Sir Willaim Stewart "Expert Group" Report
(United Kingdom) May 11, 2000


15 May 2000

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 22:11:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <>
To: emfguru <>
Subject: UK Report - Goodie Two Shoes (Dumpe)..

Hi everybody:

In an interesting and worthwhile commentary below, Bert Dumpe says that "we" - guru and Louis Slesin - have been taken-in by the Sir William Stewart group.  She points out that some of the behind the scenes contributors and participants (e.g., Repacholi) are part of the "usual suspects" who always show up to protect industry interests.....

Yes, Bert, they were/are there!!  So were many others whom you didn't mention I'm sure.....  How could it have been prevented???  Industry and the "science-establishment" have been one and the same in both the U.S. and the U.K. since WW II.....

(I have lived - and fought those battles - Bert, as much or more than you have!  I used to participate in sessions of the U.S. Intelligence (National Estimates) writing sessions when "operations" people - who had no business being there - were so omnipresent in the room that we who were writing the Estimates were left with no doubt what our judgments SHOULD be.....)

You miss the point, though, Bert....  In SPITE of Repacholi, or Adair, or Foster ... in SPITE of the CONSTANT presence of the NRPB ... the Stewart group managed to produce the most pro-"EMF may be hazardous" document that ANY government has produced so far.....!!!

NIEHS could have done as much ... or even more ... but they didn't....!!!!  The evidence they were working with (the ELF case) was FAR more plentiful and more convincing.....!!!  At ALL of their sessions, the vested interests equaled or exceeded in numbers of people present the number of true scientists present.....  As you know, Bert, that is the atmosphere in those meetings....  I do not assume that it was any different in London....  It is NEVER going to be a very favorable "world" for us, Bert, the world of governmental-science and special interests intrigue.....

The vested interests, the $$$$$$$$, the establishment "chumminess," the industry lobbyists - all of which are always a part of any of these gatherings - have "us" outnumbered roughly 1000 to a million to one.....

That isn't going to change.....  Get rid of a Repacholi and the industry will immediately have another "hired gun" to take his place..... The U.S Air Force has more "scientists" to be infiltrated into such meetings than we have names on our EMF-L list.....  So does General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, etc., etc......

We are not EVER going to get that truly objective group of people or the neutral environment or the non-establishment atmosphere that we want. "They" will ALWAYS be there ... "They" will always get at least some of their "input" into the text.... And, indeed, they did!! - to some degree with the Stewart Group!!

I certainly don't think the group had a very solid basis for writing:        "The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to Rf radiation below the NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population."   (That one certainly has the "smell" of Repacholi!!)

What evidence were they referring to??  The tiny little bit that has been done on cell phones??  Hardly enough for any judgment of any kind!!  If that was their evidence they should have said so....  And ... they should have admitted that it was too little upon which to offer a judgment....

Or ... Are they (like most every group before them) determined to partition this vast "total electromagnetic radiation Blue World" into a bunch of tiny little segments (i.e., cell phones, microwave ovens, PCs, power lines, electric blankets, etc., etc.)????

Did they ignore the work done, for example, by Bruce Hocking?? Because it dealt with TV antennas rather than cell phone antennas...?? Probably.....

I think it will not always be so convenient to compartmentalize these judgments.....  Eventually, somebody is going to ask:  What makes us so sure that the electrons from radio and TV antennas work any differently on human cells and tissue than the electrons from cell phone antennas??? And, shouldn't we do some research in that regard before we pronounce judgments about the "safety" of cell phone antenna emissions ... which ignore the possibility that the cells and tissue really don't CARE whether the electrons are from a TV antenna or a cell phone antenna.....

In which case -- the Stewart group should have given much more weight to Bruce Hocking's work (and Szmigielski's) than it appears they did.....

If they had considered ALL the Blue World scientific evidence of bioeffects ... they could not have concluded: "no evidence of adverse health effects by RF to the general population."

So, let us agree (you and I, Bert) that part of the report had Repacholi's fingerprints all over it.....!!!  And there are a few other examples of pro-industry "words" (not many!!) that might also be added to such a list.....

IN SPITE OF ALL THAT, Bert ...  (After they had made their bow to Mecca - "RFs do not cause adverse health effects") .....The Sir Stewart group wrote the most damning (of RF exposure hazards) document that has been produced by any governmental group, anywhere, so far!!!

Their recommendations were detailed and left little doubt that they had some considerable trepidation about this cell phone (RF-EMF) menace.... (Can you cite for me ONE person or agency in the U.S. government that has manifested such trepidation.....????  Or even the government of Sweden ... which has become an Erickson/Nokia wimp......)

What the Stewart group DID give us was a HELLOFALOT more than we have ever gotten before......!!!  O.K., so it wasn't as pure and objective as the driven snow.....  It was still very powerful.....  And, it was pro-"the people."......

In no uncertain terms - they said THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW!!! (Have you heard that before?)  And - in equally certain terms - they said future research must be "under the aegis of a demonstrably independent panel."  Moreover, they said - this matter belongs in the control of LOCAL citizens.....  They were pointing the way toward an agenda and management structure that will give THE PEOPLE some chance to counter balance the vested interests.....!!!  That -- in my opinion -- is a HELL of an important gain.......  I would settle for the same in the U.S.!!!!

Isn't that what we have been campaigning for.....???


Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

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

People are more important than profits!!

To see the full report click here

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:57:39 -0400
Subject: UK Report - Goodie Two Shoes

Gentlemen: I hate to rain on your parade. Bust just a few brief comments on this British deal, which I believe is a tell it to Sweeney job. Of course you must know that, initially, the health and safety guidelines the FCC was encouraged to adopt (10mW/cm2) was supposed to become the international standard? The ANSI. Along with EC and other European organizations, was striving for such an end. The interagency group put an end to that. Looks like this will now do it. Hope you read the Independent expert Group's (probably industry affiliated) Appendix A. Besides the fact that Repacholi is a member, look at the people they thanks for their contributions: Kenneth Foster (U of Pennsylvania), and Robert Adair (Yale); Ooooh. The pro-industry lifers themselves. And you are helping them.

I wonder if the is just one person out there, who care a smidgen about humanity.

1.49 We believe that in the global economy of the 21st Century a    competitive edge will be generated by developing innovative,    technologically advanced and safe products, which can lead the field    and win competitive advantage.

1.50 We understand from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum that all mobile    phones presently marketed in the UK comply with both NRPB and ICNIRP    guidelines. A crucial issue in relation to the exposure of people    using mobile phones is the specific energy absorption rate (SAR). This    determines the amount of energy absorbed in the body of the user. In    most circumstances of use this will be the head. The SAR depends upon    the power output of the phone and its design (paragraph 4.37). We    understand that an internationally agreed standard testing procedure

Aha! The true reason for the camaraderie (Above and below) are made known in 1.49 and 1.50. The independent group RECOMMENDS COMPETITION ? AND above all things AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD

1.51 We recommend that an international standard for the assessment of    SAR values from mobile phones should be adopted for use in the UK once    it has been demonstrated to be scientifically sound (paragraphs    6.746.79). These independent experts vacillate from being concerned about cell towers to hyping the cell phone hazards. What about the SAR from microwave tower antennas? Item 1.52, 1.53 and onward discuss only concern for mobile phones. What about microwave towers, micro-macro cells. What about the Skylab in the stratosphere, which continuously bathes the earth in io- and nonionizing radiation?

1.52 We recommend that information on the SAR values for mobile phones    must be readily accessible to consumers (paragraph 6.77):

1.62 We recommend that an Ombudsman be appointed to provide a focus    for decisions on the siting of base stations when agreement cannot be    reached locally, and on other relevant issues (paragraphs 3.50 and    3.51). In the USA Telecom Act, the Ombudsman is the court system. They probably will make is simpler by installing a pro-industry individual.

   1.63 There are various devices that seek to reduce exposure to RF    radiation from mobile phones. These include shields and devices that    attach to phones. We remain to be convinced of their effectiveness in    reducing personal exposure in normal conditions of use of mobile    phones. Including the hands-free (note below). What is their true concer ? radiation (non-ionizing) in general?

1.64 Hands-free extensions, which allow the phone to be held away from    the body, have the potential for reducing exposure, but some recent    tests have cast doubt on their general level of effectiveness. For    users wishing to reduce their exposure, we advocate the use of    hands-free kits of proven effectiveness. A satisfactory design may    involve the use of chokes or filters in the connecting lead. A    standard testing procedure should be established.

Back to Top