Have you seen this? 6GHz brain injury case....
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Libby Kelley <[hidden email]> Date: Aug 22, 2007 9:17 AM Subject: Fw: Alaska Supreme Court finds RF biological effects To: cheemf <[hidden email]> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2007 7:37 AM *Subject:* Alaska Supreme Court finds RF biological effects A print version is available in PDF format at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/press/index.htm [image: []] *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE *August 22, 2007 Contact: Janet Newton - The EMR Policy Institute Tel: (802) 426-3035 Email: [hidden email] * Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award for RF Radiation Injury Below Thermal Exposure Level * The Alaska Supreme Court (Court) upheld the decision of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board (Board) awarding an AT&T equipment installer 100% disability as a result of his workplace electromagnetic field exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation at levels slightly above the FCC RF safety limit. The award was based on the psychological and cognitive effects of RF radiation over-exposure. This decision is significant because the FCC RF limit is designed to keep people from being heated and ignores evidence of other adverse biological effects at much lower levels. The RF radiation exposure level in question was well below the FCC's recognized level of "thermal" harm. The FCC contends that there are no scientifically established harmful health effects below the thermal threshold. The Board decision agrees with the medical experts who found adverse health effects from this RF radiation exposure which occurred above the FCC safety limit but *below *the thermal threshold. This decision could have a very significant financial impact on the wireless industry going forward. The Alaska Supreme Court found that: * Because substantial evidence supports the board's findings and because the board's procedural decisions did not deprive AT&T of due process, we affirm the superior court's judgment that affirmed the board's ruling. *This precedent-setting case opens the door for any wireless industry or maintenance worker who has been exposed to antenna arrays on the job site that have not been shut off to file disability claims should they suffer similar cognitive and neurological symptoms. US wireless service providers are not required to document compliance with FCC RF safety limits by on-site radiation measurements. Millions of workers occupy worksites on a daily basis where operating antenna arrays are camouflaged and where no workplace RF safety program is carried out. The complete text of Alaska Supreme Court OPINION No. 6139 - July 6, 2007 is found at: www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/index.htm * * BACKGROUND * *AT&T worker John Orchitt suffered a slightly elevated RF exposure while installing new computer equipment at a job site where he believed that the amplifier had been turned off before he and his co-worker entered the job site. When the co-worker's safety meter registered its highest level of RF exposure the two workers realized that there was a problem. They discovered that the engineer who had provided the specifications for their job had misidentified which amplifier* *needed to be turned off. Orchitt was exposed to a six gigahertz signal operating at approximately 90 watts. Immediately after the accident, Orchitt experienced headaches and eye pain. Later he reported complaints of "mental slowing." His neurologist ordered an MRI examination which showed "tiny areas of hypersensitivity in the frontal lobes." The neurologist referred Orchitt to Dr. Marvin Ziskin, professor of radiology and medical physics at Temple University. Dr. Ziskin is also a member of the IEEE"S International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES). Using information that Orchitt provided, Dr. Ziskin concluded that Orchitt had been overexposed to RF radiation. Orchitt sought treatment at the Brain Injury Association of Alaska. His care provider there issued an opinion stating that he was suffering from a cognitive disorder due to his RF radiation exposure. She provided him with ongoing rehabilitation therapy to address his continuing complaints of mental slowing and mood changes. She also referred him to Dr. Daniel Amen, psychiatrist, who performed a SPECT scan with measures blood flow in the brain to identify functional changes. Dr. Amen concluded that Orchitt had some decreased brain activity as well as depression, and given the history, attributed these neurological impairments to Orchitt's RF radiation exposure. Numerous subsequent examinations were carried out by the panel of doctors retained by AT&T and also by independent experts retained by the Board, including computer modeling of Orchitt's RF exposure by Dr. Arthur Guy, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at the University of Washington. Guy has done extensive work in the area of the biological effects of RF radiation. Guy's comprehensive calculations of the "worst case scenario" produced an exposure that was approximately 9.5% over the FCC's exposure limits, but "not enough to cause biological effects." At the conclusion of the hearing process the Board's decision and order found that Orchitt had been exposed to excessive amounts of RF radiation. The Board decided that Orchitt's mental deficits and depression were the result of the overexposure. He was awarded temporary total disability and medical benefits. AT&T appealed to the superior court which affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that AT&T's due process rights had not been violated. AT&T appealed the superior court's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court. Along with arguing that it was not accorded its due process, AT&T argued that none of the experts upon which the Board relied had sufficient expertise in RF radiation exposure to be able to connect Orchitt's overexposure to RF radiation. The Alaska Supreme Court decision cites previous case law and states: * The board has the sole power to determine witness credibility and assign weight to medical testimony. When medical experts disagree about the cause of an employee's injury, we have held that as a general rule "it is undeniably the province of the Board and not this court to decide who to believe and who to distrust.' * The Court concluded that: * The board did not abuse its discretion in its procedural rulings; it therefore did not deny AT&T due process. Because substantial evidence exists in the record to support the board's findings, we AFFIRM the superior court judgment that affirmed the board's rulings. * ####### Janet Newton, President The EMR Policy Institute P.O. Box 117 Marshfield VT 05658 Tel. & FAX: 802-426-3035 [hidden email] www.emrpolicy.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Administrator
|
> *Subject:* Alaska Supreme Court finds RF biological effects
That's very interesting... I wonder if it will be overturned by the US Supreme Court? :-) Marc |
This is very interesting. I'm going to forward that on
to the solicitor for the tank man, I've got his fax number. A 90 W was it exposure would do you no good at all, it is a wonder the individual didn't get rapid borderline blindness. Marc my probes weren't small enough to measure that GS meter and do logging, the pins were quite small and I was brushing across the board. Got insulating gloves now, more probes and spec coming in. Re what you said Mark about Furman's and linearity of filtering. GS filters target 10k- 150k. Previously, this was an unregulated region. People building say a fridge or a phone could spill as much noise into that region as possible as long as they kept the higher frequencies noise free. This region was a dumping ground. A filter takes energy from one region and dumps it into another. I have seen quite a number of filters that actually amplify noise in the GS region of 10k- 150k according to their specs, while cutting it down higher up. A more thorough GS or a cheaper Furman is a great idea. More investigation required to see if this is relevant. For those with the cash. For some time its been an idea to attach real military strength filters- called 'Facility filters'- that cut every thing above 14k down to no radiation after the filter, onto the switch board of houses- for say diabetics. There are some technical hurdles regarding electrocution risk, but they can be overcome. From these recent results there are some indications that good after market appliance filtering may be good. So Paul's dell monitor causing problems on extermal power supply. Several possibilities. One is noisy inverter in brick using 3 feet of power cord as an aerial for the switching frequency. Slight chance wrapping that length of cord from the monitor to back past the brick in shielding, copper tape wrapped each turn half overlapping the previous, might make a difference; or bundle the cable into a non looping bundle and then wrapping it in (fabric from lessemf or tin foil) and tape. Thanks Paul for Roger Moller, I hope he can follow my writing on the national archives thing. I see Eli's toroidal transformer minimizes stray fields, the fields being wrapped up inside the transformer, leading to less emissions from his 'brick', and I might guess also less conducted from his power supply given his design issues. Out, Rowan C. --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > > *Subject:* Alaska Supreme Court finds RF biological effects > > That's very interesting... I wonder if it will be overturned > by the US Supreme Court? :-) > > Marc > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |