Subject: AN ALARM BELL STANDARD
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 143432 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <emf-l@mail.llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
The group may be interested in the following message, which I have
edited a bit. In this message, guru talks about the need for a new
standard to trigger protective action in environmental-threatening
cases like the EMF case: AN ALARM BELL STANDARD.
The following message is one of a number of messages (exchanged with
some "non-EMF-L" persons) having to do with the future of EMF research in
Australia. Guru is the originator. He is replying to another person
who is not an EMF-L member.
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@mail.llion.org.........http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
...............................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:40:27 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Roy L. Beavers
>Subject: Re: Aust, Govt. Research directions
>
>Hi everybody:
>
>First, I'd like to say that (for my part) I am extremely pleased to see
>the movement that has been "aroused" in Australia taking place in any
>form whatsoever! And I would not want to (inadvertently) contribute to
>"slowing it down" or interfering with it ... in any way at all.
>
>As I see it, virtually any research (or other activity) that is geared
>to seek out a suitable public policy on the EMF quandary is very much
>needed at this time. And I am frankly encouraged to see this happening
>outside of the U.S.!!
>
>The U.S., ... as a society and government where the cultural values of
>'laissez-faire' capitalism (now in the guise of such codewords as
>"economic development" or "international trade supremacy" or "jobs" --
>true definition: "profits") asserts a higher priority than humanistic
>considerations like childhood leukemia ... has pretty much shown
>that it is not capable of objectively assessing or vigorously confronting
>the EMF issue.
>
>Any indications that this might be truly undertaken outside the U.S.
>should be welcomed, applauded, and given a "boost" ... in my view. Where
>is it written that "we must wait for the bodies to fall" as we did in the
>past in the case of tobacco, black lung, asbestos, etc.?
>
>I believe that society/government needs a new culture, a new standard for
>"triggering" prudent defensive action -- an ALARM BELL standard -- to allow
>for earlier protective measures (perhaps progressing in steps) to deal
>with these environmental health threats which now occur with increasing
>frequency and rapidity (and more adverse consequences) in our fast
>changing high-technology, profit-driven society.
>
>I believe that such a new standard or "perspective" on such environmental
>threats could (will) come faster from outside the U.S. than from within.
>Let's give the Aussies a boost!!!! (A few more "guru" comments within
>the text below.)
>
>My best to all of you......
>
>Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
>rbeavers@mail.llion.org.........http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
>................................It is better to light a single candle ...
>than to curse the darkness...............................................
>
>On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, ---------wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>> I have read Don Maisch's transmission of the Discussion Paper from
>> the Commitee on Elecromagnetic Energy Public Heaalth Isues. With
>> apologies to all for meddling in another country's internal policy
>> challenge, I want to offer some preliminary comments as an epidemiologist
>> with several decades of experience in environmental standard setting.
>
>
>[Guru]------. You are polite.....This is a world problem. Perhaps we
>should not feel apologetic....It is very much like the "ozone" problem,
>in my view ... only perhaps more immediate in its consequences.
>
>
>> There are a number of good things about the paper. One of the
>> major problems is a classical public health problem for which some recent
>> advances are not recognized by the paper and I urge that they be so
>> considered. I refer to the emphasis on the need for exposure
>> measurement, for well-validated studies, and the emphasis on confirmation
>> of epidemiological studies with laboratory ones. While all of these pious
>> desires can be (and should be) applauded, ***to use them as a basis for
>> delaying the protection against what we all agree may be serious effects
>> cannot be accepted in 1997.*** [Guru added the italics.] In short the
>> evidence based public health standards approach, with which I spent
>> several decades at the ---------
>> Health Department is outdated and should be replaced. It's princiapl
>> weakness is that ***it commits the exposed populations to unprotected
>> exposures while the scientists, work, quibble, and sometimes even sell
>> out.*** [Guru added the italics.]
>
>[Guru] Nicely written. As you can tell from my comments above ... this is
>where we agree.
>
>In my view, the great flaw (and it is serious) with the Swedish model is
>its total lack of sanctions. I say this recognizing that each
>nation/society will want to "do its own thing" -- what "it" regards as
>appropriate -- within its value system (culture) to attack the problem. I
>'think' I can see why Sweden (a more socially "responsible" society than
>the U.S.) would approach the problem totally on a non-sanction basis. And
>it MAY work there.
>
>But in the "laissez-faire" U.S., if there are no sanctions ... things will
>simply go on as usual! As they have, indeed, under Granger Morgan's
>"prudent avoidance" doctrine.
>
>The ONLY restraint that I perceive that is having any restraining influence
>on the profit-driven companies is the "possible" litigation consequences,
>including particularly the "punitive damage" possibilities. That is not
>restraining them very much because (at the moment) they are convinced that
>those "damage" assessments will never amount to anything. Certainly not
>when weighed against the IMMEDIATE visions of profit........AND PARTICULARLY
>as long as the scientific community is willing to "waffle" the science
>judgements to the extent they now are.
>
>Frankly, I think litigation is the WORST way for society to deal with this
>problem (or other environmental health hazard situations). But in the
>U.S., we will have no other real alternative so long as science and the
>government are content to "protect" industry by waffled judgements that
>"rationalize" an excuse to do nothing or to "pretend" to do something ...
>like "prudent avoidance."
>
>
//snip-snip//
>
>Let's boost the Aussies!!!!!!! At whatever they can accomplish in the
>direction of honest research and reporting about the WORLDWIDE EMF
>threat.....We are ALL in this together.....
>
>Cordially,
>
>Roy Beavers
>
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html