Subject: David Wise - an agenda of his own (Clarke).
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 051405 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
..........Response from EMF-L.........
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Guru chastised (Lundquist)(Reuss)(Stevens).
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:25:56 -0400
From: Susan Clarke
To: roy@emfguru.com
Dear Mr. Stephens:
Steven Wise, JD, a professor at Harvard Law School, participated in a
debate on the legal points in his book "Rattling the Cage" last winter in
Boston's Fanueil Hall. His debate opponent, Laurance Tribe, JD, also a
professor at Harvard Law, in fact agreed with Wise that animals should be
granted more legal rights, but shredded his arguments and added new,
better ones - for which Wise expressed gratitude. You may wish to
inquire of the moderator, Chris Lydon, at Boston Radio WBUR 91.9, for a
transcription or tape. The event was phenomenal.
Just a warning, however: Wise has acknowledged publicly that he is
engaged in litigation (perhaps SLAPP suits?) against individuals whom he
calls "environmentalists". In this context he has also made disparaging
public comments about "environmentalists" generally, apparently toward
the goal of dividing the animal rights and environmental advocacy
communities, which have often, logically, supported each others' efforts.
Susan Clarke
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 07:32:26 -0500 Roy Beavers writes:
> ........A suggestion from EMF-L.......
>
> Anybody "out there" who knows Dave Wise??? Perhaps his cogent
> mind and philosophy could do some good for the EMF issue....guru...
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Guru chastised (Lundquist)(Reuss).
> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:49:16 +0100
> From: "Donald Stevens"
> To:
>
> Hello Roy,
> May I add my "two penny worth" of comment to this discussion?
> I believe Marj. to be correct in saying that a "Nuremburg Trial " is
> innapropriate, but the application of the Nuremburg Declaration is
> VERY
> appropriate.
> I am part way through a book "Rattling the Cage" by Steven M. Wise,
> of
> Harvard Law School. Although the book is about animal rights, there
> is much
> that is applicable to the EM situation. Chapter 6 on "Liberty and
> Equality",
> has some really good points. Would it be possible to get one of the
> US based
> scientists to talk to him about this?
> Donald Stevens.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Beavers
> To: guru
> Date: 01 September 2000 18:19
> Subject: Re: Guru chastised (Lundquist)(Reuss).
>
>
> >.........This is an quality reponse from Marge Lundquist......
> >
> >Guru argues with her on one point in her text, marked
> thus******.....guru....
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Re: [Re: Guru chastised (Lundquist)--and a broad
> discussion]
> >Date: 1 Sep 00 09:35:12 PDT
> >From: Marjorie Lundquist
> >To: creuss@bluewin.ch
> >CC: guru@emfguru.com
> >
> >Chris, I am not naive enough to think that everyone who currently
> supports
> the
> >existing standards for protection against RF/MW radiation will
> change their
> >minds when new evidence undermines the existing standards. Many
> will
> remain
> >stubbornly unconvinced and unrepentant.
> >
> >But some people WILL change their minds, over time. It won't
> happen
> quickly,
> >but it will happen (though I don't know how many people will be
> open-minded
> >enough to make this change).
> >
> >It is said that the way scientific revolutions come about is for
> all the
> >"establishment" members to die! There is a great deal of truth to
> this.
> >People get accustomed to thinking in a certain way, and don't want
> to
> change,
> >no matter what. It is part of human nature, that people behave
> this way.
> >
> >In principle, I agree with you that people should be held
> accountable. In
> >practice, though, I don't know how you make people accountable who
> serve on
> >the ICNIRP, or who are employed by the World Health Organization,
> or who
> >belong to any other non-profit organization. Do you sue them? In
> what
> court?
> > And how do you collect the judgment, if you win?
> >
> >As it happens, I do think that a lawsuit would be appropriate
> against the
> >IEEE, because I don't think it should be sponsoring a health
> standard
> (because
> >the IEEE is not a professional society of health or disease
> prevention
> >professionals). Such a suit could be filed in a U.S. court, and
> the
> judgment
> >(if any) could be collected without great difficulty.
> >
> >Whether such a suit ought to be filed is another question. The
> IEEE got
> >involved in standard-setting at the request of the U.S. Navy, I
> think. It
> is
> >obvious that there is a potential for a conflict of interest (a
> whole new
> >industry -- the wireless telephone industry -- has been created as
> a result
> of
> >IEEE declarations that hand-held cellular phones are safe, and this
> has
> meant
> >lots of good new jobs for electrical engineers). It will soon be
> obvious
> (if
> >it isn't obvious right now) that such a conflict of interest
> actually does
> >exist.
> >
> >One likely consequence of a successful lawsuit against the IEEE
> would be to
> >prohibit it from ever institutionally sponsoring a health standard
> in
> future.
> >This might be good, so long as it didn't have the effect of
> encouraging
> >electrical engineers to disregard safety concerns.
> >
> >I can't go along with the idea of a Nuremberg Trials type of
> treatment --
> it
> >seems too extreme to me -- but I do consider that it is appropriate
> for the
> >electrical engineering profession to be held accountable in some
> way for
> the
> >consequences of professional error. And I think it can be
> demonstrated
> that
> >professional error (on the part of electrical engineers) has
> occurred in
> the
> >standard-setting process for ANSI C95.
> >
> >Other standards-setting organizations (such as the ICNIRP) have
> used the
> same
> >metric (radiation power density) as the IEEE used in ANSI C95, but
> have set
> >the safe limit at a different value. But this kind of difference
> does not
> >correct the scientific error present in the ANSI standard! The
> electrical
> >engineers have been imitated, and the errors they made have been
> widely
> spread
> >in this manner by others outside this profession.
> >
> >A major question that needs to be addressed is this: on what basis
> do you
> >punish people who acted in good faith? I don't know of anybody who
> set out
> >deliberately to injure people! [This is why I think it
> inappropriate to
> use
> >the Nuremberg Trials approach here.] Errors were made, mistaken
> judgments
> >have been made, and people have been (and are being) injured. But
> I think
> the
> >errors were/are honest errors.
> >
> >Of course, the errors may also have been careless and negligent.
> These are
> >legal issues, and I am not a lawyer, but under U.S. law one can
> recover for
> >the consequences of carelessness and negligence. And all
> professions are
> held
> >to high standards of performance, by virtue of being professions,
> so I
> think
> >the best way to "hold people accountable" for any scientific error
> that
> makes
> >existing RF/MW exposure standards unsafe would be to file a lawsuit
> against
> >the IEEE here in the USA.
> >
> >One consequence of a successful lawsuit would be to drive up the
> cost of
> >membership in the IEEE. The IEEE's source of income is member
> dues, so
> these
> >would have to go up, to provide the money to pay any judgment. The
> rise in
> >IEEE dues, and any negative publicity, might reduce the rate at
> which
> people
> >enter the electrical engineering profession. But I expect that EEs
> would
> >simply ask their employers to cover the cost of annual IEEE dues,
> so in the
> >final analysis, most of the cost of satisfying the judgment from a
> successful
> >lawsuit would probably come from corporations.
> >
> >Michael Repacholi is a medical doctor. He is one of many who have
> taken on
> >faith what the electrical engineers have said is the correct way to
> measure
> >exposure to RF/MW radiation, for the purpose of protecting human
> health.
> >Government officials all over the world have accepted this, so why
> should
> Dr.
> >Repacholi be expected to recognize an error that others have failed
> to
> >recognize? [I am not trying to justify the course of action that
> Dr.
> >Repacholi has taken; I am simply showing how a good lawyer would
> probably
> try
> >to defend him.]
> >
> >********[.....guru comments.... Marge, you are simply being naive
> in the
> above
> >parargraph. You know as well as anybody that Repacholi's
> knowledge,
> history,
> >research activities, proven expertise, etc. do not allow him to use
> the
> >"taken on faith" defence (that an ordinary MD 'might' be able to
> use) as
> you
> >suggest above. If anything, his record of access to "inside"
> information
> as
> >well as his own research activity -- **would be likely to add to
> his
> culpability
> >in a court proceding**....!!!!
> >
> >P.S. Marge, you are not going to be offered a job with WHO -- quit
> compromising
> >your otherwise tough-minded good sense on this....... I don't
> endorse the
> >"Nuremberg Trial" approach......But I sure as hell think that if we
> (society)
> >don't begin to start exacting some **accountability that hurts** in
> these
> cases
> >-- against both, the companies and the individuals -- then we
> (society) are
> going
> >to continue to be **screwed** royally ..... As we were in the
> tobacco,
> lead, etc.
> >cases.....guru......]********
> >
> >
> >The fact is that society as a whole has made a major error.
> Politicians,
> >government employees, academic professionals, corporations,
> professional
> >societies -- ALL have participated in creating the problem we face.
> Many
> have
> >uncritically accepted assertions that ought to have been carefully
> >scrutinized. But it seems to me that the only entity that can
> clearly,
> >unquestionably, undeniably be held accountable for careless error
> and
> >negligence is the electrical engineering profession via its
> sponsorship of
> >ANSI C95. That profession's embodiment is the IEEE.
> >
> >Nobody else, except electrical engineers, claimed to possess the
> expertise
> >with respect to electromagnetic fields that is necessary as a
> scientific
> >foundation for establishing an effective standard. (Physicists
> could have
> >made such a claim, but they never were asked to get involved, and
> as a
> >profession, they never tried to get involved in setting health
> standards
> for
> >exposure to non-ionizing radiation.)
> >
> >If I am successful in establishing a new profession of
> bioelectromagnetic
> >hygiene, then there will be a profession of disease prevention
> possessing
> the
> >knowledge and understanding to address the challenge of
> establishing a
> >standard for health protection in a sound scientific manner. When
> such a
> >profession is in a position to take on this responsibility, the
> IEEE can
> drop
> >its sponsorship of ANSI C95, which will mean that this standard
> ceases to
> >exist. (This would be appropriate, in my judgment, as I don't
> think ANSI
> has
> >any business promulgating health standards; qualified health
> professionals
> >should be establishing health standards.)
> >
> >Of course, none of this gets us past the major problem we face
> today: we
> need
> >effective, genuinely protective health standards NOW -- but the
> research
> >needed to develop them hasn't been done. So what do we do?
> >
> >The only thing we CAN do, right now, is find a POLITICAL answer.
> This
> means
> >we face a battle to win over legislators in the various countries
> of the
> >world.
> >
> >This is why the comments about the political process that Roy
> Beavers likes
> to
> >make are highly pertinent. (I get tired of hearing them over and
> over
> again,
> >but they definitely ARE pertinent!) We will have political
> solutions long
> >before we have a scientific solution. We simply have to try to
> ensure that
> >our political solutions are consistent with scientific reality, in
> order to
> >ensure that our political solutions are truly protective of health.
> --
> >Marjorie
> >==============================================
> >(Christoph Reuss) wrote:
> >Marjorie Lundquist wrote:
> >> When scientific error has been corrected, I think many of the
> differences
> >that
> >> currently exist will begin to melt away, and people who used to
> be on
> >opposite
> >> sides of an issue may find themselves agreeing more often than
> they
> >disagree.
> >> That time is coming rapidly, I think; and when it arrives, all
> the nasty
> >> things that people on opposite sides have said about each other
> will
> >> constitute an obstacle to the co-operation needed to improve the
> situation
> >> quickly. In the future, I would like to be trusted by the people
> who are
> >on
> >> BOTH sides at the present time. -- Marjorie
> >
> >Too generous of you, Marjorie. Sorry, but these guys deserve a
> Nuremberg
> >Trials type of treatment, nothing less. Yup, I say that as an
> INDEPENDENT.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________________
> >Get Free Internet Access and WebEmail at http://www.address.com
> Click on
> this link
> >http://www.address.com/giveaways/free.asp for great offers.
> >
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com