KERRY O'BRIEN: Mobile phone manufacturers were reluctant to participate
in this program. And Health Minister Michael Wooldridge, who is
responsible for regulating safety standards, explained he didn't
participate in panel discussions. But we're joined tonight by three
scientists who are experts in the field.

From Nottingham, England, I'm joined by Professor Lawrie Challis,
emeritus professor of physics at Nottingham University and vice-chairman
of the Stewart Group.

In Melbourne, Dr Andrew Wood, a biophysicist from Swinburne University.
He's finalising two studies into the health effects of mobile phones --
one funded in part by Telstra, the other, part of an international study
by the World Health Organisation.

And, in Sydney, Dr Peter French, a cell biologist from Saint Vincent's
Hospital's Centre for Immunology. Dr French is researching the
biological effects of electromagnetic fields.

Gentlemen, welcome to the program.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Peter French, what fundamental concerns do you have about
the safety of mobile phones?

DR PETER FRENCH, CELL BIOLOGIST, CENTRE FOR IMMUNOLOGY: I think that
that report demonstrates the way that the field has evolved over the
past five years. Initially, the results or fears were greeted with
scepticism because it was inherently assumed by all, including the
industry, that low-power fields, such as those produced by mobile
phones, were biologically inert. We now know -- and I think the Stewart
report stated that fairly clearly -- that biological effects from those
sorts of fields are now a reality, demonstrable by us and by several
groups around the world. The question is, if the first assumption --
that is, that effects on biological systems are not present from this
sort of radiation -- is found to be wrong, there's a second assumption,
that there are no adverse health effects, also going to be proven to be
wrong once we know more. And I think that's the nub of the question now.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But, right at this moment, you don't dispute that there
is no conclusive proof of health effects from mobile phones?

DR PETER FRENCH: I think that conclusive proof is still a fair way away.
But I believe that there is sufficient biological evidence now to be
able to postulate a mechanism which can lead to serious adverse health
effects, including, but not restricted to, cancer.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Andrew Wood, from your work, do you have any concerns
that there is risk in the use of mobile phones or not?

DR ANDREW WOOD, SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY: Well, the experiments that we have
done have been looking at whether the calcium levels in cells are
altered by mobile phone radiation. Certainly we've had no indication in
those experiments that there are any changes. I must say that these
sorts of experiments that have been reported for about 25 years, so it's
not as if we've suddenly come across this problem.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And, given all of your knowledge of that previous
research and your own work, how clearly can you postulate whether you
believe there's any risk or not?

DR ANDREW WOOD: I think one of the difficulties always is to try and
estimate what the actual absorption is in tissue. Certainly, in our own
study, we spent a long time using mathematical modelling techniques to
work out exactly what the amount of absorbed energy was in the sample.
And there always is this question as to whether we're really looking at
levels that are so-called non-thermal -- that is, below the level that
you'd expect some sort of heating to occur.

KERRY O'BRIEN: OK, but where Peter French is prepared to acknowledge
that there is yet no evidence to say conclusively that there is risk, I
assume equally you're prepared to acknowledge that there is no
conclusive evidence that there is no risk.

DR ANDREW WOOD: It's difficult to prove a negative, always. Certainly,
the effects that we understand well -- that is, the heating effects of
tissue -- are really well understood. The question really is whether
there are other effects that aren't due to tissue heating. But really
there's been no clear indication of what that mechanism might be. It's
very hard if we don't know what the mechanism is to be able to evaluate
whether such effects are occurring.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Lawrie Challis, from your perspective as vice-chairman of
the Stewart Group in Britain, reviewing all of the evidence, how do you
react to what you've heard so far tonight?

PROFESSOR LAWRIE CHALLIS, STEWART GROUP: Well, I don't disagree with
what's been said tonight. But I think that we looked at about 430
scientific papers in this field. And we came to the conclusion that
there is no strong convincing evidence that there are health effects.
However, we also feel that there may well be biological effects. I think
one really needs to distinguish between biological effects and health
effects. We can see each other. That's a biological effect -- at the
light levels we can see. But, if we shine a laser or look at the sun in
our eyes, then we produce health effects. That's a pretty obvious
statement. That's the distinction between a biological effect, which is
helpful to us and -- or certainly not intrusive -- and a harmful effect,
which obviously we want to avoid. We just don't know where we are on
that range.

KERRY O'BRIEN: To what extent was your group influenced by that finding,
that recognition that mobile phones do create, or can create, or might
create some biological effect?

PROFESSOR LAWRIE CHALLIS: We were influenced by that. We clearly feel
that is an important pointer. Till a few years ago, I don't think we
would recognise that we could detect -- our bodies could detect
biological effects from this sort of radiation at this sort of level.
Now we believe we can, and so we clearly need to do more work to find
out are there any health affects associated with that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Andrew Wood, you accept, don't you, that mobile phones
may cause some biological effects?

DR ANDREW WOOD: Well, certainly, there have been a number of studies
showing that human ability to do things like intelligence tests and
memory tests seem to be altered. Again, that is a biological effect. I
guess, it's difficult to make an estimate as to whether that would
constitute a health effect.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But, where I think for a long time the telecommunications
industry has tendered to argue that there was no biological effect, that
is a significant finding, isn't it?

DR ANDREW WOOD: I must say that, if you look at the studies that are
reporting this, there are some important differences in their findings.
They're not entirely consistent. Their findings may in fact be due to a
statistical fluke, if you like. It could be just due to chance.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Peter French, what significance do you read into
biological effects from mobile phones?

DR PETER FRENCH: I think that what Andrew has just said is very
important to bear in mind -- that is, that mobile phone radiation is not
inert. It can produce physiological effects in people. As Andrew says,
that doesn't necessarily lead to an adverse health effect. But, given
the fact that energy is being deposited into the brain from mobile
phones, what else might it be doing? I think there's some very
interesting work that's been done in cells and in animals which shows
that there may be a fundamental mechanism common to all those findings
that could indeed lead to an adverse health effect for a significant
number of people.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Lawrie Challis, I assume that that was why, in the end,
you came down with what you've called a cautionary approach -- that is,
you've given some benefit of the doubt to the possibility that there may
be risks.

PROFESSOR LAWRIE CHALLIS: We felt that, on balance, the position was
such that the consumer, the user, should have a transparent view, should
have a clear view of what the situation is. We felt that the sort of
advice we gave -- I don't know if you want me to go through the advice
we gave -- but certainly we recommended people should use them less,
particularly children. And we recommended that people should use a phone
that gives them less exposure -- and shortly we shall have good
information on how much each phone gives out. And a whole series of
things which I can go through if you wish.

KERRY O'BRIEN: What about the issue of the placement of mobile phone
towers because many of them you will see, certainly in this country,
next door to kindergartens or fire stations or smack in the middle of
residential areas, playing fields, clubs and so on.

PROFESSOR LAWRIE CHALLIS: Well, I think the first thing to recognise is
that -- I mean, certainly in the UK we have five public meetings.
Certainly in the UK it was very clear this issue of masts produce more
public concern, than the issue of phones, which is obviously a bit
paradoxical because the exposure you get from a mast is probably 1,000
or times or more below guideline levels whereas from a phone, as I've
said, it's approaching guideline levels. So it's a little paradoxical.
Even so, we felt that, because there was so much public concern about
this, the Government need to respond to this concern. And we did advise
that care should be taken in the neighbourhood -- in sensitive areas
such as schools. I think there's another point that really needs to be
made that we didn't make in the report and I regret it. If you reduce
the amount of radiation, the amount of strength of the radio waves that
a user is getting, the user's phone will beam up. So, if you are a
person, say a child in a school play ground, you're going to get far
more radiation from your phone if the mast is from a long way away than
if the mast is relatively nearby. So you've really got to balance that one.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Peter French, briefly.

DR PETER FRENCH: I think the real issue is the concern with mobile
phones. I think the amount of power that one gets from mobile phone
masts is very much less and likely to be biologically inert.

KERRY O'BRIEN: There's also been some controversy about whether the
hands-free use of mobile phones is a positive or a negative, whether
it's riskier or less risky.

PROFESSOR LAWRIE CHALLIS: I'm personally believe it is possible to
design a hands-free kit that will reduce the exposure to the head. But,
of course, the present set of hands-free kits were not designed to
reduce the exposure to the head since it's well within the guidelines,
they were intended to allow you to use them hands-free. So they weren't
really the optimum design perhaps for reducing exposure to the head. I'm
sure they can be done. And we need to do that work very fast.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, Andrew Wood or Peter French, does either of
you have a view on this?

DR ANDREW WOOD: Well, I'm aware of two studies done here in Australia on
hands-free kits and they both show a substantial reduction of radiation
to the head -- something like 94 per cent.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Peter French, briefly.

DR PETER FRENCH: All I can say is that I use a hands-free kit.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s224640.htm

Informant: Robert Riedlinger

Omega some links:

BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE DANGERS OF EMF'S AND MOBILE PHONE MASTS AND HOW
THEY CAN AFFECT OUR HEALTH
Compiled by Steve Gamble
http://www.equilibra.uk.com/emfnewinfo.shtml

Mobile Phone Masts:
Blot on the Horizon or Health Threat
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/masts1.html

Mobile Phone Radiation
http://www.globalchange.com/radiationnews.htm

Mobile Phone Adverse Health Concerns
http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/emf-l/Sep1998/GSM-article-(fwd).html

--------

City wide DECT network in Oradea (Grosswardein), Romania, Eastern Europe

Hi Klaus,

Iris gave your address to me. My city's problem is described here in English:

http://www.usbiz.ro/digit/show-news.php3?id=11998

I was shocked by this phrase:

"Atlas Telecom's CEO and chairman for Central and Eastern Europe,
Pompiliu S. Tripa, says this is also the first DECT metropolitan network
in the world."

Why in Oradea, Romania, where the cancer is already the leading "killer"
?! Why not in some western country with well developed technologies and
lots of money ?

I'd like to found out if there are other DECT metropolitan networks used
as Wireless Local Loop (WLL) around the world and are they dangerous or not.

I know there are many DECT users in China and Taiwan, but in Germany too.

You can inform everybody about this "first DECT metropolitan network in
the world" and I wait for peoples reaction.

Thank you!

P.S. You can find a thread about this problem here:
http://www.softnews.ro/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14064
Sorry, it's mostly in romanian, but there are quotes from Iris too, and
from other wevsites also.

Another thread about GSM "mast sanity" is here:
http://www.softnews.ro/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4960
Same remark as above.

Informant: DECT VICTIMA

--------

Pictures of Neil Cherry and more of Neil's Life

http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part1.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part2.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part3.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part4.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part5.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part6.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part7.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/features/neilcherry_lifestory_part8.html
http://www.nzine.co.nz/articles/Electromagnetic_Radiation/more3.html

Informant: Iris Atzmon

--------

RE: Sprint is coming to town; Berkeley, California

Of course you should go! And you should steal the floor and put out GOOD
information and not personal "concerns".

And you should bring your own expert to slam-dunk any false scientific
or legal claims they might make. You should leaflet people there with
fact sheets from which they can quote, and which preemptively disprove
what Sprint will say.

What's the date?

And what do they say the agenda will be?

Informant: Susan Clarke

and the answer:

The news from Berkeley, California is that Sprint plans to talk about
disguising the antennas as chimneys. You see, they plan to bypass all
other concerns.

The info session by Sprint is on August 7, at the North Berkeley Senior
Center. We wish lots of people go to the meeting.

Radi

--------

How much melatonin to take?

Can someone please tell me how much melatonin to take so that i wont
wake up at 2-3am and not fall back to sleep? i am already exhuasted and
this lack of sleep is to much.

thank you kindly
jackie wahlig

--------

THE WTO UNMASKED

Greenpeace Activist News, Vol. 3, No. 7
1 August 2003 (excerpt)

With the next World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancun coming up
during 11-14 September, here are a few things you can do to protest the
WTO's prioritisation of corporate profits over the health of our planet
and its people.

Genetically engineered food by Bush & Co.

The US and corporations behind genetically engineered (GE) food are
using the World Trade Organisation to tell the world what to eat and
where to buy it from.

Supported by Canada and Argentina, the US is trying to use the WTO to
challenge the European Union's policy on genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) - a policy that is the strictest in the world. The US challenge
amounts to a scare tactic to "encourage" countries to open their markets
to GE food. Many countries fear that if they reject GMOs, they will be
met with huge trade sanctions potentially worth hundreds of millions, or
even billions of dollars.

Introducing "Genetically engineered food by Bush & Co.". Political
cartoonist Mark Fiore has designed this great e-card for us to protest
corporate attempts to take over our food chain. Support the global
movement for the right to say no to GMOs and spread the word by sending
it to your friends and colleagues:

http://act.greenpeace.org/ecs/s2?i=863&sk=std

While you're sending those e-cards, don't forget to take part in the
cyberaction to tell Argentina and Canada to stop supporting the US war
on consumers, farmers and the environment:

http://act.greenpeace.org/ams/e?a=859&s=gen

O.T. themes:

Suit challenges constitutionality of Patriot Act
http://tinyurl.com/iplv

About those WMDs
http://www.reason.com/links/links073103.shtml

Seven more cases of "Gulf Syndrome II"
http://tinyurl.com/ipm4

Cheney's "irresponsible" speech
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16520

Answerable to no one
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1511&mode=thread&order=0

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

HOPE OUT OF QUAGMIRE
http://www.soulofacitizen.org/articles/Quagmire.htm

Informant: Carol Wolman

Rep. Henry Waxman Tightens the Evidentiary Noose Around Nat'l Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/073103_waxman_noose.html