Newsletter (03 November 2003)

Interview with Prof. Franz Adlkofer about the REFLEX project in of one of the largest Danish newspapers

Friends,

Yesterday, Sunday, on the frontpage of one of the largest Danish newspapers was an interview with Prof. Franz Adlkofer about the results of the REFLEX project. Two full pages were devoted to a detailed explanation of the results. This has really upset the country. My Sunday at home was disturbed by 2 journalists who brought an interview with me in the main TV news broadcast later that evening. Of course I could fully confirm the REFLEX results. Also a comment from Prof. Joergen Bach Andersen, who said that this does not happen at the Danish safety standards (highest ICNIRP!). My final point was: 1. A stop of the raising of more masts. 2. Lowering of the ICNIRP safety standards. More research should not have the highest priority, as there is already a very great number of studies that have shown the harmful effects.

Now there are starting to come in complaints from children that go to schools with masts on top of the roof: headaches etc.

Now the authorities are really worried, because this is an action that starts at the bottom, started by the ordinary population - they are worried and angry. The phone companies, ministers, Danish Cancer Society are changing daily their messages to the press. They are getting less convincing. Danish Cancer Society has started a personal attack and is criticizing my qualifications and articles.

Could someone help me with a list of all studies on harmful effects of base station/masts?

Thank you and kind regards

Sianette Kwee

and

Safety standards again

Friends

Thank you all for your replies and lists of safety standards. However, many of the studies of non-thermal effects the field is given in SAR (field strength pr. tissue/body weight.) Can any body help me how to transfer these figures to the safety standards units (energy strength pr. sq. area)?

I am afraid that they will hit me with this at the meeting at the Ministry.

Thank you and kind regards

Sianette Kwee

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top scientist casts doubts on TETRA masts safety

By Gordon Berry

ONE OF THE world’s leading medical scientists has claimed that the highly controversial TETRA transmitting system “may constitute a health hazard” to people living near installation sites.

The comment has been made in a letter written by Dundee-based top cancer research scientist Professor Sir David Lane as members of Fife Council’s east area development committee prepare to give a view on three more applications for sites to be included in a new telecommunications system for Fife Constabulary.

Sir David’s home lies close to one of the sites, at Quarry Road in Balmullo, and he and his wife—another leading scientist—have submitted a formal objection to the application from NTL, which owns the mast where the Airwave MMO2 dish would be mounted.

Councillors in north-east Fife recently decided to defer a decision on several similar applications until more is known about claims that the masts—claimed to involve radio signals which pulse at a rate similar to that the human brain—could be associated with health problems.

Fears have been expressed that radio waves could cause calcium to leak from the brain, triggering damage to nervous and immune systems, and that pulsed microwaves can lead to conditions such as leukaemia and epilepsy.

The Home Office has said that there are “no discernable risks” associated with the masts.

After the decision to delay the application was made at a meeting in Cupar there was considerable controversy and anger when Fife Council then decided to take the decision-making process out of the hands of local councillors and into the central strategic environment and development committee.

Local councillors still have to provide a view on the matter, however, and the Balmullo application, which has also attracted objections from other local residents and from the community council, is one of three coming before tomorrow’s committee meeting in Cupar.

The others involve sites at the East Lomond, and Prospect Hill at Balmeadowside near Cupar.

Sir David and Lady Lane have raised three grounds of objection, among them the bombshell statement that “this type of transmitter may constitute a health hazard to the occupants of the neighbouring houses.”

They said that definitive tests have not been carried out, as it is not known how to do them.

A similar view has been expressed by the community council secretary, Anne Haskell.

“We believe that not enough research has been carried out into the effects a mast would have on both persons and livestock,” the objection said.

“A two mile radius of the mast would incorporate the whole village.”

Sir David is director of the Cancer Research UK Cell Transformation Research Group at the University of Dundee, and is the founder and chief scientific officer at Cyclacel, a company developing drugs treatment for cancer.

He is a fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and the Royal College of Pathologists, and a founder member of the Academy of Medical Science.

Lady Birgitte Lane is head of cell and development biology at the Wellcome Trust Building at the University of Dundee.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2003/11/03/newsstory5312641t0.asp

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:12 PM

Subject: Cancer research specialist says masts are not safe

In today's Courier (on the web if you can't get a copy), world famous cancer research specialist, Sir David Lane and his wife, also an eminent researcher say TETRA masts are not safe and need to be tested before being allowed.

Brilliant!

It may have something to do with the fact that there is a proposal to erect a mast near his home in Balmullo, East Fife.

Ali

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Letter to the BEMS Community

Final Version submitted 1/30/02 to BEMS Newsletter

Recently, the discussion over new RF standards being developed by IEEE has offered an opportunity for all interested people to understand more about the adequacy of the existing standards, and the complexity of the factors to take into account in new standard-setting.

The BEMS community may wish to consider more active involvement in the IEEE and NCRP standard-setting processes. Many BEMS members have valuable expertise in these matters to provide stakeholder oversight. This open participation in the process will go a long way toward building confidence and public acceptance of new standards.

Stakeholder participation is acknowledged to be a fundamental part of the IEEE standard setting process. To make sure that the public and decisionmakers at all levels have full confidence in the new standards, the process should be incorporate more stakeholder participation and wider scientific review. To ensure that proper consideration has been given to the complete range of scientific information and public health and information needs, the BEMS community and related interest groups should an take an active role in reviewing this process; including the underlying scientific, policy, legal, regulatory and public health issues at stake.

Of particular interest is Attachment 8 of the June 2001 Minutes of IEEE. This attachment outlines questions to the subcommittee members (and their written answers) on fundamental issues that affect our ability to know how well RF exposures may measured and evaluated for risk with respect to emerging RF technologies and devices. Non-uniform exposures, near-field versus far field exposures, average and peak SAR exposure limits, and other variables make standard-setting very challenging if the over-riding IEEE goal is to identify suitable measurement standards and limits to protect public health.

Cindy Sage

Sage Associates

Observations from the Attachment 8 Document – IEEE SC-4 Minutes from the June 2001 St. Paul meeting (BEMS annual meeting) by Cindy Sage

The existing FCC standards for RF are not science based, they are obsolete.

The proposed SC-4 revision is not based on any better science, just a need to avoid violating existing SAR standards for peak SAR exposure with non-uniform exposures and near-field conditions created by widespread exposure of the public to cell phones, for example.

The proposed revisions should not be adopted, since the science does not yet exist to show what standards can protect the public (Balzano comments)

The SC-4 subcommittee has statements by individuals that make the relaxation of existing standards appear to be based solely on protecting industry interests, not protecting the public.

The SC-4 subcommittee is conducting a process that is not open to the public, nor to stakeholder input – in contradiction to their written position.

The important questions are not being answered in these deliberations by the SC-4 subcommittee. The right questions are: how small of an area of the brain, or the eye, or the testes that is damaged by “hotspots” created by exposures to either devices (cell phones, cordless phones, etc) or to real-world exposure (cell phone towers, AM/FM/TV antennas, etc) is being considered? Multiple sources? Reradiation conditions?

How small of an area of tissue that is subjected to extreme SARs from hotspots matters? How small of an area of tissue exposed repetitively to RF at levels exceeding the existing peak SAR ratio is biologically important? Biologically damaging? And not just damaged by thermal heating, but damaged in biological functioning?

Can exposure of less than a ten-gram (or one-gram) tissue sample cause biological damage – and result in adverse health effects? (in the case of DNA damage to cells, it is a necessary pre-condition to the development of cancer, and even ONE cell is important).

If existing science is not adequate to develop revisions to the FCC limits now, what science is needed and when will it be available to study?

If we do not now have standards that are defensibly protective of public health, and we cannot do better at the moment, what should be done about exposures occuring NOW? Ban devices? Ban future sales? Certainly not relax the existing standards to accommodate the needs of the industry. And certainly not exempt ANY so-called “low-power devices” as recommended by C.K. Chou, since he and others on the SC-4 subcommittee talk freely about hotspots that occur with their use that far exceed peak SAR standards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the Chemical Industry Fears

http://tinyurl.com/takn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's Wrong with Assisted Reproductive Technologies?

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/wwwART.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Scientists' Warning To Humanity

http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm