Subject: (Karow) (DePippo) EMF insurance (fwd)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 104836 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:07:50 -0800
From: Hans Karow
To: "'Roy L. Beavers'"
Subject: RE: (DePippo) EMF insurance (fwd)
Dear all,
1 When Peter DePippo informed us (1997) about Swiss Re Insurance's
article/booklet " Electrosmog a phantom risk" I right away ordered and
received in German and English.
If someone could check and contact them via: http://www.swissre.com and
find out about the question regarding insurance!
2 Please note: Our Coalition To Reduce Electropollution (CORE) approached
the Editor of the Canadian health magazine 'alive"(circulation: 270 000),
and informed them about electropollution and send some important
information. The editor started to investigate with a Gaussmeter in her
room and was quite shocked about the high readings and wrote an good
articlein the alive issue # 197 (March), page 58.
The Editor provided two phone numbers and my e-mail address, and we get
many requests for info. Of course, we first direct them to GURU's
subscription site and to Richard Woodley's bridlewood website first.
This should be done in any country, health magazines -I think- would always
be willing to write electropollution and provide referral to citizen
groups!
All the best, Hans.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy L. Beavers [SMTP:rbeavers@llion.org]
Sent: March 14, 1999 10:48 PM
To: emfguru
Subject: (DePippo) EMF insurance (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 22:41:04 EST
From: PDepippo@aol.com
To: w-m-a@reach.net
Subject: Re: Re ( DePippo) EMF insurance
Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:25:12 -6000
Resent-From: "Wolfgang W. Scherer "
Resent-To: rbeavers@llion.org
Wolfgang,
To be very specific, Swissre is claiming that as of the time of their
publication ('97) that there was no conclusive proof of a hazard and in
fact
based their recommendation to the insurance industry on the public
perception
of their being a hazard. They, very clearly, give credence to the public's
fear, so much so that legal battles could be / would be swayed in favor
this
public outcry.
For me personally, after reading the document, it was clear that Swissre
sees
the handwriting on wall and are covering their ass.
Thanks for asking the questions to the group. I'm very interested to hear
what other professionals have to say.
Peter
In a message dated 3/13/99 8:04:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
w-m-a@reach.net
writes:
<<
Hi Roy
since we have lawyers on our list
I would like to ask them the following
In Peter's response he points to the exclusion of EMF effects in
insurances also that then such coverage can be bought at higher cost.
Since insurance is a regulated business the exclusion of risks needs
in my understanding a legal reasoning
- the insurance industry provides the answer
offering coverage at higher cost
therefore ESTABLISHING "legally"
EMF effects as a higher risk than other factors -
sanctioned by the regulating agency - government.
Now even a government cannot have it both ways
by allowing for such "special" insurance the government itselfs
recognizes a special "higher" risk - and can therefore no longer
uphold the "low or no risk" approach on behalf of the industry -
To me this is the only "logical" conclusion
but we are on Earth - not on Volcan territory.
Can someone sort out the legal implications ????
Anyway we will see what "word twisting" occurs now.
Greetings
Wolfgang
>>
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