Subject:  Forwarded articleHIGH COST OF CONVENIENCE? (Curry).
Date:     Mon, 06 Nov 2000 193020 -0600
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

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

O.K......Here is an article with "a zombie" in it.....  Can you find
him???   Hint:  look in the paragraphs about the FCC......guru......

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Forwarded article:  HIGH COST OF CONVENIENCE?
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:49:20 -0800 (PST)
From: BPCurry@MCS.com
To: roy@emfguru.com

The following article was selected from the Internet Edition
of the Chicago Tribune. To visit the site, point your browser
to http://chicagotribune.com/. 
----------- Chicago Tribune Article Forwarding----------------


Article forwarded by: Bill P. Curry

Return e-mail: BPCurry@MCS.com

Article URL:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,2669,SAV-0011060004,FF.html

Comments:  
Roy, this story appeared in today's Chicago Tribune.  To my knowledge it 
is the first fairly critical article about cell phones that the Tribune 
has carried.  I am considering a follow-up letter to the editor.

---Forwarded article----------------
HIGH COST OF CONVENIENCE?

By Susan E. Kinsman

  Wireless phones are convenient, easy to use and increasingly
affordable, which explains why more than 103 million people in the
United States are carrying them around.

But are they safe?

    Despite years of research and a strict federal standard for all
wireless phones, a nagging uncertainty remains about whether pressing
the tiny phones against the head poses a long-term health hazard.

The reason is that the radio waves that make wireless communications
possible also produce electromagnetic energy fields and heat that can
change or damage tissue under certain circumstances.

Although the research has not proved that wireless phone use causes
health problems such as cancer, brain tumors or DNA damage,
researchers and the industry agree that more long-term studies are
needed.

"Currently the scientific literature relating to the health effects of
low level exposure to [radio frequency energy] does not
demonstrate the existence of any health risk from wireless phones,"
said a research agreement signed in June between the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and the Cellular Telephone Industry Association.

"Little is known, however, about the possible health effects of
repeated or long-term exposure to low level [radio frequency
energy] of the sort emitted" by wireless phones, the agreement
said.

A finding that wireless phones are harmful, however, could have
far-reaching impact.

The potential health threat from both analog and digital phones stems
from the very heart of wireless technology: radio waves. When you use
a wireless phone, low-energy radio waves carry your voice to a local
antenna site that, in turn, relays the conversation by radio wave to
the recipient. The same antenna relays the response back to your
wireless phone. A computerized system monitors each call and ensures
that the phone always receives the strongest available signal.

The radio waves produce electromagnetic energy, called radio frequency
or RF energy, or radiation. Unlike X-rays, radio frequency radiation
is non-ionizing, which means it does not alter the chemical structure
of matter when it is absorbed. Instead, the energy is usually absorbed
as heat.

It has been known for many years that exposure to high levels of RF
radiation can be harmful because it can heat biological tissues
rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food.

According to an August 1999 Federal Communications Commission bulletin
about the biological effects and potential hazards of radio frequency
electromagnetic fields, tissue damage in humans may occur during high
exposure because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate
excessive heat.

Wireless telephone handsets produce low-level RF energy. Nevertheless,
in August 1996, the FCC adopted a lower standard to minimize the
thermal exposure of wireless phone users, measured by the "specific
absorption rate," or SAR, in watts per kilogram.

Any wireless phone for use by the public must not exceed an SAR of 1.6
watts per kilogram. The partial-body standard is measured over 1 gram
of tissue. A partial-body limit is used because the ear and head are
most exposed to the energy fields when a phone is pressed against the
head.   [.....1.7 watts per kilogram ... and ZAP!!!.....  How precise
we can be when we don't really know what we are talking about.  AND,
when we are talkng about the WRONG threat........guru......] 

The standard is intended to protect all wireless users from being
exposed to unhealthy thermal effects, regardless of the length of
their call, when they use the phone the way it was intended.

"The standard we're using should be protective of everybody," said
Robert F. Cleveland Jr., senior scientist for the FCC's Office of
Engineering and Technology. "It's a continuous exposure limit."

Every phone approved by the FCC since August 1996 has had to meet
those exposure limits. And since Sept. 1, any phone marketed in the
country must also meet the limit, even if it was manufactured before
1996.

The FCC's standard, which is stricter than the limit used in most of
Europe, was based on the recommendations and exposure guidelines of
the private Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.  [.....Both
are organizations that have a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST......guru....]

It has since been adopted by the federal Environmental Protection
Agency and the FDA.

The exposure guidelines of the professional membership organizations
were based on the latest research, and they are continually being
re-evaluated in light of new findings, Cleveland said. The new FCC
standard replaces one that went into effect in 1985 and that was five
times more lenient.

But scientists disagree whether even the new standard is adequate.
Some research studies have suggested that there might be DNA damage or
other health effects--such as changes in cell proliferation, brain
waves and the body's immune response--from radiation exposure below
the level that the standard says is safe.

Researchers in Britain also raise the possibility that children might
be at greater risk from RF radiation because of their developing
brains.

"Those results haven't been confirmed," Cleveland said. "But follow-up
studies are trying to replicate those effects."

The wireless industry, which spent more than $28 million on a
five-year round of studies conducted by third-party researchers,
signed another agreement in June with the FDA to follow up on the
earlier findings.

The research, which will be conducted over the next three to five
years, will include both laboratory and field studies of wireless
telephone users. It will be paid for by the industry but conducted
under government oversight.

In addition, 16 countries, the European Union, the World Health
Organization and phone manufacturers such as Schaumburg-based Motorola
Inc. are reviewing existing research or doing new studies.

The goal is to answer lingering questions about the hazards of RF
energy from wireless phones. Meanwhile, the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association, a trade group, is requiring
that any phone it certifies provide information about SAR levels on
its packaging by early next year.

The manufacturer must say on the box that the phone meets the FCC's
guidelines and provide the identification number that consumers need
to find more information on the FCC Web site about the phone's
specific SAR.

Inside the box, the manufacturer must include information about SAR
and the phone's specific rating.

Factors that influence the SAR include whether the signal is analog or
digital, the frequency on which the call is transmitted and the
phone's design.

The FCC-required tests are done at maximum power, even though in
actual use, phones typically operate at power levels between 25
percent and 50 percent. The wireless phone industry says that
differences in SAR values between phones do not mean that the phone
with the lower SAR value is necessarily safer.

Cleveland, at the FCC, agrees. "If the SAR is below 1.6 [watts
per kilogram], it's going to be safe," he said.

But some consumers may be more comfortable with the lowest possible
rating. "Everybody has their threshold for perceived risk; it's just a
matter of personal philosophy," he said.

For consumers who want to minimize any possible exposure to RF energy
until more research is completed, the FDA suggests limiting
conversations on hand-held wireless phones and making greater use of
telephones with vehicle-mounted antennas, in which there is a greater
separation between the user and the radiating antenna.

Other suggestions include using headsets rather than holding the
wireless phone next to your head and limiting the number or duration
of the calls you make.

Radiation-dampening covers might not be effective. In a recently
revised fact sheet, the World Health Organization said the "scientific
evidence does not indicate any need for radio frequency-absorbing
covers or other absorbing devices on mobile phones. They cannot be
justified on health grounds and the effectiveness of many such devices
in reducing RF exposure is unproven."

----------

More information is available online from the Federal Communications
Commission, www.fcc.gov /oet/rfsafety; the Food and Drug
Administration, www.fda.gov /cdrh/newpg.html; and the World Health
Organization International EMF Project, www.who.int

/peh-emf/.


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