George Carlo letter to USA TODAY
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Carlo letter to USA Today (Newton)....
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:05:19 -0500
From: Roy Beavers <email@example.com>
Organization: EMF-L List
To: guru <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Once again, we see (in Dr. Carlo's letter below) that the U.S. Government can be counted on to circle the wagons around industry ($$$$$$$$) rather than "level" with the American people......
[How timely that the "phonied" GAO document should appear at the same time we are hearing about a bronze star medal awarded to a former U.S. Senator ... based upon a phony "body count" in Vietnam.....!!??]
If the other governments of the world won't see the phoniness of documents like the (soon to appear) GAO cell phone report ... then their "people" must see it.
Citizens of the other nations of the world should by now recognize that the WEAKEST authority they can stand on (when the profit$$$$$ of major U.S. industries are involved) is the voice of the U.S. Government...... We Americans know that!!!!!!
We've seen it before -- tobacco, lead, dioxin, Agent Orange, mercury, nuclear fall-out from weapons tests in the west, etc......
There is one statement by Dr. Carlo (below) with which I strongly disagree. "Research funded and supervised by the government," he says, "offer the consumers their best hope of untainted results." BALONEY!!! The U.S. Government has a lousy record for producing objective research results that will find fault with industry (or the military) when the public's health comes up against those two powerful vested interests......
George Carlo knows that!!! He knows the record -- from Agent Orange or the western U.S. nuclear test fallout to the EMF RAPID study. He is just trying to curry favor with the bureaucracy......
Cheerio....... (Thanks Janet and Libby!!)..........Thanks Dr. Carlo!!!!
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFIT$$$$
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.....
........Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: USA Today letter to editor re GAO report
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:04:26 -0700
From: Libby Kelley <email@example.com>
To: "Friends and Advisors" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
By George Carlo and Martin Schram
In the nondescript quarters of Congress' General Accounting Office, analysts are putting their final touches on a long-awaited report that once appeared to be the best hope yet for the 112 million Americans who regularly hold cellphones against their heads, trusting that all is well.
But unfortunately, the GAO auditors' draft seems to stop far short of being the clarion call that might have spurred Congress to finally get the U.S. government as involved as some European governments already are in safeguarding cellphone users. The GAO draft doesn't recommend federal funding for much-needed independent research, according to a report last week by correspondent Jeffrey Silva in RCR Wireless News, a trade publication.
Nor does the draft fulfill a specific requirement of Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who requested the study along with Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Lieberman asked the GAO "to clarify what (health) risks may or may not exist" for users. The draft fails to do that, Silva reports. The GAO focused only minimally on lab experiments that showed cellphone radiation caused genetic changes in human blood cells and animal tissue ¯ changes cancer experts consider a diagnostic marker of "high risk" for developing tumors.
The British and French governments fund wireless phone-safety research. And the British are the first to recommend warning labels alerting buyers that children shouldn't use the phones because their skulls are more readily penetrated by cellphone radiation.
But the U.S. government hasn't funded cellphone research, letting the wireless industry police itself. Food and Drug Administration officials say they see no evidence requiring regulatory intervention. Now, unless GAO auditors' significantly strengthen their report, America's cellphone users will have to depend once again on outside scientists and the news media, whose only power is persuasion.
Unfortunately, journalists' coverage of three epidemiological studies this winter produced mainly reassuring headlines saying the studies showed no link between cellphones and cancer. If journalists had paused to consider what the new studies were really saying ¯ and not saying ¯ we'd have a more realistic but less reassuring picture.
The studies, two from the United States and one from Denmark, weren't laboratory experiments, but statistical analyses of people who used cellphones and people who had brain tumors. These analyses had flaws, some of which were detailed in the studies' fine print:
Both U.S. studies, covering the early to mid-1990s, involved minimal cellphone use ¯ an average of 2.5 hours or fewer a month, and most owners had used cellphones for less than three years. Today, millions use their cellphones for 20 hours or more a month and have for many years.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) study in The New England Journal of Medicine responsibly noted, "The most important limitation of our study is its limited precision for assessing the risks after a potential induction period of more than several years or among people with very high levels of daily or cumulative use." But many news reports didn't pick this up.
The studies were small and examined the wrong type of brain tumors. Tumors in almost all patients were located in interior regions of the skull that couldn't be reached by cellphone radiation, which penetrates only two inches inside adult skulls. In other words: The statistical studies only proved that tumors that couldn't be reached by cellphone radiation weren't caused by cellphone usage. That's hardly reassuring.
The NCI study of 782 brain-cancer patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine candidly noted that "a much larger sample would be required" to properly detect cellphone-radiation risks. The other U.S. study, of just 469 brain cancer patients, failed to mention its own size limitation when published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
It also dismissed as statistically insignificant its most chilling finding: a doubling of cancer risk in 35 patients in a small subgroup who had neuroepithelial tumors, which are near the sides of the head, close to a cellphone antenna.
Most importantly, these statistical analyses do not refute the alarming findings of lab experiments that seem to link cellphones to cancer, showing genetic damage in human blood cells exposed to cellphone radiation.
Will people who begin using cellphones as children or teens be high risks for developing brain cancer in their 40s or 50s?
So far, no studies can answer that. It will be 15 or 20 years before long-term epidemiological studies can either give us truly comforting assurance or flag real danger.
Until then, we must rely on laboratory experiments to give us the answers we need. Research funded and supervised by the government, not the industry, offers consumers their best untainted hope.
For now, cellphone users should take simple precautions ¯ most notably, use a headset to keep the radiation-emitting antenna away from their heads ¯ and read the fine print of any new studies that come in, not just the headlines.
Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who headed a research program funded by the cellphone industry, and journalist Martin Schram are co-authors of the book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age.
Janet Newton, Executive Officer
EMR Network, P.O. Box 221, Marshfield VT 05658
Donations should be sent to: EMR Network, P.O. Box 393, Concord MA 01742
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: www.EMRNetwork.org