* On Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation - On line paper of mind-invasion - EHS and mental illness - French tackle mobile phone health dangers - Comments on Mystery illness hits US troops in Iraq - WWF ALERT: Birds threatened by South Korean coastal plan (07/08/03)

On Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation

Some of the Facts
(Be sure to see the postscript)

Emissions from mobile phones and phone masts are subject to limits
defined in guidelines issued by the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Any mast which conforms to
those limits is deemed by the government to be safe. The government does
all it can to make it very difficult for local authorities to even
consider the possible hazards to health that might be posed by a mast
which conforms to ICNIRP guidelines.

But what exactly is 'Non-Ionizing Radiation'? How does this differ from
'Ionizing Radiation' (which presumably also exists)? What quantity
exactly is being measured, and limited, in these guidelines, and why is
this quantity seen as so important? Why are so many independent
scientists questioning the validity of these guidelines, and what
possible hazards do they consider are not being covered by them?

The answer to the first question lies in the study of Quantum Physics -
but don't stop reading, all will be explained quite simply. Radio waves,
microwaves, visible light waves, X-rays and gamma rays are all examples
of Electromagnetic Radiation. The difference between them is in their
frequency (the number of vibrations they make per second). Radio waves
have a fairly low frequency - typically in thousands of Hz (Hertz =
vibrations per second). Microwaves vibrate at millions or billions of
Hz, light at millions of billions of Hz, and X-rays and gamma rays at
higher rates still. An individual 'bit' of radiation, belting through
the air (or space) at the speed of light - which is also the speed of
microwaves, of X-rays, etc, etc - is referred to as a Photon.

Quantum Theory tells us that the energy carried by a photon depends on
its frequency: a microwave photon carries more energy than a radio wave
photon, and a gamma-ray photon carries much, much more than either of
them. Quantum Theory also tells us that a high-energy photon can do
things that any number of low-energy photons put together can't do - for
example, dislodge an electron from an atom, or break a chemical bond.
It's like saying that one really massive bullet can do these things but
a hail of lesser bullets can't, no matter how many of them there may be.
The first of these examples, dislodging an electron, would of course
result in a free negatively-charged electron and a remaining, now
positively-charged, incomplete atom - a negative and a positive ion.
This is ionization. X-ray and gamma ray photons have enough energy to
cause ionization, radio waves, microwaves and visible light waves don't
- the first two are ionizing radiation, the last three are non-ionizing
radiation (no matter how intense their combined 'fire-power'). For this
reason microwaves (et al.) are seen as incapable of breaking molecular
bonds. Most significantly in the health debate, they are regarded as
incapable of breaking bonds in DNA molecules (unlike X-rays and gamma
rays) and thereby leading to abnormal cell growth which can result in

So the ICNIRP's brief is this: what harm can radiation do, if it is
non-ionizing? One very simple answer to that, in the case of microwaves,
is that it can cause heating effects in tissue. This is quite obvious to
anyone who has cooked a meat pie in a microwave oven. Microwave
radiation causes vibration within cell structures, leading to localized
heating. In the early days of microwave ovens, before safety cut-outs
were standard, some unfortunate users cooked their own kidneys by
standing in front of a microwave oven operating with its door open.

The ICNIRP has therefore based its guidelines, quite simply, on whether
the level of microwave radiation is more than the body's own heat
regulating mechanisms can deal with. In simple terms, can it cook you?
Not surprisingly, radiation levels from any mast, at anything more than
a few metres away, are many thousands of times lower than would be
needed to experience a heating effect. We are not, at least, being
subjected to living in a 'microwave oven' environment.

So why are so many independent scientists still so concerned? If it
can't break up your DNA (so they assume), and it can't overheat you,
what is there to worry about?

Basically, because microwave radiation, like all electromagnetic
radiation, is vibrational - it carries information (quite apart from the
phone conversation!). If you doubt this, just think for a moment about
the phenomenon of sight. Visible radiation of different frequencies is
translated by your eyes into different colours - it brings you
information. Because this visible radiation "light" has been around
since the dawn of life on this planet, at much the same level as it is
now, living organisms have evolved in harmony with that radiation, have
learned to organise it in their thinking processes and to make
beneficial use of the information that it brings.

It's worth taking a moment out here to observe that visible light is
non-ionizing radiation, and at non-thermal levels it quite clearly
affects living organisms. Usually in a helpful way, as noted above - but
if a person whose eyes have got used to the dark suddenly has a torch
shone in their face it can cause disorientation and loss of the
night-vision they have been using to find their way around. The main
point to note here is that a living organism is responsive to
non-ionizing radiation at non-thermal levels.

OK, I hear you say, but the eye is supposed to respond to radiation,
that's what it's there for. What's that got to do with the rest of the body?

Brain cells, the ones that do our thinking for us, are neurons. The
photoreceptors (light and colour sensors) in our eyes are also neurons,
brain cells that have been externalized by the evolutionary process to
perform a specific task. That same evolutionary process, over the
millennia, has refined them to do that task ever more effectively. BUT
that evolutionary process could never have got started without those
cells having some sensitivity in the first place, to be made use of and
improved upon. In other words, those neurons must have been responsive
to light before this responsiveness led to formation and refinement of
the eye - the eye is a result, not a cause, of that responsiveness.

The logical conclusion from all this is that neurons in general sense
electromagnetic radiation to some degree. Evolution has caused bunches
of neurons to be organized (i.e. put into organs - our eyes!) to make
beneficial use of this facility. But, up until recently at least, the
level of microwave radiation has not been such as to prompt specialized
receptors to be evolved for this purpose. Now - in the last 20 to 30
years - our neurons have been swamped with a massive increase in
microwave radiation that they cannot escape from. Our eyes have pupils
that restrict the intake of visible light to manageable levels, eyelids
to close off that light when we don't want it. No such escape from
microwaves: they are able to penetrate directly through the skull, where
our neurons are bombarded with 'information' that they have not been
educated to understand. 'Sensing' by definition means 'responding',
usually by releasing chemicals that act as messengers in some form or
another. The trial-and-error process of evolution (with its many failed
attempts that have fallen by the wayside en route) has produced a system
of meaningful responses to visible light. There is no reason that this
should be so with this deluge of unfamiliar radiation; it is totally to
be expected that this should lead to a confused and unstructured
response by the brain.

Which is exactly what was recorded by the Stewart Committee,
particularly in respect of pulsed radiation at around 16 cycles per
second, and now seems likely to also apply to various other pulsed
frequencies. And the NRPB Report on TETRA said "If this genuinely
happens the reason is unclear". Unclear???

Long-term low-level exposure to non-ionizing radiation at non-thermal
levels clearly also has cumulative effects. The ICNIRP don't seem to
have cottoned on to that, either. To get the inside information on that
you'd have to ask a tree. Just mention 'photosynthesis'. For a tree, the
long-termness can be hundreds of years. We're talking visible light
again, and a well-evolved constructive response. Who knows what a
totally unfamiliar form of radiation might do to a tree - or to you, or
me? Nobody knows.

Biological effects of non-ionizing radiation at non-thermal levels are
an established fact - they happen. This is not a subject that is open to
dispute. Given this fact, and given both the research findings of the
Stewart Committee and the overwhelming flood of so-called 'anecdotal'
evidence of detrimental effects of microwaves on humans (including
long-term cumulative effects), the only rational response is to call a
halt to microwave irradiation of our living-space until the possible
consequences are better known.

The 'P' in NRPB and ICNIRP both stand for 'Protection'. Who is it
exactly that is being protected?

Since writing this article the latest issue of 'Microwave News'
(http://www.microwavenews.com) has printed an article on this subject,
of which the following is an extract (full article available free from
above site). It makes very interesting reading.

Hans-Albert Kolb in Hannover lost a bottle of champagne betting that
relatively weak EMFs cannot induce DNA breaks (see p.2).

To his credit, Kolb ran the experiment despite his initial skepticism
and proved himself wrong. By repeating the work of Vienna's Oswald Jahn
and Hugo Rüdiger, Kolb's lab becomes the sixth to show that magnetic
fields can disrupt genetic blueprints. Taken together, these studies
make the epidemiology linking EMFs to childhood cancer more credible.
(Now there are reports that this same link has been found in a Japanese
study; see p.3).

The standard response from physicists is that this work cannot be right
because power-frequency EMFs do not have the energy to break chemical
bonds. Some even suggest that the experimenters must be incompetent or
dishonest (see p.8).

Anyone who has taken high school chemistry will agree that bonds are not
being broken, but that does not mean these experiments are flawed. The
researchers may not yet understand the subtle changes that lead to
genetic damage - the important thing is that magnetic fields have
repeatedly been shown to cause such damage.



On line paper of mind-invasion

Dear Klaus,
Could you draw your readers' attention (in particular Imelda in Cork) to
my paper published on the website of the Journal of Psycho-Social
Studies On The Need For a New Diagnosis for Psychosis in the Light of
Mind-Invasive Technology: at www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social

Carole Smith


EHS and mental illness

Hi Klaus

I have concerns about the work that you and Imelda are conducting regarding
EHS, due to your focus on being covertly targeted by microwave weapons.
As this is clearly not the case, it is not surprising that the EHS are
being seen as mentally ill. It is difficult enough trying to get the
authorities to take this condition seriously without making it worse
with such paranoid and unproven claims. Its unnecessary.

It is too easy for non-EHS people to regard us as mentally ill, and
although I am able to function normally I still have a problem with
people thinking this, so why give them extra ammunition?

Please feel free to pass this on to Imelda - I don't have her email.


Sarah Benson

answer from Imelda:

Hi Klaus: Thanks for forwarding Sarah's email. I appreciate how
difficult it is for many people who have not been targeted by energy
weapons to believe in
their very existence. Indeed it is just as hard to do so as it is for
the general non-EHS public to embrace the reality of our EHS bioeffects
and especially when we claim that they are triggered by exposure to
external EMR sources. And Sarah has no problem believing in the physical
reality of EHS because she has experienced these bioeffects. She can say
so with full conviction "because they clearly exist for me."

Sarah is a wonderfully committed EHS activist who in my estimation is
doing superb work on this front in Australia and I am very grateful for
the generous amount of information on EHS she shared with me a few years
ago. But perhaps it would have been better if she had written regards
our inclusion in EHS discussions of the reality of deliberate MW
targeting that "as this is not the case for me" rather than conveying
her belief that microwave weapons do not exist and therefore no one
anywhere can possibly be targeted has universal validity by omission of
that all important "for me."

Best, Imelda, Cork, Ireland.


French tackle mobile phone health dangers


1. But the user is not informed about the demanded "health security
distance". It seems that not yet the user is informed about the health
hazard of Blood Brain Barrier alteration with just 2 minutes of mobile
phone use. (Dr L. Salford)

One mobile phone can emit within the user's brain density of powers of
microwaves million times higher than the natural radiation of Sun
microwaves, with the documented health hazard of Blood Brain Barrier
alteration in the people who are 1.5 meters of distance and the
Chromosomes alteration to 8-10 meters of distance can affect the
children and pregnant women.

With this fundamental health hazard information and "security distance"
it seems ridiculous to confuse to the population with the use of hands
free kits, since it is demonstrated the same important alteration of
drivers reactions time.

2. Dr Marc Seguinot of the European Commission has well documented: The
density of power "authorized" can be based in the stupid heating of 1
degree of a "dead mass" of plastic, that was (calculated) divided by
capricious number 50.

It seems incomprehensible that during decades this absolutely false
supposition can be maintained to emit microwaves into alive organisms
that are "considered" like not-different from dead mass or inanimate

· To remember the brief summary of the report of Dr Mae Wan Ho.
Successive reports have confirmed that electromagnetic fields too weak
to cause burns and heating are linked to cancers and other illnesses.

Most revealing in the entire episode was the way Schwan defended the
indefensible orthodoxy. He denied all scientific evidence that went
against his a priori calculation based on the 'known laws of physics'
and the utterly false assumption that the living organism was to be
regarded as no different from dead or inanimate matter.

3. Are you convinced that we won't have to adopt a more restrictive


Tue 5 August 2003 01:03PM BST

French tackle mobile phone health dangers

Hands free kits, limit on masts and emissions among government measures.

Compulsory hands free kits and a restriction on masts are among a raft
of new public health measures announced by the French government to
combat the potential dangers posed by mobile phones.

French Industry minister Nicole Fontaine said in an interview with the
Journal de dimanche: "In a few months time, mobile phones will not able
to be sold without a hands free attachment."

The government initiative envisages the sale of mobiles phones only if
they come with a hands free kit. Most mobile shops are already there and
the operators, who distribute handsets en masse, are marketing mobiles
with hands free kits thrown in as well.

Phones that come with hands frees have been the standard since September
2002 at French mobile operator SFR, and customers with older mobiles can
get a free kit on demand. At fellow providers Orange and Bouygues, all
mobile packs have come with a hands free kit since 2001.

The minister also announced a future regulation that will put a limit on
the power of handsets.

But Marc Seguinot, head of the EC division in charge of protecting the
health of consumers, said: "All mobile phones that come on to the market
now already have to conform to European standards that limit radiation."

Fontaine also said that before the end of the year, the three main
French operators will sign a 'good behaviour charter', whereby they will
undertake, among other measures, to "inform the inhabitants before any
mast is put up, use existing masts rather than building new ones".

She said: "I am convinced that we won't have to adopt a more restrictive

This initiative, however, hasn't come from the government itself. The
operation was developed on behalf of operators by the French association
of mobile operators, AFOM, which works in concert with local authorities
and various groups.

Nevertheless, the minister still maintains that taking precautions is
the way forward, even if scientific studies listed by the World Health
Organisation conclude that there isn't any danger from either mobiles or
phone masts.

Elaine Spitery, a member of the Priartem association - which campaigns
for regulation of phone masts - and a trainee doctor, said: "Finally,
the government's conscience has kicked in over the potential danger of
mobiles and phone masts."

Christophe Guillemin writes for ZDNet France editorial@silicon.com

Informant: Dr Miguel Muntané


Comments on Mystery illness hits US troops in Iraq

Hi Don,

This long, unnerving but fact-based article by Will Thomas (Omega: see
under: http://tinyurl.com/8k5xzrefers to DU
exposure symptoms being experienced by American soldiers, who I predict,
would seem doomed to a very short and painful imminent exit from this
world as a result of the deliberate witholding of information about
these and other contaminants to which they are so heavily and shamefully
exposed. Meanwhile their benefits are slashed and the entire US economy
seems headed for the greatest crash in history as detailed in the
following piece.

With respect and thanks for your research and the crucial information
you bring forth.

Chris Anderson

Giving a man who wrecked every business he was ever handed personal
control over two countries is probably not a good idea.

Informant: Don Maisch


WWF ALERT: Birds threatened by South Korean coastal plan



O.T. themes:

While our backs were turned

But ... but .... we're the good guys

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp


Intelligence shouldn't exist just to serve policy

Gulf War Soldier: "We Don't Feel Like Heroes Anymore"

Newly Retired Officer: Pentagon Suffers from "Isolation," "Cliques," and


Citizens' Initiative Omega

If you want our (normally daily) Newsletter in German, sometimes partially in English, please go to

Note: Citizens' Initiative Omega works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many hours of daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to support our activity for people around the world with a donation or an aid fund unique or on regular base, you can do it here https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=Star.Mail%40t-

If you have informations which you would like to share with your friends and colleges around the world and which are from common interest, please send us this informations, we will send them out. Thank you.

Disclaimer:  The informations contained in our EMF-Omega-News are derived from sources, which we believe to be accurate but is not guaranteed.

Citizens' Initiative Omega is not responsible for any errors or omissions and disclaims any liability incurred as a consequence of any of the contents of this resources.