Subject: Cell phone, "High Anxiety"- UK Guardian (kelley) (fwd)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 114539 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
Following message is being repeated to correct an embarrassing error:
"man-mad" ... I wrote ... when of course, I meant: man-made.....
Niether I nor sir Richard were clever enough to think of man-mad!!!
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.................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:38:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
Subject: Cell phone, "High Anxiety"- UK Guardian (kelley)
Hi everybody:
......Here's a question for you, who said the following?
"We should keep our minds open to the possibility that this radiation
could be harmful, because it is man-mad and our bodies have not been
exposed to it throughout evolution."
Answer: If you answered it was the guru, who has written it many times
-- in substance -- on these pages since EMF-L began ... you'd be right!!!
It's there in the archives and on the old website......
But, THIS TIME, it was said by Sir Richard Doll....... Read below.....
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.................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:03:03 -0700
From: Libby Kelley
To: emfguru ,
Subject: UK Guardian - "High Anxiety"
UK Guardian, October 20, 1999
High anxiety
The mobile phone industry says its phones and masts are safe, but some
scientists and consumers aren't convinced. Sarah Scott argues that we
should exercise caution while research continues.
Mobile phones have taken the country by storm, with one in four
people currently owning one. Although many people will now have heard of a
suggested link between mobile phone use and brain tumours, most feel that
the huge benefits of this new technology outweigh any possible risks.
But while cellular phone use involves an element of personal
choice, another more insidious issue is often overlooked: mobile phone
masts. Springing up like mushrooms across the country, these
masts are now almost as common a sight as electricity pylons. But just how
much do we actually know about the potential health effects of long-term
exposure to them?
Mercury states that "all mast emissions are within guidelines",
and are therefore safe - a view shared by the rest of the industry and the
government. But if this new technology is already known to be safe, why are
international governments, the mobile phone industry, the World Health
Organisation and the European Union channelling billions of pounds into
research to determine exactly how "safe" it is?
For people who claim to be affected by microwave radiation, such as
Jane Palmer, this is seen as an ongoing human experiment which is nothing
short of scandalous. She claims that after Orange installed a mast 70
metres from her home in south Wales 18 months ago, her daughter Nicola,
aged six, began experiencing severe epileptic fits.
"Nicola was diagnosed as epileptic soon after birth, but since the age
of two her illness had improved dramatically and she only experienced one
or two fits a month," says Jane. "Following the installation of the mast,
she began having four to six severe fits a day."
On one day, Nicola experienced no fits at all, something at first
her mother was unable to explain. It was later discovered that on that
particular day the mast had been turned off. Nicola's epilepsy also shows
significant improvement when Jane takes her away from the property. Orange
deny that the mast could be contributing to her illness. They say there is
no scientific evidence to suggest a link between phone masts and
epilepsy.
According to the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which
advises the government, the only recognised biological effects of
microwave radiation are thermal - where body tissues are heated, in the
same way that a microwave oven heats food - but this only occurs after
exposure to very high levels, on which the current safety guidelines are
based.
However, there is now a growing body of internationally published
scientific evidence suggesting that it may be possible for much lower
levels to cause health problems. In June, a conference was held in the
House of Commons to discuss this possibility. It was attended both by MPs
and the world's leading scientific experts in the field.
Zenon Sienkiewicz, speaking on behalf of the NRPB at the conference,
defended the government's reluctance to exercise caution, saying:
"Fantastic claims require extraordinary proof."
But is the idea that microwave radiation from mobile phones and masts
could cause cancer and other health problems really that fantastic? Also
speaking for the NRPB, Sir Richard Doll, the scientist who made the link
between smoking and lung cancer, said: "We should keep our minds open to
the possibility that this radiation could be harmful, because it is
man-made and our bodies have not been exposed to it throughout evolution."
It has been estimated that the average caveman came into contact
with hundreds of millions of times less electromagnetic radiation than is
in evidence today. It is only over the last 100 years that humans have been
widely exposed to this man-made "electrosmog", so without an in-built
defence system to counter such exposure, it would be wise to treat it with
at least a degree of suspicion. But technology is progressing at such a
pace that it is difficult for biological research to keep up and there is
a tendency for these new technologies to be presumed "innocent until
proven guilty".
Richard Doll does not think there is yet enough scientific evidence
to cause serious anxiety but admits there is "suggestive evidence" and
does "feel anxious that further intensive research is conducted".
Microwaves are just part of the whole spectrum of electromagnetic energy.
It is already well known that high intensity radiation such as X-rays and
nuclear radiation can cause cancer by damaging cells. This type of energy
is called ionising radiation.
Non-ionising radiation - which includes microwaves, radiowaves,
visible light and the electromagnetic fields from domestic appliances -
was not generally thought to cause such damage. However, there has been
long-standing concern over suggested links between electrical pylons and
childhood leukaemia, and many leading scientists are now warning there
could be effects we don't yet understand resulting from exposure to
non-ionising radiation.
Dr Gerard Hyland, senior lecturer in theoretical physics at the
Warwick university, believes that the microwave radiation from mobile
phones and masts can interfere with the body's own electromagnetic field.
The newer digital systems emit pulses of radiation 217times every second.
This means that the body is constantly bombarded with 'flashes" of
radiation, which may lead to problems similar to those caused by flashing
lights in epilepsy sufferers.
Further evidence of a potential problem comes from one of the
world's leading scientific experts, Prof Henry Lai, of the University of
Washington, Seattle, who has spent many years researching the biological
effects of microwaves. He has demonstrated that damage occurred to DNA
strands in the brain cells of rats when exposed to radiation similar to
that emitted by a mobile phone. In response to industry claims that mobile
phone radiation is safe, he says: "I cannot agree at all with what they're
telling the public. There is a concern and probably it's not safe."
Scientists at Porton Down laboratories have recently shown that
this radiation also affects the nervous systems of rats, leading to
potential problems with memory, learning and epilepsy. Indeed, a great many
people are already reporting symptoms from what they say is exposure to
mobile phone masts, ranging from headaches to sleep disorders and
neurological problems, but the government has failed to respond, despite
the fact the Maastricht treaty relating to environmental protection
recommends caution.
This has led to calls for the adoption of the precautionary
principle when locating masts, which would allow for health effects we have
yet to fully explain. Margaret Dean, on behalf of the Northern Ireland
Families Against
Telecommunications Transmitters group (Nifatt), has been campaigning for a
complete overhaul of the current planning
system, which allows masts to be erected without full planning permission
as part of a "permitted development" programme; the introduction of a
"safe" distance between masts and schools, hospitals and housing; and full
consultation with residents living near proposed sites.
"People who live and work near these masts continue to be exposed
day after day - their basic human rights have been sacrificed in the
pursuit of profit," she says. At present, mobile phone companies can wave a
financial carrot, often up to £8,000 a year, in front of cash-stricken
local health and education authorities to allow a mast to be erected
on their land. Concerned parents have removed their children from schools
because of concerns about possible risks of exposure to radiation. There
are currently more than 200 campaign groups in the UK protesting that
further research is needed and that, without it, there is a risk that the
public - especially children - may become involuntary guinea pigs.
Graeme McAlister, of Friends of the Earth, Scotland, has been involved
with many such groups and reports that over a third of the local planning
authorities in Scotland have already adopted the precautionary principle.
He says: "We are not advocating anything radical. We are merely advising a
precautionary approach until further research can be carried out."
In addition, the Local Government Association, which represents 150 local
authorities throughout England and Wales, has produced a report
criticising the current policy of central government and coming down
heavily in favour of the precautionary principle. So, where do we
go from here? A resolution passed at the Liberal Democrat conference
acknowledged concerns over long-term exposure and called for local
residents to be given more control in the planning process.
A recent report by the Science and Technology select committee has called
for more publicly-funded research and recommends that UK exposure limits
are reduced by a factor of seven, although this will have little practical
impact. With the government apparently determined to protect the
multi-billion pound industry at all costs, what will be the consequences?
In the absence of precautionary measures, saying
"Sorry" will not be enough.
• Sarah Scott is a freelance journalist who
is currently researching the health effects
of non-ionising radiation.
______________________________
Libby Kelley
Executive Director
Council on Wireless Technology Impacts
aka ~ Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about
the FCC's Radiofrequency Radiation Health and Safety Rules
____________________________
Website: http://www.ccwti.org
Phone - 415-892-1973
Fax - 415-892-3108
Address:
936-B Seventh Street, PMB 206
Novato, California 94945
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com