Sianette Kwee : "I think we are slowly moving forwards"
I think we are slowly moving forwards. Here are a few signs:
>From the Children's Leukaemia conference in London:
It has been established that ELF-EMF especially from powerlines, is one of the causes of children's leukaemia. Read Anders Ahlbom's lecture on their website.
Vladimir Binhi said the non-linear dose response in case of RF is an indication for the exixtence of non-thermal effects.
>From the COST 281 meeting on Exposure Assessment in Paris:
- SAR is unsuitable for exposure assessment on humans - all the present models and calculations are not realistic - it would be better to use MRI on living persons - so this renders ICNIRP's and other safety limits, based on SAR, invalid. These conclusions came from representatives from industry and there was general agreement among the participants
- Several engineers presented their models and calculations on EMF/RF radiation exposure. Each was different and the engineers could not agree.
- In Germany a test was done on 6 different measuring apparatus, currently used by the telecom industry, health authorities, other authorities to measure RF exposure in the environment. It turned out that there were considerable differences between the various measurements, and impossible to say which one was correct. So whom can we trust if they say that safety limits are not exceeded?
- COST recommended to run a study to investigate people's complaints about RF radiation from mobilphones and basestations by registering their complaints with the help of questionnaires. This was exactly what I proposed when applying for the Danish government research grant, but that was turned down. Very similar to the Santini and Gomez-Peretta studies. In England there is a group of ordinary citizens that will do the same type of study.
- From the STM project on Children and Mobilphones: there should not be focuss on braincancer only, but also on whole-body exposure. This means that it is as dangerous to carry a mobilphone anywhere else on the body, headsets are not sufficient any more. But what about masts? There are still no specific studies published on Children and Mobilphones.
- EMF-NET a new EU programme under the 6th Framework. The purpose of this programme is to inform the ordinary citizen about biological and health effects and everything else about EMF and RF in a language they can understand. It should be based on scientific information and information from other sources. This program is getting much more money than COST 281, so a competitor to COST. Why should EU choose to use so much money for this now, if it is not because there are serious threats? Several people who used to be very active supporters for the theory "no proof for any danger from RF" were silent or absent. Have they seen the Writing on the Wall?
- The biological and health effects due to RF exposure are certainly not due to heat and many agreed to that. So what should we call them? Non-thermal effects is politically not correct. Maybe we may look at them in term of energy? Other proposals?
- Others also found inexplicable effects on the cell cycle, like I did.
In Denmark: the Health council has just published a message: Mobilphones are dangerous for children and children should use the them as little as possible. Why suddenly this, in spite of the fact that there are no peer-reviewed articles in "good" scientific journals. Is it because it is a politically correct message now to parents and voters?
In a recent review article Kundi, Mild, Hardell et al. analysed 9 Mobilphones and braincancerstudies. It showed that the conclusions from most of these articles that there is no connection between mobile phones and braincancer was based on incorrect statistical and methodological analysis. These are actually the articles used by the Health authorities, Cancer associations, telecom industry etc. to claim that mobilphones are harmless.
MOBILE TELEPHONES AND CANCER - A REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
Michael Kundi A1, Kjell Hansson Mild A2, Lennart Hardell A3, Mats-Olof Mattsson A4. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Volume 7, Number 5 / 2004 Pages: 351 - 384
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=yf7lvjp0bj4pe5w8
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/345090/
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10937404.asp
At several meetings I met people from various countries, who told me that they all knew me in their countries. They were ordinary people, people from industry, from governmental bodies etc. The ordinary people said how much they appreciated that there was a scientist that would tell the truth in spite of pressure from outside. Of course I am aware that I am not the only one. Nevertheless I am very grateful for this, because it showed that many know that there is also a RF- EMF battle going on in Denmark and I wish to thank all who have contributed to spread this message.
Sianette Kwee
Omega see also:
Childhood leukaemia risk doubles within 100 metres of high voltage
http://www.livelogcity.com/users/omega/2955.html
>From the Children's Leukaemia conference in London:
It has been established that ELF-EMF especially from powerlines, is one of the causes of children's leukaemia. Read Anders Ahlbom's lecture on their website.
Vladimir Binhi said the non-linear dose response in case of RF is an indication for the exixtence of non-thermal effects.
>From the COST 281 meeting on Exposure Assessment in Paris:
- SAR is unsuitable for exposure assessment on humans - all the present models and calculations are not realistic - it would be better to use MRI on living persons - so this renders ICNIRP's and other safety limits, based on SAR, invalid. These conclusions came from representatives from industry and there was general agreement among the participants
- Several engineers presented their models and calculations on EMF/RF radiation exposure. Each was different and the engineers could not agree.
- In Germany a test was done on 6 different measuring apparatus, currently used by the telecom industry, health authorities, other authorities to measure RF exposure in the environment. It turned out that there were considerable differences between the various measurements, and impossible to say which one was correct. So whom can we trust if they say that safety limits are not exceeded?
- COST recommended to run a study to investigate people's complaints about RF radiation from mobilphones and basestations by registering their complaints with the help of questionnaires. This was exactly what I proposed when applying for the Danish government research grant, but that was turned down. Very similar to the Santini and Gomez-Peretta studies. In England there is a group of ordinary citizens that will do the same type of study.
- From the STM project on Children and Mobilphones: there should not be focuss on braincancer only, but also on whole-body exposure. This means that it is as dangerous to carry a mobilphone anywhere else on the body, headsets are not sufficient any more. But what about masts? There are still no specific studies published on Children and Mobilphones.
- EMF-NET a new EU programme under the 6th Framework. The purpose of this programme is to inform the ordinary citizen about biological and health effects and everything else about EMF and RF in a language they can understand. It should be based on scientific information and information from other sources. This program is getting much more money than COST 281, so a competitor to COST. Why should EU choose to use so much money for this now, if it is not because there are serious threats? Several people who used to be very active supporters for the theory "no proof for any danger from RF" were silent or absent. Have they seen the Writing on the Wall?
- The biological and health effects due to RF exposure are certainly not due to heat and many agreed to that. So what should we call them? Non-thermal effects is politically not correct. Maybe we may look at them in term of energy? Other proposals?
- Others also found inexplicable effects on the cell cycle, like I did.
In Denmark: the Health council has just published a message: Mobilphones are dangerous for children and children should use the them as little as possible. Why suddenly this, in spite of the fact that there are no peer-reviewed articles in "good" scientific journals. Is it because it is a politically correct message now to parents and voters?
In a recent review article Kundi, Mild, Hardell et al. analysed 9 Mobilphones and braincancerstudies. It showed that the conclusions from most of these articles that there is no connection between mobile phones and braincancer was based on incorrect statistical and methodological analysis. These are actually the articles used by the Health authorities, Cancer associations, telecom industry etc. to claim that mobilphones are harmless.
MOBILE TELEPHONES AND CANCER - A REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
Michael Kundi A1, Kjell Hansson Mild A2, Lennart Hardell A3, Mats-Olof Mattsson A4. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Volume 7, Number 5 / 2004 Pages: 351 - 384
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=yf7lvjp0bj4pe5w8
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/345090/
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10937404.asp
At several meetings I met people from various countries, who told me that they all knew me in their countries. They were ordinary people, people from industry, from governmental bodies etc. The ordinary people said how much they appreciated that there was a scientist that would tell the truth in spite of pressure from outside. Of course I am aware that I am not the only one. Nevertheless I am very grateful for this, because it showed that many know that there is also a RF- EMF battle going on in Denmark and I wish to thank all who have contributed to spread this message.
Sianette Kwee
Omega see also:
Childhood leukaemia risk doubles within 100 metres of high voltage
http://www.livelogcity.com/users/omega/2955.html
Starmail - 27. Sep, 18:53
