Subject:  (Woodley) (Cvijovic) mobile phones / power (fwd)
Date:     Fri, 20 Nov 1998 055447 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------

Richard:

I am still VERY unsatisfied with the answers I'm getting (NONE!)
when I challenge the worth/utility of "prudent avoidance!"  In the
words of an old 'gunners mate' who once worked for me:  It ain't
worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell.......

I strongly believe that if we (or anybody else!) are serious about
dealing with the EMF health threat (MUSHROOMING into the future!!!!)
.... we MUST move beyond "prudent avoidance."

Cheerio.....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 20:06:02
From: "Richard W. Woodley" 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: (Cvijovic) mobile phones / power (fwd)

	
	I know where you are coming from Roy but if we do not have some sort of
interim measurement means how can we practice prudent avoidance. Milligauss
readings tend to reflect current levels in relation to distance from the
electrical source and could be seen to be in some ways a rough
approximation of the "amount of electricity" one is exposed to. Even tough
we do not know the exact mechanisms of health effects yet, this may still
be a usefull measurement. Why else would the epidemiology show increased
cancer and leukemia rates with higher exposure levels (in milligauss). 

	What we as a society need to do is accept that the risk is proven and get
on with the real research of determining the mechanisms and the means to
reduce the risk. In the meantime we need so means of measuring exposure if
we want to practice prudent avoidance.

At 12:41  19/11/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>..........IF ... (I say advisedly) ... we can EVER clear our minds of
>the notion that (a) the magnetic field "dimension" and (b) the "strength"
>of that dimension are the crucial factors in assessing "what" is causing
>the biological "activity," then we may finally start studying those other
>"metrics" of the EMF phenomenon:  such as the frequency, the spikes or
>"transients," the other induced fields, etc.....
>
>When that happens, it may also be that our models will begin to envision
>the possible role of harmonics or "resonance" as the kind of 
>electron-interaction "mechanism" that may be involved.......Until that
>happens, the question/statement below seems to me to be perfectly
>valid......i.e., Don't get "hung up"  on strength measurements -- whether
>of milligauss or mW/cm2......
>
>We need to be satisfied (it seems to me) AT THIS POINT in our learning
>curve to be able to say:  _environmental levels of exposure_ 'can produce'
>the results we are detecting, both in the laboratory and in our
>epidemiological studies......guru......
>


********************* Richard W. Woodley *********************       
woodley@igs.net *********** http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ab190/       
--------------------------------------------------------------       
 Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service     
            http://www.ncf.ca/bridlewood-emfinfo/          



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