Prof Goldsmith about Dr. Repacholi
From: Iris Atzmon
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject: Prof Goldsmith about Dr. Repacholi
After the death of Prof Goldsmith, I followed the wise advice of Don Maisch and got his publications that were left in Ben Gurion university in Beer Sheva (Israel) where Prof Goldmith had worked. This was in 2002.
There were about 5 articles left, and one of them contains a description of Dr. Michael Repacholi's history with regard to the radiation for which he is responsible until this day, as the World Health Organization's head of the radiation department and ICNIRP member at the same time. I've just copied the specific part from the article "From sanitation to cellphones: Participants and principles involved in environmental health protection" which appeared in 1997 in the Public Health Rev. 25: 123-149. I do not know of an online source for the full article but I think that the information that was given there is not known to many people who fight the WHO/Electrosmog and is very important to our context, such an info mustn't be lost. It is also a court document for those who consider a lawsuit.
Regards
Iris.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9322421&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
page 141-3
“It turned out that an Australian physicist, Dr. Michael Repacholi, played almost every role in the subsequent developments. The ICNIRP was originally chaired by Dr. Repacholi, who was also a staff member of the World Health Organization, seeking money from Health Ministries and others for an international effort to better understand and deal with health risks from non-ionizing radiation. When a community group in New Zealand brought a legal action to prevent locating a cell broadcast facility within 50 meters of a preschool play area, Repacholi was the expert witness for Bellsouth Corp., the operator of the facility. The planning tribunal hearing the complaint decided to allow the facility to operate provided it never exceeded 2 microwatts/cm² in a school or dwelling.
In November 1996, as an Officer of the ICNIRP, he convened a group of scientists to evaluate the non-thermal health risks of microwave radiation. He prepared and distributed a report of the meeting before it convened. Among other statements it contained was the allegation that since microwave radiation was not mutogenic, it could not be carcinogenic. This is both a non-sequitur and untrue, and despite objections with abundant evidence it persisted in subsequent drafts. Successive drafts had less and less epidemiological evidence, and the summary of such evidence which was cited was always said to be inconsistent and difficult to understand.
Only the most strenuous objections and threats to publish opposed views to those of the report brought some accommodation (31).
But in December 1996 a report of excess cancer in the vicinity of broadcast towers for TV and FM (not microwave cell broadcast facilities, which have much smaller output of power) in North Sydney Australia was published (32). The next month two reports of the same kind of effect (adult leukemia, which showed a gradient with distance from the towers) in the U.K were published (33,34). These articles made it clear that there was a carcinogenic potential from radiofrequency exposures. Estimated exposures were 2-8 microwatts/cm².
Up to this time, experimental animals exposed did not show increased malignancies, although and Singh had shown that microwave exposures to rats did lead to single and double-strand DNA lesions(35).
In April 1997, in Radiation Research there appeared an article on a two-year study in Australia of transgenic mice who spontaneously showed increase in lymphoma (36). When exposed to RF radiation similar in timing and energy to that of users of cellphones, they developed twice as many lymphomas as did a sham-treated animals, a quite significant excess. This probably under-estimaetd the risk to humans since the animals were exposed to RF midfield rather than at the site of generation, as are humans using cellphones.
The authorship of the article and sponsorship of the research were even more surprising. Michael Repacholi was the senior author and the work was supported by Telstra, the major Australian cellphone company. Furthermore, the findings had been kept secret for about two years at the request of the company. A parallel study of ELF at the same institution (Royal Adelaide Hospital, Sydney) has not been released either (personal communication from Stewart Fist). So all of the time as Editor of the ICNIRP Seminar report Dr. Repacholi had been insisting that RF could not be a carcinogenic, he had been withholding information, at his industrial sponsors behest, that in fact it was an animal carcinogen, finding for which he himself was responsible."
31 Repacholi MH, ed) Low-level exposure to radio-frequency fields: Health effects and research needs. Submitted for publication to Bioelectromagnetics.
32 Hocking B, Gordon R, Grain HL, Hatfield, GE. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Aust 1996; 165: 601-605.
33 Dol H e al Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain I. Sutton – Coldfield transmitter. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 1-9.
34 Dol H Elliot et al. Cancer incidence near radio and tv transmitters in Great Britain II. All high power transmitters. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 154:10-17.
35 Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA signle strand breaks in rat brain cells. Int Rad Biol 1996; 69: 513-521.
36. Repacholi MH, Baten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, Harris AW. Lymphomas in Eu-Pim 1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Rad Res 1997; 147: 631- 640.
--------
Dear Mike,
In early 1997 a cellular company was proposing to put 9 transmitters on the roof of my son's elementary school here in Vancouver, Canada. One of the mothers, Angela Susi, had numerous email communications with you as head of the WHO EMF program, looking for advice and the latest information on the safety of this proposal to the 600 children who would be directly affected. Your responses were eagerly anticipated by our group, as you were regarded as the preeminent authority on this subject, holding the esteemed position that you did.
You sent her your paper on Cellular Base Stations and Health. She wrote back to you a day later,on August 17, 1997, pointing out that all of the references in your paper were done on or before 1993, and referred to thermal bioeffects. She then pointed out that the Telstra study you co authored was one of the first studies to show non thermal effects. She went on to question why you had neglected to send along information on that most recent study.
I quote your response on August 18, 1997, "Dear Angela, We are indeed studying non-thermal effects and have recently completed a report indicating the need for a focused research programme in this area. I have attached a copy of this report that will be published in the journal Bioelectromagnetics in the first issue of 1998. I believe that the results of my study show a non-thermal effect that certainly needs to be repeated and extended to other animal models. A number of groups are in the process of doing this. Kind regards, Mike Repacholi".
My question to you is why did you not tell Angela about your study when she had made it clear that we needed the latest information for the sole purpose of protecting our children. Other scientists shared their findings with us, even if their studies hadn't been published by that point. Why did you only admit to the study after she brought it to your attention? Did you forget? Did you not want to offend the study sponsor, Telstra?
You have a responsibility to protect the children of the world from harmful electromagnetic fields. Your WHO mandate is not to protect the cellular industry from concerned parents. You lost your credibility with independent scientists like the late Professor John Goldsmith and others a long time ago. What can you do to restore it?
Sincerely,
Milt Bowling
--------
Why States Believe Foolish Ideas: Non-Self-Evaluation By States And Societies
Why Repacholian pseudo-science continues to wield such power with national governments.
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1610753/
--------
WiFi report
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/wifi_report.htm
From sanitation to cellphones: Participants and principles involved in environmental health protection
http://tinyurl.com/kwk9f
A Holocaust survivor warns against a second holocaust and calls for the Pope to interfere
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1584040/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldsmith
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject: Prof Goldsmith about Dr. Repacholi
After the death of Prof Goldsmith, I followed the wise advice of Don Maisch and got his publications that were left in Ben Gurion university in Beer Sheva (Israel) where Prof Goldmith had worked. This was in 2002.
There were about 5 articles left, and one of them contains a description of Dr. Michael Repacholi's history with regard to the radiation for which he is responsible until this day, as the World Health Organization's head of the radiation department and ICNIRP member at the same time. I've just copied the specific part from the article "From sanitation to cellphones: Participants and principles involved in environmental health protection" which appeared in 1997 in the Public Health Rev. 25: 123-149. I do not know of an online source for the full article but I think that the information that was given there is not known to many people who fight the WHO/Electrosmog and is very important to our context, such an info mustn't be lost. It is also a court document for those who consider a lawsuit.
Regards
Iris.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9322421&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
page 141-3
“It turned out that an Australian physicist, Dr. Michael Repacholi, played almost every role in the subsequent developments. The ICNIRP was originally chaired by Dr. Repacholi, who was also a staff member of the World Health Organization, seeking money from Health Ministries and others for an international effort to better understand and deal with health risks from non-ionizing radiation. When a community group in New Zealand brought a legal action to prevent locating a cell broadcast facility within 50 meters of a preschool play area, Repacholi was the expert witness for Bellsouth Corp., the operator of the facility. The planning tribunal hearing the complaint decided to allow the facility to operate provided it never exceeded 2 microwatts/cm² in a school or dwelling.
In November 1996, as an Officer of the ICNIRP, he convened a group of scientists to evaluate the non-thermal health risks of microwave radiation. He prepared and distributed a report of the meeting before it convened. Among other statements it contained was the allegation that since microwave radiation was not mutogenic, it could not be carcinogenic. This is both a non-sequitur and untrue, and despite objections with abundant evidence it persisted in subsequent drafts. Successive drafts had less and less epidemiological evidence, and the summary of such evidence which was cited was always said to be inconsistent and difficult to understand.
Only the most strenuous objections and threats to publish opposed views to those of the report brought some accommodation (31).
But in December 1996 a report of excess cancer in the vicinity of broadcast towers for TV and FM (not microwave cell broadcast facilities, which have much smaller output of power) in North Sydney Australia was published (32). The next month two reports of the same kind of effect (adult leukemia, which showed a gradient with distance from the towers) in the U.K were published (33,34). These articles made it clear that there was a carcinogenic potential from radiofrequency exposures. Estimated exposures were 2-8 microwatts/cm².
Up to this time, experimental animals exposed did not show increased malignancies, although and Singh had shown that microwave exposures to rats did lead to single and double-strand DNA lesions(35).
In April 1997, in Radiation Research there appeared an article on a two-year study in Australia of transgenic mice who spontaneously showed increase in lymphoma (36). When exposed to RF radiation similar in timing and energy to that of users of cellphones, they developed twice as many lymphomas as did a sham-treated animals, a quite significant excess. This probably under-estimaetd the risk to humans since the animals were exposed to RF midfield rather than at the site of generation, as are humans using cellphones.
The authorship of the article and sponsorship of the research were even more surprising. Michael Repacholi was the senior author and the work was supported by Telstra, the major Australian cellphone company. Furthermore, the findings had been kept secret for about two years at the request of the company. A parallel study of ELF at the same institution (Royal Adelaide Hospital, Sydney) has not been released either (personal communication from Stewart Fist). So all of the time as Editor of the ICNIRP Seminar report Dr. Repacholi had been insisting that RF could not be a carcinogenic, he had been withholding information, at his industrial sponsors behest, that in fact it was an animal carcinogen, finding for which he himself was responsible."
31 Repacholi MH, ed) Low-level exposure to radio-frequency fields: Health effects and research needs. Submitted for publication to Bioelectromagnetics.
32 Hocking B, Gordon R, Grain HL, Hatfield, GE. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Aust 1996; 165: 601-605.
33 Dol H e al Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain I. Sutton – Coldfield transmitter. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 1-9.
34 Dol H Elliot et al. Cancer incidence near radio and tv transmitters in Great Britain II. All high power transmitters. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 154:10-17.
35 Lai H, Singh NP. Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA signle strand breaks in rat brain cells. Int Rad Biol 1996; 69: 513-521.
36. Repacholi MH, Baten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, Harris AW. Lymphomas in Eu-Pim 1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields. Rad Res 1997; 147: 631- 640.
--------
Dear Mike,
In early 1997 a cellular company was proposing to put 9 transmitters on the roof of my son's elementary school here in Vancouver, Canada. One of the mothers, Angela Susi, had numerous email communications with you as head of the WHO EMF program, looking for advice and the latest information on the safety of this proposal to the 600 children who would be directly affected. Your responses were eagerly anticipated by our group, as you were regarded as the preeminent authority on this subject, holding the esteemed position that you did.
You sent her your paper on Cellular Base Stations and Health. She wrote back to you a day later,on August 17, 1997, pointing out that all of the references in your paper were done on or before 1993, and referred to thermal bioeffects. She then pointed out that the Telstra study you co authored was one of the first studies to show non thermal effects. She went on to question why you had neglected to send along information on that most recent study.
I quote your response on August 18, 1997, "Dear Angela, We are indeed studying non-thermal effects and have recently completed a report indicating the need for a focused research programme in this area. I have attached a copy of this report that will be published in the journal Bioelectromagnetics in the first issue of 1998. I believe that the results of my study show a non-thermal effect that certainly needs to be repeated and extended to other animal models. A number of groups are in the process of doing this. Kind regards, Mike Repacholi".
My question to you is why did you not tell Angela about your study when she had made it clear that we needed the latest information for the sole purpose of protecting our children. Other scientists shared their findings with us, even if their studies hadn't been published by that point. Why did you only admit to the study after she brought it to your attention? Did you forget? Did you not want to offend the study sponsor, Telstra?
You have a responsibility to protect the children of the world from harmful electromagnetic fields. Your WHO mandate is not to protect the cellular industry from concerned parents. You lost your credibility with independent scientists like the late Professor John Goldsmith and others a long time ago. What can you do to restore it?
Sincerely,
Milt Bowling
--------
Why States Believe Foolish Ideas: Non-Self-Evaluation By States And Societies
Why Repacholian pseudo-science continues to wield such power with national governments.
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1610753/
--------
WiFi report
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/wifi_report.htm
From sanitation to cellphones: Participants and principles involved in environmental health protection
http://tinyurl.com/kwk9f
A Holocaust survivor warns against a second holocaust and calls for the Pope to interfere
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1584040/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldsmith
Starmail - 21. Feb, 13:40
