* Interview with Prof. Franz Adlkofer in Danish newspaper - Safety standards again - Top scientist casts doubts on TETRA masts safety - Open Letter to the BEMS Community - What the Chemical Industry Fears - What's Wrong with Assisted Reproductive Technologies? - World Scientists' Warning To Humanity (4/11/03)
Interview with Prof. Franz Adlkofer about the REFLEX project in of one
  of the largest Danish newspapers

  Yesterday, Sunday, on the frontpage of one of the largest Danish
  newspapers was an interview with Prof. Franz Adlkofer about the results
  of the REFLEX project. Two full pages were devoted to a detailed
  explanation of the results. This has really upset the country. My Sunday
  at home was disturbed by 2 journalists who brought an interview with me
  in the main TV news broadcast later that evening. Of course I could
  fully confirm the REFLEX results. Also a comment from Prof. Joergen Bach
  Andersen, who said that this does not happen at the Danish safety
  standards (highest ICNIRP!). My final point was: 1. A stop of the
  raising of more masts. 2. Lowering of the ICNIRP safety standards. More
  research should not have the highest priority, as there is already a
  very great number of studies that have shown the harmful effects.
  Now there are starting to come in complaints from children that go to
  schools with masts on top of the roof: headaches etc.
  Now the authorities are really worried, because this is an action that
  starts at the bottom, started by the ordinary population - they are
  worried and angry. The phone companies, ministers, Danish Cancer Society
  are changing daily their messages to the press. They are getting less
  convincing. Danish Cancer Society has started a personal attack and is
  criticizing my qualifications and articles.
  Could someone help me with a list of all studies on harmful effects of
  base station/masts?
  Thank you and kind regards
  Sianette Kwee
  See also http://www.cphpost.dk/get/68510.html
  Safety standards again
  Thank you all for your replies and lists of safety standards. However,
  many of the studies of non-thermal effects the field is given in SAR
  (field strength pr. tissue/body weight.) Can any body help me how to
  transfer these figures to the safety standards units (energy strength
  pr. sq. area)?
  I am afraid that they will hit me with this at the meeting at the Ministry.
  Thank you and kind regards
  Sianette Kwee
  Top scientist casts doubts on TETRA masts safety
  By Gordon Berry
  ONE OF THE world’s leading medical scientists has claimed that the
  highly controversial TETRA transmitting system “may constitute a health
  hazard” to people living near installation sites.
  The comment has been made in a letter written by Dundee-based top cancer
  research scientist Professor Sir David Lane as members of Fife Council’s
  east area development committee prepare to give a view on three more
  applications for sites to be included in a new telecommunications system
  for Fife Constabulary.
  Sir David’s home lies close to one of the sites, at Quarry Road in
  Balmullo, and he and his wife—another leading scientist—have submitted a
  formal objection to the application from NTL, which owns the mast where
  the Airwave MMO2 dish would be mounted.
  Councillors in north-east Fife recently decided to defer a decision on
  several similar applications until more is known about claims that the
  masts—claimed to involve radio signals which pulse at a rate similar to
  that the human brain—could be associated with health problems.
  Fears have been expressed that radio waves could cause calcium to leak
  from the brain, triggering damage to nervous and immune systems, and
  that pulsed microwaves can lead to conditions such as leukaemia and
  The Home Office has said that there are “no discernable risks”
  associated with the masts.
  After the decision to delay the application was made at a meeting in
  Cupar there was considerable controversy and anger when Fife Council
  then decided to take the decision-making process out of the hands of
  local councillors and into the central strategic environment and
  development committee.
  Local councillors still have to provide a view on the matter, however,
  and the Balmullo application, which has also attracted objections from
  other local residents and from the community council, is one of three
  coming before tomorrow’s committee meeting in Cupar.
  The others involve sites at the East Lomond, and Prospect Hill at
  Balmeadowside near Cupar.
  Sir David and Lady Lane have raised three grounds of objection, among
  them the bombshell statement that “this type of transmitter may
  constitute a health hazard to the occupants of the neighbouring houses.”
  They said that definitive tests have not been carried out, as it is not
  known how to do them.
  A similar view has been expressed by the community council secretary,
  Anne Haskell.
  “We believe that not enough research has been carried out into the
  effects a mast would have on both persons and livestock,” the objection
  “A two mile radius of the mast would incorporate the whole village.”
  Sir David is director of the Cancer Research UK Cell Transformation
  Research Group at the University of Dundee, and is the founder and chief
  scientific officer at Cyclacel, a company developing drugs treatment for
  He is a fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and
  the Royal College of Pathologists, and a founder member of the Academy
  of Medical Science.
  Lady Birgitte Lane is head of cell and development biology at the
  Wellcome Trust Building at the University of Dundee.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "alison mackay"
  Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:12 PM
  Subject: Cancer research specialist says masts are not safe
  In today's Courier (on the web if you can't get a copy), world famous
  cancer research specialist, Sir David Lane and his wife, also an eminent
  researcher say TETRA masts are not safe and need to be tested before
  being allowed.
  It may have something to do with the fact that there is a proposal to
  erect a mast near his home in Balmullo, East Fife.
  Informant: Grahame
  Open Letter to the BEMS Community
  Final Version submitted 1/30/02 to BEMS Newsletter
  Recently, the discussion over new RF standards being developed by IEEE
  has offered an opportunity for all interested people to understand more
  about the adequacy of the existing standards, and the complexity of the
  factors to take into account in new standard-setting.
  The BEMS community may wish to consider more active involvement in the
  IEEE and NCRP standard-setting processes. Many BEMS members have
  valuable expertise in these matters to provide stakeholder oversight.
  This open participation in the process will go a long way toward
  building confidence and public acceptance of new standards.
  Stakeholder participation is acknowledged to be a fundamental part of
  the IEEE standard setting process. To make sure that the public and
  decisionmakers at all levels have full confidence in the new standards,
  the process should be incorporate more stakeholder participation and
  wider scientific review. To ensure that proper consideration has been
  given to the complete range of scientific information and public health
  and information needs, the BEMS community and related interest groups
  should an take an active role in reviewing this process; including the
  underlying scientific, policy, legal, regulatory and public health
  issues at stake.
  Of particular interest is Attachment 8 of the June 2001 Minutes of IEEE.
  This attachment outlines questions to the subcommittee members (and
  their written answers) on fundamental issues that affect our ability to
  know how well RF exposures may measured and evaluated for risk with
  respect to emerging RF technologies and devices. Non-uniform exposures,
  near-field versus far field exposures, average and peak SAR exposure
  limits, and other variables make standard-setting very challenging if
  the over-riding IEEE goal is to identify suitable measurement standards
  and limits to protect public health.
  Cindy Sage
  Sage Associates
  Observations from the Attachment 8 Document – IEEE SC-4 Minutes from the
  June 2001 St. Paul meeting (BEMS annual meeting) by Cindy Sage
  The existing FCC standards for RF are not science based, they are obsolete.
  The proposed SC-4 revision is not based on any better science, just a
  need to avoid violating existing SAR standards for peak SAR exposure
  with non-uniform exposures and near-field conditions created by
  widespread exposure of the public to cell phones, for example.
  The proposed revisions should not be adopted, since the science does not
  yet exist to show what standards can protect the public (Balzano comments)
  The SC-4 subcommittee has statements by individuals that make the
  relaxation of existing standards appear to be based solely on protecting
  industry interests, not protecting the public.
  The SC-4 subcommittee is conducting a process that is not open to the
  public, nor to stakeholder input – in contradiction to their written
  The important questions are not being answered in these deliberations by
  the SC-4 subcommittee. The right questions are:
  • how small of an area of the brain, or the eye, or the testes that is
  damaged by “hotspots” created by exposures to either devices (cell
  phones, cordless phones, etc) or to real-world exposure (cell phone
  towers, AM/FM/TV antennas, etc) is being considered? Multiple sources?
  Reradiation conditions?
  • How small of an area of tissue that is subjected to extreme SARs from
  hotspots matters? How small of an area of tissue exposed repetitively to
  RF at levels exceeding the existing peak SAR ratio is biologically
  important? Biologically damaging? And not just damaged by thermal
  heating, but damaged in biological functioning?
  • Can exposure of less than a ten-gram (or one-gram) tissue sample cause
  biological damage – and result in adverse health effects? (in the case
  of DNA damage to cells, it is a necessary pre-condition to the
  development of cancer, and even ONE cell is important).
  • If existing science is not adequate to develop revisions to the FCC
  limits now, what science is needed and when will it be available to study?
  • If we do not now have standards that are defensibly protective of
  public health, and we cannot do better at the moment, what should be
  done about exposures occuring NOW? Ban devices? Ban future sales?
  Certainly not relax the existing standards to accommodate the needs of
  the industry. And certainly not exempt ANY so-called “low-power devices”
  as recommended by C.K. Chou, since he and others on the SC-4
  subcommittee talk freely about hotspots that occur with their use that
  far exceed peak SAR standards.
  What the Chemical Industry Fears
  What's Wrong with Assisted Reproductive Technologies?
  World Scientists' Warning To Humanity
  Informant: Biophilos
  O.T. themes:
  Bush's other war
  A fiction shattered
  Cut Losses: Leave Iraq
  Number of Hungry Families in U.S. Rising
   From Information Clearing House
  "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole
  Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero
  ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely
  entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an
  un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the
  world into even greater instability."
  – George Bush Sr., A World Transformed (1998)
  Informant: Flyby News
  Saving the Constitution
  Informant: FoE Sydney
  Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Citizens' Initiative Omega
* http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/00omega.htm
* http://www.buergerwelle.de/

* http://teleline.terra.es/personal/kirke1/pagact.html
* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EMR-EMF/
If you want our (normally daily) Newsletter in German, sometimes partially in English, please go to
* http://www.hohle-erde.de/body_home.html#bio

Note: EMF-Omega News belongs to the Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), Umbrella Organization of the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection before Electrosmog.

Editor and responsible for the content: Citizens’ Initiative Omega, member in the Buergerwelle. Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), which 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: Recipient: Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), bank-connection: Hypo Bank Augsburg, account-No 2250284, BLZ 720 200 70.

Buergerwelle Germany (incorporated society), Umbrella Organization of the Citizens and Initiatives for the Protection before Electrosmog: 1.
Chairman Siegfried Zwerenz, 2. Chairman Barbara Eidling, Mailing address: Lindenweg 10, D-95643 Tirschenreuth, phone 0049-(0)9631-795736, fax 0049-(0)9631-795734, e-mail pr@buergerwelle.de, Internet http://www.buergerwelle.de <http://www.buergerwelle.de/ , information phone: Barbara Eidling phone 0049-(0)8171-18898 Thank you.

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.