Subject: (Jackson) (Scherer) Re AVOIDANCE (fwd)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 103554 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
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
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