Subject:  Carlo Letter to Maryland General Assembly (Carlo).
Date:     Thu, 01 Mar 2001 123642 -0600
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

.........From EMF-L........

Here is a suitable answer to the reassuring statements that
appeared in the preceding _London Times_ story by Nigel Powell
(statements made by U.K. government scientists) that relied
on the following studies to tell the British public:  
"don't worry." 

As I said -- that is the same kind of reassuring "government
B.S." that we got in the lead, mad cow, tobacco, etc., cases
before......

One of the REALLY SAD realities of our time is the extent to
which government (AND GOVERNMENT "SCIENCE") have become the
lackeys of industry........  Or of the government!!!

Cheerio........

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
WEBSITE:  http://emfguru.com

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil ...
is for good men to do nothing.......Edmund Burke

********************************************

25 February 2001


The Honorable Peter Franchot
Maryland General Assembly
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Delegate Franchot:

 As follow-up to testimony presented at the hearing last Thursday,  the
committee may find it helpful to consider a few additional points that
must be weighed as they consider your bill.

 The labeling measure that you have proposed is an appropriate public
health intervention, given the current state of science regarding the
health risks of wireless technology.  In fact, it tracks consistently
with steps now being taken in England and France regarding notice and
warnings to consumers who use wireless phones, especially children.  In
the United States, at least one large company that distributes cellular
phones, MetroCall based in Alexandria, Virginia, has a notice placed in
each of their more than 100 stores with the same type of informational
labeling that you have proposed.  Currently, the Cellular
Telecommunication and Internet Association (CTIA) has a ten million
dollar program to run radio ads across the country alerting consumers to
the dangers of talking on cellular phones while driving and advising
them on steps they can take to mitigate those risks, including the use
of hands free devices such as headsets.  The CTIA is, in effect, already
doing for driving risks what you are proposing for health risks.

 Recent reports in the news media that three statistical studies found
no link between cell phones and cancer were widely hailed as reassuring
news by the wireless industry.  But those studies contained crucial
flaws that received little media scrutiny. That's why they actually pose
a new danger –– a danger of false assurances that could lull people into
thinking they don't need to take basic precautions to protect themselves
when using cell phones.  Your bill corrects that problem.

 The vast majority of tumors in the three statistical studies that the
cell phone industry now relies on as an assurance of safety were located
in interior regions of the skull that could not have been reached by
cell phone radiation (which penetrates only two inches inside adult
skulls). Thus the conclusion that there was no link between those tumors
and cell phone usage was not surprising, and certainly not reassuring.
One U.S. study of 782 brain cancer patients, published in the New
England Journal of Medicine, candidly noted this limitation and added
that "a much larger sample would be required" to properly detect risks
from cell phone radiation.  The other U.S. study of 469 brain cancer
patients, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(and funded by the program I headed for seven years), did include 35
neuroepithelial tumors –– rare tumors located mainly at the sides of
skulls, closest to an antenna. Significantly, though the numbers were
small, that category produced the study's only positive finding –– a
doubling in the risk that cell phone users might develop neuroepithelial
tumors. It also showed a correlation between the tumor location and the
side of the head where patients used cell phones –– just as a Swedish
study reported a year ago.  Patients in the epidemiological studies only
used their cell phones a few hours a month (2.5 hours monthly in one
study). But today, millions use cell phones for 1,000 hours a month,
often far more. Also, most people in the U.S. studies owned their phones
for less than three years.  That's why the epidemiological studies don't
address the key question: Will people who begin using cell phones
occasionally as children or teens –– and used them frequently in their
20s and 30s –– be high risks for developing brain cancer in their 40s or
50s?  So far, no studies can answer that. (As the New England Journal of
Medicine report responsibly noted, in a passage the industry and the
media have generally overlooked: "The most important limitation of our
study is its limited precision for assessing the risks after a potential
induction period of more than several years or among people with very
high levels of daily or cumulative use.")  It will be 15 or 20 years
before long-term epidemiology studies can give us a reliable assurance
that there is no cancer risk from using cell phones. Until then, we must
rely upon laboratory experiments to give us the answers we need to help
consumers make safe choices.

 Repeated laboratory findings –– the only verified science experiments
to date –– have shown that when human blood was exposed to cell phone
radiation, it caused genetic damage. Cancer experts call this damage a
diagnostic marker for determining that a person is at high risk of
developing cancer. Nothing in the three recent epidemiology studies
(which are statistical analyses, not experiments) refutes or even
addresses those laboratory findings.  Experiments by highly respected
scientists at a North Carolina lab repeatedly found that when human
blood was exposed to cell phone radiation, the blood cells developed
micronuclei.  What does micronuclei mean for humans? Simply put: The
presence of micronuclei means cells have not properly repaired their
broken DNA, as healthy cells do every day, and no longer function
properly. Tumors contain large numbers of cells with micronuclei. Cancer
experts have written in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
about how they use tests for micronuclei to diagnose cancer risk. After
the tragic 1986 nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl, European
scientists rushed to test the blood of children there. Children with
large numbers of cells with micronuclei were considered at high risk for
developing cancer. They were aggressively treated and monitored. The
micronuclei diagnosis no doubt saved many lives.  Independently, another
industry-funded researcher in St. Louis also produced findings of
micronuclei in mouse tissue that his lab exposed to cell phone
radiation.  I am aware also of similar findings from a government
laboratory in France.


 There is one overriding reason as to why it is important for not only
Maryland, but  all states, to take precautionary steps concerning cell
phones and public health –  and it is a point that was made not only in
the committee's hearing chamber but in a federal court room in
Louisiana. As I mentioned in my oral testimony, a federal judge has
ruled in the Eastern District of Louisiana that the federal government
agency (the Food and Drug Administration) that is empowered to oversee
cell phone health and safety issues has not set any guidelines to
protect citizens concerning cell phones and public health risks. The
federal judge ruled that because of that there should be no federal
preemption, and states are free to pursue their own necessary remedies,
as you are in the state of Maryland.

 The measure you have proposed is an appropriate pro-active step that
will help protect the people of Maryland.  I am honored to support it.

Sincerely yours,


George L. Carlo, Ph.D., M.S., J.D.


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