Safe
level of EMR is ZERO
A brief
explanation of Dr. Neil Cherry's findings from his
presentation
paper: "Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is
Genotoxic: The Implications for the Epidemiology of Cancer and
Cardiac, Neurological and Reproductive Effects"
Source: EMFguru;
Current Message Section; Dr. Cherry: Safe Level of EMR is ZERO: 29
May, 00
----------
Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 May
2000 10:01:49 +1200
From: "Cherry,
Neil J" <CHERRY@kea.lincoln.ac.nz>
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Safe
level of EMR is ZERO
Dear Roy:
I am about to
leave for Europe where I am presenting the results of my latest
research into low level health effects of EMR as requested by
representatives at the European Parliament and our very good friends
in Salzburg City Council.
The
conclusion of my research is that:
--Electromagnetic
Radiation is damaging to Brains, Hearts, Embryos, Hormones and Cells.
It is therefore a
threat to Intelligent Hearty Life.
--Electromagnetic
radiation resonantly interacts with bodies and cells, Interfering with
cell-to-cell
communication, cell growth and regulation, and is damaging the
genetic basis of life.
--Like other toxic
substances that damage cells, EMR has a safe exposure level of ZERO.
(through many dose response relationships from exposures from ELF, RF
and MW)
Hence my
recommended Target Public Exposure for significant risk reduction is
10 nanoWatt/sq cm. This can be accomplished by setting a maximum
outdoor exposure at the boundary of properties of 0.1 microWatt/sq
cm.
* * * * *
This will not be
liked nor accepted by cell phone companies and many government and
international authorities, such as ICNIRP and WHO (Dr Michael
Repacholi for example). However, it is based on a large set of
internationally published, peer-reviewed papers from a wide range of
independent universities and research institutes. It also includes
the results of studies funded by industry, e.g. Repacholi et al.
(1997), Phillips et al. (1998).
* * * * *
--Another
important conclusion: Cell phone radiation mimics the effects that we
have found for EMR across the spectrum, in over 45 published studies
showing adverse biological and human health effects specifically from
cell phone radiation.
A cell phone
against the head exposes the premier organ of the human body to
serious interference with its processes and serious damage to its
tissues and cells. The exposure levels on average are higher than
military personnel who show highly significant cancer, cardiac and
neurological effects for radio and radar exposures (Robinette et al. (1980)
and Szmigielski (1996)).
Cell phones and
cell sites are producing significant
health effects right now but few direct
studies are attempting
to identify them.
You only see what you look for. If nobody
is looking then nobody will see
anything.
I had a call from
a resident yesterday who had developed severe arthritis in the period
immediately following the installation of a cell site 50 m from his
house. He is in a high exposure regime over 2 microwatt/sq cm. Burch
et al. (1998) have shown that cell phone usage reduces melatonin.
There are 14 studies showing that EMR reduced melatonin in people. I
looked up Dr Russell Reiter's book (Reiter and Robinson (1995)) on
melatonin. It lists several illnesses that result from reduced
melatonin. The first (p8) is arthritis, then diabetes, cancer .....
A great deal of
illness and death currently occurring in developed countries, can be
associated with the progressively increased exposures to EMR,
especially in the RF/MW range because this is much more biologically
active and damaging than ELF fields, Bawin and Adey (1976), Vignati
and Guiliani (1997). This is going to increase very significantly
with the use of cell phones and the installation of cell sites.
* * * * *
My problem is
that there is so much research that shows adverse biological and
health effects, but there is a concerted campaign to ignore,
discredit or attack the messengers. The studies are not generally
known by authorities who trust [scientific] bodies that appear to be
reliable but who deliberately mis-quote and mis represent the
published research. This continues to delay measures to protect
public health by retaining the strongly mis-proven assumption of
tissue heating being the only effect.
