Subject: (Philips) INDEPENDENT article -- a crack in the dam???(fwd)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 051728 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
.......Alasdair's interesting exchange (with somebody) below merits
broad circulation, though he may not have intended that???
.......To guru, this issue (industry's unwillingness to post "warning"
labels) highlights the major problem that comes up with the "prudent
avoidance" strategy......If industry were truly adhering to a prudent
avoidance strategy, they would (1) admit that there is a possible problem,
(2) at least be willing to post warnings about that possible problem.....
Any objective observor of the EMF saga over its first twenty years ...
surely will concede that industry has FOUGHT against (1) and (2) above
EVERY STEP OF THE WAY......In the U.S., there is no doubt now that the
electrical industry is ***digging in its heals*** against the forthcoming
announcement to be made by the head of NIEHS (or the head of NIH)...
concerning the working group (EMF RAPID study) results which declared EMF
"a class 2B carcinogen"......
"Prudent avoidance" has proved to be nothing more than a "P.R." strategy
within which industry continues to do what it was doing before!!!!!.....
.....I must be frank -- I wonder about the motives (and the financial
support) of those who advocate prudent avoidance????.....I suggest to all
on this list: it is not possible to believe in "prudent avoidance" and
(at the same time) refuse to post warnings!!!!......guru......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:50:16
From: Alasdair Philips
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: The INDEPENDENT article....
Folks, I forgot to say that I am the main Witness in Roger Coghill's
Court case re. warning labels.
Here is something more re the Independent article:
[.....Evidently the following statement is Alasdair's response
to the correspondence he received below from (??) someone not on
EMF-L (??)......guru.....To all EMFers, please try to avoid
"mystery's" in the messages you send.....]
Thanks. I had not seen this though Tom (Wills-Sandford ?)the FEI
spokesman said it almost verbatim when I was on a half-hour
BBC Radio Scotland slot on Monday. He went on to say that the real
reasons for the new, better, designs was to improve talk time!
Mind-boggling crap. I retorted that they must regret the
engineers and scientists putting the actual reasons they had been
asked to make the low SAR designs into the patents and that I
imagined their PR department would now be insisting to see and
re-word everything that was written. I went on to say that it was
obvious that the firms recognised that there were likely to be
considerable tightening of the levels allowed and they were just
preparing models to be ready to introduce if they were forced to
do so.
At 17:23 27/10/98 -0400, you (???) wrote:
>Alasdair:
>
>I got the article from the INDEP. ON SUNDAY off the Internet.
>
>Have you seen this?:
>
>Federation of the Electronics Industry Position on
>Patent Applications Referred to in Independent on Sunday Article
>Dated 25 October 1998
> (U.K.)
>Tuesday, October 27, 1998
>
>
> Mobile phones are designed to comply with internationally agreed
>guidelines stipulating the amount of energy which is transmitted by the
>phone. If they did not meet these guidelines they would not be acceptable
>for use by the operators, nor for sale to the public. Therefore anything
>which is done to comply with the guidelines is ensuring the safety of the
>user. These patent applications (which mention the health of the user) are
>not an admission that phones are unsafe - in fact quite the opposite - it
>demonstrates that the designers of mobile phones are doing their best to
>ensure that their products are safe.
> For UK parties, it is also worth nothing that Barbara Roche,
>Minister at the DTI, stated in the House of Commons last week that there is
>no basis for altering the advice currently provided to users. She welcomed
>research that is systematic and undertaken by laboratories with proven
>skills in the subject. Support for such research does not imply that the
>Government believes there are harmful effects.
>
>--------
......[God save us from bureaucrats like the lady quoted above who
recognizes no responsibility beyond complying with ***out of date***
standards......guru.....]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
Director, UK Powerwatch,
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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