Cell phone transmitters pose no danger?
Dr. Carlo's blog ..industry manipulation..mobile base station health effects 1/07
I received the following comments from Dr. George Carlo about the latest ruse re mobile base stations and health effects.
Dr. Carlo, as you know, is "tirelessly working" to promote the much-needed publicity re cell phones and other EMF/EMR exposures but as we all know, the media continues to side with industry instead of allowing the public to hear "the truth!!!" Take care - Joanne
Joanne C. Mueller Guinea Pigs R Us
731 - 123rd Avenue N.W. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55448-2127 USA Phone: 763-755-6114 Email: jcmpelican @aol.com (1-28-07)
Email: From Dr. George Carlo to Joanne C. Mueller on January 28, 2007:
http://www.safewireless.org
The Latest Ruse on Mobile Phone Base Station Health Effects....The Industry Just Never Stops the Manipulation.
A press release came out this week resulting in the type of news coverage seen in the following link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070124/tc_infoworld/85384_1)
It is another example of a study designed to show a pre-determined outcome that supports the industry's special interests. In our review of the Danish epidemiology study [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Danish+epidemiology+study ], we discuss this in some detail. It is astonishing to me that as the industry continues the ruse -- the ruse continues to have life in the headlines.
A couple of additional observations:
1. This study was funded specifically by a company in the industry that has financial interest in the outcome. The study was done to refute a previous study showing harm from base stations. To their credit, the reporters state as much in the article. But for us, this is a strong hint that something is amiss. We know that industry funded studies, as we have previously discussed on the SWI website, are six times more likely to find "no problem" than independent studies. So, whenever you have an industry funded study, the presumption -- based on real data -- is that it is designed to support the industry's view. If you were a betting person in the industry, you could rest assured that the outcome you want will be delivered six hundred percent more often. Not bad. There is nothing independent about it, and in the case of this new study, the outcome underscores the premise that industry bias is operative.
2. The study did not study the source of the EMR health risk problem as we now know it from mechanism data. Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW) are the components that trigger adverse biological responses leading to health effects. ICRW come from people talking on the phone. This study used simulated signals with no talking -- thus, no ICRW. Thus, the study had no chance to find health effects. The study was a set up to show nothing by its design. A low risk study -- without ICRW as part of the exposure matrix.
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004, 202-756-7744
http://www.sppionline.org
(1-28-07)
--------
£250,000 project finds no cancer correlation; industry reports of the mobile study
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/residents_sceptical_of_antenna_study_findings.htm
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Carlo
I received the following comments from Dr. George Carlo about the latest ruse re mobile base stations and health effects.
Dr. Carlo, as you know, is "tirelessly working" to promote the much-needed publicity re cell phones and other EMF/EMR exposures but as we all know, the media continues to side with industry instead of allowing the public to hear "the truth!!!" Take care - Joanne
Joanne C. Mueller Guinea Pigs R Us
731 - 123rd Avenue N.W. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55448-2127 USA Phone: 763-755-6114 Email: jcmpelican @aol.com (1-28-07)
Email: From Dr. George Carlo to Joanne C. Mueller on January 28, 2007:
http://www.safewireless.org
The Latest Ruse on Mobile Phone Base Station Health Effects....The Industry Just Never Stops the Manipulation.
A press release came out this week resulting in the type of news coverage seen in the following link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070124/tc_infoworld/85384_1)
It is another example of a study designed to show a pre-determined outcome that supports the industry's special interests. In our review of the Danish epidemiology study [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Danish+epidemiology+study ], we discuss this in some detail. It is astonishing to me that as the industry continues the ruse -- the ruse continues to have life in the headlines.
A couple of additional observations:
1. This study was funded specifically by a company in the industry that has financial interest in the outcome. The study was done to refute a previous study showing harm from base stations. To their credit, the reporters state as much in the article. But for us, this is a strong hint that something is amiss. We know that industry funded studies, as we have previously discussed on the SWI website, are six times more likely to find "no problem" than independent studies. So, whenever you have an industry funded study, the presumption -- based on real data -- is that it is designed to support the industry's view. If you were a betting person in the industry, you could rest assured that the outcome you want will be delivered six hundred percent more often. Not bad. There is nothing independent about it, and in the case of this new study, the outcome underscores the premise that industry bias is operative.
2. The study did not study the source of the EMR health risk problem as we now know it from mechanism data. Information Carrying Radio Waves (ICRW) are the components that trigger adverse biological responses leading to health effects. ICRW come from people talking on the phone. This study used simulated signals with no talking -- thus, no ICRW. Thus, the study had no chance to find health effects. The study was a set up to show nothing by its design. A low risk study -- without ICRW as part of the exposure matrix.
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004, 202-756-7744
http://www.sppionline.org
(1-28-07)
--------
£250,000 project finds no cancer correlation; industry reports of the mobile study
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/residents_sceptical_of_antenna_study_findings.htm
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Carlo
Starmail - 29. Jan, 10:26
