Safe level of EMR is ZERO
http://www.e-smog.ch/gsm_oesterreich/nachrichten/aug2000/cherry.htm
Folgenden Bericht haben wir als E-Mail von Eva Marsalek am 20.08.2000 zur Veröffentlichung erhalten:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:01:49 +1200
From: "Cherry, Neil J" <CHERRY@kea.lincoln.ac.nz>
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Safe level of EMR is ZERO
Dear Roy,
I am about to leave for Europe where I am presenting the results of my latest research into low level health effects of EMR as requested by representatives at the European Parliament and our very good friends in Salzburg City Council.
The conclusion of my research is that:
Electromagnetic Radiation is damaging to Brains, Hearts, Embryos, Hormones and Cells. It is therefore a threat to Intellegent Hearty Life. Electromagnetic radiation resonantly interacts with bodies and cells, Interfering with cell-to-cell communication, cell growth and regulation, and is damaging the genetic basis of life.
Like other toxic substances that damage cells, EMR has a safe exposure level of ZERO. (through many dose response relationships from exposures from ELF, RF and MW)
Hence my recommended Target Public Exposure for significant risk reduction is 10 nanoWatt/sq cm. This can be accomplished by setting amaximum outdoor exposure at the boundary of properties of 0.1 microWatt/sq cm.
--------
This will not be liked nor accepted by cell phone companies and many
government and international authorities, such as ICNIRP and WHO (Dr. Michael Repacholi for example). However, it is based on a large set of internationally published, peer-reviewed papers from a wide range of indepentent universities and research institutes. It also includes the results of studies funded by industry, e.g. Repacholi et al. (1997), Phillips et al. (1998).
--------
Another important conclusion: Cell phone radiation mimics the effects that we have found for EMR across the spectrum, in over 45 published studies showing adverse biological and human health effects specifically from cell phone radiation.
A cell phone against the head exposes the premier organ of the human body to serious interference with its processes and serious damage to its tissues and cells. The exposure levels on average are higher than military personnel who show highly significiant cancer, cardiac and neurological effects for radio and radar exposures (Robinette et al. (1980) and Szmigielski (1996)).
Cell phones and cell sites are producing significant health effects right now but few direct studies are attempting to identify them. You only see what you look for. If nobody is looking then nobody will see anything.
I had a call from a resident yesterday who had developed severe arthritis in the period immediately following the installation of a cell site 50 m from his house. He is in a high exposure regime over 2
microwatt/sq cm. Burch et al. (1998) have shown that cell phone usage reduces melatonin. There are 14 studies showing that EMR reduced melatonin in people. I looked up Dr Russell Reiter's book (Reiter and Robinson (1995)) on melatonin. It lists several illnesses that result from reduced melatonin. The first (p8) is arthritis, then
diabetes, cancer .....
A great deal of illness and death currently occurring in developed countries, can be associated with the progressively increased exposures to EMR, especially in the RF/MW range because this is much more biologically active and damaging than ELF fields, Bawin and Adey (1976), Vignati and Guiliani (1997). This is going to increase very significantly with the use of cell phones and the installation of cell sites.
---------
My problem is that there is so much research that shows adverse biological and health effects, but there is a conserted campaign to ignore,discredit or attack the messengers.
The studies are not generally known by authorities who trust bodies that ppear to be reliable but who deliberately mis-quote and mis-represent the published research. This continues to delay measures to protect public health by retaining the strongly misproven assumption of tissue heating being the only effect.
Warm Regards to you and all on the list.
Neil Cherry
Informant: Ora James
--------
Copied below is a submission (permission granted to use) to the TETRAWATCH site. It shows how wrong people can be (all psychosomatic), but how inadvertently right. More to the point, it raises a fundamental issue about what we are trying to achieve... First my commentary, then the message:
Even our 50Hz mains electricity is bad news, and its advent in each country and continent tracks the increases in leukaemias and cancers since the 1920s. The Swedish study on the melanoma jump tracked the onset of FM radio in each Swedish county. Cancer clusters in microwave corridors between TV, military and telecoms link sites say the same thing. Clusters around TV transmitters the same. Now mobile phone masts, the world over. Reducing emissions per mast to ten per cent means nothing if we have ten times as many masts as when the problem was first defined (ten divided by ten, times ten!). A hundred times more masts (pico cells) at one hundredth power, simply means a more even spread and fewer places at current high intensity. I wonder if there is any emission level safe enough, when there are so many RF devices? Some scientists say there is not.
Which takes us back to political statements and policies, such as the Conservative leaflet on choice about where masts go: this is why politicians and scientists do not want to act. It is actually too big. Any reduction would be an admission of inadequate safety. Fewer masts means higher emissions, or an uncompetitive industry. Announced this week: Ofcom is intending to delegate spectrum management in favour of a market-led trade in frequencies, so less control.
This takes us to the WHO precautionary framework on EM radiation, paper draft, http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/en/precautionary_framework_october2004.pdf - 37 pages, if you're ready to download this, which encourages freedom to increase restrictions on emissions whilst explicitly absolving anyone of blame for past incaution and harm caused.
In just 80 years we have got almost to a point of no return, so dependent have we become on electromagnetism and alternating fields. We are now obliged to accept the consequences, but must fight to have this recognised openly so we can respond, as a global civilisation, together. So, masties all, is this man right? And what are we going to do about it? (Oh, about the microwaves; the European 1998 definition says microwaves start at 300MHz. But who cares? The research on 300MHz and up says the same, whatever colour you call it.)
Andy
From Mast Network
Folgenden Bericht haben wir als E-Mail von Eva Marsalek am 20.08.2000 zur Veröffentlichung erhalten:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:01:49 +1200
From: "Cherry, Neil J" <CHERRY@kea.lincoln.ac.nz>
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Safe level of EMR is ZERO
Dear Roy,
I am about to leave for Europe where I am presenting the results of my latest research into low level health effects of EMR as requested by representatives at the European Parliament and our very good friends in Salzburg City Council.
The conclusion of my research is that:
Electromagnetic Radiation is damaging to Brains, Hearts, Embryos, Hormones and Cells. It is therefore a threat to Intellegent Hearty Life. Electromagnetic radiation resonantly interacts with bodies and cells, Interfering with cell-to-cell communication, cell growth and regulation, and is damaging the genetic basis of life.
Like other toxic substances that damage cells, EMR has a safe exposure level of ZERO. (through many dose response relationships from exposures from ELF, RF and MW)
Hence my recommended Target Public Exposure for significant risk reduction is 10 nanoWatt/sq cm. This can be accomplished by setting amaximum outdoor exposure at the boundary of properties of 0.1 microWatt/sq cm.
--------
This will not be liked nor accepted by cell phone companies and many
government and international authorities, such as ICNIRP and WHO (Dr. Michael Repacholi for example). However, it is based on a large set of internationally published, peer-reviewed papers from a wide range of indepentent universities and research institutes. It also includes the results of studies funded by industry, e.g. Repacholi et al. (1997), Phillips et al. (1998).
--------
Another important conclusion: Cell phone radiation mimics the effects that we have found for EMR across the spectrum, in over 45 published studies showing adverse biological and human health effects specifically from cell phone radiation.
A cell phone against the head exposes the premier organ of the human body to serious interference with its processes and serious damage to its tissues and cells. The exposure levels on average are higher than military personnel who show highly significiant cancer, cardiac and neurological effects for radio and radar exposures (Robinette et al. (1980) and Szmigielski (1996)).
Cell phones and cell sites are producing significant health effects right now but few direct studies are attempting to identify them. You only see what you look for. If nobody is looking then nobody will see anything.
I had a call from a resident yesterday who had developed severe arthritis in the period immediately following the installation of a cell site 50 m from his house. He is in a high exposure regime over 2
microwatt/sq cm. Burch et al. (1998) have shown that cell phone usage reduces melatonin. There are 14 studies showing that EMR reduced melatonin in people. I looked up Dr Russell Reiter's book (Reiter and Robinson (1995)) on melatonin. It lists several illnesses that result from reduced melatonin. The first (p8) is arthritis, then
diabetes, cancer .....
A great deal of illness and death currently occurring in developed countries, can be associated with the progressively increased exposures to EMR, especially in the RF/MW range because this is much more biologically active and damaging than ELF fields, Bawin and Adey (1976), Vignati and Guiliani (1997). This is going to increase very significantly with the use of cell phones and the installation of cell sites.
---------
My problem is that there is so much research that shows adverse biological and health effects, but there is a conserted campaign to ignore,discredit or attack the messengers.
The studies are not generally known by authorities who trust bodies that ppear to be reliable but who deliberately mis-quote and mis-represent the published research. This continues to delay measures to protect public health by retaining the strongly misproven assumption of tissue heating being the only effect.
Warm Regards to you and all on the list.
Neil Cherry
Informant: Ora James
--------
Copied below is a submission (permission granted to use) to the TETRAWATCH site. It shows how wrong people can be (all psychosomatic), but how inadvertently right. More to the point, it raises a fundamental issue about what we are trying to achieve... First my commentary, then the message:
Even our 50Hz mains electricity is bad news, and its advent in each country and continent tracks the increases in leukaemias and cancers since the 1920s. The Swedish study on the melanoma jump tracked the onset of FM radio in each Swedish county. Cancer clusters in microwave corridors between TV, military and telecoms link sites say the same thing. Clusters around TV transmitters the same. Now mobile phone masts, the world over. Reducing emissions per mast to ten per cent means nothing if we have ten times as many masts as when the problem was first defined (ten divided by ten, times ten!). A hundred times more masts (pico cells) at one hundredth power, simply means a more even spread and fewer places at current high intensity. I wonder if there is any emission level safe enough, when there are so many RF devices? Some scientists say there is not.
Which takes us back to political statements and policies, such as the Conservative leaflet on choice about where masts go: this is why politicians and scientists do not want to act. It is actually too big. Any reduction would be an admission of inadequate safety. Fewer masts means higher emissions, or an uncompetitive industry. Announced this week: Ofcom is intending to delegate spectrum management in favour of a market-led trade in frequencies, so less control.
This takes us to the WHO precautionary framework on EM radiation, paper draft, http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/en/precautionary_framework_october2004.pdf - 37 pages, if you're ready to download this, which encourages freedom to increase restrictions on emissions whilst explicitly absolving anyone of blame for past incaution and harm caused.
In just 80 years we have got almost to a point of no return, so dependent have we become on electromagnetism and alternating fields. We are now obliged to accept the consequences, but must fight to have this recognised openly so we can respond, as a global civilisation, together. So, masties all, is this man right? And what are we going to do about it? (Oh, about the microwaves; the European 1998 definition says microwaves start at 300MHz. But who cares? The research on 300MHz and up says the same, whatever colour you call it.)
Andy
From Mast Network
Starmail - 28. Nov, 17:33
