Subject: Re Guru chastised (Lundquist)(Reuss)(Johnson).
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 050845 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
...........From EMF-L........
An interesting thought, Carolyn...... You know ... I have never been
able to find a power company CEO (or an electrical engineer) who is
willing to live alongside his power lines......guru......
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Guru chastised (Lundquist)(Reuss)...
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 16:46:27 +0930
From: "Carolyn Johnson"
To:
References: <39AFE475.2C43A27D@emfguru.com>
Would it be prudent for all these establishment Members, to be placed in a
room and allow them to be exposed for extensive periods of time to the
levels they agree with....in these so called standards... and then live with
the problems....
My husband and fellow workers did not get the choice to stay or leave....
that was taken away from them, the levels of exposure deemed by the
Australian Experts as that of a Mobile Phone.... God help the Mobile Phone
users is all that I can say.... it is prudent for the Defence Force here to
discourage the operation of the IFF over Australian Land and Sea, however it
is ok to test it inside a Hanger... as it's output is that of a Mobile
Phone.... is the catch cry when people are damaged.... you want human
guineapigs you've got them....
----- Original Message -----
From: Roy Beavers
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 September 2000 2:46
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.
>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com