Lorenzo Tomatis, an Italian M.D., was IARC's director from 1982 to 1993 (IARC= International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization.) Dr. Lorenzo's Crime: he is just too honest a scientist, he looks for scientific evidence, he is against the industry's control over science. That a huge crime according to the publishment.

His Punishment- he is not allowed to enter to IARC's building- ever.

Do they welcome Saddam Hussein more than Dr. Lorenzo Tomatis? He thinks so.

1. Lorenzo's crime: Originally, explains Tomatis, an internationally respected cancer specialist who has held research posts at the University of Turin and Chicago Medical School, panels drew only on published, peer-reviewed research. IARC resisted repeated requests from industry to allow confidential reviews of secret data from company labs.

Today, that policy has changed. And so has the policy of choosing experts who have no conflicts of interest. A February letter to WHO, signed by two dozen university and government scientists from around the world, including Tomatis....sharply criticized IARC (and other WHO agencies) for using "research openly or surreptitiously sponsored by industrial concerns." The letter also pointed to "problems of corporate influence and undisclosed conflicts of interest" among panel members. In fact, scientists with conflicts are now asked not only to attend meetings as observers, but sometimes to participate as full voting members.

"The people participating are usually very good scientists," says Tomatis. But their presence on panels makes the monographs less credible, and raises the possibility that research in line with industry priorities will receive more attention than it would otherwise.

Consider saccharin. In 1998, IARC reevaluated the sweetener, long ranked a "possible" carcinogen because of mixed evidence. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group, asked whether he could send a scientist as a nonvoting observer. IARC refused. But other interested parties had no trouble finding seats. One of the more influential of the voting panel members was Samuel Cohen of the University of Nebraska, who is affiliated with a research group called the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Among ILSI's industry donors at the time were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the manufacturer of Sweet 'N' Low. Also participating were scientists from Procter & Gamble and ILSI itself.

The panel confirmed that the evidence on saccharin was still mixed. But this time around, that was no longer considered a red flag. "It was like having a defense attorney on the jury," says Jacobson. The panel downgraded saccharin -- reclassifying it from a possible carcinogen to a substance of unknown risk. Within two years, saccharin was taken off the U.S. list of carcinogens.

Lorenzo Tomatis gives a broader example: a critical 1997 IARC workshop held to review whole categories of evidence for carcinogenicity. There were only a few completely independent scientists present. The participants decided it was reasonable for panels to ignore cancer tests that produced tumors in rodents' bladders, renal cortices, or thyroids, because the tumors probably formed in a way that could not happen in humans. Yet the workshop participants themselves agreed that there were "conspicuous gaps in knowledge" about the rodent tumors.

Vigilant attention from other scientists, it appears, can help. NRDC toxicologist Jennifer Sass gives the example of styrene, used in the plastics and rubber industries. Early this year, Sass discovered that IARC had invited a former employee of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology to its upcoming styrene meeting in February. Moreover, IARC had invited -- as full voting members -- two paid consultants for an industry group, the Styrene Information and Research Center. One of them had been picked to write the all-important literature review (a summary of existing research) and present it to the larger committee.

Shortly before the meeting, Sass sent a letter to IARC's director about the tainted styrene panel -- with a copy to the National Cancer Institute, one of IARC's major outside funders. Also in February, Sass met with the head of IARC's carcinogen evaluation unit, Jerry Rice. In the end, the two styrene consultants recused themselves from voting. And the panel decided to keep styrene's ranking exactly where it was. "We'll never know what would have happened if we hadn't complained about the process," says Sass.

omatis and Huff say they see a troubling trend. In separate interviews, both said the panels are making fewer decisions that prevent potential health risks, more that protect industry's interests. Some substances given more favorable rankings recently: the pesticide atrazine; 1,3-butadiene, used in making rubber and plastics; and rockwool and glasswool insulation such as fiberglass.

For their part, IARC officials say adequate safeguards are in place. All panelists are required to sign a WHO form disclosing financial conflicts of interest, for instance. But, argues Rice, "It is getting very difficult to find individuals who have contributed significantly to the scientific literature on specific chemicals and who have no research funding or other connection with industry."

Rice may have a point. In 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine decided it would no longer publish review articles -- which, like IARC panels, require selection and interpretation of a spectrum of research -- by authors with any financial links to companies making the product being discussed. Last year, the journal weakened its policy, saying it was having trouble finding authors.

Adds Tomatis, "I would hate to see IARC singled out as a black sheep. There is a much broader zeitgeist now, where industry seems to be able drive research where it wants it to go, and where the idea of the independence of science no longer exists."

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/02fal/iarc.asp

2. Lorenzo's Punishment

Paul Kleihues took over from Tomatis as head of IARC. He says these critics always see industry as the enemy of public health.

"If they don't have scientific reasons they suggest a conflict of interest of industry or participants that have a vested interest. We do not believe that any of our recent decisions was ultimately influenced by industry."

Kleihues rejected the accusation and then barred Lorenzo Tomatis from ever re-entering the building.

"He told me I was persona non grata and had me escorted out by two witnesses from the building saying I was not allowed to come back…I think even Saddam Hussein could go back into IARC but not me. I found it totally absurd because it was a disagreement on the interpretation of scientific data."

"We did not ban him because of a scientific disagreement," Peter Kleihues said. "What is not acceptable is that he questions our integrity, our striving for scientific truth. If scientific truth is no longer our guiding principle, we’d better close this whole place down."

What does this squabbling mean for the cellphone study and for those of us who use a cellphone? The critics are accusing IARC of not trying hard enough to keep industry money and influence away from the science.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/iarc/pagetwo.html#


Informant: Iris Atzmon

NYC-The world of wireless

The question of responsible public policy addressing radiation from mobile phone antenna base stations is currently on the table in New York City policy-making bodies. See the report below from the May 2004 edition of the on-line Gotham Gazette. Emphasized in this article is the lack of any meaningful oversight and regulation in the US of the RF radiation emissions surrounding every mobile phone base station antenna site.

Mobilizing Community Concerns Against Mobile Phone Antennas
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/communitydevelopment/20040527/20/992

Everybody likes their cell phones ­ there are an impressive 10.5 million wireless phone subscribers in the city. But Mark Winston Griffith looks at the growing community-based movement, which began in Astoria, against the thousands of rooftop antennae that enable these phones to operate.

Mobilizing Community Concerns Against Mobile Phone Antennas

by Mark Winston Griffith

May 05, 2004

The residents of 33rd Street in Astoria, Queens weren’t looking for trouble. It literally fell into their backyard.

In June of 2003 a curious set of engineering plans floated from the roof of a building and into the backyard of Mario Bazzolo, setting off a chain of events that could have long-term repercussions for the expansion of wireless technology in New York. As fate would have it, Bazzolo, an electrical engineer, immediately recognized what the details of the blueprint represented and in reporting his findings to his neighbors confirmed what some had suspected all along: That recent construction on the roof of 32-42 33rd Street was not the work of a cable television company, as one of the men working on the roof had falsely claimed. The antennae which looked onto surrounding homes and families on this quiet residential street were in fact part of a base station transmitting radio frequency (RF) signals used for mobile phones.

Since that day in June in 2003, the residents living in and around 32-42 33rd Street, organized now as the Astoria Neighborhood Coalition, have been fighting to have these antennae removed. In doing so, they have become lay experts on “non-thermal ionizing radiation” (radiation that does not heat tissue) and have discovered that there are over 200 antennae located within a mile and half radius of their block, primarily on residential buildings. From there they have taken on the wireless phone industry and New York City zoning officials while prompting two legislators to introduce bills that would begin to more closely regulate the mounting of cell phone antennae in New York City neighborhoods and state-wide. Perhaps most importantly, the Astoria Neighborhood Coalition has inspired a growing city-wide effort to rein in what some consider to be the unchecked proliferation of cell phone antennae across the city, and to bring public awareness to potential health risks posed by their radiation emissions.

The cell phone industry, mostly in the form of wireless service providers and communication technology companies, real estate developers, construction companies and others with a vested interest in a multi-billion dollar business, say these fears are unfounded. In extolling the safety of cell phone base stations, they also emphasize the importance of cell phones in times of emergency (almost ten thousand 911 calls are made from wireless phones in New York everyday) and point to American society’s growing reliance on cell phones.

Debating Possible Health Risks

Cell phones started appearing regularly on New York City streets in the early 1990s. Today there are approximately 10.5 million wireless phone subscribers in the city alone. More to the point, there are thousands of cell phone antennae throughout the city, although no one knows the exact number or even how to get an accurate count. Yet while cell phones have become a highly visible and ubiquitous feature of modern life, the mobile phone industry’s rooftop infrastructure remains largely unnoticed by the general public. In fact, there was little evidence that the public cared where cell phone towers were placed until there was political opposition to recent attempts by Schools Chancellor Joel Klein to rent public school rooftop space to cell phone companies.

Cellular phone facilities typically consist of three primary parts: the antenna, the base station, and the equipment. Antennae send and receive signals to and from cellular phones using RF radiation at frequencies between 800 and 1990 megahertz (MHz) which is greater than most FM radios, cordless telephones, and television broadcasts, but less than microwave oven frequencies.

At the heart of the dispute between organizations like the Astoria Neighborhood Coalition and the New York Wireless Access Coalition, a wireless industry advocacy association, is their interpretation of research that has been done on the safety of these antennae. While the radio frequency used by cell antennas may seem no more dangerous than a microwave oven, it is the constancy of the emissions and the proximity of antennae to humans that has raised questions among scientists and prompted countless health studies. Most of the research done so far is limited and inconclusive at best, neither denying nor concluding that cell phone antennas pose a public health threat. In fact, at a recent City Council hearing, both wireless phone advocates and their detractors quoted excerpts from the same World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet to champion their cause.

The wireless phone industry, public health officials and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) all point to the fact that there is no smoking antenna, no proof that the radiation produced by cell antenna radio frequencies constitutes a real health risk. As a result, wireless advocates maintain there is no justification for trying to impose regulations on the cell phone industry.

Anti-proliferation organizers and members of the Astoria Neighborhood Coalition acknowledge that cell phones are important mainstays in today’s society, but argue that the need for more scientific research is reason enough to at least monitor cell phone antennae construction. Evie Hantzopoulos, a spokesperson for the Coalition who freely admits to being an avid cell phone user herself, points to the city’s experience with asbestos as a cautionary tale of how medical science is often years behind the growth and use of new technologies, innovations and materials.

The research debate is a highly complicated one, not only because opinions within the scientific community - some of which has been underwritten by the cell phone industry itself - vary greatly, but because no one has yet been able to complete a long term study that accurately simulates real life conditions and antenna exposure.

While Jessica Leighton, the Assistant Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health testified at City Council hearings that antennas were “unlikely” to pose a health risk, she also admitted “it is fair to say that some questions have not been conclusively answered. While more study may be warranted, it would take an enormous amount of time, money and expertise…Entirely different training, expertise and professions are required to evaluate emissions, exposure and health outcomes.” Leighton concluded that “Better studies are based on very large populations, followed for many years into the future… Short-term health studies conducted locally are not likely to shed meaningful light on these issues.”

The Fight In Astoria

In addition to the seemingly divine hand that delivered the errant blueprints to Bazzolo’s doorstep in Astoria, it took a very aggressive community organizing campaign by the coalition for the issue of cell tower proliferation to take on a broader city-wide profile. After learning that the owner of 32-42 33rd Street was renting rooftop space to T-Mobile, residents discovered that the rooftop was accessible to the residents of the building, lacked proper signage and that three of the antennae were openly exposed, within mere feet, to people living in the adjoining building - all in violation of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines.

In response, the coalition quickly produced a 500 signature petition demanding that the antennae be removed, called on their public officials to get involved and requested an inspection of the base station from the FCC. In the process they also learned that securing the legal right to have the antennae dismantled would not, however, prove to be so easy.

Normally, telecommunication companies are required to apply to the Board of Standards and Appeals and then appear in front of a public hearing before they can build in a residential neighborhood. However in 1998 Deputy Commissioner of Buildings Richard Visconti issued an order that exempted cell phone companies from this long and expensive neighborhood process. Visconti explained his action by saying, “The department recognizes that the cellular telephone has become a prevalent form of communication essential to the public interest. As such, those companies wishing to erect cellular antennae and install related equipment are to be treated with the deference afforded other public utilities.”

As such, cell phone carriers operate under very little control or oversight, not only in New York, but statewide. According to an open letter issued by the Astoria Neighborhood Coalition, “telecommunication companies themselves are not required to inspect or monitor the sites. The FCC issues a blanket license for a geographical area. As long as the company self-certifies that the site meets federal guidelines, they can put up an antenna sites wherever they wish...[N]o agency on the local, state or federal level tracks where these antennae are being sited.”

Because the New York State Public Service Commission is regarded as a competitive market, they do not regulate wireless companies. Furthermore, local and state governments across the country are prohibited from using health concerns as a guiding principle in the zoning of cell phone antennae and base stations because, the FCC reasoned in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there is no solid evidence linking cell phone technology with health risks.

Omega: this is by no means true. There is more as enough evidence linking cell phone technology with health risks. See under:

http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

In the meantime, the coalition has questioned the validity of the exemption that was granted the wireless phone industry and contemplates a class-action lawsuit. Hantzopoulos asserts that Visconti’s action was “in violation of the New York City Charter” and he “had no authority to issue this exemption”.

The coalition has already been successful in compelling T-Mobile to remove three of the nine antennae, the ones that directly exposed residents in the adjacent building. By the time the FCC arrived in October of 2003 to inspect the site, it represented perhaps an even more significant victory for the coalition: The Queens Chronicle reported it was the first inspection of a New York City cell phone antenna ever conducted by the FCC. What arguably should have been routine, was, in fact, a landmark event for the agency that took months and a great deal of applied political pressure from Queens to achieve. As a result of this experience, Hantzopoulos surmised that when it comes to wireless technology, the “FCC has neither the expertise nor the capacity to ensure public safety”.

Legislative Action

Indeed, the coalition’s allies have proven to be closer to home. A target of the coalition’s advocacy, Astoria City Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr. has introduced a bill that, if passed, would mandate that the city maintain a list of where cellular phone antennae are erected, thus giving the public the ability to at least track antenna locations. Vallone has called for the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to study the long-term effects of living and working near multiple antennae and base stations and has already prompted the City Council Committees on Health and Housing and Buildings to hold hearings in April of 2004 on the proliferation of cell phone antennae.

Astoria Assemblyman Michael Gianaris has been pushed even further in sponsoring Assembly Bill 9897, which is designed to “promote the responsible and efficient placement of wireless facilities in residential areas”. Specifically, the legislation would establish a four-month moratorium on the construction of wireless facilities, allowing time for the establishment of a new siting board that would ensure certain criteria are met before a wireless tower is erected.

Gianaris’ legislation would also mandate a study on the health effects of cell phone tower emissions; require companies to demonstrate the need for each wireless facility; require written notice of the facility to residents living within 500 feet of the proposed tower; call for public hearings on specific construction proposals; and require that cellular phone facilities conform to the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood.

The cell phone industry has not taken this lying down. In her testimony before the New York City Council hearings, Laura Altschul, Director of National Siting Policy at T-Mobile USA Communications, said that while these legislative initiatives are “well intentioned, they have the potential…to threaten the city’s wireless communications systems and undermine the advances New York City has made in telecommunications to date.” In addition to emphasizing the important role that cell phones play in originating 911 calls, Altschul argued that the tracking of cell phone antennae could be exploited by terrorists to threaten homeland security.

A Growing Movement

But the protest genie may have already escaped the bottle, both locally and nationally. For instance, several independent grassroots campaigns in San Francisco aimed at halting the placement of wireless antennae in residential areas joined forces in 2000 under the banner of the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU), a city-wide coalition of individual residents and neighborhood organizations. And taking the lead from the Astoria Neighborhood Coalition, community boards in Queens and in Manhattan have passed resolutions calling for the study of potential cell antenna health risks, while boards in Manhattan and in Brooklyn have recently placed the matter on their agendas.

In the meantime, with three antennae removed, but six remaining on the roof of 32-42 33rd Street, the Astoria Neighborhood Coalition continues its fight and has become the leading grassroots voice for people across New York desperate for information and advice regarding cell phone antennae. Hantzopoulos says that she and the coalition members have received countless emails and phone calls from people facing their own dilemmas: Co-op boards and landlords wondering whether to accept money from companies seeking to put antennae on their roofs; cancer victims questioning their own close exposures to antennae; residents, grassroots organizations and elected officials considering how to mount their own local anti-antenna campaigns; even a parent trying to decide whether to buy a house on the coalition’s block. “This is going to be a major public health issue in the years to come,” Hantzopoulos said. “The public is just beginning to learn about it and they will be outraged.”


Janet Newton
The EMR Policy Institute, P.O. Box 117, Marshfield VT 05658
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: www.emrpolicy.org

Omega see also http://www.stopradiation.org/contact.php

Source:

http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_5-06-04.html

YOU ARE NOW ELECTRO-SENSITIVE
http://www.luxefaire.com/electro.html

...At that time there was no awareness or concern of hazards from electromagnetic energy exposure. To our knowledge no electromagnetic radiation experiments were conducted in the camps. And even had they been it would be of no consequence as the Nuremberg Code is silent with respect to any particular type of experiment, procedure, exposure, or treatment. The Code, by its generality, broadly encompasses all human testing. The Code is specific only in terms of what must be done to inform human test subjects and to guard against the possibility of harm...

Read further under:

http://www.emfbioeffects.org/images/Nuremberg.doc

With the murder of Gene Mallove, we've lost one of the most dedicated and sincere ­ and competent ­ researchers in the alternate energy field. He was a champion­even the champion­of rigorous scientific work on cold fusion. Due in large part to his stalwart efforts, cold fusion is one area that just would not be squelched, even though some of the most powerful (and even some of the most immoral) aspects of the big and powerful nuclear and hot fusion community vehemently opposed and still oppose cold fusion.

It is doubly sad because of the energy crisis hurtling upon us and threatening eventual economic collapse of the U.S. and of our society. Gene well-understood that coming massive problem, and he also understood that the conventional energy things being worked on and funded by the established scientific community were largely “business as usual”, and not anywhere near equal to solving the problem.

It is triply sad because, starting from statistical fluctuations in systems originally at constant temperature and in equilibrium, it is already well-known and experimentally proven ­ e.g., in forefront thermodynamics; see Wang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002 ­ that the statistical fluctuations alone are sufficient to “make the chemical reactions run backwards” for up to two seconds in a region of the size of a cubic micron. In an aqueous solution, that is some 30 billion ions and molecules involved in that region where the reactions can be and are being reversed.

As Gene often pointed out, the only thing chemically preventing nuclear reactions at low temperature is the “Coulomb barrier” between like charges, such as two hydrogen ions (simply two free protons). Yet the statistical fluctuations alone can temporarily result in the “Coulomb barrier” becoming a “Coulomb attractor” between like charges. If this reversal lasts sufficiently long, then statistically some of the H+ ions will be drawn together closely enough to involve the strong force region, forming a quasi-nucleus.

In that case, decay of the fluctuation can indeed lead to a new nuclear reaction where a single quark flips in one proton and converts it to a neutron, producing a deuterium nucleus. Obviously there are many more previously uninvestigated “backwards nuclear reactions” available from this generatrix of statistical fluctuations. Just as obviously, without additional stimulation, the backwards reaction occurs but with extremely low expectation.

This “statistical reversal of reactions” momentarily, is especially pertinent if very sharp perturbations are also made to the solution; in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, it is already well-known and proven that strong gradients are one of the areas that experimentally violate the Second Law of thermodynamics. It is also well-known that re-ordering and shifts to new states not otherwise achievable are accomplished. And to quote Kondepudi and Prigogine, not much is known about it, either experimentally or theoretically. It simply has not been sufficiently investigated scientifically.

So one day, it is almost certain that cold fusion efforts will prevail, because ­ if the scientific community would simply fund research in the area, particularly for the pioneers, some doctoral theses programs, and some sharp young post doctoral programs ­ then in a very short time cold fusion would be proven and established, including controllably. These were the kinds of things that Gene was deeply dedicated to try to help bring about.

It is also sad that now Gene will not live to see the eventual fruition of his hard work and tremendous dedication over these years. When it does happen, he will have played a major role in getting that great achievement established.

Gene was always an inspiration and uplifting, and I very much valued his friendship and our occasional contacts. He was also that rarity of rarities: A real gentleman in this old modern cut-throat world, and a person with a truly noble soul. He will be sorely missed.

With the untimely passing of Gene Mallove, we have truly lost one of the real pioneers and one of the great alternative energy researchers of all time. We shall not see his likes again for many a year.

With deepest regret,

Tom Bearden
http://www.cheniere.org

MICROWAVE HEARING-YEAR 1980: ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS "DECT" ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARMS, TO ALTER THE BLOOD FLOW, HISSING WITHIN AND JUST BEHIND THE HEAD. MALE ANIMALS BECAME VIOLENT.

Message from Dr. Miguel Muntané

MICROWAVE HEARING: ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS DECT ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARMS.

· HISSING WITHIN AND JUST BEHIND THE HEAD.

URGENT:
TO INFORM DOCTORS AND NEUROLOGISTS ABOUT THE INTENSE NOISE CREATED WITHIN THE BRAIN AND JUST BEHIND THE HEAD, CAUSED BY MICROWAVES, DOCUMENTED FROM NASA SINCE YEAR 1980.

1. MICROWAVES RADIATION IN PERMANENT FORM: DAY AND NIGHT
ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS "DECT" CAN EMIT MICROWAVES RADIATION IN PERMANENT FORM (24 HOURS/DAY) WITHIN THE HOUSES WITH CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN AS GUINEA-PIGS.

* WIRELESS "DECT" CAN EMIT MORE DENSITY OF POWER OF MICROWAVES WITHIN THE "NEIGHBOURING HOUSES" THAT THE ANTENNAS PLACED TO ONE HUNDRED METERS OF DISTANCE.

2. TO ALTER THE BLOOD FLOW. YEAR 1980

LOW-POWER MICROWAVE TESTING CARRIED OUT BY NASA IN 1980:
When people are illuminated with properly modulated low power microwaves the sensation is reported as a buzzing, clicking, or hissing which seems to originate (regardless of the person's position in the field) within or just behind the head.

3. MALE ANIMALS BECAME VIOLENT

'GRUMPY MALES MAY BE SHORT OF TESTOSTERONE'
Following is an interesting message from Penny Hargreaves who lives near the Oururah radio towers in New Zealand. For more about the Oururah towers see:

http://canterbury.cyberplace.co.nz/ouruhia/

Some time ago I had a conversation with a council employee in Sydney about the possibility of some domestic dog attacks being related to transmission towers.

* The idea was that since dogs have a higher range of hearing they may be prone to "microwave hearing". If so, this may be a stressor on the dogs, as it certainly is with humans who are affected by it.

There was a suggestion of plotting locations of the attacks with mobile phone towers on the council map but nothing was followed up on. The reported observations by Penny Hargreaves suggest that it should have been been carried further.

Male Animals became Violent at Penny Hargreaves Ouruhia farm after the 2nd FM was added to the existing 2 AM on the neighbouring radio tower.:
I used to rent a bull to service my heifers. Twice quiet bulls arrived and within three weeks became so vicious we had to send them home. They immediately became quiet again.One bull had been in the paddock next to the radio tower with his heifers but he would not stay in that paddock. He preferred to be in the radio tower paddock where there were cows (who do not ever seem to have had problems) than in the paddock 150 metres away from it. This behaviour is an indication that "hot spot" areas may not be in the area immediately under the tower but further out. Perhaps the copper wire blanket for 100metres under the radio tower area has something to do with moving the power further out on to my adjacent land. The FM licences show 16 side lobes.

In 1999 I rented my farm to a farmer for fattening stock. At first the cows were only there for a month before killing and he did not have a problem until he bought breeding cows and a bull. Within a month the bull was going berserk, jumping into neighbour's property and terrifying them. The farmer removed all his stock and terminated his tenancy.

I have since heard of several other bulls kept in paddocks within 1 kilometre of the radio tower that have become violent and been destroyed.

My stallion in 1995 would refuse (stand and buck) to go in the paddock next to the radio tower where we worked the horses. Prior to that we had no problems. We had kept him as a colt because he was so quiet but he suddenly changed personality and became very violent and difficult to handle when previously he had been gentle. He also developed skin sores and a mystery lameness in his hooves. Sometimes could hardly move and vets could not find the cause. We now know the metal shoes would have conducted the RF. He lived in an area which was monitored in 1999 as being close to the maximum in certain areas. At the time we were unaware that the FM was transmitting without consent and increased power.

We decided to give him a holiday in another area and within a month he was his old happy self, bucking and playing. Back in the paddock near the "hot spot" Back in the barn he again became aggressive and trotted as if he was on hot bricks.In 1996 after we had moved all the horses away from the farm he reverted to his old self, so kind we could serve mares one week and race him successfully the next. It is most unusual to have a stallion quiet enough to do this. We used him to cover mares at Ouruhia and out of four served only one was in foal. Since moving from there his fertility rate is 100%. He no longer has trouble walking and his hooves are now normal.

The Federal Communications Commission reports that the first thing affected by EMR exposure are the eyes and the testicles. The effect on testicles may have caused the tension and anger in male animals we, and others, experienced.

One male dog within a month of the second FM transmitting became so aggressive it ate his smaller friend. This dog lived approximately two kilometers, line of sight, from the aerial where there is a cluster of ill people. They also experience interference with their telephone with radio from the Ouruhia transmitter and other electronic equipment.

Male irritability:- when the Ouruhia residents lawyer examined the medical reports for Dr Hockings study of 40 people living in the area she commented on the quantity of men going to their doctor with symptoms of extreme irritability since the 2nd FM was added.

'Grumpy males may be short of Testosterone'

This item is taken from our local Press and reported from London a while ago. Gerald Lincoln a Researcher at the Medical Councils Human Reproductive Sciences Unit in Edinburgh Scotland says the condition is not limited to men suffering from so called male menopause.

Men of all ages are increasingly suffering from testosterone swings. A condition scientists had thought affected only male primates and other animals but not men. The cause, he said, is stress. After studying the effects of differing testosterone levels on sheep Dr Lincoln said testosterone had a similarly big impact on human behaviour. Studies on primates have found that stress triggers a rise in corticosteroid levels which in turn pushes down testosterone. His theory is backed up by colleague Richard Anderson who dound that men who cannot produce testosterone become irritable and depressed when they stopped hormone replacement therapy. Their mood improved when they resumed treatment.

Professor David Abbott a reproductive endocrinologist at the Winsconsin Regional Primate Research Centre said Dr Lincoln "was right on the money". "Testosterone effects have been missed. When a bloke gets grumpy and irritable researchers try to explain it only in terms of cortisol levels and depression. They ignore the fact that testosterone levels are probably falling too." Diagnosing male irritability syndrome may not be easy as it is not clear what normal testosterone levels are while extra doses of the hormone may increase the risk of heart disease. New Scientist report.

LOW-POWER MICROWAVE TESTING CARRIED OUT BY NASA
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_1-05-04.html

Microwave Hearing
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/545924/

At the Mediterranean Network Meeting of the European Federation of Green Parties, held in Pervolia, Larnaca, Cyprus between 21-23 November 2003 the Greens expressed their concern on the insistence of the British Government to put in operation the huge
military spying antennae in the sensitive area of the Akrotiri Salt Lake.

The antennae should not have been allowed to operate prior to the completion of a health impact assessment, without applying the precautionary principle applied specially to children's and adult's health and the protection of wild life, bird migration and biodiversity.

We call upon the British Government to abandon the operation of the antennae and demolish all antennae erected.

Patricia Kyriacou, Cyprus.

(Below is an official Cyprus Green Party report on the demonstrations in 2002 against erection of the Akrotiri military base antennas)


CYPRUS GREEN PARTY

TO SAVE AKROTIRI AND CYPRUS ENVIROMENT

The British have started works on the 1st of July, whilst inclusion to the Ramsar list, environmental impact assessments are in process, the review of the international committee is still in progress and ignoring locals, greens and of the general public oppositions. About 10 scientists, environmentalists and the green MP Mr Giorgos Perdikis and his wife were protesting peacefully and with dignity against the construction works by preventing only the very heavy machinery to enter the construction site.

The 10 people were holding each other in the one site of the street –in order to avoid causing disturbance to the traffic -and holding a poster against the antenna. The British brought to the site large numbers heavily armed special forces and helicopters were flying overhead in order to avert a peaceful protest. They broke the human chain by applying physical force. Some protesters were violently treated among them the green MP and his wife. Although the previous day the Press officer of the Bases assured that they will not oppose peaceful demonstrations they forcefully removed the protesters from the place of protest, took charge of the area and subjected them to the humiliation of having to witness commencement of the violation of the wetland.

THE BRITISH MILITARY PROCEED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF
A 500.000 WATTS GIGANTIC ANTENNA IN CYPRUS

The British Sovereign Bases in Cyprus have started on the 1st of July 2002, the installation of a new antenna in the Akrotiri Military Bases. The selected area for the installation (the requested area for
installation is 13ha) is located in one of the most important ecosystems of Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, the Akrotiri Wetland. A unique ecosystem of fresh and salt water habitats.

The new antenna will be installed among others, in a ‘’forest’’ of antennae created by the British Bases in the west of the salt lake. It has to be noted that the existing antennae, and even more so the planned additional one, are situated in a crucial and sensitive area of the wetland complex, providing the hydrological link between the fresh water marshes and the Akrotiri salt lake, as well as specific habitat for species of particular concern.

The wetland is of great ecological importance, especially for the avifauna since it is situated in the migration routes (Bird Life International, Important Bird Areas of Europe, Priority sites for
conservation: Southern Europe, page 152-153). The Cyprus Government aims for the protection and the declaration of the area to a Nature Reserve. The installation site is included in the planned Nature Reserve.

Moreover, the Akrotiri peninsula is one of the 38 proposed areas of Cyprus to be included in the Natura 2000 network. The ecological importance of the area is established and indisputable and fulfils the Ramsar criteria, but due to the political status of the area (Military Sovereign Bases, remains of the once British Empire in Cyprus and excluded from the European Union), the Cyprus Government didn’t designate the Akrotiri Wetland for inclusion in the List of Wetlands
of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (ratified April 2001). The British have informed the Ramsar Bureau for their intention to extend Ramsar Convention in the Bases. The Ramsar
Bureau has been supplied by to two proposals for Ramsar Site delineation, one by the Cyprus Government following, in essence, the wetland ecosystem delineation, and a proposal by the Sovereign Base Area Administration that proposes a more restrictive Ramsar
Site, separated in two, artificially delineated entities. The British proposal is prepared in a way that the antenna ‘’forest’’ is excluded from the proposed Ramsar site.

The wetland ecosystem has been included in the List of Bird Areas of
International Importance, by BirdLIfe International is one of the proposed areas for inclusion in the Natura 2000 Network is proposed to be designated as Nature Reserve.

It qualifies for listing as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention Criteria 1, 2, 3 and 6:

• supports more than 1% of the Eastern Mediterranean population of internationally important wintering population of Greater Flamingo supports significant number of rare, endangered, vulnerable, endemic, important flora and fauna species
  
  supports over of 32 bird species listed in the Anex I of the European Birds Directive
  
  supports 27 habitat types listed in the Anex I of the European Habitats Directive
  
  supports 2 habitat types listed in the Anex II of the European Habitats Directive
  
  hosts an outstanding assemblage of migratory birds, 238 species of birds have been recorded in the area out of 365 recorded in Cyprus
  
  hosts about 50% of the African population of the Demoiselle Crane

Apart from the ecological disaster that will be caused by the installation, another important aspect is the electromagnetic fields that will be created by the antenna. The type of the foresaid antenna is ‘’curtain array antenna’’ and is dimensions are width 196m and height 100m. The proposed antenna is a low band antenna and will operate in HF frequency band (3-30 MHz) with a maximum (continues wave) input power of 500KW. Few hundred meters away from the existing antennas and the proposed installation site of the new antenna, is the Akrotiri village exposed for years to the electromagnetic smog. In the vicinity there are few more villages and the city of Limassol. Even though the scientific community didn’t succeed yet to be of the same opinion that the electromagnetic radiation is negatively affecting health, it is recommended to apply the precautionary principle, in order to protect the public health bearing especially in mind the accumulative effect of the exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

The installation of the antenna and the existing antennae are violating the human rights of the Akrotiri village inhabitants. The Cyprus Green Party is actively supporting the locals in their efforts to protect their health and the environment. The widely known ”Precautionary Principle” and the European acquis should be applied and the British Government should be obliged to freeze all plans and respect the natural environment of Cyprus, the public health and the human rights of the Akrotiri village inhabitants.

There are also political aspects to the above and these are: the status of the British Military Bases in Cyprus and the listening power and purpose of the antenna, where all information will be forwarded to the computers of the British Espionage Center GCHQ, one of the Echelon Listening Centers.

To All

It seems that most, if not all standard setting bodies uncritically accept differing exposure limits for public / occupational exposures. Taking EMF for example, at 50 Hz the ICNIRP guidelines give 1000mG for residential and 5000 mG for occupational.

As ICNIRP is supposed to be a 'health based' guideline this seems a bit strange - making about as much sense as claiming that one has an increased biological resistance to environmental risks while in the workplace. - BUT the real issue is economics, not health. ICNIRP and its ilk made more sense when viewed as 'economics based' guidelines.

Currently the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear safety Agency (ARPANSA) has taken a responsible position by convening two committees attempting to come up with a revised Australian ELF standard, considering the 4 mG /doubling of the risk of childhood leukaemia evidence. I have presented the case that there is no valid scientific reason to differentiate between public and occupational exposures. Whatever standard limits are agreed upon, the limits should apply for one and all. Hopefully this does not mean that we all get saddled with the old 5000 limit!

As I see it the dual exposure system originates from the old "compensating wage differential" (CWD) which was promoted by Chauncey Starr for the nuclear power industry. Recommended reading is: "RISKY BUSINESS Nuclear Workers, Ethics, and the Market-Efficiency Argument" by Kristin Shrader-Frechette, from Ethics & the Environment Volume 7, Number 1
See: http://www.iupjournals.org/ethics/ee7-1.html

I have copied and pasted a bit from my summary of this paper:

". . . Starr also mentions the concept of "voluntary" risk by individuals as a function of income benefits. In other words the acceptance of an increased risk in the workplace is an exponential function of his/her wage , or known as the compensating wage differential (CWD) originally formulated by Adam Smith. This assumption, with Starr as a main proponent, was to become enshrined in ionizing radiation exposure standards (as well as in other polluting industries) and later carried over to the non-ionizing exposure standards as well, where it is accepted that maximum exposure levels can vary greatly between public (involuntary) and workplace (voluntary) exposures. Starrs view has since been widely accepted among the risk assessment profession.

The compensating wage differential (CWD) has been justified on the grounds that workers in hazardous environments receive, as compared to other workers in less hazardous workplaces, a"hazard-pay premium", or as we call it in Australia "danger money". The theory being that the workers will willingly trade safety for extra wages. We see this enshrined in US legislation where, before 1990, ionizing workplace standards allowed nuclear workers to receive up to 10 times as much radiation in any year as a member of the public. After 1990 the public exposure limit was lowered but not the workers exposure. Thus allowing a workplace limit 50 times greater than the public . Starr (1969) justifies this on the grounds that occupational and public exposures to ionizing radiation are not analogous because environmental risks accepted 'voluntarily", through one's occupation, can be regulated by means of standards less strict than those of public risks, precisely because of the CWD. In other words, a classic economic solution of how to control occupational hazards. However a key ingredient for this assumption to work is that workers must have an adequate knowledge of their particular risk situations. By being aware of the risks involved then can then make decisions based on a wage differential. However, numerous surveys by risk assessors, including Starr have found that most people are generally unaware of the hazards they face, thus making CWD decisions impossible for those people.

Kristin Shrader-Frechette in the paper "RISKY BUSINESS Nuclear Workers, Ethics, and the Market-Efficiency Argument" details reasons for doubting that the CWD can provide an ethical justification for hazardous working environments because it may not even exist at all.

Some surveys have shown that when all workers are lumped together from lowest to highest paid, then risk and salary do increase as the CWD predicts. However when workers are separated into two groups, with white, male, unionized, college-educated, or skilled workers in a primary group, and the other being made up of non-white, female, non-unionized, non-college educated, or non-skilled workers in a secondary group, the CWD theory fails.

So while primary group workers enjoy a CWD, secondary workers do not. Hence, the alleged CWD for the entire grouping appears to me merely an artifact of data aggregation . In fact, the primary group CWD actually may exacerbate unequal treatment of those in the secondary group (non-white, female, non-unionized, etc.), because it covers up the lack of CWD in the secondary group, once the data are aggregated.

Shrader-Frechette points out that some surveys have shown that for non-unionized workers, there is a negative compensating wage differential; as risk increases wages get lower. When one compares wage rates across jobs, not adjusting for skill requirements, one observes that hazardous jobs pay twenty to thirty percent less than safe employment. Thus it is obvious that, even if there is a genuine CWD for some priviliged workers, the CWD may not provide general ethical justification for workplace environmental injustice, and this is especially the case in using CWD theory for standard setting.

Starr and other CWD proponents try to have it both ways when it comes to worker and public perceptions of risk in standard setting. They maintain that. Once employees are adequately educated regarding the risks they face, regulations ought to follow employees' risk preferences. In addition they would also say that regulators have no right to tell workers they cannot follow their preferences for higher risks. However, when these same proponents of the CWD wish to justify government imposition of a standard for public exposure they take the opposite tack. - Arguing, when faced with citizen's demands for stricter regulations on risks, that the public's risk perceptions, even of highly educated laymen, are subjective, intuitive, and generally inaccurate. CWD proponents would then argue that regulators should rely only on risk assessments calculated by the experts because these assessments are "rational" preferences.
. . . SNIP

Regards

Don Maisch


Omega see also:

Russia and RF bioeffects
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/230108/

The following article is from HOPEDANCE Issue #43 ~ March/April 2004

http://www.hopedance.org
http://www.hopedance.org/new/issues/43/article8.html

Telecommunications vs. The Environment
by Arthur Firstenberg

In 1982 I was in my fourth year of medical school, a promising career ahead of me. Today I am homeless. My money does not provide me shelter. My good health does not ensure my survival. My friends are unable to help me. I am being killed, but the law offers me no protection.

For eight years I have run an advocacy and support network for people in similar circumstances. No one else has been doing this kind of work in North America. I am afraid time has run out for us. I will outline, later, the emergency measures that are needed in order to reverse a grave, imminent and largely unacknowledged threat to all life.

I am electrically sensitive, and I advocate and provide information and support for electrically sensitive people in North America and worldwide. The assault we are suffering is a radical increase in electromagnetic pollution, or electrosmog, that is engulfing the earth. Let me explain some terms. "Electrical sensitivity" means sensitivity to, or illness caused by exposure to electricity, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Now we are all electrical beings, living in and affected by our electromagnetic environment, but most people are not aware of it. The term "electrically sensitive" has been applied to those of us who have become so reactive that we are not only aware of it, but our reactions are immediate and cause us disability and illness. It is applied to those whose reactivity is so obvious and disturbing that we cannot be talked out of it by well-meaning family, friends and doctors. This cuts our numbers down to only 2-3% of the population. You see, electrical sensitivity is a political as well as a medical term. It is not politically correct to be injured by electromagnetic radiation. Our injuries cannot be acknowledged; the implications for modern communication technology would be too enormous.

In the summer of 1996 I was living in Brooklyn, New York. I had more-or-less come to terms with my electrical sensitivity, and was dealing with it as best I could. I was not a doctor, having had to leave medical school during my fourth year due to an illness of unknown cause. At first, I had had headaches and difficulty concentrating and remembering things. Then, while on a surgery rotation, I had had crippling pains in my hips, making it difficult to assist in operations. My heart rate had slowed to less than 50. One day I collapsed and was unable to get up. My chest hurt, and I could not get enough breath. I was sure I was having a heart attack. During the next two weeks I lost 15 pounds, and I was a slim man to begin with. It wasn’t a heart attack, but it was still six months before I could walk up a flight of stairs without getting short of breath. It was three years before I was strong enough to ski again. It was seven years before I met someone else who experienced pain from being near certain electrical appliances, including television sets and computers, and before I first heard the term "electrical sensitivity." It was 17 years before I gained back those 15 pounds.

In the meantime I researched the world literature on bioelectromagnetics, or the biological effects of electromagnetism, and made myself an expert. I learned that electro-machines, used in every modern surgical operation to cut through tissue and to stop bleeding, expose surgeons to much higher levels of radio frequency radiation than is permitted for workers in any industry. I learned that there was a disease thoroughly described in the Russian and Eastern European medical literature called radiowave sickness, whose existence was usually denied by western authorities. The description recalled to me my "unknown illness" which had derailed my medical career. A bradycardia, or slow heart rate, was said, in these texts, to be a grave sign.

Because there are virtually no workplaces without computers any more, I have not held a job since 1990. I had resigned myself to living on Social Security Disability, and learned, together with other members of a support group I had found, how best to live with my disability, which mostly meant learning to avoid exposure to EMFs. But in July, 1996, I learned to my dismay that an innovation was coming to my city which threatened to make it impossible to avoid exposure any more.

At that time, cell phones were still a luxury item which only worked in some locations. People were not accustomed to staying connected whenever they left their home, and even at home most still had a cord, not an antenna, attached to their telephone. Most were not accustomed to holding devices that emit microwave radiation next to their brain. In 1996, the telecommunications industry began a marketing campaign designed to change all that. For Christmas that year, all over the country, digital cell phones were going to be on a lot of shopping lists. And to make them more practical, tens of thousands of antennas were going to be erected on towers, buildings, church steeples and lampposts, all over the country, before Christmas, and hundreds of thousands more during the next few years.

In response to this emergency, a few friends and I created the Cellular Phone Task Force, and contacted all the public officials we could think of, and the press, to warn them of the danger. But on November 14, 1996, Omnipoint, New York City’s first digital cellular provider did open for business, broadcasting from thousands of antennas newly erected on the rooftops of apartment buildings. According to the health authorities, an early flu hit New York City — but not Boston, and not Philadelphia — on about November 15. The flu was severe and ran a prolonged course, often dragging on for months instead of the usual two weeks.

At Christmas time, the Cellular Phone Task Force placed a small classified ad in a free weekly newspaper. It read: "If you have been ill since 11/15/96 with any of the following: eye pain, insomnia, dry lips, swollen throat, pressure or pain in the chest, headaches, dizziness, nausea, shakiness, other aches and pains, or flu that won’t go away, you may be a victim of a new microwave system blanketing the city. We need to hear from you." And we did hear from them. Hundreds called, men, women, whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, doctors, lawyers, teachers, stockbrokers, airline stewards, computer operators. Most had woken up suddenly in mid-November, thinking they were having a stroke or a heart attack or a nervous breakdown, and were relieved to know they were not alone and not crazy.

Later, I analyzed weekly mortality statistics, which the Center for Disease Control publishes for 122 U.S. cities. Each of dozens of cities recorded a 10-25% increase in mortality, lasting two to three months, beginning on the day in 1996 or 1997 on which that city’s first digital cell phone network began commercial service. I published both the raw data and the complete analysis, with graphs.

I learned that in February, 1996, Congress had passed a law prohibiting local governments from denying permits for cell phone antennas because of environmental concerns — so long as they comply with Federal Communications Commission rules. And I learned that the FCC had just issued regulations setting public exposure limits for microwave radiation at levels at least ten thousand times higher than levels which, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, were causing reports of illness from all over the world, and at least ten thousand times higher than the levels which had forced me to leave behind my home, my family, and my friends, and to run for my life, never to be able to return home again.

The Cellular Phone Task Force, along with over 50 other grass roots organizations and individuals around the U.S., became involved in a legal challenge of the FCC’s absurd standards and its preemption of local control. This was taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many cities and towns, several U.S. Senators and Representatives and dozens of other public officials submitted briefs urging the high court to hear our case. But in January, 2001, the Supreme Court, without comment, declined.

You will hear statements by supposed experts — always the same few, in the pay of the telecommunications industry — to the effect that cell phones/cell towers/microwave radiation have been proven safe in countless studies. It is an easy lie, one that the news media have been eager to propagate. But the fact is, just as for x-rays, there is no safe level of exposure to microwave radiation, and it is so easy to demonstrate harmful effects that it takes some skill to design experiments that don’t show them. It is easier today than ten years ago because now the "controls" are also exposed, the whole planet is exposed, so where can you go to do a good experiment, but most experiments still show effects anyway — effects on heart rhythms, brain waves, the blood-brain barrier, sleep, eyes, gonads, skin, hearing, calcium, melatonin, glucose, metabolism, human well-being. If you look, you will find. Zorach Glaser reviewed over 5,000 such studies for the United States Navy during the 1970s alone.

From the volumes of literature I have seen, certain results stand out in my mind: Allan Frey’s work on microwave hearing. Milton Zaret’s work on microwave cataracts. The work of Canadians Tanner, Romero-Sierra and Bigu Del Blanco on birds, including demonstrations that birds are particularly sensitive because feathers are good microwave receiving aerials. A Swiss government study on sleep, which shut down a short wave transmitter because the researchers were able to show it caused sleep disturbances up to several miles away. An international effort which found a very wide range of environmental effects caused by a Latvian radar station at extremely low levels of exposure, including: smaller growth rings in trees, premature aging in pine needles, chromosome damage in cows, decreased memory, attention, learning, and pulmonary function in school children, increased white blood cells in adults, and an altered sex ratio (more girls) in children born during the years of the radar’s operation. Loescher and Kaes’s work on farm animals sickened by cell towers in Germany. The work of Wolfgang Vollrodt, and that of Ulrich Hertel, linking forest dieback to microwave radiation, rather than acid rain. Roger Santini’s study of the health of people living at varying distances from cell towers in France. Claudio Gomez-Perretta’s similar study in Spain. A Dutch government study exposing normal and electrically sensitive people to cell tower signals finding disturbing effects on both groups. Neil Cherry’s study of childhood cancer rates as a function of distance from Sutro Tower in San Francisco. Leif Salford’s recent work on the blood-brain barrier, verifying the earlier work of Allan Frey and others, but with additional, ominous findings: l) sometimes, decreasing the amount of radiation 1,000 times increased the damage to the brain (the "window" effect); (2) animals exposed to a cell phone once for two hours were found to have areas of brain cell death two months later.

In Germany, 2000 physicians have signed a petition (the Freiburger Appeal) calling for severe restrictions on wireless technology because they are seeing such a dramatic increase in certain diseases and symptoms in their patients, which they can only attribute to ambient microwave radiation. The diseases include: attention deficit disorder, extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, heart arrhythmias, heart attacks and strokes in young people, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, leukemia, and brain tumors. The symptoms include: headaches, migraines, chronic fatigue, agitation, sleep disorders, tinnitus, nervous and connective tissue pains of unexplained origin, and susceptibility to infection. The appeal calls for a massive reduction in exposure limits; no further expansion of cell phone technology; cell phone-and antenna-free zones; a ban on cell phone use by children; and a ban on cell phones and digital cordless phones in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, public buildings and public transportation.

The California Department of Health Services has concluded, on the basis of a telephone survey, that 120,000 Californians have left their jobs because of electromagnetic pollution in the workplace. The people who have left their homes for such a reason are not being counted by anyone.

The highest profile person yet to declare that she is electrically sensitive, and thus unable to use a cordless phone or a computer, or to use or be near anyone else using a cell phone, is none other than Gro Harlem Brundtland, a medical doctor, master of public health, former Prime Minister of Norway, and until 2003 the Director-General of the World Health Organization. Yet even so public a figure on the world stage has been unable to draw the world’s attention to our collective plight, or in any way to slow down the growth of telecommunications, or even to put it on the map as an environmental issue.

This must happen. Too many intelligent, professional, useful people are wandering this country’s barren deserts, homeless, ostracized, robbed of their civil rights, with no place to land. Too many have committed suicide because they have lost all hope, have suffered too long, have had to pick up roots and flee for their lives once too often.

Within the telecommunications industry, too many equipment testers, installers, and repairpersons with radiowave sickness are afraid to speak out, or do not even know why they are ill.

So many radars, antennas, and communication devices are being deployed for government, military, emergency, commercial, and personal uses in both the developed and developing worlds, and in space, that there is nowhere left to hide. Even radio astronomers are seriously talking about the far side of the moon as the only place left that is quiet enough, in the radio spectrum, to still be able to see the stars.

The following are urgently needed:
Sanctuaries. Radiation-free zones. Places without radio antennas, cell phone service, or television cable (cable is often a significant source of radiation). These are needed right now, to save lives. Legal help. Environmental and disability rights attorneys able to take on this issue. Funding for land acquisition and legal expenses. Volunteer help for phone calling, letter writing, grant writing, etc.

To make our world safer, keep in mind these two principles:

1. Distance counts. The power drops off as the square of the distance. Antennas should be few, and as far as possible from people and environmentally sensitive areas.

2. Digital hurts. Digital (pulsed) technology is more harmful at lower levels of power than analog. The FCC’s mandate to replace all analog TV, radio, and telecommunications transmissions with digital during the next few years is very dangerous.

The following are things that individuals can do:

o If you have a cell phone, cancel your service. Cell towers and antennas degrade the environment for miles around. They kill and injure more people than they save in emergencies. A cell phone in use pollutes its own environment for a distance of 100 yards. Even when not in use, cell phones emit radiation if they are turned on to receive calls.

o If you have a cordless home phone, trade it in for one with a wire. For the sake of convenience you are microwaving your brain and polluting your neighborhood. Never expose your baby to a wireless baby monitor.

o School administrators: Developing children should not be exposed to wireless computers, keyboards, or mice.

o Community radio stations: Resist the temptation to increase your transmitter power, or to add repeaters in areas of poor reception. Better receiving antennas on the listening end will accomplish the same purpose without more pollution. Areas of poor reception are the healthiest places to live.

o Low power FM enthusiasts: Low power FM is not a good idea. No matter how low the power, antennas should never be located in residential communities.

o Concert and event organizers: Make your event safe and accessible by banning cell phones and doing security without two-way radios.

o Health spa owners: Please don’t pollute your grounds with cordless phones or two-way radios.

o Wildlife scientists: Radio collars pollute the wilderness and injure the animals you are tracking. Please don’t use them.

o Park administrators: Keep our parks and wilderness areas as sanctuaries. Keep antennas out of them.

o Local public officials: Public health must come first. Vote against proposals to put towers and antennas in your community.

o Members of Congress: Support the efforts of Senators Patrick Leahy and James Jeffords, and Representative Bernie Sanders, to repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, which purports to deny to local officials the right to protect their constituents’ health.

Arthur Firstenberg is a founder and director of the Cellular Phone Task Force, and the editor of its publication, No Place To Hide. He is the author of the book, Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution. He does not have e-mail or a website. He can be contacted at P.O. Box 1337, Mendocino, CA 95460, or by leaving a message at (707) 964-5196 or (718) 434-4499.


Informant: Iris Atzmon

--------

FREIBURGER APPEAL
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566350/

Still 'Cooking' With Microwaves?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/209635

Microwaves
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/192056/

Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2955324/

Electromagnetic pollution of the environment
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2955273/

Man has come along and thrown off the clock mechanism
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3054228/

Informant: Janet Newton

To All - You may have heard this article discussed on NPR on May 6, 2004. Very similar conflicts exist within the scientific community that researches the biological effects of mobile phone and wireless telecommunication (radiofrequency - RF) radiation. Industry and the military are the funding sources in the US and have been for many years. They both have a vested interest in demonstrating that the technologies they wish to market or to employ for national defense have no negative effects on individuals or the environment. Because researchers are required to sign privacy contracts (which can require that the industry funding source owns the results of the research and has ultimate control of what will be submitted for publication in scientific journals) researchers have been pressured to alter conclusions of their studies as well as to withhold their findings from publication until the funder gives its permission. Since 1997, in the US numerous laboratories have been closed due to loss of funding after their studies reported potentially adverse biological effects from exposure to RF radiation. Some of these labs had been in operation for 2 or 3 decades previous to losing industry funding.

Don Maisch

Doctors Without Borders
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0404.brownlee.html