Encouragement for harm?
The latest Vodafone advert: "talk for 60 minutes and pay for three". Is this the true price of an hour at a time on a mobile phone?
Sir William Stewart should receive our objections for this as much as about the frog, and it should go to Patricia Hewitt as sec. of state for health:
What a strange state of affairs.
1) Phones are safe so SAR should not matter, but low SAR would seem to be preferred.
2) Radiation from masts isn't harmful, but schools (though not kids' houses) should be out of range.
3) The beam of greatest intensity has no definition in relation to power, frequency or technology, nor antenna type, but it is used to define the degree of consultation required with schools, though not residences.
4) Phones apparently are not be marketed at children, but the youth ringtone market is huge.
5) Hands free kits are recommended, even though there is supposedly no harm from applying phones to the head.
6) Hands free must by law be used in vehicles, but even the latest T-mobile sponsored research said don't use one at all when at distance from a mast or without a vehicle-mounted external antenna.
7) Now Vodafone says talk for an hour, yet the T-mobile study http://www.tetrawatch.net/media/mut_160505.pdf said keep calls short.
And I just reminded myself of the NRPB "Stewart 2" (p103):
"Although the Programme Management Committee wanted to support research in this area [children being more vulnerable to signals] during the first phase of the MTHR programme, volunteer studies were felt to be ethically unacceptable, and research was consequently limited to work on the assessment of age-related changes in dielectric properties of tissue."
-- like the business of "you can't erect a mast for the purposes of experimentation into the chronic effects of exposure on a population" for similar ethical reasons.
Since the live experiments would be unethical, let's just not call it an experiment and refuse to acknowledge the observations that might make it look like one.
Andy
--------
I challenged Mike Clark at Dorset on his reply to the lady whose young daughter had the rare complaint. He stated that no studies using children could be undertaken as they were "unethical". However, the Draper Report (yet to be published?) must be considered to be an experiment using children as the effects which were established were solely on the likelihood of children living near to power lines developing leukaemia - over 30 years??? How many children were used in this experiment for this Government to then ignore the findings?
Sylvia
--------
Q&A on the “Draper Report”
http://www.emfs.info/expert_QandA.asp
On 10 February 2005, Melanie Johnson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, answered a question from Ian Gibson MP about the “Draper Report”:
“A draft paper by Dr. Draper of Childhood Cancer Research Group at Oxford University into possible links between power lines and childhood leukaemia was submitted to a scientific journal and officials in the Department in November 2004. In accordance with the usual practice, publication will follow the appropriate peer review process and the publication date rests with the publishers. It would be inappropriate to comment on unpublished data, but we will ask the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to consider the results when published.” Full answer:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050210/text/50210w18.htm#50210w18.html_sbhd1
--------
Children living near powerlines are more likely to get cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/542938/
Childhood leukaemia risk doubles within 100 metres of high voltage power lines
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13440
BBC change their tune on leukaemia, newspapers take up the flawed conclusions
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050427_infection.asp
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Draper
Sir William Stewart should receive our objections for this as much as about the frog, and it should go to Patricia Hewitt as sec. of state for health:
What a strange state of affairs.
1) Phones are safe so SAR should not matter, but low SAR would seem to be preferred.
2) Radiation from masts isn't harmful, but schools (though not kids' houses) should be out of range.
3) The beam of greatest intensity has no definition in relation to power, frequency or technology, nor antenna type, but it is used to define the degree of consultation required with schools, though not residences.
4) Phones apparently are not be marketed at children, but the youth ringtone market is huge.
5) Hands free kits are recommended, even though there is supposedly no harm from applying phones to the head.
6) Hands free must by law be used in vehicles, but even the latest T-mobile sponsored research said don't use one at all when at distance from a mast or without a vehicle-mounted external antenna.
7) Now Vodafone says talk for an hour, yet the T-mobile study http://www.tetrawatch.net/media/mut_160505.pdf said keep calls short.
And I just reminded myself of the NRPB "Stewart 2" (p103):
"Although the Programme Management Committee wanted to support research in this area [children being more vulnerable to signals] during the first phase of the MTHR programme, volunteer studies were felt to be ethically unacceptable, and research was consequently limited to work on the assessment of age-related changes in dielectric properties of tissue."
-- like the business of "you can't erect a mast for the purposes of experimentation into the chronic effects of exposure on a population" for similar ethical reasons.
Since the live experiments would be unethical, let's just not call it an experiment and refuse to acknowledge the observations that might make it look like one.
Andy
--------
I challenged Mike Clark at Dorset on his reply to the lady whose young daughter had the rare complaint. He stated that no studies using children could be undertaken as they were "unethical". However, the Draper Report (yet to be published?) must be considered to be an experiment using children as the effects which were established were solely on the likelihood of children living near to power lines developing leukaemia - over 30 years??? How many children were used in this experiment for this Government to then ignore the findings?
Sylvia
--------
Q&A on the “Draper Report”
http://www.emfs.info/expert_QandA.asp
On 10 February 2005, Melanie Johnson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, answered a question from Ian Gibson MP about the “Draper Report”:
“A draft paper by Dr. Draper of Childhood Cancer Research Group at Oxford University into possible links between power lines and childhood leukaemia was submitted to a scientific journal and officials in the Department in November 2004. In accordance with the usual practice, publication will follow the appropriate peer review process and the publication date rests with the publishers. It would be inappropriate to comment on unpublished data, but we will ask the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to consider the results when published.” Full answer:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050210/text/50210w18.htm#50210w18.html_sbhd1
--------
Children living near powerlines are more likely to get cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/542938/
Childhood leukaemia risk doubles within 100 metres of high voltage power lines
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13440
BBC change their tune on leukaemia, newspapers take up the flawed conclusions
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050427_infection.asp
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Draper
Starmail - 30. Mai, 11:57
