Subject:  (Dumpe) (Rowe) Re (Jonsson) A loaded question....... (fwd)
Date:     Fri, 26 Mar 1999 085614 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 09:03:35 -0500
From: Bdumpe@worldbank.org
To: "Roy L. Beavers" , markrowe@northrock.bm
Cc: pdepippo@aol.com
Subject: Re: (Rowe) Re: (Jonsson) A loaded question....... (fwd)




Mark: Sorry you feel this way. EMF is philosophical?!? Really! Is that the how
you feel about the antennas you are opposing? They why ask for help?!!

Tell someone who developed cancer that their terminal condition is
psycho/philosophical. Example: A family in New Jersey lived by high voltage
transmission lines. Her son developed leukemia. After chemotheraphy, the 8-year
old childs cancer went into remission. The industry proposed a new line in the
vicinity of this family. The mother, Barbara who I helped, objected. Industry
relented. But the harm was done. Within short order the child died. Tell his mom
and dad that their fear, which came to pass, was philosophical. If activists
water down an issue, why should local governments break their back to help them?

Bert





"Roy L. Beavers"  on 03/25/99 07:32:27 PM


To:   Emfguru 
cc:

Subject:  (Rowe) Re: (Jonsson) A loaded question....... (fwd)





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:35:50 -0400
From: Mark 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: (Jonsson) A loaded question.......

A microwave oven is OFF for 99% of the day.
No-one makes you buy one... no-one makes you use
one. People who use micro-wave ovens choke on the
idea of having a cellular tower near their home because
it is being forced on them.
This EMF thing is a philosophical issue. People
have a right to avoid something which is perceived
as a risk - just as people have a right to drink bottled
water. This has been recognised in countries where
standards which are millionths of watts/sq.cm have been
established. These standards are based on human rights
not science. When science proves that it is not a human
rights issue ie when science shows that suggestive
evidence of a variety of long-term health effects
are ALL wrong then we we all live happily with EMF.




-----Original Message-----
From: Roy L. Beavers 
To: emfguru 
Date: 25 March, 1999 15:34
Subject: (Jonsson) A loaded question.......


>Hi everybody:
>
>This one is REAL interesting....
>
>......It's a loaded question, Suzanne!!  Science does not know that
>the EMF bioeffects -- which are known -- are more closely related to
>(1) "signal strength" (the measures asked below) or (2) the signal
>frequencies or (3) the **duration** of the exposure.....
>
>Item (3) could be the most important association.....  In fact, what
>few studies have been done (Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, etc.) have
>actually looked at "duration."  They have compared leukemia, etc.,
>incidence within a population of people **living** in the vicinity
>of antennas over a number of years!!!......  Those studies (well
>summarized in the Goldsmith paper) have found higher incidence in
>the homes of those closer to the antennas....
>
>Proximity and duration may have little to do with the " signal strength"
>which that person (below -- with his loaded question) wants you to
>measure.....  If proximity and duration of exposure are the more
>important, the measurements below will tell you little about the actual
>risk......
>
>The question about the microwave oven, for example, is a real "red
>herring."  You will get your highest readings there.  (In our house
>we get readings that are 20 times or so higher than anywhere else.
>We DO make it a rule to stay at least 4 feet from the oven when
>operating.  (At that distance, we get less than 1 mG.)
>
>Don't let "these industry guys" **snow** you, Suzanne!!!!!  They love to
>act "all wise" and you poor little old citizens are just supposed to be
>humble and thankful that you get your electricity or TV or mobile phone,
>etc.....
>
>All of which IS nice and desirable!!  I am not opposed to any one of
>them....  Just as I am NOT opposed to martinis......But, I know that
>my exposure to martinis HAS to be limited by something that is within
>reason considering the risk......  That is how it MUST be with EMF/EMR
>for all of us in this "blue world" of today!!.....
>
>That guy who is asking those loaded questions sounds to me like one
>of these "don't sweat it" industry types who will do everything he can
>to divert attention from "the problem" in order to prevent us (society)
>from finding out what Mother Nature's "blue world" risks really are......
>
>Cheerio.....
>
>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...............
>
>.......DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST?????...........
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:48:32 +0000
>From: azul@flash.net
>To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
>Subject: Help! Town Meeting Mar. 29, Need all our ducks in a row!
>
>I received the following email from a member of our coalition. Thanks to
>all of you who have already responded. If you have already answered some
>of this, I will (hopefully) find it.
>___________________________________________________________________________
_
>
>Town Meeting started last night, and someone distributed information to
>members saying we should provide answers to this question:
>
>        provide exposure level maps inside and outside based on
>measurements, and compare cell phone antenna exposures with, other
>RF frequency sources including: cordless phones, TV
>transmitters/UHF, FM radio transmitters, taxi dispatchers, police
>radio, ham radio transmitters, local area networks, and microwave
>ovens.
>
>The argument is posed that exposures around cell phone antennas are a
>fraction of a millionth of a Watt/sq., as compared with these which are
>potentially more by hundreds to thousands, because of the direction and
>shape of the cellular antenna signal.
>
>Can anyone supply materials or sources which come anywhere close to
>doing such a comparison with these RF sources?
>
>
>Thanks so much!
>
>Suzanne Jonsson
>The Lexington Coalition on Cellular Communications Impact
>









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