From: jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams)
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
Date: 3 Oct 2002 21:46:58 -0700
References: <%_wk9.52964$1C2.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <7vOrdMA0+9m9EwpL@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Oct 2002 04:46:58 GMT
John Woodgate wrote in message news:...
> I read in sci.electronics.design that John Michael Williams
> wrote (in <firstname.lastname@example.org
> ogle.com>) about 'Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?', on
> Thu, 3 Oct 2002:
> >There are plenty of experiments, performed by EPA
> >and others, that show biological harm from RF well
> >below the thermal safety levels.
> Please cite specific references to peer-reviewed papers (not by
> Schoen!). Whatever you opinion of the FCC is, please be aware that there
> is a world outside USA and there is research going on all over it in an
> attempt to allay the fears excited by demagogues over hypothetical
> effects of (shudder) 'radiation!!!'
> Every report of 'no effect found' is greeted by cries of 'cover up' or
> 'incompetence'. Naturally; it's good for business to keep the mythology
> alive. The shameful fact is that if all these people who are trying to
> find some effect of r.f. radiation were engaged on something likely to
> produce a realistic result, people at large would benefit.
I agree with what I think is your search for valid data, but there
is not reason to believe that some small group of "peers" will
be better than anyone else in revealing it. If anything,
peer groups turn into the very special-interest groups that you
seem to shun. Keeping doubt and fear in the air is good for
You should seek TRUTHFUL research, not "peer-reviewed"
research. They sometimes are the same, but not necessarily.
Who are the "peers" who know what they are talking about?
Test them against my first posting in this thread!
As for references, there are too many to cite here in entirety,
and I'm not going to write a literature review for you.
Here are a couple on HARMFUL effects of low-power microwaves:
Hocking & Westerman, 2001, Occupational Medicine (Lond),
v. 51(6), 410 - 413. Hocking has lots of examples of damage by RF.
He makes his living treating these cases (he is a licensed MD
Lu, et al, 1999, Physiology & Behavior, v. 65(4/5 Jan), 753 - 761.
de Pomerai, et al, 2000, Nature, v. 405, 417 - 418. Shows an effect
assumed to indicate harm. The effect has been extrapolated to
indicate a risk of cancer. See French, et al, 2001, Differentiation,
v. 67, 93 - 97.
Sanders & Joines (U. S. EPA), 1984, Bioelectromagnetics, v. 5,
63 - 70.
By the way, I own shares in some high-tech,
microwave-oriented companies: They would lose value (more) if
they were forced to confront reality on the danger of
selling microwave transmitters without knowing whether they were
harmful or not. But, I'd rather lose the money than become
a mouthpiece for a gang of thieves or bozoes.