As others see us..... (guru)


21 June 2000

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:13:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <>
To: emfguru <>
Subject: As others see us..... (guru)..

Hi everybody:

I forward below a short news item about how the WHO (World Health Organization) ranks the quality of U.S. health versus the $$$$$$ spent ... and versus the rest of the world....

Many of my American readers are likely to be surprised at how poorly we come out.  I guess the item does not surprise me (and caught my attention) because I come upon it right after my return from Europe, where I attended a National Meeting on "Cell Tower Safety" in Austria and then the 22nd Annual Meeting of the BioElectroMagnetic Society (BEMS) in Munich, Germany.....

When I was interviewed by the French TV-special producer in Munich, I found myself answering that the event which impressed me most about the BEMS meeting was the dominant presence of the non-U.S. scientists at the meeting.  Not only were the contributions and presentations of the non-Americans much greater in number than in the past, they were by and large among the most important in advancing our knowledge about possible EMF/EMR hazards.

Work that is being done by the likes of Alan Preece of the U.K., or Stanislaw Szmigielski of Poland, or Youri Grigoriev of Russia, or A. Korenstein of Israel, or H. Yaguchi of Japan.  The latter, for example, perhaps presented one of the most "earth shaking" papers that was offered ... with his "Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields on Chromosomal Aberrations."  I quote from the conclusions of this last paper:  "It has been considered that ELFMF does not cause DNA strand breaks directly.  Our results suggest that exposure to high-density ELFMF may affect the DNA synthetic and post replication repair processes, resulting in an enhancement of spontaneous and carcinogenic chromatid aberrations."

(Regret that space does not allow me to list all the people who should be mentioned above.....  More will be said in subsequent messages.)

The torch has been passed ... from a U.S. research "world" that everybody realizes had been heavily "tilted" by the built-in industry AND government conflict of interest that is STRUCTURALLY a part of the U.S. science community ... to a non-U.S. science community, that, by an large, is much free-er of those conflict of interest influences....  And, the difference is notable in the results that are beginning to come forth....

Oh, of course, we still do have some U.S. "stars," whose contributions have had to fight against a tide of industry/government $$$$$$ and control over the research community "machinery."  In that regard (from the BEMS meeting) should be mentioned the likes of Paul Gailey and Ken McLeod who offered a (somewhat) new theory on a "mechanism" of ELF interaction with the "cell environment" such as to (perhaps) dictate the genome response.

Or ... equally challenging was the work presented by Reba Goodman and Martin Blank (of Columbia U.) whose earlier work has now been confirmed by a number of others -- though, when they first offered their "Very Low EM fields can induce stress protein response in the cell" findings ... they were ridiculed and (temporarily) drummed out of the EMF research corps.....

At the Munich BEMS meeting, Reba challenged the community to not only recognize the validity of that "stress response" mechanism, but also to put it to use as a means to bypass the "thermal" question.  She writes: "Current safety standards for cell phones are based on the biological effects of heating: a thermal stress causes a general shut-down of normal transcription and translation, and results in a large accumulation of stress proteins.  Low frequency EM fields also induce stress proteins, but at 14 orders of magnitude lower energy input levels.  Thus, long before the effects of heating are measurable, the effects of EM fields are manifest."  ......That, she says, provides us a much better "standard" to measure in ensuring the lowest possible risk from our cell phone.....

Finally, an item that may also be relevant here (as we try to see ourselves "as others see us") -- I arrived home to read in the local paper that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) was spending one million dollars -- can you believe it!!??  (A whole one million $$$$$$$) on cell phone research.  Ostensibly that money is being spent "to prove the safety of the technology."  Worse -- not only is that expenditure a laughable amount on such a serious matter -- it is being spent "with the CELL PHONE INDUSTRY in research THEY ARE CONDUCTING".....!!!  God help us.......!!!

Already -- there is a credibility gap there!!!!  (Do you "see yourself as others do" ... FDA???....)

The bottom line, here, is that the following news story should not surprise any of us......  It shows "us" Americans as others DO see us......  Justifiably.......  I believe......


Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness

People are more important than profits!!

*** France No. 1, U.S. low in health care

LONDON (AP) - France has the best health care system in the world, followed by Italy, while war-torn Sierra Leone has the worst, according to a contentious first attempt to rank the world's health systems. The U.S., which spends more on health care than any other nation, came in 37th. In the analysis published Wednesday, the World Health Organization evaluated the health care systems of its 191 members and graded them based on how well each country performs given the resources at its disposal. Previous assessments have looked just at how healthy people are, "and you're left with the image that the rich (countries) do well because they're rich," said study co-author Dr. Julio Frenk. This new analysis praises health systems "that utilize few resources very well." The report essentially measures value for money: comparing a population's health with how effectively governments spend their money on health, how well the public health system prevents illness instead of just treating it and how fairly the poor, minorities and other special populations are treated. See
*** Also: Ranking of world's health systems, see

Back to Top