Subject: (Carney) [(Jackson) (Scherer) Re AVOIDANCE (fwd)] (fwd)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 122905 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
..........Well said, Deb!!........guru.......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 12 Jan 99 10:56:38 MST
From: Deb Carney
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Re: [(Jackson) (Scherer) Re: AVOIDANCE (fwd)]
Hello,
Thanks to everyone who provided me information. This poor quality e-mail
service did not let me thank everyone. Please note my new e-mail address is
deb@carneylaw.net I am sending this out as the last message from my old
e-mail.
ALARA-As Low as Reasonably Achievable
If ALARA were being used instead of the FCC standard, we would be much more
effective in forcing the Lake Cedar Group broadcasters to take a hard look at
other locations where they aren't radiating people. At the very least, we
could force them to use directional antennas. As it is, the broadcasters say
that they are entitled to radiate as large a population as they want so long
as they are within the FCC limit-200 microwatts per centimeter squared (plus
up to 4% more from any single contributor)
I have searched and searched and found no place in the world that has a
population exposed to long term radiation of 200 microwatts per centimeter
squared. If anyone knows of such a place-please let me see the information.
Has that population been studied for health effects?
In fact, the highest long term population exposures (except for isolated
individuals) appear to have taken place here over several decades. We are
ranging from 1-10 microwatts per centimeter squared over a population of a
thousand or more people.
I believe that a study of our population will reveal that even 2 microwatts
per centimeter squared long-term exposure is harmful.
The rezoning proposal will double the amount of radiation for much of our
population and reach people not previously exposed. We sit, like lab rats,
helpless. Even after we get zapped, will anyone study us? What they get away
with doing to us, they will do to the rest of the County. Those who refuse to
look, will never see. Those who refuse to listen, will never hear.
The hearing before the County Commissioners looms before us. Thank you all,
for all your help.
Deb Carney
rbeavers@llion.org wrote:
>
>
> Hi everybody:
>
> This discussion regarding "standards" seems to have taken a wrong
> turn -- probably my fault.
>
> My previous comments were not intended to advocate a policy of
> eliminating EMF from our environment.... I know as well as anybody
> on the list, I'm sure, that is not feasible. In some of my articles
> on my web page, you will find that I actually praise the value of
> electricity (in particular) to our world..... Much of my career was
> spent either in the electrical industry (EMF) or certain military aspects
> which involved EMR as well as nuclear radiation.
>
> But I also point out that it took some number of generations for mankind
> to learn to live with fire. Now that we know of the health dangers of
> EMF/EMR, we are going to have to recognize that we must devote some effort
> and time (and money$$$) to learn to live safely with EMF/EMR. It is the
> government/industry efforts to conceal this reality from the public that
> defines my mission with this list.
>
> So, what am I talking about when I am critical (I "cringe" is what I
> wrote) about the flurry of activity to precisely calculate "standards"
> that would be used as a basis for the regulation of EMF? (I DO favor
> regulation -- but it must be based upon our best scientific knowledge,
> I believe, not "assumptions" which are being driven by much of the
> engineering/physics/technical community today. Naturally, the assumption
> that will be used in those cases is the one (or "ones") most rewarding to
> the particular technical expert who is doing the "defining" of the
> standard. I AM being critical of that....
>
> In short, there does not exist in the "science" today a body of sufficient
> knowledge about the bioeffects of non-ionizing radiation to justify the
> "precise" calculations which various advocates -- the "technical" experts
> -- are pursuing, arguing about, and trying to foist upon the public.....
>
> In each of these cases, I see the particular engineering/physics/technical
> expert relying upon HIS assumptions -- not the full body of scientific
> evidence which is being produced, and which (as I said) proves little
> more than (1.) there are bioeffects, and (2.) the epidemiology
> consistently provides us an ASSOCIATION between EMF/EMR exposure and
> health difficulties.
>
> [One of the best examples of this "futile effort at a precision we really
> can't justify," it seems to me, is the Canadian Rule 6 recently quoted on
> this list which provides what might appear to be finely tuned precise
> allowable transmission strength ... though it entirely ignores any
> non-ionizing bioeffects!!..... This sort of standard may be good for
> fooling the public, but it is totally lacking in scientific basis (or
> honesty!). We see the same in the U.S. and the U.K. technical
> standards.....]
>
> The two "findings" I refer-to in the paragraph above are sufficient to
> me that we should be doing something!!! WE CERTAINLY SHOULD BE INFORMING
> THE PUBLIC!!! And we should be engaging in a great deal more research!!!
> Though I do not favor any more research projects like the RAPID program --
> which was entirely too cleverly "managed" in favor of the vested
> interests. [I am not pointing a finger of guilt at MOST of the scientists
> who did the actual research, but I certainly do find fault with the way
> that program was managed and the way it has been (has NOT been truly)
> reported to the public......]
>
> Now, back to the "standards" issue: As an example of an "avoidance"
> regulation which makes sense to me, I cite the recommendation in Sweden
> that we should stop permitting children to reside in homes within 100
> meters of power lines. It is a suitable "beginning." It recognizes
> that we have a problem. It allows for the 'uncertainties' about
> our knowledge as well as what we DO now know. Of COURSE, it would likely
> have to be changed -- either more or less -- in the future. That is the
> nature of such regulation ... and the fact that change may eventually be
> required in the "standard" should deter us in NO WAY from getting the
> process started!!!....
>
> Officially setting such a standard (which the GOVERNMENT of Sweden has
> cowardly avoided doing!) would help to publicize the issue and (I believe)
> would encourage efforts to seek similar "broad" avoidance standards in
> other EMF/EMR scenarios....
>
> Remember, our ELF frequency (power line) research is clearly the most
> extensive. It is now sufficiently consistent...
>
> (as shown in the RAPID study report -- which I say could have been even
> stronger in its conclusion, had the NIEHS managers not exerted so much
> "control")...
>
> ... that it will be CRIMINAL negligence and malfeasance for responsible
> authorities NOT to do SOMETHING of a broad regulatory nature ... with this
> information!!!!
>
> [Please look again at my web-page essay "Inertia and Malfeasance."
>
> Cheerio......(There is more good commentary submitted below.)
>
> 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...............
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:37:45 -0600
> From: Mark Jackson
> To: "'Roy L. Beavers'"
> Subject: RE: (Scherer) Re: AVOIDANCE (fwd)
>
> 1/12/99
>
> I stronly agree with Wolfgang. It is not feasible to eliminate EMF, but it
IS feasible to minimize
> our exposure. Engineers are adept at balancing a variety of design
variables to optimize the
> product. EMF awareness needs to be raised to insure it is part of the
design equation.
> This approach has been very useful in the area of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)
and
> getting IAQ standards improved for use in public schools (see
http://www.aehf.com).
>
> The TCO standards for computers is a step in the right direction. Does
anyone have a source of
> similar information for cell phones? I continue to seek a cell phone that
provides reduced EMF.
> Any shieding, model, etc. information would be most helpful. How about cell
phones that have
> an earpiece that is remote from phone (phone worn on the belt and a wire to
the earpiece)?
> It changes the location of higher EMF exposure away from the brain, but
closer to reproductive organs
> and large bones with active bone marrow. Any thoghts on this?
>
> Mark Jackson, MSE, MBA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy L. Beavers [SMTP:rbeavers@llion.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 9:46 PM
> To: emfguru
> Subject: (Scherer) Re: AVOIDANCE (fwd)
>
> ......Wolfgang:
>
> Below ... you have described a policy of avoidance......
> (It does not rely on "mathematical" standards -- which we can't
> justify with the present state of our knowledge....)
>
> Cheerio.....
>
> 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...............
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:28:10 +0000
> From: "Wolfgang W. Scherer"
> To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> Subject: Re: AVOIDANCE
>
> Roy, while I fully support your reasoning
> with satellites in space and transmitters everywhere
> also power lines all over simple AVOIDANCE has become
> impossible. There is no place to hide any more and the
> consequence would only be "prohibition" which is impossible too
>
> We must look for things that can be done
>
> We can shield electric and electronic devices much better
> ( also high power lines by putting them underground)
> Also if we make all that equipment low power , that it is more
> efficient and more sensitive in itself, this would make a difference
> and be a much better argument than the "get away" call,
> Such will be labelled paranoid and unreasonable only.
>
> Nobody can eliminate EMF from our industrialized world as it is
> today but we can LIMIT it to the lowest technically achievable level.
>
> How much profit driven "avoidance" is done by the industry here
> you can see by looking into a North American TV or other
> electronic equipment. There is lots of space for omitted parts
> required in other jurisdiction to cut RF interference and eliminate
> transients, although not designed for "health" reasons in the first
> place; it would be a step in the right direction to have this circuit
> design "active" everywhere.
>
> This only proves again, we need a regulatory principle to force
> industry to use the best technical possibilities. This is achieved by
> legislating LOW Standards, without them we would even have a
> much worse situation.
>
> But in the present that depends on who presents the issue most
> believable, and who can buy scientists to declare expert "doubt'
> even if this means to "denounce" their own research results.
>
> In dubio pro reo - as long as we have to proof the industry "wrong"
> beyond a reasonable doubt ..........they can buy more expertise.
>
> The call for a moratorium on cellular proliferation was an issue
> raised by Cellular Alert years ago to no avail. The disintegration of
> this group - mainly in the medical circles - is due to "peer"pressure
> and outright threats to the livelihood of the persons involved.
>
> For a "fistful of dollars" many problems have been "ironed out".....
> but that is only Hollywood .......
> Right ! ?
>
> Greetings
> Wolfgang
>
> PS : in the epidemiological data not only electric cooking could be
> a common link also electric typewriters another female dominated
> "environment" with permanent electro-magnetic action
> and not everywhere thing are computerized yet..........
> Has anyone data on EMF around electric typewriters ???
>
>
> Wolfgang W. Scherer
>
> http://www.reach.net/~scherer/p
>
> Join the EMF List discussions
> contact Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
> rbeavers@llion.org
> http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________
More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at http://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail
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