Airing of case
--------------
Hi Klaus: really appreciate what you are doing to maximize awareness of my misdiagnosis (i.e. EHS condition mislabelled as psychosis) plus of course the support this also gives to all those other EHS unfortunates who have experienced an identical/similar fate.

Am up in Belfast for the weekend and feeling good about being in the vicinity of THE ONLY Human Rights authority which has given our whole EHS predicament any genuine support up to this point. That is the NIHRC (Northern Irish Human Rights Commission).

Today's THE IRISH TIMES (p. 3) has a bleak little article "Mental illness principles drawn up" by journalist Alison Healy which concerns the publication tomorrow of "a set of principles for the treatment of schizophrenia." (This is "Lucia"/Schizophrenia awreness week.) These principles are considered necessary in Ireland, it states, because people living here with this condition have generally been treated so badly by the Irish medical profession.

Specifically it refers to "'varying experiences' of standards of care and treatment" and that in many instances "basic standards for the physical condition of institutions" are well below acceptable standards!

The concluding sentence is: "An estimated 1 per cent of the population will experience an episode of psychosis or develop schizophrenia."

And, of course, airbrushed out yet again from this article is the blatant fact that a number of patients presenting with EHS were probably misdiagnosed as psychotics! I could ream you off a long list of Irish scandals--including a generous number of medical ones-- each exposing the phenomenal Irish capacity for denial of facts that have been staring people in the face and then years later the populace suddenly stops denying and feels such rage at the perpetrators of the injustices that they set up tribunal after tribunal after tribunal!

About my own case: I intend bringing a challenge to the Irish Constitituion to the Irish High Court. And self-representing, of course. If my Irish Constitituion can not defend my most basic human rights then....

Of course I have been told disdainfully by some Irish lawyers that "it will cost!" which translates to that in their view only wealthy Irish people can afford the privilege of using Irish courts to protect their basic rights! Wow...This animal, the Celtic Tiger, is a rare democratic beast!

Best, Imelda, Belfast, Ireland.

--------

Danger signals
--------------------------
Transcript

July 20, 2003
Reporter: Liz Hayes
Producer: John McAvoy

Mobile concerns

LIZ HAYES: We Australians just love our mobile phones. We can't seem to do without them. But this story might make you pause for a moment and think twice next time your mobile rings. For the last 18 months, both here and overseas, we've been investigating just how safe they really are. First, there's the ground-breaking research by an Australian scientist, some good news about mobiles and cancer. Then the results of a six-year study in Sweden, and that news is all bad. The Swedes aren't only ringing alarm bells about mobiles, they're warning about home cordless phones as well.

LIZ HAYES: You can't escape them - they're everywhere. But lately, more of us are thinking twice before we reach for the mobile. The explosion in mobile technology has made this a very attractive device. Already, one in two Australians use a mobile phone and that number is rising. What's not so attractive is this ongoing question mark over its safety. And frankly, no-one is prepared to say that the mobile phone is risk-free.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: You find that those persons who have used the mobile phone, they have an increased risk for contracting or getting a brain tumour.

LIZ HAYES: Let's begin in Sweden with Professor Lennart Hardell, a leading cancer specialist.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: What we did find was an increased risk for tumours in the temporal area of the brain, which is that part of the brain where the highest exposure to microwaves on the same side as the person had used the mobile phone.

LIZ HAYES: He's been studying patients with brain tumours and now believes their cancers are linked to their mobile phones.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: We found overall an increased risk of 30 percent for brain tumours, increasing for those who had used the mobile phone for over 10 years to 80 percent increased risk. This is a significant finding. This goes basically for the analogue types of mobile phones, the older types.

LIZ HAYES: In all, Professor Hardell studied the mobile phone habits of 1600 cancer sufferers. He worked closely with the scientist the Swedes call Dr Mobile, biophysicist Professor Kjell Mild. Their findings are the result of a six-year study. During that time, the 1600 patients were kept under constant medical observation and had to fill out regular questionnaires.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: We were asking all about other confounding factors. How many X-rays did you have? Dental X-rays? What kind of medication have you been on? Have you been using chemicals in your work? Other kinds of exposure? Have you been exposed to low-frequency magnetic fields in your line of work? Factors we know can affect the level of brain tumour.

LIZ HAYES: And were you able to eliminate those other factors?

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: In what we can see, this is not a factor in this.

LIZ HAYES: It's widely accepted that mobile phones emit radiation. The Swedes say their research shows 60 percent of the emissions are absorbed by skin and bone. Most of the rest goes into the brain.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: The phones we have today are not good phones, they are really bad phones. On the best phone on the market, only half of the output power is used for communication. The rest of the effect is deposited into the brain, into the hand and in mismatch of the antenna system. That's the best phone. The worst phone on the market has only two percent of the output power to be used for communication.

LIZ HAYES: But for them, the worst offender by far is the old analogue phone.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Well, we say that if you use these types of phones, always use it for a short phone call. Always use a hands-free device, an earpiece. In the car, use an external antenna.

LIZ HAYES: In terms of the digital phone, do you suspect a risk?

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Yes, we suspect that there might be a risk or we would say that they are not cleared as no-risk mobile phones, because people have used them too short a time, so we need to have longer follow-up to be definitely sure there is a risk or no risk with the digital types.

LIZ HAYES: Ron Reynolds is suspicious of all mobile phones. Why? Well, by rights, he shouldn't be alive today. He had an unusually aggressive form of cancer, which his doctors were certain would prove fatal.

RON REYNOLDS: I believe mobile phones gave me cancer, gave me a very severe form of cancer. All of a sudden, you've got six months or two years. Two years maximum, I was told, and that really rocks you to your foundations. It makes you take a totally different outlook on life.

LIZ HAYES: Ron was a company director who worked long hours. He was always travelling and always on his analogue mobile phone.

RON REYNOLDS: I'd probably make three or four calls in the morning and probably three or four calls at night of some considerable duration.

LIZ HAYES: And that was over a period of how many years?

RON REYNOLDS: From about 1992 through to 1997.

LIZ HAYES: So about five years?

RON REYNOLDS: About five years.

LIZ HAYES: Ron says whenever he used that phone, he felt a burning sensation inside his head.

RON REYNOLDS: I used to feel the sensation building up, but slowly during the course of the next 20 minutes, it would dissipate and you'd be back to normal. You wouldn't think another thing about it.

LIZ HAYES: But it would take 20 minutes after the phone call to settle down?

RON REYNOLDS: At least 15 to 20 minutes before it would appear to dissipate and you'd be back to normal.

LIZ HAYES: In 1997, Ron's doctors discovered a tumour in his temple and then another in his jaw, close to where he always held his mobile phone.

RON REYNOLDS: I felt a small lump there where the aerial used to be, a small lump, which was most unusual.

LIZ HAYES: And the second tumour?

RON REYNOLDS: And the second tumour - this is the unusual part - the secondary normally occurs in the lungs. In this particular case, it occurred where the mouthpiece was.

DR PETER FRENCH: Are mobile phones safe? Well, it's too early too say.

LIZ HAYES: We first met Australian immunologist Dr Peter French when we began this investigation early last year. He was embarking on a world first - testing mobile phone radiation on live human brain cells.

DR PETER FRENCH: What we've done is we've designed a series of experiments which are rigorously testing an exact simulation of a mobile phone signal on the important target tissue which is relevant, which is the human brain cells. We are looking at long-term chronic exposure. That's what makes us the world leaders in this at the moment.

LIZ HAYES: It's as close as you can get to a human being holding a mobile phone to their head and you being able to test it?

DR PETER FRENCH: And then looking at the effects on those specific cells, yes. It's as close as you can get.

LIZ HAYES: Early results seemed to indicate that Dr French was on to something.

DR PETER FRENCH: The mobile phone field itself appears to be acting like ultraviolet radiation, in that the energy acts in a similar way to ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet radiation can lead to cancer. Therefore, this is clearly an important discovery to follow up.

LIZ HAYES: But 18 months on, Dr French has not been able to repeat those results and show how mobile phones could cause cancer.

DR PETER FRENCH: It certainly provides some comfort that the risk of adverse health effects from mobile phone use is likely to be very low, if at all. That's about as strong a statement I can make based on this data at this stage.

LIZ HAYES: You find it hard to say, "I've done the study and they are safe"?

DR PETER FRENCH: You're looking for absolute certainty in a world that that doesn't exist.

LIZ HAYES: Nevertheless, Dr French is more definite when it comes to the new Swedish research.

DR PETER FRENCH: I don't understand how they're seeing the effects they're seeing. All I can say is that, as a cell biologist, what we have today makes it difficult for us to say that there are any real dangers for mobile phone radiation, but it's impossible to say that that's definitive, because we haven't done the experiments at a wide enough range of exposures to be sure of that.

LIZ HAYES: Are you disappointed your colleagues aren't necessarily embracing your research?

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Well, most people are reluctant to do these things. I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed. That's what I would expect. This is how life is.

LIZ HAYES: And we have to say, it's not just his colleagues who are sceptical. A US court and The Lancet medical journal have both rejected the Swede's claims.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Editors make their own decisions if they want to publish new findings or not. We know this is hot stuff which we have found, so not all editors have the courage to publish it.

LIZ HAYES: It is hot stuff, though, isn't it? You are saying potentially the technology we use all the time has risks?

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Yes.

LIZ HAYES: And Professor Hardell says the research shows there is one more risk, one that was news to me - the cordless home phone. What was the risk that you calculated with a cordless phone?

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Well, it's for the temporal area, and if you have had the cordless phone for more than five years, it's almost a doubled risk for those phone types, too.

LIZ HAYES: This is a phone I'm assuming just about every member of the family uses at home.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: We have, in other research, made the recommendation that always use an ordinary phone, a wire-connected phone, not to use these cordless phones at home.

LIZ HAYES: Would you get rid of cordless phones if you had a choice?

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: I would do that, definitely.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: You might be better off using your mobile phone.

LIZ HAYES: Than a cordless phone?

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: Yes.

LIZ HAYES: That would be bad news, because most householders would assume that they're fine.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: Yes, unfortunately the exposure times are much longer on your cordless phones. What we see is people are using the cordless phone about three times longer than the mobile phone.

LIZ HAYES: Did any doctor say to you that there was a possible link between the mobile phone you were using and your cancer?

RON REYNOLDS: No. They were all very - probably "guarded" is the best word. They said to me, "It's a possibility." But nobody had any way of finding proof or anything else. They didn't wake up to lead poisoning. They didn't wake up to asbestos, you know, all of these things, DDT. Yet, they are saying now - when you talk about mobile phones and problems, you'll get the smokescreen that cigarette companies put up. They try to cover their backs beautifully.

LIZ HAYES: You have no doubt in your mind?

RON REYNOLDS: I have no doubt now.

LIZ HAYES: The truth is, it has not been scientifically proven. So it is impossible to say that mobile phones cause cancer, but you can't blame people for being wary, not when even the scientists seem to be hedging their bets.

DR PETER FRENCH: My concern about mobile phones now is much less than it was in the past.

LIZ HAYES: Because you were quite rigorous in how you used a mobile before?

DR PETER FRENCH: Yes, that's so.

LIZ HAYES: Has that changed?

DR PETER FRENCH: I tend to find that I use the mobile phone to my head much more often than I used to do.

LIZ HAYES: Is that because you feel as though it's safer?

DR PETER FRENCH: The data I have seen hasn't yet convinced me that there is a significant biological effect.

LIZ HAYES: Would that be a yes?

DR PETER FRENCH: No.

LIZ HAYES: And we should add a postscript from the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association. They point to the World Health Organisation which claims current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to radio frequency fields from mobile phones is unlikely to induce or promote cancer.

 http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_07_20/story_903.asp?MSID=a6a7848745384889aa3f6045ea01b427


Commentary Don Maisch:
----------------------
Those of you in Australia who saw the July 20 - 60 Minutes segment on mobile phones may be wondering why Dr. Peter French was so dismissive of the health effects from mobile phones just because his latest series of lab studies failed to confirm his earlier findings.

When DR. French's earlier research found an apparent effect on cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation questions were raised about the level of exposure. The NH&MRC's radiation advisor, after observing Dr French's facilities, questioned whether the exposure level may have been high enough to cause a thermal effect and was not indicative of a non-thermal action. In other words, when you put your chook in the microwave oven you will get an adverse biological effect - no big deal, except for the chook if it happens to be alive at the time.

Dr French strongly disagreed with this assessment and put up a convincing argument that his findings were of a non-thermal nature. Obviously his subsequent studies would have used exposure levels carefully calculated not to cause a significant temperature rise in the target cells and thus prevent this criticism. The last I heard of his later research biological effects were being found but this now appears not to be the case.

So now Dr. French finds no effect. Does that mean it doesn't exist? And does this give Dr. French justification to go on national media and state he now feels that mobile phone use may not be as hazardous as he previously thought? What a PR scoop for the industry!

It is rather a leap-of-faith to assume from results of short term RF lab exposures on isolated humal cells that this somehow relates to the safety (or not) of long term use (years) of a mobile phone.

Negative findings from one series of lab studies cannot vindicate the position that the hazards are non-existent: they simply show that under certain conditions radiofrequency fields will not induce biological effects. When you look at the totality of literature available, the lesson, in my opinion, is that some situations may well result in biological effects, and others will probably not.

Dr French's cavaleer dismissal of concerns is in stark contrast to the warnings of Lennart Hardell and many other experts.

The 60 Minutes docu. claimed to be an in-depth probe of the issue but focussed solely on cancer, gaining the impression that scientific concerns over mobile phone and cordless phone use were mostly from Hardell's group in Sweden. Nothing was mentioned about other possible neurological effects from mobile phone use, such as long term memory
impairment. For instance the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's advice on mobile phone use deals with far more than the possibility of cancer.

One thing is for certain. This is an issue that won't be going away, despite Dr. French's additude of, 'If I can't find it, it doesn't exist'.

 http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_07_20/story_903.asp?MSID=a6a7848745384889aa3f6045ea01b427


Omega: see also:

 http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_07_20/story_899.asp?MSID=bf3ac46b62aa41cc960754c10e7e0bfb :
Early last year, Liz Hayes began investigating mobile phones, an investigation that has taken her around Australia and to Europe. Now, she reports on the results of the latest six-year study by two respected Swedish scientists, which they describe as "hot stuff". Not only do they warn about the safety of both analogue and digital mobiles, they also question the cordless home phone. As well, there's a follow-up on ground-breaking Australian research, with a surprising about-face.

Mobile concerns result from a poll
Question: are you concerned about using mobile phones?

Yes: 81%  

No: 19%  


and

Radio National on community and workplace health
------------------------------------------------
Len Syme on community health and reasons for ill health in the workplace: A must read for OH&S issues, especially for stress and illness in call centres, an ongoing problem in Australia. Download the pdf file now!
 http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/len_syme_speech.pdf

On Monday July 21 Geraldine Dooge, from Radio National's "Life Matters" program presented a special talk from Professor Len Syme, from the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. Syme is a well known activist for community health. He spoke at a forum on community in Melbourne earlier this year about what he has learned from a lifetime of trying to persuade people to do the right thing by their own health.

Len Syme says that he has learnt from bitter experience that getting people to change their risky behaviour is almost impossible, no matter how obvious it might seem to others. And governments struggle with limited success with trying to encourage their citizens to stop smoking, to use sun screen, to eat well and exercise more. Does anything work?

Publications:
Social Determinants of Health: The community as empowered partner
Author: Professor Len Syme
Paper presented at the Communities in Control conference
 http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/len_syme_speech.pdf


Omega: See also:  http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/article/view_article.jsp?articleId=575


Informant: Don Maisch

--------

Mind Control
------------
(excerpt)

I'm patiently waiting for the day when these new transmittes, which are
erroneously called 'cell towers' are seen to be the actual cause of all the new problems that are attributed to cellphone use. Compared to the effects of cellphones, these new towers are off the chart in terms of damage to the nerve tissue and brain functions of everyone who lives within range of them (usually about three miles).

Since there's no hard data on the internet or elsewhere about how these towers work, I send around the attached article, which I feel tells of their true purpose and effects.


Thanks,
Don


 http://www.joevialls.co.uk/subliminalsuggestion/mindcontrol.html

--------

A campaign of mass deception

 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33637

 http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jul20.html


Informant: kevcross4

--------

'Was Tony Blair fooling us?'
 http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,994234,00.html
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39224000/rm/_39224884_gilligan06_29may.ram

Tragic price of contempt for free press
 http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1001072,00.html

--------

Iraq
 http://www.bushflash.com/occupied.html


Informant: Edgar J. Steele

--------

Revenge of the Bill of Rights
 http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/aug2/revenge.html

Who's covered by the Bill of Rights?
 http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/19/guestoped_lc.htm

Running against Ashcroft
 http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/2003/07/19
 http://tinyurl.com/hjlo

GOP's double standard on presidential lies
 http://tinyurl.com/hjlm

Framing the debate on WMDs
 http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy73.html

A green revolt against Bush
 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/21/emissions/index_np.html

From shock and awe to night and fog
 http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_kenmacleod_archive.html

Blair won’t quit over scientist's death
 http://www.msnbc.com/news/940959.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp