Subject:  Help with arguments? (High)
Date:     Fri, 8 Oct 1999 085002 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


.......Who will help Ingrid on this one??  It should be easy for
a number of readers "out there."  (Dr. Sam Milham is the expert on
this....)

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: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:18:26 +0200
From: Ingrid High 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: help with arguments?

Dear Roy and all,
the following is an exchange of emails on another list about the eventual
health effects from emf. I might have put myself over unclearly, but I am
pretty sure that you have different informaton than the one he states below
as:

"As far as any tries done that don't show effects, I give you the
millions of ham radio operators, as well as commercial and military,
world-wide who have had exposure to frequencies, power levels, and exposures
rates of all kinds -- and I mean all kinds, from ELF to gigahertz -- for
over a century, who by and large are not showing up with peculiar features
unlike the rest of the general population and ask that this must be figured
into any reasoned examination."

Anybody able to help me with more exact information?

with warm greetings,
Ingrid High

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Ingrid,
    First, I think it is pretty condescending to start a letter off with
"this is what the authorities want us to believe" as a response to my post.
For one thing, most of us who are interested in homeopathy are fairly bright
and used to thinking in ways the authorities don't promote, so why suppose
that I've let myself be snookered on this topic?
    I thought my post made it clear that I have had a great deal of
experience -- first hand -- with RF. I have had to study it because there
are safety issues involved for myself, loved ones, and neighbors. Ham radio
operators as a group are bright, technically adept, inquisitive, and very
interested in learning anything that pertains to our hobby. We don't want to
see ourselves or our families and friends cooked by this stuff any more than
the next guy.
    My sources do not come from "the guvmint". If there was hard data about
this kind of danger from RF available, believe me the tocsin would be
sounded and the word passed like wild-fire in the ham community, regardless
of what "the guvmint" may or may not want us to believe. By our very nature,
we do not heed borders well.
    But being of a scientific mind and trained in analysis (statistical,
psycho-, et al.), I did go to the web site you recommended and spent quite a
lot of time following up links that I found there. What I found was this: a
great deal of doubt. Some anecdotal evidence surfacing about damage from
RF -- and I don't discount anecdotal evidence, but it has to be handled
carefully -- and some studies that suggest that more study needs to be done.
Very, very few hard conclusions. Some scientists have decided that there is
enough suspicion that they will limit their own use of cell or portable
phones. That's a risk-benefit analysis, not data.
    So there is nothing to say "sorry" about, Ingrid. A careful reading of
the material indicates that 1.) we are all agreed on the danger of the heat
factor, and that this depends on frequency, power, and exposure (nearness
and/or time); 2.) there may be other effects besides heat but what if
anything is not certain; 3.)  Quite a few people are coming up with some
interesting symptoms after extended mobile/portable phone use, but such a
tiny minority compared to the millions world-wide that one wonders if other
factors besides RF energy might be at play for those people -- maybe not,
but the question has to arise in a credible discussion of the question. I've
got to wonder what else is going on in the life of anyone who spends hours a
day on their cell phone. Pardon my cynicism, but maybe they have other
health challenges, like stress, playing a much larger part than the tiny
amount of RF (or EMF if you prefer) that they are soaking up in so doing.
    As far as any tries done that don't show effects, I give you the
millions of ham radio operators, as well as commercial and military,
world-wide who have had exposure to frequencies, power levels, and exposures
rates of all kinds -- and I mean all kinds, from ELF to gigahertz -- for
over a century, who by and large are not showing up with peculiar features
unlike the rest of the general population and ask that this must be figured
into any reasoned examination.
    So that's it for me. Unless new information shows up, I'm not too
interested in pursuing this further. Both of us are recommending caution. My
risk-benefit analysis is more liberal than yours. Others will make their own
analysis. Fine by me.

Bruce xxx

----- Original Message -----
From: Ingrid High 

> Dear Bruce,
> this is exactly what the authorities want us to believe. Heat is
> measurable, heat is reproducable, heat is understandable - so let's go to
> the street-light to look for the key we lost :-))
>
> There is plenty of indications today about dangers of radiowaves - which
> also show disturbing signs of being unrelated to the strength, but related
> to the frequency. Not enough is known to have charted the whole spectrum,
> nor of splitting the effects from the electric from the magnetic fields,
> but there are hardly any tries done which don't show effects.
>
> The most disturbing is still the tries showing that very low strength emf
> of 50 Hz affected individual cells to a strong stress-reaction. There are
> other similar effects. Swedish research has shown changes in skin in
people
> working in front of VDU's; also that electrosensitive people are accurate
(
> the ones responding when the researchers didn't do any sending were later
> found to be correct due to military establishments in the neighbourhood)
> etc etc.
>
> I haven't gathered a comprehensive list of web-sites, but the following
> could be worth while looking at:
> discussion list at:   rbeavers@llion.org
> The following is a good entry into the subject with links to all the good
> and serious other sites:    
> EMF-L archives can be found at: 
>
> Sorry Bruce, but there is lots happening today in this field,
> with warm greetings,
> Ingrid High


his original post:

>From: xxxxx
>
>There is a great deal of information available about the effects of
>radio-frequency electromagnetism. Every ham radio operator (which I am) has
>to have a degree of familiarity with it in order to pass the tests for our
>licenses. It is rather more complicated than what Ingrid is describing here,
>though.
>
>The main problem is heating of tissue. Just like your microwave oven --
>which is a form of radio transmitter -- cooks your food, radio frequencies
>(RF) at any frequency can do the same thing. The microwave works quickly for
>two reasons. It is set at a frequency which interacts readily with organic
>tissue, and it is putting out some watts.
>
>Power -- wattage -- is only part of it. Certain frequencies resonate with
>certain organs (for instance, one of the reasons that they don't make
>cordless or mobile phones to operate in the 1200 Megahertz frequencies is
>that this cooks eyeballs.) Distance from the antenna is also a factor. And
>then there is the length of exposure.
>
>So the type of cordless phone you have makes a difference. The non-digital
>ones generally operate in the 49 MHz range. You have to get well over 100
>watts of power in that frequency range before it begins to react with
>organic tissue. Your cordless phone, which is just a walky-talky after all,
>is putting out somewhere in the 100 milliwatts range -- 10 to the negative
>4th power less than the danger range. (I don't know how to do scientific
>notation in email so I wrote it out.) Thus, while one can stand right next
>to the antenna of my ham rig when I'm putting out 500 watts on, say, the 28
>MHz band without danger (unless you touch it -- it would burn) for a minute
>or so without accumulating enough RF to heat you up. From 10 meters away, it
>is already so attenuated that there is no longer any concern.
>
>The newer digital cordless phones operate in the 900 MHz range, while
>cellular (both analog and digital) operate in the 800 MHz range. Here there
>is more concern because the shorter wavelength (wavelength gets shorter as
>the frequency goes up) interacts more readily with organic tissue. However,
>you are still using only milliwatts (typically 100 to 300 milliwatts) on
>your phone -- even at 5 watts there is next to no concern, although one
>doesn't stare straight into the end of a radiating antenna if one has any
>sense. Ham operators start worrying about it at around 50 watts. So using
>milliwatts of power, it would be theoretically hours before enough heat had
>built up in tissue to do any damage, except that the body's normal
>heat-dissipating mechanisms would be operating all that time, so the heat
>wouldn't actually be building up at all.
>
>Even the bag phones (cellular), which are less and less in use, only put out
>3 watts. And you are usually not holding their antenna right next to your
>head, right?
>
>This is not based on some pie-in-the-sky theory. Not only do we have 100
>years of actual experience with this stuff, which allows accumulation of a
>lot of clinical data, it is also based on fairly simple laws of physics. A
>radio wave of a certain wavelength is going to interact with an object of a
>certain mass and density in a certain way. No hoodoo to it. Also, radio
>waves don't produce the kind of damage that radioactive particles do --
>there is no tissue mutation, for instance. The effects of RF are solely due
>to heating.
>
>If "plenty of effects are being reported by users", I would like to see the
>documentation for that. My question would be what other factors are
>involved, what kind of effects are being reported, etc.
>
>Sorry, long post, but I felt since the concern was there that accurate
>information would be useful.
>






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