[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Am I braking the LAW

Subject:     Am I braking the LAW
      Date:  Mon, 26 May 1997 08:08:26 -0400
      From:  I C V R <ICVR-at-alliance-dot-net>
        To:  Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
References:  1


The EPA will put you in jail
Am I braking the LAW OR
     Why the EPA is not obeying the LAW!


I have noted over the past several years that whenever the EPA embarks 
on
an RF Radiation crusade, they quote a different enabling legislation to
validate their actions and the spending of public money EACH TIME! I 
find
that a little peculiar. One would think that there would be some 
cornerstone
congressional mandate to justify the frenzied and uncontrollable 
behavior
we all have experienced from time to time in EPA RF Radiation events. 

I decided to look into this peculiarity. I began by first examining 
references
to the frequently cited Federal Radiation Council. 

The Federal Radiation Council was created by an amendment to The
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by Public Law 86-373; 73 STAT. 688. The
amendment added Sec. 274. h. The charter was to advise the President on
radiation matters. I can find no record of the Federal Radiation Council
operating in any area other than Atomic Energy, ionizing radiation, that 
is. 

STRIKE ONE! 

The second quoted reference to enabling legislation is Public Law 
86-373,
the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which was re-established by
Presidential Executive Order 12194 of February 21, 1980. In this plan, 
the
Authority of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC)was transferred to the
Environmental Protection Agency. Recall that the FRC delt with atomic
energy, ionizing radiation, only. 

The Reorganization Plan No. 3, which was included under the National
Environmental Policy Act, specifically EXCLUDED the EPA from electronic
product radiation and related research, technical assistance, and 
training.
The Public Health Service Act as amended (1968), from which the 
exclusion
is drawn, defines radiation as any ionizing or non-ionizing 
electromagnetic
or particulate radiation. Electronic Products are defined to include all
electronic products, and not specifically consumer products. 

This becomes more clear as a bogus citation when you read the EPA
General Counsel Opinion EPA GCO 78-1, which states: "Please note that
these statutes appear to cover only physical substances which emit 
ionizing
radiation. Activities producing non-ionizing radiation do not appear to 
be
subject to any Agency-administered information gathering statute." 

STRIKE TWO! 

The third quoted piece of EPA enabling legistation is Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act. If you read this act, and all its sections carefully, you 
find
that it is limited to air polutants defined under section 302(g) as any
physical, chemical, biological, and radioactive substance or matter. 

Electromagnetic energy is NOT a substance or matter! Furthermore, they
measure these air polutants in tons per year. (Section 302(j)) The 
charge of
the EPA Administrator to comment under the act is limited to the scope 
of
the act which only recognizes substances or matter as having an
environmental impact. 

STRIKE THREE! YOU'RE OUT! 

I have had a standing challenge for anyone to present evidence refuting 
this
analysis, excluding EPA statements. To date, no one has presented such
evidence. 

Can you? 

If this stands as asserted, then it is clear that the EPA has been 
operating
outside Congressional and Executive mandate for many years, and may
have even misappropriated public funds in their RF Radiation 
initiatives.


-- 
                        I ndependent
                         C urrent
                          V oltage
                            R esearch