Fw:
Scientific publication URL: Message from PW.DM.WARD
Re:
open mail. EMF/BBB
Professor Moulder,
[...]case like : 2.38 or 1.39 or 5.78 microW/cm2 (for the
GSM part) or 1.5 under a base station and 5.6 microW/cm2 in
front of it !
These are still very low levels of RFR
but more than 1 and not so far from certain studies which
we discuss
Are those measurements published anywhere
where I can reference them?
I'd put them in the FAQ; if they are correct the indicate
that the French system is build very different from those
in most countries. For once I think that I am not going to
be very satisfied to be French....you can find a lot (233)
of official measures on (in French):
http://www.anfr.fr/fr/sante/emetteurs/mesures/index.htm
and for resume and precise examples
http://www.securiteconso.org/Commun/Recherche/OrgDocument.asp?Fichier=../AVIS/avis_telephone.htm
in chapter VIII
Are you arguing that the BBB effect may
be real, but that has no long-term consequences for the animal?
If so, the finding would be an academic curiosity, but it
would have no health implications No, I think the first thing
we see is the albumine leakage but this one (or another substance)
gives after neurological damages, and after the exposition
(for example 50 days) it's impossible to see excess of albumine
but only neurological damages which have health implications.
Is the exposure assessment/dosimetry of
all those studies sufficient to demonstrate that the effect
was non-thermal? I don't think so. The first part of Comobio
(COMOBIO project of the French ministries of Research and
of Industry, by France Télécom, Bouygues Télécom
and the CNRS) project was dosimetry (Dr De Sèze) you
know, I think, the description :
http://www.tsi.enst.fr/comobio/descriptif.html#Dosim
and http://www.tsi.enst.fr/comobio/resultats/SP2.html
If there is really no effect, and if every
study reports just a single result, and if nobody cheated;
then 5% of the reports should be negative and 5% positive.
If the effect is real, generally most studies can find evidence
for it. Failure to replicate/confirm a published result is
a rather rare event in most areas of science. But it seems
frequent in environmental pollution ?
For non-thermal RFR effects on the BBB
(and on the brain in general), more than half the studies
find no effect, with most of the recent studies, other than
Salford, falling in the "no effect" camp. Not very
persuasive. I find more than half which find an effect but
counting is not a solution ; especially so certain works have
technical limitations (for this precise point)
I understand and effectively I think that
it is very difficult to measure exactly. That is a major problem
for the claim of non-thermal exposures. The field in that
TEM cell is probably very uneven, an issue which is not addressed
by the authors. You would also except experimental confirmation
of the SAR means and distributions in a peer-reviewed paper.
I would also like to see an assurance that the animals cannot
come into direct contact with the conductors.
I think they write a part of it in microwave
news for Salford (but this is not what you are waiting for
I think) and on the net for Comobio. So the only thing which
could decide between us would be a replication of the study
of Salford or that of Combio? For Salford I don't know but
for Comobio it seems difficult, I believe that the operators
stop financing (would it be because first results were not
likely for them?)
Exposure assessment and dosimetry is one
of the weak points in many RFR studies, both animals and cell
culture. There days, authors are expected to provide considerably
more details than Salford et al are willing to provide. Their
exposure system has been severely criticized at numerous meeting,
and to my knowledge they have never answered the critiques.
Until I see real dosimetry for their system, I'm going to
remain very skeptical about their results. Maybe in not for
such a long time....
Greetings
Richard GAUTIER
http://taurens.stpierre.free.fr
and to the same theme:
Further discussion on comments made by
Moulder:
These
are still very low levels of RFR
Long term effects of base station radiation
on nearby residents are difficult to access and are rarely
investigated in laboratory environments as they require far
more research time. As a scientist I would like to see radiation
limits set 1000 fold (a reasonable safety factor used in other
environmental safety regulations such as pesticides) below
significant effects on the blood brain barrier. Using Salford's
data this would be below 0.24 uW/cm2, since 10 fold jumps
in power densities were used (it is most likely since there
were dead neurons at the 10 fold lower power density that
the minimum significant dosage is below this value). Surprisingly,
this is similar to the 0.1 uW/cm2 recommended by scientists
and public health officials at the Salzburg Conference in
2000:
http://www.salzburg.gv.at/themen/gs/umweltmedizin.htm/elektrosmog.htm/celltower_e.htm.
Is the exposure assessment/dosimetry of
all those studies sufficient to demonstrate that the effect
was non-thermal? I don't think so.
As a research scientist I don't see the
point of discussing whether something is non-thermal or not.
A mechanism is only a theory in biology which may guide you
in developing your research directions, but once the research
data conflict these theories must be abandoned and new hypotheses
developed. Biological investigation drives the theory/mechanism.
I have read other letters where individuals would not believe
data because it doesn't fit their mechanistic models, clearly
the latter are flawed.
That is a major problem for the claim of
non-thermal exposures. The field in that TEM cell is probably
very uneven, an issue which is not addressed by the authors.
You would also except experimental confirmation of the SAR
means and distributions in a peer-reviewed paper I would also
like to see an assurance that the animals cannot come into
direct contact with the conductors.
These objections do not take into account
the nature of radio waves generated by artificial sources
and are not valid. Radio wave transmission towers and cell
phones produce precisely this type of radiation which fluctuates
rapidly and can vary 10-100 fold within very small areas.
As this is the nature of the radiation in the field (when
you put a cell phone to your head) so must the radiation in
the lab be such.
Message from Bob Sklar
and also to this theme:
To
all:
John Moulder could have taken power density measurements in
areas where people have reported suffering from RF/MW radiation;
apparently he has not done so.
He also could have checked with the PCS (US mobile system)
applications in the Massachusetts Department of Public Health,
where carriers (companies) were required to predict by calculation
the power densities in structures near proposed sites.
Although predicted levels in PCS applications were generally
around 1 uWcm-2, their range was approximately about 0.1 to
10 uWcm-2. Measured levels often exceeded calculated levels,
where measurements were taken. Levels near seacoasts tended
to be higher than those inland.
Of course, the PCS signal does not occur in a vacuum, but
rather in addition to other PCS signals, plus all other local
RF/MW radiation from a great many sources.
Moulder and his engineer colleagues were clearly proud of
what they believed to have been the bringing of "progress"
to the world. They received awards for developing MW radiation-based
devices. However, they not only failed to question their personal
belief in any way, but then remained in denial of the results
of studies at and below 1 uWcm-2 to this day.
Fascinating, I thought, that Moulder, who
is in no way a public health scientist, should presume to
alter standard criteria for public health science determinations.
One of the most ridiculous and outrageous of notions is his
proposition that a positive study is meaningless in the absence
of a replication or the presence of a negative study. This
is not science, but religion.
Susan Clarke
Biochemist Prof. Sianette Kwee: 9 studies with non-thermal
effects through electro-magnetic fields.
- S. Kwee and P. Raskmark: Changes in cell proliferation
due to environmental electromagnetic fields in Charge and
field effects in biosystems - 4. M.J. Allen, S.F. Cleary,
A.E. Sowers and D.D. Shillady eds. World Scientific Publishing
Co, Singapore 1994, pp. 255-260.
- S.Kwee and P. Raskmark: Changes in cell proliferation
due to environmental non-ionizing radiation. 1. ELF electromagnetic
fields. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 36(1995) 109-114.
- P. Raskmark and S. Kwee: The minimizing effect of electromagnetic
noise on the changes in cell proliferation caused by ELF
magnetic fields. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 40 (1996) 193-196.
- S. Kwee and P. Raskmark: RF electromagnetic fields and
cell proliferation in 5th Nordic Workshop on Biological
Effects of Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. A. Johnsson
and G. Oftedal eds. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority
Strålevern rapport 1997:6 pp.27-28.
- S. Kwee and P. Raskmark: Changes in cell proliferation
due to environmental non-ionizing radiation - 2. Microwave
radiation. Bioelectrochem.Bioenerg. 44(1998) 251-255
- S. Kwee and P. Raskmark: Radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields and cell proliferation, in F. Bersani (Ed.) Electricity
and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, New York, 1999, p. 187- 191
- S. Velizarov, P. Raskmark and S. Kwee: The effects of
radiofrequency fields on cell proliferation are non- thermal.
Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 48 (1999) 177-181.
- S. Kwee, P. Raskmark and S. Velizarov: Changes in cellular
proteins due to environmental non-ionizing radiation. 1.
Heat shock proteins. Electro- and Magnetobiology 20(2) (2001)
165-176.
- S. Kwee: Effets des champs de micro-ondes des téléphones
mobiles sur la croissance des cellules vivantes in P. Lannoye
(ed.) Téléphone Mobile, Collection Resurgence,
Editions Marco Pitteur, Embourg (Belgien) 2001, p.121- 141.
Informant: Elektrosmognews
US
claims are bogus
Public exposure near base stations seldom
(if ever) exceeds 0.0008 W/kg or 1 microW/cm-sq
Oh I think that I am going to go to live
in the US !
Don't pack your bags until you come here
and measure it for yourself. In Needham, MA a cell tower was
just errected across the street from a day care center with
about 40 babies inside...radiation outside the building is
6 uW/cm2. I feel so sorry for the unsuspecting parents.
Message from Bob Sklar
Interesting
link:
http://www.radfreeusa.com/radfree/cellular-radiation-articles.asp
|