Dear Robert and all,
Thank you very much for detailing the rational of
the decision.
Your main argument is that the decision was
guided by nothing but science. I will show that it is not the
case.
1) The arguments you
brought are repeated for about the last 10
years, especially by formal regulatory bodies, mainly by the World
Health Organization and the ICNIRP, both were headed for years by Dr.
Repacholi. His code of practice was to say in words that
he went according to the science, while in reality,
he ignored studies that found risks and studies
that revealed mechanisms. When he couldn't ignore them, he
downplayed them, because he didn't let them stand in his
way to becoming a millioner from the EMF-R industries and he even
represented them in courts. Very "scientific" practise indeed. So
in public health and science point of views, every policy that
relies on the WHO is a result of his conflicts of interests, not
scientific and not honest public health policy, excuse me for being
direct, but some of this list don't care about what the
WHO says or doesn't say BECAUSE it is not scientific but a
political body. It has lost the credebility as a public
health institution mainly because of the hard work
of one person who found many people who were ready to obey him. For
him It's all about the money. The argument that the WHO
promoted precautionary is not standing in the test of reality: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf
2) During the same years he was the boss, many
studies were published, the leukemia connection is the most famous one.
Researchers from all over the world presented their
works. They presented the mechanisms
for the low EMF effects. These mechanisms are summerized in
the next document, which also debunks all the list of
arguments that were used in the past years by the WHO. I suggest you
all read it and re-consider the arguments about lack of
mechanism: http://www.microwavenews.com/viewsonnews.html
The WHO ignored it. The
meaning: WHO ignored SCIENCE.
Biology is complex, as scientists, you know it. It is
not about finding one mechanism and go home.
There are several mechanisms that were found, here is another
one:
Dr. Martin Blank and Dr. Reba Goodma found and reported
repeatedly over the years, and their work was confirmed by other
laboratories - the stress proteins or heat shock proteins effect
of EMF. They wrote already in 2004: "Studies of EMF
interactions with DNA and with model systems provide insight into a plausible mechanism that
can be effective in ELF and RF ranges" They wrote also: "The
same biological response in ELF and RF ranges suggests that the effects
of a wide range of EMF frequencies could be additive and perhaps
synergistic. The cumulative effects of all frequencies in the
environment and summation in long term exposures need to be considered
in setting safety standards". Bioelectromagnetics
25:642-646, 2004.
I don't have to tell you what happened: WHO ignored
it. The meaning: WHO
ignored SCIENCE.
This project cost $3 million.
I don't have to tell you what happened: the WHO ignored it
although it confirmed earlier works. Meaning:
WHO ignored science.
Next:
studies continue to show DNA breaks and creation
of free radicals,
here are two studies that are only a
sample: I continue below.
Zinc Supplementation
Ameliorates Electromagnetic Field-Induced Lipid Peroxidation in the Rat
Brain:
5) A key point
in public health policy: Although there are mechanisms that cannot be ignored
anymore, in public health policy there is no justification to wait before a
mechanism is established if the effects are repeatedly seen which is
the case in EMF. For example asbestos and cigarettes - it was known
that they were killers before mechanisms were established and still
there were changes in public health policy. By the way, the
WHO is accused today by scientists, for cooperating for years with
the asbestos ans cigarettes indstries, hiding facts from the public.
The facts about cigarettes and asbestos had been known before
they were published to the public. The same happens today with the WHO
and EMF with one difference, this time the whole process is
not hidden from the public eye.
6) With regard
to rare diseases. I will reveal here a trick. It is also
used in Israel. Our Environmental ministry person was quoted saying in
an interview, that if powerlines increase the leukemia risk, "the
meaning is that instead of half of a case (0.5)
of leukemia a year, there would be 1
case a year". If it hadn't been cynical and sad, it would be very
funny.
But Dr. Ishak Yaniv, the manager
of the hemato -oncology in Shneider medical center for
children (lately they added more parts to the center because
of the high incerase of childhood cancer), said:
"Leukemia is one of the most prevalent cancers in children".
(Menta, July 2003 page 34) in contradiation to the rare disease
argument.
The "half a case" or "rare" argument
that was used in Israel contradicts not only the figures of Israel, but
the American Cancer Society figures according to which,
Israel is one of the 6 leading countries in the world with
leukemia, we are together with Hungary, Denmark, New Zealand, Italy and
Chehoslovakia. If someone in one of those countries tell you that
Leukemia is a rare disease, question his knowledge
or reliability. If someone tells you that Leukemia is a
rare disease in any other country- check the statistics yourself,
double check this questionable argument.
7) Other effects:
Powerlines create Corona ions,
molecules with electrical charge that are actually free radicals and it
sticks to air pollution particles and get easily into the lungs by
simply breathing. (Denis Hanshew's work).
Danish cancer center study found that
children who lived near powerlines and exposed to 1 mG or higher,
had 5 fold risk for NHL
40% increase of leukemia, brain tumors
and lymphoma. Above 4 mG the risk for leukemia and brain tumor was 6
fold.
(MWN Nov Dec
1992)
Miscarriages, Lou Gerig disease
(California Dept. of Health report)
suicides and depression (Becker
R Cross Currents 1990, Brodeur Currents of Death 1989)
malformations from low magnetic fields
(Journal of anatomy 134 1982: 533)
Epilepsy and magnetic fields:
Anninos 1991, Keshavan 1981.
Asthma statistically significant-
Beale 1997
The genius Robert Becker in
1990:
"All abnormal, man-made
electromagnetic fields, regardless of their frequencies, produce the
same biological effects:
These effects, which deviate from
normal functions and are actually or potentially harmful, are the
following:
- effects of growing cells, such
as increase in the rate of cancer-cell division
-increase in the incidence of
certain cancers
-alterations in neurochemicals,
resulting in behavioural abnormalities such as suicide
-alterations in biological cyclyes
-stress responses in exopsed
animals that, if prolonged, lead to declines in immune system efficiency
-alterations in learning ability"
Everything of the above lines is
backed with SCIENCE in his book.
I suggest to read his book and start
over the whole process, as for a decision that is considered as
guided by nothing but science, the rational that was presented
here ignores the meaning of great scientific works and great
scientists minds.
The rational that was presented
reminds of Michael Repacholi's method. His spirit is still present
although he has retired.
I think that Health Canada should
take example from Israel and have 10 mG standard, based on the
available science.
I alwayed considered Canada a
more advanced country than Israel.
If you don't go with science,
you throw tons of money that was spent in the last decade and
found the WHO standards don't hold water, and there are
mechanisms that cannot be ignored as if they were not
found. If you are going with the science then you will
reconsider your evaluation again this time not ignoring
mechanisms that are repeated in laboratory. If you don't go with
science then you will tell the residents that the standard protects
them and their children from leukemia and the other effects that
were found from EMF in the last 40 years.
I rest my case
Iris.