Subject: Re Code of Practice (fwd)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 092624 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
Some of you have already received this.......
It is long, but I believe it is a valuable discussion of a very important
aspect of the EMF issue......
Guru
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:03:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: Per Segerback
Cc: Alasdair Philips ,
Subject: Re: Code of Practice
Alasdair:
Let's admit it. Per Segerback is making a very valid point here.
My observation would be: (1) Naturally we are all eager to see
some "regulation" of EMF undertaken by somebody -- even if just to
acknowledge that there "is a problem."
(2) If, however, in order to get that process started, we push too
hard for regulation on the basis of the 'little bit' that we now
understand about the EMF biological activity -- we make it easy for
the vested interests to say (as Per observes): "Well, we are within
established guidelines.".... When, in fact, the established guidelines
are likely to be far from "complete" -- in the sense of the 'real' damage
mother nature is inflicting ... beyond our present limited levels of
understanding.
(3) I think the important goals are -- (a) there is a 'problem' with
the bioeffects of EMF.... and (b) We should be mounting a
"space-research" level of effort to understand that problem ... BEFORE WE
ALLOW POWER COMPANIES AND THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRIES TO PROCEED
WITH THE ONGOING 'ELECTRIFICATION' OF THE WORLD...... The point being:
it will be much easier to deal with the EMF bioeffects problem now than
in another 20 or 30 years!!!
(4) To me, that means some kind of a "freeze" or at least a "publicly
inspired" slow-down of the present frenzied pace of
electrical/telecommunications expansion...... NOT -- in other words --
because we 'think' we know the parameters of that problem ... but rather
because, in fact, WE KNOW THAT WE DO NOT KNOW the parameters!!!
Still, it is clear that the long term implications for human life are
enormous!!!!
We should, therefore, in my opinion ... de-emphasize the 'technical' kind
of arguments or "regulations" (such as TWA mG "safe" or "unsafe" levels,
which we really do not know) ... while we, instead, emphasize the "big
picture" implications of this hazard and DEMAND that ALL our governments
(and the industries) treat it with the seriousness which it deserves....
Leading toward MUCH more research and TOTALLY honest disclosure to the
public...... (Just imagine how seriously this problem would be dealt
with if it were the e-boli germ running amuck worldwide...... or Compare
it to the AIDS health threat. EMF presents far more serious worldwide
consequences than AIDS.....)
"We do not know one millionth of one percent of anything...."
...... Thomas Edison ..... (A good maxim to keep in mind here....)
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Per Segerback wrote:
> Dear Alasdair,
> First let me say, I agree with you on one point: You might just get this through!
> The main reason for my belief is that the operators will have to do very few, if
> any, modifications to their equipment.
>
> Otherwise:
> I think you are on a dangerous route. Nether you nor I can set any definitely
> safe levels of radiation. The current level of knowledge just is not high enough.
> (Maybe in ten years?)
> From personal experience, quite a large number of people hyper sensitive to
> electricity (HSE), cannot stand the levels we have today, which at least here in
> Sweden, are much below your suggested level.
>
> What would you say to HSE individuals being confronted by authorities with:
> - "This is the level recommended by your organisations, it is perfectly safe and
> there is no way you can be harmed " - when they try to stop a tower next to their
> house?
>
> I do not object to other organisations working for lower levels of radiation, but
> that should be seen more as a practical technical level, that is cheap and easy
> to achieve. Organisations such us ours (FEB), cannot unless the mechanisms behind
> the severe health problems and symptoms we experience when exposed to EMF, are
> understood and explained, define or support certain levels as safe.
>
> Best Regards
> Per Segerback /FEB Western Greater Stockholm
>
> Alasdair Philips wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> > PLEASE comment on my suggestions, below:
> >
> > Practical ways forward with regard to siting of telecommunications base
> > stations:
> >
> > 1. As base-station antennas radiate predominantly sideways (like a
> > lighthouse light beam) it is best for everybody if they are situated as high
> > as possible.
> >
> > 2. The proposed European CENELEC 'safety limit' at 900 MHz of 41 volts/metre
> > and at 1.8GHz of 58 volts/metre is only to protect from direct microwave
> > heating effects and is not intended to protect from cancer promotion or any
> > of the other adverse health effects which some studies have associated with
> > low level microwave exposure.
> >
> > 3. Current ambient environmental levels of non-ionising radiation at these
> > frequencies (100 MHz to 2 GHz) are generally below 0.1 volts/metre
> > (100dBmV/m). Even near large television or radio transmission masts they
> > rarely rise above 3 volts/metre (130dBmV/m).
> > The E.U. and U.K. Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Regulations require
> > that domestic and medical electronic equipment does not fail when subject to
> > interference at 3 V/m over the frequency range 30 MHz to 1 GHz. This is
> > likely to be extended to cover up to 2.5 GHz.
> >
> > 4. Following from [3] above we believe that a maximum level of 1 volt/metre
> > at these frequencies (100 MHz to 2 GHz) in residences is a reasonable one,
> > both from the engineering practicalities and from the health question points
> > of view. We have not seen evidence of links with adverse health or
> > biological effects below this level.
> >
> > 5. We suggest that a maximum level of 1 volt/metre in residential
> > apartments, schools and hospitals, etc., nearest to telecommunications
> > equipment should be specified in the contract agreement with the service
> > providers wishing to install equipment. There should be penalties for
> > exceeding this limit including the requirement to turn the equipment off.
> > The levels should be independently checked using a spectrum analyser and
> > calibrated antenna after the equipment is installed. It should be checked
> > again every few ( say 3 to 5 ) years.
> > Provided this action is taken we do not believe, on the basis of the latest
> > research, that the installations will cause any increased risk to health by
> > their microwave transmissions, as these will not be exceeding levels to
> > which we are all now exposed and which are not believed to be harmful.
> >
> > ================ ================
> > This note has been prepared by Alasdair Philips, Technical Director of
> > Powerwatch.
> > ================ ================
> >
> > It should be read in conjunction with Powerwatch information sheet "Cellular
> > phone base-stations and masts" (four pages, dated 16/01/1998) (not
> > e-mailable, sorry, but much of the information follows (less graphs, etc)
> >
> > ===============================================:
> >
> > Powerwatch believes that, although much more research needs doing, regular
> > mobile-phone use is very likely to have adverse health consequences in the
> > people who use them. It is not clear if there are any adverse health
> > effects of living next to cellular base-station masts, however concerns are
> > being expressed and there are now many replicated research reports
> > indicating important non-thermal biological effects. The chosen European
> > Time Division Multiple Access digital system (GSM) is likely to have more
> > biological effects than Code Division Multiple Access digital systems or the
> > older analogue ones.
> >
> > Asbestos has been strictly controlled since 1970, and the use of most
> > dangerous types banned. Despite this, deaths from mesothelioma (an asbestos
> > induced cancer) are still rising and the U.K. death rate is not expected to
> > peak until about 2020. Most environmental cancers in adults take longer
> > than ten and up to 50 years from initiation to when they are detected and/or
> > cause death.
> >
> > Virtually no work has been done on the long term health implications of
> > living next to mobile-phone base-stations. This means that people living
> > near them are acting as involuntary, and often unsuspecting, test subjects.
> > Past research into ambient microwave radiation effects on health certainly
> > gives rise to concern. See Powerwatch's Mobile Phone Adverse Health Concerns
> > paper. It has been repeatedly shown that a few minutes of exposure to
> > cell-phone type radiation can transform a five percent active cancer into a
> > ninety-five percent active cancer.
> >
> > In the U.K. the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has the
> > responsibility for advising the Government on the possible adverse health
> > effects of both ionising and non-ionising radiation. Using this advice, the
> > Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is responsible, with the Secretary of State
> > for Health and the Government, for proposing and enacting safety
> > legislation. Until relatively recently it was thought that radio-frequency
> > radiation was safe until it reached levels at which considerable body tissue
> > heating occurred (e.g. as microwave ovens cook food). Although the NRPB
> > still holds to this view many progressive scientists are recognising the
> > reality of adverse health effects at much lower signal levels.
> >
> > When radar was first introduced in World War II, safety standards were set
> > at a high enough level to allow the military virtually unrestricted use of
> > microwave and high frequency radiation. American scientific reports
> > produced at that time suggesting that microwave radiation might cause
> > leukaemia, cataracts, brain tumours and heart conditions were ignored. Since
> > then more worrying reports have emerged resulting in two military research
> > bases in the USA reducing by a factor of 100 their permitted levels of radio
> > frequency exposure at these frequencies (30MHz to 100GHz) from 100W/m2 down
> > to 1W/m2, (0.1mW/cm2 or 100µW/cm2 ). This is because they acknowledge that
> > there is now an overwhelming body of published evidence for the positive
> > existence of non-thermal biological effects of high-frequency radiation.
> > This level is now 100 times lower than the current UK NRPB official
> > Guidance. While actual cell-phone users will be exposing hemselves to levels
> > above this, the levels in public places from cell-phone base-stations will
> > almost always be lower than this. Some EMF/health experts around the world
> > are now suggesting ambient public levels of radiation of these frequencies
> > should be below 1µW/cm2. Experimental studies aiming to measure the effect
> > of these pulses on human brain rhythms have claimed that the EEG rhythm is
> > altered by them. This may be because in addition to these high frequency
> > emissions there are also extremely low emissions very close in frequency to
> > those of the human brain.
> >
> > Unlike the earlier analogue-phones, GSM digital ones emit bursts of 546µs
> > radiofrequency (RF) pulses at a repetition rate of 217Hz. This has been
> > shown to be more biologically active than continuous radiation of the same
> > frequency and power level. Take an operating digital GSM mobile-phone near
> > an ordinary medium wave radio and you will hear a "rattle-clatter" buzzing
> > noise. These pulses are also picked up and detected by the cells inside the
> > user's and other nearby people's heads. This means that the brain cells are
> > being "hit" by these radiation pulses two hundred and seventeen times every
> > second. The concept of an
> > averaged power density should be seen against this reality: In GSM also, due
> > to management subtleties, there are even slower 8.34Hz and 2Hz periodicity
> > components.
> >
> > These lower frequencies are in the range of human brain waves. Are the
> > base-station masts dangerous? Although cellular-phone base station masts
> > emit a continuous stream of microwave radiation pulses, their level of
> > radiation is usually quite low. Modern masts use linear RF power amplifiers,
> > typically 3 to 40 watts (though legally up to 320 watts), and broadcast on a
> > number of frequencies simultaneously. On digital systems the power
> > effectively rises as more calls are active and there are no missing time
> > slots. Maximum fields from the mast, at ground level, usually occur between
> > about 30 and 100 metres from the mast.
> >
> > In fact, we do not believe that it is just an issue of power but of
> > information. Our bodies pick up the pulsing of these signals and this may
> > interfere with complex cellular processes. If we accept an unusually high
> > "ambient" level of 0.01 volts/metre we find that cell-phone base-station
> > signal pulses are often up to 100 times higher than this, and close to the
> > antennas several 1000s of times higher; so, of course, our bodies will
> > detect them. The official agencies say "there is not enough power to be
> > dangerous" although there is increasing evidence of non-thermal biological
> > effects at levels below 2volts/metre. These levels can be greatly exceeded,
> > and RF levels in flat roofed rooms directly beneath antenna have been
> > measured up to 0.65mW/cm2 which is getting near (about one sixth) the
> > current "thermally based" guidelines, and similar to continuously using a
> > cell-phone handset 24 hours every day.
> >
> > This does not seem wise.
> >
> > Is absorbed power the right metric? Some studies have suggested that
> > frequency or amplitude modulated RF is more bio-effective than continuous
> > microwaves. One speculation is that signals are being carried to
> > glycoprotein sialic acid residue receptors on cellular plasma membrane
> > surfaces for inward transduction, or even to DNA . It is therefore
> > plausible to suggest that GSM ELF frequencies might interfere with whatever
> > brain rhythms are doing. Powerwatch does not believe that it is now
> > acceptable to restrict base-station mast locations just on the basis of
> > "average power level", which is the only metric currently accepted as
> > biologically meaningful by international and national authorities. See the
> > Powerwatch biological evidence article dated 19/Jan/1998 for more details.
> >
> > Planning considerations
> > The latest official U.K. Planning Policy Guidance on the development of
> > telecommunications transmitting facilities is PPG8 (Revised) (1992), and
> > Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning Order, (1995). These basically give
> > the go-ahead for most installations as 'permitted developments' not
> > requiring planning permission, stating that U.K. Government Policy is to
> > facilitate the growth of tele-communications, including cellular radio.
> > Where they do need to apply, PPG8 specifically states that "Radiation is a
> > matter for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and not a matter for the
> > planning system."
> >
> > However there have been many strongly run campaigns, in the U.K. and other
> > countries, to stop masts being placed next to, or on, schools. In 1995
> > President Clinton issued a formal Memorandum requiring that Federal
> > buildings be seen as the main site for cellular-phone masts which should
> > keep the masts away
> > from schools and homes. The California Public Utilities Commission also
> > stated that school and hospital sites should only be used as a last resort.
> >
> > Children, because of their size, tend to act as resonant aerials at cellular
> > phone frequencies, thus enhancing the signal levels in their bodies.
> > The New Zealand Ministry of Education has now issued a policy statement
> > preventing cellular phone antennas from being sited at state schools in the
> > future.
> >
> > In the U.K it is normally possible, and practicable, to site masts away from
> > schools and homes.
> >
> > School Governors can refuse permission for masts, however it may be better
> > to have a mast on a school roof than set in a field a hundred metres away
> > beaming directly into the classrooms.
> >
> > Houses next to microwave masts can be harder to sell, and they often now
> > have to be sold with a discount on the price.
> >
> > Under the Maastricht Treaty, the U.K. Government is required to practice the
> > precautionary principle in all decisions. Requesting that operators find
> > microwave mast sites away from houses and schools is an easy way to do this.
> >
> > The following is an extract from a unanimously passed resolution by the
> > Australian LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION of New South Wales 1997 ANNUAL
> > CONFERENCE:
> > That all councils adopt planning controls that:
> > (a) limit the location of mobile telephone base stations (and other
> > commercial electromagnetic emitting facilities) to greater than 500 metres
> > from residences, schools, child care centres, hospitals and nursing homes;
> > (b) require mobile telephone base stations (and other electromagnetic
> > emitting facilities) to emissions of no more than .001 microwatts per square
> > centimetre in public places.
> >
> > There is no absolute answer - we just do not know the full picture yet. In
> > the mean time Powerwatch supports more research and a precautionary 'prudent
> > avoidance' stance.
> >
> > The following tables sets out current various international, national, and
> > other "Standards"
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > General Public Freq E field E field Power Power
> > Reference body MHz dBmV/m V/m W/m2 uW/cm2
> > INIRC, 1988 900 152 41 4.5 450
> > (Internatl group) 1800 155 58 9 900
> >
> > ANSI, 900 153 47 6 600
> > 1990(USA) 1800 156 66 12 1200
> >
> > NRPB, 900 161 112 33 3300
> > 1993(Current UK) 1800 166 194 100 10000
> >
> > CENELEC, 900 152 41 4.5 450
> > 1995(Proposed Europe) 1800 155 58 450 900
> >
> > Two USA military
> > research bases 30 -100000 126 20 1 100
> >
> > "Various experts"
> > Prudent avoidance 100 - 2500 129 3 0.02 2
> >
> > N.South Wales
> > 1997 800 - 2000 96 0.06 0.00001 0.001
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The maximum natural thermal background level at 900 to 1800 MHz is somewhere
> > between 10 and 30 microvolts/metre (20 dBmV/m and 30 dBmV/m) based on 20 to
> > 200 attowatts/cm2/MHz.
> >
> > The "man-made electrosmog" level is usually below 100 mV/m, (40 dBmV/m),
> > with even very strong broadcast TV (c.500 MHz) and FM radio (c.100 MHz)
> > signals normally not exceeding 0.1 V/m (100 dBmV/m) (usually much lower)
> > unless you are close to a large broadcast transmission mast where they still
> > rarely exceed 2 or 3 volts/m (130 dBmV/m).
> >
> > The maximum levels in public places from a cellular telephone base station
> > mast are usually between 100 and 120 dBmV/m (0.1 to 1.0 V/m), with average
> > levels between 90 and 110 dBmV/m. (0.03 to 0.3 V/m), though I have measured
> > levels up to 140 dBmV/m (10 volts/metre) rms near base-stations which would
> > mean somewhere between 20 and 50 volts/metre peak signal levels due to the
> > pulsed nature of GSM.
> >
> > The following graph shows typical peak signal strength levels at 1m up from
> > the ground surface for the signals from a cellular phone base station mast.
> > The power levels on the right-hand axis are for continuous signals at the
> > levels shown on the left-hand axis. GSM stations will usually source less
> > actual power than this due to the nature of their signals, although their
> > pulsed signal strength will be as shown in the left hand column. Levels in
> > rooms or on roof areas near to the antennas can be considerably higher than
> > this.
> >
> > ... missing graphs and diagrams
> >
> >
> >
> > Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
>
>
>
>
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