Subject: Britain takes the lead....(guru) (fwd)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 095122 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
.......The following editorial will soon be posted on the homepage
of my website.....
Cheerio.....
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.................
Missed opportunity...
$$$$$ We could have changed the corrupted system!! $$$$$
McCain !!
Britain takes the lead.....
by Roy Beavers
The final report of Sir William Stewart's IEGMP scientific group has been
published and its conclusions offer a worthy basis for saying that:
Britain has now taken the lead in understanding the nature, scope and
implications of the possible health threat posed by the exploding presence
of RF/MW electromagnetic radiation in the human surroundings.
They have also taken a **long** lead in being honest and frank about the
EMF problem with their citizens -- informing the public about the facts --
without allowing any interference or "spin doctor" interpretations by the
vested interests. By most any criterion, this report is the most
objective that has been offered to any public, so far, by any government,
In its "gist" it is one of those "but" reports. We find "such and such"
... **BUT** ... we also find and recommend the following. In other words,
the important judgments come after the "but."
I choose to quote directly from the report as much as I can in what
follows. I will place the direct quotations from the report in italics.
My comments will be in plain text.
** Main Conclusions on the Possible Effects of Mobile Phone Technology on
Human Health **
** 1.16 Despite public concern about the safety of mobile phones and base
stations, rather little research specifically relevant to these
emissions has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature. This presumably reflects the fact that it is only recently
that mobile phones have been widely used by the public (paragraphs
2.12.12) and as yet there has been little opportunity for any health
effects to become manifest. **
The above is an important preface to any consideration of what the
public has heretofore been told ... by our governments and, particularly,
is NOW being told by the vested interests.
History in these cases of mass public exposure to toxic substances should
have taught us that the "learning curve" is usually a long, tedious,
"crooked" one, which only slowly reveals the deadly consequences. It does
not proceed in a straight line to Mother Nature's verdict.
In the early stages of that learning curve, it is not "proven" science
that appears, but anecdotes, conflicting laboratory and epidemiological
studies; "suggestions," if you will, that there may be a serious health
problem unfolding. Good public policy REQUIRES that the public must be
sufficiently **informed** to be able to appreciate the POTENTIAL for
harm ... in time to begin to "lobby" or campaign to seek proper
precautionary public policy measures. **That public awareness is an
essential precondition to the achievement of correct public policy in our
westerm democracies.**
Up to this point, the vested interests have dominated the flow of
information about EMF hazards to such an extent that the public is
NOT sufficiently informed to understand the menace that threatens....
Moreover, the public (through its agency of action, government) must not
be CONFINED in its options ... to those which rest on a level of "proof"
that is NOT likely to be reached until much later in the learning curve.
In other words, sound public policy REQUIRES that the public have the
right -- and the options -- to act JUDICIOUSLY "in anticipation" rather
than to await "conclusive" proof......
** 1.17 The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF
radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health
effects to the general population (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.336.42). **
The above ... is the **"before the but"** judgment. It is true ... BUT
... it is not the whole story. In fact, as one continues all the way down
to a consideration of the recommendations contained in the IEGMP report,
it can certainly be argued that it is **NOT** the important judgment at
all!!
It is the "let's clear the decks, first" judgment; the, "We have to say
this ... let us get it in ... so that we can get on to the important
matters" judgment. And, immediately the report gets into the important
matters.
The statements that follow are, in my opinion, the "gist" of what is
important in the report. They are the **UNIQUE** contribution that has
been made by Sir William Stewart and his IEGMP group. They are likely to
be the judgments that history will count as having been most
important.....
** 1.18 There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that
there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these
guidelines (paragraphs 5.1765.194, 6.38). This does not necessarily
mean that these effects lead to disease or injury, but it is
potentially important information and we consider the implications
below.
1.19 There are additional factors that need to be taken into account
in assessing any possible health effects. Populations as a whole are
not genetically homogeneous and people can vary in their
susceptibility to environmental hazards. There are well-established
examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some
groups, which could influence sensitivity to disease. There could also
be a dependence on age. **
I have separated the following conclusion as (in my opinion) the seminal
judgment of the entire report. (It is still part of para 1.19.)
** We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that
exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is
totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in
knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach (Chapter
5, paragraphs 6.356.42). **
That's it!!! That's the judgment the whole world has been waiting for!!
In making that judgment, Britain takes the lead in the EMF saga.....
Then come the recommendations which (it seems to me) naturally follow
from an awareness that "we may have a problem here." In other words:
Let us take some judicious precautions, the group suggests, while we march
up that learning curve to a full -- or at least, a "better" --
understanding of what is happening when 'very low energy level' EMF/EMR
interacts with human cells, tissue and organs.
** 1.20 In the light of the above considerations we recommend that a
precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be
adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information
on any health effects becomes available (Chapter 5, paragraphs
6.356.42).
1.21 We note that a precautionary approach, in itself, is not without
cost (paragraph 6.16) but we consider it to be an essential approach
at this early stage in our understanding of mobile phone technology
and its potential to impact on biological systems and on human
health.**
The recommendations which follow consume a major portion of the report
and encompass five categories:
** 1.24 We recommend that national and local government, industry and
the consumer should all become actively involved in addressing concerns
about possible health effects of mobile phones (paragraph 6.40).
1.25 Our recommendations focus on five areas:
* advice to Government,
* advice to industry,
* research requirements,
* the need for better public information and consumer choice,
* the role of NRPB. **
In all five categories, the group suggests **SPECIFIC CHANGES** to the
way this problem is/has been treated in the U.K. in the past.... It is
noteworthy, I suggest, that **the group includes the public (and local
government) as a part of the solution.....**
To virtually ALL of the recommendations that follow in the report, this
writer can only say "Bravo!!" It is likely that any "counter-attack" by
industry or other vested interests will concentrate on those specific
recommendations.
But, many of them are quite important and should not be sloughed-off
as "compromises" with industry in order to get industry "on board."
This kind of a public health problem is one that belongs ENTIRELY in
the public domain. Neither the government nor the citizenry should
feel any compunction about refusing to compromise where so much is
at stake. **This is NOT a time or a situation for "making deals."**
I will offer only one example here, in order to convey the degree of
detail which the group considered: Beginning at para 1.30 and
continuing through para 143, the recommendations become very specific
with regard to how the siting of the telecom masts (towers in U.S.)
should hereafter be managed in the U.K. For example, the report
states: "Adverse impacts on the local environment may adversely impact
on the public well being as much as any direct health effects." It
goes on to suggest some specific changes in Britain to give the local
authorities more control over the critical decisions affecting their
community. (Take note FCC!!!)
I do not hesitate to say that such attention to detail as is set forth
in those paragraphs would virtually solve the many combative situations
that we are experiencing in the U.S. with regard to tower siting issues!
I commend to your attention (my readers) those portions of the report ...
as well as the details set forth in recommended changes to industry
procedures, and the new guidance recommendations concerning the NRPB --
(which implicitly identify the inadequacy of the "conclusive proof"
criterion in public health situations).
I urge that all governmental officials (anywhere!) who have responsibility
in these matters, particularly our politicians and legislators ... whose
primary justification in life is the preservation of the PUBLIC well
being, study this report with an eye to advancing the **open-mindedness**
of ALL governments to the potential hazardous consequences of the EMF/EMR
("Blue World?) that is beginning to envelope our civilization....
Finally, I cannot help but highlight (a cause I have personally
championed for some time now) ... the IEGMP group's insistence that future
research be managed "under the aegis of a **demonstrably INDEPENDENT
panel."** Amen!!
Sir William Stewart and his band of courageous INDEPENDENT (the first
ever!!) scientists deserve more than just the respect and applause of
their nation..... They deserve the heartfelt thanks of the people of
the WORLD.... Their report is a genuine breakthrough.....!!!!
Well done......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
Lebanon, Missouri
May 11, 2000
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com