Subject:  Clean Air Act (Milnes).
Date:     Fri, 10 Nov 2000 075620 -0600
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

.......From EMF-L.......

I expect to be saying more in the future about the EPA/Supreme court 
case cited below.  I agree that they are likely to be important.....

As to the notion that EMF/EMR might be classed as a pollutant like the
exhaust gases from power plants -- that is a stretch.  UNTIL -- AND IF,
the American public REALLY UNDERSTANDS about EMF....  WHAT it is??? And,
WHAT RISKS it may create.....

The public is still MUCH too uninformed (misinformed and misguided) 
about EMF!!!!!

Too many times, guru has had to explain to readers that EMF/EMR DOES NOT
equate with "smog"!!!!!  

That confusion exists -- I believe -- because the Europeans (mostly) 
insist on labeling the EMF presence in our environment as "electrosmog."
   
It definitely is NOT a "smog".....  Thus, guru has tried to promote the 
"Blue World" concept -- which more accurately suggests the true character 
of EMF: radiation......  ELECTROMAGNETIC radiation.......  We cannot SEE
it, FEEL it, or TASTE it -- but if it "glowed" as a blue radiation source,
we soon would realize that our WHOLE WORLD is becoming **bluer and bluer.**

Cheerio......guru

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness..

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Clean Air Act
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:16:29 +1300
From: "llm" 
To: "Roy Beavers" 
References: <04f6256372308b0ND-RESPONSE1@nd-response1.vertical.net>

Idle thought:
If there is a Clean Air Act in the USA, might EM/sonic/similar pollution and
interference with human functioning of whatever kind come under it?
Lyn Milnes

--------------
3) CAA to be argued before U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 7 will hear two separate Clean Air Act cases
with important ramifications for the conduct of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. They are Browner vs. American Trucking, 99-1257, and
American Trucking vs. Browner, 99-1426. Based on the arguments presented to
them, the court's justices in the summer of 2001 will decide whether the act
is
constitutional and, if it is, whether the agency must consider
cost-to-benefit
analyses before issuing regulations. The court's decisions following from
the
Election Day arguments boil down to the court's opinion of how much
law-making
authority the Congress can delegate to the executive branch of government.
At the same time, however, the court said that it could not require the EPA
to
use a cost-benefit analysis because the law and an earlier court ruling
foreclosed it.
http://www.solidwaste.com/read/nl20001107/361475


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com