Nexus - 0226 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Draft Standard 95900: Maximum Exposure Levels 3 KHz to 300 GHz 7.6 AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND DRAFT the IRPA Guidelines and the USA IEEE C95.1-1991 STANDARD 95900—MAXIMUM EXPOSURE _ Standard. In fact, the DR95900 and IEEE C95.1 are LEVELS 3 KHz TO 300 GHz essentially setting the same limits, based only on ther- mal effects. . a . In November 1993, the US Environmental Protection (This draft standard, a proposed revision of an earlier Agency (EPA) came out strongly against the US Federal standard (AS/NZS 2772.1), deals with exposure levels in Communications Commission's proposal to adopt the the radiofrequency/microwave part of the electromag- \EEE C9S.1 standard on RF/MW exposure, contending netic spectrum. This draft was issued for comment on that the standard has "serious flaws". The EPA ques- Ist February 1995 and closed on 15th March 1995. tioned whether it is "sufficiently protective of public The following is taken from a letter sent to Standards health and safety". The EPA criticised in particular the Australia by Senator Robert Bell of Tasmania and this standard's different limits for controlled and uncon- writer.) trolled environments and the failure to consider non- thermal effects.'” In 1993, the Phillips Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Mr McAlpine Base in New Mexico came out strongly for the exis- Standards Australia tence of non-thermal RF/MW health risks. PO Box 1055 Dr Cletus Kanavy, a bio-effects researcher at the Strathfield NSW 2135 Phillips Lab, authored a White Paper on the biological effects of RF/MW radiation in which he concluded that 14th March 1995 "a comprehensive search of the worldwide literature" found that "a large amount of data exists...to support - the existence of chronic non-thermal effects". Dear Mr McAlpine Dr Kanavy also noted in the White Paper that "The literature published in the late 1980s is abundant with ! am writing to you to express several concerns about information on non-thermal effects which are produced the implications of the "DR95900 Radiofrequency at levels below the ANSI standards." In the ANSI/IEEE Radiation, Part |: Maximum Exposure Levels 3 KHz to C95.1 standard, he added, "The existence of non-ther- 300 GHz". mal effects is essentially denied by omission".'* [Auth. If these proposals are accepted by the Australian and emph.] A copy of the White Paper is attached to this New Zealand governments, the general and working letter. populations can legally be exposed to five times the | The US National Institute for Occupational Safety current levels of radiofrequency radiation in the com- and Health (NIOSH) has also raised objections to the munications frequency. This includes microwave ANSI/IEEE C95.1 guidelines for basing exposure levels transmissions from telecommunication towers, cellular solely on thermal effects.'” [Auth. emph.] phones and their transmitters and radar transmitters. Dr Ross Adey, a leading researcher into EMR bio- These new limits, if accepted, will inevitably lead to effects, based at the VA Hospital in Loma Linda significant increases in transmitting power levels by all California, criticised the US Air Force for maintaining users of the radiofrequency spectrum. It is these same that EMR cannot cause non-thermal effects. users (vested interests) who are overwhelmingly repre- At a hearing before a US Senate Subcommittee in sented on this drafts committee. August 1992, Adey testified that "As a matter of policy, There has been almost no input from community the Air Force denies existence of biological effects, groups and EMR scientists or medical experts not asso- attributable to athermal fields. Nevertheless, evidence ciated with these vested interests. for athermal bioeffects is incontrovertible for both low The reasoning or ‘basic philosophy' used by the frequency and RF exposures".""° [Auth. emph.] committee to come up with this fivefold increase is | The above criticisms of the US standards apply also of concern. equally well to the DR95900, which is largely based if | may draw your attention to paragraph 4 in the on the American IEEE C95.1 standard mentioned above preface of this draft (page 2), to quote in part: and only considers thermal effects. In light of the facts, "that when only the established scientific literature is to continue on this path of avoidance and omission is used, exposure limits can only be based on thermal just the opposite of a proper scientific approach. It is a effects in the frequency range about 10 MHz to 300 bit like the flat-earth controversy back in Galileo's GHz. The scientific literature shows that, while non-_ time. thermal exposures may cause very minor perturbations Paragraph 4 in DR95900 totally discredits the docu- to biological systems (isolated cells or tissues, but not ment's scientific validity due to its refusal to take ather- in humans), there has not been found any adverse mal bio-effects into consideration, and its apparent health impact from these exposure levels after almost ignorance of a large body of research. As such it should 40 years of research." [Auth. emph.] be rejected by both the Australian and New Zealand As stated in the preface, the DR95900 is based on governments. NEXUS * 41 JUNE - JULY 1995