Subject: What does the data mean? (Curry) (Clarke)..
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 133409 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: Roy Beavers
--------------------------------------------------
.........Response from EMF-L........
I think I will simply leave it to the jury "out there" as to the extent to which
Susan may be "exaggerating" the evidence of "proof" about the hazards of
EMF/EMR.........guru......(TGIF.... everybody!!)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: What does the data mean? (Curry) (Clarke)..
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:46:55 -0400
From: Susan Clarke
To: guru@emfguru.com
Dear Roy,
I am a professional. I am very careful to say only what is true,
accurate and precise. And I challenge others to do the same, rather than
simply repeating hearsay.
If you feel any statement in the previous message is exaggerated, please
cite it here in response.
Although I like to write in a friendly, colloquial manner, my statements
about the science, which leading Harvard, Boston University and MIT
researchers have acknowledged in writing that I have "analyzed
thoroughly", are of a factual nature, not characterizations.
If you want to know why certain battles are lost and others won, as
someone who worked on Capital Hill against the chemical/pharmaceutical
lobby for years, and who has assisted countless local efforts in
resistance against the telecommunications block's activities, I can write
at great length.
It is not so simple as "proving one's case". Everyone on this list
knows full well that in regard to the proliferation of new forms of old
technologies, truth doesn't matter much. To the extent that it does, for
example, in what Alan Dershowiz calls the "court of public opinion",
battles are most frequently lost, by my observation, when advocates
against the industry mindlessly repeat industry's slogans about the
scientific literature, e.g., "The studies are contradictory"; "There is
no agreement in the scientific community"; "There is much uncertainty",
etc. These statements would receive loud objections in any court of law,
because they are characterizations. Even if they were posed somehow as
factual, the evidence simply demonstrates them to be false.
The first effect of these statements is to cause activists to back out of
the battle in favor of living their own pleasant lives. Wellfleet, MA is
a good example of this. Just ask the leading activists there what
happened when a well-known public speaker against the industry visited at
great expense to the community and stated on the public record, "The
studies are contradictory." Activists disappeared, and gave to me
personally later as their reason this particular statement of the
speaker. "Why bother?', they said. Naturally, I phoned the speker and
asked her to name the "contradictory studies". She could not. She sent
me a pack of secondary information, NOT STUDIES, not primary evidence,
just quotes of paid mouths doing what they were paid to do. Because of
her laxity in her public statements, Wellfleet now has a transmitter
right in the center of town, next to homes, in a church steeple.
I will endanger neither the public nor the truth in my statements. Nor
do I believe I should allow others' unthinking endangerment of health and
biology, which I why I challenge unconscious statements. I addressed you
as "friend" in my response to your laxity. You responded defensively,
claiming without presenting evidence that I misspoke. I therefore
challenge you, as the good person I know you to be, to respond instead
with whatever specific fault you find in my statements, so that you might
allow me to support it with scientific evidence, or to admit an error.
Yours for truth and love in our candlelighting,
Susan Clarke, MMOC
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:26:30 -0500 Roy Beavers writes:
>
>
>
> .........Response from EMF-L.......
>
> Susan says that I "err" (adopt the industry's language) in my
> earlier message.....
>
> It is not that I am (in any way) unmindful of the many studies she
> cites
> below --
> though there is some exaggeration in what she says, too.
>
> But, the basis for the industry (and the government's) public
> position on
> this ... is still that "cell towers," per se, have not been
> studied......
> And. by and
> large, that is true...... BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEEN TO THAT.....!!!
>
> If the evidence of "harm" is so conclusive, Susan, WHY is it that
> our
> "fighters" --
> who are trying to protect their neighborhoods from intrusion by cell
> towers --
> are having such a difficult time producing expert witnesses to
> "prove"
> their case?
>
> guru.....
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: What does the data mean? (Curry)..
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:54:45 -0400
> From: Susan Clarke
> To: guru@emfguru.com
>
> Dear Roy,
>
> There is indeed good technical info out there - and good scientific
> info,
> too!
>
> Here, when we evaluate "how many" studies there are and "how many"
> are
> needed to make certain determinations, we have to refer to either an
> absolute value - a hard, cold number, say the 20,000 RFR bioeffects
> studies that ANSI/IEEE Committee Chair John Osepchuk says are extant
> - or
> a relative value, say, compared to dioxins or lead or some other
> agent.
> We also look to criteria such as EPA employs in its policy
> decisions.
>
> As for the absolute number, there is no scientist who would not
> agree
> that 20,000 is huge. In fact, as David Carpenter MD MPH, former
> Dean of
> the School of Public Health at SUNY - Albany says, there is more
> evidence
> implicating RFR as a hazard than there is for any other agent.
> Additionally, Henry Lai, PhD has recently compiled a list of well
> over
> 200 recent studies - just between 1996 and the present. That number
> will
> amaze any public health or medical scientist to whom you show it;
> for
> such a wealth of cutting-edge science simply doesn't occur in any
> other
> field.
>
> One might ask, but what about epidemiological studies of, or
> otherwise
> relevant to, transmitters? First, there is an excellent set of
> studies -
> at least a dozen - which you may easily find in Neil Cherry's review
> of
> the literature. That is quite a large number for such a specific
> question! What a public health scientist will be amazed (again) to
> find
> is that they are all positive, every one of them. That is, they all
> show
> adverse effects. Such consistency of science is very rare, and all
> the
> more surprising given the very high stakes for industry and the
> military,
> and the industry underwriting of and other influences on many of
> these
> studies. Therefore, when we are asked about transmitter studies, we
> should not repeat the industry line that has brainwashed even many
> scientists into its mantra, "There are few studies, there is little
> evidence." This is simply false. There is voluminous evidence, and
> it
> is consistent in its demonstration of adverse effects. In fact,
> unless
> anyone can show me a study I don't know about, we should in truth
> state,
> "Of all the studies of transmitters, not one fails to show adverse
> effects."
>
> Moreover, it is not only human epidemiologic studies which are
> relevant
> to transmitter bioeffects, but animal epidemiology, called
> "ecologic"
> studies. And laboratory (more controlled) studies, at exposure
> levels
> and with types of radiation similar to those of transmitters, are
> relevant and necessary, in that they are the ones which establish a
> cause-and-effect relationship. Of these there exist close to a
> thousand
> that are relevant to transmitter levels. Incredible!
>
> Now let's look at the relative numbers and the issue of certainty.
> What
> agents are scientists sure of as hazards? Plutonium, UV, other
> ionizing
> radiation. Why? because PHYSICISTS understand the mechanism of
> harm,
> i.e., you split atoms in biological organisms. Not because there
> are so
> many studies. There aren't. Physicists had no doubt, so no studies
> were
> needed. It is also because until recently, physics as an academic
> field
> was esteemed most highly among the sciences. This means that where
> physicists haven't understood the mechanism of harm, simply because
> they
> don't know biology or toxicology or epidemiology, they have said -
> and
> still do say, with well-meaning activists repeating them mindlessly
> - "We
> don't know whether this is harmful because the mechanism is not well
> understood." And no matter how many excellent studies come in, as
> long
> as physicists have their doubts and their wishful thinking about the
> possibilities of using RFR to transform the world into their own
> images,
> which some will, they say, "Not enough evidence!" and fool many.
> Folks,
> this is a personal dilemma for many physicists, but not for the rest
> of
> us. It is a matter of physicists' loss of prestige: of psychology,
> not
> of science.
>
> So how do the numbers compare with agents other than nonionizing
> radiation? Let's see. There's a new ban on Dursban, the most
> commonly
> used indoor pesticide in the US. It's both an organochlorine (i.e.,
> it
> persists in body tissue and disrupts hormones) and an
> organophosphate
> (i.e., it's a descendant of Hitler's and the I.G. Farben Company's
> nerve
> agents). Are there many studies compared to RFR? No, very few, but
> lots
> of lawsuits and documented medical evidence. How about dioxins -
> the
> most hazardous compounds known, aside from plutonium? They can't
> exist
> in nature, but occur in the burning of plastics and hazardous waste.
> Not
> many studies, compared to RFR. Yet unless your breathing air is
> 99.9999%
> free of dioxins, someone is in violation of federal law. Right now
> your
> local atmosphere contains one to a hundred billion times the natural
> levels of naturally occuring RFR. What you are absorbing right now
> in
> those billions is xenobiotic - it can't exist in nature. That's
> another
> reason we know it's disruptive to biology. Look how that compares
> to
> dioxins. But how about lead? There is no other agent (apart from
> plutonium, which the physicists granted us) about which scientists
> have
> more certainty as a hazard. Why? The number of studies, of all
> kinds.
> And that number is................less than 10,000, compared to
> RFR's
> more than 20,000!
>
> But what about EPA criteria? Guess how many studies you need to
> show any
> agent is a "probable carcinogen": 3 human, 3 animal, 3 cell
> studies.
> That's it. (This presumes any other studies are fairly consistent.
> A
> positive - "adverse effects" - study holds more weight than a
> negative -
> "no adverse effects" - study.) Do more than that exist for RFR?
> You
> bet! Plus similarly conclusive evidence of many other outcomes:
> neurological, behavioral, endocrinological, reproductive, etc.)
>
> Get it? Somebody, not our friend, has told us falsely to say we
> lack
> evidence...The reason for this is that it's the easiest way to
> undermine
> a cause. Get the advocates for a position to admit a lack of
> evidence.
> Friends, on behalf of the health of all, I implore you not to repeat
> this
> lie further. Do not use the words "uncertainty" or "controversy",
> where
> these characterizations are merely political phenomena, clouds and
> storms
> artificially blown up by means of big money. And if someone makes
> such
> claims to you, ask by what numeric criteria RFR bioeffects can be
> shown
> to be uncertain. Then give him the facts and the evidence.
>
> Susan Clarke, MMOC
>
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:19:21 -0500 Roy Beavers
> writes:
> >
> >
> > Hi everybody:
> >
> > I am forwarding the message below, which is from Bill Curry to one
>
> > of our readers,
> > because there is too much good "techie" information there ... for
> it
> > not to
> > be shared.
> >
> > As I earlier stated, Bill was one who made an excellent
> presentation
> > in Salzburg.
> > He also played a role in the drafting of the Salzburg Resolution
> > which is becoming
> > an important "signpost" on the road to better management of the
> cell
> > "tower" problem
> > by public citizens on their own behalf.....
> >
> > Within the past week, I have received three or four requests for
> > "definitive" --
> > "black and white" type -- answers about the hazards of cell phone
> > towers....
> >
> > Well -- there are no "definitive" answers. As many of you know,
> the
> > research simply has not (and is not being) done.... Not on the
> > towers.
> > Precious little is being done about the handsets, themselves.
> That
> > ...
> > regrettably ... involves the project
> > by FDA in collaboration with the industry..... NOT THE WAY IT
> > SHOULD BE DONE....
> >
> > Anyway, because of the high level of interest on this subject, I
> > will
> > forward to
> > the list an answer I recently provided in response to a press
> > inquiry. I
> > will be
> > deleting the name and address of the press person...... Watch for
>
> > it.....
> > In the
> > meantime ... what Bill writes below ... is very solid "techie"
> > information
> > of the
> > type that guru cannot provide...... Hope you can make good use of
>
> > it.....
> >
> > Cheerio......
> >
> > guru
> > roy@emfguru.com
> >
> > It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness..
> > WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com
> > ............People are more important than profit$$$..............
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: What does the data mean?
> > Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:56:23 -0500
> > From: "Bill P. Curry"
> > Reply-To: BPCurry@MCS.com
> > Organization: EMSciTek Consulting co.
> > To: guru@emfguru.com
> > CC: petermoxon@aol.com
> > References:
> > <39771BBF.182A4B13@emfguru.com>
> >
> > Roy and Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for the referral, Roy. I'll try to help. I am
> also
> > in contact with
> > Peter Hudiburg who has similar problems in New York City.
> >
> > Peter, I need to have a copy of the spreadsheet that you
> > mentioned, as it
> > didn't come through on Roy's forwarding of your letter. Please
> send
> > it to me
> > as an attached file if it is less than 3 MB file length. If
> longer,
> > you may
> > have to put it into a ZIP archive or a STUFFIT archive and then
> > attach that to
> > the Email to keep my ISP from destroying the file.
> >
> > I can understand your being confused about the
> measurements
> > at your location
> > being nearly the same as those much closer to the antenna. This
> > occurs
> > because the antenna is directional and focuses the radiation into
> > preferred
> > directions at the expense of other directions. As you walk out
> from
> > directly
> > under the antenna, you will encounter a very low level of
> radiation
> > right
> > under it. A little farther away you will begin to encounter
> > subsidiary lobes
> > of the antenna radiation pattern. These are low gain regions, but
>
> > as you walk
> > outward you will encounter higher gain regions. Eventually,
> several
> > hundred
> > feet from the antenna, you main beam. This is the highest gain
> > region.
> > Beyond that point the radiation will start falling off with
> further
> > distance
> > away from the antenna. What you have is the competition between
> the
> > physical
> > law that says the radiation density falls off with the inverse
> > square of the
> > distance from the emitting elements and the fact that the antenna
> > gain is a
> > strong function of the angle between you and the emitting
> elements.
> > In the
> > region near the antenna and out of the high gain region, you will
> > find the
> > radiation density varies very little as you move out horizontally
> > (at the
> > same elevation).
> >
> > To be quantitative about all this, to calculate the power
> > density you need to
> > know the horizontal and vertical distances between you and the
> > antenna
> > emitting elements, the power the transmitter is putting into the
> > antenna
> > emitting elements, the number of communications channels that are
> > simultaneously operating, and the gain pattern of the antenna as a
>
> > function of
> > the angle between the horizon and a line between you and the
> antenna
> > emitting
> > elements. If you can get the antenna manufacturer and model
> number,
> > you or I
> > can get the antenna pattern - either from the internet, or by
> > contacting the
> > manufacturer - they are usually quite cooperative. The people who
>
> > lease or
> > own the installation are usually not cooperative, so you will need
>
> > to try to
> > get a copy of the application that the cell phone provider had to
> > submit to
> > some municipal authority to get permission to erect and install
> the
> > antennas.
> > If you can get this information, we can compare the measurements
> > that you
> > mentioned to the calculations based on the antenna properties and
> > the power of
> > the transmitter and, possibly, allowing for attenuation of the
> > radiation
> > coming through the walls of your dwelling.
> >
> > If you cannot find all this information, but you know what
>
> > type of service is
> > being offered, I may be able to make an educated guess at some of
> > the
> > parameters. For example, GSM is nearly the same as TDMA pulsed
> > digital phones
> > in the U.S., except that the frequency band for these phones in
> the
> > U.S. is
> > 1600-1900 Mhz; whereas GSM phones in Europe are in the frequency
> > range 800-900
> > Mhz, I think. The design of the antenna is somewhat dependent on
> > the
> > frequency range - especially the length of the emitting elements.
>
> > In turn,
> > the length of the elements somewhat determines the gain of the
> > antenna and how
> > the gain depends on the angle at which the observer views the
> > emitting elements.
> >
> > You say that the measured values in the report you cited
> are
> > in the millions
> > of watts per square meter. I suspect that you have misinterpreted
>
> > these
> > numbers. In situations such as you describe, the radiation
> density
> > is
> > probably 0.1-1.0 microwatt per square centimeter - which
> corresponds
> > to 1-10
> > milliwatts per square meter. (1.0 milliwatt, abbreviated as 1 mW,
>
> > is 0.001
> > Watt. In contrast, 1.0 Megawatt is 1 Million Watts and is
> > abbreviated as 1
> > MW.) Since you already know the measured values of the radiation
> > density at
> > selected locations, you may want to look at the web site of the
> > California
> > Council on Wireless Technology Impacts at www.ccwti.org. Click on
>
> > the tab
> > marked "Science." There you will find Cindy Sage's tables showing
>
> > short
> > descriptions of published results of experiments on the biological
>
> > effects of
> > RF radiation on living tissues and organisms - including lab
> animals
> > - and
> > some epidemiological studies of the effect of the radiation on
> > people.
> > Biological effects are observed at very low radiation levels. Dr.
> > Neil Cherry
> > has analyzed many epidemiological studies and concluded that there
>
> > is no
> > threshold for biological effects of radiation. Thus, science
> cannot
> > say for
> > sure what is a "safe" level of radiation, but that determination
> has
> > to be
> > based on societal deliberations, with science in an assisting
> role.
> >
> > I don't know the precise value of the NRPB radiation
> > guidelines, but I
> > venture to say that they are somewhat similar to the U.S. FCC
> > guidelines -
> > which are frequency dependent and completely unrealistic, because
> > they are
> > based on the assumption that the only way radiation can damage
> > living cells is
> > by heating them. Much more subtle damage mechanisms exist and can
> > affect cells
> > at radiation power density levels much lower than the government
> > agencies say
> > is "safe." The FCC says that 579 microwatts per square centimeter
>
> > is safe in
> > the frequency range of about 800-900 Mhz and that 1000-1200
> > microwatts per
> > square centimeter is safe in the frequency range of 1600-1900 Mhz.
>
> > Biological
> > effects have been found at radiation levels hundreds of times less
>
> > than these
> > values. For example, DNA molecule breakage has been observed in
> > experiments
> > carried out by Dr. Jerry Phillips at a radiation level 760 times
> > less than the
> > FCC "safe" level, and the blood brain barrier has been found by a
> > Swedish
> > group to open (allowing dangerous small toxic molecules and
> viruses
> > to enter
> > the brain) at radiation levels 4000 times less than what the FCC
> > says is
> > "safe." Equally absurdly, the guidelines allow the "safe" limit
> to
> > rise with
> > frequency from a frequency of about 300 Mhz until it equals the
> > known
> > radiation limit to prevent thermal effects (sunburn) at infrared
> and
> > visible
> > frequencies. I say this is absurd, because human tissues (because
>
> > of their
> > water content) absorb a larger fraction of the incident radiation
> > (in a
> > specified distance) at higher frequencies than at low frequencies.
>
> > Thus, the
> > guideline should require the "safe" limit to decrease with
> frequency
> > to
> > protect people, but it does the opposite.
> >
> > I hope that this discussion helps you. Please feel free
> to
> > contact me as you
> > see fit.
> >
> >
> >
> > > PeterMoxon@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Attached file in excel - filename survey shows the results of
> a
> > power density
> > > > report carried out after installation of cellular antennae
> near
> > our property
> > > > here in the UK.
> > > > We are about 100 meters from the mast. However, the house
> > closest to the
> > > > mast, only around 40ft from it, as almost identical results.
> > > > On the spreadsheet position 1 is a few feet from the front
> door,
> > position 2
> > > > is my son's bedroom (1st Floor). The Measured Flux Density is
> in
> > Millions of
> > > > W/sq m.
> > > > The question is; can you or anyone clarify whether or not the
> > results are
> > > > indeed within NRPB guidelines and other European guidelines.
> > Secondly, any
> > > > comments on the figures shown to reflect the number of times
> > below safety
> > > > levels?
> > > > I would be grateful for an interpretation of the data if
> anyone
> > can help as I
> > > > cannot believe that the mobile phone company can say we are
> safe
> > at a
> > > > distance of 100 meters.
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > > Peter Moxon
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----
> > Bill P. Curry, Ph.D. |Physics is fun.
> > EMSciTek Consulting Co. |Trying to make a living!
> > 22W101 McCarron Road, |Phone: (630) 858-9377
> > Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 |Fax: (630) 858-9159 with prior
> notice
> >
> > Web page: http://www.EMSciTek.com
> > ____________________________________________________
> > | Analysis, experiment design & software development |
> > | for engineering and the physical sciences |
> > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com