WHO fact sheet no. 193


9 July 2000

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: WHO fact sheet no. 193]
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:25:30 -0500
From: Roy Beavers <>
Organization: EMF-L Bulletin Board
To: Eva Marsalek <>,
References: <>

...........Response from EMF-L.......

......In her letter below, Eva Marsalek asks some "gut" questions that quickly cut to the "heart" of the matter.  (Two bad metaphors, but easily understood......!!)

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

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

People are more important than profits!!

Eva Marsalek wrote:

Dieses mail ging heute an die WHO - zur Information und ev. Nachahmung

for information: I sent this mail to WHO today - pse do ev. the same

eva marsalek

Subject: WHO fact sheel no. 193
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:01:57 +0200
From: Eva Marsalek <>
To: "Brundtland Dr. Gro Harlem, Dir. Gen. WHO" <>,
"Repacholi Michael Dr., WHO-EMF" <>

Dear Mrs. Brundtland,
dear Mr. Repacholi,

making reference to the WHO fact sheet 193, I would like to ask you the following:

1) The recommendations suggest that individuals should limit the length of calls or use "hands-free" devices if they are concerned about their exposure to radiofrequency fields.

I am concerned about my and my childrens exposure to radiofrequency fields not only when persons standing next to us are using their handies, but also due to a lot of mobile-phone-base-stations around my property next to my house and emitting radiofrequency fields 24 h / 24 h day for day, year for year. I am, like a lot of others, unvolontary neighbour of such antennas and would like to have your recommendations what we can do to limit our exposure as we are all concerned about our exposure to radiofrequency fields.

I am persuaded that not only mobile-phone-users themselves but also the unvolontary, rightless and non-informed (about the installation and the immissions) neighbours should have the same possibilities as the mobile-phone-users themselves: to reduce their exposure if they want it...... But what can neighbours of antennas do, rightless as they are?

2) At the end of this fact-sheet WHO informs that "research is needed to confirm recent findings suggesting that mobile phones may lead to changes in brain activity, reaction times and sleep patterns. WHO is currently conducting a large epidemiologic study to see if there are links between mobile phone use and head and neck cancers. The study is expected to be completed in 2003."

It is clear that there is always some risk with any new technology. However, the fact that basically all biological research is done AFTER the mobile-phone-technology was launched on a big scale, is more than irritating.

So particularly the unvolontary and rightless neighbours from base-stations have the hard impression to be "guinea-pigs" for the industry and that the mentioned "large epidemiologic study" is done near all over the world.

Let me suggest that WHO should also begin just now an epidemiologic study to see if there are links between the neighbourhood of mobile-phone-antennas and sleeping problems, hearing phenomenas, cardiac problems, headaches and so on reported from neighbours of antennas few time after the installation of the antenna, and this all over the world.

3) WHO suggests in this fact sheet that "national governments should adopt health-based electromagnetic field guidelines".

It is very irritating to see that the way of setting EMF-exposure-guidelines very much contrasts precautionary principles as used in medical and chemical guidelines, which leads to rather industry-friendly exposure limits.

So permit me the question why WHO/Dr. Repacholi is working hard to rise all guidelines which are under ICNIRP-WHO-EU-level (like Russia, China,...) on the high level of ICNIRP-WHO-EU instead to accept the precautionary approach of these lower limit values or of the "Salzburg model" considering not only the thermal but also the biologic effects not caused by thermal heating?

Considering WHO's definition of health, "health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence ofdesease or infirmity", let me inform you that already the analysis of the principles how ICNIRP and the WHO-EMF-project sets EMF-exposure limits (letter from Dr. George Carlo, but WHO still waiting for confirmation; WHO worrying about the costs of lower limit values for the industry - letter of Dr. Repacholi to Mr. Chambers/EU Parliament and WHO fact sheet) can challenge ones well-beeing and mental health.

I will be very grateful for your answers and comments,

best regards

Eva Marsalek

Back to Top