Subject:  Boston Globe interiews George Carlo (Jonsson)...
Date:     Mon, 4 Oct 1999 112342 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:

.......FDA is in its usual protective stance when U.S. industry is
being challenged.....  If one defines "cell phone" research very
narrowly (without regard to RF/EMF research 'en' total), then it
is POSSIBLE -- but not good "science" or public policy -- to take the
position they do.....  That is why (even) George Carlo is speaking
out below, in a very revealing interview.....

FDA deserves to be ignored.....  While the total "Blue World" milieu of
information is taken into consideration by those who are more interested
in PUBLIC risks than the commercial/political vested interests.....
Shame....  Shame....

It begins to look like this issue is being better understood elsewhere in
the world than in the U.S. -- which, arguably -- has the most to lose.

Cheerio....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at: 
EMF-L archives can be found at: 
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 11:58:45 -0400
From: azul@flash.net
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Globe George Crlo WTR

A controversial call on cell phone use

 By Globe Staff, 10/04/99

 George Carlo, who headed a $27 million research project on cellular
phones to be released later this year, believes consumers should take
certain precautions when using wireless phones.  But scientists at the US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and elsewhere say there is no evidence
to support Carlo's recommendations. He recently sat down with a reporter
to explain his views on the safest ways to use cell phones based on his
reading of the evidence to date.

 Q. You believe today's cell-phones pose some danger to users?

 A. The science is in a gray area. We have scientific information now
that suggests genetic damage and some increased risk of cancer. My current
recommendation at this point has to do with moving the antenna away from
your head.

 Q. Why is that, and how far away do you think it should be?

 A. You want the antenna at least two inches away from your head. We've
found the penetration of radiation into the brain doesn't go much more
than 2 or 2.5 inches. If you have an antenna right next to your head, you
are going to have exposure.

 Q. You use a headset when talking on the phone. [The accessory has a
small earpiece attached by wire to a tiny microphone that can be clipped
onto clothing.] Isn't that extreme?

 A. It doesn't seem extreme at all. Everyone has to make their own
judgments.

 Q. My cell phone has a pull-up antenna. Does that mean I should keep it
in a pulled-up position when I talk?

 A. Yes, that's better than leaving it inside the phone and closer to
your face.

 Q. What about children and teenagers using cell phones?

 A. There are no cell-phone studies directly related to kids. But based
on what we've learned in the past six years, my recommendation is that
it's much better for children to use a pager than a cell phone.

I have three children, ages 19, 18 and 17. They all have pagers. I've
been living with this research for six years, and that's the judgment I've
made.

 Q. What about duration? Is it better to keep talking time to a minimum?

 A. At this point, I can't tell you whether or not a five-minute phone
call is better or worse than five one-minute phone calls. We do know that
more power is required to connect a phone call, so the initial seconds
when you call someone or accept a phone call exposes you to the most
radiation.

 Q. So particularly, while dialing and waiting for someone to answer, I
should keep the phone's antenna away from me?

 A. Yes, that would reduce the radiation you get. Also, the amount of
power depends on your distance from the tower or base station. The closer
you are to a tower, the less power is needed to connect the call.

 Q. Let's get to a final - and not so controversial - consumer
safeguard. What about driving while talking on a cell phone?

 A. You don't need science to tell you talking on the phone while
driving isn't a smart thing. I actually got into a car accident two
weeks ago while talking. And I was wearing a headset. Nobody was hurt,
but I rear-ended a truck in front of me. I felt terrible.  All I could
think was, of all people, I should know better.

 This story ran on page C01 of the Boston Globe on 10/04/99.
 © Copyright 1999 Globe Newspaper Company.






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