Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award for RF Radiation Injury Below Thermal Exposure Level
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/uphold_award_for_rf_radiation_injury.pdf
Informant: Iris Atzmon
--------
Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequenc Electromagnetic Fields
Hi Iris,
Thanks for this mail. About the FCC regulation, see attached file page 15, for the limits of the occupational exposition and the general population, and for the 900 MHz, they allow respectively 106 V/m and 15 V/m.
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/fcc_bulletin_56_1999.pdf
Again, we are far away of the reality ! EHS people get sick from 0,006 V/m........................! But I'm pleased to see that the judges begin to understand that there is a problem.
With my Kind Regards.
Philippe Hug
Chairman of http://www.alerte.ch, Switzerland
--------
Reply to your letter
From: MastSicknessUK @aol.com
To: jill.meara@hpa-rp.org.uk
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:56:31 EDT
Subject: Reply to your letter
Dear Ms Meara
Your information and responses are outdated as so much is changing and more technology is being put out. I have seen all the info you sent before and none of it is relevant to what is happening now.
The MTHR website is now dead or dormant, which says it all. You should look at it sometime! If MTHR is to define the priorities for studies on mixed exposures then we can probably already deduce the result. "Below the ICNIRP guidelines and no harm caused!"
Reliable and respected scientists obtain realistic results by research and monitoring in situ but in the UK this is not procedure.
We have to wonder why and question this as we also question the Essex University exercises.
The Primary Care Trusts, GPs etc have no information on the effects of pulsed microwave radiation, which are never-the-less well documented, so medically trained people are unlikely to even be aware of such possibility, or the majority will dismiss the possibility that EMR might be the cause. How then can cancer clusters be evaluated fairly? Why should people who become unwell or die be short - changed because all the possiblities are not explored?
Please do not try to tell me that medical staff are aware because hundreds of electrosensitives and concerned people have been rebuffed or told the technology is not harmful.
By the way, electrosensitivity is now also outdated. We are electromagnetic sensitives.
Some bedtime reading for you. The first of many to come.
Mrs S L Lawrence
--------
Progress is being made. We appreciate your having forwarded the information to us from various sources. We were unable to open the .pdf files from the website you mentioned, so we searched and found it on Alaska's State Website. The following site will yield the Alaska Supreme Court decision.
http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-6139.pdf
Don and Mary Hillman
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrosensitivity
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Essex
Informant: Iris Atzmon
--------
Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequenc Electromagnetic Fields
Hi Iris,
Thanks for this mail. About the FCC regulation, see attached file page 15, for the limits of the occupational exposition and the general population, and for the 900 MHz, they allow respectively 106 V/m and 15 V/m.
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/fcc_bulletin_56_1999.pdf
Again, we are far away of the reality ! EHS people get sick from 0,006 V/m........................! But I'm pleased to see that the judges begin to understand that there is a problem.
With my Kind Regards.
Philippe Hug
Chairman of http://www.alerte.ch, Switzerland
--------
Reply to your letter
From: MastSicknessUK @aol.com
To: jill.meara@hpa-rp.org.uk
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:56:31 EDT
Subject: Reply to your letter
Dear Ms Meara
Your information and responses are outdated as so much is changing and more technology is being put out. I have seen all the info you sent before and none of it is relevant to what is happening now.
The MTHR website is now dead or dormant, which says it all. You should look at it sometime! If MTHR is to define the priorities for studies on mixed exposures then we can probably already deduce the result. "Below the ICNIRP guidelines and no harm caused!"
Reliable and respected scientists obtain realistic results by research and monitoring in situ but in the UK this is not procedure.
We have to wonder why and question this as we also question the Essex University exercises.
The Primary Care Trusts, GPs etc have no information on the effects of pulsed microwave radiation, which are never-the-less well documented, so medically trained people are unlikely to even be aware of such possibility, or the majority will dismiss the possibility that EMR might be the cause. How then can cancer clusters be evaluated fairly? Why should people who become unwell or die be short - changed because all the possiblities are not explored?
Please do not try to tell me that medical staff are aware because hundreds of electrosensitives and concerned people have been rebuffed or told the technology is not harmful.
By the way, electrosensitivity is now also outdated. We are electromagnetic sensitives.
Some bedtime reading for you. The first of many to come.
Mrs S L Lawrence
--------
Progress is being made. We appreciate your having forwarded the information to us from various sources. We were unable to open the .pdf files from the website you mentioned, so we searched and found it on Alaska's State Website. The following site will yield the Alaska Supreme Court decision.
http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-6139.pdf
Don and Mary Hillman
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrosensitivity
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Essex
Starmail - 22. Aug, 23:13
