Subject: (Philips)(Carney) The Politics of Cancer, (fwd)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 123652 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
......Alasdair, what you are describing (below) is exactly like the
"legal" limits that were set in Florida a few years back for mG exposure
at the edge of the right-of-way on a power line......200 mG!!! That was
done with the ***blessing*** of the lady who now is Chief of our
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)!!!!
The power and influence of the vested interests over the establishment
of "standards" of regulations is so pervasive that the public interest
ends up being forfeited in favor of the interest of the vested
interests......i.e., 'Regulation' turns out to work FOR the vested
interests ... and against the public!!!!!
Given the fact that the "public" is uninformed (though the vested
interests are very well informed about the latest science), this will
ALWAYS result UNTIL we get HONEST government agencies that will put
the public interest first!!!!!.........We can't even get people like that
into the White House or the Senate -- why should we expect to get honest
appointees (bureaucrats)!!!!!......guru.......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:57:35
From: Alasdair Philips
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: (Philips)(Carney) The Politics of Cancer,
Someone, somewhere, please...
tell me where you would find a population with exposure levels
to RF/uWave energy over 2 microwatts per square centimter???
Where, o where???
I have done lots of measurements are rarely find public levels
above 0.01uW/cm2 even in houses near masts. I have occasionally
found areas of public access up to about 10uW/cm2, but they are
rare (in Europe, at least).
If there is a problem it is down well under 0.1uW/cm2 and exposures
of those levels are going to be confounded by many other factors.
Alasdair
At 10:40 24/01/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>.......Some of you may have already recived this one from Deb.....
>But I want to be sure it gets broad circulation.......guru.....
>
>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: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:08:23 -0700
>From: Deb Carney
>To: "Beavers, Roy" ,
>Subject: The Politics of Cancer, CONFLICT OF INTEREST.... (fwd)]
>
>In the search for the truth about the adverse health effects of EMR from
>high power broadcast antennas, including cancer, you would have thought
>that one of the very first things that scientists would do, would be to
>find a human population that has already been exposed to long term, low
>levels of EMR and carefully study it to see if there are any signs that
>EMR has harmed health.
>
>Has the FCC ever looked at detailed studies of a population with
>long-term exposure to 200 microwatts per centimeter squared of EMR? No
>
>Has the FCC ever looked at detailed studies of a population with
>long-term exposure to 2 microwatts per centimeter squared of EMR? No
>
>Has the FCC ever looked at detailed studies of a population with
>long-term exposure to between 2-199 microwatts per centimeter squared of
>EMR? No
>
>But the FCC says that it is O.K to subject unwilling citizens to these
>levels of radiation on a long term basis and our local government
>accepts the FCC "wisdom". The FCC safety standard for long term EMR
>exposure is a "myth"
>
>There have been a few epidemiological studies (body count of cancers
>close to broadcast towers which show increased cancer rates *) and a
>study of melatonin hormone levels-showing what appears to be a decrease
>in melatonin in the presence of EMR from broadcast antennas.
>
>The study of even lower levels of EMR from power lines resulted this
>year in the majority of EMF Rapid NIHS scientists classifying EMR as a
>possible carcinogen.
>
>These results should have triggered in-depth studies of the exposed
>populations such as measuring meletonin levels, brain waves, sleep
>patterns, blood components and overall population health in the presence
>of EMR. For the last year, we have been begging for the scientists to
>study us on Lookout Mtn., where residents are in the main EMR beams at
>the same altitude very close to the antennas due to the topography. So
>far, no funding.
>
>Why does the scientific/governmental establishment ignore existing
>studies that raise warnings that adverse health effects may be taking
>place? The attached message explains much of the problem.
>
>On Lookout Mtn., several of our resident engineers have spent hundreds
>of hours measuring EMR levels at different locations. The FCC and
>industry have made the measurement standards very difficult for the
>average citizen to monitor his situation. * In our terrain, we find
>that the amount of EMR can vary from house to house. If trees or hills
>are between the house and the tower, measurements are lower.
>
>We cannot get the Colo. Dept. of Health to look at the brain cancers in
>anything less than "block groups" but we believe that the brain cancers
>are showing up on "lines of sight" with the towers.
>
>The report is due out in mid-Feb but our County Commissioners begin the
>hearings on the new broadcast tower that will greatly increase the EMR on
>Feb. 2.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
Director, UK Powerwatch,
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects 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