ANTENNA FARMS

Antenna Farm, Denver, Colorado	Microwave Antenna

1999: Antenna Towers - Frequency Sickness From: Colorado, City Mountain News - Essay by Carole Lamond Read the complete essay here This essay edited for space - please click on the link to read it in its entirety Denver mass media did not report that the industrial proposal for historic Lookout Mountain would have tripled electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and radio frequency (RF) interference for 35,000 Greater Golden residents and businesses. The Jefferson County Commissioners denied the Denver TV station’s proposal of an 850-foot tower and 35,000 square foot industrial building for hundreds of devices, much more than“HDTV” transmitters. The public was not informed that the 100 transmission devices operating on Lookout Mountain in 1980 grew to 1000 devices by 1996. The power output increased from two million watts in 1979 to 14 million watts by 1999. Broadcasters omit the fact that 75% of TV is received by cable or satellite because over-the-air signals don’t “cover” all of Denver metro from any site in mountain terrain. Signals from Lookout are not received in the east shadow of the Table Mountains and southeast shadow of Green Mountain, the greater Evergreen-Conifer area; and don’t drop into the “Boulder Valley” without booster or translator devices. The media did not report that RF signals on Lookout towers trespass into hundreds of homes, businesses and the public elementary school at higher altitudes on Lookout and Genesee mountains. Antennas, transmitters, and microwave dishes send RF signals from towers based at an altitude of 7200 feet directly into homes at 7300 to 7800 feet. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), there are only a “half dozen intense antenna tower sites in residential areas” nationwide. None, except Lookout, send signals directly into family homes at the same altitude as the transmitters. For 50 years, JeffCo and the FCC accepted industry’s claim that RF is sent from “above average terrain.” A developer purchased the land in 1906 in exchange for a pipeline right-of-way crossing Lookout from Squaw Mountain. The Lariat Trail, a 4.5-mile switchback road that rises 2,000 feet from Golden to Lookout, was built in 1914. By 1948, there were 254 “improved properties” in Mt. Vernon Canyon. The first broadcast tower was erected east of Buffalo Bill’s Grave in 1953. There were five towers on Lookout supporting TV transmitters when all plats were zoned residential in 1956. After Interstate-70 was constructed through Mt. Vernon Canyon in 1972, more RF devices were placed on more towers without due process. JeffCo ignored the proliferation, so antenna owners increased using convenient Lookout because they could. Americans awaken to “environmental pollution” During the 1950s, Americans were not aware of the dangers of tobacco, DDT, pesticides, asbestos, ionizing and nonionizing radiation, toxic chemical manufacturing, water and air pollution. Golden and Lookout residents assumed the close proximity of the towers would provide better television reception. Rocky Flats was built in the 1950s. In 1971, Russian intelligence bombarded the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with microwave radiation to record conversations. The Embassy staff suffered from severe “radio frequency sickness”—chronic fatigue, sleeplessness, irritability, mental confusion, head and muscle aches, and serious life-threatening illness. A U.S. military investigation, Project Pandora, found that the staff had been bombarded with RF radiation measuring from 5 to 15 microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2). The most competent nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) scientists are Russians who convinced their government to limit public exposure from 0.5 for pulsed signals to 5 uW/cm2 for other signals. American RF industry has always quietly stood in the shadow of the military preference for limited long-term biological effect research. The recommended “public” exposure limit in the United States was 1000 uW/cm2 until 1991 when it was reduced to 200. Citizens passing-by, 24-hour residents and 8-hour employees and are lumped together for the “public” standard. Responding to citizen concerns, Congress funded comprehensive research and adopted regulations to control pollution from all toxic industries except RF broadcasting. American mass media reported all polluters except themselves. Extreme RF proliferation during the 1980s In spite of citizen opposition, additions on Lookout during the late 1970s and 1980s were: KUSA Channel 9 tower for a weather radar device to sweep the residential community every 65 seconds with a potential of 1.55 billion watts, without a required JeffCo permit PBS affiliate KRMA rented tower space(adjacent to historic Boettcher Mansion and the Lookout Mountain Nature Center) to KCFR and KUVO public radio without JeffCo public hearings. Cumulative radiation has exceeded the 200 uW/cm2 limit ever since A half-acre tower site near Buffalo Bill’s Grave was rezoned to Planned Development Hundreds of two-way and microwave devices were added without public due process Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) carefully evaluated health and safety studies and adopted an NIER limit of 200 uW/cm2, one-fifth of the national standard, in 1982. Assuming that an alternative site would limit proliferation on Lookout, JeffCo approved a “consolidated” tower on Mt. Morrison at 8,000 altitude in 1988, against strong opposition from Genesee residents. The site is nearly 1000 feet higher than Lookout and is surrounded by JeffCo Open Space and Red Rocks Park. The new 380-foot tower was built adjacent to an existing (early 1960s) microwave relay for cable television and Denver police emergency system. The 1986 EPA-FCC Investigation Responding to citizens’ request, the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Communications Commission conducted a one-week study of Lookout in September, 1986. The EPA report included warnings: “The number of (broadcast) stations and their close proximity to one another and to residential areas make the Lookout antenna farms unusual… (causing) a complex electromagnetic environment… During the 1980s, the Reagan administration gradually cut funding of environmental research related to health effects. Pressure from the RF industry ended EPA research of non-thermal (biological) effects of NIER by 1988. Most elected representatives were seduced by the RF industry slogan: “Health concerns are not an issue.”There has been no government funded, independent research of the long-term biological effects from exposure to low levels of radiation. Industry has always claimed that “harmful effects have not been proven.” The 1996 Telecommunication Act The wireless, broadcast and electronics industries developed the revolutionary legislation from 1988 to 1995. After donating millions to Congressional campaigns, especially to members of Commerce Committees, the Act was adopted in February, 1996. Congress gave $70 billion in free DTV spectrums to all broadcast TV stations, a sizeable benefit to American taxpayers. The FCC set a timeline for stations to add the digital transmission they had lobbied to receive. TV stations prepared to add a channel that can be divided into multiple channels with interactive capability for extraordinary future profits. Congress apparently does not consider $70 billion as “federal financing.” All “mandates” using federal funds require comprehensive environmental impact studies to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act. The TelCom Act prohibits local elected representatives from denying low-power, wireless antenna tower installations based on “environmental” effects. In October, 1997, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) petitioned the FCC to preempt local land use decisions for adding high-power, digital (DTV or HDTV) UHF television transmitters. CARE opposed this in a public comment letter.

. .

TOWERKILL.COM As of the FAA's November 2, 1998 update, New York State had 728 tower sites of which 80 were tower farms containing more than one tower HUMANS NOT THE ONLY VICTIMS THE EFFECTS OF TOWERS ON BIRDS As of June 1999, over 40,000 lighted towers and tower farms were registered in the FAA database of obstacles in the United States that exceed 200 feet in height. FAA regulations require that towers that stand 200 feet or higher have lights so pilots can avoid them. Taller towers often have guy wires to keep them standing. This combination of lights and guy wires is the source of bird mortality at such towers. On clear nights, birds migrate at altitudes higher than most tower heights. When the cloud ceiling is low, or on foggy nights, birds migrate at lower altitudes and apparently fly towards the lights on the towers. They strike the guy wires or collide with one another. The current rate of tower construction indicates that numbers of such towers is on course to more than double over the next decade. With more towers, there will be more dead birds. Of the five long-term studies that have been conducted at single tall towers (800+ ft. high), annual documented mortality ranged from 375 to 3,285 bird carcasses per year (20 year average). About half the birds were found dead over many months rather than at single night catastrophes. In Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 1,000 or more birds have been killed at a single 1,000-ft tower on 24 nights since 1957, and a record 30,000 birds were estimated killed on one night in the mid-1970s. At the current rate of construction, the number of towers in the United States is likely to double to 80,000 by 2010. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was designed to facilitate the rapid build-out of a massive telecommunications infrastructure in the United States. The institution of digital television will add even more tall towers to the landscape. Similar expansion is underway in Latin America and Canada. The toll on migratory birds in the Americas from communication towers is likely to increase substantially, but no effort is underway to assess the cumulative impact of towers or to minimize that impact. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ March 19, 1998 - Up the road in Hamden, the town zoning board is considering an application by WKCI (101.3) to build a new 625-foot tower on Gaylord Mountain Road, just down the hill from WKCI's current site on the tower of WTNH (Channel 8). WTNH isn't renewing WKCI's lease for tower space -- so WKCI needs the new stick to stay on the air from its current site. Neighbors are expressing the usual concerns about a "tower farm" in their backyards... June 28, 2000  Limington Free Press Public safety issues relate both to the tower structure itself and radio frequency emissions. Most ordinances require a property line setback of between 100% to 125% of the tower height. Ordinances usually also require some certification as to the mechanical strength of the tower and require periodic structural inspections. The Federal Government has prohibited local jurisdictions from setting radio frequency emission standards higher than the federal guidelines. These standards are based on the heating effects of the radio waves on biological tissue and many people feel that the standards do not protect the health of the public. In fact, many countries have established far more restrictive standards than the United States. For example, in places in Europe, the maximum allowable exposure level is 100 times lower than here. Additional information on this subject can be found at www.EMRnetwork.org. Local jurisdictions do have the authority and responsibility to require monitoring of these emissions and some ordinances require periodic testing paid for at the owner's expense. The Limington Planning Board declined to require any periodic testing or inspections. Visual impacts of communication towers are also often a major concern. Some shorter towers are made to look like trees or clock towers to protect the character of a neighborhood. Height and tower lights are the two most important factors that affect visual impact. Most ordinances also prohibit advertising and require the towers be painted to blend into the background (unless FAA requirements dictate otherwise.) Impacts are also reduced when different companies are required to share the same tower (co-location). Everyone has seen examples of "tower farms" where multiple towers from different companies are located adjacent or close to each other. This remains a major issue in West Baldwin where WMTW Channel 8 wants to build "for business reasons" a second TV transmission tower only two miles from the existing WCSH Channel 6 tower. Finally the rapidly evolving technology of telecommunications has resulted and will result in many unused and obsolete towers. Most ordinances provide that towers which remain unused for more than a year must be taken down. For example there is a tower near Cornish which has not been used for years but remains as a permanent part of the landscape even though it may serve no useful public purpose. The first cell towers to be erected in an area are usually taller towers to gain a wide coverage area. As cell phone usage increases in the region, more numerous but shorter towers are then built so that the individual cell coverage size can be kept smaller. CELL TOWERS - AND THE ENVIRONIMENT From: http://www.hud.gov/fha/sfh/buying/buyhm.html#TOC#23 Our wonderful government tells us this:   23. ARE POWER LINES A HEALTH HAZARD? There are no definitive research findings that indicate exposure to power lines results in greater instances of disease or illness. T.H.R.E.A.T. Tower Hazards and Radiation Exposure Above Tolerance large graphics

.

Excerpted from the 1999 Florida Report 1999 ANNUAL REPORT ON EMF RESEARCH Florida Department of Environmental Protection EMF in the transmission line frequency range (60 Hertz) is classified as "non-ionizing radiation", as compared to ionizing radiation like X-rays. The potential for health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from electric power lines and electrical appliances is a source of concern to the public at large. Citizens have been voicing their fears and concerns in Florida for over a decade. As a result of citizen concerns, the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) adopted in 1989, a rule limiting EMF from electrical transmission lines and substations. Due to the lack of competent scientific evidence that exposure to power line EMF would produce adverse health effects, the ERC based the field strength standards on the premise that new transmission lines and substations should not produce fields greater than the EMF from lines already existing. The ERC also required the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to monitor EMF scientific research and to submit annual reports on the findings. During 1999, the DEP sent staff to the 1999 Bioelectromagnetic Society Twentieth Annual Meeting held in Long Beach in June. We reviewed the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences’ NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. The DEP staff has reviewed articles in the EMF Health & Safety Digest, Bioelectromagnetics Newsletters, and Bioelectromagnetics (Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the Society for Physical Regulation in Biology and Medicine). The most significant event in 1999, was the publication of the NIEHS report to Congress. The NIEHS, a department under the National Institute of Health (NIH), was charged by Congress to prepare and submit an evaluation of the potential human health effects from exposure to extremely low frequency (50-60 Hz) electric and magnetic fields (EMF). This report was completed in early May 1999. The working group report drew conclusions on the strength and robustness of the experimental data related to extremely low frequency EMF exposure and its implication for human health and disease etiology. The findings of the Working Group were published in the Assessment of Health Effects report in August. The Working Group made a final evaluation of the carcinogenicity of extremely low electric and magnetic fields (EL EMF) following the protocol of the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC). The Working Group also made final evaluations for non-cancer endpoints by a similar procedure. The majority of the Working Group (19 of 30) concluded that ELF EMF are possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B category). Eight members of the group considered that the evidence on EMF fell into the IARC Group 3 category - "ELF EMF are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans". One member of the group considered that the weight of the evidence pointed to IARC Group 4 - "ELF EMF are probably not carcinogenic to humans".   (Editors note: They didn't say it wasn't. Probably does not mean 'NOT') In arriving at their conclusion of possible carcinogenicity the Working Group used evidence from epidemiological studies to support their finding. Twenty out of the twenty-six members that voted concluded that there is limited evidence that residential EMF is carcinogenic to children based on childhood leukemia studies. Three lines of evidence were cited in supporting the conclusion: the association between calculated magnetic fields and risk of leukemia; the association between exposure to measured 24-hour fields and leukemias risk for children; and the association between wire codes and risk of leukemia. The group also felt that there is inadequate evidence from spot measurements of EMF to support a finding of risk to children. A smaller majority (14 out of 26) considered that there is limited evidence that occupational exposure to EMF is a risk to humans based on chronic lymphocytic leukemia studies. Of the Working Group that voted, they were almost unanimous in concluding that: there is inadequate evidence of an association between occupational exposure to EL EMF and other cancers; inadequate evidence of residential exposure being cancerous to adults; inadequate evidence with respect to childhood nervous system tumors; and inadequate evidence with respect to childhood lymphoma. The Working group also felt that either there was inadequate evidence in experimental animals (in vivo) for the carcinogenicity of EMF exposure or that there was evidence of a lack of effect. Using the IARC guidelines the Working Group concluded that a limited number of well performed studies provide moderate evidence that for mechanistic plausible effects of ELF EMF in vitro at intensities greater than 100 microTesla (1 Gauss) on end-points generally regarded as reflecting the action of toxic agents. The Working Group also concluded that there is only weak support for an effect of fields less than 100 microTesla.  (NOTE: They studied animals who cannot speak ... not human beings) For the non-cancer adverse health effects that were considered by the Working Group, none of the evidence considered was weighted as exceeding "inadequate " for humans or "weak" for animals. The human studies considered addressed adverse birth outcomes after maternal exposure, adverse reproductive effects after paternal exposure, Alzheimer disease, AMLS and other motor neuron diseases, suicide and depression, and cardiovascular disease. There is one biological effect with a health impact found to have "strong" evidence supporting an EMF effect. Exposure to electric and magnetic fields affects bone repair and adaptation. The Working Group could not reach a decision on whether EMF exposure could effect nervous and non-bone connective tissue repair. Weak evidence was noted for EMF affect on heart-rate variability and on short term human exposure causing sleep disturbance and melatonin suppression. The Working Group Report also stated: "Because of the complexity of the electromagnetic environment, the review of epidemiological and other biological studies did not allow precise determination of the specific, critical conditions of exposure to ELF EMF associated with the disease endpoints studied."  (NOTE: In other words, they did an inadequate study) Dr. Kenneth Olden, Director, of NIEHS stated in his letter of transmittal: "The scientific evidence suggesting that ELF-EMF exposures pose any health risk is weak. The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults. While the support from individual studies is weak, the epidemiological studies demonstrate, for some methods of measuring exposure, a fairly consistent pattern of a small, increased risk with increasing exposure that is somewhat weaker for chronic lymphocytic leukemia than for childhood leukemia. In contrast, the mechanistic studies and the animal toxicology literature fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern across studies although sporadic findings of biological effects have been reported. No indication of increased leukemias in experimental animals has been observed."  (NOTE: Do you want to live under or near a power line and risk leukemia in your children or yourself?) "The lack of connection between the human data and the experimental data (animal and mechanistic) severely complicates the interpretation of these results. The human data are in the "right" species, are tied to "real life" exposures and show some consistency that is difficult to ignore. This assessment is tempered by the observation that given the weak magnitude of these increased risks, some other factor or common source of error could explain these findings. However, no consistent explanation other than exposure to ELF-EMF has been identified."  (NOTE: Exactly my point. The study was inadequate.) "Epidemiological studies have serious limitations in their ability to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship whereas laboratory studies, by design, can clearly show that cause and effect are possible. Virtually all of the laboratory evidence in animals and humans and most of the mechanistic work done in cells fail to support a causal relationship between exposure to ELF-EMF at environmental levels and changes in biological function or disease status. The lack of consistent, positive findings in animal or mechanistic studies weakens the belief that this association is actually due to ELF-EMF, but it cannot completely discount the epidemiological findings. "The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized at this time as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In my opinion, the conclusion of this report is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern."  (NOTE: Because the study was inadequate to prove the case, the State of Florida is willing to go ahead and let people die from living under or near the power lines until enough deaths prove the case) In 1999, a National Research Council, Commission on Life Sciences committee also published a review of EMF research. The Committee to Review the Research Activities Completed Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (known as the EPACT Committee) published a report entitled Research on Power Frequency Fields. The EPACT Committee consisted of scientists and engineers to review the activities conducted under the EMF-Rapid Program as administered by the Department of Energy and the NIEHS. A major conclusion of the EPACT Committee was that engineering studies indicate that the range of 60 Hz magnetic field exposures to most people is very small. The normal range is 1 - 2 milliGauss (mG) with very few people exposed to more than 4 mG. That finding demonstrates that it is very difficult to obtain large numbers of subjects for epidemiologic studies with substantially different, temporally-averaged magnetic field exposures. Lacking an ability to identify heavily-exposed and minimally-exposed populations in epidemiologic studies severely limits efforts to assess possible risks associated with magnetic field exposures. The results of engineering studies also pointed out that any magnetic field-induced biologic effects would have to be seen at very low exposure thresholds (about 1-2 mG) in order to have important implications for adverse human health effects. Most of the biologic effects experiments were carried out at much higher exposures. The largely negative results of replication studies reduced the credibility of the original claims of magnetic field effects in the committee’s opinion.  (NOTE: They admit they didn't study enough people) In a 1997 NRC assessment of the biologic effects of power-frequency magnetic fields there was the following conclusion: "that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electrical and magnetic fields produces cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects". The 1999 EPACT report contains the following: "The new, largely unpublished contributions of the EMF-RAPID program are consistent with that conclusion. We conclude that no finding from the EMF-RAPID program alters the conclusions of the previous NRC review on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems (NRC 1997). In view of the negative outcomes of EMF-RAPID replication studies, it now appears even less likely that EMF’s in the normal domestic or occupational environment produce important health effects, including cancer. The results of the EMF-RAPID program do not support the contention that the use of electricity poses a major unrecognized public-health danger."  (NOTE: They were studying the USE of electricity in the home, not living under power lines) The NRC EPACT Committee does not recommend a special research funding effort for power-frequency magnetic fields. Congress has not committed special funds for such research. Some research is continuing with much of it being funded by other countries. This year the major EMF conference will be in Germany. A second will be in Greece. (NOTE: If Studies aren't done, then they can't find victims. Very simple) The overall conclusion of the Department’s review of the literature and the material presented at conferences is that there is still not conclusive scientific evidence of adverse health effects. There is no justification to warrant revising our regulatory standards.

.

How to Avoid EMF Exposure in the Home The simplest way is to avoid purchasing a home with high EMF levels. This can be determined indirectly by checking for the presence of EMF sources such as nearby transmission or distribution lines or transformer boxes close to the home. The first or second home from a pole/ground mounted step-down transformer will likely have high readings. The EMF level can be determined directly by measuring the fields in the home. If you choose to measure the fields (or have them measured for you) the readings should be taken at a time of peak power usage - around supper time is best. Susan Sugarman's book (Sugarman, Ellen; Warning: The Electricity Around You May Be Hazardous to Your Health; A Fireside Book; Simon & Schuster; 1992 ) sets forth a protocol for measuring EMFs on your property and in your home. Often the utility company can reduce EMF levels by balancing the loads in the distribution lines. Transmission line fields can be lowered by using different tower designs or by burying the lines. Sometimes high EMF levels in the home can be a result of the way the electrical system is grounded to the municipal water system, especially if the water pipes and electrical power lines enter the home at opposite ends of the house. Even currents from your neighbours house may enter your home this way and contribute to high fields. It may be possible to make changes to the electric grounding system or the water system to eliminate these fields but anyone contemplating this should consult an electrician to ensure the changes comply with the electrical code. Unusual wiring, such as having the positive and neutral wires of a circuit not running together can contribute to higher fields. Again, consult an electrician for possible solutions. Read in their entirety, the reports on EMF dangers: mn15a.htm   mn15b.htm  mn15c.htm

.

GIVING A CHILD A CELL PHONE IS LIKE GIVING A CHILD CYANIDE From Dr. Goldsmith: . We would be incorrect in targeting cancer as the only or primary marker of public health. There are many additional and serious health effects from overexposure to non-ionizing radiation including, but by no means limited to: sleep disruption, nervous system disturbances, and psychological disorders. They may be indicators of more life-threatening illnesses to come or not, but they are all deserving of a public health remedy. [Lundquist: Taken literally, I agree with this statement. In fact, I would add to the list of diseases/disorders: autoimmune diseases, electrosensitivity, and certain types of cardiovascular disorders (certain cardiomyopathies). CELLULAR SICKNESS ELECTRONIC MAIL & GUARDIAN July 29, 1998 Cellular sickness Speculation about the medical side-effects of cellphone use is gaining momentum. There are even devices available to protect your brain from alien frequencies Gill Moodie The battle for your brain has arrived in South Africa as an international campaign over health fears linked to cellphone use begins to target local consumers. Leading the way in convincing local users that cellphone calls may be frying your brain is Johannesburg-based Radiation Cellutions, the local importers of Microshield, a British product which it is claimed absorbs more than 90% of the radiation emitted by handsets. The product, a nickel-mesh casing which fits over cellphones, was launched in late 1996 and sold about 100 000 units in the United Kingdom in 1997. The boom in sales coincides with growing suspicion that excessive cellphone use could cause headaches, anxiety, short-term memory loss and even damage to embryos, brain tumours, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease. "It like having sex with a condom if you don't want Aids," says Pete Jensen, marketing manager for Radiation Cellutions. The only catch is that this sheath costs R435. Local service providers Vodacom and MTN are unconcerned. Vodacom says there is no scientific evidence to prove that cellphones are a health risk to users. Company spokesman Joan Joffe says Vodacom has had no indication from customers that they are worried about health risks. Microshield, she charges, is creating a fear which sells their product. MTN spokesman Hendrina Westoll was amused to hear of the Microshield product. "Talk about money making," she said. "You'd have to put a cellphone by your ear for the next 6 000 years for it to damage you." But if the local industry is sceptical, UK service providers are watching closely a law suit brought by Welsh radiation biologist Dr Roger Coghill against cellphone distributor, The Telephone Shop. He is suing the company for failing to label cellphones as potentially dangerous and wants the court to order the company to do so. "Mobile telephones are arguably the most radiative appliance we have ever invented apart from the microwave oven and people are putting them by their heads -- arguably the most sensitive part of the body,'' warns Dr Coghill. Meanwhile, Radiation Cellutions see their marketing strategy as an "educational process," says Jensen, who points out that cellphones emit electromagnetic energy classed as radio frequency -- in the same category as radars and computer monitors. Vicky Benjamin, who sits on the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), says cellphones may be a wonderful product but we do not know enough about their affect on the body, though her view is not that of the SABS. Benjamin, who is working on a book on the health risks of electromagnetic fields, believes "greed has overtaken expediency. There have been no long-term studies on the subject". So should South Africa's estimated 2,2 million cellphone users bin their phones for the sake of their mental health? The evidence is beginning to show that some fears may be well founded but consumers also have to plough through conspiracy theories and paranoia that would do the X-Files' Mulder and Scully proud. Microshield's website even contains an "X-Files" page which says: "Many independent scientists and victims believe that there may be what amounts to a cover-up by manufacturers and even governments, on the mobile phone health issue." Microshield claim to be in possession of copies of patent applications from cellphone manufacturers which shows that there has been industry awareness of health risks since 1993. There is also a growing body of scientific study linking cellphone use to health problems. While most research has been conducted on animals such as mice and chickens, two sets of human trials were released this year. In May Dr Kjell Hansson Mild of the National Institute of Working Life in Umea, Sweden, found that the number of cellphone users experiencing fatigue, headaches, warmth on ear and a burning sensation of the skin rose with the amount of time they spent on the telephone. He found in his study of 11 000 cellphone users that calls of between two and 15 minutes were twice as likely to cause headaches as those of less than two minutes. Mild suggested that the telephones be redesigned so that the antennae which produce most of the radiation protrude from the bottom, keeping them away from the brain. In June, a study of 10 volunteers by Dr Stephan Braune of the University Neurology Clinic in Freiburg, Germany, found that cellphones caused an increase in blood pressure during calls. A 1997 Australian report showed that the incidence of brain tumours in the country rose from six to eight in every 100 000 people between 1982 and 1992 -- coinciding, claim the researchers, with increased cellphone use. The World Health Organisation is conducting a five-year study on humans into the potential health risks of electromagnetic fields including cellphones, but the results will not be ready until 2002. But if you can't wait until then for conclusion to the debate, there's a range of products apart from the Microshield claiming to minimise the risk, including an invention from a Sudanese engineer: a turban with chemicals added to the fabric which may block out the radiation. © Electronic Mail & Guardian - July 29, 1998

.

Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation electrophonic effect ...... A special role is played by the electrophonic effect of microwave hearing. Humans can perceive a buzzing or clicking sound in the back of their heads at exposure to power densities as low as 0.1 mW/cm² of pulsed microwave radiation (200-3000 MHz) , depending on the pulse repetition frequency and the peak power density (around 300 mW/cm²). The absorbed energy produces a thermoelastic expansion of the brain tissue causing an acoustic pressure wave which is detected in the cochlea by the hair cells of the organ of Corti. The energy needed to produce this effect is so small that it does not actually increase the mean temperature of the brain, yet the acoustic sensation is strong enough to be clearly perceived in an ambient noise level of circa 65 dB. Due to this fact microwave hearing does not cause an apparent physical reaction within the head, but it is well known that humans suffer general stress reactions when they are exposed to higher levels of sound. Noise cannot only be an annoyance, but when it consists of pulsed sounds it affects heart beat and metabolic rates. [8] The subliminal aspects of noise levels are here not even considered despite the recognized physiological effects of acoustic noise. It would be a very interesting field for research to probe the subliminal acoustic effects of such exposure to low radio frequency radiation. A possible link between such radiation and noise related reactions , effects, or damages would be an aspect worth of further investigation...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Dr.George Carlo found that the rate of death from brain cancer is higher among mobile phone users and the risk of contracting a rare tumour on the outside of the brain is more than double.” “Earlier this year British researchers found that mobile type radiation created mysterious hot-spots which could damage children's developing brains. The Government promised a rigorous investigation. Days later a study of 11,000 volunteers, the largest so far, found a link with headaches, dizziness and concentration lapses”

.

HAARP, WEATHER, WAR, AND EMF MIND CONTROL	HAARP
SCALAR PHYSICS - ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - FREE ENERGY - PLASMA ENERGY AND HEALING	A zip file of the complete site as it was when it closed is available Bridlewood Bibliography on Electromagnetic Fields and Health
MIND CONTROL FORUM	ILLUMINATI
THE BELIEVERS - A STUDY IN CULTS	NEW WORLD ORDER
THE GURU VIRUS	NEW WORLD ORDER DATABASE
ELECTROMAGNETISM AND LIFE	PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT
MIND CONTROL	The EMR Network
WAVE GUIDE. ORG	EMF guru website (home of EMF-L)
EMR-EMF mailing list.	EMF DANGERS
THE ULTIMATE DREAM - THE ELECTION AND MIND CONTROL	EMF BALANCING TECHNIQUE

.

No need to fight with guns. Future war will use sound. FUTURE WAR Rather than matter, electromagnetic energy is employed as a weapon. Such weaponry, be it infrasound or high-power millemater waves, bypasses such physical armoor and defenses by being ou of phase with them. In a worse-case scenario, criminal forces, using such weaponry in a failed states' sprawling slum would be able to overome US armored vehicales and incapacite or injure their crews with little effort. High-frequency wave weapons (infrasonic weapons)       -Attack all life-sustaining physiological functions              (circulatory and nervous systems, internal organs, etc.)       -Alarm, desperation, horror       -Mass onset of epilepsy, heart attacks, death       -Penetration of concrete, metal structures Use of parapsychological phenomena, generators of psifields      _ Mass altered states of consciousness     _ Initiating factors = psychedelic agents, low-power EMF, unconscious info/neurolinguistic         programming through mass media     _ Most dangerous for "stone-age"/highly developed countries     _ Directed, non-contact EM fields in SHF/EHF bands     - Suppress willpower/impose "criminal will"     - Radio waves disrupt brain, central nervous systems     - Infrasonic waves = fear, panic, etc.     _ Directed irradiation = EM fields from electronic equipment     - Changes behavior, reactions to events     - Disrupts functional systems     - Causes morphological changes in cell tissue     - Penetrates brick, wood, concrete     _ "Biological Electronic Device" (BED)     - "Artificial biological field generator"     - "Bio-electronic transceiver"     - "Electronic/SHF radiation sources"     - "Holographic laser"     _ Radiation generator, receiver, device to transform reflected signals     _ BED lifts "biofield imprints"     _ Non-lethal weapons     - Laser weapons     - Incoherent light sources     - SHF weapons     - Infrasonic weapons     - Information weapons     - EMP weapons     _ Non-lethal against personnel The Sonic Weapon of Vladimir Gavreau Electromagnetic Weapons Timeline New Armageddon weapons Nonlethal Weapons - A Global Issue US Military Non-Lethal Weapons Google Infrasonic Weapon web search links

.

SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy February 6, 2001 BUSH STATEMENT ON GROOM LAKE President George W. Bush's first published comment on national security classification policy comes in a January 31 letter to Congress that restates the exemption of the classified facility at Groom Lake, Nevada from certain environmental disclosure requirements: "Information concerning activities at the operating location near Groom Lake has been properly determined to be classified and its disclosure would be harmful to national security. Continued protection of this information is, therefore, in the paramount interest of the United States," President Bush wrote. See: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/02/wh020101.html ___________________ Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html Email: saftergood@igc.org

.

DREAMS OF THE GREAT EARTHCHANGES
MAIN INDEX