Cellular Phone:
Cellular Phone Hazards
ABC Show (20/20): 20 Oct, 99
Confusion About SAR


27 October 1999
3 November 1999

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:53:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: ABC Show, confusion about the SAR!!! (Anon)..

The following was provided by one of our (Anon) Washington members.

Guru's comment on the following has been said (too many!!) many times before: These so-called 'safety standards' are all "smoke and mirrors" -- largely without any foundation in fact ... when it comes to the effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation!!!! There has simply been insufficient legitimate INDEPENDENT research done to provide a basis for those standards....

Do you want to know where/how they get the "standards"??? I'll tell you -- of a known case in Florida, for example, (when Carol Browner was "boss" environmentalist there). The Florida law was written to set the allowable mG at the edge of the right-of-way at 200 mG!!!! 200 mind you!! (The NCRP's draft recommendation was 2 mG!!....) Why did Florida go so high? Because the industry said: "That's what's already there ... and that's what you are going to have to live with."

I have no doubt that is about the way the setting of the RF standards for cell phones was set.....


(I DO hope that ABC will get on top of this aspect..... Terribly interesting info below...... It could be a SENSATIONAL story....)

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

Do you know of others who should be on this list???

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:07:09 -0400
From:  (Anon)
To: Rbeavers@llion.org,
Subject: ABC Show ("20/20") of 20 October 1999....


A salient point overlooked in the EMF-L critique and discussion re the ABC show, and by the ABC presenters and commentators themselves, is the fact that THERE IS NO CELLPHONE EXPOSURE GUIDELINE or STANDARD in existence. The 1.6 Watts/kilogram (1.W/Kg) of tissue referenced on the ABC show, as the specific absorption rate (SAR) figure that cell phones surpassed, is the permissible exposure rate set for microwave tower ANTENNA EMISSIONS.

It is the figure brought about by the combined effort of the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and ANSI/IEEE, which was adopted by the FCC as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandate (FCC docket 93-62). Since I feel this show was a rig for some unknown purpose, yet to materialize, I called FDA, which may have verified same.

FDA, very conveniently, probably as a prelude to the ABC show, said they observed the show. In addition, I was informed, that FDA just issued a talk paper last week on this very topic <www.FDA.gov\CDRH>. Look under new events. I asked the FDA chief about the SAR for cellphones. Get this: He told me That is in the domain of the FCC.

Why, I asked, FCC is ONLY A LICENSING agency. Controls for biological exposure of devices, which come in contact with humans, falls under the domain of the FDA. He said, Well, do not forget the FDA was part of the InterAgency Group that provided data to the FCC in order to adopt their guidelines.

I said, "Of course you did; we both know that. But the data you provided was NOT ABOUT CELLPHONE EMISSIONS, which are used at close range of the body. It was about MICROWAVE ANTENNA SAR at 1500 feet from people or the general public."

Called FCC. The FCC is not commenting as to why the 1.6 SAR was attributed to cellphones. I called ABC in New York. Brian Ross was the investigative reporter for the show. His office could NOT answer the question as to WHY they attributed 1.6 SAR to cellphones, but said their researchers in Europe could answer the question. Be real, I said, no one is going to address this question.


Something is amiss. A cellphone case; a new company offering a special device? Something!




Back to Top