Alert: Environmental and Human Health Effects of Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation

http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/action/index.htm:

Action Alert – April 19, 2007

Your time and effort is needed NOW to invite the staff members of your
U.S. Senators and Congressman to a public policy education briefing on
the inadequacy of U.S. federal policy regulating the environmental and
human health effects of Radiofrequency (RF) radiation.
The briefing is to be hosted by Vermont Congressman Peter Welch and
Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernard Sanders. It will take place on
Thursday, May 10, 2007 from 3:00-5:30 PM in the U.S. Capitol, Room
HC-5.

· The first step is for you to find out the names of the relevant
staff members. Go to:
Congress.org to find your U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senators. Look for
the 2 boxes in the center of the page in light blue.

If you know your ZIP + 4 information fill in the top box and click GO.

If you don’t know your ZIP+4, fill in the lower box that asks for your
complete street address and click GO.

· On the page that appears next, click in turn on the name of each of
your U.S. Senators and your Congressman. A page will appear as you
click each name that gives you the address and phone number for each
one’s Washington, DC office.

· Call those three offices in DC (your Congressman and your two
Senators) and ask for the names in each office of:


1. The staff person who works on telecommunications issues
2. The staff person who works on environmental health issues

· Ask for the FAX number for each staff person.

· Print out one copy of the Memo announcing the Congressional Staff
Briefing for each of the appropriate staff members. Be sure to include
your name and address so that they can verify that you are a
constituent in their electoral district. FAX a copy to each staff
person.

· Send an e-mail to: with the staff members names
along with the names of your Senators and Congressman, their office
addresses in DC, and their phone numbers so that we can follow up and
visit them on the days preceding the briefing.

Many thanks for your willing participation to make this briefing a
success.

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your entire
life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't going to harm
you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist wail
to come from the environmental lobby.

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint, that
is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
be nothing to fight over that need concern us.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket.

That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

From a risk management standpoint, that
is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
be nothing to fight over that need concern us.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket.

That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you, and plenty of
reasons to be skeptical about any claims that it is bad..

By contrast, with global warming, it is fairly easy to calculate what
will happen *if* the climate (amount of cloud cover, etc.) stays the
same - we get a temparature increase dependent on the amount of
"greenhouse gases" we add to the atmoshere. The uncertainty is simply
that we don't know how the climate will change, but we do know that
you'd need a substantial change in cloud cover to mitigate the
temperature rise by any significant extent. Either way, someone is
impacted. The only question is who ends up holding the bag.

So they are not analogous at all.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Apr 26, 8:58 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
Mike Vandeman writes:
On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket.

That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you, and plenty of
reasons to be skeptical about any claims that it is bad..

By contrast, with global warming, it is fairly easy to calculate what
will happen *if* the climate (amount of cloud cover, etc.) stays the
same - we get a temparature increase dependent on the amount of
"greenhouse gases" we add to the atmoshere. The uncertainty is simply
that we don't know how the climate will change, but we do know that
you'd need a substantial change in cloud cover to mitigate the
temperature rise by any significant extent. Either way, someone is
impacted. The only question is who ends up holding the bag.

So they are not analogous at all.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ya smoked him, Bill! Tom

(Bill Z.) wrote in
:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint, that
is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
be nothing to fight over that need concern us.


I agree Bill. Otherwise this will be the first in the series of 'oils
wars'.

We (America) need to invest in renewable energy sources now (wind,
solar, hydro) and as a stop gap (I hate to say this, but ......) we need
to build breeder reactors. Breeder would ensure that we there would be
an unlimited amount of fuel for the future and as an added bonus we
could reduce the stores of highly radioactive waste from previously
wasteful reactors

The best part would that we could tell the Middle East 'Go eat sand"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:58:38 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket.

That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you,

Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
phone? WiFi?

and plenty of
reasons to be skeptical about any claims that it is bad..

By contrast, with global warming, it is fairly easy to calculate what
will happen *if* the climate (amount of cloud cover, etc.) stays the
same - we get a temparature increase dependent on the amount of
"greenhouse gases" we add to the atmoshere. The uncertainty is simply
that we don't know how the climate will change, but we do know that
you'd need a substantial change in cloud cover to mitigate the
temperature rise by any significant extent. Either way, someone is
impacted. The only question is who ends up holding the bag.

So they are not analogous at all.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 26 Apr 2007 21:16:45 -0700, tom wrote:

On Apr 26, 8:58 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
Mike Vandeman writes:
On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket.

That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you, and plenty of
reasons to be skeptical about any claims that it is bad..

By contrast, with global warming, it is fairly easy to calculate what
will happen *if* the climate (amount of cloud cover, etc.) stays the
same - we get a temparature increase dependent on the amount of
"greenhouse gases" we add to the atmoshere. The uncertainty is simply
that we don't know how the climate will change, but we do know that
you'd need a substantial change in cloud cover to mitigate the
temperature rise by any significant extent. Either way, someone is
impacted. The only question is who ends up holding the bag.

So they are not analogous at all.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ya smoked him, Bill! Tom

In your dreams.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 27 Apr 2007 14:13:07 GMT, Chris wrote:

(Bill Z.) wrote in
:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint, that
is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
be nothing to fight over that need concern us.


I agree Bill. Otherwise this will be the first in the series of 'oils
wars'.

We (America) need to invest in renewable energy sources now (wind,
solar, hydro) and as a stop gap (I hate to say this, but ......) we need
to build breeder reactors. Breeder would ensure that we there would be
an unlimited amount of fuel for the future and as an added bonus we
could reduce the stores of highly radioactive waste from previously
wasteful reactors

That only shows how ignorant you are. The first priority is to reduce
energy use. There is no sustainable energy source large enough to
maintain current energy use, no matter how much research you do..

The best part would that we could tell the Middle East 'Go eat sand"

Just like Bush: always the diplomat!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande