I must apologize. I thought I would be able to refer to the slides. You have the slides in front of you; I will just mention them as we go along.
Thank you for the invitation. You have my credentials on the first slide. I've been in the research business for a long time in the department of physiology at Columbia University. I've been active in connection with this committee as well.
Basically, my first slide says that Safety Code 6 standards are not protective, with the “not” underlined.
What I'll try and do in the next few minutes is tell you why I think they're not protective.
In a nutshell, they are not measuring the right parameters. If you want to measure something, you have to measure something biological. Measuring the temperature is not a biological measurement, although you can measure the temperature of biological materials. You want to be able to measure biological parameters in order to assess biological function.
In the second slide, I comment on the 140 studies that were omitted. The fact is that these were omitted through an evaluation by non-biologists. For example, there are two studies that were published by Dr. Goodman and me that are referred to very frequently. They reveal the fact that stress proteins are activated by electromagnetic fields. We conducted studies mainly in the ELF range but also in the RF range, both of which were omitted despite having been verified and replicated by others.
In the third slide, I mention the number of biological effects that could be—