|
Mr Mark Dunn
Chairman
Sussex Police Authority
County Hall
St Anne's Crescent
Lewes
East Sussex
BN7 1SW
29 February 2004
Dear Mr Dunn
Thank you for your response to my last letter and the conversation yesterday.
I promised to send you further material I had unearthed on reasons why the proposed health risks of TETRA might be real. In searching the Internet again, I tried to be precise and scrupulous about the matter, avoiding political interest, pseudo science and commercial interest. I was specifically interested in the non-thermal (ie cellular) effects, since the argument on thermal effects clearly relates to proximity, and is more relevant to the use of handsets than base stations, and is also better researched.
My premise was that for TETRA to be given a professional clean bill of health as your team of experts has stated, there must be public documents describing peer-reviewed research on the non-thermal effects (beneficial or harmful) of ca 16Hz and other extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on live human subjects. Without that, the assertion of safety must surely be opinion. Alright, expert opinion, but unsubstantiated by scientific research. (See below for an example of intuition in this area.) However, I include a few papers, including Henry Lai, Washington, Vladimir Binhi, Russia, and an interesting paper from Coghill Research Laboratories in Gwent, the last which, whilst you may regard as less dispassionate, offers an insight into biochemical interactions with pulsed ELF EMR.
I found plenty of material on reported adverse effects of exposure, and even on the benefits of screening devices for those suffering symptoms attributed specifically to TETRA. I found sufficient material indicating that base stations transmit pulsed radiation, even though the Home Office documents available on their website still deny this. What I failed to find was any research regarding the measured effects of TETRA radiation on live human subjects, despite numerous other papers advising avoidance and precaution of this part of the EM spectrum, as being an unknown area. There was a good deal of research comment, however, on the problems of designing such experimental conditions, and on the necessity for it.
I therefore did a little research on the beneficial/ therapeutic effects of ELF EMR. Here the opposite should be true. If it is established that there are no biological effects on living organisms at cellular level, then there should be either no published research, or research indicating that there is no application for therapeutic use of ELF EMR.
I was therefore surprised to find that there is indeed a mound of solid research literature, for example on the effects of ELF EMR on bone and marrow and the healing process (stimulation of osteoblasts - bone growth, and osteoclasts - the degradation of bone scar tissue), and in osteocarcinoma, or on the effects on take-up of toxins, on neurology etc. under ELF EMR. I haven't printed the abstracts, because there are so many of them, but you can find, for example, an extensive list at the National Library of Medicine (US), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. I would give the url of the abstract list but it is far too long! Try instead an Internet search on Google using "beneficial therapeutic effects of elf electromagnetic" and it will be near the top. Interestingly, most of this research (on mice) relates to the use of pulsed ELF EMR (US term used: pulsed electromagnetic fields or PEMF).
Try also: www.papimi.gr/PEMFapplspecific.htm (and PEMFapplspecific-2.htm) on specific applications of PEMF including soft tissues, and neurological disorders:
"In this interview with Dr. C. Andrew L. Bassett, a physician researching the use of pulsed electromagnetic fields for the past 30 years at Columbia University's Orthopedic Research Lab, Dr. Bassett notes that approximately 10,000 of the 12,000-plus orthopedic surgeons in the U.S. have used pulsed electromagnetic fields on at least one patient. Many such surgeons have incorporated the therapy on a more regular basis. He estimates that a total of at least 65,000 patients nationwide have received the treatment, with a probable success rate of between 80 and 90 percent."
The third research strand is that of human EMR sensitivity or hypersensitivity. This is clearly attested, and I include the paper by Rea et al. that is frequently cited. Alongside this there is an excellent report "Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy: A critical review of the reports by the US National Research Council and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as they relate to the broad realm of EMF bioeffects" by Magda Havas. I only enclose ten pages of this since it is 89 pages long, but the whole bears reading:
www.powerlinefacts.com/Canadian Review of NCR and NIEHS studies.pdf
Another useful resource is from COST281, which can be found at www.cost281.org. The European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) is a co-ordinating framework for international research and development and includes 23 countries. COST281 relates to "Potential Health Implications from Mobile Communication Systems", and they provide an extensive international bibliography on the health issues and current research. I particularly commend to you: Abstract Book, COST 281MCM and Workshop "Mobile Phone Base Stations and Health", Dublin, May 5th and 16th, 2003 (www.cost281.org/ download.php?fid=307).
Well, where do I stop? I am not a researcher these days, though I work in a research institute, and I have postgraduate degrees, and none of it is related to this subject. My research consists of sitting at my PC and using the Internet, so it is limited. Nevertheless, several things appear to be established:
- Many people (one figure quoted is 35% of the population) have some form of sensitivity to EMR, and that human EMR sensitivity is real, not supposed.
- ELF EMR, notably pulsed, has attested effects on living cells. It is not neutral.
- Mechanisms have been suggested as to how ELF EMR might interact with living cells.
- Live subject studies of TETRA radiation to examine the short or long-term effects of ~16Hz pulsed EMR have not been done.
- Sufficient numbers of individuals have attributed health symptoms to TETRA as well as to other ELF EMR sources to warrant proper and unbiased investigation.
- International guidelines on acceptable exposure to EMR are:
- divergent
- based on EMR in general, not on ELF EMR or pulsed EMR
- not based on examination of the non-thermal effects on living cells, and
- not based on cumulative effects and cumulative sources.
- Therefore they should not be cited as a reliable indicator of the long-term safety of systems such as TETRA.
The current situation is not unlike similar situations relating to: radiological sources, asbestos, solvents, prions, smoking, thalidomide, high content contraception, HRT, MMR, etc. etc., where at the introduction of beneficial activity, little was known of the consequences. Would you like to have been the copy writer promoting the health benefits of Navy Cut? Or the one who recommended thalidomide to pregnant mothers?
TETRA stands in the same court, but whilst I now have a legal right not to breathe a colleague's smoke at work (and only in case I might be prone to contracting lung cancer through passive smoking), I have no rights to at all relating to loss of sleep (or worse) by virtue of pulsed ELF EMR transmitting 24/7, 100 metres from my home. It must also be noted that I am now exposed from the same location to:
- Vodaphone antennae
- Orange antennae
- Two clusters of O2 antennae
- TETRA
"This house stands 100 metres from a number of microwave masts, one of them is the controversial TETRA system. Therefore I think this is a good choice of a place to live." (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree?)
That's not your problem, of course, and you haven't chosen antenna locations. The point is that when you think about that statement, your opinion is not "what a daft question". You stop and think, "would I choose to live there?", which betrays a lurking suspicion that it might not be good.
Maybe the answer is to go ahead with TETRA but offer remedies: copper mesh tents for our beds, metal shields and curtains for our houses, even special hats and pills (yes, they're all there for sale on the Internet!) Had you chosen to communicate with flashes of light, and this had an effect on the minority of people with epilepsy to trigger episodes, you would not be allowed to offer sunglasses. You would not be allowed that technology, because unlike a nightclub, people cannot avoid transmission masts. ELF EMR is non-discretionary and undiscrimating, and all-pervasive (4,000 masts across the country?)
I believe that this mast behind my house is affecting my sleep patterns. But I hope from the tone of my letter that you can see that I am genuinely interested in the subject and the research. I am not a nervous worrier inducing psychosomatic symptoms. I hope the effects do not persist, but if they do, I am willing to participate in medical research, if it will help others.
I just think that if in an afternoon I can unearth this profile, then you should have already received all this material in consideration from your expert panel. Would they, for example, disagree with the bullet points above? And if not, how can we justify the living experiment (on real people like me!) who have not given consent to be subjects? Have your police employees given active informed consent to be part of the 15 year Home Office research into the effects of TETRA handset use?
So I consider that your expert opinion of a clean bill of health is in some degree based on the opinion that they can't think of why TETRA should be harmful, or how living cells (ie people) might be affected, so therefore it must be 100% safe, and reported health effects are spurious. That's expert intuition. We use it all the time, and quite a lot of the time we're good at it.
I promised you an example at the start. So do this experiment at home. Place a few individual drops of water on a plastic container lid, so they lie as blips and are unsurrounded. Take a small plastic cup and fill it with water. Before you place them side by side in your microwave, guess what will happen. Intuition says that the drops will probably evaporate while the cup will only be warm. Now do it. After 10 or 15 seconds you will find that the cup is indeed warm (careful, it might be hot!), but the drops are cold. Counter-intuitive isn't it? Repeat in ceramic containers in your oven and the expected will happen: the drops evaporate long before the cup gets hot. It's nothing clever, it's just an example of how scientific intuition can very easily and simply be wrong. But it's relevant. Like the droplets, we're talking human cells here, which operate quite differently from "whole bodies", and TETRA interacts with them. So shall we guess what's going to happen?
I'm sorry this is long, but the matter is, as you agreed, a very serious one. Everyone agrees that the police need an effective communications system, and the Home Office has been extremely incautious in withdrawing existing frequencies before new technology can be assessed. The other big issues of cost effectiveness of TETRA over TETRAPOL, or of its functionality I will leave for now, but do remember that I am footing the bill.
yours
Andy Davidson
enc.:
Binhi V, Report from Russia - Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health
Havas M, Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy: A critical review of the reports by the US National Research Council and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as they relate to the broad realm of EMF bioeffects
Rea W J, Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity
Monash University, Effects of Electromagnetic and Magnetic Fields on Living Systems
Lai H, A presentation at the "Cell Tower Forum: State of the Science/State of the Law"
Cogress Lab, TETRA (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) and the health issue
Havenaar J M, Neuropsychiatric and psychological effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (from ABSTRACT BOOK, COST 281MCM and Workshop "Mobile Phone Base Stations and Health", Dublin, May5th and 16th, 2003)
|
