PRACTICAL GUIDELINES TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AGAINST

ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION EMITTED IN MOBILE TELEPHONY.

A. INTRODUCTION.  WRONG CRITERIA: THERMAL UNIT AND TWO COEFFICIENTS

These Guidelines contain practical and verified information concerning the Power emitted in the mobile telephony, with respect to the Neuronal waves and the “Natural” radiation from the Sun.

Documented with scientific references from doctors of world-wide prestige it evaluates the health hazard with a simplified practical SCALE: NINE Degrees. This Scale allows an efficient understanding to everyone from University, Law, Town Council and people affected by it.

Focusing the attention. Two alterations: To value the present Health Hazard and “Years delay”.

·         “Blood Brain Barrier alteration”. Published in the former USSR (1972) over 25 ys. ago.

·         “Chromosome damage”. Published in the EEUU (1995) by Dr. H. Lai and Dr. N. P. Singh

The long-term health alteration is known as “Microwaves Syndrome”, based on the radiation over people in Moscow, which led to the death of three successive U.S. Ambassadors: Lilienfeld study. This long-term radiation with low intensity "microwave bombardment", during years, limited to 40 hs. per week, has also caused cancer in 30 women and children 25 ys. ago.

Dr. Neil Cherry. (May 2000). "Electromagnetic Radiation is damaging to Brains, Hearts, Embryos, Hormones and Cells. It is therefore a threat to Intelligent Hearty Life. Electromagnetic radiation resonantly interacts with bodies and cells, Interfering with cell-to-cell communication, cell growth and regulation, and is damaging the genetic basis of life."

Dr. William Steward. "Concerns have been expressed that the pulsed nature of the signals from mobile phones and masts may have an impact on brain function." (1.56)

·         Health hazard refused to be underwritten by insurance companies: Allianz and LLoyd's.

Who is responsible for informing authorities and people living close-by, about the adverse effects of the radiation emitted by base stations? Does a mobile phone user actually know about the long-term health hazard involved? Does it alter stress and our capacity to react? Is it a "non-effectual course" and "delaying tactics"?  Are recommended researchers looking for “non-evidences” ?

Dr. George Carlo. (October 1999). "I am especially concerned about what appear to be actions by a segment of the industry to conscript the FCC, the FDA and The World Health Organization with them in following a non-effectual course that will likely result in a regulatory and consumer backlash."

·         Health hazard evaluation: “micronuclei diagnosis”.  Don't gamble with your health!

Dr. George Carlo, (October 1999). "I am concerned that the wireless industry is missing a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years helps consumers today, and false claims that regulatory compliance means safety. The better choice by the wireless industry would be to implement measured steps aimed at true consumer protection."

The objective of these Guidelines is practical: To present rigorous information with the strict evaluation of “Nine degrees of health hazard”, based on the “Unit of Power”. Users must be aware of the “potential for harm” from microwave emitted by one mobile telephone into the brain.  Hazard due to the high Power, millions times greater than the direct Natural Sun radiation.

Dr. George Carlo said (October 1999): "Since I presented my findings, which they found surprising, they have failed to do anything. In that time there have been another 15 million users in the States and thousands more in Britain. From a consumer point of view the delaying tactic is not good but from a business point of view its great".

Is it correct to study only “short-term” health alteration as stated by ICNIRP?. The Precautionary principle should suggest security measures to protect the immediate health hazard, caused especially in children, by opening the Blood Brain Barrier, DNA alteration and break chromosomes.

It is prudent to limit the investigation on cancer as recommended by World Health Organisation?  The cancer takes years to appear. Such study can be “non-evident”: There are more contaminants.

Dr. Robert O. Becker (May 2000). “I think that any time you have an extraneous energetic source of electromagnetic energy introduced into a body carries a potential for harm”.

·         Focusing the attention:

Radiation from base station. Emits high Power density as microwaves reaching 35 Km distance. Includes “high frequencies” and “pulsed low frequencies” of 217 Hz. It is important to value the health hazard from lower frequencies such as 8 Hz, 2 Hz and the interference on the Brain waves.

People living close by a base station are permanently suffering this radiation, without information whatever about this aggression of "microwave bombardment ", during 168 hs/ week.. It causes evident non-thermal health alteration: Headache, insomnia, irritability and Deficit Attention. Night radiation causes Brain melatonin alteration, not experimented over people in Moscow.

Radiation from a mobile telephone. In the form of microwave sphere 1,000 m radius. User’s brain is in its centre, exposed to 10,000,000,000 times greater radiation than Neuronal waves. The microwave can open the Blood Brain Barrier in “2 minutes” and also break Chromosomes.

Dr. Neil Cherry (27 Oct. 2000) “Lief Salford’s research on microwaves and the Blood Brain Barrier is probably very relevant.  The BBB protects the brain from toxins and viruses. About 2 minutes on a cell phone can open the BBB and allow toxins, including prions, into the brain”.

Alluring microwave transmitters capable of Breaking Chromosomes within 10 mts. are sold with no health "guarantees" at all.  War-game?  Is a microwave transmitter a toy for children?

Dr. Neil Cherry. “A cell phone against the head exposes the premier organ of the human body to serious interference with its processes and serious damage to its tissues and cells”.

Informed judgement and changes in the technology: Demanded long-term health guarantee.

Dr. George Carlo (October 1999). “The most important measures of consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information to allow informed judgement by consumers about assumption of risk; the direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use wireless phones; and, the monitoring of changes in the technology that could impact health”.

1. EVALUATION OF HEALTH HAZARD CAUSED BY MICROWAVE RADIATION.

All users should be clearly informed about the power of the microwaves, which their fascinating mobile phone transmits. Parents should have informed judgement, so as to evaluate the health hazard involved prior to buying this microwave transmitter of daring colours for their children.

Does it harm their parents' health? Does it affect pregnant women? Is it really a toy for children? Town council authorities should be in possession of real, practical and easy to understand information so as to control the microwave radiations emitted within close range by base stations.

Are there any available health hazard reports? Russian researchers stated more than 25 ys. ago that microwave radiation weakens the Blood Brain Barrier: thus the glucose in the blood and proteins may enter into the brain. According to Russian researchers: adverse effects to the health caused by microwave radiation are irreversible when emitted over a number of ys. and appear long - term .

Dr. William Steward. Independent Expert Group Report. UK. (May 2000) "There are two direct ways by which health could be affected as a result of exposure to RF radiation. These are by thermal (heating) effects caused mainly by holding mobile phones close to the body, and as a result of possible non-thermal effects from both phones and base stations." (1.4)

1.1 HOW TO INFORM:  PROPOSALS “EUROPEAN COMMISSION EXPERT GROUP”.

Year 1996.  Proposals for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group.

Thermal effects. “There is currently a general consensus in the scientific and standards community that the most significant parameter, in terms of biologically relevant effects of human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, is the specific energy absorption rate (SAR) in tissue, a quantity properly averaged in time and space and expressed in watts per kilogramme (W/kg).

Non-thermal effects. “A large number of biological effects have been reported in cell cultures and in animals, often in response to exposure to relatively low-level fields, which are not well established but which may have health implications and are, hence, the subject of on-going research”.

“It is not scientifically possible to guarantee that low levels of microwave radiation which do no t cause deleterious effects for relatively short exposures will not cause long-term adverse health effects”.

Basic repetition frequency. The basic repetition frequency is 217 Hz for GSM and DCS 1800 systems and 100 Hz for DECT; however, the spectrum also contains a number of higher harmonics due to the narrow pulse, there are also frequencies in the kilohertz region.  Owing to the complexity of these communications systems, there are also 2 and 8 Hz components in the signal, apart from multiples of 100 and 217 Hz”.

1.2. HOW TO INFORM. EVALUATION “SCALE” AND "UNIT OF POWER"

Insurance companies such as Allianz and LLoyd's are unwilling to underwrite health hazard in mobile telephony. How should authorities be informed so as to ensure health protection?

In order to inform Town Council authorities and general public about this new long term health hazard caused by non-heating effect, a practical and highly reliable EVALUATION SCALE has been developed to measure "NINE DEGREES OF HEALTH HAZARD".

This SCALE measures the health hazard with the UNIT OF POWER (micro watts / cm2 ).This unit of power is easy to measure and remember for those suffering this radiation directly. The SCALE of NINE DEGREES OF HEALTH HAZARD allows efficient understanding to everyone from University, Law, Town Council and to people affected by the radiation.

This SCALE of simplification “NINE DEGREES” highlights the long-term health hazards, cancer and brain tumour, caused by the non-heating effect. These illnesses are a matter of great concern for the population and deserve more attention from the law.

The research carried out by Lilienfeld study established the effects caused by this real radiation: "microwave bombardment" 40 hs. per week led to the death of three successive U.S. ambassadors and caused cancer to women and children in Moscow (1953). Lilienfeld's study proved the extreme danger which "microwave bombardment" entails. It was suggested and prudent, that this experiment should be carried out with animals.

1.3.  HOW NOT TO INFORM. CONFUSION: "THERMAL UNIT" AND "SHORT TERM".

Official information relies solely on the unit called "SAR" (Specific Absorption Rate) which only takes into consideration THERMAL effects calculated on W/Kg, and a "SHORT TERM" basis.

This unit "SAR" is very confusing, it cannot be measured “only calculated” and does not establish degrees of health hazard.

In order to “calculate” the heating undergone by the human brain scientists use "Spherical Artificial Models", made of plastic and filled with a sugar solution, that is supposed to represent a living being according to physicists and engineers.

Wouldn't it be more practical to admit that users are not interested in what the "SAR" shows? The users' major concern is on cancer and DNA or other genetic alterations. The heat which a user feels on his hand or head is not a major issue. His "DNA" is not a "sugar solution".

1.4.  DOUBLE ERROR: "THERMAL UNIT" AND "SHORT TERM" EVALUATION.

Official world legislation only contemplates the adverse effects caused by "heating". Changes on behaviour as a consequence of the increase in temperature of the tissues. Strictly short-term effect

ICNIRP Statement (March 31, 1999)  "While all the scientific literature was reviewed, the only adverse effects on humans that were fully verified by a stringent evaluation were short term, immediate health consequences such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, functional changes in the nervous system and other tissues, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and changes in behaviour caused by elevated tissue temperatures."

This current and confusing lack of health "guarantees" rests upon one ERRONEOUS and to us ludicrous CRITERION: the “Unit of POWER" is Censored (-) in the EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION dated July 12 1999. This is an error liable to confuse the “Lawyer” and “Town Council” authorities.

2.  THERMAL EFFECT AND DOUBLE ERROR IN TWO "SAFETY COEFFICIENTS"

To clarify this confusion the "SAR" UNIT has been renamed: FALSE "SAR" THERMAL UNIT.

Furthermore it has been suggested that the two negligible “safety coefficients" 10 and 5 from the European Commission RECOMMENDATION (12.7.1999) be revised.

2.1. THERMAL EFFECT AND ERROR IN COEFFICIENT 10 " WORKERS "

Exposure to powerful microwave radiation (RF) increases the temperature of animals and human beings. It may cause adverse health effects immediately. This increase in temperature has been studied by physicists and engineers using artificial spherical models.

They based their findings on the "spherical cow concept". The initial heating undergone by a cow's body as a result of microwave radiation allowed them to establish a "safe level": the power of radiation is "10 times smaller"!.

Dr. William Steward. "Both the NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines are based on the need to avoid known adverse health effects. At the time these guidelines were drawn up, the only established adverse effects were those caused by the heating of tissues (1.15)."

Dr. Robert Becker. New York. Twice Dr. Becker has been nominated for a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Published by Linda Moulton Howe in EARTHFILES London (May 2000). "That level was applied for several decades to everything that concerned electromagnetic pollution. Of course, this is not correct."

2.2. CORE WRONG CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH COEFFICIENT 10 "WORKERS".

Dr. Robert Becker also states: "So, the premise that was applied by the physicists and the engineers was erroneous from the start."

2.3. THERMAL EFFECT AND ERROR IN COEFFICIENT 5 "GENERAL PUBLIC"

The world guidelines of the NRPB and of the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) are based on the "SAR" unit and its "short term" effects. ICNIRP uses the name “Non-Ionizing” fundamental in the confusion, and a doubtful coefficient 5 "General Public".

The artificial Power emitted by a mobile telephone into the brain is 10,000,000,000 greater than Neuron currents. Hence for these powers a coefficient 10,000,000,000 greater 5 is negligible.

Two coefficients 10 and 5 are responsible for agreeing Protocols of Political and Legal illusions.

ICNIRP Statement (March 31, 1999).  "Introduction and purpose: Since the publication of the ICNIRP guidelines for limiting EMF exposure up to 300 GHz several institutions have criticized the guidelines as lacking clear interpretation on exposure safety or direct application to equipment in existence.  Concerns have also been expressed about the use of safety factors, precautionary aspects and long term exposure as well as points not included in the ICNIRP guidelines."

2.4. CORE WRONG CRITERIA: COEFFICIENT 5 "GENERAL PUBLIC"

This coefficient 5 used to establish vital protection is 900 in former Czechoslovakia. This coefficient 900 brings home the fact that conclusive scientific research had been previously carried out and set a “precaution principle”.

Dr. Neil Cherry (May 2000). "Another important conclusion: Cell phone radiation mimics the effects that we have found for EMR across the spectrum, in over 45 published studies showing adverse biological and human health effects specifically from cell phone radiation."

Dr. Robert Becker states (May 2000): "As far as I'm concerned, these factors DO have biological effects. I think that the overwhelming evidence indicates that happens. There is an effect even though physicists and engineers continue to say it's impossible."

Should the standards set by the ICNIRP be revised under a different light? Are these erroneous coefficients 10 and 5 a solid basis to misinform about the power emitted in the brain?

To protect the Brain against “Chromosome damage” this coefficient (5) should be (10,000).  And to protect the brain against higher powers than those emitted by the sun: NATURAL SUN, this negligible Coefficient (5) should be “one million” (1,000,000).

2.5. SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA TO REVISE COEFFICIENT ( 5 ) “General Public”.

From Dr. Neil Cherry to Roy Beavers (30 May 2000). “Cell phones and cell sites are producing significant health effects right now but few direct studies are attempting to identify them. You only see what you look for. If nobody is looking then nobody will see anything.”

BASIC SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA                              SAFETY COEFFICIENT

Coefficient ICNIRP " General Public "                                                  5

Coefficient former Czechoslovakia                                               900

Coefficient Power " Chromosome damage "                              10,000

Coefficient Power " Melatonine alteration "                           50,000

Coefficient "NATURAL SUN"                                                 1,000,000

Dr. William Steward. "We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach. (1.19)

2.6. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES. TO INVALIDATE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?.

Year 1996.  Proposals for a research programme by a European Commission Expert Group.

Epidemiology. “Epidemiological studies, unlike most laboratory studies, tend to take several years and to be based on data arising from populations of many thousands or even millions of individuals”.  

 “The Expert Group considers that studies should be inaugurated of risks of certain cancers originating in parts of the head that receive radiation exposures from handsets: namely, tumours of the brain and cerebral meninges; acoustic neuroma, and salivary gland tumours”.  “Leukemia in adults is considered worth investigation because of the suspected sensitivity of the haemopoietic and animal systems to electromagnetic energy”.

·         5 YEARS NEW RESEARCH PROGRAMME?.

“Definitive answers about health hazards related to the use of radiotelephones are unlikely to come about in the short term”.

2.7. CORE WRONG CRITERIA: TWO " NON-SAFETY COEFFICIENTS 5 AND 10"

The FALSE THERMAL UNIT "SAR" must be urgently revised and its non-scientific value admitted.  This FALSE UNIT "SAR" is useful for evaluating thermal efficiency and heat loss in microwave ovens designed to cook food. "SAR" is an INDUSTRIAL UNIT.

ICNIRP Statement (March 31, 1999).  “The use of safety factors”. “There is no rigorous basis for determining precise safety factors”.  “Safety factors are based on a conservative value judgement by experts. In the new ICNIRP guidelines the safety factors vary from approximately 2 to >10 depending upon the extent of uncertainty in knowledge of thresholds for health effects for direct and indirect field interaction at various frequencies."

Dr. George Carlo (October 1999). “Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitively positive, and were following a dose- response relationship”.

2.8.  CORE WRONG CRITERIA: “NO-LIMIT OF  POWER" AND "NO-DISTANCE"?

Dr. G J Hyland. University of Warwich. U.K. "Existing safety guidelines governing exposure of the public to the radiation employed in mobile telephony are totally inadequate, and the philosophy underlying their formulation is fundamentally flawed."

Dr. George Carlo (October 1999). “I also indicated that while our overall study of brain cancer occurrence did not show a correlation with cell phone use, the vast majority of the tumours that were studied, were well out of range of the radiation that one would expect from a cell phone's antenna”. “ Because of that distance, the finding of no effect was questionable“. “Today, I sit here extremely frustrated and concerned that appropriate steps have not been taken by the wireless industry to protect consumers during this time of uncertainty about safety”.

SUNDAY MIRROR (19.3.2000). "SWITCH OFF YOUR MOBILES UNION WARNS STAFF"

"THOUSANDS of civil servants have been warned by their union to stop using mobile phones amid fears they could be damaging their health."

Union leader Barry Reamsbottom said: “We are probably the first union to warn all its members against using mobile phones”. "We are simply saying medical opinion is still divided over the possible health implications of long term usage." 

·         "Our message is, 'Don't gamble With Your Health'."

3.  NON-THERMAL ALTERATION. “POWER AND DISTANCE” OF VITAL PROTECTION.

Dr. William Steward. “There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that
there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines". (1.18)

Dr. Robert Becker wrote in 1990 “That radiation once considered safe, is now correlated with increases in cancer, birth defects, depression, learning disabilities, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Alzheimer's Disease and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome."

3.1. NON-THERMAL ALTERATION AND PULSED NATURE OF THE SIGNALS

Dr. William Steward. "Concerns have been expressed that the pulsed nature of the signals from mobile phones and masts may have an impact on brain function." (1.56)

Dr. Alan Preece (Bristol University) reports on the alteration of human brain functions. Proves there is scientific evidence.

Dr. William Steward. "There is now evidence that effects on biological functions, including those of the brain, may be induced by RF radiation at levels comparable to those associated with the use of mobile phones. There is, as yet, no evidence that these biological effects constitute a health hazard but at present only limited data are available. This is one reason why we recommend a precautionary approach."  (1.56)

3.2. NON-THERMAL ALTERATION AND “ATTENTION DISORDER DEFICIT” (ADD)

Dr. Madeleine Bastide (Montpellier University). Shows that the low frequency of mobile phones generates malfunction in the system which controls stress.  Concludes that this phenomenon may be responsible for the increase of violence observed in areas exposed to mobile phone and base station fields.

Linda Moulton Howe interview Dr. Robert O. Becker (May 14, 2000)  "AND WOULD YOU PUT AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST IRRATIONAL VIOLENCE AND ROAD RAGE?

Dr. Robert  Becker: “Yeah, I would put it up there. I don't know if it's the first thing on the list. If you look at the proliferation of what is called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) - that wasn't even here when I was young. That was not a diagnosis. It never existed."

3.3. "NON-THERMAL" ALTERATION AND "DNA" ENERGY ABSORPTION

Dr. Swicord has verified using the DNA of "Scherichia" that the DNA may absorb 400 times more energy than water.  Nuclear cells absorb more energy by unit of mass. Basic error of the "SAR" Unit.

Dr. William Steward. "There are well-established examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some groups, which could influence sensitivity to disease. There could also be a dependence on age." (1.19)

3.4. NON-THERMAL ALTERATION AND BRAIN LOW FREQUENCY SIGNALS.

Regarding human Brain Neuron currents (Schumann Resonances) was stated by Dr. Neil Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand of 0.0000001 microW/cm2. The power of microwaves within the brain of a mobile user can be 10,000,000,000 times greater than the natural BRAIN SIGNAL.

Dr. Neil Cherry. University of Lincoln (February 5, 2000) “Since our brains detect and use very low frequency signals from the Schumann Resonances, which have a mean intensity of about 0.0000001 microwatts/sq. cm. (0.1 picowatts/sq. cm.), it is not surprising that at exposures which are millions of times higher, there is increased brain cell damage and an increased risk of brain tumor in a dose-response manner. This kind of result is indicative of cause and effect.”

3.5. DOSE-RESPONSE CANCERS IN THE VICINITY OF BROADCAST TOWERS:

Dr. Neil Cherry. (June 2000). “With the similarity of FM radio and TV signals and analogue cell phones, studies of health effects at very low mean exposure levels for those living in the vicinity of broadcast towers is relevant to the consideration of the health effects around cell sites.”

3.6.  THREE REPORTED NON-THERMAL HEALTH ALTERATIONS.

3.6.1. BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER ALTERATION

This alteration was well-known in the former USSR over 25 ys. ago. It was confirmed in the U.S. 20 ys ago, report pending publication. Recently the Universitetssjukhuset (LUND, Sweden) has confirmed Blood Brain Barrier alteration.

"Biological effects due to exposure to electromagnetic radiation of 915 MHz modulated amplitude". Person, Bertil; Malmgren, Lars; Salford, Lief G; Brun, Arne. "Permeability of the Blood-Brain Barrier in rats Biological effects of amplitude modulated RF fields upon the blood-brain barrier (BBB) has been investigated by exposure of Fischer 344 rats”. “The presence of albumin and fibrinogen were demonstrated immunohistochemically. The controls show albumin leakage in 15% of the examined rat brains."

With the weakening of the Blood Brain Barrier, the human brain is powerless against viruses, blood impurities and food additives. The glucose in the blood penetrates into the brain and destroys neurons. Proteins present in the brain may cause Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases. The barriers of cells are drastically weakened as well.

Dr. George Carlo (October 1999) "The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was higher than the rate of brain cancer death among those who used non-handheld phones that were away from their head."

SUNDY MIRROR. (23.4.2000). "Mobile masts fear after two friends die". "Shocked neighbours demand probe". "Mother-of-two Julie Meconi, 49, and best friend Margaret Aldridge, 54, both suffered identical haemorrhages."

Alisdair Phillips, of the pressure group Powerwatch, said: “These deaths must be investigated. The microwaves break down the blood brain barrier which keeps out noxious substances. A powerful mast could also lead to haemorrhaging."

3.6.2  ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM ALTERATION  E.E.G.

Dr. L Von Klitzing from Lübeck (Germany) studied this alteration 6 ys. ago. Reports that microwave radiation emitted by a mobile phone may alter the E.E.G. of human beings standing 10 mts away from it.  The power which alters the E.E.G. is 0.1 microW / cm2 .

3.6.3. HEALTH ALTERATION: CHROMOSOME DAMAGE.

Dr. H. Lai and Dr. N. P. Singh, Washington University studied this phenomenon 6 ys. ago. "Acute Low-intensity Microwave Exposure Increase DNA Single-strand Breaks in Rat Brain Cells.” Bioelectromagnetics, 16, 207-210. 1995.

·         The power which alters the Chromosome is 0.1 microW / cm2 .

3.7. CHROMOSOME DAMAGE AND “WAR-GAME”:

Norm Sandler. Motorola company mail: “I think we have sufficiently war- gamed the Lai / Singh issue”.  This research was deliberately blocked for 5 ys. as reported by a BBC video programme.

Dr. Neil Cherry, University of Lincoln. New Zealand. (February 2000). "But don't keep the phone in a breast pocket or on your belt near your liver, kidneys, womb or testes because the microwave radiation can break chromosomes wherever they are."

Dr. G J Hyland. (February 2000) "iv) A six-fold increase in chromosome damage in cows, subject to a likely maximum exposure of 0.1 microW/cm² [65]."

Dr. Neil Cherry, (May 2000). "My problem is that there is so much research that shows adverse biological and health effects, but there is a conserted campaign to ignore, discredit or attack the messengers.”

Dr. George Carlo (October 1999). "Laboratory studies looking at the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic damage were definitively positive, and were following a dose- response relationship."

3.8. CORE WRONG CRITERIA: DISREGARD for the alterations: Cancers and Neurological.

Dr. Robert Becker  (May 2000) “There are now too many industrial and political interests vested in the exponential growth and profits of the global telecommunications industry, regardless of the impact on cancers and neurological disease”.

Dr. G J Hyland (February 2000). “The microwave signals used in the digital GSM system of mobile telephony similarly ‘flash’, 217 times per second, this flashing being ‘punctuated’ at the much slower rate of 8.34 per second.  More precisely, the transmitted signal is divided into 8 time slots, allowing 8 channels to co-exist within each carrier.  The total time to transmit all 8 slots (known as a ‘frame’) is 4.6 milli-seconds, so that 217 frames are transmitted per second.  These (main) time frames are, however, grouped into multi-frames, each containing 26 frames, one of which, however, is simply a synchronisation frame; it is this feature that gives rise to the 8.34Hz component in the emitted signal (i.e. there are approximately 8 distinct groups per second, each containing 25 ‘flashes’) - a frequency that happens to lie in the range of the important alpha brainwaves!”.

4. W.H.O. WORLD REPORT AND "DELAYING TACTICS".  TO WAIT “YEAR 2006”?

Mobile phone operators have been repetitively stating over a long period of time, that the final word on the health hazard issue will come out from the W.H.O. world report on cancer expected to be published in the year 2006 under Dr. Elisabeth Cardis I.A.R.C. (Lyon) supervision.

Appalling delay? Should this microwave bombardment at close range, 168 hs./ week be allowed?

Dr. Neil Cherry (May 2000). "Electromagnetic Radiation is damaging to Brains, Hearts, Embryos, Hormones and Cells. It is therefore a threat to Intellegent Hearty Life. Electromagnetic radiation resonantly interacts with bodies and cells, Interfering with cell-to-cell communication, cell growth and regulation, and is damaging the genetic basis of life."

·        Do mobile phone operators and the “recommended investigators” have 500 W antennas under "realistic exposure conditions" into their meeting rooms?

4.1. "DELAYING TACTICS" AND YEAR 2006.  WHO ARE PROFITING FROM THEM?

Year 2006. Is it the longest period to wait while the base station network is installed under no control? Base stations are installed offering no information and no reliable health specifications.

·         June 2000. Dr. M. Repacholi from W.H.O recommended the following:

Mobile phone makers should reduce microwave emissions if possible. He fails to indicate to what extent and makes no reference to safety distances.

He also adds that people should limit their exposure to these emissions and users should reduce the length of the calls. He gives no explanation whatever about the reasons underlying these recommendations. However he recommends to wait until the year 2006.