Subject: Re Independent engineer ... hanging by a thread! (Groves).
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 083740 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
........From EMF-L.......
Tessa:
When it comes to "changing the standards" of professional institutions,
I am reminded of a famous quotation by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (while
he was President though he had previously been Secretary of the Navy):
(paraphrased)
There are two forces in this government which, like the Catholic Church,
cannot be updated in their thinking -- the State Department and the
United States Navy......"
To which guru would add: the IEEE and the ICNIRP......
Cheerio.......(Thanks for your response.)......guru......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Independent engineer ... hanging by a thread!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:50:17 -0000
From: "Tessa Groves"
To:
References: <3A1076C2.6A8DD5D8@emfguru.com>
Dear Roy
I understand your concerns about this - it takes your eye off the ball when
there is a bigger issue under discussion, which is whether the current
limits for safety are appropriate.
This isn't really about theology - standards aren't bibles - they CAN be
changed. Standards are absolutely essential to engineering work, whether it
is commercial, military, or public service. But they are like earthworks
built by an army on the move - when used in action they have to be robust,
and when the battle is over, they become the wrong document with the wrong
words. That is why it is so important to take notice of Louis Slesin's
comments regarding the makeup of standards committees.
Back to independent engineers - to extend your analogy, this truly is a holy
grail. The best thing I can suggest is that you only use engineers who set
out to be "independent", such as (here goes) third party independent test
laboratories, "accredited" for the work by the relevant government
accreditation body. Even then it is a matter of the balance of power. Don't
we all know that it's much easier to be independent when you know where your
next meal's coming from?
Tessa Groves
Communications Engineer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Beavers"
To:
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: Independent engineer for cities/counties (Mann)(Carney).....
>
> .......Response from EMF-L.......
>
> But -- Deb... the real dishonesty is: **"within RF limits."** Those
> so-called "RF limits" are the limits defined by the electrical/electronics
professional
> engineers (the IEEE and the ICNIRP).... Of which Weller is a
> "card carrying" theological prime example.....
>
> Your engineers simply showed his tests to be dishonest WITHIN HIS OWN
> THEOLOGICAL STANDARDS!!!!
>
> Those standards do not recognize the full extent of the "nonionizing"
> hazards..... i.e., THOSE STANDARDS --themselves -- DO NOT PROTECT THE
PUBLIC....!!!...guru.....
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Independent engineer for cities/counties (Mann).
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 14:25:23 -0700
> From: Deb Carney
> Reply-To: deb@carneylaw.net
> Organization: Carney Law Office
> To: roy@emfguru.com
> References: <3A0ECFD3.2C6A1576@emfguru.com>
>
> You need an independent engineer because engineers hired by the
"proponents"
> sometimes do not provide accurate results. The engineering report given
to
> Jefferson County by Robert Weller of Hammett and Edison stated that
everywhere
> on Lookout Mountain was within RF limits when, in fact, a number of areas
were
> over the limits. Unless our engineers had checked, we would not have
known any
> better.
>
> BEWARE. Unless industry knows their measurements are being checked, there
is no
> independent verification. Read the CARE response to the Lake Cedar Group
> request for preemption for the details.
> Deb
> www.c-a-r-e.org
>
> Roy Beavers wrote:
>
> > Hi everybody:
> >
> > .........Sarah is continuing to build a list on this subject......
Fine!!
> > Sarah, please put that list ("file") into your software.... I am not
> > prepared to build such a list here ... or the on the website....
Perhaps
> > later ... if it appears to be more important (to the whole group)......
> >
> > Folks, please send your submissions for this list direct to Sarah Mann
> > ........
> >
> > I DO wish to reiterate my "doubts" about this..... I believe it MAY
> > legitimize a process that will be VERY EASY for the vested interests to
> > control!!! As it will also give a **false sense of public safety** when
> > the "theology" of the electrical/electronic profession (which denies any
> > real hazard from "nonionizing radiation" or non-thermal effect) becomes
> > the "referee" of local decisions.....
> >
> > If I were to pick whom I BELIEVE should be "the referees" of this
important
> > public safety decision -- I would pick the **cell biologists** ... NOT
the
> > engineers........Cheerio.......guru.......
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Independent engineer
> > Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:00:02 -0500 (EST)
> > From: ". ."
> > To: roy@emfguru.com
> >
> > THe purpose for an independent engineer would be to prove need by doing
> > signal strength testing like they did in Vernon, New Jersey.
> >
> > In addition, I found another ordinance from Gloucester MA that requests
> > indendent engineer before and after. Add it to the growing list. I
think
> > that when the ignorant little cities are trying to write an ordinance
and
> > use someone else's boilerplate they think they are clear. They are just
too
> > ignorant to know they can by law get a second opinion. Let's make the
list
> > long so that advocates like ourselves can provide others with this
soure.
> >
> > Sarah
> > NY
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com