FAILED ATTEMPT TO REDUCE SAFETY CODE 6 GUIDELINES IN 1977

[news....@googlemail.com]

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr Magda Havas

To: Iris Atzmon

Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 10:13 AM

Subject: PICK OF THE WEEK #8: FAILED ATTEMPT TO REDUCE SAFETY CODE 6 GUIDELINES IN 1977.

For Distribution:

PICK OF THE WEEK #8: FAILED ATTEMPT TO REDUCE SAFETY CODE 6 GUIDELINES IN 1977.

August 31, 2010.  Pick of the Week #8:  Failed Attempt to Reduce Safety Code 6 Guideline in 1977.

Dr. Michael Repacholi, prior to becoming the Coordinator of the Radiation and Environmental Health Unit at the World Health Organization, was involved in formulating Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline for microwave radiation.  In 1977, he and Maria Stuchly gave a talk at the I.E.E.E. meeting in Toronto entitled “Emission and Exposure Standards for Microwave Radiation.” 

In this presentation Repacholi and Stuchly proposed a Canadian maximum permissible level (MPL) for microwave radiation that was between the then U.S. guideline (10 mW/cm²) and the Russian guideline (0.01 mW/cm²). The recommended MPL was 1 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 0.1 mW/cm² for public exposure.  These proposed guidelines are much lower than what we currently have  (5 mW/cm² for occupational exposure and 1 mW/cm² for unlimited public exposure).

Here are a few key statements in this document:

1. “The fact that maximum permissible exposure levels are recommended indicates that confirmed biological effects have been found, and that definite health hazards exist.”
2. “ . . . there is increasing dissatisfaction in the U.S. with the 10 mW/cm²figure since it does not contain sufficient safety factors to allow for the increased effects observed with pulsed beams . . . [Note WiFi and mobile phones have a pulsed beam.]
3. The USSR allows its workers to be exposed to 1 mW/ cm² (current 24-hour public exposure limit for Canada and U.S.] for only 20 minutes a day and to 0.1 mW/ cm² for only 2 hours a day (proposed guideline for public exposure that was NOT adopted).
4. Although most of the non-thermal effects have not yet been confirmed in the West, this does not mean the effects do not exist.
5. The general public represents a much larger population than the radiation workers and so one cannot accept as high a risk probability.

To read more, go to . . . www.magdahavas.com

[Omega Group]

Pick of the Week #8: Repacholi Revises Safety Code 6.

http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/09/02/pick-of-the-week-8-failed-attempt-to-reduce-safety-code-6-guidelines-in-1977/
http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Repacholi_SafetyCode6_presentation1.pdf


Informant: CGamba