Subject:  Re Guru chastised (Lundquist)(Reuss)(Stevens).
Date:     Mon, 04 Sep 2000 073226 -0500
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

........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.
>


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