To Members of the Scientific Advisory Panel and the Committee for Recommendation from the National Platform Electro Magnetic Risks in the Netherlands:
I have read carefully the 2006 Report as requested, and would like to point out areas where the report relies on data that are incomplete, thus giving us an indication of new data that need to be considered before effective public health decisions can be made. (I have attached testimony I gave earlier in the year to a scrutiny panel in the Channel Island State of Jersey that summarizes much of the new data.)
Points the Committee Must Address:
1. In the past three years, clinical data have made clear that there are at least four operating pathological effect windows in the electro-magnetic spectrum contributing to a wide range of health effects. Each window has a now clinically elucidated distinct mechanism of harm and distinct characteristics that are relevant to safety standards. Without considering the pathological mechanisms in the public policy decision making process, and making decisions based on clinical considerations, the public can not be protected adequately.
2. The four effect windows are as follows: the ELF effect window, where the mechanism of harm involves direct magnetic field effects above a threshold; the microwave effect window where the mechanism involves field intensity derived heating where effects occur above a threshold; the Information Carrying Radio Wave (ICRW) effect window where the mechanism involves biological response triggered at the cell membrane that is not threshold dependent; the ionizing radiation effect window where the mechanism is derivative of high energy breaking chemical bonds, and where there is a clinical threshold.
3. Of critical relevance to the public policy decision making process is the recognition that three of the effect windows have thresholds or safe levels of exposure -- including the microwave thermal window which is the basis for all of the national exposure standard for RF -- while the ICRW window, which is where all wireless transmissions fall, has no threshold for effects. Thus, relying on field intensity standards misses the mark in terms of what we now know about the clinical pathology.
4. Clinical data now show that the ICRW effect window involves a fundamental disruption of phyiologic processes including both disruption of intercellular communiction leading to systemic effects and interference with DNA repair leading to genetic effects. The attached paper describing a clinical series on Autism contains a good summary description of these mechanisms. The critical point is that because these are fundamental disruptions, the standard approaches to research that are based on one exposure/one disease effect are inadequate. The manifestations of these exposures are multiple and involve different conditions in different people, depending on their genetic susceptibilities and environment. Thus, relying on standard epidemiological and toxicological studies for decisions will not pick up the true risks -- the standard approaches lack the scientific sensitivity to adequately protect public health.
5. With a non-threshold mechanism operating with ICRW, long-term corrections for the problem involve infrastructure changes that must include minimizing wireless transmissions of ICRW and maximizing delivery systems that are hard-wired including fiber optics.
6. Our clinical experience and registry work shows us that conditions such as electrosensitivity are increasing rapidly in exposed populations. It is noteworthy that once a person is electrosensitive, exposures in any of the four effect windows elicit adverse clinical responses. While exposures in any of the effect windows can cause the environmentally induced genetic changes leading to the condition, we believe the incidence of electrosensitivity is increasing so dramatically of late because of the high background level of ICRW that trigger responses in every person who is exposed (the characteristic of a non-threshold effect). Thus, short-term remedies for the population must include programs to address clinical conditions in people already effected as well as preventive programs for those exposed but not yet exhibiting clinical symptoms.
G. L. Carlo
Dr. George Carlo
Chair, Science and Public Policy Institute
Chief, Safe Wireless Initiative
1101 Pennylvania Ave, 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
From: Nationaal Platform Stralingsrisico's <in...@stralingsrisicos.nl
To: 'Nationaal Platform Stralingsrisico's' <in...@stralingsrisicos.nl
Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 4:01 am
Subject: Annual report Health Council Netherlands
Dear member of the Scientific Advisory Panel and the committee for recommendation from the National Platform Electro Magnetic Risks in the Netherlands,
We will have a very important meeting on the 10th December with our Health Council; it will be with 4 members from the EM field’s commission and the director. This Council gives the politics in the Netherlands advice how to cope with EM fields; they decide and make the guide lines. We hope you have the time to read the 2006 Annual Report and give us some feed-back of what you think we absolutely have to discuss on this meeting. What do they miss you think?
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail