4,794
edits
Changes
no edit summary
In March 1978 the New York health authorities ordered human testing of blood, and a committee of physicians recommended drastic measures. The Governor declaring a State health emergency, closed the school, etc. Over the next years the EPA and New York health authorities expanded their area of concern to 36 residential blocks, and the Congress became involved in Joint Hearings when chromasomal damage was reported.
This landmark case led, in the last days of the Carter Administration (1980), to passage of the <B><U> [[Superfund]] ([[CERCLA]]) </u></B> laws which required polluting industries to jointly pay to clean up their own mess and they also set aside government funds for sites where it was impossible to identify the culprits. However it took five years of lax Reagan-Repubican Republican administration before the <B> ATSDR </B> (the agency charged with enforcing these rules) to be funded. <br> ''[Love Canal land was later remediated as a new suburb with a new name] [http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/6527.aspx] </TD> </TR> </TABLE>
However it appeared in a different journal under another name a few weeks later:
<hr width=30%>
<b>1992 April 10</b> It now carried the title '''"The Interplay of Science, Values, and Experiences Among Scientists Asked to Evaluate the Hazards of Dioxins, Radon and Environmental Tobacco Smoke"''' and it was published in the ''Risk Analysis'' journal.[https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/lqlb0123]
</div>
<b>1992 Apr 10</B > The tobacco industry law firm [[Shook Hardy & Bacon]] published in their newsletter, a double entry (also in Appendix A) on the study. This was a favourable criticism of the study in relation to its treatment of ETS under the heading: "Risk Assessment" - which was published the same day (April 10) as it appeared in the journal ''Risk Analysis.'' [Extraordinay efficiency perhaps !] [http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/htnn0042]
<hr>
<b>1992 May:</b> Carlo and Ian Munro joined forces to convene a task-force which produced a report on dioxins. This claims to be a definitive statment on the dangers of dioxin as home-use herbicides. They conclude that there aren't many. Who would have guessed?
<table width="100%" bgcolor="eeeedd" border=1 rules=all cellpadding=5 align=right>
<tr bgcolor="cccccc"><th>JOHN D GRAHAM AND THE HCRA </th></tr>
<tr><td> [[John D Graham]] later became President George W Bush's director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which gave him oversight on the spending of the major environmental and health regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc). Like Carlo, Graham has spent his life as another science-for-sale entrepreneur, but his line was the quasi-science of [[Risk Analysis]] which attracts generous funding from industry because it can be manipulated to produce whatever outcome the client requires. Graham spent a lot of time cosying up to the tobacco, food and chemical industries looking for work and grant-funding.
You'll find the Harvard group and John D Graham himself, prominentaly featured in the Phillip Morris document archives. He was also on [[Steve Milloy]]'s [[TASSC]] Advisory Board along with George Carlo, and he was involved from the beginning of the tobacco-funded Risk Assessment project called the 'Landsdown Panel' which was the foundation of the '''[[London Principles]]'''. Graham became a favourite anti-science activist for the Republicans, and they exploited his value to big business in a range of ways. </td></tr>
</table>
When the CTIA announced that the Harvard Risk Group would audit the science conducted by WTR, they didn't spell out what was meant by the term 'independent'. It turned out that Carlo's [[Health & Environmental Sciences Group]] Ltd. (supposedly a small company owned by Carlo himself) is the sole small company listed among a few very big and wealthy foundations and government departments in list of donors to the Harvard Center. [A donation of $26,000 was needed to be listed.] Here is the Center's list: <table width="100%" cellpadding=5 border=1 rules=all bgcolor="ebebdd" ><tr><th colspan=3>Restricted grants for project support have been provided by the:</th></tr> <tr><td>Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,</td><td><U>American Industrial Health Council</u></td><td>Andrew Mellon Foundation</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bradley Foundation</td><td>Brookings Institution</td><td>Congressional Research Service</td></tr>
<tr><td>'''<u>Health and Environmental Sciences Group</u>'''</td><td>National Institute of Justice</td><td>National Science Foundation</td></tr>
<tr><td>Trustees of Health and Hospitals; Boston</td><td>US. Department of Energy</td><td>US. Depart. of Health and Human Services</td></tr>
<tr><td>US. Environmental Protection Agency</td><td>US. Department of Transportation</td><td></td></tr></table><font color=green><br>: Pretty well all of the above organisations are regularly used by big corporations and industries to launder funds being passed to science-for-sale operators.</font><br>
What did the CTIA have to hide.? The donations listed above are quite separate from the payment for services which appears (presumably) on the WTR books for auditing services rendered. How can an organisation claim to be independent and arms-length when it is being funded surreptitiously by the organisation it is supposed to audit? In fact, John Graham, who runs the Harvard Risk Assessment Group also appears prominently in the Philip Morris documents, both seeking donations and working from for the tobacco company.
<hr>
<b>1994 early</b> Dr [[Soma Sarkar]] of New Delhi, publishes a paper suggesting that EMF can cause breaks in DNA strands.
<table width="100% cellpadding=5 border=1 rules=all bgcolor="ccccddebebdd"><b>1994 early</b> Dr [[Soma Sarkar]] of New Delhi, publishes a paper suggesting that EMF can cause breaks in DNA strands. '''The Lai-Singh evidence of DNA breaks'''<br>
<b>1994 mid:</b> Word leaks out that Professor Henry Lai and Dr Narendra Singh, from the University of Washington in Seattle, have found single and double-strand DNA breaks in the brain cells of live rats exposed to only two hours of low-power microwaves at 2.45GHz - the same band as the mobile phones. This is obviously going to be the story of the year.
They have been using a special research technique called 'comet assays' (Singh is the world authority on the technique) these . These two independent scientists had show an increase in damage to the DNA in rat brains after these relatively brief exposures to microwave radiation at frequencies just above those used by cellphones. An Indian doctor, Soma Sakar, had found similar problems in the DNA of cells, using a quite different analysis technique shortly before. </td></tr></table>
<b>1994 Feb 11:</b> The Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) officially becomes known as the "SAG on WT". In a later reported speech Carlo says:<blockquote><I>In 1994, the SAG changed its name to the Scientific Advisory Group on Wireless Technology as a reflection of its expanding research role in the areas of telecommunications technology and electromagnetic interference.(Carlo speech 1995).</i></blockquote>
Sadler says: <blockquote><I>"We do not believe that Motorola would put any one on camera" (Obviously they do not want to be in the front line themselves.)
"We must limit our corporate visibility and defer complex scientific issues to credible, qualified scientific experts. We have developed a list of independent experts in this field and are in the process of recruiting individuals willing and able to reassure the public on these matters. "<ref>(Norm Sandler to Michael Kehs)</ref></i></blockquote>
<hr>