Perhaps, North, you would like to declare what interest, if any, you have in the report or other area?

In her speech on the first conclusions of the Round Table, Chantal Jouanno, the new Secretary of State for Ecology, declared today in an interview that she is in favour of trying out a reduction of relay antenna emissions in certain towns to 0.6V/m (by implication in accordance with the BioInitiative consortium recommendations [petition 10 000] and the demands of the action group Robin des toits), while awaiting the results of a new study from AFFSET (French government health agency).
26th May, 20

Among the 10 points announced by the government are, among others, banning mobile phones in primary schools and for children under 6, and putting on the market mobiles that can only be used for SMS (thus avoiding any radiation exposure), as well as models without a loudspeaker, which require the use of an earpiece..

A step in the right direction.

The fact is that people are being damaged by the pulsed microwave radiation [and/or the low frequencies in them] and this is happening across Europe.

In 2007, a group of GPs in Oberammergau complained about the number of patients who became ill following the upgrading of a T-Mobile phone mast. The power output remained the same but a local building biologist observed a new’tack, tack’ noise from his equipment.

It was eventually discovered found that T-Mobile had added a 8.34 Hz signal to their emissions. It was only after the mobile operator was forced to remove the 8.34 Hz signal that the majority of patients improved, according to the local doctors.
It is hardly surprising that adverse effects occur with low frequencies in the area used by the brain. We know this happens from research.

The problem is that the ICNIRP guidelines were set by engineers and not by doctors/physiologists with expertise in treating patients who are affected by the radiation.

If you look at the WHO and PubMed data bases you will find that the majority of studies carried out at mobile phone base stations DO show adverse effects.

The Bioinitiative Report -Pseudoscientific nonsense it is not.
Biologically based limits are needed.
For everyones sake – including yours.

The Dutch government came to the conclusion: “In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge”

My own appraisal of it is that it is pseudoscientific nonsense.

It is not the thermal [heating] effects that are the problem, as Prof. Gerard Hyland correctly stated. It is the non-thermal effects, which have been known about for decades in the scientific literature.

The Bioinitiative Report, whose findings have been accepted by the European Parliament, found that the current ‘thermally based’ ICNIRP guidelines are obsolete and do not protect health.
The currently permitted guidelines need to be reduced by a factor of 1000x. I suggest that you read the Bioinitiative Report in full.

This was infact also the recommendation of a previous EU Parliament STOA report, by Prof. Gerard Hyland,years ago.

[edited to remove cut and paste material from report]

Le Canard Noir – I suggest that you inform yourself and actually read the research literature. The campaign groups are doing a valuable job. By the way, the German Government has recommended that citizens use wired internet connections in preference to wireless connections, where possible.

I was supprised to see him associated with this.

I had thought Ian Gibson was a sound sort, he used to be something high up in biology at UEA. He visited my old department a few years ago and seemed quite sane then.

As well he might. Here’s a case in which he had something of a “plausibility problem”:

Petursson & Anor v. Hutchison 3G UK Ltd.

Sorry, can’t get the link to fit on the page (or to work as a link), but go to http://www.bailii.org/ and search for Gerard Hyland.

At paragraph 74:

“Dr Hyland lacked balance and impartiality in relation to his evidence in this case. He did not adopt the objective approach which a court expects from an expert witness. Dr Hyland claimed that all the expert bodies (apart from the SSI (Sweden) and Zmirou (France) reviews as to which he had no evidence) lacked honesty, independence and were economical with the truth. This is a bold and startling contention. It would, for example, cast doubt on the integrity of Sir William Stewart (who chaired the IEGMP, and who is now the Chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board) who referred in the foreword to the Stewart 1 report to “the fierce independence” of the group he chaired. I have no hesitation in rejecting Dr Hyland’s statement with respect to these eminent and expert bodies. Dr Hyland produced no evidence in support of his contention. His unjustified criticism of national and international groups reflects poorly upon himself and must be viewed in the light of his own partiality in giving evidence in this case. In his reports to this court, Dr Hyland failed to draw attention to the COST 281 Statement. That paper, dated November 2001, is titled Scientific Comment on Individual Statements of Concern About Health Hazards of Weak EMF. It was prepared by an international committee of scientists in response to a submission which Dr Hyland made to the European Parliament. It contains the following: “It is postulated by Dr Hyland that GSM radiation affects the organism. This is supported by the argument GSM ‘has rather well defined frequencies’ which can interfere with ‘a variety of oscillatory electrical biological activities, each characterised by a particular frequency, some of which happen to be close to those used in GSM’ in particular 8.34Hz and 2Hz, which ‘correspond to those found in the human EEG – especially in the ranges of the alpha and delta brain waves, respectively’. This is non-scientific argument by analogy.” The paper sets out those matters, which it says Dr Hyland has ignored, and continues “Therefore postulating that weak GSM signals would affect brain activity just because there is a similarity in the frequency components ignores well-established knowledge.”. It goes on to express strong criticism of Dr Hyland’s approach eg “not based on generally accepted scientific rules. It is of dubious scientific nature and does not reflect the view of the majority of the accepted scientific experts in the field.” This indicates strong condemnation by peers as to his own objectivity and scientific rigour.

In cross examination, Dr Hyland was asked about evidence he had given in a case heard by Ripon and Leeds Consistory Court in March 2003. He questioned whether he should have been asked about that evidence. His concern was rather odd. He had in fact referred to it in his own reports and, in any event, his opinion expressed to that court was plainly a matter which would be of relevance and assistance to this court.”

Mojo.

You can’t fool the consumer with something as dodgy as science.

The lighter game would be interesting if the lighter itself was hidden from view (and, hence, whether the magnet was present or not). EoR’s hypothesis: perceptions of pain with the magnet vis a vis perceptions of pain without the magnet would be no greater than chance.