I wonder whether you would give me the courtesy of reading my letter and informing me what I have done to offend you - other than report on a rather inconvenient truth?

Of the five most recent visits here to my house (or phone calls) from your Officers, all - without exception - have asked for their details to be kept secret, for fear of victimization.  Three of the Officers specifically said "I have been told by my Federation not to contact you".

My most obvious question is "Why?"  All I have ever reported is peer-reviewed, published research.

It was you who ran a Police check on me and published it in your "Airwave - Biographies 23^rd October 2002" (enclosed) - in it you also write that I was commissioned by you to write the Tetra Report!

Three years later, in your Police Federation News 24^th April 2005 (P3) you not only deny this, but accuse me of dishonesty - i.e. leaking the finished document to the internet the day after it was handed to you.  In fact, it was taken by the Police Secretary as a disc from the Police computer within the secure room where it was written.  I never did - and have never - received a final copy of my report.  It could only have been given to the internet by yourselves.  I do not use or own a computer.

I feel I am owed an apology for your misrepresentation of me.

When your Officers contact me, they have absolutely no idea that they are a part of an epidemiological study into the effects of microwaves and cancer.  If you read my original report, you will see that the Government Scientists specifically say that, as you have a young workforce, fit, with well-defined work patterns - they will make ideal subjects for an epidemiological study, and  long-term illnesses (i.e. cancer) cannot be ruled out.  (Their  words, not mine).

I believe that this is breaking the law.  If your Officers are not informed of all aspects of this experiment;  it contravenes the "Regulations and Ethical Guidelines" - Directives for Human Experimentation - Nuremberg Code (enclosed).  This is to say that the risks of all radiation experiments must be understood before it is started and it cannot be against their will.  At your Airwave Conference 23^rd October 2002, your Dr Levey told your Officers: "Use it or resign".

In fact, concerning risk, I took statistics from one of our Government's own Professors - printed in a Science Journal "Scientific American" - and adapted them for your Police Officers (enclosed).  You will see that there could be 1,090 slow-growing tumours at this point in time.  This figure is, of course, exponential - it can only get bigger.

You appear to ignore all of the internationally published papers on low-level microwave damage - most of which are conveniently overlooked, or have the "we will repeat this-over the next 10 years-delaying tactic".

Low-level microwaves have been known as very dangerous to our soft, water-based bodies since the 1970's, when Government Scientists warned the military, at the time, against exposure (enclosed).  It makes absolutely no difference which box they come out of:  be it TETRA/02/Airwave - or any of the mobiles.  The pulsing (modulations), power-density and frequency may cause variations with some people - but you cannot change the risk factor of the basic microwaves.

Consultant Solicitor Alan Meyer said "It is quite simple - an employer must provide a safe system of work":  You cannot - and will never - be able to demonstrate that long-term, low-level microwaves will be safe.

I believe, as a Federation, you could pull the plug on this Industry now.  I am prepared to bring you all of the evidence you would need - and I will stand my ground - against any group of Scientists/Professors you care to put in front of me.

Although I believe a solution to this would be for myself to write 240 words (one side of A4) - a Government Scientist to write an opposing view - you publish them in your magazine and take a vote from your Members.  After all - aren't they the ones who take the risk? (actually, research has shown it is the females who have a greater risk - but I will not go into why here).  Or you could just publish this letter - word for word - and wait for the response.

Airwave may be the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to reception.  I do not accept that any company is too powerful to be stopped/changed if the Members of the Force request it - no matter what the political situation.  Are you afraid of this scenario?

Which brings me back to my original point. 

Would you please put in writing one thing I have written or said which warrants my censorship from your Members.

Barrie Trower

3 Flowers Meadow

Liverton

Devon

TQ12 6UP

01626 821014

17^th January 2009

PS - The recently published "Biological & Cancer Safety Limits for Electromagnetic Radiation" places your Officers well inside the ‘Adverse Human Effects' box for the Airwave frequencies.

Barrie Trower

First degree in Physics - University of Exeter.

Second degree (research) with honours - Council for National Academics Awards.

Teaching diploma in Human Physiology.

Trained at the Government's microwave warfare establishment for the Royal Navy.

Worked with the R.N. underwater bomb-disposal unit, which involved the training in microwave warfare.

Served in conflicts in Borneo, Aden and the British West Indies.

Was a teacher at the Country's top secure unit, which housed spies - and a part of his brief was to obtain information on matters relating to his knowledge, i.e. microwaves.

He is the author of the TETRA Report for the Police Federation of England & Wales.

Biographies

Airwaves/TETRA Conference

23^rd October 2002

Police Federation of England & Wales

Extracts from US Defence Intelligence Agency Documents from 1972-1983

Note: Comments in bold italics are mine.

1.       Ref:  DST-1810S-076-76 March 1976.  "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".

2.       Ref: DST-1810-074-76 March 1976 "Personnel exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more neurological, cardiovascular, and haemodynamic disturbances than do their unexposed counterparts.  Some of the ....effects attributed to exposure include bradycardia, hypotension, and changes in EKG indices." "Subjects exposed to microwave exhibited a variety of neurasthenic disorders against a background of angiodystonia (abnormal changes in tonicity of blood vessels).  The most common subjective complaints were headache, fatigue, perspiring, dizziness, menstrual disorders, irritability, agitation, tension, drowsiness, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness, and a lack of concentration".  The very things that some mobile phone users report (Mild et al 1998)

3.       Ref: ST-CS-01-169-72 July 1972.  "Low frequency electromagnetic fields have been found.......to generate sonic and ultrasonic oscillations in living organisms.  These oscillations produce elastic deformations in the organism.  If the frequency of the outside field corresponds to the oscillation frequency of the cells, the latter deteriorate...." "Since almost all of the Soviet data on electromagnetic radiation (below visible) applies to physiological effects". "The UCLA Brain Information Service in Los Angeles....has compiled an extensive bibliographic list on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (below visible frequencies) especially on the central nervous system".  Numerous studies have since confirmed this including Wever (1974), Konig (1974), Beale et al. (1997), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Robinette et al. (1980).

4.       Ref: DST-1810S-074-76 March 1976  "Soviet research has produced guidelines which were used to establish a value of 10 uW/cm2 per working day UK standard 110 uW/cm2...Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard... industries....could be required to make costly modifications to protect workers.  Recognition of the standard could also limit the application of new electronic technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased costs imposed by the need for additional safeguards."  "Another possibility is the alteration of the permeability of the blood-brain barrier.  This could allow neurotoxins in the blood to cross.  As a result, an individual could develop severe neuropathological symptoms and either die or become seriously impaired neurologically"  Proven by Salford et al. (1993)(1994)(1999). Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and vCJD are such possibilities.

5.       Ref:  ST-CS-01-169-72 July 1972 "Low frequency emfs have been found to generate oscillations in living organisms. If the frequency of the outside field corresponds to the oscillation frequency of the cells, the latter deteriorate as a result of the mechanical resonance". The human brain & heart function at frequencies within the spectra of cellphones, computers, etc.

6.       Ref: DST-1810S-074-76 March 1976 "Personnel exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more neurological, cardiovascular and hemodynamic disturbances than do their unexposed counterparts".

Donald Stevens.  Nov. 2000

Directives for Human Experimentation  NUREMBERG CODE

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give  consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of  choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the
subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.