Subject:  (Repeat)  Standards??? (Cherry).. (fwd)
Date:     Thu, 2 Mar 2000 170731 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


.......I am inviting your attention (everybody!!) to the following
again.....  It is a terribly important point.....!!  And I know
that Dr. Cherry has a serious reason for asking......  Are there
ANY examples that dispute the inconsistency he is pointing out
here????

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                    NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:07:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" 
To: emfguru 
Subject: Standards??? (Cherry)..


.......Dr. Cherry is asking a 'hell-of-a-good' question here.....!!
He is pointing out a **glaring** inconsistency in how we approach
the standards issue......!!! 

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                    NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................

             DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:58:07 +1300
From: "Cherry, Neil J" 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Standards

Dear Roy,

I have been searching to identify any other toxic substance whose 
public health standard is not based on epidemiological evidence, like 
EMR is. The presumption that the only thing RF/MW can do is heat 
tissue, is the basis of western standards, WHO, IRPA, ICNIRP, ANSI, 
IEEE, ....

We know there is melatonin reduction, calcium ion efflux, altered ODC 
and cell proliferation, and neurological and cardiac sensitivity as 
plausible biological effects. There is a large body of epidemiology 
confirming significant and dose-response relationships for cancer, 
cardiac, neurological and reproductive adverse effects.

Is there any other substance whose standard is based on a biological 
mechanism when epidemiological evidence is available ?

Please ask the team to respond to me at  

Thanks for every thing,

Warm regards
Neil Cherry





Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com