What's New at WaveGuide
[7-22-99] WaveGuide Bibliography
The WaveGuide Bibliography now has on-line ordering in Association with Amazon.com. WaveGuide gets a small percentage of the sales revenue from books sold through these links. Please help WaveGuide by purchasing books through our Bibliography.
- [7-7-99] The EMF-L Archives
Messages from June 1999 have been added. The site will be re-indexed by the search crawler on the 10th.
- [6-3-99] Why an Odds Ratio of 2 for EMF is Not Actually Low
Recently an American epidemiologist, Dr Sam Milham, re-analysed Doll’s own data presented in his 1956 (Doll & Hill) paper which showed that heavy smokers were 23.7 times more likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers. However when you compare the figures for Heavy Smokers vs light and moderate ones the ORs fall to 3.5 and 1.9. When you compare light smokers with moderate ones you get an OR of only 1.8. I stated these figures and then asked "Sir Richard, for EMFs are we not comparing lightly exposed people with moderately exposed people and wouldn’t that mean we should maybe only expecting ORs around 2". His answer was a good one ..."Yes, for EMFs we do not have any non-exposed and very few highly exposed people, so ORs are likely to be quite low."
This is quite an admission as no longer should the authorities be allowed to dismiss ORs of around 2 as being too low to be of much consequence.
- [6-2-99] ARRL RF Exposure Regulations News
An excellent RF Safety Page maintained by the American Radio Relay League, (Ham Radio Operators.) It is a very good page, with links to many of the exposure Standards documents, and the ARRL FAQ on RF Safety.
- [6-1-99] The EMF-L Archives
Messages from the the last two years of the EMF-L Mailing List, moderated by Roy Beavers the EMF Guru, are now archived here. You can either view the messages through monthly index files that list them Alphabetically by Subject Line, or because they have been included in the site search index, the search tool can perform a lexical search of all the messages.
- [6-1-99] MAJOR WIRELESS SAFETY CASE HEARD IN FEDERAL COURT
"Schulz and James R. Hobson, arguing for Ad-Hoc Association and CWA, pointed out the FCC failed to ask the expert agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute Of Occupational Safety and Health and, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- to evaluate any of the supporting evidence or public comments. 'The FCC, after admitting that it does not have any expertise, nevertheless determined that this massive amount of amount of evidence in the record couldn‘t make any difference,' said Schulz."
- [6-1-99] The Internet IS Affecting Risk Analysis
I will use part of Roy Beavers introduction: "It is [from] a paper presented in September 1998 by Dr. Bill Leiss on the subject, "The Internet as a Public Information Resource." He is speaking from the perspective of a "risk analyst," or, perhaps more precisely, from the perspective of one who is responsible for 'communicating' risk analysis information or policy to the public ... The latter distinction is important because it suggests that the "science" of the RF/health hazards issue (here under discussion) is not the critical point of focus -- the "message" is..."
- [5-29-99] Peer Review
With all the controversy over the "War-Gaming" over research, it might be illuminating to take a closer look at the peer review process. This links to a very comprehensive analysis of peer-review.An excerpt: "There is a fundamental ethical paradox which underlies any form of research peer review. For the review process to have credibility, experts must be employed, either for the right job function or the job right function. Contrary to popular opinion, it has been the author's experience, based on directed experiments and on personal observations during the conduct of reviews, that there are very few real experts in any specific research field. Armstrong [Armstrong, 1997] draws a similar conclusion relative to manuscript peer review, to the effect that the reviewers may work on similar areas but not the same specific problem, so that the reviewers have less experience on the total problem than do the authors. Thus, in order to obtain real experts for a panel, at least to evaluate the job right aspects of the research, a relatively small community must be accessed. Usually, the members of this community are acquainted with each other, and are either research collaborators or research competitors. They may compete for funds or awards or prestige or promotions, or other types of recognition. Thus, there is an inherent bias/ conflict of interest in the process when real experts are desired as reviewers."
- [5-29-99] Interesting Facts About Your Cell Phone
Did you know that a LARGE portion of the radiation emitted by a cellular phone, goes right into the side of your head? Well, then did you realize that up to 4 times the radiation comes out the EARPIECE than the ANTENNA; and that this would be easy to remedy, but manufaturers prefer to make larger profits than to be "prudent?" This page also has a comparison chart of different Cell Phone Models and their measured output.
- [5-28-99] Eminent Domain for Wireless Carriers in California?
SB 177 has been introduced by Senator Steve Peace in response to a request from building owners and managers. The new bill amends the eminent domain law so that it precludes utilities offering competitive services from condemning any property for the purpose of competing with other entities in offering those services.
- [5-28-99] Carlo Gets Attacked
Question: What does the telecom industry do about a (former?) boss of their privately-funded EMF 'research' organization when he suddenly 'gets religion' -- turns honest -- and becomes an independent, objective scientist who sees that there may be problems with the health effects of the cellular phone technology??????Answer: That's easy. They attack his credibility ..."
- [5-28-99] Rachel's #652 - The Waning Days of Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is a decision-making technique that first came into use during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, who was trained as a nuclear engineer. At its best, risk assessment is an honest attempt to find a rational basis for decisions, by analyzing the available scientific evidence. In theory it is still an attractive ideal -- to make rational decisions based on scientific evidence -- because in principle it should allow diverse parties to agree on what needs to be done. However, 20 years of actual practice have badly tarnished the ideal of risk assessment and have sullied the reputation of many a risk assessor.
- [5-28-99] US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Sprint's Appeal
US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals DENIES Sprint's appeal to get three towers for coverage where their competitor has only one. Very interesting.
- [5-28-99] What are the Studies Telling Us? -- Updated!
CCWTI / Sage Associates Table of Bioeffects Studies -- I had several requests for more complete citations for the studies, I would like to thank Cindy Sage for compiling these; they are now appended to the end of the page.
- [5-15-99] EMF Bioeffects 101
I finally got around to modifying this primer from the old version of WaveGuide. Provides a quick overview.
- [5-11-99] What are the Studies Telling Us?
CCWTI / Sage Associates Table of Bioeffects Studies -- I want to thank Libby Kelley at the California Council on Wireless Technology Impacts for passing this along to me, and Cindy Sage of Sage Associates, for tabulating this Important information. The following studies indicate biological effects at exposure levels far below what would be explained by "thermal effects", and well within the range people are commonly exposed to every day.
- [5-5-99] Added Search Capability
One of the features of the new wave-guide.org Domain is Search capability. Right now, it indexes the existing site, but I am in the process of cleaning up about two years of Roy Beaver's emf-L mailing list, to put in the WaveGuide Archives. When that is ready, it will also be searchable.
- [5-5-99] Registered the wave-guide.org Domain
Registered the wave-guide.org domain, and moved the WaveGuide site to it's new home.
Congratulations!
WaveGuide has been awarded a Snap Editors' Choice designation in recognition
of its excellence in design, content and editorial presentation. Snap's site
reviews are editorially independent of partnerships, marketing relationships
or competitive status; our goal is to point users to outstanding Web
resources. Snap's review of WaveGuide can be found here:
Health:Public Health:Environmental Health
Snap's description of your site reads as follows:
This site offers constant updates on research into its effects on us,
scrutinizes government reports and links to organizations concerned about
eletromagnetic radiation. Includes a database, bibliography and ways to ask
questions directly.
Yours truly,
The Snap Editorial Team
To: rbedard@cruzio.com
From: "Kristy O'Rell" kristyo@snap.com
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:17:41
Subject: Snap Editors' Choice: Your site has been awarded!
[Home] | [Forum] | [Library] | [Links] | [Whats New]