Subject: ABC Show, confusion about the SAR!!! (Anon)..
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 105348 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
.......The following (below message) -- very interesting!! -- info is
supplied by one of our Washington contacts......
Guru's comment on the following has been said (too many!!) many times
before: These so-called 'safety standards' are all "smoke and
mirrors" (ever heard that before?) -- all without any
foundation in fact whatsoever ... when it comes to the effects of
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation!!!! There has simply been no
**legitimate** research done that provides a basis for those standards....
Do you want to know where they get them from??? I'll tell you -- of a
known case in Florida, for example, (when Carol Browner was "boss"
environmentalist there). The Florida law was written to set the allowable
mG at the edge of the right-of-way at 200 mG!!!! 200 mind you!! Why???
Because the industry said: "That's what's already there ... and that's
what you are going to have to live with."
I have no doubt that is exactly the way the setting of the RF standards
for cell phones was set!!!!!
Cheerio.......(I DO hope that ABC will get on top of this aspect.....
Terribly interesting info below...... It could be a SENSATIONAL
story....)
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website
...................People are more important than profits.................
...........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????........
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:07:09 -0400
To: Rbeavers@llion.org, deb@carnewylaw.net
Subject: ABC Show
Roy: A salient point overlooked in the EMF-L critique and discussion re the
ABC show, and by the ABC presenters and commentators themselves, is the fact
that THERE IS NO CELLPHONE EXPOSURE GUIDELINE or STANDARD in existence. The 1.6
Watts/kilogram (1.W/Kg) of tissue referenced on the ABC show, as the specific
absorption rate (SAR) figure that cell phones surpassed, is the permissible
exposure rate set for microwave tower ANTENNA EMISSIONS.
It is the figure brought about by the combined effort of the National
Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and ANSI/IEEE, which was adopted by
the FCC as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandate (FCC docket
93-62). Since I feel this show was a rig for some unknown, yet to
materialize, I called FDA, which may have verified same.
FDA very conveniently probably, as a prelude to the ABC show, said they observed
the show. In addition, I was informed, that FDA just issued a talk paper last
week on this very topic (www.FDA.gov\CDRH; look under new events). I asked the
FDA chief about the SAR for cellphones. Get this: He told me **That is in the
domain of the FCC.** Why, I asked, FCC is ONLY A LICENSING agency. Controls for
biological exposure of devices, which come in contact with humans, falls under
the domain of the FDA. He said, **Well, do not forget the FDA was part of the
InterAgency Group that provided data to the FCC in order to adopt their
guidelines.**
I said, Of course you did; we both know that. But the data you
provided was NOT ABOUT CELLPHONE EMISSIONS, which are used at close range of the
body. It was about MICROWAVE ANTENNA SAR at 1500 feet from people or the general
public.
Called FCC. The FCC is not commenting as to why the 1.6 SAR was attributed to
cellphones. I called ABC in New York. Brian Ross was the investigative reporter
for the show. His office could NOT answer the question as to WHY they attributed
1.6 SAR to cellphones, but said their researchers in Europe could answer the
question. Be real, I said, no one is going to address this question.
I suspect that in the extremely near future, some company (probably from Europe)
will introduce a cellphone that emits ABSOLUTELY NO RADIATION. Why else would
ABC TELEVISION (to reach MORE people faster and make a STRONG POINT) News have
gone on the limb to broadcast the show? And DID THE PRINT MEDIA DELIBERATELY
AVOID REPORTING ON THIS **IMPORTANT** FINDING?
Something is amiss. A cellphone case; a new company offering a special device?
Something!
My good friend is sending me a video on the show. Perhaps I can get to the
botton of this. I know something else is coming. It seems to be a repeat of the
1993 cellphone case of Reynard, who incidently was on the show and espoused a
safer way to use cellphones.
BE GOOD -- AND CAREFUL!!
XXXXXXXX
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com