Subject:  (Beavers) The death of WTR ... well deserved.....
Date:     Thu, 11 Feb 1999 142217 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:

.....I think the following is an important message to those involved
in the cell phone/towers issue.....  I say the 'death' of the WTR is
"well deserved" ... why???  It may seem incongruous to you -- particularly
if you are aware that the WTR has been the only funding program of any
consequence for research on the cell phone matter......But....

.....From its conception, the WTR has been shamefully prostituted by its
'industry' masters....  Not to mention the fact that its funds have
virtually "disappeared" without any legitimate research to show for it --
one way or the other!

I suggest that such programs (the RAPID program was only modestly less
prostituted -- at the top -- though there was no "hanky panky" with the
money) ... do more harm than good for the cause of getting the truth about
these EMF/EMR health hazards to the public.....They can and often do ...
spread more industry propaganda (like the National Academy of Science [NAS
study] did) than legitimate 'science' about the EMF matter....  Often,
they are used to serve one of industry's main goals: to spread confusion
and obfuscation.....

The root problem in these programs is the presence (the OVERWHELMING
presence) of the vested interests -- their scientists, their influence
within the RICH health bureaucracies (like the NCI episode), their hired
academicians (prestigious but NOT objective -- because of the industry
role in funding university endowments and research also), their weighty
influence within the "establishment" science community, I could go on.....

Only the public is under-represented (if not totally absent) within these
programs......(There simply are not many people -- including myself --
who can afford to "monitor" a project through five years and a dozen or
so national meetings, as I did the RAPID program, entirely at my own
expense ... and a commitment of time that, though "retired," I would have
preferred to spend on other things.....)

Frankly, I would not sit still for another program run like the RAPID
program.....  I say that fully realizing that we may be given no
alternative......  After I left the Minneapolis meeting (in a rage)
-- at the "management" I had seen there, exerted over the science
participants (who by and large were honorable, objective, true
"scientists") -- I vowed that whatever else would be done about RAPID
I would see to it that the "pressures" exerted on the science community
through the whole of that program ... would not go unreported....

You have seen some of what I am talking about in "Inertia and
Malfeasance."

Now, we come to the WTR demise....  I assure you, my research friends as
well as my activist partners, better that there be no program at all than
one as openly partial (and subservient) to industry as that....  

(We may be seeing another such program -- equally "suspect" -- at the
World Health Organization under the control of Dr. Mike
Repacholi......!!!)

Cheerio.....VERY interesting reading below.  I hope you will take the 
time to read it thoroughly.  For all of you with an interest in the
cell phone matter, you need to know this story well.  And I believe it
is well told below, though much of the dirtier "juicier" stuff has been 
more fully told by Louis Slesin in Microwave News.....

(P.S.  I hope that those of you with other lists will give this wide
circulation.....)

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org................
...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness... 
.................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............

.....DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST.................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:25:24 -0500
From: Marty Tennant 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Hope this does it

      Clock Ticking On Health Research
      Wireless industry effort leaves issues up in the air

      By Meg McGinity. Meg McGinity is Senior Editor/Wireless for
tele.com. She can be reached over the Internet at mmcginit@cmp.com.

      Time is running out for Wireless Technology Research (WTR).
After nearly five years and $25 million worth of research into the
health effects of wireless telephone service, the group--funded by the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA, Washington,
D.C)--will wrap up its agenda in a few months, leaving many crucial
questions still unanswered.

      WTR was formed in 1993 as a five-year program to address
concerns over cellular phones' radio frequency (RF) emissions, an
issue made public by a consumer's since-dismissed lawsuit charging
that cellular phones caused brain cancer. Wireless vendors and service
providers responded by contributing $25 million to the CTIA, which
then founded WTR as an independent organization with a staff of about
a dozen.

      While WTR has documented negative effects of cell phones on
pacemakers, critics have questioned its efforts in other areas. For
instance, WTR has presented no findings based on research using live
tissue, which scientists prefer, on the relationship between cell
phones and brain tumors. Indeed, there has been a dearth of
information flowing from WTR. This fact was underscored when a meeting
to discuss research efforts, scheduled for Feb. 1-2, was postponed to
June.

      "There is a significant amount of dissatisfaction in the
industry with the way that WTR carried out the program," says a
high-ranking industry official who wished to remain anonymous. "People
are mad that WTR didn't do a better job."

      Scientists have also questioned WTR's efforts. One scientist who
was awarded a contract to research the health effects of RF claims the
funding was never received. "It has been a serious disappointment. I
feel ... they have violated a trust of the scientific community," says
the scientist, who also requested anonymity.

      WTR chairman George Carlo contends the group's purpose was to
put in place a surveillance program neccessary to identify any public
health problems. "We have identified a couple of problems, like the
interference with pacemakers. We have not identified a public health
problem deriving from the use of wireless technology, but we are
looking even today."

      Joanne Basile, vice president of industry affairs at CTIA,
confirms the organization has no plans to fund WTR or any similar
program in the foreseeable future. However, she notes that "WTR has
done very important work in this critical area [pacemakers]" and
awaits the WTR findings that will be presented at the June meeting.

      Instead of funding WTR research, the CTIA plans to support work
being done by Motorola Inc., the World Health Organization (WHO), the
U.S. federal government and other global entities, says Basile. The
WHO recently embarked on a multiyear program that will review
literature and research done in the cell phone area. The government,
meanwhile, has set safe standards for RF levels. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) works with groups like the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the National
Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) to make sure wireless service
providers comply with today's RF levels.

      But scientists like Dr. Henry Lai and Dr. N.D. Singh, of the
bioengineering department at the University of Washington (Seattle),
have participated in experiments that Lai says suggest sufficient
evidence of RF's negative effects exists to warrant further research.
Through research funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) in
1994, he says, he and Singh showed RF exposure did result in DNA
breakdown. The NIH funding has since been cut off, Lai says.

      Wireless constituencies have roundly rejected the Lai-Singh
conclusions. Research funded by Motorola at Washington University (St.
Louis) found their work to be inconclusive, says Norman Sandler,
director of corporate strategies at Motorola. Lai says efforts to
replicate his study at Washington University used a different
methodology. Scientists also point to the 1997 Adelaide Study, funded
by Australian service provider Telstra Corp. Ltd., which they say
revealed a connection between mice exposed to RF and tumors.

      Meanwhile, the number of people exposed to RF is on the rise.
The United States alone has 61 million wireless subscribers today, up
from 13 million in 1993 (see "Cell Multiplication"). Many agree that
the potential health risks related to RF exposure bear closer
scrutiny. But with the industry facing an apparent conflict of
interest and the government bogged down with more immediate concerns,
who should do the looking? And how much should be spent in the
process?

      Some scientists and activists have been underwhelmed by the $25
million in research sanctioned by WTR over the five years. Critics
argue the sum is paltry in light of the revenue generated by the
cellular phone market. The U.S. wireless services industry is now
grossing $30 billion a year, up from $6.7 billion in 1992, according
to the CTIA.

      "This is a very healthy industry, and I'm sure they can come up
with additional resources to fund the research," says Naqi Jaffery,
wireless analyst for Dataquest Inc. (San Jose, Calif.) "Such research
is needed, if for nothing else than to allay any concerns."

      Some observers say the funding issue is a catch-22. "I'm not
saying there's not concern from providers, but there's not been any
research presented so far that would bring the issue to the front,"
says Leslie Rhodes, vice president of business services at Hicks and
Ragland (Lubbock, Texas), a business and engineering consultancy. "The
lack of research could be due to funding."

      Candy Castle, director of external affairs at AT&T, also points
out that no comprehensive research to date shows any correlation
between RF and negative health effects. "It's the nature of scientists
to criticize each other," Castle says of the controversy. It's
impossible thus far to point to one study or another as conclusive
evidence for such a big issue, she says, and more research is
required.

      Others say footing the bill now for more research may save money
in time. "A little prevention is a lot better than a lot of
suffering," says Dr. Jerry Phillips, an independent RF researcher.












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