The Inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines
http://www.s-c-r-a-m.co.uk/ResearchItems/research_item_1.htm
ICNIRP Guideline Critique
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619583/
The ICNIRP Saga
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566278/
Why an ICNIRP Certificate Isn’t Worth the Paper It’s Printed On
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566336/
Indirect funding to avoid appearance of Conflict of Interest
http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/conflicts/indirect-intrest.html
Emissions from Cell Sites below International Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/676712/
--------
Gill
Challis is right, but this is missing the point in the same way. I have no doubt that whatever guidelines exist in Russia, if you buy and use a Nokia, you get the same SAR as in any other country. One Chinese suggestion is pico cells on every street corner: result, low power masts and phones that never have to power up high.
But it is all referenced basically to the same thing: SAR. This is mainly because chronic exposure and particular frequency effects have not been determined in any guidelines. When they found acoustic neuromas were linked with 10 years mobile phone use, the industry responded that it was due to old technology. When they find the same from GSM, they will say the same. When they find the same from UMTS (3G), they will say the same.
It is not the degree of ICNIRP or the Russian equivalent that matters. Of course the industry complies, or they would never have accepted it. ICNIRP simply does not address the right mechanisms, and indeed, whatever the mechanisms are, and whatever chains of events take place to cause the suspected biological impacts, we may well find that it is not as simple as a power-dose relationship. The matter of accumulated effects is not embodied in any national or international guidelines as far as I am aware.
So we don't want to argue with anyone for a more stringent ICNIRP, just so that we can continue to have a microwave environment that is 10^13 (that's ten with 13 zeros) times higher than nature but spread more evenly. We need to recognise the impact of living in that environment and change the technology of talking.
Andy
From Mast Network
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
ICNIRP Guideline Critique
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619583/
The ICNIRP Saga
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566278/
Why an ICNIRP Certificate Isn’t Worth the Paper It’s Printed On
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566336/
Indirect funding to avoid appearance of Conflict of Interest
http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/conflicts/indirect-intrest.html
Emissions from Cell Sites below International Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/676712/
--------
Gill
Challis is right, but this is missing the point in the same way. I have no doubt that whatever guidelines exist in Russia, if you buy and use a Nokia, you get the same SAR as in any other country. One Chinese suggestion is pico cells on every street corner: result, low power masts and phones that never have to power up high.
But it is all referenced basically to the same thing: SAR. This is mainly because chronic exposure and particular frequency effects have not been determined in any guidelines. When they found acoustic neuromas were linked with 10 years mobile phone use, the industry responded that it was due to old technology. When they find the same from GSM, they will say the same. When they find the same from UMTS (3G), they will say the same.
It is not the degree of ICNIRP or the Russian equivalent that matters. Of course the industry complies, or they would never have accepted it. ICNIRP simply does not address the right mechanisms, and indeed, whatever the mechanisms are, and whatever chains of events take place to cause the suspected biological impacts, we may well find that it is not as simple as a power-dose relationship. The matter of accumulated effects is not embodied in any national or international guidelines as far as I am aware.
So we don't want to argue with anyone for a more stringent ICNIRP, just so that we can continue to have a microwave environment that is 10^13 (that's ten with 13 zeros) times higher than nature but spread more evenly. We need to recognise the impact of living in that environment and change the technology of talking.
Andy
From Mast Network
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
Starmail - 14. Mär, 22:59
