-Caveat Lector-
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: emfguru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999
Subj: June 1999 Memorandum on Cell Phones and Health
by Dr. G.J. Hyland
.......We are indebted to Eva Marsalek (Vienna, Austria) for
providing the following......
I am forwarding it in its entirety because I want to ensure that
it is widely circulated -- which might not happen if I merely post
it on my website. (I will do that also.)
Until something better is produced, I believe it ought to be
regarded as the definitive statement on the subject.....
(As a suggestion to help in understanding this paper, it might
help to go again and read the "Understanding EMF" paper that is on
guru's website <http://www.emfguru.com> filed under "EMF ??".....
Dr. Hyland is talking about the consequences of the physical
phenomenon that is described there.)
Cheerio....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness..
NEW!!! Website <www.emfguru.com>
................People are more important than profits..............
____________________________________________________________________
Gerard Hylands paper was presented at the "Non-Ionising Radiation
Conference" organised by the International Radiation Protection
Association in Cologne, Germany, Sept 27 - Oct 1, 1999.
____________________________________________________________________
MOBILE PHONES AND HEALTH INQUIRY
MEMORANDUM
by
Dr G J Hyland
Department of Physics
University of Warwick
Coventry, UK
and
International Institute of Biophysics
Neuss-Holzheim
Germany
18 June 1999
PERSONAL STATEMENT
Since 1985, I have been involved with the interaction of
non-ionising radiation -- specifically MICROWAVES -- with living
organisms, actively developing the novel ideas of H. Fröhlich, FRS,
who, 30 years ago, first predicted that adequately metabolising
living systems themselves support a coherent microwave activity.
During the last 18 months, I have been applying my findings to the
question of potential health hazards posed by mobile telephones and
their associated base stations.
I am recognised as an international expert in this field, and have
published numerous articles and papers -- dealing not only with the
microwave sensitivity of living systems, but also with the emission
from them of coherent, ultra-weak light (biophotons). I am
regularly invited to speak at international conferences, at
meetings of Professional Bodies (such as the Institution of
Electrical Engineers), and on radio and television, both national
and international. My work is frequently reported on in the Press,
and has recently been the subject of articles and features in
numerous international magazines, including the New Scientist.
Given my vantagepoint from theoretical biophysics, I believe that
I am uniquely qualified to assess the problem in its entirety,
thereby being able to offer invaluable insights that might not
otherwise be available.
SUMMARY
Attention is drawn to the inadequacy of existing safety guide-lines
governing the exposure of the public to radiation of the kind used
in mobile telephony, and to the fact that the philosophy underlying
the formulation of these guide-lines is fundamentally flawed.
This is because only established, reproducible effects are
currently considered to constitute an acceptable basis for the
formulation of safety guidelines; this restricts the effects
against which some degree of protection is afforded to
intensity-based heating. For, being independent of whether the
irradiated object is dead or alive, they can be predicted with
certainty.
Thereby excluded, however, are possible adverse health effects
provoked by the ability of living organisms -- and only living ones
-- to respond in an non-thermal way to aspects of this radiation
other than its intensity -- specifically its frequency -- both the
microwave carrier and the lower frequency amplitude modulations
that characterise the digital signals employed by the GSM system.
The dependence of these effects on the aliveness of the organism
necessarily means that they cannot enjoy the same degree of
reproducibility, as do those that are not so dependent. This does
not mean, however, that they do not exist, or that they should be
excluded from the formulation of safety guidelines; indeed, the
very real possibility that they might trigger adverse health
effects must be seriously considered. The empirical fact that such
radiation is known to have deleterious effects on both the
neurological and immunological functioning of living organisms
including humans is consistent with this possibility.
Systematic experimentation is urgently needed, not only in order to
be able to identify more precisely the parameters governing
non-thermal influences of ultra-low intensity microwave (and low
frequency modulated) irradiation of living organisms, but equally
important, to ascertain the nature and severity of any adverse
effects on human health thereby provoked. Some interim measures
are identified to ameliorate the unnecessarily hazardous situation
currently prevailing in the vicinity of the base stations that
service the mobile phone network.
1. Existing safety guidelines governing exposure of the public to
the radiation employed in mobile telephony are totally inadequate,
and the philosophy underlying their formulation is fundamentally
flawed.
2. Existing guidelines regulate only the intensity of the
radiation in an attempt to protect the human body from adverse
health effects which are known to be linked to intensity -- namely,
a) the absorption of energy by biological tissue which, in the case
of microwave irradiation, causes heating, or b) the induction in
the body of circulating electric currents, in the case of exposure
to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields. Both these
effects have been well understood for almost a hundred years, and
always occur -- irrespective of whether the irradiated system is a
living organism or a piece of inanimate matter. Existing safety
limits are set [1] by restricting the intensity to ensure that the
temperature rise, or induced electric currents are kept well below
the thresholds of the onset of established bio-negative effects.
Although the existing safety guidelines are clearly necessary, they
are quite inadequate. For they completely fail to consider the
possibility of adverse health effects linked to the fact that
living organisms, and only living ones have the ability [2] to
respond to aspects of technologically produced radiation other than
its intensity, and, accordingly, can respond at intensities well
below the limits imposed by the safety guidelines. A well-known
example of this is the ability of a stroboscope -- even at quite
low intensities -- to induce epileptic seizures.
3. The crucial discriminating feature of technologically produced
radiation (whatever its intensity) -- which is necessary if it is
to carry information -- is its coherence, the degree of which is
significantly higher than that characterising radiation of natural
origin, such as sunlight, to which Mankind has evolved a certain
immunity. This immunity does not, however, extend to the much more
coherent radiation of technological origin, to which we have only
relatively recently been exposed. Coherence is a concept that is,
of course, familiar in the context of lasers, whose light, due to
its coherence, is in-step (in phase) with itself, and thus
particularly pure in frequency (colour), and hence far more potent
than that from an ordinary lamp. This potency still obtains in the
case of the much less intense radiation emitted by other devices,
in particular, those employed in mobile telephony, whose coherency
greatly facilitates its discernment by the living organism against
the level of the ever-present (incoherent) thermal background
emission appropriate to its own physiological temperature, i.e. the
coherence of the radiation significantly increases its potency to
affect living organisms.
4. The ability of living organisms to respond to external coherent
radiation arises because they are electromagnetic instruments of
great and exquisite sensitivity, that themselves support a variety
of highly organised, coherent electrical activities, each
characterised by a specific frequency, which play important roles
in maintaining the organisation and control of the living organism
[3]. This natural (endogenous) coherent electrical activity
preconditions the living organism to be highly sensitive to
external, coherent electromagnetic radiation in a non-thermal way
that is not primarily dependent on its intensity (brightness), but
rather, on its frequency (colour) which, as already noted, is
sharply defined.
5. The reality of adverse bioeffects not primarily dependent on
intensity is well illustrated by the ability (already mentioned) of
a light flashing at a certain frequency (between 15 and 20 times
per second) to induce epileptic seizures in certain susceptible
people. It is the digitisation into regular pulses that
effectively makes the light (which is naturally incoherent)
coherent, the regularity of the pulses evidently being close to
that of an important brainwave activity, interference with which
provokes the seizure. It is not so much a question of the amount
of energy absorbed from the irradiating field (which is determined
by its intensity, or brightness) but rather the information
transmitted by the (coherent) regularity of its flashing -- at a
frequency that the brain recognises, because it matches, or is
close to one utilised by the brain itself.
6. Somewhat less well known is the fact that the microwave signals
used in the digital GSM system of mobile telephony similarly flash
217 times per second, and that this flashing is punctuated at the
much slower rate of 8.34 per second -- a frequency that happens to
lie in the range of the important alpha brainwaves! Given that
both light and microwaves belong to the same electromagnetic
spectrum, differing only in their frequency and degree of
coherence, there is no reason to suppose that the deleterious
effect of a flashing visible light does not extend to microwave
radiation flashing at an equally low frequency, since this can
easily penetrate the skull. (The effect of this punctuated
flashing can easily be detected as a crackling sound when a
turned-on mobile phone handset is held near a switched-on radio
receiver). That it is surely unreasonable to suppose that our
brains should somehow be immune to this electromagnetic aggression
is pointedly emphasised by the prohibition on the use of mobile
phones in aircraft, on the grounds that their signals might
interfere with the planes control systems. Given the infinitely
greater electromagnetic sensitivity of the alive human organism,
it would be paradoxical if the same radiation did not similarly
interfere with our own neural processes, whether we are in the
(far) field of a base station mast, or the (near) field of a phone
antenna.(*)
---------------------------------------------------------------
(*) In this connection, it should be pointed out that when a
handset equipped with discontinuous transmission (DTX) is in
listening mode, there is an even lower frequency pulsation at
2Hz. This is of particular concern since it falls in the range
of the so-called delta brain-waves which, if present in the EEG
of awake adults, are symptomatic of neural pathology, and
therefore should not be promoted by exposure to radiation of
this frequency. On the other hand, brain activity at this
frequency also characterises deep sleep, so that reports of
tiredness experienced during the day are perhaps not
surprising. In children, by contrast, delta waves are normal,
and thus, again, should not be disturbed by external
interference. Current safety guidelines thus fail to take into
account the most discriminating feature of all namely the
aliveness of the organism being irradiated!
7. Even less well known is the fact that adequately metabolising
living organisms can themselves support another kind of organised
(coherent) electrical activity, the frequency of which happens to
fall in the microwave band [2], to which the carrier frequencies
used in mobile telephony belong. Again, just as a relatively
slowly flashing (visible) light can affect certain
(electro-chemical) neurological processes characterised by the same
frequency, so living systems have a preconditioned sensitivity also
to ultra-weak microwave radiation; thus, in addition to a
sensitivity to the low frequency (8Hz) punctuation of the microwave
flashes used in mobile telephony, the human organism could well be
sensitive also to the colour of these flashes (i.e. to the
microwave carrier frequency). Accordingly, there is the
possibility [4] of either a resonant amplification (perhaps to a
dangerously high level) of an internal biological electrical
activity, or interference with it, resulting in its degradation.
It is also possible for external radiation to augment the naturally
prevailing level of metabolism, and, after a sufficient time, to
thereby effectively switch on an internal microwave activity that
Nature did not intend to be on; this requires a certain minimum
threshold intensity that is, however, well below thermal levels.
8. It is thus apparent that existing safety guidelines (which
address only thermal effects dependent on the intensity of the
field) do not, and cannot protect against any adverse health
effects that might be allied specifically to the wave nature of the
radiation, such as its frequency (colour), coherence (purity of
colour), amplitude modulations, etc. Clearly there is another side
of the coin to be taken into account -- just as, in addition to
photography (an intensity dependent process), there is also
holography (a process intimately related to the wave nature of
light, specifically its phase). It must be stressed, however, that
these other possibilities depend on the organism being alive; for
it is through its vitality that it is sensitised, just as a radio
has to be switched on before it can respond to a signal. Effects
due solely to intensity, by contrast, do not require the organism
to be alive, i.e. are not specific to living systems; for example,
a microwave oven will cook a piece of (dead) meat, just as it will
a (living) animal.
9. In turn, whilst the aliveness opens the system to certain
features to which it would not otherwise be sensitive, it also
means, however, that any particular non-thermal effect cannot be
predicted to occur with the same absolute certainty as that with
which thermal effects dependent solely on intensity can -- against
which existing safety guidelines attempt to protect. In the case
of these non-thermal effects of microwave radiation, even the
occurrence of the primary, initiating interaction cannot be
predicted with certainty, since unlike the intensity-based heating
effect, it depends on the aliveness (e.g. metabolic rate) of the
irradiated subject, which, in general, varies from person to
person. The situation can be likened to the difference between
putting ones hand a fire (which can be definitively predicted to
cause burning), and having contact with a flu virus, the
consequence of which cannot be uniquely predicted -- whether one
catches the flu depending, amongst other things, on the robustness
of ones immune system, which, of course, varies from person to
person; similarly, in the case of an epidemic, not everyone
succumbs.
This, of course, has serious implications on the acceptibility of
the philosophy underlying the current formulation of safety
guidelines by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and
other regulatory bodies -- namely, that they can be based only on
established, reproducible effects. The intensity-based heating
effect of microwave radiation, of course, conforms to this
criterion, since being independent of whether the irradiated
organism is alive or dead, it can be predicted to occur with
certainty. Necessarily excluded, however, are effects contingent
on the aliveness of the human organism -- in particular, the
non-thermal effects discussed above, that, in principle, cannot
enjoy the same degree of reproducibility; this does not mean,
however, that they do not exist! Accordingly, the prevailing
philosophy must be considered to be fundamentally flawed!
The same is true of statements to the effect that there are no
established health hazards of radiation of sub-thermal intensity,
since, unlike thermal effects, only the possibility of any
initiating non-thermal influence can be meaningfully spoken of.
The traditional understanding of cause and effect is thus no longer
appropriate here, and must be replaced [5] by the more modern idea
of signals and responses -- a concept familiar in sociological
contexts, where the response of different people to the same signal
can vary enormously, particularly if in one person it strikes a raw
nerve, that is absent in another.
It is thus clear that effects not allied to intensity inevitably
slip through the net of existing safety guidelines, which, of
course, raises the question as to how a more comprehensive level of
safety might be ensured. Before considering this, it is necessary
to assess the status of evidence -- both theoretical and
experimental -- consistent with the potentiality of living organisms
to be adversely affected by ultra-low intensity radiation.
10. Firstly, it is to be noted that the preconditioned
hypersensitivity of adequately metabolising living organisms to
ultra-weak microwave radiation of a particular frequency is a
quite general prediction of modern biophysics [2], reflecting
the self-organising ability of open, dissipative systems in the
non-linear regime far from thermodynamic equilibrium, whereby once
the rate of metabolic energy supply exceeds the rate at which the
system can turn it into heat, a certain fraction of this energy is
(non-thermally) channelled into a highly organised (coherent)
collective vibration of the whole system, wherein it is stored and
effectively protected against dissipation -- the frequency of this
vibration being in the microwave band.
Secondly, much experimental evidence has accumulated over the past
25 years that is consistent not only with the existence [6] of this
endogenous microwave activity, and with associated non-thermal,
highly frequency-dependent influences [4] -- such as, for example,
alterations in the growth rate of E.coli [7] and yeast [8],
synchronisation of cell division [9], the switch-on of certain
genetic processes [10], alteration in the activity of important
enzymes [11], etc. -- but also with the fact that other organised
electrical activities in quite different frequency ranges, such as
brainwaves [12], can likewise be influenced in a non-thermal way
by external fields, (amplitude) modulated to a similar frequency;
in addition, there are numerous reports of other non-thermal
influences of the radiation of the kind used in mobile telephony,
such as effects on human blood pressure [13], depression of the
immune efficiency of human leukocytes (white blood cells) [14],
increases in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier [15],
increases in calcium efflux from brain tissue [16], and most
dramatically, a significant increase in the mortality of chick
embryos [17].
Finally, there are the numerous reports (that display a remarkable
consistency world-wide) of adverse health effects experienced both
by users of mobile phones and by people resident in the vicinity of
the associated base stations, the most common complaints being
those of a neurological nature, such as effects on short-term
memory, concentration, learning, sleeping disorders and anxiety
states [18], as well as increases in the incidence of leukemia [19].
It is clear that the laboratory findings(*) referred to above are,
in general, consistent with the reported adverse health problems.
Given this degree of circumstantial evidence, research effort must
now be directed towards understanding the extent to which the
reported adverse health effects can be considered to be actually
initiated by some primary non-thermal influence of an ultra-low
intensity external electromagnetic field on the human organism,
and, further, to consider whether adverse health effects other than
those already reported might also be provoked.
The present situation is summarised in the attached Figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(*) It should be stressed that experimental difficulties
encountered in independent attempts to reproduce these findings
are not unexpected, but indeed reflect the non-uniqueness in
the response of living organisms mentioned above. It must be
appreciated that not only are these experiments extremely
difficult in themselves, but also that the relatively large
numbers of variables involved in the full characterisation of
the living organism (not to mention deterministic chaos [20])
militates against the realisation of the identical conditions
necessary to ensure reproducibility. In many cases, positive
results were only obtained, with considerable patience and
effort, after many initial failures. Since the odds are so
stacked against a positive result, the realisation of one
must be considered to be rather significant.
11. Taken individually, the evidence from each of the four sectors
might well be considered less than compelling, but when considered
together, a rather interconsistent picture emerges from which it is
clear that the issue of non-thermal effects can no longer be
responsibly dismissed as an epiphenomenom, but is indeed a reality
which cannot be reasonably denied -- a reality which mandates
firstly its recognition by regulatory bodies, and secondly, that
serious and urgent attention be given to how the public might be
better protected against any associated adverse health effects,
so that the benefits of modern telecommunication technology can be
enjoyed with a higher degree of safety than is currently the case.
Before this can be done, however, much more research into these
subtle effects is required, specifically:
A. Further studies at the level of the primary interaction of
ultra-low intensity microwaves (including pulsed ones) with living
organisms -- along the lines already persued in the laboratory,
using lower forms of life for experimentation [7-11] -- aimed at
obtaining a much better understanding of the ability of such
radiation (of sub-thermal intensity) to influence, non-thermally,
biological processes both at a cellular and sub-cellular level,
addressing, for example, the magnitude of the (sub-thermal)
threshold intensity and duration of irradiation necessary to
achieve the switch-on of various processes, and the dependence of
these processes on the frequency of the radiation.
B. Much needed physiological studies, to establish the nature and
extent of any adverse effects on human health provoked by the
primary non-thermal influence of ultra-low intensity radiation on
the living organism [12-17].
12. Meanwhile, several courses of action can be identified that
would go some way to ameliorating the (unnecessarily) hazardous
situation currently obtaining in the case of base stations:
(i) Ensure that the field strengths to which the public is so
indiscriminately and involuntarily exposed are kept well below the
threshold values referred to above, which are 1000 times lower than
thermal levels, being of the order of microwatts/cm2 ( = µW/cm2 ).
This will, of course, also lower the energy in each pulse, and can
be achieved either by locating the antennae on much higher masts,
or by introducing an exclusion zone, such as the one of 500 metres
recommended (but not legally enforceable) by the Association of
Local Governments of New South Wales (NSW), Australia; clearly,
mast height can be traded against the extent of any exclusion zone.
It may be noted, in connection with NSW, that the safety limits
there recommended (but again not legally enforceable) are the most
stringent in the world -- being 1000 times lower than 1µW/cm2.
By comparison, the NRPB value of 3300µW/cm2 is one million times
higher! Furthermore, the NRPB value is more than 7 times higher
than that (450µW/cm2) of the International Commission on
Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP [1]) who advise the World
Health Organisation, whilst the EU has recently recommended a value
of 10µW/cm2.
(ii) Prevent localised areas of unnecessarily high fields by
prohibiting the future erection of clusters of masts in the same
vicinity, and requiring that existing clusters be replaced by a
single tall mast serving the various companies. In considering
Planning Applications, attention should be given to the proposed
site of a mast in relation to the local topography, so as to ensure
that in hilly terrain, for example, there are no homes, schools,
hospitals or any other public buildings that are occupied for any
appreciable period of time on a level with the emitting antennae.
Furthermore, the antennae distribution on the mast should be such
that the highest possible emission in any direction (taking into
account the maximum call traffic) is, in publicly accessible areas,
well below the 1 microwatt/cm2 threshold value.
(iii) Remove from the digital signal any low frequency (amplitude)
modulations that fall in the range of the human brainwaves.
************************************
REFERENCES
1. Health Physics, 74(4), 494-522 (1998)
2. H. Fröhlich, Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, 53,
85-152 (1980)
3. C.W. Smith & S. Best, Electromagnetic Man, J.M. Dent & Sons
Ltd, London, 1989
4. G.J. Hyland, Engineering Science and Education Journal, 7(6),
261-269 (1998)
5. C. Brauner, Electrosmog a Phantom Risk, Swiss Reinsurance
Company, 1996
6. S.J. Webb et al., Phys. Letts, 60A, 267-268 (1977); ibid., 63A,
407-408 (1977); ibid., 69A, 65-67 (1978); Physics Report, 60(4),
201-224 (1980); V.S. Bannikov et al., Doklady Akad. Nauk. 253(2),
479-480 (1980); F. Drissler & L. Santo, in Coherent Excitations in
Biological Systems, (Eds. H. Fröhlich & F. Kremer),
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983, pp.6-9.
7. S.J. Webb & A.D. Booth, Nature, 222, 1199-1200 (1969); A.J.
Berteaud et al., C.R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. Ser. D, 281, 843-846
(1975)
8. W. Grundler & F. Kaiser, Nanobiology, 1, 163-176 (1992)
9. M.B. Golant et al., Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 37, 82-84
(1994); I.Ya. Be lyaev et al., Electro-and Magnetobiology, 13(1),
53-65 (1994)
10. S.J. Webb, Phys. Lett. 73A, 145-148 (1979); K. Lukashevsky &
I.Ya. Belyaev, Med. Sci. Res. 18, 955-957 (1990)
11. L. Miguel Penafiel et al., Bioelectromagnetics 18, 132-141
(1997)
12. L von Klitzing, Phys. Medica XI(2), 77-80 (1995); K. Mann &
J. Roschke, Neuropsychobiology, 33, 41-47 (1996)
13. S. Braune et al., The Lancet 351, Saturday 20 June 1998
14. R. Coghill, accepted for publication in Bioelectrochemistry
and Bioenergetics, 1999
15. L.G. Salford et al., Microsc. Res. Tech., 27, 535-542 (1994)
16. S.K. Dutta et al., Bioelectromagnetics, 5, 71-78 (1984)
17. M. Bastide et al., submitted to Bioelectromagnetics, 1999; see
also B.J. Youbicier-Simo et al., ibid., 18(7), 514-523 (1997)
18. A.A. Kolodynski & V.V. Kolodynski, The Science of the Total
Environment, 180, 87-93 (1996)
19. B. Hocking et al., Medical J. Australia, 165, 601-605 (1996);
H. Dolk et al., American J. of Epidemiology, 145(1), 1-9 (1997);
ibid., 10-17 (1997)
20. F. Kaiser, in Energy Transfer Dynamics, (Eds. T.W. Barrett &
H.A. Pohl), Springer-Verlag, Berlin,1987, Ch.21, pp.224-236
SEITE
____________________________________________________________________
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: emfguru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
Subj: Hyland Memorandum (Hargreaves)(Stevens)(Guru)..
Over the holidays, guru was pleased to receive from WHO (World
Health Organization) a DRAFT statement that deals with the health
effects of EMF.....
As it is a draft -- sent to me (apparently) for comment -- I will
not post it or reveal its contents ... except to say:
I read it as an effort to *rebut* Dr. Hyland's statement (and other
such warnings about possible adverse EMF health effects) by
_scraping off all the sharp edges_ of the "warning" statements and
*attempting to turn them into* the kind of "official position"
which we used to call in Washington: the glass is half-full ...
or (depending upon ones disposition on the matter) ... the glass is
half empty......
In other words, it is bland, "officially protective of vested
interests," and NOT much of a contribution to the "science" of
the matter..... You may want to watch for it.....
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness..
NEW!!! Website <www.emfguru.com>
................People are more important than profits..............
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??
____________________________________________________________________
Join the EMF mailing list
contact Roy Beavers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
visit the EMF-L website at
http://www.feb.se/
NEW website
http://www.emfguru.com
EMF-L archives can be found at:
http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/emf-l
NEW !
the EMF exchange site is now at
http://www.angelfire.com/on3/emfx/
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
