Subject: ABC news story, industry's response (Weiner)..
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 203926 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
........More "smoke and mirrors!!" It appears to me that EVERYTHING
(EVERY CITATION) you see below -- provided by the telecom industry --
is a continuation of the "We're all right, Jack. We comply with the
standards set out by the bureaucracy (ies)...."
None of which -- (I repeat) -- None of which ... make any allowance
whatsoever for any EMF hazard risk except that called "thermal." i.e.,
No consideration WHATSOEVER of the non-ionizing bioeffects ... which is
the whole issue here.....
That is being blandly ignored by the industry.....!!!! And they appear to
be getting away with it because our "press" does not understand the
issue.....
Two things:
(1) Be sure you take a look at the message (just posted) on my web-site
which addresses SAR issue......
(2) Bill Curry and I have a (small) argument going on this. too.....
(Bill is defending the "establishment bureaucracy." I disagree
strongly.) I will be posting round (3?) of that argument after I get
some time to write a short reply ... tomorrow ... after the World Series
game tonight......
Cheerio.....
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: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:47:11 -0700
From: Bob Weiner
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: ABC news story, industry's response
Hi Roy,
For those interested in the wireless industry's response to the 20/20
show (straight from the tobacco industry's PR textbook), see the
following
"In response to ABC's airing of a 20/20 segment questioning the safety
of wireless phone use, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association (CTIA) has posted the following materials to both answer and
refute allegations made during the broadcast."
http://ctia.wow-com.com/response/
CTIA Statements on SAR Testing
http://ctia.wow-com.com/response/sar/statement.cfm
...In Europe, the SAR standard is measured at 2.0 watts per kilogram
over 10 grams of tissue. Testing for the European standard involves
procedures different from testing the testing procedures used in the
United States.
Out of an overabundance of caution, a fifty-fold margin of safety
was built into the standards. This margin of safety applies to wireless
phones used by the public....
The test results from the German laboratory contracted by ABC News
used testing procedures which are different from the standard industry
practices used in the United States and accepted by the FCC.
"The following two statements are in regards to SAR tests conducted by
IMST,"
the same German lab that ABC's "20/20" used. Similar to the
"20/20" segment, a European magazine had SAR tests done on a number of
phones and reported that the Philips Genie model wireless phone exceeded
the U.S. SAR limit. The statement by IMST admits to a "mixture" of U.S.
SAR values and European measurement techniques, which resulted in the
Philips phone's SAR value being erroneously measured as over the U.S.
limit.
http://ctia.wow-com.com/response/sar/german_intro.cfm
CTIA's comments on George Carlo & WTR research:
http://ctia.wow-com.com/response/wtr/index.cfm
Scientific response to Carlo's Oct. 7, 1999 letter to wireless industry
executives:
http://ctia.wow-com.com/response/safety/scientific.cfm
CTIA Statement on Wireless Phones and Safety
http://ctia.wow-com.com/response/safety/statement.cfm
What The "Experts" Are Saying (using the term loosely)
http://ctia.wow-com.com/consumer/faqs/health/experts/index.cfm
CTIA also published the FCC Oct. 21 news release on the 20/20 program
regarding the safety of hand held cell phones:
http://ctia.wow-com.com/response/wtr/fcc_release.cfm
With regard to the SAR question, the FCC says that SAR limits were
adopted for devices held within close proximity to the body:
On August 1, 1996, the Commission adopted the NCRP's recommended
Maximum Permissible Exposure limits for field strength and power density
for the transmitters operating at frequencies of 300 kHz to 100 GHz. In
addition, the Commission adopted the specific absorption rate (SAR) limits
for devices operating within close proximity to the body as specified
within the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992
guidelines. The
Commission's requirements are detailed in Parts 1 and 2 of the FCC's
Rules and Regulations [47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093].
...The SAR limits for portable and mobile devices became effective
August 7, 1996. The Commission's limits for field strength and power
density became effective October 15, 1997 (see 2nd MO&O) for all services
except the Amateur Radio Service. The new limits became effective for the
Amateur Radio Service on January 1, 1998 (see First
Memorandum Opinion and Order). Therefore, all new stations,
modifications, renewals and new facilities constructed under a blanket
license, will be evaluated with respect to the new limits after October
15, 1997. By September 1, 2000 all FCC licensees will be expected to be in
compliance with the new limits.
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/
Regards,
Bob Weiner
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com