• 18 JUN 09
    • 0

    #1076: Cindy Sage on the Australian ELF standard

    From Cindy Sage:

    Repacholi is still trying to pay a buck and a $50 tip to cover a $1000 bar bill.

    Risky business. The only precautionary action that will save him from harm
    here is to vacate the premises before the bouncer catches him.

    Repacholi invokes the usual “thermalist vs non-thermalist” argument to make
    this 50-fold precautionary safety factor sound useful. Which would only make sense if it was
    50 times below exposures that show health impacts. It is not.

    Martin Blank and Reba Goodman’s work on stress proteins shows that ELF levels
    below 10 mG cause stress responses in cells. Not 1000 mG. Certainly not 3000 mG.

    Yes, John, we know the difference between ELF and RF, and
    how the ICNIRP recommendations were derived. Repacholi
    defends existing safety limits for both (ELF based on induced currents –
    and RF on heating effects), and even INCREASED ELF exposure levels to
    3000 mG with the same bar bill con.

    I rather liked some of John Lincoln’s other comments.

    Cindy Sage

    Leave a reply →

Photostream