I am so sorry to hear of Mr. Cherry's death - his work inspired
become knowledgeable of EMF dangers and we owe him a great debt.
Jane DeCourt www.awpg.org
This is a tremendous loss... I am so sorry! Neil was definitely
the absolutely most important persons within our field.
With my very best regards
(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof. The Experimental Dermatology
Department of Neuroscience. Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden)
comment on "experts" limitations
Hi Klaus: A few sentences in Allan Frey's introduction to
insightful article "Cellular Phones: Are They Safe to
Use" (posted on
C.I.O. 26/5/03),on the proliferation of false premises marring
substantial amount of biological and other specialised forms
of EMF bioeffects, have caused some consternation among fellow
networkers on our issue.
The sentences in question are: "But can they [health
makers] take action based on the biological data now available?
not. In fact, I believe it would be unethical to use much
of it to make
public health decisions."
Initially, it might appear that Allan Frey is letting us
down but when
we read through his well substantiated arguments in support
statements, we see how just/valid they are. It would appear
as he has written-- "unethical" to base sound public
health policy on
In fact what he points out in the body of his paper is in
line with the
quote from J. Burke's THE DAY THE UNIVERSE CHANGED (1985)
that Dr. Neil
Cherry selected to place under the title of his "A New
physical, biological and health effects of radiofrequency
radiation" (The abstract of this is online at www.neilcherry.com).
This quote reads: "Our frame of reference determines
what we look at and
how we look, and as a consequence, this determines what we
Though with greatly diminished elegance in phraseology, this
the third point I made to the assembly at that COST281 workshop
mid-May: their specialised training in specific disciplines
vision and understanding of phenomena, although many of them
unaware of their limitations in arriving at any real facts
Best, Imelda, Cork. Ireland
Dear Klaus & Imelda,
The following references may be of use, this is as near as
I can get you
to official recognition of the condition of "Electrical
The European Parliament adopted in 1994 a resolution on combating
harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation (OJ No C 205, 25.7.94)
called on the Commission to propose regulations and standards
limit the exposure of workers and the public to non-ionizing
In the light of its framework for action in the field of
(COM (93) 599 final), the Commission adopted in 1997 a proposal
programme of Community action 1999-2003 on pollution-related
(OJ No C 214, 16.7.97).
Health and safety protection requirements for work with display
equipment were adopted in 1990. Council directive 90/270/EEC
(OJ L 156,
Council Directive 92/85/EEC relates to measures of health
and safety at
work of pregnant workers (OJ No L 348, 28.11.92).
OJ No C 77, 18.3.93 amended as OJ No C 230, 19.8.94 concerns
agents including optical radiation, fields and waves.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC relates to certain environmental
(OJ No L 175, 5.7.85 -amended OJ No L 73, 14.3.97.
EEC Review Document - ISBN 92-827-5492-8
Symposium Report -"La pollution electromagnetique et
la sante - vers une
maitrise des risques" Ed. Paul Lannoye, Paris: Editions
Belgian State Council applied "Precautionary Principle"
- Arret 20 August 1999.
DG XXIV - Scientific Steering Committee 25-6 June 1998 Meeting
Considered Hypersensitive Individuals in section 4.5
Hearing in Berkeley, California
In exactly 3 weeks, neighbors in Berkeley will present their
case to the
City Council in a Public Hearing. This is a tough battle to
For more info, please see here.
If possible, please come to the Public Hearing.
Wish us good luck!