Confidential Report On TETRA & Cell Phone Dangers in
By B. Trower
November 24, 2004
Secret Report On Cell Phone Dangers And Tetra
Confidential Report On TETRA Strictly For
The Police Federation Of England and Wales
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
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.
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
From this research paper some illnesses caused by long-term low level electromagnetic
Interference with bone marrow;
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.
Risk to leukaemia
Difficulty in concentrating
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
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.
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:
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:
Warmth behind the ear
Warmth on the ear, and
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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:
Gulf War Syndrome
GM Foods and
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.
Frequency Illness / Caused
11Hz/ Manic behaviour/Anger
25Hz/ 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
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
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
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
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
"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.
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.
* 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
* 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
* 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
NB: Before my lectures to the Police Federation and writing this report,
I submitted my full CV for their scrutiny.
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
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"?
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:
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,
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
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
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)
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
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
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).
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.