Subject:  San Francisco Conference Wrap-up (fwd)
Date:     Mon, 30 Mar 1998 215506 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:42:10 +0000
From: Christopher Beaver 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Conference Wrap-up

[Many thanks, Chris, I offer a few "guru" comments below...]

Dear Roy:

I apologize for taking so long to offer a wrap-up to the Antenna Free
Zones conference in San Francisco. In reality, there can be no "wrap-up"
since the effects of the conference will remain on-going until the
powers that be place the antennas away from our homes and families.

Many, many people from around the world have been contacting me for more
information on the effects of cellular antennas and their gargantua
brethern, the television transmission antennas. As one PacBell engineer
said, he didn't know why we were so concerned with cellular
antennas=97they were like candles compared to the searchlights of
television antennas.  [TRUE!!!....guru]

Just as we've begun to make connections among local activists in the San
Francisco Bay area, one lesson of the conference and the calls for help
and information is that we probably should make a stronger, more united
nation-wide statement. I've come to the antenna issue rather late in the
game. Many, many people have entered the fray earlier and have much more
experience with this. Please forgive me for sounding like one of the
johnny-come-latelies that now has the one solution for saving the world.
I may get enthusiastic but I'm aware of my limited experience and
viewpoint.

Let me just say, then, that personally I will try to follow the example
of the Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned About the Federal
Communications Commission's Radio Frequency Health and Safety Rules
(fax: 415-892-3108) and the Canyon Area Residents for the Environment
(e-mail: deb@carneylaw.net). I believe that we, or someone in our names,
should take our concerns directly to Washington in some form or fashion.
I don't know that we're ready for a national conference or congress on
this issue. But it's nice to imagine that it might be possible. Except
for Senator Jack Leahy and his few supporters, the Washington leadership
is not fully aware of what's going on out here and they need more
information.  [Besides, they've got a "sexual obsession" in Washington=20
at the moment....guru]

William Kennard goes to Vermont and proclaims a doctrine of federal
non-pre-emption except where a city attempts to ban antennas outright.
But I have been unable to get anyone from the FCC to confirm his
statements. I got one returned call from MaryBeth McCarrick in FCC
public affairs (202-418-0500) and then silence. [Kennard is probably
going to lose his job over that!!!...guru]

I am not sure of the pathway to take, but somehow we must join hands
across state boundries and, if necessary, initiate a new Boston Tea
Party...or perhaps in honor of Vermont's forthright stand on this issue,
a Vermont Tea Party. Questions upon questions came out of the
conference, what is to be done?

To be more concrete about Dr. Cherry's visit: among many media outlets,
he appeared on cable-channel 35's Bay-TV show entitled, "Take Issue."
The largest potential audience is 1.3 million. In its time slot, "Take
Issue" routinely outperforms CNN. The show is so successful, in fact,
that they're increasing their commercial breaks from one minute to two
minutes to take advantage of the larger audience. In this
point-counterpoint with call-ins tv show, Dr. Cherry was opposed by Dr.
Martin Meltz of the University of Texas.=20

Dr. Meltz is now under contract with the Air Force to review the
scientific literature on the biological effects of microwave exposures.
Dr. Meltz has conducted enough research to date to declare that the
Michael Repacholi/Royal Adelaide Hospital study that linked cellular
handset exposures to increased rates of cancer an example of "bad
science." Dr. Cherry seemed at one point to catch Dr. Meltz having to
backtrack from one of Meltz's own studies that indicated microwave
effects despite his assertions that he could find none.  [Repacholi's
study was bad science????  Somebody be sure this gets to Geneva...guru]

More disturbing than Dr. Meltz's assertions or apparently flawed
analysis of his own data was a title card that appeared as one interview
segment gave way to a commercial break. This was the only such title
card that appeared.

Unseen by the several of us in the studio and only discoverd when I
viewed copies of the broadcast, the card, beneath the "Take Issue" logo,
read:
"How can you weigh a possible health hazard to a proven life saver.
There are numerous cases of cellular phones saving lives. There are no
confirmed cases of cellular antennas causing health problems."
=2E....attributed to Grant Castle.  [The asbestos industry used the same
argument......guru]

Our Saturday conference attracted about sixty people. One would always
like to be the center of attention for throngs...perhaps the author of a
popular film or song. But our focus was on presenting Dr. Cherry's work
and bringing together the various neighborhood groups that have
struggled against the antennas.

Dr. Cherry's presentation was detailed and clear. He spoke with
compassion and he spoke with humor. He took us on a journey that
embraced science and society, economics and politics. As he spoke, I
visualized the intricate world inside our bodies, how one distortion in
our hormonal balance could amplify and cascade effects throughout our
entire system. The effect was mesmerizing and haunting. At one point,
Carl Bryant, legislative liasion for the local chapter of the Letter
Carriers of America, sat next to me and said, "we are all affected; no
one is immune."  [That's the point made in the "Ugly Secret" scenario.....
=2E..We are ALL exposed, so the epidemiological studies are "tilted"
(biased) toward showing "no effect," or "very little" effect......guru]

As usual with such intense experiences, my mind is left with questions.
Who to turn to, what should we do next?   [Persevere!!!!!...guru]

There is a Dutch word that is spelled something like "gazeig." It is
often translated as coziness or well-being. It is a societal value that
embraces good friends, good food, a nice home, a sense that one need not
worry about survival. I am left unsettled by the information from our
conference and by the stories that come into my home with increasing
incidence: another person physically affected by the antennas, the city
of Mill Valley in Marin that installs antennas without public hearings,
the plan in Pacifica, California to install antennas in the corner of a
children's playground. Dr. Cherry has shown me scientific studies that
say one thing in the abstract and another in the body of the paper: a
denial of health effects in the absract but health effects documented in
the paper. We have lost our sense of "gazeig" if we ever had it. And
still the antennas go in, without our consent or consultation. Who will
say, stop?

I must also admit that the morning after Dr. Cherry appeared on the
Michael Krasny radio show as I climbed out of the shower I started
laughing out loud. One of the guests opposite Dr. Cherry was Rochelle
Chong, a former official with the FCC and now member of a law firm with
a paragraph of partners. Ms. Chong complained that we hadn't invited
members of the health department, etc. to speak at our conference. All I
could think of as i climbed out of the shower was that it didn't matter
what she said, no matter how safe she said the technology was, no matter
how official she sounded, we simply weren't going to let her get away
with it.=20

After spending time with Dr. Cherry, I felt that we in Noe Valley had
done the right thing. That we had protected our neighborhood and our
families from a potentially catastrophic health hazard for the families
involved. And that as threatening as our situation originally sounded,
it may have been considerably worse.

And there, for today, ends my editorial.

I will leave you with another version of our conference, one that
appeared=20
in the Sunday edition of the San Francisco Examiner and San Francisco
Chronicle. It was on the first page of the second section. This article
represents my personal thank you to all of those who supported our
conference and specifically Dr. Cherry's trip to the United States. I
feel that together we have opened another door. Your emotional support
and your financial support have left us ready to return another day.=20

Thank you all so very much. Sincerely, Christopher Beaver


Cellular Antennas Pose Health Risks,=20
Physicist Asserts
Bay Area residents hear about research from New Zealand=20

By Jane Kay=20
EXAMINER ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER=20
March 22, 1998

Mary Asahina and her son, Mark, are disappointed that The City allowed
six more cellular phone antennas on a two-story office building about
100 feet from their home in Parkside. Cindy Mackey and Mark Denbroeder
are on a fact-finding mission to prepare for the Pleasanton City Council
vote Wednesday on a law regulating antennas. Belmont resident Bruce
Ratcliff, president of Ratcliff Hoist Co., is worried about two antenna
towers emitting electromagnetic fields a few hundred feet from his San
Carlos business.=20
=09They were among 50 people who gathered Saturday at Booker T, Washington
Community Service Center in The City to learn about the possible health
consequences of exposure to non-ionizing radiation from radio
frequencies that make cell phones and pagers work.=20
=09"My concern is 'Is it really safe?' I don=92t care if they put the
antenna in if it's safe. I don't care what it looks like," said Mary
Asahina, who went door-to-door in Parkside collecting a few hundred
signatures to protest Sprint's six antennas, which were added to one put
in by GTE at 19th Avenue and Quintara.=20
=09Despite the opposition, the Planning Commission approved the Parkside
project in January, one of 160 locations of single antennas or clusters.=20
Next month, the commission will vote on Nextel's application to place 12
antennas 100 feet up in the air on the Voice of Pentecost Church's spire
at 1990 Ocean Ave.=20
=09On Saturday, residents of the Sunset, Cole Valley, Noe Valley, Cow
Hollow, Mira Loma Park and other parts of the Bay Area listened to a
review of health studies presented by a New Zealand physicist, Neil
Cherry, a lecturer at Lincoln University.=20
=09Cherry, who has already drawn industry ire in his own country, believes
a growing body of peer-reviewed studies shows evidence of
radiation-induced changes in cells and animals, relating to brain
dysfunction, sleep disruption, reproductive problems and cancers.
[Including breast cancer and childhood leukemia.  Keep repeating
these!!!.....guru]=20
=09In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission allows the
antennas to emit certain levels of non-ionizing radiation as long as
they meet a health standard set by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In
San Francisco, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, Cellular One, GTE, Pagenet,
Nextel and Sprint assert that top scientists, including those in the
U.S. government, [shame!!!!!!!!....guru] don't believe the electromagnetic
fields from radio frequencies can cause illnesses  at the levels of
radiation they emit. In addition, the companies say they are trying to
complete a network of antennas to meet the demand for stronger signals.=20
 =09A Noe Valley group formed in 1997 to oppose antennas atop a 56-foot
spire at the Noe Valley Presbyterian Church organized the event and
brought the New Zealand physicist to The City. "We have to be clear that
we're not Luddites," said Chris Beaver, who paid a big chunk of Cherry's
air fare out of his own pocket. He and Judy Irving were among those who
convinced PacBell and Cellular One to withdraw their Noe Valley
applications. "We're asking for reassurance and inclusion on how this
technology is actuated.  We want to reduce people's paranoia," said
Beaver.=20
=09San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano told the group he would ask=20
the city attorney on Monday to draft an ordinance to regulate the
placement of antennas. Also, he said he would ask Dr. Mitchell Katz,
head of the San Francisco Health Department, to examine the health
impacts. "We need the technology, and we have to be supportive of it.
But we have to be cautious when it comes to the human body, particularly
children," Supervisor Leland Yee said at the conference. San Francisco
Unified School District trustees rejected antennas atop school buildings
when Yee was a board member.
 "That has become a tradition of the Board of Supervisors. We are=20
going to draw the line when it comes to protecting children," Yee said.=20
=09By the end of the year, the wireless industry is expected to have 57
million cellular phone and personal communication service subscribers, a
32 percent annual gain, according to a study by Paul Kagan Associates
Inc.=20
=09Under city law, the cell phone companies apply for permits to the San
Francisco Planning Department. The Health Department then reviews data
submitted by the companies, which must show the fields meet federal
standards. The Telecommunications Act says cities can't ban antennas, or
regulate them on the basis of health effects, if they comply with FCC
standards. In response to growing grassroots protests, however, Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has introduced a bill to remove it from federal
law.=20
=09On the other side, two powerful industry groups, Cellular
Telecommunication and Personal Communications industry associations,
support federal control and argue that cities don't have authority to
monitor antennas. Hundreds of studies have failed to show that radiation
from radio frequencies is causing cancer or any other illnesses,
according to industry officials. Further, they point to findings by a
prestigious panel formed by the federal National Research Council, which
concluded that electromagnetic fields from power: lines and appliances
don't harm humans.=20
[This is NOT the true finding!!!!!!....  The true finding was that a
genuine 'scientifically confirmed' association between
power lines and childhood leukemia (as a result of some twenty studies)
was recognized to be valid!!!!!.....  The "industry people" get away
with these gross misrepresentations because "the press" is so uninformed=20
on this subject!!!!....guru]

=09Deputy City Attorney Julia Friedlander said at the conference that City
Attorney Louise Renne is taking the lead supporting strong local
control. Renne is one of 15 elected officials on the FCC's local and
state government advisory committee.=20
=09"The City's taking the position that local officials should be
able to monitor facilities to ensure that they do comply with the FCC's
standards for human exposure to radio frequency."  [BUT, the point is
-- the FCC standard (which is based on "thermal" effects, NOT EMF effects)
provides no real safety to the public.......guru]=20

[......And now we have the Fred B. Hutchinson Cancer Hospital statement
circulated on this network today (including some new evidence) which
further implicates EMF aa a factor in breast cancer......guru]



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