Subject: Mobile Phone modifications by industry......
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 081041 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 09:53:18 -0500
From: Gary Brown
To: "Roy L. Beavers" ,
"Bdumpe@worldbank.org"
Subject: Re: Roger Coghill case, EMF news from UK (fwd)
I am very interested in the fact that the cell phone providers are adjusting their
equipment to emit safer levels. You said that they are quietly filing
patents of designs which reduce radiation substantially. Who are the companies,
and
do you have any articles/documents that I could use to site this information
from. I am writing a position paper about the dangers of cell phones and why my
school district should not go wireless. Our school district uses a Tadiran phone
system which use a
T1 and digital phone lines for voice communications. The problem is that the
district expanding by 6000 new children a year. To house these children the
district is using portable/mobile housing as classrooms. The district is seriously
considering wireless
communication which the Tadiran system can easily accomidate. Seems they have
a 1.9 GHZ phone (40 mw) plus a 12 watt base station that connects all the mobile
PCS phones. This scares the hell out of me considering there are over 210
locations and 230,000 kids. So you can see why I ask for as much documentation.
Gary- FACTS
Roy L. Beavers wrote:
Roy L. Beavers wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 05:25:59 EST
> From: Cogreslab@aol.com
> To: rbeavers@llion.org
> Subject: Re: Roger Coghill case, EMF news from UK (fwd)
>
> Dear All
>
> Mobile phone handset case.
>
> John's account of the trial was more or less accurate. I think he meant to say
> a disporportionately low percentage of NRPB research is into the non-ionising
> part of the spectrum (only 9 percent)!
>
> Whilst I have an enormous backlog of laboratory research and contracts on
> hand, the next move I am contemplating is a similar action against Dixons, a
> UK chain who have hundreds of retails outlets selling mobile phones, but never
> advise their customers about the possible health risks. Another similar but
> more specialised retailer, Carphone Warehouses, does at least issue with their
> phones a leaflet addressing the issue.
>
> What is happening in this part of the corrupt and corrosive corridors of
> scientific power is that all cellphone manufacturers are quietly filing
> patents of designs which reduce radiation substantially. When these are in
> place the NRPB will drop the guidelines again to just above their acheived
> levels. The actual SARs inside the head are much larger than the NRPB
> calculated figures and the derived guidelines: see Cleveland and Athey, BEMS
> J. 10: 173-186 (1989) Specific Absorption rates (SAR) in models of the human
> head exposed to handheld UHF portable phones. The calculastions show SARs of
> 3W/kg, against guidelines lower than that. The same thing happened with VDU
> screens a few years back: no acknowledgement of their hazards was admitted
> until the industry had solved the technical problems.
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