* 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends,
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
and
Safety
standards again
------------------------
Friends
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
epilepsy.
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
said.
“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
cancer.
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.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2003/11/03/newsstory5312641t0.asp
----- 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.
Brilliant!
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.
Ali
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
position.
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
http://tinyurl.com/takn
--------
What's Wrong with Assisted Reproductive Technologies?
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/wwwART.php
--------
World
Scientists' Warning To Humanity
http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm
Informant: Biophilos
--------
O.T.
themes:
Bush's other war
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5121.htm
A fiction shattered
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5128.htm
Cut Losses: Leave Iraq
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/031030Eland.html
Number of Hungry Families in U.S. Rising
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3334356,00.html
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
http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/archive/CurrentLighthouse.html#1
http://www.antiwar.com/cs/roberts3.html
Informant: FoE Sydney
--------
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp |
|
|
Citizens' Initiative
Omega
*
http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/00omega.htm
* http://www.buergerwelle.de/
http://robingood.typepad.com/commagents_blog/2003/07/i_am_very_honou.html#more
* 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.
|
|