Subject: RE Wireless (cell phone) safety.....(fwd)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 143611 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: marjorie lundquist
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: s_dickson@classic.msn.com
Subject: RE: Wireless (cell phone) safety.....(fwd)
Roy and Stephanie: No, I don't think the wireless telecommunications
companies are sitting on any "safe" technology that they have not yet
introduced. The health hazard is inherent in the technology. It
comes from the frequency used, and from having the antenna so close to
the head.
As the evidence of hazard grows--there are now two controlled
laboratory studies of rodents exposed over a lifetime to low-level
microwave radiation, and both have shown a statistically significant
excess of cancer in the exposed animals, compared to the controls; but
the U.S. Air Force, which sponsored both, is denying this
interpretation and is trying to suppress the key data from the second
study by simply not publishing it!--I expect that the wireless
telecommunications companies will begin trying to "cover their asses"
by developing some such technology. However, they have been saying
the present technology is safe! So there should be no reason to
believe them if they say, later on, that something else is safe!
There are companies today selling something to be placed on your
cellular phone, which they say will protect you. I have not had an
opportunity to evaluate any of these devices, so cannot say whether
these claims are true or false. At present, I am skeptical.
As for the scientist who told you that the more expensive cellular
phones are safer, I think he had no sound basis for making this
statement. Did you ask him WHY he thought/said this? (Always ask an
"expert" why he makes the pronouncements he does; then try to find out
whether the explanation makes sense!)
He may have reasoned that the more expensive equipment contains more
filters, more sophisticated circuitry, etc. This would probably be
true--I would use this logic to guess that a more expensive EMF
measuring instrument was probably of higher quality, hence capable of
doing a better job, than a less expensive instrument, for example.
But higher quality would be unlikely to make a cellular telephone
safer, because the hazard is inherent in the technology!
-- Marjorie
*********************************
Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H.
Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist
P. O. Box 11831
Milwaukee, WI 53211-0831
*********************************
=======================================
---"Roy L. Beavers" wrote:
>
> .......A "scientist" said this????!!!!!
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 29 May 98 11:30:03 UT
> From: STEPHANIE DICKSON
> To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> Subject: RE: Wireless (cell phone) safety.....(fwd)
>
> Roy,
> I have been advised by a scientist that the more expensive and
sophisticated
> the cell phone, the safer it is. I asked the scientist if this was
because
> the more expensive the phone, the more likely it had some sort of
shielding.
> He told me that if it had shielding then it probably would not work
> satisfactorily but never really answered the question. Is it
possible that
> telecommunications companies have some new technology for the future
and are
> building some sort of safety mechanism into expensive cell phones
without
> telling their public. Is this the reason they are giving away
cheaper, less
> safe models, to an unsuspecting public? Can anyone answer this
question?
> Best wishes,
> Stephanie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy L. Beavers
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 7:45 PM
> To: emfguru@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: Wireless (cell phone) safety.....(fwd)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 01:14:41 +0200
> From: Christoph Reuss
> To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> Subject: Re: Wireless (cell phone) safety.....(fwd)
>
> > .......Swedish survey links cell phone use to ills........
> [snip]
> > One explanation offered is that heavy users of mobile phones tend
to be
> > hard-driving business people and the symptoms they report could be
because
> > of their stressful lifestyles.
>
> As an employer [without a cell phone :-)] I have seen many people
who do
> _not_ really have a stressful life, but still use their cell phone
all the
> time because they think it's "in", "cool" etc.-simply as a status
symbol so
> they (and others) can think they are VIPs ;-) (or some just suffer
from
> telephonitis, i.e. phone-addiction wherever they are). This bunch
of heavy
> users would be a great "control group" versus those really stressed
managers
> ....
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> .....Yes!!! Like Elizabeth Taylor, recently the victim of a brain
tumor.....
> or Dawn Steel, Hollywood producer of Top Gun, Fatal Attraction and
other well
> known shows. She died at 51 of a brain tumor.... The cell phones
are
> extremely popular-status symbols-in the Hollywood set....
guru....
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
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