Subject: Australian Broadcasting Com. cellphone program (Fist).
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 222937 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
........From EMF-L.......
Stewart has forwarded (below) a really first-rate professional report
which suggests that some genuine momentum is taking place in Australia.
It is good to see (and hear) of our old friend Dr. Peter French, too.
Stewart, may I offer an opinion about 'some' of the dialogue the
"press" profession -- in Australia as well as elsewhere -- continues
to get "hung up on." It concerns their inability (or is it
unwillingness) to recognize the NEED to focus their reporting on the
fact that we ARE now consistently finding "demonstrable biological
effects." (Quoted from story below.)
The "press" (serving the industry's cause) seem to want to treat that
finding as of little consequence since it does not **prove** "adverse
health effects." In reality -- THAT is the story.....
I suggest that they (the "press) are reporting the wrong issue. -- Is it
really lack of "proof" that their readers/listeners want/need to know
about?
Or are these reporters not, in fact, "caving in" to their readers/listeners
desire to be given assurances that: It is O.K. to play RUSSIAN ROULETTE
with the cell phones and their antennas (and the whole ubiquitous Blue
World milieu)?
That is what the public seems to want out of this story. "Tell us that
it is O.K."
The truthful story is that it **is probably NOT O.K.** It will be many
years before we know "which chambers" of the EMF "gun" contain the
bullets.....
BUT -- THE FACT IS -- WE DO NOW KNOW ... THE GUN IS LOADED.......!!!
That is the real meaning of the **consistently more solid evidence** of
the biological effects that are being uncovered....
Said another way -- the more we LOOK ... the more we FIND ... evidence
of biological activity induced/caused/associated with EMF exposure to
human cells and tissue ... and at any and all frequencies in the EMF
spectrum!
THAT should be their story...... What we DO know!!! NOT what we do
not know.......guru......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Australian Broadcasting Commission cellphone program
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:05:23 +1100
From: Stewart Fist
Reply-To: fist@ozemail.com.au
Organization: Independent writer and columnist
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <3A3A89FB.DED24737@emfguru.com>
ABC's 7.30 Report
The ABC's 7.30 Report (Australian public TV's key current affairs
program) ran a half-hour special program last night (Friday 15 Dec 2000)
on mobile phone health.
This was quite an extraordinary event, since they devoted the whole
program to one subject (normally it consists of five or more distinct
segments), and it was hastily put to air on the last day of the regular
show for the year, at a time when the program is under threat from
management and funding cuts. We are still trying to figure out why it
was presented in this way, and what this all means.
It featured old material from Drs Stan Barnett and Ross Adey and some
later stuff on activist Don Maisch (discussing the Australian standards
committee fiasco) plus a couple of spokesmen for the industry denying
any possibility of problems. Most of this material appears to have been
prerecorded some time ago and not used (usually current affairs material
is used on this program within a day).
There was also some old 1995 footage of Dr Henry Lai and Narendara Singh
talking about their 1994 DNA-break studies and a brief historical
summary, including Reynard in Florida in 1993.
These pre-recorded segments were linked by two live interview segments
with three "eminent scientists in the field."
1. Dr Lawrie Challis - Dept Chair of the Stewart Inquiry (a Professor of
Physics) from London via satellite.
2. Dr Peter French - biological researcher from Sydney's St Vincent
Hospital, who has been vocal on the need for more research.
3. Dr Andrew Wood - a biophysicist from Swinburne University of
Technology in Melbourne.
Wood was introduced as having done some studies part-funded by Telstra
and WHO (as to "Whether calcium levels in cells are altered by mobile
phone radiation" ... his reply "certainly we've found no indication"
despite the fact that such changes have "been reported for 25 years")
[This was a new study, to me. I've vaguely heard of Wood, but
not of this study. Swinburne has also done a reaction/mental test study
run by Dr Con Stough]
Wood was clearly seen by the 7.30 Reports anchorman, Kerry O'Brien, as
being the spokesman for the industry and thermal viewpoints (although I
am not suggesting he represented the industry itself). He concentrated
on the thermal aspects, and the lack of consistency in scientific findings.
During the program a spokesman for the Australian Communications
Authority, Mr Ian McCallister, also revealed that "government regulation
of warning labels might soon be required here."
The discussion was hampered to a degree by the fact that the scientists
constantly made a key distinction between the evidence of demonstrable
biological effects, and adverse health effects. This is an important
distinction, but one that would have confused the audience, and clearly
confused the anchorman. He constantly harped on whether there was
"conclusive proof" of harm, and wouldn't easily accept the scientists's
natural reluctance to give him the absolute assurance he sought.
Challis said that the Stewart Inquiry looked at 430 scientific papers
and found "no convinving evidence of heatlh effects", but that there
could "well be biological effects". He explained the difference (as
opposite ends of a threat spectrum) and said "we don't know where we are
on that range."
"Until a few years ago, I don't think we would have recognised that our
bodies could detect biological effects from this sort of radiation at
this sort of level. So clearly we need to do more work to find out ...
are there any health effects associated with that?" [Challis]
[Wood] "Certainly there have been a number of studies of human ability
to do intelligence tests and memory tests that appear to be altered, but
it is difficult to make an estimate as to whether that would constitute
a health effect."
Peter French was more definite and said that the phones were "not inert,
and can produce biological effects in people."
There was also some discussion of the current carrier Xmas sales pitch
to children, and all agreed that this was unconcionable. Challis also
said that care should be taken in siting towers "in sensitive areas,
such as schools" [Most of the discussion was about handsets - all three
agreed that towers were likely to be much less problem]
Challis listed three reasons why children may be susceptible.
a) the fact that the problem could compound over their lifetimes (he
didn't specify cumulative DNA damage, but I think this is clearly what
he meant).
b) That their immune system was still developing
c) that they possibly had more ions in their tissues, and therefore may
absorb more energy.
(Remember, he is a physicist, so I guess this is the way he sees the
problems of greater cell division rates and cell growth)
He also stressed "cult usage" as a problem, and made a counter point
about siting towers near schools, that due to the proximity of the
base-station, the student's phones would be working at low emission
powers. [Good argument, but only provided the base-station is owned by
the carrier being used.]
Challis also took the UK line of questioning the value of hands-free
kits, but said that they could be designed to reduce head exposure.
(They probably are already).
Overall, this was a pretty good program, even though it was obviously
patched together for some reason, and presented as a special right on
the possible last day of the program's existance (We don't know yet, but
it may be dumped in the new year). I think it is the first time in
twenty-odd years that an entire half-hour has been devoted to one
subject with this program.
--
Stewart Fist - writer and columnist
See http://www.australianIT.com.au/opinion/crossroads/
http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives)
http://www.electric-words.com (main archives)
70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia
Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com