Subject: (Dumpe) Re (Jonsson) A loaded question....... (fwd)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 155854 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:41:50 -0500
From: Bdumpe@worldbank.org
To: azul@flash.net, "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: pdepippo@aol.com
Subject: Re: (Jonsson) A loaded question.......
Suzanne: I am surprised the industry, or whoever, is saying that ==exposures
around cell towers are a fraction of a millionth of a watt. Unsual. They must
have given up on ==antenna emissions are lower than that of a light bulb?
Who is the someone who distributed literature at a meeting? And why are you
cluttering your mind with such trivia? As Roy says below, that is what the
industry wants you to do, clutter your mind and time with ridiculous time
consuming nonsense.
I have not followed your case. I can tell you for a fact that your
commissioners in Roanoke are very worried about the telecom companies. I
met one (give you his name tomorrow) at the National League of Cities
meeting here in Washington, DC.
I took notes, and at the question and answer (Q&A) period I took
the microphone and told AT&T why they were wrong in their statements
about needing microwave towers for a wireless service for which there was
NO DEMAND.
They and other carriers created the demand by giving away phones for
$0.00 or $.01. FCC interjected, and I interrupted saying that FCC is not a
health and safety agency, and therefore would have not concern about
health and safety.
Furthermore, Michelle Furuquart (head of FCC Wireless Burea), who was
chairing the meeting could not mean that industry was putting up 100,000
antennas. I ask, do you mean towers? If so, each tower will have say 72
antennas. Multiply 72 x 100,000 towers nationwide. What do you get? All
that radiation from those antennas is what the public must contend with.
Michelle was speechless. (She somehow lost her job the following week.)
Many frightened commissioners from many cities nationwide were in
attendance at this annual League of Cities conference.
After the Q&A several commissioners came up to me. One was from Roanoke.
They requested further information which I sent. Point is that the
commissioners want to help citizens. But citizens get emotional and often
silly. The commissioners need as much help as you to deal with this siting
issue. You do not let industry dictate to you. Rather you make them run
after you.
Let no one GIVE YOU HOMEWORK. YOU make them fetch answers. I know
first-hand your commissioners want to help. They do not want the towers
anymore than you do. If your LCCCI does not understand the tower issue,
someone had better start learning or industry will walk all over you. The
commissioners will let them, because they do not know better
Regards, Bert
"Roy L. Beavers" on 03/25/99 01:37:45 PM
To: Emfguru
cc:
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