Subject: EMF spin control (fwd)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 132107 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:28:27 +0100
From: Clas Tegenfeldt
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: EMF spin control
At 09:34 1998-02-24 -0600, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:39:36 +0800
>From: "T. H. Chen"
>To: "Roy L. Beavers"
>Subject: Re: Crash of China Airline A-300
>
>The actual cause for the crash of China Airline's A300 is still not clear
>yet, but the government has anounced a new rule which can send anyone
>making cellular phone calls on airplane to prison up to 5 years. If any
>accident caused by the phone call, the penalty can go up to life sentence.
Just the other week a plane was forced to return and land since their
navigation equippment didn't work properly. It was suspected that a
cellular phone was the cause for this intermittent fault.
The problem is that airlines today may recommend their passengers to
switch of their phones but lack any mean to check if anyone neglects
to follow their direction. Many people do not distinguish between
switch off and not talking in the phone. To really ensure that no
cellular phone tries to transmitt, either as part of a conversation
or just regular handshakes with basestations, one has to have an
"cellular alarm" that detects the presence of an active cellular
phone and warns the personel.
It is good to have juridicial force behind, but what is the use if
you can't /prove/ that anyone had their phone on? What use is it
if the plane crashed and lost all hands? Remember it is not necessary
to /make an actual call/, it is sufficient to let the phone be left on...
That is an important point! In the first case you /actively/ take a step
to do something that you should know is wrong, in the latter case you
are /passively avoiding/ doing a thing that may prove be hazardous.
In my mind the difference is wast, both psycologically speaking as
well as I think it is juridically. Am I wrong?
Translated to the issue of ES this also points out a fundamental
difficulty, how can an ES person prudently avoid being exposed, and
if it cannot be avoided, who is to be blamed? The cellular system
is built to expose everyone everyplace to about the same power density.
The user using the system is exposing himself as well as others, but
may do so by lack of knowledge, in good faith. I believe the only
way of resolving the question of guilt is to ensure that the company
designing, building and marketing the base stations and handies
cannot avoid responsibility in any way. Not by reducing the possibility
of being sued in court, not by ridiculing scientific evidence, not
by conducting sponsored research showing convinient security, not
by playing different countries legaslation against eachother, not by
some agreement such as MAI whereby the companies may force the
society to pay the cost of the consequences of their profits, not by
moving profits into other companies and leaving an empty shell to
pay the for the damages done. We have all seen all of these tactics
being used, haven't we?
We have reports "showing" /less/ leukemia among rats exposed to EMFs than
the control group. At the same time we have reports on rats exposed to
of cell phone radiation resulting in a two fold increase in lymphoma.
How come the first study may be extrapolated to humans but not the
other? (by industry representatives).
In almost all research on medicine, cosmetics, chemical hazards or whatever,
rats, pigs, monkeys and all kinds of animals, cell cultures are used
successfully. Why not in EMFs? The best counterargument I have heard
about the similarity between rats and humans is "DNA is DNA". A DNA
molecule breakage due to exposure to microwaves cannot know it is
a part of a rat or part of a human, can it?
Clas Tegenfeldt ,,,
(o o)
------------oOOO------(_)------OOOo-------------------
BEMI - Better Electromagnetic Enviroment
BEMI Telephone/fax +46 (0)13-74075
Tornevalla Gamla Skola Timezone GMT-1
S-590 62 LINGHEM E-mail tegen@bemi.se
SWEDEN Web http://www.bemi.se
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html