Secret Report On Cell Phone Dangers And Tetra Confidential Report On TETRA Strictly For The Police Federation Of England and Wales (2)

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

Bagian Kedua

Source: http://www.rense.com/general60/tetra.htm

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.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php>

For More Information On These Dangers:

http://www.tetrawatch.net/main/index.php