Newsletter (10 February 2004)

There is an EMF sensor in humans

There is an EMF sensor in humans!!! And in all mammals. It is the nCTCTn nucleotide sequence in the promoters of some genes, e.g., HSP70, c-myc, c-fos and c-jun to name a few. This 'sensor' is also present in yeast, drosophila, Planaria and Aplysia genes. This 'sensor' is a DNA sequence that is 'sensitive' to EMFs even at 0.8mG.

R. Goodman


High voltage, animals mix to produce ozone

'Rats subjected to extreme electromagnetic fields produce dangerous  levels of the toxic gas ozone, according to a new study out of DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory that is sure to reenergize the decade-dormant debate about safety around power lines and household appliances. It is the first experiment to conclusively link an electromagnetic field with a health-adverse chemical effect in the presence of an animal, said Steven Goheen, a scientist at the DOE lab and lead author of a paper published in the current issue of the journal Bioelectromagnetics. "All this time, we were looking in the wrong place," Goheen said. "We had been looking inside animals for an effect from the electromagnetic fields. Now it appears that the danger is in the air surrounding animals that are near a large electromagnetic field."'

bc --

Informant: human being

Omega: see also under


Learning to live and love without a cellphone

Letter to the editor International Herald Tribune

„Learning to live and love without a cellphone“ by Siddarth Srivastava (New Delhi-based journalist), dd 040205,

Please be strong, Siddarth!

Marianne Kirst


RF Exposure

Maybe all those great scientists who are trying for years to convince everybody (and themselves too) that human exposure to RF antennas is safe, those who are struggling to prove that our experiments are wrong and reject the papers in the journals without much explanation, those who of course get great support by the big companies while others get no support just because they report dangerous effects, maybe those guys should give an explanation to Barry. . . Maybe they can tell him that as long as his body temperature is not raised by the exposure he is safe. Right?

Dimitris J. Panagopoulos

Omega:see =Abstract


Antenna Patterns & Input Impedances of Handset Antennas and SARs in Human Head: A Comparative Study Using FDTD


Re: Information sought on best T.V.s when EHS

Ordinary cathode-ray tube (CRT) TV's can be a source of discomfort several ways: The focus can be bad, causing eyestrain and headache; the horizontal scan (at some 15 kHz) can cause high-frequency noise, causing distraction or headache; the picture can flicker if reception is bad.  Any of these effects is more likely than EMF sensitivity.

CRT's don't emit any EMF at all, unless seriously defective. In principle, they could emit X-rays, but in that case, there probably would not be any picture. I've never heard of a TV failing so as to emit X-rays.

It is possible to pick up a little magnetic field oscillation near the tube with a Microalert or other microwave detector, but this is a false signal and is not EMF at all.

An LCD display can not suffer from any of the above (except poor picture detail--see below), and so it may alleviate all symptoms.  However, one can not conclude that EMF was responsible if the LCD screen helps. Almost anything else is more likely than EMF caused by the TV.

All current broadcast TV monitors are low-resolution, even when compared with a VGA or Mac computer monitor. They are likely to cause ones eyesight to become worse if viewed for long periods.  The actual discomfort may be caused entirely by eyestrain. Viewing the TV from a longer distance may help. If viewed up close, a small screen (say 5 -10 cm across) may be better than a big one, because the pixels are small on the small screen and allow the eye to focus on the tiny details it needs.

Now, that said about TV's, there is another issue: If microwaves are being intercepted by ones home wiring or by electric power transmission lines, it is possible for them to be conducted by wiring into the home. In this case, every power cord which ends at an appliance such as a TV or heater conceivably could become an antenna to reradiate microwaves in the home.

So, it is possible for a TV to radiate EMF this way. However, if the only complaint is the TV, and not any other appliance (especially if plugged in at the same power receptacle as the TV), then EMF may not be responsible for the discomfort; so, replacing the TV may remove the symptoms.

John Michael Williams


Sprint is threatening a lawsuit against Berkeley

Dear Fellows:

On Tuesday February 10, 2004, the City Council of Berkeley, California will decide on the case of Sprint antennas. A few days ago, Sprint threatened the city by a lawsuit if permit to its antennas is denied.

Now, citizens of Berkeley are sending e-mails to the Council Members saying that they do not want a corporation impose its business and presence in Berkeley by bullying and intimidation.

After a strong case presented by the neighbors, Sprint sees no chance. That is why it is coming up with this new bluff to scare the City Council.


Let's Adhere to the Berkeley Telecommunications Ordinance (BTO)

This letter was submitted to the City Council of Berkeley by one of the appellants.

This letter discusses the following:

1 - Violations of sections of the BTO by Sprint

2 - City Attorney's jabberwocky

3 - Role of the "independent" engineer

4 - Adequate coverage

5 - Adherence to the BTO

6 - This is Sprint

1 - Violations of sections of the BTO by Sprint

Neighbors have shown that many sections of the BTO were violated or could be violated by Sprint.  A short list of some of these sections follows:

Section 23C.17.020.B.4: Sprint did not have a dialog with the community near 1600 Shattuck in summer of 2002. Such a dialog is required by this section of the BTO. Sprint organized an unsuccessful meeting with the community on August 7, 2003; a year after.

Section 23C.17.040.F: Sprint did not submit an engineering report mandated by this section of the BTO in July 2002 when applied for a use permit. Sprint submitted a report on December 12, 2002; a week after the ZAB public hearing.

Section 23C.17.070.G:  This section of the BTO states "All facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, attractive nuisances." This section could be violated since the roof of 1600 Shattuck is easily accessible. In summer of 2003, while the mock antennas were standing on the roof, a graffiti was painted on the parapet of 1600 Shattuck. A photograph showing the graffiti and the standing mock antennas was filed with the City Council on January 20, 2004.

Sections 23C.17.070.C and 23C.17.070.J:  These sections of the BTO could be violated since the antennas will mar the view of Berkeley Hills for those who live on the west of 1600 Shattuck.

Section 23B.32.040.A:  According to this section of the Zoning Ordinance, a use permit may be approved, only upon finding that the establishment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. This section of the Zoning Ordinance could be violated, because in the past 14 months, neighbors, parents, and business owners in the vicinity of 1600 Shattuck, as well as the visitors to this area have expressed their strong opposition to the installation of the proposed antennas.

This was a summary of violations of the BTO by Sprint.

2 - City Attorney's jabberwocky

  • Position of the City Attorney, Ms. Manuela Albuquerque, on this case is clear to neighbors. Perhaps, you can decide her position for yourself:
  • She postponed our public hearing scheduled on June 17, 2003 in order to hire the so called "independent" engineer.
  • She calls our evidence anecdotal evidence.
  • She again postponed our public hearing on September 16, 2003.  These postponements gave ample time to Sprint to hire an agency to gather signatures on its petition forms by the BART station, downtown Berkeley, and UC Campus.
  • During our public hearing on January 20, 2004, Ms. Albuquerque implied that the City has no choice but to grant permit to Sprint.
  • Now, she has a new argument; a twisted interpretation of only one section of the BTO. She ignores all violations of the ordinance by Sprint.
  • She is holding an executive session with the City Council on February 9, 2004, behind closed doors, just to scare the City Council of a fictional lawsuit by Sprint.

Neighbors believe that her recent twisted argument as why the City Council should grant permit to Sprint is nothing but jabberwocky. We urge the Council to ignore her recommendation and scare tactics. Sprint has grossly violated the BTO. Sprint will not file a lawsuit. Sprint has lost in many courts where residents had weaker cases than what neighbors of 1600 Shattuck have. Therefore, Sprint will have no chance to win this case in any court.

3 - Role of the "independent" engineer

The Planning department and the City Attorney hired the so called "independent" engineer to evaluate Sprint's application. The outcome of this evaluation was well predicted by neighbors. During the Public Hearing on January 20, 2004 and the subsequent meeting of the City Council on January 27, 2004, the public had the impression that the "independent" engineer is not neutral. You decide for yourself:

  • The study by the "independent" engineer took close to six months, during which Sprint had time to make up for its violations of sections of the BTO.
  • The "independent" engineer conducted tests with Sprint engineers. This shows that his study has not been independent.
  • The "independent" engineer makes statements in support of Sprint. For instance, when Council Member Olds asked the "independent" engineer whether newer phones dropped calls less frequently, he said yes, but he was quick to say that users did not want to upgrade their old cell phones. What he said is not right because users upgrade their cell phones as technology advances. In fact, corporations dictate the upgrading of cell phones.
  • Also, Council Member Wozniak raised doubts about the study and tests by the "independent" engineer by telling the Council that he tried his own Sprint phone in the so called "dead-zone" area and no call was dropped.

4 - Adequate Coverage

Sprint does provide more than adequate coverage in north Berkeley, because:

  • Neighbors have conducted several rigorous and extensive coverage surveys with Sprint phones in the so called troubled area. The surveys show that Sprint has more than adequate coverage. The findings of these surveys are filed with the City Council.
  • Add to this, the coverage test by Council Member Wozniak who is a Sprint user. He had satisfactory results in the purported troubled area.
  • Sprint has at least 59 antennas that provide adequate services to Berkeley.
  • Even the report by the "independent" engineer shows that Sprint has adequate coverage. The report on Page 1 states "3. Sprint demonstrated a need for improved PCS coverage in the area ..." Well, it is always good to improve things. One can or would like to upgrade her Mercedes to a Rolls Royce. But, Mercedes is still good to get her around.

5 - Adherence to the BTO

Yes, let's fully adhere to the BTO, but not the way Ms. Albuquerque plans to do. She plans to ignore sections of the BTO violated by Sprint listed above, and to use only one section of the BTO that benefits Sprint. Why not, for instance, use Section 23C.17.100.D.1 of the BTO?  This section states that to approve a use permit, it should be determined, based on substantial evidence, that "Without such antenna or facility, the operator will be unable to provide personal wireless services to its customers in the proposed coverage area ..."

As it was argued above, Sprint is able to provide wireless services to its customers in north Berkeley.

6. This is Sprint

Yes, this is your friendly service provider that claims has no goals, but to serve people. After violating the BTO, it is now threatening the City of Berkeley by a lawsuit!  This is surely a bluff and a scare tactic. Sprint knows that it has violated the BTO and will have no chance in any court.

Do people of Berkeley want a corporation that plans to invade their city and neighborhoods by intimidation and threats of lawsuit? Neighbors believe that the answer is a solid NO. We urge the City Council to deny permit to Sprint.

Informant: Radi


Administration OKs Drilling On Endangered Sea Turtles' Nesting Beach


Stop the killing of seals in Canada

Please take a minute to petition this awful practice, and please pass along the link too.

Informant: George Paxinos


Act Now to Protect Mauna Kea

Mauna Kea is one of the most sacred places in all of the Hawaiian Archipelago. It is considered to be the 'Stairway to Heaven" created by Akuas (the creator) for man, so that man can ascend and learn the ways of the heavens.


Rachel #783: Public Participation, Pt. 2