ICNIRP Guidelines are not safe
http://tinyurl.com/7qj5e
The ICNIRP International guidelines, which tragically purport to protect us, are set 9,000 times too high. They make absolutely no recognition of the information (vibrational) content of electromagnetic radiation.
Even ICNIRP's Standing Committee on Epidemiology agree the guidelines are inadequate as follows: "Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukaemia."
And the final paragraph:
"Another gap in the research is children. No study population to date has included children, with the exception of studies of people living near radio and TV antennas. Children are increasingly heavy users of mobile phones. They may be particularly susceptible to harmful effects (although there is no evidence of this), and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives."
ICNIRP as 'protection' is equivalent to a fireguard in front of a defective gas fire that is giving out carbon monoxide - it might stop you getting burned but you might not be alive to care".
Of course if anybody else wants to respond, the link is as follows:
http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163492&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163173&contentPK=13968146&folderPk=89161
John Elliott
(excerpt from his message)
--------
One of the most damning points covers the ICNIRP guidelines themselves. It states, below the limits, given that "these guidelines are for short term
exposure only. For longer term exposure, including an increased risk of
cancer, we have insufficient data to allow us to set exposure limits".
Dennis Cannon
--------
John,
The first point has to be, as I think has already been mentioned, the fact that there ARE NO GUIDELINES FOR LONG TERM EXPOSURE!! And just what is the definition of short term? How long is short, exactly? Quote from Grahame B: "these guidelines are based on short-term immediate effects such as ... shocks and burns ... elevated tissue temperatures ... In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient for setting exposure restrictions"
Note that the guidelines don't say 'No evidence of long-term non-thermal health effects', but 'Insufficient data on which to base a safety threshold for such effects - so these guidelines don't cover them'. Exactly what the phone & mast health lobby keeps saying, and the Government keeps ignoring.
Yes, I too would like to see these hundreds of studies, what the results really said, and who paid for them.!!
Is this in relation to St Mary the Virgin? If so, I put the Archdeacon of Bath on notice this week, pointing out that we had already written to draw to the attention of Rev P the evidence indicating long term effects and evidence etc. Here are some extracts from it that relate to the matter and a quote I included which I took from the Archbishop ao Canterbury's website:
As we explained in our previous letter, there are guidelines to control the emissions from mobile phone masts, but these only deal with thermal effects, that is, tissue heating. As long as masts produce emissions below a set level they are deemed to be ‘safe’. You will constantly hear the argument that the masts ‘comply with ICNIRP guidelines’ – this means nothing in terms of long-term biological effects which cause cell changes and DNA damage, especially (although not exclusively) over long periods of time. This effect on our bodies is not considered a problem by the Government bodies, who continue to claim that the technology is safe! Biological effects and long-term exposure are NOT regulated in this country, so there is no measure and no control and NO research - except on the population of Great Britain.
We have also drawn your attention to worldwide research linking the pulsing of masts such as the one proposed to the disruption of sleep patterns, causing the breakdown of the melatonin process and subsequent immune problems leading to the inability to fight pre-cancer cells, and advised you that Mast Sanity is currently collecting evidence from several sites across the United Kingdom where cancer clusters have become obvious around masts that have been up between 4 and 6 years.
Moreover, we advised you that despite repeated requests from the Operators to provide a letter stating categorically that there is no danger from emissions from mobile phone masts, accepting full liability for any future claims, such a written assurance that there is no danger has never been provided.
This disregard for the health and well being of local residents is not only in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our neighbour, protect the weak and vulnerable, and place a higher value on human life and well-being than on material possessions, it is as illustrated in the following statement by Dr Rowan Williams:
“When God tells Adam in the first chapter of Genesis that he is to subdue and have dominion over the earth, many would say that this is the beginning of a tragic and disgraceful story – the story of how human beings ravaged and exploited the earth for their own purposes, exhausting its resources and ruining it for future generations. Those who are now most deeply concerned about our environment often accuse the Jewish-Christian tradition of being responsible for a history of greed and abuse directed at the natural world. If we are at last to take our proper responsibility for the earth, we must leave behind this particular religious legacy and find another way of understanding our place on the earth, a way that is more sensitive to the sacredness of our environment.”
Have no doubt that you will be judged for your actions in the next life, even if you believe that you are unaccountable in this.
Hope this info is useful,
Amanda
--------
Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/
Mobile phones and child protection
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1533960/
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html
The ICNIRP International guidelines, which tragically purport to protect us, are set 9,000 times too high. They make absolutely no recognition of the information (vibrational) content of electromagnetic radiation.
Even ICNIRP's Standing Committee on Epidemiology agree the guidelines are inadequate as follows: "Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukaemia."
And the final paragraph:
"Another gap in the research is children. No study population to date has included children, with the exception of studies of people living near radio and TV antennas. Children are increasingly heavy users of mobile phones. They may be particularly susceptible to harmful effects (although there is no evidence of this), and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives."
ICNIRP as 'protection' is equivalent to a fireguard in front of a defective gas fire that is giving out carbon monoxide - it might stop you getting burned but you might not be alive to care".
Of course if anybody else wants to respond, the link is as follows:
http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163492&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163173&contentPK=13968146&folderPk=89161
John Elliott
(excerpt from his message)
--------
One of the most damning points covers the ICNIRP guidelines themselves. It states, below the limits, given that "these guidelines are for short term
exposure only. For longer term exposure, including an increased risk of
cancer, we have insufficient data to allow us to set exposure limits".
Dennis Cannon
--------
John,
The first point has to be, as I think has already been mentioned, the fact that there ARE NO GUIDELINES FOR LONG TERM EXPOSURE!! And just what is the definition of short term? How long is short, exactly? Quote from Grahame B: "these guidelines are based on short-term immediate effects such as ... shocks and burns ... elevated tissue temperatures ... In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient for setting exposure restrictions"
Note that the guidelines don't say 'No evidence of long-term non-thermal health effects', but 'Insufficient data on which to base a safety threshold for such effects - so these guidelines don't cover them'. Exactly what the phone & mast health lobby keeps saying, and the Government keeps ignoring.
Yes, I too would like to see these hundreds of studies, what the results really said, and who paid for them.!!
Is this in relation to St Mary the Virgin? If so, I put the Archdeacon of Bath on notice this week, pointing out that we had already written to draw to the attention of Rev P the evidence indicating long term effects and evidence etc. Here are some extracts from it that relate to the matter and a quote I included which I took from the Archbishop ao Canterbury's website:
As we explained in our previous letter, there are guidelines to control the emissions from mobile phone masts, but these only deal with thermal effects, that is, tissue heating. As long as masts produce emissions below a set level they are deemed to be ‘safe’. You will constantly hear the argument that the masts ‘comply with ICNIRP guidelines’ – this means nothing in terms of long-term biological effects which cause cell changes and DNA damage, especially (although not exclusively) over long periods of time. This effect on our bodies is not considered a problem by the Government bodies, who continue to claim that the technology is safe! Biological effects and long-term exposure are NOT regulated in this country, so there is no measure and no control and NO research - except on the population of Great Britain.
We have also drawn your attention to worldwide research linking the pulsing of masts such as the one proposed to the disruption of sleep patterns, causing the breakdown of the melatonin process and subsequent immune problems leading to the inability to fight pre-cancer cells, and advised you that Mast Sanity is currently collecting evidence from several sites across the United Kingdom where cancer clusters have become obvious around masts that have been up between 4 and 6 years.
Moreover, we advised you that despite repeated requests from the Operators to provide a letter stating categorically that there is no danger from emissions from mobile phone masts, accepting full liability for any future claims, such a written assurance that there is no danger has never been provided.
This disregard for the health and well being of local residents is not only in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our neighbour, protect the weak and vulnerable, and place a higher value on human life and well-being than on material possessions, it is as illustrated in the following statement by Dr Rowan Williams:
“When God tells Adam in the first chapter of Genesis that he is to subdue and have dominion over the earth, many would say that this is the beginning of a tragic and disgraceful story – the story of how human beings ravaged and exploited the earth for their own purposes, exhausting its resources and ruining it for future generations. Those who are now most deeply concerned about our environment often accuse the Jewish-Christian tradition of being responsible for a history of greed and abuse directed at the natural world. If we are at last to take our proper responsibility for the earth, we must leave behind this particular religious legacy and find another way of understanding our place on the earth, a way that is more sensitive to the sacredness of our environment.”
Have no doubt that you will be judged for your actions in the next life, even if you believe that you are unaccountable in this.
Hope this info is useful,
Amanda
--------
Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/
Mobile phones and child protection
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1533960/
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html
rudkla - 9. Feb, 18:05
