~e; wireless radiation

From brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>
Date Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:57:48 -0600
Cc inquiries@nist.gov, info@iec.org, Kathryn.Bushnell@informa.com,helpdesk@etsi.org, info@ansi.org, atispr@atis.org, info@gwec.org,admin@ses-affiniscape.org, info@nacse.com, president@nsma.org,ieeeusa@ieee.org, education-services@ieee.org, narte@narte.org,inquiries@nist.gov, kandy.hauk@nist.gov, director@nist.gov,tpd@nist.gov, itumail@itu.int, tsbmail@itu.int, bdtmail@itu.int,pressinfo@itu.int, helpdesk@itu.int, central@iso.org, info@natoa.org

(cc'd to major wireless industry organizations)

this is the previously mentioned second comment
i was going to write, regarding cellphones and
radiation issues. after seeing the student news-
paper article i read this small newsbit on the
mac-web, and it put things into what is, imo,
a likely context for this situation, comparing
it to questions with tobacco and of subsequent
class-action lawsuits....

* And what if Cellphones Really are Dangerous? // ref. tobacco...

it may have originated as a result of the following
articles which since have been found online with
respect to the same student newspaper article on
the cellular industry researcher's tribulations...

* The cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0? // CNET links below...

	'OK, I know the obvious differences: I'm sure cell phone manufacturers  
are not deliberately making their products more addictive, for  
example--although they are, of course, always offering new and improved  
services and ever-increasing buckets of minutes, which can't help but  
encourage us to use our phones more and more frequently. But, just as  
Big Tobacco did, the cell phone industry seems bound and determined to  
thwart and deny any suggestion that its product might be dangerous.'

* Letter by Dr George Carlos --
In 1999 Dr Carlo, head of a multi-mullion dollar
US research project, wrote this letter expressing
his concerns about the safety of mobile phones

	'Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have
ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects,
have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for
all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of
responsible follow up by calling for and supporting more research.  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.'

* Cell phone radiation levels: Comparison charts by manufacturer

the thing that seems very clear about these
otherwise complex situations and bureaucratic
legal frameworks and business interests that
vie for competitive advantage at every turn,
is, that regardless of what may happen with
these issues - that today -- something can
be done based on 'common sense' so that if
something in the background data has shown
facts to be established about health effects
and these were ignored, at least significant
changes based on common sense alone would be
helpful in not exacerbating what are known
issues that can be addressed right now...

for instance, cellphone antennas by design
have antennas that send radiation into the
human skull. that is, they are not based on
directing radiation away from the human skull
but instead just send it everywhere. this one
modification of a change in antenna types is
a way to lessen a majority of the radiation
that goes into the human skull and it just
makes sense to do such a thing without a
need for conclusive public evidence-- it is
stupid to not do this, in terms of public
health- and should be an industry standard.

though what is obscene is the default view
that because there is no proof of harm, that
harm does not exist -in any way- to legitimate
making such basic, fundamental, sane decisions.
instead it is stuck in rhetorical legal business
motivations that will, eventually, have to be
squared with decision-making in these present
days, when so simple a design change would
have so large a positive effect and outcome,
in terms of risk/reward of not doing anything.

so too with the ferrite beads on cordless head-
sets for mobile phones-- make the 10 cent bead
a standard, cut radiowaves traveling up the
cord into the human head by a massive amount,
and potentially limit exposures to radiation,
whether or not it causes cancer: it is just
common sense that it is probably a good idea,
and should anything occur with these issues,
making such magnanimous moves now will be in
a company's favor should the cat get out of
the bag that radiation is not benign to human
health, nor could it reasonably be assumed to
be, in terms of any negative effects whatsoever.
is a 10 cent ferrite bead a deal-breaker that
will sink the tens of billions of dollar world
cellular industry? no. will it do some good: yes.
researchers have shown that it is a responsible
move for the industry to take to limit exposure.
if the industry does not do it, based on the
premise of no ill effects - it is going to lose,
and in the long-run, lose big just like tobacco
and the idea of safe cigarettes as a precedent.

another thing that could be done, win-win-win,
would be for radiation zoning for public areas
where antennas are not allowed in places where
people will have long-exposures, such as being
seated in place, for hours on end, days on end,
years on end, in public and private schools. it
is in such areas that large mast antennas are
being installed and a massive soup of radiation
is filling these areas of learning with what
amounts to noise in the spectrum that, if it
has an ill effect, would be having it on the
children who are most vulnerable in terms of
their age and development and building brain
connections and frequencies for thinking that
these radiation issues clearly interact with.
take down all wireless towers? no. move the
ones that are spewing radiation day and night
in residential and school areas, to lesser-
powered, or other approaches? definitely yes.
it makes sense in terms of the public health
and common sense in terms of risk and reward.

so too, with laissez-faire wireless spectrum
allocation, it may be necessary to consider
not pollution every last nano-meter of space,
time, and place with new frequencies whose
ill effects are not understood in the ranges
already existing, to then add more and more
energy traveling with no rules or regulations
with regard to human health effects. maybe it
will be that the survival of the EM fittest
will choose, by natural selection, those who
have the genes to survive the EM onslaught of
wireless radiation the best, and they will be
the breeders of a new generation of EM users.
though they may also be the ones with greatest
lack of brain-functioning and other areas of
concern that turn behaviorism into the highest
ideal and form of human interaction, machines,
determined to hyperactively press the right
buttons on the cellphone to get to the next
level in the global grid of the EM species.
it may be a good idea to foster what amounts
to an EM environment which nurtures humanity
and its needs and goals, rather than forces
it to conform to the needs and dictates of a
technology industry concerned just about .biz
and with no human measures for accomplishments
when there are plenty to be had, but they are
not the focus of development, only one effect
ini the mad rush into electromagnetic oblivion.

wireless-free zones and radiation zoning is a
critical part of the equation, that levels of
radiation should be measured, mapped, and seen
and understood for what they are: like weather,
it is critical data, and if zoning were to be
included and designs which limit over-exposure
to radiation were enacted, who knows-- maybe an
unforeseen benefit would be that massive health
and safety issues may just 'naturally' drop in
number - what if positive changes were made and
the result is that cancer rates dropped by a
third? is that worth asking the cellular industry
to be responsible to human health effects? the
trillions saved, trumping the billions earned?
or, more to the point, serving life before death.

architects and others could do much to transform
the radiation experience, by using radio-blocking
wallpaper, paints, and making faraday cages that
contain and block signals, and allow some 'free'
space, time, place, outside this toxic EM soup,
as is documented to have ill effects with regard
to long-term exposures - all have agreed it is
not a good idea. and by the way, if the letter
written by the researcher does state that ionizing
radiation is agreed by all to be a Bad Thing, then
why are 'air ionizers' being sold for home use in
all major stores as a way of cleaning the air?

it would seem if the wireless industry was pro-
active, that whatever does happen eventually is
going to also be judged in relation to what they
do now, in relation to what they could do, and
based on what reasoning in their decision making.
the above is a series of common sense reasoning
that would be a win for the public, a win for
the science, a win for public health, and a
win for the industry both now and in relation
to future lawsuit related issues - did you do
something when you could have - and why not?
the argument that wireless radiation causes
* no harm * is disingenuous in the extreme.
that much is certain to taken into account
about why a 10 cent doodad is too extreme a
measure to address legitimate health concerns.

the difference between the wireless industry
and the tobacco industry is that the tobacco
industry came first- the wireless industry can
do something to change the outcome, to limit
the fallout by making changes today in ways
that are responsible - so whatever happens,
that what happens today is better than doing
nothing and ignoring the reality of radiation
exposures and a public responsibility to limit
them if occupying publicly zoned EM spectrums.

it is also a good public-private business model,
unless regulations are the only incentive to action.
win-win-win. it could even increase demand, etc.

  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism

  the electronetwork-list:  electromagnetism and culture...
  archives: http://archives.openflows.org/electronetwork-l/
  un/subscribe: http://www.electronetwork.org/list/