[Shadow_Group] Fw: Secret Report On Cell Phone Dangers And Tetra

[shadowgroup-l at lists.resist.ca]

(The bottomline, folks, is this:  if you use a cellphone, even one time,
you are using your brain as an antenna, an amplifier and a heat sink. 
You are "microwaving" your brain.  The results are permanent:  mass
madness.)

http://www.rense.com/general60/tetra.htm<http://www.rense.com/general60/tetra.htm>

Secret Report On Cell 
Phone Dangers And Tetra 
Confidential Report On TETRA Strictly For 
The Police Federation Of England and Wales
By B. Trower
11-25-4
 
INTRODUCTION 
  
With respect to my fellow scientists I shall be writing this report in
non-scientific speak for all of those readers who have not had the
benefit of a scientific education. 
  
  
WHAT IS ALL THIS REALLY ABOUT? 
  
Imagine the field around a magnet and imagine ordinary everyday static
electricity. If you put the force field from the magnet with the force
field from the static electricity you make a wave. This wave is called an
electromagnetic wave. There are lots of different types of
electromagnetic waves but they are all made of the same two things -
magnetic and static. The only difference between the waves is their
wavelength or the length of the wave and the number of waves that can be
produced a second, i.e. the frequency. All of these waves are put into a
table called the electromagnetic spectrum. 
  
At one end of this electromagnetic spectrum you have the very short
waves, namely gamma rays and x-rays and at the other end of the spectrum
you have the very long ways, namely radio, TV and waves from overhead
power cables. All of these waves have the same properties; that is to say
they all behave the same. They can all be reflected, refracted, and they
all travel at the same speed, which is the speed of light. For interest,
if you were one wave of light you would be able to travel around the
world nearly seven times every second; that is the speed of light. The
electromagnetic spectrum is ordered so that at the short wave end you
have the gamma rays, x-rays, ultra-violet, visible light, infra red,
microwaves, radar, TV and radio in that order. The ultra-violet and above
are known as ionising waves and there is no argument as to the damage
they can cause when entering the body. Below ultraviolet is said to be
non-ionising and this is where arguments occur between scientists as to
whether damage can occur inside the human body through exposure to these
waves. The microwaves used in the TETRA system are in the non-ionising
section of the electromagnetic spectrum and I will be discussing the
arguments concerning microwaves and health in this report. 
  
  
SAFETY LEVELS 
  
In this country, when somebody asks about whether a certain level of
electromagnetic radiation is safe they are usually quoted a safety limit.
This safety limit is laid down by the NRPB (National Radiological
Protection Board). Usually when you ask about a dose of radiation you
find that the amount that you were asking about is thousands of times
below the safety limit and thereby reportedly safe. A safety limit is
really a personal opinion. This personal opinion may be based on many
factors by an individual or individuals from whatever data they have in
their possession. To give you an example of some safety limits around the
world, for one particular type of microwave transmitter, these read as
follows: 
  
Toronto Health Board: 6 units 
  
Italy: 10 units 
  
Russia: 10 units 
  
Poland: 100 units 
  
US Research Base: 100 units 
  
International Commission: 450 units 
  
The NRPB for Britain: 3,300 units 
  
There are other values for other transmitters but there is no need to
list those in this document. 
  
To look at this another way, supposing you took your car to a garage and
one mechanic estimated a price of £6 and another mechanic estimated a
price of £3,300 for the same job, you would feel justified about
questioning the decisions. The reason that our safety limit is much
higher than the rest of the world is that in other countries they base
their safety limits on possible effects from the electric field, the
magnetic field and the heat produced in the body. Our NRPB will only base
the safety limit for this country on the heat produced in the body. I
will comment on heat further in this report (Appendix 1, Reference 1). 
  
  
WHAT IS BELIEVED TO HAPPEN AS THESE WAVES ENTER OUR BODIES? 
  
I will try to summarise the thousand or so research papers written over
the last 20 or so years and explain or summarise what happens when the
electric and magnetic part of the wave goes into our bodies. 
  
We being water based animals act like aerials to these waves. As the
waves go into our bodies an electric current is generated inside our
bodies which is how aerials work; waves come in and electricity is
generated. The electricity generated in our bodies like all electric
currents goes to ground through our bodies and like all electric currents
it takes the path of least resistance. Unfortunately the path of least
resistance through our bodies, although only representing 10% of our
pathways, carries 90% of our traffic rather like the M1 motorway. The
traffic in our bodies, namely hormones, antibodies, neurotransmitters
know where they are going because they also carry an electric charge. The
hormones, antibodies and neurotransmitters know where to "get off"
because there is a corresponding opposite charge at the site of delivery
rather like the positive and negative ends of a battery. The problem is
if you have an electric current passing through the body it can change
this charge, either on the hormones, antibodies or neurotransmitters or
the site of delivery. 
  
An analogy to that would be - if you were in Paris on the Underground
system and you could not speak a word of French, but you had a map with
the station name of where to get off and somebody tippexed out one or two
of the letters, you may get off or you may not, and this can happen in
the body. The hormones, antibodies or neurotransmitters may get off where
they are meant to get off or they may carry on and miss their target. As
a one-off this probably would not be very important but continuous
interference over many years it is argued can lead to many illnesses. 
  
A similar effect is that the destination for some of these hormones,
neurotransmitters, antibodies is a surface of a cell where chemicals will
pass through a membrane into a cell. If you think of a cell in our body,
be it a brain cell, bone cell etc, as having a positive and negative
charge on the outside and the inside similar to a battery the difference
in these charges will draw the chemical into the cell or draw poisonous
substances out of the cell. If the charge is changed on the outside of
the cell, then necessary chemicals may not go in or poisonous chemicals
may not go out. An analogy to that would be - think of your house as a
cell in your body. Essential things like food, water and fuel come into
the house and poisonous things like waste and gases leave the house. In
fact a house is very similar in many ways to a cell in our body. Now, if
we had a blockage and waste could not leave the house or sometimes food
or electricity did not come into the house, over a short period of time
we would survive this, but continual disruption over many years will
probably have a knock-on effect on the health of the inhabitants
particularly if they are young or frail. This is my explanation of how
electromagnetic waves affect our cells. 
  
A final description is possibly the accumulative effect of all the
particles going through the body each second. Each particle and for TETRA
we are talking about 400,000,000 particles a second carries a small
amount of momentum with it. As an analogy, imagine you are driving down
the M1 in the largest lorry you could possibly imagine and you are hit by
the smallest dust particle you could ever imagine. Obviously the dust
particle will not effect the speed or momentum of your lorry but if you
have 400,000,000 dust particles a second for many years they could if
something else was going wrong with your lorry exacerbate the effect and
slow your lorry, and that is the crucial point. All of these effects I
have described are believed to have one final conclusion. They all in
their own way suppress the immune system. When you suppress the immune
system as I will show in research papers, you tend to have more colds,
more coughs, longer colds, longer coughs, longer illnesses, depression,
anxiety leading to suicide or taken to its ultimate - leukaemia. 
  
I will summarise just four of what I consider to be extremely well
written research papers by arguably the worlds leading scientists in this
field. There are other leading scientists of course but I cannot list
them all in this report. I am using these as specimen papers. 
  
When I refer to research papers I am not referring to something that
somebody has sat down one Sunday afternoon and just written. These
research papers have sometimes hundreds of references in the back and
each reference on its own is usually 5-10 years work by a group of
scientists where their work would have been peer reviewed, and in a lot
of cases published. So for arguments sake, if a paper has say 100
references in the back that could well constitute 500-1,000 years
accumulative work. 
  
The first paper (Appendix 2, Reference 2) by Dr Neil Cherry was presented
in May 2000 to the New Zealand Parliament, to Italy, Austria, Ireland and
the European Parliament in Brussels. This paper has 122 references. I
have photocopied the references to show that as well as being peer
reviewed, many are published. I will do this with the other three papers
(Appendix 3). 
  
>From this research paper some illnesses caused by 
long-term low level electromagnetic radiation are: 
  
Heart problems; 
  
Blood problems; 
  
Interference with bone marrow; 
  
Tumours; 
  
Calcium interference; 
  
46% reduction in night-time melatonin; 
  
It is believed that during the daytime light going through our eyes
passes a message to the pineal glands in the brain which slows down the
production of melatonin. At night when no light goes through our eyes the
production of melatonin is speeded up. Melatonin is believed to scavenge
cancer cells and impurities in our bodies and boost the immune system. If
an officer is sleeping in quarters within range of the TETRA transmitter,
the microwave radiation is believed to act on the pineal gland and
suppress the night-time melatonin to daytime levels; hence the good work
of the melatonin at night will be restricted leading to suppression of
the immune system. 
  
Increased arthritis 
Skin problems 
Ear problems 
Risk to leukaemia 
Childhood cancer 
Sleep problems 
Depression 
Memory loss 
Difficulty in concentrating 
Mental conditions 
  
A very recent discovery shows that microwave radiation changes the
permeability of the blood brain barrier. Our brain has its own immune
system as does our body. The blood brain barrier keeps everything that is
designed to be kept within the brain inside it and protects the brain
from any unwanted diseases or chemicals which could harm it. Similarly it
allows out of the brain anything dangerous to the brain. The blood brain
barrier is rather like a sieve where only particles of a certain size may
go through. Professor Salford at Lund University in Sweden has shown that
such pulsing as from mobile phones can alter the permeability of the
blood brain barrier (Appendix 4, Reference 3). I will argue as TETRA
pulses, which is arguably more powerful than the average mobile phone,
this situation could be worse with TETRA. 
  
Also, it is shown that the electromagnetic radiation going into the body
can change the size of the particles moving around the body (Reference
4). This is rather like an ice skater spinning on her skates. With her
arms out she spins slowly, but if she pulls her arms in she spins faster.
Microwaves can affect the particles in our body by changing their spin;
hence their size. They can be made smaller or larger. With the changing
of the permeability of the blood brain barrier and the changing in size
of particles unwanted particles may enter the brain or necessary
particles may leave the brain. The connection here with mental conditions
is that Dr Hyland of Warwick University has written that the uptake of
drugs; in particular neurological drugs is inhibited because of changes
in the blood brain barrier. 
  
Neurological illnesses 
Headaches 
Dizzyness 
Fatigue 
Miscarriage, and 
Infertility 
  
I have listed all of the references on this particular research paper
because all of these researches correspond to the above list. 
  
The second paper I would like to comment on (Appendix 5, Reference 5) has
80 references and as well as a lot of the illnesses written in Dr
Cherry's paper goes on to mention that with regard to mobile phone
handsets you should avoid keeping the handset when switched on adjacent
to the body, in particular in the vicinity of the waist or heart. There
have been deaths due to colon cancer from the Royal Ulster Constabulary
who wore radio or microwave transmitters in the small of their backs for
extended periods of time. Dr Hyland recommends keeping the duration of
calls to an absolute minimum and on his back page relating to pulse
mobile phone radiation on alive humans and animals, the following may
occur: 
  
Epileptic activity 
Effects on human EEG 
Effects on blood pressure 
Depression of immune systems 
Increased permeability of the blood brain barrier 
Effects on brain electro-chemistry 
DNA damage in rodent brain 
Cancers in mice, and 
Synergistic effects with certain drugs 
  
Dr Hyland, in my opinion, is one of the world's leading authorities in
this area and his advice is not to be dismissed lightly. Similarly,
another very highly respected scientist is Dr Coghill. I would add that
both Dr Hyland and Dr Coghill are members of the Stewart Committee. 
  
Dr Coghill's paper which has 218 references (Appendix 6, Reference 6)
agrees largely with the work by Dr Hyland and Dr Cherry. In this paper,
Section 1.16, Dr Coghill writes "the ultimate question must be whether
chronic exposure to say 
1 V/m electric fields at the envisaged frequencies is likely to produce
adverse health effects in the long term. At present the NRPB guidelines
recommend an investigation level of 192 V/m while ICNIRP now offers much
lower levels. However these are based on thermal effects: if non thermal
evidence is accepted than 1 V/m is demonstrably able to induce biological
effects, some of which may be adverse". 
I will show in a later paper that TETRA delivers a lot more than the 1
V/m recommended as a maximum by Dr Coghill. 
  
Dr Coghill also, in his summary in the back, lists symptoms caused by
mobile phone use. Again, I will argue that as TETRA is pulsed and pulsed
radiation is arguably more aggressive than the continuous analogue wave
and TETRA uses more power than the ordinary mobile the symptoms will be
enhanced rather than be reduced for TETRA. The symptoms listed by Dr
Coghill are: 
  
Fatigue 
Headache 
Warmth behind the ear 
Warmth on the ear, and 
Burning skin 
  
My final paper by a very highly respected New Zealand doctor, Dr Eklund
(Appendix 7, Reference 7) which has 37 references shows leukaemia
clusters in and around ordinary radio and TV transmitters around the
world. She says on page 13 that adult leukaemia within 2 kilometres of a
transmitter is 83% above expected and significantly declines within
increasing distance from the transmitter. Similarly skin and bladder
cancers follow a similar pattern. As a scientist I could argue that if
leukaemia's' and cancers are known to exist from ordinary radio and TV
transmitters which take many years to form and radio and TV waves are at
the long end of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it is known that
exposure to gamma rays or x-rays can cause death within a matter of
weeks, a hypothetical line could be drawn from the long waves to the
short waves to determine the length of time or exposure doses needed to
cause such illnesses. Fitting into this pattern would be several years
exposure to sunlight causing skin cancer. There are obvious anomalies
with this; namely personal health, hygiene and all sorts of other
factors, but as a crude estimate I would argue that the further up the
electromagnetic spectrum you go, the shorter the time for the serious
illnesses to occur. The microwaves used by TETRA are above radio and
television waves. Being water-based animals we are particularly sensitive
to microwaves; this is why microwave ovens work. Microwave ovens resonate
the water molecules in food and when molecules resonate they re-emit the
energy they absorb as heat. This is why the food warms up and the plate
does not, because it does not contain water. 
  
The warmth on and behind the ear felt by users of mobile phones is one
type of heat. Another type of heat unknown to the user, therefore not
reported are hotspots within the body from microwaves. These hotspots are
tiny areas in the body which warm up considerably when exposed to
microwave radiation. The problem with warming up areas inside the body is
that a very recent research paper has shown that heat shock proteins are
produced to protect the cells in the body from damage. Heat shock
proteins act rather like scaffolding around a building; they go around
the cell and protect the DNA from damage from the heat. Heat shock
proteins have been known to work when the temperature rises by just 2
degrees. Now the problem with heat shock proteins is as well as
protecting the good cells they can also protect and save from destruction
cancer cells. So, if you have a cell in your body which is turning
cancerous and would normally be destroyed by the body's immune system,
the heat shock proteins will protect it and it will continue to grow.
This work was carried out by Dr David de Pomerai, of Nottingham
University (Appendix 8, Reference 8). 
  
A report on mobile telephones and their transmitters by the French Health
General Directorate, dated January 2001, states in its conclusion of the
group of experts that "a variety of biological effects occur at energy
levels that do not cause any rise in local temperature". The group ask
"is it possible to state that there are no health risks?" and they reply
"No". They go on to say "minimise the use of mobile telephones when
reception is poor, use an earpiece kit and avoid carrying mobile phones
close to potentially sensitive tissue, i.e. a pregnant woman's abdomen or
adolescent gonads". They recommend hospitals, day-care centres and
schools should not be directly in the path of the transmission beam. Also
and very important, they say "the cumulative exposure over their lifetime
will be higher ". The word cumulative is also mentioned by Professor
Sosskind and Dr Prausnitz in their paper (Reference 9) where they say "an
accumulated cellular level damage mechanism is not necessarily related to
the intensity but can relate to total dose Hence the averaging of weekly
exposure is a meaningful adverse effect related level". 
  
This accumulative factor puts a very different slant on doses of
microwave radiation. In particular an accumulative level of radiation can
build up very quickly when you receive 400,000,000 waves every single
second. This is why scientists are concerned and warnings have been
issued for people with pacemakers, hearing aids, insulin pumps in
relation to interference of their apparatus from electromagnetic waves.
Warnings are also given to persons with metal implants in their bodies.
These implants can a) warm up; and b) absorb the microwave radiation and
re-emit it at a different wavelength. I have been around the world
talking to scientists and we agree, although it cannot be proved, that
the recent incidents in breast cancers in ladies could be due to the
metal underwiring in bras absorbing microwave radiation and re-emitting
it at a different wavelength into the mammary glands of the breast. The
mammary glands are known to be particularly sensitive to radiation and
they are known to be easily changed into cancer cells. 
  
Following this line of thought, I would argue scientifically that using a
TETRA handset, remembering that if you are using a TETRA handset you must
also be receiving radiation from the main transmitter, i.e. you do not
just have the radiation from the phone you would have the radiation from
the transmitter as well, or the phone would not work, could enhance
breast cancer in the lady police officers. A similar argument follows
with the argument that the eyes receive 29% extra radiation because of
their moist make-up. Metal-rimmed spectacles will absorb the microwave
radiation and re-emit it onto the surface of the eye. Again, unproven,
but I can follow the arguments that support the two recent research
papers which have found increases in eye cancers in two separate areas of
the eye. One cancer has been found in the side of the eye, one cancer has
been found in the front of the eye (Appendix 9, Reference 10) (Appendix
10, Reference 11). 
  
As a result of using pulsed mobile phones, again I will argue that as
TETRA is more powerful than the average mobile there could be long-term
damage to the eyes of the officers using TETRA. 
  
A union document (Reference 12) printed 4 December 1979 for microwave
transmitters up to 100,000 MHz warns its members of the following
illnesses which may occur from accumulative exposure: 
  
Menstrual problems 
Miscarriage, and 
Problems of the eye, heart, central nervous system, reproductive organs. 
  
They say "a false sense of safety may exist and non-thermal effects are
much lower than have been recognised". The TETRA system of 380-400 MHz is
within this range of this union paper. I emphasise that these effects are
not new; they were being reported on as far back as 1979 and further on
in this paper I will show documents that relate to exposure effects going
way back to the early 1960s. A very important sentence in this research
paper states "non-ionising radiation increases molecular vibration and
rotational energies". I will refer to this further on in this document. 
  
  
INSURANCE 
  
Two of the worlds largest insurance companies, Lloyds and Swiss Re, have
recommended to other insurance companies on the advice of Dr Theodore
Litivitz, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Catholic University of
America, to write in exclusion clauses against paying compensation for
illnesses caused by continuous long-term low level radiation. My concern
for the police force, although adequately insured, is that if in future
years officers start claiming for spine or brain tumours the insurance
company will terminate its contract with the police force and leave it
uninsured. 
  
  
SURVEYS 
  
Two recent surveys printed in Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 1998,
Volume 9 and 2000, Volume 11; the first of a study of 11,000 mobile phone
users, the second a study of 17,000 mobile users showed the symptoms
already mentioned of fatigue, headache, warmth behind the ear, warmth on
the ear and burning skin in various degrees, depending on the use and
type of person. >From the 17,000 persons studied, these symptoms varied
from 31% to 78% of the users. If I take the lowest number of 31% as a
purely hypothetical exercise which is easily dismissed as rubbish, but
does give us a look at some of the numbers that could be involved; if we
take 100,000 police officers then 31,000 of these officers could
experience one symptom. Playing the numbers game, if these 31,000 that
experienced one symptom were to progress to a more complicated level,
let's argue 10% of them may develop a migraine or a headache or require
one day's sick we would have 3,100 officers taking a day's sick. If 10%
of those developed something more serious that required further sickness
we would have 310 officers off sick. If we take 10% of those and suggest
that something more serious may occur then we could be looking at 31
officers, or I would argue 31 families, per hundred thousand involved in
something which may develop into a serious medical condition. I stress
that this is hypothetical because it is very difficult to predict the
future for a device that has not been tested and there are no long-term
studies available. 
  
As an aside it was noted last year that the Public & Commercial Services
Union recommended to its 266,000 Civil Service members that they should
not be forced to carry mobile phones. 
  
  
GROUND CURRENTS 
  
A very little understood phenomena and reported by Dr D Dahlberg
(Reference 13) is ground currents from living in the proximity of
transmitters on animals. I mention this with a view to the police dogs
and the police horses in their kennels or stables at a constabulary base
which is bound to have a transmitter. All transmitters pass an electric
current to the ground beneath them. If the ground is particularly wet
this has an adverse static effect on the animals concerned and in farm
animals can effect milk productions or food production. Huge static
charges are built up in the animals and everytime they come across a
metal object the charge is discharged through the head; the nose being
wet. It has been shown that if animals are taken away from this
environment they recover very quickly, yet in the environment of ground
currents they also become very sick very quickly. I am particularly
concerned for the acutely sensitive brains and organs of the highly
trained police dogs. 
  
Three years ago when a lot of research papers individually were being
dismissed I decided to look at several of the main papers and show that
there was a knock-on effect in the body. I drew two flow diagrams showing
the knock-on effects from approximately 25 research papers to show that
even if one symptom is dismissed there can be an accumulative effect
throughout the body. The two flow charts - Appendix 11 relates to the
body and Appendix 12 relates to the brain, show clearly that our body
systems are very closely interlinked. 
  
Taking TETRA's lowest operating power level of 2W I wrote a hypothetical
equation, and being hypothetical it is very easily dismissed, which shows
that at the 2W cell activity may be accelerated by a factor of 6 or slows
down by a factor of 7.5. 
  
There are experimental papers which do in fact show that mobile phones
may speed up thought processes or may slow down cellular activity. I have
tried to explain this using theoretical physics. I based my paper on the
already previously mentioned accumulative doses and increased molecular
vibration (please see previous references). I am fully prepared to be
told that I am wrong or mistaken but I believe I can explain the process
by which energy once inside the body affects the cell potential (charge
on the outside of the cell), the signal transduction (movement from the
outside to the inside of the cell) and the cell cycle timing (the process
by which our cells operate). I have placed this calculation in Appendix
13. 
  
Often overlooked are the electromagnetic waves from the cables and
transformers of all electrical transmitters. These are usually in
cabinets near the transmitters, hence near offices or sleeping quarters
on constabulary bases or near kennels or stables. A research paper
published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in 1998 (Reference 14)
describes the 50 cycles a second waves emitted by transformers and power
cables, and how they may induce leukaemia. Although the NRPB and the
National Grid have denied that these waves are dangerous both this paper
and an article in the New Scientist dated 10 March 2001, page 7 which
reads "Guilty as Charged. Powerful fields from pylons and cables are
linked to childhood cancer", demonstrates to me scientifically that these
transformers and power cables should not be overlooked. 
  
  
THE CONCLUSIVE PROOF ARGUMENT 
  
The Government's scientists will often ask for conclusive proof when they
are challenged. It is a word often used when you wish to win your side of
the argument. Scientifically conclusive proof is impossible to obtain -
let me explain. 
  
I was at a legal hearing in Torquay representing a community and the
barrister representing the communications industry said "there is no
conclusive proof that these microwaves will cause damage". I argued: if
somebody stood up and shot me in this courtroom there would be three
levels of proof. You would have everybody as a witness and that would be
accepted in a Court of Law. A pathologist could perform a post mortem,
decide that the bullet killed me and that would be a second level of
proof. If, however you wanted conclusive proof that the bullet killed me,
you would have to argue that at the split second the bullet went into my
body every system in my body was working perfectly because there are
thousands of reasons why I could drop dead on the spot before the bullet
went in and you would have to prove conclusively that all of these
systems were working perfectly before the bullet went in. Clearly, this
is scientifically impossible; there is no such thing as conclusive proof,
yet it is what is demanded by government scientists when challenging
their decisions. 
  
Conclusive proof has been demanded by scientists defending their
decisions after they have said the following are safe: 
  
Thalidomide 
Asbestos 
BSE 
Smoking 
Sheep dip 
Gulf War Syndrome 
GM Foods and 
Vitamin B6 
  
With the above list it will be recognised that evidence of damage from
these comes only from counting the people who are injured. I am arguing
scientifically that there is a blanket denial by some scientists and the
only way to show them wrong is to present them with a certain number of
bodies. When commercial interests are at stake there seems to be a denial
of relevant scientific data. The problem with the microwave
communications industry is that they do not have to prove it is safe; you
have to prove it is not, and that is an entirely different ball game. As
a scientist, if I develop a new pill I have to run a 5 or 10 year
clinical trial and convince a Board of my peers that it is safe before I
have permission to release the pill onto the market. With the
telecommunications industry the tables are completely turned around. They
do not have to show these instruments are safe; you have to show they are
not. 
  
  
UNDERSTANDING RADIATION (MICROWAVE AS IN TETRA) 
  
There are unknown phenomena concerning low level radiation that is not
generally understood by the users of communication instruments. Following
the Chernobyl incident it was found that long-term continuous low level
radiation of all types was as dangerous as high level doses of radiation.
With high level doses of radiation the anti-oxidants in the body
(Vitamins A, C, E etc) rush to defend and repair the area of the body
being damaged. However with low level radiation the anti-oxidants are not
activated and because the dose is accumulative the problems can build up
and are usually present before the body realises that there is trouble.
So, low level does not necessarily mean safer. Also the smaller you are
the more you tend to absorb. Wavelengths for TETRA and mobile phones are
relatively short and the nearer the part of the body or the infant to the
wavelength the more similarity they have to an aerial and the more they
absorb. With ordinary mobiles the wavelength is around the size of a
foetus and with TETRA you are looking at a 3-6 year old child. I mention
this because TETRA may be used in areas where children are running around
and there are very well known and documented cases of pulse radiation
affecting epileptic children. 
  
Pulse radiation from TETRA at 17.6 Hz (waves per second) is known to
interfere with our natural brains rhythm. Our brains generate their own
waves within our head. One of these waves, called beta waves is on a very
similar frequency to the TETRA handsets. What happens is: If you could
imagine yourself jumping on a trampoline and somebody larger and heavier
jumps on and dances at a slightly different speed you will bounce at
their pace rather than yours. When they jump off you will still bounce at
their speed. The jumping on of the person onto the trampoline is known as
entrainment and this occurs when the TETRA is used in close proximity to
an officer's brain. Because TETRA affects the beta rhythm of the brain it
will affect what the beta rhythm is responsible for; namely sounds
judgement in emergency situations. Entrainment is always followed by a
phenomena called long-term potentiation. This is an analogous to the
person getting off the trampoline leaving you dancing. Long-term
potentiation has been known to last several weeks after the initial
source has died down. The implications for this are that the officers'
brain waves would continue to suffer entrainment even after the sets have
been switched off, which would be reinforced everytime the sets are
switched on again. 
  
The first paper written on this subject was by a scientist called Ptolomy
who was a Greek living in Egypt in 64BC. Ptolomy found that when he spun
a wheel with holes in up against the sun at different rotational speeds
he could induce different effects on the brains of his subjects. To get
an idea of the complexity of the brain, if you imagine every single
person in every single city in the world picking up their telephone and
dialling everybody in their phonebooks, that is roughly how many
connections we have in the brain. I will show later that even the Stewart
Committee advised against using any communication instruments that pulsed
above 16 waves per second. TETRA is of course 17.6 waves per second. 
  
  
MY SCIENTIFIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE NRPB 
  
>From a court case towards the end of 1998 Dr McKinlay was questioned in
court about the use of mobile phones. Dr McKinlay is a senior scientist
in the NRPB. It is known that roughly half of the NRPB's funding comes
from the industries it represents, the other half of its funding comes
from the Government. In court Dr McKinlay explained that data on tissue
conductivity was supplied to the NRPB by Dr Camelia Gabriel of Microwave
Consultants Limited. It transpired that virtually none of the NRPB
documents on non-ionising radiation are peer reviewed and that Dr
McKinlay himself had not authored any experimental studies. Dr McKinlay
admitted he had no biological expertise. Dr Camelia Gabriel is Director
of Microwave Consultants Limited and she reports to the Home Office and
the Health & Safety Executive. She is also Chairman of the European
Standardisation Body. 
  
To summarise, the NRPB subcontract research on microwave radiation to
Microwave Consultants Limited; namely Dr Camelia Gabriel. Dr Camelia
Gabriel is also a senior consultant for Orange plc and has authored
jointly with others the Orange Base Stations Health & Safety Manual
(please see Appendices 14 and 15). Dr Gabriel's son, also of Microwave
Consultants Limited, confirms the safety of transmitters for Orange plc
in school playgrounds (Appendix 16). This dual interest between Dr
Camelia Gabriel as representing the NRPB and Orange plc was picked up and
reported on, on 19 April 1999, by The Observer where Sarah Ryle writes
"concerns are increasing about industry's involvement in research. Some
of the NRPB's conclusions have been based on research by Dr Camelia
Gabriel, a technical advisor to network operator Orange and Head of
Private Consultancy, Microwave (Appendix 17). 
  
The problem as I see it is that when it comes to asking about safety
concerning TETRA or any other communication instrument there is not one
single independent person to give an answer. Every single person who has
a word to say about the safety of police officers is somehow in the "food
chain" going back to the communications industry. The communications
industry fund the NRPB and the Government who fund Microwave Consultants
Limited so every single person has a financial interest in recommending
the product. 
  
THE ABSOLUTE PARADOX 
  
Since the early 1960s this country, America and Russia have had what is
called the non-lethal weapons programme or synthetic telepathy programme.
It is very well documented now that in the early 1960s in Moscow the
Russians beamed continuous low level radiation (microwaves) down onto the
American Embassy causing miscarriages, leukaemia's and other illnesses to
the Embassy staff. Since then the non-lethal weapons programme has become
very sophisticated indeed. It is used a) as a long-term low level
radiation weapon to cause populations illness and b) at higher
intensities to cause blindness, heart attacks or confusion. Details of
all of the intensities are unknown to me but knowing that microwave
radiation is accumulative, any effect can only be a matter of time. In
quoting this research I refer to documents listed under Reference 15. So
sophisticated is this research, and I refer to Operation Pandora Joint
CIA/MI6 Operation since the 1960s, Operation Woodpecker USSR 1976,
Operation HAARP still running in USA; they are able to define specific
pulse frequencies to cause specific brain malfunctions or illnesses. For
instance: 
  
Frequency Illness Caused 
  
4.5 Paranoia 
  
6.6 Depression/Suicide 
  
11 Manic behaviour/Anger 
  
25 Blindness if aimed at the head/Heart attack if aimed at the chest 
  
Other consequences of frequencies used but not listed here are hysteria,
trauma, lust, murder and cancer, and may all be induced. 
  
The TETRA frequency is 17.6 Hz (waves per second) so as a scientist
looking at this data which is well publicised I ask myself, if the
illnesses moving up the frequency range are progressive and TETRA is
between the frequency of 11 and 25 on this table, what will be the effect
of TETRA's 17.6 waves per second on the brains of the police force? This
phenomena cannot be denied by the NRPB; it is listed in their own
document which I will refer to later in this paper, where on page 26 they
have described how at 8 waves per second animals can be made to fall
asleep and at different frequencies behave differently in various parts
of their brains. 
  
As this phenomena is written about by the NRPB for 8 waves per second I
would like to know what other research they have for other frequencies in
and around the TETRA range. 
  
HAARP, which is being researched by a nun, Dr Rosalie Bertell, who is
concerned about what it represents along with other scientists knows that
HAARP is capable of bouncing low level continuous microwave radiation
pulsed off the ionosphere to any community in the world and may cause
cataracts, leukaemia, changes in blood brain chemistry, changes in blood
sugar levels, blood pressure and heart rates. 
  
The paradox of course is how can one system of pulsed microwaved
radiation be used as a weapon to cause illness or death and at the same
frequency and unless close range, a similar low intensity be used as a
safe communications instrument. Following this research I fail to see how
TETRA can possibly be safe for the officers which use it. 
  
This argument is further reinforced by a Channel Four document (Reference
16) and I quote: "The telecoms industry has known about American research
suggesting there may be brain effects from TETRA for at least a year".
"The research suggests that TETRA radios may have a direct effect on the
brain's bio chemistry". "The researchers found that balance changed when
brain cells were exposed to pulsed radio signals". 
  
On page 4 it is quoted "the Government was warned about the issue last
year. The Stewart Report into mobile phones recommended research into
pulsed signals and suggested the technology be avoided As a precautionary
measure amplitude modulation (pulses) around 16 Hz should be avoided if
possible". He continues "what the frequency of 17.6 Hz is doing is
duplicating microwave weapons which you buy at arms fairs. So by holding
one of these devices to their heads they are putting a small microwave
weapon to their head everytime they use it". He finishes "but there is
enough to warrant asking why the system is being rolled out before the
proper research has been conducted into an effect which not only falls
outside all the existing regulations but which the Government advises on
mobile phones believes it important enough they recommend the technology
not to be used and which the military authorities apparently believe is
so powerful that they can design non-lethal weapons to disrupt the minds
of their targets". 
  
In Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 2001, Volume 11, Numbers 2-4, Page 9,
Simon Best says when writing about microwave crowd control weapons "after
20 years of rumours and speculation the Pentagon has finally confirmed
that it has developed a device as part of its joint non-lethal weapons
programme " He continues "in the UK many of the women protestors at
Greenham Common in the 1980s experienced symptoms that they attributed to
being zapped by microwave weapons from the US base". 
  
Reported in The Guardian, Tuesday 8 May 2001 (Appendix 18) Stuart Millar
and Stuart MacWilliam write "two independent experts on the biological
effects of electromagnetic radiation have accused Ministers of using the
police as guinea pigs by pressing on with the launch of the BT Airwave
System in the absence of detailed research into potential health risks".
They continue "last year Sir William Stewart's report on mobile phone
safety concluded that systems modulating at frequencies around 16 Hz
should be avoided if possible in future developments of signal coding".
They conclude "low frequency electromagnetic radiation was identified as
far back as the 1960s as a potential anti-personnel weapon when the
superpowers began conducting experiments into non-lethal mind control
devices". 
  
Low level pulsed signals have even been tried in the oceans. It was
reported (Reference 17) by Gibby Zobel that the whales and dolphins
beached themselves because their delicate navigation systems were damaged
by the low level pulses. This is not surprising as like us they are
mammals. The comment from the Minister at the time was "it's their fault
for being in that part of the ocean when they could have moved away". 
  
Reporting in The Sunday Express, 4 February 2001, Nick Fleming writes "BT
advise officers to turn off the handsets when they are near sensitive
hospital, breathalyser and speed camera equipment Officers are also being
advised to mount speed traps or breath tests only if the equipment is 35
ft from their handsets or 11 ft from radio sets in their cars". He
concludes "someone using a TETRA handset will be receiving between 2 and
4 times as much power or energy as if they were using a mobile phone. The
low frequency also means about double the penetration into the head". 
  
Another document (Reference 18), Mr Stevens quoting from a US Defence
document writes "if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in
the enforcement of stringent exposure standards there could be
unfavourable effects on industrial output and military functions". Listed
in this document are all of the symptoms we now come to expect with
long-term low level microwave radiation; for example "personnel exposed
to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more neurological
cardio-vascular and haemodynamic disturbances than do their unexposed
counterparts". Further down the document other symptoms include
hypertension, changes in blood, headache, fatigue, menstrual di 
  
  
ADDING UP ALL OF THE WAVES THAT YOU ARE EXPOSED TO 
  
An officer on duty may be exposed to his or her own handset, plus the
handsets of officers around, plus the transmitter, plus anything else
that happens to be on around them, i.e. vehicles. It may seem fairly easy
for people to think that all you have to do is add up the radiation from
each source, but in fact it can be very complicated and I would argue so
complicated that scientists have yet to agree on a standard formula. 
  
For example, when measuring the magnetic part of the wave in Norwich it
is known by some scientists that the maximum dose would be 0.4 units.
When the arithmetic average was taken it came out at 0.46 above the
danger level for the child. When the interested parties came and did
their measurements they got the reading to be 0.26 units below the safety
level; they calculated the geometric average. Clearly there is a
difference between 0.26 and 0.46. When measurements are taken and quoted
to you, you should always ask how the answer has been calculated and
check the figures. Other ways of measuring waves may be time weighed
average, constructive or destructive interference, the polarisation, the
nearfield, the farfield, the root mean square, the peak to peak, the
electric or the magnetic vectors; all of these are legitimate
calculations and in my opinion could be used to make a reading look more
acceptable if it was desired. 
  
In Appendix 19 I enclose an e-mail conversation by three eminent
scientists who are trying to agree on the best way to calculate multiple
waves. The multiple wave phenomena is of concern to me with regards the
health of the police officers, simply because I have yet to find anybody
who can say for sure the dose that each officer will be receiving.
Arguably if the dose cannot be calculated therefore the health of the
patients cannot be calculated. 
  
Reporting in Engineering, February 2001 Matt Youson writes about the case
where a man had a heart attack and in his journey to the hospital in an
ambulance the ambulance crew using their TETRA sets, affected his heart
monitoring devices which sadly resulted in the man's death. In an
exclusive report in the Manchester News 11 May 2001 Dianne Bourne quoting
the Head of Brain Surgery at NASA writes "the Head of Brain Surgery at
NASA has even said he would not consider holding one of these to his head
(with regards to TETRA). He said the net result is that the police are
guinea pigs". Writing in Issue 51 of Caduceus magazine, in an article
entitled 'Mobile Phones: The Pressure & Evidence Continues to Mount' by
Simon Best, he writes "certainly if mobile phones had been a new drug
they would never have got out of the laboratory". He continues commenting
on TETRA "a 420 MHz signal producing a waveform that maximises radiation
absorption for 3-6 year olds but also a pulse at 17 Hz right in the
brains' beta rhythm - 17Hz is close to the peak frequency that triggers
calcium e-flux in the brain which in turn affects apoptosis (programmed
cell death) which can initiate cancer development. Despite this there is
a complete lack of research on TETRA's possible health effects". He
concludes "consider that you are talking about cumulative pulsed
microwave radiation into your head, eyes and other organs possibly
everyday for the rest of your life". 
  
A Powerwatch comment dated 2 June 2001 reports in the first paragraph "as
far as we can find out virtually no meaningful biological research on the
effects of TETRA signals has been carried out. None of this is on humans
nor is any on brain functions". In a late study published this month by
The Independent entitled 'Mobile Phone Use Can Treble Risk of Brain
Tumour', Charles Arthur writes that a research paper studying 1,600
people by a cancer specialist at the University of Sweden will be
publishing his research paper on this data when it is finished. 
  
In 1997 the Health Council of The Netherlands Radio Frequency Radiation
Committee published their paper entitled 'Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz) (this is within the TETRA range). They warn of
interference to embryo development, hotspots inside the body, damage to
eyes specifically infants, elderly and the sick. They also comment on
interference to metallic implants and pacemakers. In Section 261 they
write "the effects of electromagnetic fields occur at lower powered
entities when the object is exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields". I
write this because TETRA is pulsed and most of the research which has
been done has been done on continuous waves. The inference from these new
research papers can only suggest that the symptoms will become more
serious as pulsed radiation is arguably more aggressive. 
  
In a recent paper (Reference 19) Dr Hyland who is also a member of the
Stewart Committee and of the International Institute of Biophysics in
Germany writes in Section 3 "the introduction of TETRA on the other hand
gives rise to an increased level of both thermal and non-thermal
concern". On page 14 Dr Hyland comments on the expression of calcium ions
from brain cells and on page 15 writes a chapter on the magnetic field
associated with current surges from the battery of the phone. Many people
do not appreciate that batteries can produce magnetic fields that go into
the body. 
  
  
THE NRPB DOCUMENT ON TETRA (Appendix 20) 
  
  
The Governments' NRPB produced their own document (Reference 20) which is
a report of an advisory group on non-ionising radiation and TETRA. Each
page I quote from I will photocopy and place in the Appendix so that the
reader may read the NRPB's research and the reader may compare my answer
to that research. 
  
On page 3 (Appendix 21) the picture shows the microwave signals labelled
radio signals as a continuous not-pulsed signal. I would argue that this
has been measured by the Cambridge researcher Alisdair Philips and has
been shown to be pulsed leaving the transmitter going to the officer. 
  
Page 4 (Appendix 22), Section 21 states "some radiation is also emitted
from the case". It does not say which type of radiation - electric or
magnetic or when the radiation is emitted, or the strength of the
radiation or what part of the body will receive most of the exposure. In
Section 22 "the main exposure to the body should be from the antenna and
case of the hand portable". The question arises where is the rest of the
exposure coming from and how much will there be? Section 24 refers to the
earphone. If an earpiece is used and the smallest possible imaginable
crack occurs in the earpiece radiation will have a direct path straight
through the auditory canal to the brain. The officer will not even have
the protection of the skull. In the rough and tumble world of a police
officer where earpieces may be frequently knocked, what protection is
there for the officer in checking that the earpieces do not leak? 
  
I would recommend that earpieces should be checked with very accurate
equipment for leaks at least on a weekly basis. The earpieces should be
of the highest quality possible and definitely leakproof. 
  
Page 5, Section 25 (Appendix 23) "the terminal is mounted inside the
vehicle and connected to an antenna mounted on the outside". My concern
is what sort of insulation is there inside the vehicle to protect the
officers from the terminal inside the vehicle. If the terminal inside the
vehicle is not sufficiently insulated from the officers they are
effectively sitting inside a microwave oven, except for the windows. 
  
Page 6, Section 26 (Appendix 24) shows that the useful range of a mobile
terminal (car) to a transmitter is 56 km. 56 km is a fairly powerful
transmitter and again I question if an officer is standing outside the
vehicle or inside the vehicle, how much research has been done on the
radiation levels being received by this officer? 
  
Page 7, Section 28 (Appendix 25); this diagram shows a vehicle being used
as a transmitting station to relay a message 56 km from a transmitter to
56 km to an officer. Again, I question how much insulation there is to
protect the officers from the radiation if they are to be used as mobile
transmitting stations? 
  
Page 8, Section 37 (Appendix 26); this confirms that the pulses are 17.6
Hz and 35.2 Hz or waves per second. I emphasise that the Stewart
Committee warned about using frequencies close to the brain above 16 Hz. 
  
Page 9, Sections 39/40 (Appendix 27) refer to a top output in the table
of 30 W and for hand terminals 3 W or 10 W for a vehicle mounted
transmitter. My concern is that with ordinary mobile phone transmitters
no sooner are they up when an engineer comes along and adds another
section, then another section and within a few years the original
transmitter is unrecognisable because of additional instruments. With
TETRA when it expands to cover all of the emergency services; possibly
traffic wardens, the new reserve police force, maybe even park keepers
and security officers, I am wondering whether these outputs may be
exceeded. In my own mind I find 3 W and 10 W outputs particularly high
when in proximity to a living being. If we look at Professor Cherry's
table (Appendix 27), it can be seen that in millionths of watts, the
long-term exposure can lead to various ailments. On this graph I have
drawn a line below which the TETRA power level applies. This is obviously
an estimate because when the handset is switched on, there is a surge of
power. If you are a long distance from a transmitter the power increases,
or on standby the power drops down. Due to the lack of research in
measuring TETRA in and around vehicles it is very difficult to place an
accurate estimate on this graph at present. Suffice to say that the power
on this table is in millionths of watts and Sections 39 and 40 are in
watts. For the reader I have enclosed a three page guide of reported
biological effects from low level radiation. 
  
Page 10, Section 44 (Appendix 28); the table shows that the TETRA
handsets are slightly more powerful than the ordinary GSM mobile phone
systems. This is the basis of one of my arguments that if TETRA is
pulsed, which is arguably more aggressive and powerful than the ordinary
mobile phone, the medical symptoms could arguably be more severe. 
  
Page 14, Section 61 (Appendix 29) reads "hence with TETRA the energy is
absorbed in a larger volume of tissue and so is less concentrated".
Scientifically I cannot decide whether it is better to have the energy
spread over a larger area or concentrated on a smaller area; I will have
to discuss this with colleagues. Also in Section 61 the NRPB write
"however, since the radiation from TETRA penetrates further into the head
", that I am particularly concerned about because the most delicate parts
of our brain are in its centre for maximum protection and if this is
where TETRA is going to reach then I have grave concerns. 
  
Page 15, Section 63 (Appendix 30) reads "VERY LITTLE INFORMATION EXISTS
ON THE SAR'S PRODUCED BY TETRA AND PORTABLES. NO NUMERICAL MODELLING
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT". SAR means Specific Absorption Rate and
refers to the heat generated inside that part of the body exposed to
microwave radiation. I mentioned heat earlier with regard to heat shock
proteins protecting cancer cells and to prevent damage to the DNA. I find
it absolutely beyond belief that the NRPB can admit they have very little
information on a system that is already being used and to say that no
numerical modelling appears to have been carried out suggests to me as a
scientist that no measurements have been taken to assess any medical
damage which may occur to the officers. What experimentation has been
done (Gabriel 2000), appears to have been carried out by Mr Gabriel of
Microwave Consultants Limited. As this research could possibly affect
what may turn out to be brain tumours or spine cancers for the lady or
gentlemen officers I would feel justified as a Police Federation in
asking which totally independent scientists not connected in any way to
the Government or communications industry peer reviewed this research
paper and what were there comments? 
  
Page 15, Section 65 (Appendix 30); this section explains that SARs could
be up to 4 times larger than those in table 6 above. If the reader looks
at the unit at the top of the table after SAR (Wkg-1), the reader can go
to Appendix 27 'Reported Biological Effects', and the reader will observe
one of the pages lists the medical symptoms expected from SAR doses. The
reader will notice that for an SAR of 2 or 3 W/kg, cancer acceleration in
the skin and breast tumours may be found. Coming back to the table it
shows for the left ear an SAR of 2.88 but in the document below it
explains that the SAR could be 4 times larger than this, i.e. you could
be receiving an SAR above 8. 
  
Page 11, Section 51 (Appendix 31) (NB: the NRPB bound document has pages
11-13 out of order and I cannot change this, and I apologise to the
reader). This table shows that the power output may reach 40 W from a
TETRA transmitter. My concern is that the officer will be receiving the
radiation from the transmitter as well as the radiation from the handset.

  
Page 16, Section 66 (Appendix 32); "the main exposure to the body is
expected to be at waist level from the antenna and base of the hand
portable". My concern with this is the reported cases of cancer of the
spine from officers who have carried their hand portables on their belts.
To my knowledge 4 deaths have occurred because of this. 
  
"Although there could be some exposure from the earphone if RF current is
induced in the cable ". When the signal goes from the handset to the
earpiece, electromagnetic waves are emitted from the cable, i.e. the
cable actually becomes its own transmitter. These waves would obviously
go through the neck and my concern is that they could affect the
sensitive glands within the neck. Another concern, but unproven, came
from a dentist who was concerned about the metal in peoples' fillings
absorbing radiation and re-emitting it up into the centre of the brain
where there is no protection from the skull. This is obviously a very
complex research area to go into but nevertheless I feel that this
dentist has a justifiable argument and one which should not be dismissed
without thought. 
  
Page 16, Section 67; "the situation is complicated by the metal body of
the vehicle. It is not evident that this could be relied upon to provide
shielding, since the non-conducting parts, e.g. windows of the vehicle
are comparable to the wavelength of the radiation". Scientifically what
this means to me is that there could be a considerable risk of
electromagnetic radiation for the persons either inside or just outside
of the vehicle. I find this incredible in so far as the risk is obviously
appreciated by the NRPB and yet, as they stated earlier, no numerical
modelling has been carried out. To me it appears that the risk in and
around vehicles has been overlooked. 
  
Page 16, Section 68; "the data in table 6 suggest that for both 3 W and
10 W vehicle mounted terminals the ICNIRP basic restrictions for the
general public could be exceeded if a persons' head were within a few
centimetres of a vehicle mounted transmission antenna for several
minutes". The question I ask is what if the call is some big disaster
emergency and the call may last longer than several minutes, or once the
system is upgraded you are waiting for pictures to come through? Have
calculations been done for say an accumulative 10 minute call? 
  
NB: The Police Federation may wish to ask whether the dose levels in
these tables are calculated as a geometric average or arithmetic average.

  
Page 16, Section 69; "at these power levels there will be regions in the
immediate vicinity of the base station antenna where guidelines could be
exceeded". My argument here is similar to the argument above. What if an
officer has to remain through duty in the vicinity of a base station or
transmitter where even the NRPB's high guidelines are exceeded or the
International Commission's guidelines are exceeded? These guidelines, as
shown in Appendix 1, are way above what the rest of the world recommends.

  
Page 18, Section 76 (Appendix 33); "no measurements appear to have been
made of the exposures received inside or outside vehicles with externally
mounted antennas". My simple question is, if officers are using what
could be potentially dangerous instruments, why have no measurements been
taken to assess their risk? I find this beyond belief. 
  
Page 26, Section 111 and 112 (Appendix 34). Here the NRPB agree that the
phenomena of non-lethal weapons exists because they say that with a
frequency of 8 waves per second into the brain, animals can be made to go
to sleep, or be stimulated at higher frequencies. To me this simple
statement by the NRPB verifies the non-lethal weapons programme as sound.

  
Page 29, Section 128 (Appendix 35); "HOWEVER THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THE
REASSURANCE THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE. IN PARTICULAR THEY DO NOT EXCLUDE THE
POSSIBILITY THAT RF RADIATION FROM CELLULAR PHONES MIGHT CARRY A RISK OF
CANCER THAT BECOMES MANIFEST MANY YEARS AFTER FIRST EXPOSURE OR THAT
RELATES TO INTENSE EXPOSURE OVER MANY YEARS. NOR DO THEY RULE OUT A
HAZARD FROM RF RADIATION MODULATED SPECIFICALLY AT AROUND 16 Hz". Here,
the NRPB are not ruling out that there may be a risk of cancer to the
officers in several years time. Also there could be a risk because of
TETRA's unique pulsing to the officers' brains. 
  
Page 29, Section 129; "further research is needed using modern molecular
and cellular biology techniques to assess the reliability of the positive
findings and to determine the extent and significance of any effects that
do occur". Scientifically to me, what the NRPB are saying is that they
need to do research to find out what effects TETRA will have on the
officers. 
  
Page 30, Section 133 (Appendix 36); "HOWEVER THEY DO NOT EXCLUDE THE
POSSIBILITY OF A RISK OF CANCER THAT APPEARS ONLY AFTER MANY YEARS OF
EXPOSURE, NOR OF A HAZARD FROM RF RADIATION MODULATED SPECIFICALLY AT
AROUND 16 Hz". This suggests that cancer and brain damage has not been
ruled out as a possibility of using TETRA. As an analogy, this seems to
me like a situation where I could go to my GP and ask for some tablets
and the GP can say, you can take these but there may be a risk of cancer
in several years time, I don't know, or a risk of brain damage. 
  
Page 31, Section 135 (Appendix 37); "A number of recommendations for
further research are suggested by the Advisory Group". My observation is
why wasn't this research was done before the system was introduced? This
puts officers' health at risk unnecessarily. 
  
"Proposals for experimental investigations of the possible biological
effects of specific TETRA signals modulated at about 16Hz". Again, I
suggest this should have been carried out before it was used on police
officers. 
  
"Further studies need to be carried out on effects of amplitude
modulation or pulsing on neuronal activity and on signalling within and
between nerve cells The likelihood of epileptic seizures could be
investigated ". If the NRPB are suggesting this now, my question stands,
why wasn't this research carried out before the officers began their
trials with TETRA? 
  
* Page 31, Section 135 - Section 5; "HUMAN VOLUNTEER STUDIES SHOULD BE
CARRIED OUT TO MEASURE CHANGES IN COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE ARISING FROM
EXPOSURE TO TETRA HANDSETS. THESE SHOULD INCLUDE EXAMINATION OF THE
EFFECT OF VARYING PARAMETERS SUCH AS THE DURATION OF CALLS, THE EXTENT OF
EXPOSURE, AS WELL AS SIGNAL CHARACTERISTICS". 
  
* Page 31, Section 135 - Section 6; "THE TETRA SYSTEM IS EXPECTED TO BE
DEPLOYED WIDELY FOR USE BY STAFF IN EMERGENCY SERVICES. THIS IS A
RELATIVELY STABLE WORKFORCE WITH DEFINED PATTERNS OF WORK. IT WOULD BE
WORTH CARRYING OUT STUDIES TO EXAMINE WORKING PRACTICES AND CONDITIONS OF
EXPOSURE TO RF RADIATION FROM TETRA SYSTEMS. RECORDS OF USE SHOULD BE
KEPT WHICH COULD BE OF VALUE IN ANY FUTURE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES".
Clearly this means that the police, although to my knowledge not
volunteers, as a regular and stable workforce are absolutely ideal for a
scientific study into the long-term effects of electromagnetic radiation
from TETRA. The NRPB will use all of this data as an epidemiological
study, as recorded in their own document. 
  
* Page 31, Section 135 - Section 8; "ONLY LIMITED INFORMATION IS
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE ON EXPOSURES FROM TETRA HAND PORTABLES. FURTHER WORK
IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON EXPOSURES FROM HAND PORTABLES
AND FROM ANY OTHER TRANSMITTING EQUIPMENT DEPLOYED FOR USE". My simple
observation to this statement is why? Why is only limited information
presently available on exposures if the system is up and running? There
has got to be a risk to the officers from unknown exposures. 
  
  
CONCLUSION 
  
If you take a complete overview of this entire document, I would suggest
that there is a lot of information which could suggest long-term low
level exposure to microwave radiation is harmful. However, science is
always about argument. I find it a very dangerous time when a scientist
insists that he or she is right. Scientists that have insisted they are
right (sometimes publicly) and have later to have been shown to be
incorrect are those concerning thalidomide, asbestos, BSE, smoking, sheep
dip, Gulf War Syndrome, GM foods, Vitamin B6, to mention just a few. So,
let us assume that I am wrong and let us assume that every single
scientist I have quoted in this report, which may involve thousands of
years of work accumulatively, is also wrong, just for arguments sake. My
argument is unchanged and my argument is simple. All I am suggesting is
that the ladies and gentlemen of the police force have the opportunity to
read both sides of this scientific debate with all of the literature at
their disposal and they, be allowed to decide whether or not they would
like to use the TETRA system. If every officer decides that they love the
TETRA system so much they want to take it home to bed with them, I do not
have a problem with that. All I ask is that the officers have the choice
where their long-term future health could be at risk. 
  
  
RECOMMENDATIONS 
  
* I would like to see a totally independent group of scientists, not
connected with the communications industry or the NRPB, be able to
represent the police force at th 
  
* Should TETRA become widespread, a long-term full indemnity insurance
policy should be guaranteed for the officers for any possible future
long-term risks. 
  
* That all major documents relating to TETRA safety be made available to
the officers of the police force along with how the figures were
calculated, i.e. which average was taken, which totally independent
scientists peer reviewed the papers, the comments of those scientists and
if necessary, the relative expertise of the scientist who carried out the
experiments and wrote the paper. 
  
I recommend this because when I applied to teach Advance Level Physics at
College, all of my degrees are personally checked and when we go camping
with College students, our mountain leadership certificates, life-saving
certificates, updates to those certificates are all scrutinised by the
parents. And I totally agree with this. I believe that if you are making
decisions pertaining to persons' safety or health, your qualifications,
background, experience should all be available for scrutiny. Also,
anything that you write should be checked by totally independent persons,
and their comments made available. 
  
* My final recommendation with all of the information I have to hand is
that the TETRA system be halted until further research on safety has been
carried out. This research be made available to the ladies and gentlemen
of the police force and not until they are satisfied with the safety of
the system, should it be implemented. In other words, I am suggesting
that the police have the final say in whether TETRA is introduced or not
to their force. I believe the ladies and gentlemen of the police force
should be credited with the intelligence they have to make decisions
regarding their own safety. Further, any scientific document written for
them to read should have full explanatory notes so that they can
understand any complicated scientific terms. 
  
NB: Before my lectures to the Police Federation and writing this report,
I submitted my full CV for their scrutiny. 
  
  
QUESTIONS 
  
* With all of the research written here showing dangers from electric,
magnetic, pulsed microwave electromagnetic fields, why with the officers'
safety at risk are we still sticking to our ridiculous safety limit,
which only measures heat? 
  
* Can more information be given to the officers on our Government's
non-lethal weapons programme concerning pulses into the brain around 17.6
Hz, or stored information from other research papers? 
  
* Can the signals from the transmitter to the officer be rechecked as
they are listed in the manual as continuous waves, whereas they have been
measured independently to be shown to be pulsed? This is important
because pulsed radiation is arguably more aggressive than continuous. 
  
NB: the following questions arise from the NRPB document on TETRA, Volume
12, Number 2, 2001, appendixed at the back of this document. 
  
* Section 21 - How much radiation, and of which type is emitted from the
case? 
  
* Section 24 - What safeguards are in place to guarantee that the
earphones are absolutely leakproof and with the rough and tumble world of
the police officer, how often are the earphones going to be checked for
leaks? Who will do this, and which type of apparatus will be used? 
  
* Section 25 - What experiments have been done to measure how the
officers inside the vehicle are insulated from the transmitting device? 
  
* Section 28 - If a police car is to be used as a relay transmitter,
again, what measurements have been taken to ensure the officers are
insulated from the electromagnetic waves? 
  
* Section 37 - Why is a pulsed frequency of 17.6 Hz being used when it is
known to interfere with the brains' beta rhythm and it was warned against
by the Stewart Committee? 
  
* Section 39/40 - If TETRA becomes widespread to all of the emergency
services, reserve officers, traffic wardens, security officers, what is
the expected output to be from handsets and the main transmitters?
Transmitters generally increase their power to cope with additional
calls. Will this be the case for TETRA? 
  
* Section 61 - Has a neurosurgeon been consulted to comment on the effect
of TETRA penetrating deep into the head? 
  
* Section 63 - Why does very little information exist on the SAR produced
by TETRA hand portables, why has no numerical modelling been carried out?
Can this be done before TETRA is used nationally? 
  
* Section 63 - Can all of the information relating to the experiments of
measuring radiation inside the head (Gabriel 2000) be made available to
the Police Federation for scrutiny, along with an independent peer review
assessment from scientists, totally unconnected with the NRPB or
communications industry? 
  
* Section 65 - If the SAR's could be up to 4 times larger than those in
table 6, what risk assessment has been carried out for officers receiving
radiation with an SAR of over 8 W/kg? Can this information be made
available to the Police Federation? 
  
* Section 66 - With the main exposure expected to be at waist level, what
research has been carried out relating this to the known deaths of
officers from spine cancer from carrying transmitters on their belts?
Could this research be made available to the Police Federation? 
  
* Section 66 - Has an ear, nose and throat specialist been contacted for
an opinion concerning radiation from the cable being transmitted into the
glands of the neck? If not, could this be done? 
  
* Section 67 - As vehicles cannot be relied upon to provide shielding for
the officers, can further improvements to insulate the officers be
recommended, then scientific studies carried out to test this insulation
and all data be made available to the Police Federation? 
  
* Section 68 - If international guidelines could be exceeded, what risk
assessment has been carried out for the officers and passers by who may
be using pacemakers, insulin pumps, have metal plates in their bodies, or
be epileptic? Could this risk assessment be made available to the Police
Federation? 
  
Similarly, for Section 69, concerning base station transmitters which
will also exceed guidelines. 
  
* Section 76 - Why have no measurements of exposures been made inside or
outside vehicles? Could these be done and the data made available to the
Police Federation along with how averages are calculated? 
  
* Section 128 - As the possibility is not excluded that TETRA might carry
a risk of cancer that becomes manifest many years after first exposure,
or there may be a hazard from the pulses around 16 Hz, would it be a good
idea to allow the ladies and gentlemen of the police force an opinion in
the decision making processes which may concern their long-term health?
Should these long-term health risks be published for the police force so
that, like members of the armed forces, they may volunteer to expose
themselves to possible danger? 
  
* Section 129 - As further research is needed, should this not be done
before TETRA becomes national, and can the results be made available to
the Police Federation for their scrutiny? 
  
* Section 133 - Again, the possibility of a risk of cancer after many
years of exposure is commented on along with the hazard of pulsed
radiation at 16 Hz. I repeat my observation that this risk assessment
ought to be made available with full consultation with the officers
concerned who will be using the system and that they should have the
final decision concerning their future health risks. Is this a
possibility? 
  
* Section 135, Section 2 - Has a neurosurgeon been contacted to assess
the risk of pulsing and its effect on the signalling mechanisms between
nerve cells? Could this report please be made available to the Police
Federation? 
  
* Section 135, Section 5 - Shouldn't the human volunteers study on TETRA
be carried out before its use becomes widespread? 
  
* Section 135, Section 6 - As an epidemiological study is recommended to
be carried out on the use of TETRA and its effects on "a relatively
stable workforce with defined patterns of work", shouldn't the police
officers be asked their permission if they are going to take part in what
is a long-term medical study which may result in a number of brain
tumours, spine tumours, eye cancers, heart disorders and many other
illnesses? 
  
* Section 135, Section 8 - Why is TETRA being used by officers if "only
limited information is presently available on exposures from TETRA hand
portables and further work is needed to provide more information on
exposures from hand portables and from any other transmitting equipment"?

  
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 
  
Although I have legal documents in my possession I do not have the
knowledge or confidence to even begin to try and explain legal words. I
would recommend the Federation's solicitor contact Mr Alan Meyer who is
in my opinion this country's leading authority on matters electromagnetic
and all of its relevant implications. I would add I do not have shares in
his firm nor do I receive "backhanders", in fact I have never met the
gentleman. Mr Meyer will be able to advise on Government
responsibilities, the human rights, civil rights and European Law. Mr
Meyer may be contacted at: 
  
Halsey Meyer Higgins Solicitors 
56 Buckingham Gate 
Westminster 
London 
SW1E 6AE 
  
Tel: 020 7828 8772 
Fax: 020 7828 8774 
  
Researched and written by B Trower, September 2001 
  
REFERENCES 
  
1. Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 2000, Volume 10, Numbers 3 & 4 
  
2. Evidence that Electromagnetic Radiation is Genotoxic: The implications
for the epidemiology of cancer and cardiac, neurological and reproductive
effects. Dr Neil Cherry, June 2000 
  
3. Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 2000, Volume 10, Numbers 3 & 4 
  
4. Extremely Low Frequencies and living matter - a new biophysics by Dr
Gilles Picard. Living matter and electronic devices 
  
5. Potential Adverse Health Impacts of Mobile Telephony Memorandum, Dr
Hyland, February 2000 
  
6. Are Mobile Telephony Base Stations a Potential Health Hazard? A review
of the present scientific literature, Roger Coghill MA (Cantab.) C. Biol.
MI Biol. MA (Environ. Mgt.), August 1998 
  
7. New Medical Evidence on Electromagnetic Fields and Health is Alarming:
Do no Expose Local People to Mobile Phone Base Stations, Dr D A Eklund,
BSc MBCHB MFPHM 
  
8. Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 1999, Volume 10, Numbers 1 & 2 
  
9. Effects of chronic microwave irradiation on mice, S Prausnitz & C
Susskind, 1962 
  
10. Scientists link eye cancer to mobile phones, Sunday Times, 14 January
2001 
  
11. Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 2001, Volume 11, Numbers 2 to 4 
  
12. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 80-107, 4 December 1979 
  
13. Understanding Ground Currents: An important factor in electromagnetic
exposure, Dr D Dahlberg, Consultant, The Electromagnetics Research
Foundation, Moorhead, MN56560/2118 
  
14. Electromagnetic Field-induced Stimulation of Bruton's Tyrosine
Kinase, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Volume 273, Number 20, 2
February 1998 
  
  
  
Stimulation of Src Family Protein-tyrosine Kinases as a Proximal and
Mandatory Step for SYK Kinase-dependent Phospholipase Cy2 Activation in
Lymphoma B Cells Exposed to Low Energy Electromagnetic Files, Journal of
Biological Chemistry, Volume 273, Number 7, 13 February 1998 
  
15. Nexus: Military Use of Mind Control Weapons, Judy Wall, Volume 5,
Number 6, November 1998 
  
  
  
The Encyclopaedia of Mind Control, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1997 
  
Secret & Suppressed, Jim Keith, Feral Press, 1993 
  
Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War, Dr Rosalie Bertell (Women's
Press) 
  
Mind Control & the UK (Remote Viewing), Tim Rifat, ISBN 0712679081 
  
Neurophysiologic Effects of RF and MW Radiation, Ross Adey, Bulletin of
the New York Academy of Medicine, Volume 55, Number 11, December 1979 
  
The Influences of Impressed Electrical Fields at EEG Frequencies on Brain
and Behaviour, Burch & Altshuler, Plenum Press, 1975 
  
Effects of modulated very high frequency fields on specific brain rhythms
in cats, Brain Research, Volume 58, 1973 (Also Volume 23, 1967) on low
frequency re-brain (Hippocampus) 
  
Non-Lethality: John B Alexander, the Pentagon's Penguin, by Armen
Victorian, Lobster June 1993 
  
16. Channel Four News, Radio System Safety Fears, 5 February 2001, Julian
Rush 
  
  
17. The Big Issue Environment Correspondent Gibby Zobel, New Navy Death
Risk to Dolphins & Whales, page 5, 12 March 2001 
  
  
18. Extracts from US Defence Intelligence Agency documents from 1972 to
1983, Donald Stevens, November 2000 
  
  
19. The Physiological & Environmental Effects of Non-ionising
Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr G J Hyland, February 2001 
  
20. NRPB Possible Health Affects from Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA),
Volume 12, Number 2, 2001 
  
  
Erratum Page 13 Hyland and Coghiill (they sent evidence to IEGMP but were
not actual members: JVM 28/9/2001) 
  
APPENDICES 
  
This online version of the report does not have the appendices, it was
commissioned for the Police Federation, if you require a copy of the
appendices email us 
  
Note the appendices are not suitable for sending by email, therefore a
postal address must be included. A minimum donation of £2 towards post
and copying appreciated. 
  
PLEASE NOTE: This version is complete (less appendices), the reason for
the difference in the number of pages is that in the original the lines
are double spaced (65 pages) in this HTM version the lines are single
spaced (20 plus pages). 
  
Download Word Version 
  
http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/reports/trower.htm<http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/reports/trower.htm> 
<http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php<http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php>> 
  
For More Information On These Dangers: 
  
http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php<http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/shadowgroup-l/attachments/20041129/a5464f04/attachment.html>