Subject: John Goldsmith, M.H.R.I.P.......(Kelley)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 194922 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
........What Libby has written below, I cannot improve upon..... But
let me say that John Goldsmith's passing is a deep personal loss to me
-- though we never met, except on the pages of EMF-L.....
I think the depth of his commitment as well as his scholarly
scientific approach to the EMF issue was well recognized by all.....
His contribution to our understanding of the radio-frequency (RF)
aspect of the EMF mystery ... is unmatched.....
This is not a "cheerio" occasion....
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: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:47:51 -0700
From: Libby Kelley
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Sad news to relay
Roy:
I just learned that Dr. John Goldsmith passed away in Israel on Thursday,
October 21, 1999.
We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude for being our teacher. As an
environmental epidemiologist, he taught us how non-ionizing radiation can
affect man and the environment. He showed great courage in standing with
this unpopular view against great opposition from his professional peers in
public health, medicine and epidemiology on this issue. He encouraged us
all to work together to ensure our homes, workplace and communities are
protected against potential harm due to the proliferation of transmitting
antennas and use of handheld wireless devices using non-ionizing radiation.
This man really cared and was generous with his time and his knowledge. We
will miss him greatly.
Dr. Goldsmith was the featured speaker at the "End Of Innocence" Public
Forum held in San Francisco in August 1998. Chris Beavers, Nancy Evans and
I led this forum which was co-sponsored by Noe Valley Families, The Ad Hoc
Association/CWTI, the Breast Cancer Fund and other groups. We are working
to place his complete remarks from that meeting and his published papers on
the CWTI web site. This material is an essential piece on the RF health
issue and should be on the required reading list for all.
I have the following quote from John Goldsmith:
"The notion that non-ionizing radiation was harmless the assumption
of innocence is no longer tenable...These findings suggest that
radiofrequency exposures are potentially carcinogenic and have
other health effects. Therefore, prudent avoidance of unneeded
exposures is recommended as a precautionary measure."
Marjean Curtis's article,"Low Frequency, High Tension" , discussed Dr.
Goldsmith's comments at that forum:
"Dr. John Goldsmith, a noted epidemiologist and former director of
air-quality research for the State of California Health Department is one
of many scientists who disagree that FCC standards are safe and based on
the best science. Goldsmith, who is evaluating the potential health effects
of radio frequency radiation from cell phones, cell-phone towers and
television transmitting towers, has been collaborating with the AHA to
raise public awareness about the potential dangers of these sources of
radio-frequency radiation."
"In the 1950s, Goldsmith claims, the U.S. government decided
that it was safe to chronically or repeatedly expose humans to radiation
that didn't generate heat -- such as low-level microwaves and radio waves
and extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation from powerlines. Goldsmith
contends that most of the conclusions about the safety of radiation were
reached right after WWII, when winning wars, not determining the safety of
new technology designed to help win those wars, was the priority. As a
result, similar technology has moved into the mainstream before the effects
of use have been thoroughly studied. The AHA, Goldsmith and others are
convinced that the FCC is operating on this outdated information and
cavalierly perpetuating that information to a gullible public."
I am attaching the complete article below. This article is still very
relevant even though it was written one year ago.
Libby Kelley
November 1998
Low Frequency, High Tension
By Marjean Curtis
On Christmas Eve of 1996, Larry Stankavich and his wife, Susan,
looked out the dining room window of their Duanesburg, New York home.
Rising in the southwest, just barely visible above the 50-foot pines that
border their property, was a large network of crisscrossing steel beams.
The emerging monolith looked dreadfully out of place in the rural hills of
Duanesburg.
It would take Larry and Susan close to a month to discover that this
unexpected gift had come from Cellular One of Albany, New York. Even the
town supervisor claimed to know nothing about it. On December 31st, before
it was even completed, the tower was fitted with a microwave dish and
activated to carry analog cellular phone signals. This enormous steeple of
sorts would then rise another 75 feet until it reached its full stature of
250 feet in February of 1997. And it was later that month that the 15
households within 1400 feet of the tower began to suspect that Cellular One
had done more than run roughshod over the aesthetics of their bucolic
neighborhood.
First Larry noticed pressure in his head. Not prone to
headaches, he suddenly began experiencing a regular and intense pain that
started at the base of his skull and spread from ear to ear. He noticed a
grittiness in his eyes every time he washed his face. At first he didn't
suspect that the radiation beaming toward his home might have something to
do with his sudden and unusual complaints. When Susan started having the
same strange headaches, they didn't know what to think. Then one evening
Susan, who was well past menopause, had a hot flash to beat all hot
flashes. Her face flushed red, started tingling, and felt like it was on
fire. Susan ran to Larry who was in the kitchen. They looked at each other
dumbfounded and horrified. Larry's face too was crimson and so hot that it
hurt. Something was very wrong.
Initial doctor's visits turned up nothing out of the ordinary.
However, Larry began noticing that he felt better whenever he left the
house to manage the fencing business that he started in 1972. Susan,
however, who did clerical work for the business from home, was experiencing
no relief. New complaints began to surface. They both started having
trouble sleeping, and Susan's usually normal blood pressure began to soar.
At 3 a.m. on February 16, her blood pressure rose to 190/110 and was
accompanied by frightening heart palpitations. Larry drove Susan far from
the tower until her blood pressure returned to normal around 6 in the
morning. Susan and Larry felt awful, and by this time they suspected that
the Cellular One installation might be to blame. A meeting with neighbors
living within the shadow of the giant tower substantiated their suspicion
-- many of them were suffering with the same symptoms.
Twenty-one months later, it's even worse. The Stankaviches and
their neighbors complain of hearing high-pitched sounds that are always
followed by waves of extreme nausea. Fatigue and dizziness have become a
matter of course, and now, hearing loss and joint pain, especially in the
knees, are plaguing many residents. The Stankaviches can no longer use the
top story of their home where their symptoms become more pronounced. Some
neighbors have actually moved into their cellars. Two homes have already
been sold at a loss, and one more is on the market. The Stankaviches,
however, are determined not to be driven out. Larry built their home 27
years ago and says they can never replace it. They're going to fight. But
so far, it looks like a losing battle -- one in which they're losing their
health, peace of mind, and their entire savings of $20,000.
While stories like the Stankaviches' seem extreme now, they
could become more and more common as the number of towers and antennae
increase. And increase they will. The industry estimates that there are
75,000 towers currently in place and by the year 2000, there will need to
be 100,000 for a full build-out. That's a conservative estimate, since PCS
(personal communication systems) towers need to be placed much closer than
the old analog towers. A full build-out of the PCS system, with six
carriers each, would put 100,000 new towers in California alone.
This massive buildup may give the population at large the
freedom of wireless devices and eye-popping digital TV, but there will be
more of us at ground zero who will pay the price of the swift and, some
say, careless deployment of towers and antennae. To put the brakes on this
rampant proliferation, citizen groups are forming across the country to
fight or redirect installations as they affect their neighborhoods. Two of
the loudest battles are raging in Golden, Colorado and San Francisco,
California where citizens are fighting the addition of digital TV antennae
to existing structures.
While health effects drive the discontent of the vast majority
of these coalitions, many are mute about health issues when going into
public hearings. In Golden, Colorado, unrestricted development of three
antenna farms on Lookout Mountain has created what activists call "the most
intense and complex electromagnetic environment in a residential area in
the nation." The onus was on citizens to have electromagnetic readings
taken that would prove there were indeed many hot spots that exceeded the
FCC's safety limit. The FCC is now investigating. In San Francisco,
activists are calling for not just a static, but a dynamic analysis of
Sutro Tower before
digital TV tower is added to the structure. The 1,000 foot tower, which
sits right in the middle of a residential area, might endanger 270 homes in
the event of an earthquake.
The Stankaviches and their neighbors are having their physicians
carefully document their myriad medical problems, but their lawsuits, first
against the town of Duanesburg, and now against Cellular One have been on
zoning violations. Why? Because the tower's emissions were still lower than
the FCC's permissible limit and therefore deemed safe.
Libby Kelley, a former analyst with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services in Washington D.C., now executive director of the
Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about the Federal Communications
Commission's Radio Frequency Health and Safety Rules (AHA), says that the
agency's radio frequency rules stipulate that objections to placement of
telecommunication facilities can be based only on certain planning and
zoning rules, including aesthetics. What they don't permit is opposition
based on health and safety concerns. "The provision in the rules stating
that wireless facilities are 'deemed individually and cumulatively to have
no significant impact on the quality of the human environment,' is just not
based on fact," says Kelley. "How could the FCC know this; they never
conducted an environmental assessment in accordance with NEPA (National
Environmental Policy Act." While acting as an information clearinghouse for
groups fighting local battles, the AHA is involved in an even bigger battle of
their own. They're going head-to-head with the FCC itself.
The AHA joined with the Communication Workers of America and the
Cellular Phone Task force, a group representing electro-sensitive persons,
in filingan appeal this year. They charge that the FCC has failed to
adequately protect public health and the safety of citizens. The appeals
were consolidated in the 2nd Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and oral
arguments will be heard in New York City on the week of January 4, 1999,
subject to the court's discretion.(Note: The oral arguments are now
scheduled for April 4, 1999)
Kelley says that their court case is unique in that they are
challenging the FCC rules in federal court. Therefore, the court decision
may affect national policy and, by implication, international policy.
"Other cases being pursued in civil court, district federal court and
supreme court are local battles which have been appealed in higher court
levels," says Kelley. "Our appeal directly challenges them (the federal
regulations)."
A win for the AHA could bring a repeal or remand of the radio
frequency standard. And what this would mean to the industry depends on who
you ask. Joel Marcus, an attorney in the FCC's Office of General Counsel,
says, "if there were a remand because the FCC had not considered some minor
piece of data, the agency would be required to go back and consider that
data, after which it may come to the same conclusion as before and the
practical impact
on industry would be very little." Others, such as the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), ATT Wireless and the
National Association of Broadcasters believe it could seriously stymie the
wireless telecom industry's deployment of mobile phones, paging and
wireless local loops. However, Tim Ayers, CTIA's VP of Communications, is
confident that the AHA challenge will fail. "The bulk of scientific
thinking on standards says they are safe, stringent and fully protective of
population," says Ayers. "We assume the courts will rely on the best
science, and science is the best thing going for the industry."
Dr. John Goldsmith, a noted epidemiologist and former director
of air-quality research for the State of California Health Department is
one of many scientists who disagree that FCC standards are safe and based
on the best science. Goldsmith, who is evaluating the potential health
effects of radio frequency radiation from cell phones, cell-phone towers
and television transmitting towers, has been collaborating with the AHA to
raise public awareness about the potential dangers of these sources of
radio-frequency radiation.
In the 1950s, Goldsmith claims, the U.S. government decided that
it was safe to chronically or repeatedly expose humans to radiation that
didn't generate heat -- such as low-level microwaves and radio waves and
extremely low frequency (ELF) radiation from powerlines. Goldsmith contends
that most of the conclusions about the safety of radiation were reached
right after WWII, when winning wars, not determining the safety of new
technology designed to help win those wars, was the priority. As a result,
similar technology has moved into the mainstream before the effects of use
have been thoroughly studied. The AHA, Goldsmith and others are convinced
that the FCC is operating on this outdated information and cavalierly
perpetuating that information to a gullible public.
The FCC's Marcus contends that the radio-frequency (RF) regulations are
based on a large body of scientific literature and that "the RF limit
imposed by the Commission for general population exposure is 50 times lower
than the level at which studies indicated that RF energy has potentially
harmful effects."
According to Kelley, the FCC based its guidelines on conclusions
drawn by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and
the National Commission on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP).
What the FCC, which doesn't claim expertise in health matters, didn't take
into account was the advice of health agencies. For example, they adopted
an exposure threshold for workers that is five times higher than the
exposure threshold for the general public -- in spite of concerns expressed
by OSHA the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH)
and the Environmental Protection Agency. They also failed to take the
advice of NIOSH and the EPA to exert greater caution around modulated RF
signals.
A Cellular One spokesperson, commenting on the Duanesburg case,
says the industry needs "proof positive" research that there are health
effects associated with RF radiation. She says that Cellular One is "a
responsible corporate partner with the community," and would make changes
if it was deemed necessary. Susan Clarke, director of the Environmental Health
Advocacy League, feels that this attitude puts the burden of proof on
innocent communities to prove harm. "It should be the industry's
responsibility to prove safety in advance of deployment of this
technology," she says. And while the Cellular One spokesperson says, "ours
is an evolving technology, always responding to the needs of consumers,"
many, including the AHA, don't feel they have the luxury of sitting and
waiting for the evolution.
To help shift the power back into the hands of the people, the
AHA fought hard alongside the National Association of Counties and the
National League of Cities to defeat HR 3488, The Wireless Communication and
Public Safety Act of 1998. The bill would have mandated the rapid
deployment of cell phone towers and antennas on federal property on demand.
And for
participating states to receive certain grant funds deployment would be
mandated on state and municipal property as well. Although the bill looked
certain to be rushed through Congress -- ostensibly for public-safety
reasons, as it would have facilitated wireless 911 -- it was soundly
defeated along with S2519, a companion bill in the senate. This was an
important, but temporary, victory for the AHA. The bill will reemerge next
year possibly under an even less sympathetic Congress.
The AHA doesn't expect government and industry to err on the
side of caution. As they gear up to battle next year's version of HR 3488
and take on the Telecommunications Act itself, it doesn't hurt that the
most recent research seems to be falling on their side. A 1998 Italian
study, reported at the Tenth International Conference of the International
Society for Environmental Epidemiology, demonstrated a link between RF
emissions from a digital transmission facility and the onset of adult male
leukemia for those residing up to 5 km, about 2 1/2 miles, from the tower.
And in Schartzenburg, Switzerland, home to a shortwave transmitter tower,
the Swiss government conducted a controlled experiment (Altpeter, 1995) to
assess widespread complaints about sleep disorders. The study found
statistically significant insomnia and, in school children, a slow school
promotion rate. In addition, a radar station in Latvia (Kolodynski, 1996)
was found to be associated with attention and memory problems in school
children. In both the Swiss and Latvian cases, the transmitters were shut
down this year.
A 1994 study by Drs. Henry Lai and N.P. Singh of the University
of Washington showed learning disruption in rats exposed to pulsed
microwaves. Further studies (1995, 1996, 1997) revealed both single- and
double-strand DNA breaks in the brains of animals exposed to microwave
radiation. In 1997, a study (Repacholi) funded by Australian telecom giant
Telstra
demonstrated a significant increase in B-cell lymphomas in mice exposed to
"far field" pulsating radiation like that of digital cell phones. The 100
exposed transgenic mice developed tumors at twice the rate of 100 unexposed
transgenic mice. The results were played down by the industry, and some
believe that damage control was in full force before the study was finally
published in Radiation Research.
Research promised by the industry itself, research that could
be used to assuage an anxious public, has not been forthcoming. The
scientists of Wireless Technology Research (WTR), which is administering a
$25 million research program underwritten by cellular carriers, went on
strike in 1997 until the scientists' research was indemnified. Levitt notes
that even the
scientists who wrote FCC safety standards 15 years ago also insisted on
indemnification. She sees striking parallels between tobacco scientists of
30 years ago and today's radiation research scientists. Levitt and others
suspect that many of the bio-electrics researchers "know what they're
dealing with." After five years, the WTR has not produced any biological
test results. The opponents of RF radiation and the mainstream press are
both asking why.
The Duanesburg drama is, fortunately, still the exception -- a
tower in your backyard today doesn't necessarily mean health problems
tomorrow. Blake Levitt, an award-winning medical and science journalist
formerly with The New York Times, and author of "Electromagnetic Fields, A
Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves" (1995 Harcourt
Brace),
explains why biological response to a tower's radiation is not a
one-size-fits-all proposition. "Transmitters don't always do what the
engineers intended." "And, " she says, "people in Duanesburg might be
experiencing cross exposure from airport towers. They may have large metal
objects like water towers in the area... in the presence of metal you get
hot spots." She says that even an unusual plumbing grid, significant
concentrations of iron in the soil, or a high water table can augment
radiation's effect.
While the research that will bring all parties into agreement
may be long in coming, and U.S. policy may always be industry-driven, the
AHA thinks there is plenty that industry and government could be doing now
to protect consumers from the possible ill-effects of radiation. Goldsmith
says that all cell phones should be provided with a radiation shield,
lower-powered
devices should be manufactured, and limited use encouraged. Towers should
be kept at a safe range, and dead zones established. And the FCC, which has
been charged with protecting the public interest, could implement a policy
that has been promulgated by a group of Swedish environmental agencies --
"prudent avoidance."
Does this mean we all need to become luddites to prudently avoid
radiation exposure? Both Goldsmith and Kelley say no. "It's inevitable that
we all adapt to new technologies," says Kelley, "but the epidemiological
and clinical studies indicate that there are risks that need to be
evaluated before people accommodate these technologies in everyday life, or
we could
face a health crisis and major societal catastrophe." Kelley fears that the
research is coming after the fact.
For people like the Stankaviches, and their Duanesburg
neighbors, who feel like they're already part of the after-the-fact
research, Kelley says an AHA victory will benefit them, though not right
away. That "victory" could come in any number of forms, from a possible
return of policy
decision-making to local government, to new radio frequency guidelines.
Perhaps most important is that it will set off a series of actions to
remedy the problem.
In the meantime, Kelley recommends that they avoid as many
sources ofelectromagnetic radiation as possible, stay involved, organize,
write letters to politicians, vote and try not to let this overwhelm them.
She adds that it's important to remain calm and not operate from fear.
At last report, the Stankaviches were considering a temporary
move to an apartment in Duanesburg -- as far from the tower as possible.
They're finding it's hard to remain calm and wage a strategic battle when
they're in the middle of a hot flash.
##
I don't have any more details than that right now.
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