November 4, 1999

Subject: Food Safety Files 1: Biotechnology companies face new foe: the Internet + LATEST Biotech News + Health risks associated with the use of cellular phones + CELL PHONE NIGHTMARE + Known EMF/ELF bio-effects

Hello everyone

Since I'm going out for the next few days - I'm going to take part in Montreal to a televised debate on GM foods - I thought it would be a good idea to send you some material to read on this subject (I added some stuff about the cellular phones too). So I have 2 large emails on that subject. Please feel free to circulate them to many others to make as many people aware of that threat to our food supply. It is time we take back responsibility with regard to what we eat and drink. Letting that to the FDAs of this world is simply much too dangerous -- because they are not there to protect us but to protect the interests of the rich people who bankroll the elections of their political pawns...

Take care

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000




From: joanne@inetex.com
Subject: October 4, 1999 - KIN Newsletter

(clip)

8. Biotechnology companies face new foe: the Internet

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Sunday, September 19, 1999 | 6:41 a.m.
By Bill Lambrecht

WASHINGTON - Analysts at Deutsche Bank in Germany came up with some grim
conclusions this summer about the financial prospects for genetically
modified crops, saying companies such as Monsanto were losing battle after
battle.

A few years ago, the German report never would have traveled outside the
rarefied air of global investors. But that was before the World Wide Web.

This month, a consultant in Idaho arranged for the bank analysis to be
posted on the Web, and in three days, thousands of people had downloaded
the 25-page report and further disseminated it around the globe. Critics,
farmers and people still making up their minds about the new technology
had a new piece of information.

The Internet is enabling mobilization like never before and, in the
process, giving biotechnology companies fits.

In recent months, St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. and its rivals in the new
science of genetically engineering food have watched in dismay as pockets
of protest have mushroomed. Europe and Japan are demanding the labeling of
modified foods. A trade war is brewing between the United States and
Europe. American farmers are wondering whether to continue sowing tens of
millions of acres with gene-altered seeds.

What is behind the recent developments? More people, especially Europeans,
are raising questions about environmental safety, potential health effects
and the power of the companies to determine the nature of food.

But perhaps no single factor looms larger in biotechnology's tumble than
the role of the Internet. The Web has given critics and skeptics the arena
to post studies, opinions and vitriol for the world to consume. E-mail and
listserves -- electronic mailing lists -- enable activists to work with
one another and to exchange scraps of information instantly. All the
activity leaves the impression, real or imagined, of a vibrant global
movement.

The "life science" companies and biotechnology devotees use the Internet,
too, and in time they hope that it will play a key role in convincing the
world that biotechnology can yield food that is not only safe, but better.

But as it stands, one powerful new technology may be functioning to stem
the growth of another powerful new technology.

The Idaho consultant who distributed the German report, Charles Benbrook,
contends that people who had misgivings in the past about farm and food
policies had no means to link up and reinforce their beliefs. The Internet
has changed all that.

"Activists can transfer fresh and important information around the world
with speed and ease," Benbrook said. "And that's something we've never
experienced before."

Changing policy

Until last year, the most public responses received by the Department of
Agriculture on a new rule was 7,000. Then Agriculture Secretary Dan
Glickman asked Americans to tell him what they thought of a new organic
foods policy that would let food that was genetically engineered,
irradiated or fertilized with sludge carry the government's new "organic"
label.

More than 250,000 people responded, mostly by e-mail, and the vast
majority said it was a terrible idea. Under the nearly completed rules,
genetically engineered food in the United States won't be labeled as
organic.

The Internet is becoming an important factor in politics and public policy
debates on a host of issues. Until recently, interest groups usually
consisted of associations with national memberships and slick magazines.
Now, with the Internet, people can mobilize and pressure governments with
the push of a button.

"It changes the presumptions of representative democracy," said Phil
Noble, a political consultant and founder of PoliticsOnline. "I think the
Internet is going to do for public policy what the telephone did for
lobbying."

People can be mobilized, too, in ways that don't give a true picture of
public sentiment.

"In literally a matter of hours, I can create an interest group of tens of
thousands on whatever my issue is right now, and mobilize them to send
mail, e-mail or even rotten eggs," Noble said.

Political scientist Michael Cornfield of George Washington University said
"cyberlobbying" soon will dominate grass-roots organizing because of its
speed and low cost.

"It won't level the playing field between those who don't buy access and
those who do, but it will make it easier for people to be involved in
grass-roots lobbying," he said.

Anti-genetic engineering forces seem to be finding it easy right now.

A PR headache

With a staff of five in the United States and Canada, the Rural
Advancement Foundation International has about 30,000 fewer employees than
Monsanto.

Yet RAFI's "Terminator" campaign has created a monumental public relations
headache for Monsanto and triggered anti-biotechnology sentiments around
the world.

The Terminator is the RAFI-coined name for a genetic technology that
renders seeds sterile so they can't be saved for the next crop. That way,
farmers must buy more modified seeds and pay the additional "technology
fee." The sterile-seed invention was patented last year by the U.S.
government and a Mississippi seed company that Monsanto is acquiring.

Using the Internet, RAFI has persuaded some of the world's leading
agriculture researchers and even the biotechnology-friendly Rockefeller
Foundation to condemn the Terminator on the grounds that it is unfair to
low-income farmers and might even be harmful if farmers planted them
unknowingly.

RAFI's Hope Shand said that the Internet has dramatically increased her
organization's power to reach people. In a recent 16-month period, she
said, RAFI had 1.3 million "hits" on its Web site, from which visitors
downloaded 455,000 pages.

"The Terminator campaign would never have been possible without the spread
of information on the Internet," she said.

Another Internet campaign torpedoed an effort by Monsanto in Bangladesh.
Last year, Monsanto agreed to give $150,000 to the Grameen Bank, which is
known internationally for giving loans to poor farmers. But after the bank
received a barrage of e-mail critical of Monsanto, the arrangement was
scrapped.

Distorting reality?

Dozens of groups - from the Union of Concerned Scientists to direct-action
proponents such as Greenpeace - use the Internet to work against
biotechnology.

Friends of the Earth and some of the biggest environmental advocacy groups
wage online global campaigns. An Internet drive to force mandatory
labeling of modified food is being waged out of Washington state.

Crop saboteurs, such as genetiX snowball in Britain, hook up with the
Direct Action Media Network and organizations that take a militant
approach to advocacy.

Then there's Mutanto, a Web site that parodies Monsanto's. Instead of
Monsanto's slogan of "Food, Health and Hope," Mutanto offers "Fraud,
Stealth and Hype."

The critics of genetic food are simply exploiting their Internet
advantage, said Michael Hanson of Consumers Union, which publishes
Consumer Reports. "The other side has just as much access, but they're
just not as good at it."

The "other side" thinks that the anti-biotechnology campaigners succeed on
the Internet through distortion: distorting the facts about safety and
creating the false impression that consumers, not just activists, worry
about modified food.

A relatively few activists have been able to create a sense of movement
that didn't exist before the Internet, biotechnology companies say. As a
result, news outlets and others believe there's more out there than there
really is, even though some of the anti-biotechnology sites get very few
visitors.

"It's a dual-edged sword," Monsanto's Jay Byrne said. "On one hand, the
Internet allows people with opinions or even spurious facts to share that
information broadly. But at the same time, it allows the public access to
scientific and academic information that so far has been generally
supportive of the technology. The challenge lies in discerning between the
two."

Monsanto uses the Web aggressively and has won awards for it, including
one this month from an agribusiness magazine for its French Web page. The
company tailors individual sites around the world to combat anti-genetic
food sentiments.

In the United Kingdom, Monsanto's Web site went so far as to offer a link
to Greenpeace and post critical press accounts of itself to stimulate
debate. Monsanto uses its British site to sponsor a public dialogue on the
outbreak of European incidents of crop destruction by protesters.

By the same token, detractors accuse Monsanto of exaggerating in
cyberspace biotechnology's potential to feed hungry people.

Despite the Internet's power and potential, both sides in the
biotechnology debate concede that it will come down eventually to people
sorting through issues themselves just like they've always done.

Benbrook, the Idaho consultant, said, "If the public doesn't believe what
is said, the fanciest Web sites and the biggest public relations campaigns
in the world won't amount to much."

====================================
Some Web sites in the biotech wars
( Of course, the group of "unlikely.suspects" does most of the work
networking and spreading both the word and critical analysis - most of
their stuff may end up on a web page but that's accidental !! MichaelP)

CRITICS

Union of Concerned Scientists. www.ucsusa.org
Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. www.thecampaign.org
Consumers Union. www.consumersunion.org
Friends of the Earth. www.foe.org
Rural Advancement Foundation Internationa. www.rafi.org
Jeremy Rifkin; Foundation on Economic Trends. www.biotechcentury.org
Greenpeace. www.greenpeace.org
Organic Trade Association. www.ota.com
Edmonds Institute. www.edmonds-institute.org
Ecologist Magazine. www.gn.apc.org/ecologist
genetiX snowball. www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/gs
"Mutanto." www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lean/nonsanto.htm


CORPORATE
Archer Daniels Midland. www.admworld.com
Monsanto Co. www.monsanto.com
Monsanto Co. United Kingdom. www.monsanto.co.uk
Novartis. www.novartis.com
Dupont. www.dupont.com
Agrevo. www.agrevo.com
Biotechnology Industrial Organization. www.bio.com
Food Biotechnology Communications Network. www.foodbiotech.org
The Grocery Manufacturers Association. www.gmabrands.com
National Food Processors Association. www.nfpa-food.org
Food Marketing Institute. www.fmi.org
Academic, government
Danforth Plant Science Center. http://danforthcenter.org/index.html
Missouri Botanical Gardens. www.mobot.org
U.S. Government Food Safety Site. www.foodsafety.gov
Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Information Resource.
www.nal.usda.gov/bic
UN Biosafety Information Network and Advisory Service.
http://binas.unido.org/binas/binas.html
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
http://www.fao.org/es/esn/biotech/TABCONTS.HTM

MISCELLANEOUS
National Corn Growers Association. http://www.ncga.com
Nature Magazine. http://www.nature.com
Science Magazine. http://www.sciencemag.org

Joanne M. Stephenson
The Social Activist's Site for World Peace
http://www.inetex.com/joanne

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for all good men to do nothing."

Edmond Burke




Biotech News, by Richard Wolfson, PhD

Reprinted with permission from the October 1999 issue of Alive:
Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition,
7436 Fraser Park Drive, Burnaby, BC V5J 5B9

Biotech Soybeans Deficient

New research shows that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans may be less
potent sources of phytoestrogens than their conventional precursors. The
research, published in the Journal of Medicinal Food (Vol. 1, no. 4, 1999),
reported an overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14 percent in
genetically altered soybeans, compared to non-GE varieties. Soy foods are
recommended largely for their dietary phytoestrogen content.

This research refutes claims that genetically engineered foods are
'substantially equivalent' to their non-GE counterparts. Genetically
engineered herbicide-resistant soy is already on the market in Canada,
unlabelled and mixed in with conventional varieties.

Industry Claims Torpedoed

New research by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that biotech
crops do not produce higher yields or result in reduced pesticide use, as
claimed by industry.

American experts studied biotech soy, corn, and cotton across huge tracts
of the U.S. farming belt, where both GE and non-GE varieties were being
grown. The researchers found no increase in yields from GE crops in 12 of
18 areas. In some areas, conventional varieties produced yields 10 percent
or more higher than comparable GE varieties.

In 7 of 12 areas studied, farmers growing biotech varieties used at least
the same amount of pesticide as those growing traditional crops. Farmers
growing Roundup Ready (herbicide-resistant) soybeans used 2 to 5 times more
herbicide per acre, compared to the other popular weed management systems
with non-GE soybeans. The research shoots down arguments that Frankenstein
foods could help stop hunger in the Third World, or are more
environmentally friendly.

Roundup Linked to Cancer

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Cancer Society
(March 15, 1999) showed that exposure to the herbicide glyphosate results
in increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer.

Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, is the world's most widely used
herbicide. Seventy-one percent of biotech crops planted in 1998 (including
biotech soy, canola, and corn) were genetically engineered to be resistant
to glyphosate or other herbicides. Herbicide resistant crops allow
increased use of these toxic chemicals to kill weeds.

Marks & Spencer First to go GE-Free

Marks & Spencer, one of UK's largest food chains, announced that it has
become the first major UK retailer to go completely genetically-engineered
food free. From July 1, all M&S foods were produced without GE ingredients
or derivatives. More than 5,000 ingredients made from soy and corn were
checked and changes were made to 1,800 recipes to strip all products of GE
ingredients or derivatives.

FDA Ignored Warnings

Records from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveal that in
approving genetically engineered foods, the agency ignored some of its own
scientists. These people repeatedly cautioned against GE foods because of
unexpected and untested toxins and allergens.

For instance, Dr. Louis Priybl of the FDA Microbiology Group, stated "There
is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from
traditional breeding and genetic engineering which is just glanced over in
this document." He added that several aspects of gene splicing "...may be
more hazardous."

Codex Fails to Approve Hormone

At a recent Codex (the international food regulating body) meeting in Rome,
governments failed to agree on an international standard on genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH). BGH is widely used in USA, where
it injected into cows to increase milk production. BGH is not allowed in
Canada or EU due to concerns for both human and animal safety.

Failure to agree on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for BGH means that
individual governments will maintain their freedom to decide whether to
allow BGH in their countries. Consumers International applauded the
decision not to approve BGH internationally as a victory for the health and
safety of consumers.

***

Greenpeace and Council of Canadians Expose Food Industry Double Standards
On Genetically Engineered Food

Toronto, September 27 /CNW/ - Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians
today called on the country's food retailers and producers to give
Canadians the same environmental and health protection that Europeans
receive and take genetically engineered (GE) foods off retail shelves.

At a news conference in front of a Loblaws supermarket, the
organizations released documents from ten international food companies who
have taken genetically engineered ingredients out of their products in
Europe, but refuse to do so in Canada. The companies include: Nestle,
Kellogg's, Mars, Heinz, Cadbury, Kraft, Unilever, General Mills, Campbells,
and Frito-Lay.

Greenpeace campaigner Michael Khoo said: ``Food producers and
retailers cannot justify this double standard. These letters show that it
is possible to give the consumer GE-free food. If genetically engineered
food is not fit for Europeans, it is not fit for Canadians either,'' he
said.

Responses gathered from three major Canadian food chains (Loblaws,
Sobeys and Safeway) also revealed a refusal to provide consumers with
GE-free choices. These also contrast with statements from Britain's top
supermarket chains, Mark's & Spencer, Sainsbury's, Safeways', and Tesco
which pride themselves on providing customers with GE-free food.

The groups called on consumers to pressure Loblaws to remove GE
products from ``President's Choice'' and ``No Name'' brand products, phase
out GE from all other products in the store; ensure that all fresh produce
remains GE-free and, in the meantime, label all GE products on the shelves.

``Genetically engineered foods have not been proven safe for human
health and the environment. As the largest grocery chain in Canada,
Loblaws has the obligation to take the lead, and take genetically
engineered food off the shelf,'' said Jennifer Story, health protection
campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

The groups assembled grocery carts with a wide range of popular
Canadian food brands that probably contain genetically engineered
ingredients: processed foods made with soya bean by-products (lecithin),
chips and cereals made from corn, and oils made from canola. According to
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, approximately 60-75% of all Canadian
processed food contains GE ingredients.

Both groups noted scientific concerns that the planting and consumption
of genetically engineered foods has gone ahead with no long-term government
testing for heath or environmental impacts.

Elizabeth Abergel, a molecular biologist working on food regulatory
issues at York University, said, ``The timelines necessary for proper
assessment of environmental and human health risks are being compromised by
a commercial desire to rush this to market. If a threat develops, we won't
know until it's too late.''

For further information: Greenpeace: Mary MacNutt: 416-597-8408 or
271-8408 (cell) or Michael Khoo: 416-569-8408, Council of Canadians:
Jennifer Story (cell in Toronto): 613-795-8685, John Urquhart (613)
233-2773 ext. 230, Elizabeth Abergel: 416-486-4763. Note to editors:
Footage of genetically engineered crops and foods available.




Thanks to NLPWessex for posting this:

CATTLE WON'T EAT GM GRAIN

"The humans will eat this stuff, but the animals won't."
--U.S. farmer, ACRES, USA Special Report 19 September 1999.

After four months of retrieving anecdotes from Kansas to Wisconsin, I think
its high time to sample the producer community more thoroughly to see how
many stories there are out there.

Tell us more about the hogs that wouldn't eat the ration when the GMO crops
were included. About the farmer who said ' Well, if you want your cattle
to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO silage.'

About the farmer who said that his cattle broke through an old fence and
ate down the non-GMO hybrids but wouldn't touch the Round-up ready corn,
and as a matter of fact, "They had to walk through the GMOs to get to the
Pioneer 3477 on the other side."

About the cattleman who saw the weight-gain of his cattle fall off when he
switched over to GMO sources. About the organic farmer with a terrible
deer problem on his soybeans, and when he drives out at night there are
forty of them mowing down his tofu beans while across the road there isn t
one doe eating on the Round-up Readies.

About the raccoons romping by the dozen in the organic corn, while down the
road there isn't one ear that's been touched in the Bt fields. Even the
mice will move on down the line if given an alternative to these 'crops'.

What is it that they know instinctively that most of us ignore? I have been
travelling around with a bag of contaminated cob corn on the floor of my
vehicle, and I have begun to think of it as if it was a bag of plutonium. "

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed for research and educational purposes only. **




Date: 99-10-20 06:02:39 EDT
From: dave@asheville-computer.com (Dave)
Subject: Health risks associated with the use of cellular phones

ABC News has issued a press release announcing that its 20/20 show on
possible health risks associated with the use of cellular phones will air
on Wednesday night, October 20th at 10pm, Eastern time.

ABC tested a number of mobile phones and measured how much microwave
radiation would be absorbed by a user. According to the press
release, four out of five phones tested exceeded the U.S. federal government limit in at least one position.

On the following night, October 21, French television station France
2 will air its own show on mobile phone health risks. Note that Paul Kenyon, who
is listed in the credits, was the reporter on the BBC Panorama program on
health risks which aired on May 24 of this year.

Here is what is posted on the France 2 Web site: (translation by Jean Hudon)

Mobile phones : Warning! Danger!

A report from Olivier Galzi, Philippe Jasselin, Paul Kenyon and Neil Higginson.

In France, more than one person out of four owns a mobile phone and there are 300 million users worldwide. When considering such an explosive growth of mobile phone use, there is a question that pops up more and more frequently: Could the cellular phone be dangerous for your health? Scientists are increasingly worried. Recently, an investigation by the BBC has raised much concern on the other side of the Atlantic. Our Special Envoy team has conducted its own investigation. We have found new evidence as to the possible effects of the ultra-low frequencies emitted by mobile phones (until recently these frequencies were considered to be harmless). As more and more studies are done, many of them show that the mobile phone do have detrimental effects on our health resulting in a dysfuntion of our stress regulation system. All those studies prove that there is an interaction between the cellular phone and close-by living organisms. The manufacturers of those phone deny any such link and do not seem to take heed of the warnings scientists are giving to them. "It's the same story as for the tobacco industry all over again." according to physician Ross Adey, from the Riverside University in California. "I think they are trying to fiddle with the data to conceal the truth", says professor Lai from the University of Washington in Seattle.

Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Phone: 212-517-2800; Fax: 212-734-0316
E-mail: <mwn@pobox.com>, Internet: <www.microwavenews.com>
Mail: PO Box 1799, Grand Central Station
New York, NY 10163, U.S.A.




Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999
From: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list CORP-FOCUS <corp-focus@essential.org>
Subject: Cell phone nightmare

CELL PHONE NIGHTMARE
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

Ready for a real scary Halloween story?

Remember the Larry King Live show in 1993 on cell phones? David Reynard
was the guest. He had filed a lawsuit against NEC, a cell phone operator,
and other companies, alleging that his late wife's brain tumor was caused
in part by her use of a cell phone.

The Reynard's lawsuit was dismissed in 1995, but Reynard's appearance on
the show created nationwide concern. At the time, there were 15 million
Americans using cell phones.

The day after the Larry King Live show, the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association (CTIA) went on the offensive. Industry executives
said that there were thousands of studies that proved that wireless phones
were safe. In fact, there were no such studies about cell phone safety.

But CTIA understood the basic reality of the situation, and so it decided
to spend $27 million over the next six years on health studies.

They hired George Carlo, figuring he would be a perfect fit. Carlo is a
public health scientist, who had a good track record as an industry
researcher. Most of his clients over the years have been industry clients,
and few have been disappointed with his work.

In 1994, Carlo began conducting studies to determine whether cell phones
pose a health risk to consumers. Four times a year, Carlo would trudge
over from his Dupont Circle office in Washington, D.C. to the offices of
CTIA to debrief the CEOs of the major telephone and electronics firms that
make up the $40 billion a year mobile phone industry. And things went
well, until 1995.

In 1995, Carlo found that digital phones were interfering with cardiac
pacemakers.

"We then conducted about $2.5 million worth of research to quantify that
problem, and as a result, I had somewhat of a falling out with the
industry," Carlo told us this week. "They didn't like that finding." The
industry cut off Carlo's funding.

But through a process of negotiation, Carlo got back in. The industry
would again fund his studies, but only if he agreed not to research the
questions of defibrillators and digital phones, and of cell phones and
automobile safety, and he could no longer work on a very extensive program
to standardize the methodology for testing whether or not cell phones met
industry-defined standards.

Carlo said that it took him two months to decide that he needed to
continue the work, even under CTIA's conditions, and so he did.

What he found may prove to be the cell phone industry's worst nightmare.

He found that the risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor of the auditory
nerve that is well in range of the radiation coming from a phone's
antennae, was 50 percent higher in people who reported using cell phones
for six years or more. Moreover, that relationship between the amount of
cell phone use and this tumor appeared to follow a dose-response curve.

He found that the risk of rare neuro epithelial tumors on the outside of
the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant increase, in
cell phone users as compared to people who did not use cell phones.

He found that there appeared to be some correlation between brain tumors
occurring on the right side of the head and use of the phone on the right
side of the head.

And, most troubling, he found that laboratory studies looking at the
ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic
damage were definitely positive, and were following a dose-response curve.

Carlo said that he has repeatedly recommended that the industry take a
pro-active, public health approach on the issue, and inform consumers of
his findings. He says that he uses a cell phone, but only with a headset.

"Alarmingly, indications are that some segments of the industry have
ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have
repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all
consumers, including children, and have created an illusion of responsible
follow up by calling for and supporting more research," Carlo wrote in a
letter to top industry CEOs this month. "The most important measures of
consumer protection are missing: complete and honest factual information
to allow informed judgment by consumers about assumption of risk, the
direct tracking and monitoring of what happens to consumers who use
wireless phones, and the monitoring of changes in the technology that
could impact health."

Carlo is also troubled by a recent agreement between Elizabeth Jacobson,
the person in charge of cell phone regulation at the Food and Drug
Administration, and Thomas Wheeler, executive director of the CTIA. Under
the agreement, CTIA will fund the FDA to do additional safety studies.

Carlo says that in 1994, Jacobson refused such a cooperative research
agreement, because she didn't think she could both collaborate with the
industry and regulate it. (Jacobson, through a spokesperson, denies taking
this position.)

"This arrangement is wrong, plain and simple," Carlo told us. "The FDA's
behavior is appalling to me. The FDA seems to be more than willing to jump
in bed with the industry. It is a blatantly arrogant attempt to join in a
relationship that is a conflict of interest on its face. The reason it has
not been criticized is that people don't know about it. Consumers are
being left out to dry."

The FDA's Russell Owen says that the FDA has not regulated cell phones
because "we don't have sufficient evidence to determine that there might
be adverse health effects from cell phones."

Sorry Mr. Owen, but in this instance, we agree with the industry's guy.
(That's a scary thought.)


Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The
Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common
Courage Press, 1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org)

(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman


Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
and Robert Weissman.

Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
corp-focus@essential.org. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail
message to listproc@essential.org with the following all in one line:

subscribe corp-focus <your name> (no period).

Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at
http://lists.essential.org/corp-focus.




From: jeff.gordon@wellnow.com
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999
Subject: (fwd,emf) Known EMF/ELF bio-effects

**Remote Viewing** by Tim Rifat $17.99 hardback Published by Century 1999
ISBN 0-7126-7908-1

The Rifat book provides:
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA documents obtained under US Freedom of
Information Act).

Which show:
Biological effects of electromagnetic radiation (radiowaves and
microwaves) Eurasian Communist countries, March 1976.

"The documents show that similar frequencies and intensities as found in
mobile phones were used as psychotronic weapons by the Soviets. The
document, dated March 1976, shows that the dangers were known about over
20 years ago."

These DIA documents show that microwave frequencies similar to those of
cellular phones can cause health problems in the following areas :

1. Blood
2. cardiovascular System
3. Cells
4. Central Nervous System
5. Digestive System
6. Glands
7. Metabolism
8. Reproduction
9. Visual System
10. Internal Sound Perception

4. Central Nervous System. extract....... " Subjects exposed to microwave
radiation exhibited a variety of neurasthenic disorders against a
background of angiodystonia ( abnormal changes in toncity of the blood
vessels). The most common subjective complaints were headache, fatigue,
perspiring, dizziness, menstrual disorders, irritability, agitation,
tension, drowsiness, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness,
and lack of concentration."

Appendix 111. (27) Note : 1982, US Navy confirms that Soviet ELF signals
are indeed psychoactive and can cause mental depression at 6.66 Hz and at
11Hz can lead to manic and riotous behavior in humans.




BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE