Subject:  (Microshield) Mobile update (fwd)
Date:     Wed, 20 Jan 1999 062322 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:33:30 EST
From: MICROSHLD@aol.com
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Mobile update

BBC’s influential Watchdog Healthcheck  program recently confirmed the
Microshield as the only product on test, which offered any substantial and
meaningful shielding protection. It also exposed the misleading claims of
other shielding products, describing one of our main competitors as offering
zero protection. The tests were carried out at the UK's NPL (National Physics
Laboratory) using the same phantom head and hand as had been used in Alan
Preece's recent memory loss experiments at Bristol. NPL have very recently
been commissioned by the European Union to look at ways of developing more
accurate and reliable ways of measuring mobile phone emmissions

The test protocol devised by the NPL had also been run past the NRPB by the
BBC, who had approved them. One of the criticisms previously levelled at our
product by the NRPB was that it actually exposed the user to more radiation as
a result of the phone's own automatic powering up process in response to being
shielded. Up till now, attempts by us to explain that the attenuating capacity
of the Microshield comfortably exceeded anything the mobile would kick out,
have fell on deaf ears(naturally!).

Well the good news is that the NPL's studies showed that we do no such thing
and that our product does work i.e. reduces exposure specifically in the
direction of the user's head (another fact which many observers have found
difficult to understand). The results were not as spectacular as British
Telecoms or the BABT commissioned tests (up to 99% according to Alasdairs
analysis of the data) with shielding levels of only 78% being achieved.
Alasdair tells us that this might be because the hand and head were not
grounded as would be the case in "real life". The tests also used the real
live network as opposed to a simulator which had been the case with the BT &
BABT. This would mean varying levels of power coming from the phone and hence
some degree of inconsistency.

Just as importantly, the same tests showed that hands free kits as advocated
for safe use by the cellular ind. were leaking around 50% out of the earpiece
itself thereby concentrating the exposure into the ear canal. Unbelievable
that an industry should make the same mistake twice i.e. releasing a product
onto the market without  fully testing it. Their defence will be that these
devises are being sold to make driving safer whilst making a call   (ROSPA in
the UK doesn't think so and wants to ban all calls from a moving vehicle) but
out in the High St they're being sold from the health effects angle.
Incidentally, exposure to the other 50% still coming from the handset itself,
might well then be transferred to another part of the body depending upon
where you then placed the phone itself e.g the belt. 

This brings me on to reports we are getting from patients suffering from low
sperm counts being advised by their Doctor that wearing their mobile on the
belt might be the cause(could this be connected to the Endocrine question?).
Finally' we are also getting more reports of credit cards being wiped, where
the cards in question are kept in the back pocket and the phone on the
corresponding hip. Anybody out there give credence to this?

Regards 
John Simpson






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