* Different re: open mail. EMF/BBBEMF (Professor Moulder) - Biochemist Prof. Sianette Kwee: 9 studies with non-thermal effects through electro-magnetic fields - US claims are bogus - Interesting link (5/3/03)
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


Citizens' Initiative Omega
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/00omega.htm
http://teleline.terra.es/personal/kirke1/pagact.html
http://www.idealist.org/orgs/91768
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

SAY NO TO WAR IN IRAQ go to:
http://www.idealist.org/en/ip/idealist/OrgViewer/default?SID=
c93d708d672c85410ea5bad5373193f0&1.9=1&ORG_ID=91768&#CAMPAIGN_2

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-
online.de&return=http%3A//www.grn.es/electropolucio/
00omega.htm&no_note=1&tax=0&currency_code=USD


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.