Thank you for your work on BI Omega.

Re: Sarah Benson's comment.

I agree with Imelda's remarks below. I respect what I have seen of the
work of Sarah in Australia. I hope she will look further into the serious
documents on "being covertly targeted by microwave weapons". She won't
feel more comfortable afterwards, if she does so, but she will feel
better-informed.

1. A very good collection of documents, compiled by Allen L Barker, is
at www.datafilter.com/mc/

2. She might like to look up the work of Cheryl Welsh who is a
UN-recognised expert. Here is a summary of Cheryl's background taken
from a conference programme:

Cheryl Welsh - Director of Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse (CAHRA)
since 1996. This organization was formed by a group of victims of
non-consensual human experimentation involving electromagnetic and
neurological weapon testing programs by the U.S. and other governments.

Cheryl is recognized by the United Nations as an expert on Non-lethal
Technology (Directed Energy Weapons). Cheryl has been on a CNN program
to explain the use of Directed Energy Weapons on U.S. citizens.

She has co-authored several books including "International Campaign to
End Human Rights Violations Involving Classified New Weapons of Mass
Destruction: Electromagnetic and Neurological Technologies" Recently she
has authored two articles for the UFO Magazine Feb/March 2003 and
April/May 2003 "Cover Stories Torn Away: New Evidence of Active Mind
Control."
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh.
Welsh@dcn.davis.ca.us

Lyn L Milnes
New Zealand

--------

Published studies on the effects of basestations
Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base
Stations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

New studie :
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine , Volume 22 , (1) 41-49
Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base
Stations

R. Santini, P. Santini, P. Le Ruz,J. M. Danze, M. Seigne
Abstract

A survey study was conducted, using a questionnaire, on 530 people (270
men, 260 women) living or not in proximity to cellular phone base
stations. Eighteen different symptoms (Non Specific Health
Symptoms-NSHS), described as radiofrequency sickness, were studied by
means of the chi-square test with Yates correction. The results that
were obtained underline that certain complaints are experienced only in
the immediate vicinity of base stations (up to 10 m for nausea, loss of
appetite, visual disturbances), and others at greater distances from
base stations (up to 100 m for irritability, depressive tendencies,
lowering of libido, and up to 200 m for headaches, sleep disturbances,
feeling of discomfort). In the 200 m to 300 m zone, only the complaint
of fatigue is experienced significantly more often when compared with
subjects residing at more than 300 m or not exposed (reference group).
For seven of the studied symptoms and for the distance up to 300 m, the
frequency of reported complaints is significantly higher (P < 0.05) for
women in comparison with men. Significant differences are also observed
in relation to the ages of subjects, and for the location of subjects in
relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors.

Greetings
Richard GAUTIER
www.csif-cem.org

--------

Re: French tackle mobile phone health dangers. Are you convinced that we
won't have to adopt a more restrictive approach?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only a dead brain would use a fake brain in a platic head in order to
detemine whether microwave might have an effect on living tissue. Like
testing cyanide on a plastic Robot.I have been concerned for many years
of the method that was used by our Canadian Government Radiation
Protection Bureau,in order to set the guidelines for cellphones and base
stations. According to information I have received from Health Canada.

A fake brain,made of some sort of gel substance,placed in a phantom head
made of fiberglass,was charged with EMF to a point of temperature
change.A density somewhat below was determined to be safe for live human
brain with connecting nerve tissue.Eyes to see,ears to hear,nose to
smell,tongue to taste,limbs that receive signals in order to
move,thought process,sinusitis to create lubricant for
nose,eyes,ears,etc. All controlled by very low level, natural, EMF.

If one questions or complains of being fried from EMF from a nearby
tower, they are told that it is not possible to be effected by EMF from
the tower, since the density of EMF is lower than that which is set by
the Safety Code 6 Guidelines.It must be your imagination?

Most local governments trust that the Federal Government knows what they
are doing.They will tell you that towers are safe since they are
regulated by the Federal Health Ministry.I have yet to find one that
questioned how the Safety Code Was Established!!

Like a herd of of buffalo heading for the cliff called Buffalo Jump.And
We Are Supposed To Trust Them With Our Lives,I Don't Think So!!

Regards Robert Riedlinger

and

BBC NEWS England Gloucestershire Nickel curtains 'protect against mast'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A woman has installed protective nickel-plated net curtains for
protection from emissions she says are coming from a police
communications mast.

O2 Airwave, which owns the Tetra mast near Dursley, Gloucestershire,
says people are over reacting and it is operating within recognised
safety guidelines.

Suzanne Everdell says the curtains are helping her family overcome sleep
problems which started when the mast was erected. The net curtain is
interwoven with nickel plating and was originally designed by the
Ministry of Defence, she says. It is used by some train companies to
prevent the use of mobile phones in carriages.

The Tetra mast is part of the radio communications system being trialled
by police. Some locals say it interfered with their televisions when it
was switched on for tests in March.

Mrs Everdell, who lives several hundred yards from the mast, told the
BBC: "Within a few days of the mast being put up, my husband, my
daughter and myself were all woken abruptly four or five times a night."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/3075817.stm

Published: 2003/07/17 18:29:45 GMT

© BBC MMIII

--------

Hello Klaus.

The article below is misguided and misinformed. I do not think it is
meant to be purposely misleading, but some correction is required to the
initial, nonsequitur, recitation of "scientific" facts. The so-called
"physics" is oversimplified. I have explained why I write this
below. I have truncated some of the original message.

John Michael Williams

RE: On Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation
-------------------------------------------
Some of the Facts
...
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.

John: However, human beings can SEE visible light; if this light doesn't
break molecular bonds, then how does it work? The writer would have us
all go blind!

The answer is that nonionizing radiation HAS OTHER EFFECTS than
ionization. All organic molecules in a watery substrate are maintained
in an active or inactive state by their relationship with water. Their
bonds with water (hydrogen bonds, not covalent bonds, are being broken
constantly and reformed on a picosecond time scale. The writer
represents that the only chemical bonds are covalent, evidently, or
ionic--this is false. There is no need to supply extra energy to "break
bonds" in water, because this happens spontaneously and continuously.
There is no threshold for hydrogen bond breaking, but such bonds reform
immediately in about the same conformation, as determined by the overall
shape and average location of the molecules involved. See
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/ for a good explanation of water chemistry.

Protein molecules that control biological activity function by
maintaining a certain shape (conformation) relative to others nearby.
We can see because the rhodopsin-based visual pigments in the eye change
shape on receipt of a single photon of VISIBLE (nonionizing) light.
Other molecules amplify the effect of the shape change, leading
eventually to signals to the brain carried by the optic nerve.

The same applies to microwave radiation. Microwave photons can not break
a covalent or ionic bond with any probability, but they can change
protein (enzyme) molecule conformation, leading to changes in biological
activity which are not well understood and are not at all necessarily
harmless.

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
cancers.

John: DNA can be activated to change the way it behaves in regard to
messenger RNA or other molecules by a change in conformation. Breaking
of covalent or ionic bonds is not necessary; if it were, we all would die,
because few of the chemical reactions that occur in the body have local
energy concentrated enough to break such bonds.

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.

John: This is true, but conformational changes can occur because of
single microwave photons--not enough to raise temperature by a
measurable amount.

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?

John: Yes. And this is a dangerous and in fact careless
oversimplification. I agree with the latter part of this message.

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?

John: Basic biochemistry, not oversimplified physics or radio
engineering, is causing this worry.

...
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.

John: This is true. Microwave radiation can cause depolarization
and thus activation of neurons and muscle cells.

...

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?

John: The income and free travel pay of expensive national science and
engineering consultants?

Microwave hearing is the best documented nonionizing, "unnatural"
effect of microwaves which occurs at subthermal levels; even though well
studied, it is not well understood.

--------

The article on http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/omega259.htm :
Total Information Awareness as Intellectual Property Theft

was from B Gallagher

--------

O.T. themes:

White House releases redacted version of Constitution
http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=659

Wolfowitz admits Iraq not involved in 9/11
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm

Ashcroft tour to plug terror bill
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/106872p-96686c.html

Who will rein in Ashcroft?
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/2003/08/07

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp