Message from the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts:

Concerned citizens should review the draft WH0 materials to apply the Precautionary Framework to EMF and submit comments by June 30.
See details below.

Clarifying statement
What WHO is doing on application of the Precautionary Framework to EMF

This statement is presented to clarify WHO's plans for the development of the Precautionary Framework on Protection of Human Health.

WHO has embarked on a comprehensive, open and transparent process to develop a general framework for application of precautionary measures to protect public health. The Precautionary Framework is intended to cover all public health issues. Because the Framework is being developed by staff of WHO's International EMF Project, in collaboration with other key departments in WHO, there will be generic case studies on how to apply the Framework for many health concerns, including EMF.

As part of this process WHO held an international workshop in Luxembourg in February 2003 in collaboration with the European Commission and US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. At this workshop inputs were received from a diverse range of stakeholders. Based on this input WHO developed a comprehensive risk management Framework in which precaution plays a role in every stage of the risk management process.

In this Framework, the application of precautionary measures is considered throughout the process and not "invoked" in response to specific circumstances. Once this Framework is finalized WHO will develop generic case studies for ELF and RF fields that will provide
information to Member States on ways they can apply the Framework to suit their own circumstances and needs. This two-step process was recommended by the Luxembourg Working Group.

The draft Framework has been made available for review to the Luxembourg Working Group participants, WHO management, the EMF Project's International Advisory Committee, and other key specialists in the world. The draft Framework is currently available for public comment on the WHO EMF Project web site ( http://www.who.int/emf). We encourage the
active participation of all stakeholders in this process. Please send comments to Dr Larry Goldstein at  goldsteinl@who.int by 30 June 2003.

Message from Libby Kelly, Executive Director, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts

and

Tribute to Neil Cherry

I would appreciate you putting this letter on your EMR chat line to share a little of Dr Cherry and his wife, Gae's bravery in his passing.

As you will all know Dr Cherry recently died. A wonderful scientist, and man, who worked with courage and integrity for safer communication technology and was so generous with his time in helping people, including myself, suffering debilitating health effects from
electromagnetic exposure.

The courage he showed in his struggle with Motor Neurone disease was the same he had shown when taking on the communication industry. He used his illness to publicise the effects of electromagnetic exposure and even when unable to hold a pen and strapped to his chair spent a whole day in court giving evidence for a Nuclear exposed war veteran
suffering the effects of radiation exposure. Such was the courage of this man.

He has been advocating the use of wind power in NZ for many years and the week before he died an enormous wind mill was erected on the hills near Christchurch. Neil was chairman of this wind power company, and determined to get to see the dream come to fruition, he was driven as far up the hill as the van could take him. 100 metres short of the site
he determinedly struggled in his wheel chair to get up the hill. Photos of his beaming face beneath the newly erected huge windmill bear witness to his courage and determination.

At his packed funeral many people spoke of his life and there was great sadness in the early loss of a scientist who had so much courage to stand up for what he believed in. Also much joy and laughter in their memories of him. His wife spoke of her 'horror' each time he came home with some issue he felt needed "investigating" as his way of
investigating was so thorough and all consuming there were no short cuts. She has been VERY generous in sharing his precious time. She has been the most wonderful wife in her staunch support of him and their struggle with his illness.

During his battle for safer technology and siting of towers Dr Cherry had two adversaries working for industry who continually tried to devalue his work. Martin Gledhill from the National Radiation Laboratory (arm of the NZ Ministry of Health) and Dr Black who always
gives evidence at hearings for industry of " no athermal effects' from EMR.

Two weeks after his funeral Dr Black wrote a letter to the local newspaper which has bowled us over.

Dr Black wrote: "I am writing to express my sadness a the death of Dr Neil Cherry. Although we often had a somewhat adversial relationship, I have always maintained substantial personal and professional respect for him.

Neil gave a learned voice to community concerns about the rapid growth of radiofrequency based technology. He stimulated the debate which resulted in increased scrutiny of scientific and technical work otherwise accepted at its face value. In some cases he identified shortcomings resulting in improvements. He empowered people to know that
their concerns were important.

I enjoyed our meetings, which usually occurred at hearings or court cases. They were always cordial. Neil was a champion for the protection of public health and the environment. He made us all think, and more importantly think again I respected Neil and I liked him.

I offer my sympathy to his wife Gae and his daughters. Jo and Carla.

Dr David Black. Senior Lecturer in Occupational Medicine, University of Auckland."

Dr Black was known at the "Bete Noir" to those of us affected by EMR exposure. He used to work in the electrical engineering side of the communicaiton industry and when he became a doctor claimed to become an expert witness on emissions having "no effects" and paid by industry to rubbish all Neil"s evidence of adverse effects.

Did Dr Cherry's courage, generosity (he was not paid to represent the public at hearings) research, and humanity finally bear fruit and give Dr Black a concience? Or is he seeing the stand he has taken on "no effects" suddenly being unsustainable.

Dr Cherry's intelligence, courage,persistence and humanity demonstrates that one persons efforts can change things for the better. Those of us he has helped in ChCh are very grateful to him and feeling his loss badly. Now we must all build on what he has achieved.

Penny Hargreaves

and

Wireless Devices, Standards, and Microwave Radiation in the Education Environment - Gary Brown, October, 2000

 http://members.dodo.com.au/~maisch/emfacts/wlans.html

How Safe Is Wireless Computer Networking?

 http://www.macopinion.com/columns/roadwarrior/99/12/09/

and

RNCNIRP web site (Highly recommended)

The following is from the official web site of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP)
 http://www.pole.com.ru/news_en.htm. Note their advice on the safe use of mobile phones.

Consider that in the "West" there is not ONE government NIRP department that would dare make such 'radical' recommendations (including ICNIRP). The difference simply being that since the 50's in the "West" corporate industrial interests have been able to take effective control over the NIR regulatory process.

Also read:
 http://members.dodo.com.au/~maisch/emfacts/papers/russia.html

Informant: Don Maisch

--------

Re to Imelda O'Connor, Cork Ireland

Hi Klaus, the Ouruhia site below has been updated with some interesting links, but not quite ready for general consumption as has some general programming glitches when printing out, and the links have moved down one ie out of kilter and needs to be reworked with my limited computer skills, something to do with Microsoft inserting it's own codes in an attempt to rule the computer programming world.

Could you pass this on to Imelda please as I haven't her email address.

In the ICNIRP guidelines, under the heading "Indirect effects of electromagnetic fields" they discuss the electrical sensitivity of children 3 x more sensitive, and women 2 x more sensitive than men, page 21. Page 15 heading "General statement on safety factors" "There is insufficient information on the biological and health effects of EMF exposure of human populations and experimental animals to provide a rigorous basis for establishing safety factors over the whole frequency range and for all frequency modulations. In addition, some of the uncertainty regarding the appropriate safety factor derives from a lack of knowledge regarding the appropriate dose metric (Repacholi 1998). The following general *page 16* variables were considered in the development of safety factors for high-frequency fields:

-effects of EMF exposure under severe environmental conditions (high temperature, etc) and/or high activity levels the potentially higher
-thermal sensitivity in certain population groups, such as the frail and/or elderly, infants and young children, and people with diseases or taking medications that compromise thermal tolerance.

The following additional factors were taken into account in deriving reference levels for high-frequency fields:

differences in absorption of electromagnetic energy by individuals of different sizes and different orientations relative to the field: reflection, focusing, and scattering of the incident field, which can result in enhanced localized absorption of high-frequency energy."

This is obviously Repacholis work but admits there are those in our population that are more sensitive and at risk, and the percentage may well be above 5% of the population which would warrant protection. The guidelines also discuss research showing thermal effects below 1 degree celsius and then dismisses all of the above with the curt response of not enough scientific research, how much do they want?

The guidelines remind me that ignorance is bliss, but I hope that someday people can take those responsible to a trail of their peers to review their current status with a view of holding them accountable for their stance and answering a question of professionalism, ethics and if they have carried out their responsibilities to protect the public with
the utmost integretary and honesty, but there is usually an out on those matters also, all care without responsibility.

ICNIRP guidelines  http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

Regards Denise Ward, Christchurch, N.Z.
check out  http://canterbury.cyberplace.co.nz/ouruhia/
and  http://www.neilcherry.com.

--------

War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html

Informant: Wpdanny

--------

Where Are The Weapons of Mass Destruction?
 http://www.voice4change.org/stories/showstory.asp?file=030616~tm.asp

--------

I will join with other citizens so that we will be heard by our leaders
in Washington
 http://www.moveon.org/keepmeposted/

--------

Is the Neoconservative Moment Over?
 http://www.amconmag.com/06_16_03/buchanan.html

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp