Subject:  Re Roger Coghill case, EMF news from UK (fwd)
Date:     Fri, 13 Nov 1998 074415 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------



---------- 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