

But have no fear the fact will out
When you're long gone, no where about.

Just remember before you go ...
To write it down, "I told you so"!!


Cheerio.....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

 It is better to light a single candle
    than to curse the darkness..
 
    WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com

People are more important than profit$$

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Poynting vector (Weller)..
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:29:25 +0100
From: "John Royds" 
To: 
References: <399865FB.20AFC3FF@emfguru.com>

Roy:

1.  NEAR FIELD
The infamous near field example is the mobile phone.  In 1988, Repacholi et
al. (calling themselves then the International Non-Ionizing Radiation
Committee of the IRPA) published guidelines in Health Physics  [Vol.54,
#1(Jan), pp 115 - 123, 1988] and actually excluded citizen's band radios,
land mobile and marine transmitters, and walkie-talkies from their
guidelines provided the radiofrequency output power was less than 7W.  The
reason given was that "such devices generate only very localized fields".
Of course, the localized fields are precisely the issue of concern!

This inappropriate exclusion allowed the mobile phone manufacturers to roll
out their products without having to do any research into bio-effects of
human near field microwave exposure.  Was this malfeasance or just plain
ignorance on the part of Repacholi et al.(1988)?  Do Repacholi et al. (1988)
have any legal liability for making this exclusion?

In 1996, Repacholi et al. (now calling themselves the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP) withdrew this 7W
exclusion [Health Physics [Vol.70, #4(Apr),pp 587 - 593, 1996].  For the
general public, the localized SAR in head was limited to 2 W/kg averaged
over 10 g mass of tissue in the head.

Note the difference between the ICNIRP's 10 g and IEEE/NCRP 1 g.  Averaging
over 10 g should make hot-spot compliance much easier for the manufacturers.
See further comments from Louis Slesin in Microwave News (p8, July/August
2000) http://www.microwavenews.com

I have spoken to other members of the ICNIRP 1996 group and they confirmed
that Repacholi did not inform them of his transgenic 900 MHz GSM mice
lymphoma study prior to their 1996 statement . . .  Did Repacholi withhold
publication of this paper so that the 1996 ICNIRP statement could claim that
"data from laboratory studies relevant to cancer do not provide a basis for
limiting exposure to the fields associated with the use of hand-held
radiotelephones and base transmitters"?

2.  MULTIPLE EXPOSURE
In 1998, ICNIRP published further guidelines [Health Physics, Vol 74,
#4(Apr), pp 494 - 522. 1998] -- Repacholi was then Chairman emeritus of
ICNIRP.  On page 513, second column, there is a section entitled
"Simultaneous Exposure to Multiple Frequency Fields".  Basically for
frequencies up to 10 MHz where electrical stimulation is generally the acute
affect, each component of multiple exposure is expressed as a fraction of
the standard and the total must not exceed unity.  Similarly for frequencies
from 100 kHz where heating is the acute affect, the SAR is expressed as a
fraction for the standard SAR for that frequency and the total must not
exceed unity.  Note the overlap between electrical stimulation (up to 10
MHz) and heating (from 100 kHz).  This is a very rough overview!  Please
read the actual paper.

regards

John Royds
Timmore House
Newcastle
Greystones
Co. Wicklow
Republic of Ireland
tel/fax:  +353-1-281 9283
email:  royds@esatclear.ie



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