-
- THE CELL TOWER EMF PROBLEM
-
- " Little or no published research has been carried
out relating to chronic long-term exposure month after month, year after
year to living close to a Telecommunications Mast and Base Station. "
-
- " ...there was recently a study funded by the Bavarian
State Government in Germany following reported adverse health effects in
dairy cattle only after a Telecoms Mast had been erected. It was discovered
after a period that the cause of the significant drop in the yield of that
herd of cattle and Extraordinary Behaviour Disorders in some of the cows
related to the microwave transmissions from that Mast. When the cattle
were moved away from its vicinity after a period the milk yield and the
behaviour of that herd was totally restored to normal.
-
- " However when the cattle were returned to the mast
environs their symptoms returned. This was not an isolated incident --
see Loscher and Kas of Universities of Hannover Veterinary School and University
of the German Army in Munich 1998. " _____
-
- From Roy L. Beavers <rbeavers@llion.org Posted 10-16-99
-
- Hi everybody:
-
- ......I am in receipt of another excellent document prepared
by a solicitors office in the U.K. It is full of good information and
some argument about the cell mast (towers) EMF problem as it is seen in
the U.K.....
-
- I wonder why the same thorough approach is not being
taken in the U.K. with regard to the power lines health hazards?? The
evidence to be martialed in that situation is even stronger then the case
made below for "prudent" action to minimize the public risks
from cell phone towers....
-
- Also, take note of the following comment in the conclusion:
"Currently prudence advocates that reliance on the NRPB Guidelines
is no longer sufficient." Amen and Amen.....
-
- The NRPB, of course, is confined to a definition which
was framed to favor the protection of industry ... rather than the people:
requiring that the NRPB recommendations be based on "conclusive"
scientific information. That formulation establishes what we call in the
U.S. a "stacked deck." The very word "conclusive"
establishes a (legal?) barrier AGAINST 'prudent protection' of the public
-- which manifestly should be the highest priority ... in the U.S. or the
U.K......
-
- Cheerio......(Many thanks to the person who sent this
to us. She wishes to be unknown....)
-
- Roy Beavers (EMFguru)...... rbeavers@llion.org.......
-
- PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS!
-
- _____
-
- HALSEY MEYER HIGGINS SOLICITORS
-
- 56 BUCKINGHAM GATE * WESTMINSTER LONDON SWIE 6AE TELEPHONE:
0171 828 8772 DX2381 VICTORIA 1 FAX: 0171 828 8714
-
- MOBILE PHONES - MOBILE NETWORKS - SAFETY
-
- 1. More than a year ago at Dublin Castle on 6th
March 1998, the Irish Minister of Public Enterprise, Mrs Mary ORourke,
stated this is an issue which will grow and grow and will not go away.
Subsequent events have proved her correct in that Public concern worldwide
is growing and not diminishing as the Public grows more conversant with
possible effects from mobile phone usage.
-
- 2. The issue breaks down into two different parts,
firstly the safety of using mobiles themselves and secondly and perhaps
long-term more importantly, the question of living close to a ground based
Telecommunications Mast and Base Station.
-
- 3. On the issue of mobiles themselves, it is of
course the users choice as to whether they have a mobile in the first place
and then secondly how much they choose to use it. However that choice or
consent is entitled to be a properly informed choice or consent. Recent
disclosures seem to show that prolonged use of a mobile may not be that
safe despite assurances made by the Industry over the last ten years to
that effect. On 24th May, Dr George Carlo of the Industrys established
WTR in America stated that the Industrys continuing statements that there
was no conclusive evidence against mobiles was not a realistic position
to take.
-
- 4. The main public concern however does not relate
to the use of the mobile phones themselves where there is that choice.
The problem as perceived by large sections of the public and particularly
communities whose privacy has been invaded by the erection of a Mast and
Ground Base Station is whether long-term chronic exposure to the low intensity
radiation from such facilities is indeed now safe. Bearing in mind that
the assurances about the safety of the mobiles themselves when used close
to the brain seem now to be somewhat suspect, the question arises as to
whether similar assurances relating to the safety of living close to a
Ground Based Station and Mast are also realistic. The problem is that such
research as has been carried out relates to the mobiles themselves. Little
or no published research has been carried out relating to chronic long-term
exposure month after month, year after year to living close to a Telecoms
Mast.
-
- 5. The only indicators, which might tend to provide
some evidence relate to other types of masts, i.e. TV Masts, short-wave
radio Masts and radar installations. There the North Sydney Australia study
showed a significant statistical increase in cancer cases within the triangle
of those three Masts in North Sydney. Here the Sutton Coldfield BBC Mast
study showed increased radiation levels around the Mast and its near vicinity.
In Switzerland, the Schwarzenberg short-wave Mast was thought to be having
adverse health effects on the local community for years. When a study was
carried out in the mid 1990s by the University of Beme, it was found that
the emissions from that mast did have an effect on the people in the vicinity.
-
- This was discovered because during the period of the
study there was a significant drop in the symptoms in many people over
a three day period within that prolonged study. It was then discovered,
which was not known at the time, that the transmitter had failed for those
three days and there were no short-wave transmissions. The Swiss government
has now closed the Mast down. Incidentally, the Swiss health and environmental
officials have proposed strict rules for public exposures from new sources
of radio frequency and microwave radiation. If the ordinance is adopted,
which appears likely, Switzerland will have the most stringent exposure
levels in the world -- based on the precautionary principle -- guideline
levels much lower than those recommended by the NRPB.
-
- There is also the evidence of the Soviets irradiation
of the US Embassy in Moscow, which produced serious adverse health effects.
-
- There is the Skrunda study in Finland with regard to
populations living many kilometres behind the radar installation and those
living a similar distance in front of the radar installation. There the
health conditions of those living in front of that installation were found
to be markedly different, and this has been put down to the effect of the
radar transmissions.
-
- Finally there was recently a study funded by the Bavarian
State Government in Germany following reported adverse health effects in
dairy cattle only after a Telecoms Mast had been erected. It was discovered
after a period that the cause of the significant drop in the yield of that
herd of cattle and Extraordinary Behaviour Disorders in some of the cows
related to the microwave transmissions from that Mast. When the cattle
was moved away from its vicinity after a period the milk yield and the
behaviour of that herd was totally restored to normal.
-
- However when the cattle were returned to the mast environs
their symptoms returned. This was not an isolated incident -- see Loscher
and Kas of Universities of Hannover Veterinary School and University of
the German Army in Munich 1998.
-
-
- 6. None of these situations appears to relate to
thermal heating of any kind. These effects could not be ascribed to thermal
heating because the distances involved are far too great. However, they
may relate to biological effects from low intensity microwave radiation
over prolonged periods. However, the research has not been carried out
into cumulative effects. It is necessary to ask why? Perhaps in the light
of the Industrys approach over the years to the mobiles themselves, the
answer may be fairly obvious?
-
- In the absence of conclusive evidence that mobiles themselves
and mobile networks are safe -- something the scientists agreed they can
not prove without substantial additional properly structured research --
it is necessary now to use common sense and prudent avoidance. The European
Treaties relating to the Environment described common sense as the Precautionary
Principle and preventative action -- see Article 130r.
-
-
- 7. What does prudent avoidance, preventative action,
precautionary approach mean in practice? No-one wants to prevent the advance
of telecommunications. It is a great new boon to living when used sensibly.
However, common sense needs to prevail over the economics of the Industrys
proliferation. There is no need these days to place Telecommunications
Masts and Base Stations too close to permanently occupied residences and
childrens schools. The only reason that Masts are placed too close, i.e.
the near side rather than the far side of a farmers field is because it
is cheaper. Cheaper because it is nearer the electricity supply, cheaper
because it is easier for maintenance and access from an adjoining road
or track.
-
- However, the requirements are not that spot specific
and there is absolutely no reason why a properly erected and located Mast
should be closer than a minimum of 200 to 250 metres from any inhabited
property, using a ground based Mast and Ground Based Station. Unfortunately
the Industry ignores the obvious because it is easier and cheaper, and
usually regrettably there is no-one to take them on or to challenge their
planning application with the Planning Authorities.
-
- 8 Recently groups all over the United Kingdom, including
Scotland and Northern Ireland have been successful in showing planning
authorities that there is a better way to interpret the outmoded Telecommunications
Legislation (1984) the outmoded planning circulars and the general ignorance
of the fact that European Union Treaties advocated the Precautionary Principle
(1993 Maastricht) to safeguard the public's health. Governments are there
to be wise and knowledgeable. Governments are not there to be led by the
Industry in pursuit of progress and financial gain at the expense of the
public at large. Governments are there to be able to interpret properly
scientific guidance or advice.
-
- This proliferation of' Network Masts may turn out to
be the next BSE for ignoring the warnings and acting without any common
sense or prudent avoidance.
-
-
- 9 Reverting to the mobiles themselves, it is not
common sense to put a mobile against your head for four or five hours a
day at the incidence of your employer. In law, almost certainly that Employer
is not providing a safe system of work. Equally, under the Consumer Protection
Act it seems probable now that the manufacturers ought to display some
form of health warning on their products to protect themselves from product
liability claims -- and of course the users to whom then sell the huge
number of phones from internal danger to enable such consumers to make
an informed choice or consent. Possibly, in due course, it will be shown
scientifically that living in too close proximity to a Mast is damaging
to health, and possibly then there will under provisions of the Human Rights
Act 1998 be legal remedies available, which allow people to seek compensation
from the mobile phone network providers, and also against those who allow
the Masts to be on their land.
-
- This may include eventually even some Local Education
Authorities who seem to be prepared to allow Masts to be erected regardless
of possible risks to the children on school property for whom they are
in loco parentis in return for an annual rental. This aspect is currently
now under investigation by the Secretary of the State for Education following
the meeting of the House of Commons Select Committee in June 1999 with
Representatives of NRPB as mentioned below.
-
-
- RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
-
- Scotland
-
- 10 Currently parallel with the separate establishment
of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh which now has responsibility for
the majority of issues affecting people living in Scotland over one third
of all Scottish Local Planning Authorities have now adopted or publicly
committed themselves to adopting Precautionary Policies as a direct result
of what they perceive to be inadequate official advice from Government
Departments.
-
- 11. Local Authorities in Scotland have decided that
there are too many unanswered questions to risk exposing the Public needlessly
to levels of microwave radiation which could or may in time prove to be
harmful to their health. By choosing to keep transmitter masts away from
schools and residential areas local authorities are not doing anything
radical, but merely following the Precautionary Approach advocated in the
European Treaties, accepted by the UK Government in 1993 at Maastricht.
-
-
- England and Wales
-
- 12 Similarly the influential Local Government Association
(LGA) has now advised its member local authorities to adopt the Precautionary
Approach on the basis that the decision making process of the Governments
Advisory Body the NRPB, based upon waiting for `conclusive scientific evidence'
before acting, is potentially flawed. On 12th August 1999 the Local Government
Association accused the Government of `dithering' over the potential danger
of cancer and radiation from mobile phone masts.
-
- The LGA Planning Executive Chairman Stated "The
Government must stop dithering and give councils some clear guidance to
the threat posed by Radiation and the planning powers to keep the Public
Safe -- especially vulnerable children and the elderly rather than wait
two or three years until the research is finished".
-
- These statements were made in August 1999 after the Government
issued on 23rd July 1999 letters to the LGA and Members of Parliament which
failed to help authorities make the right planning decisions or offer them
guidance on where masts can be safely erected.
-
-
- 13 All this has come about after the senior representatives
of the NRPB gave their evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee
in June 1999 explaining firstly that the NRPB under its statutory legislation
could only base its guidance and advice on `conclusive scientific evidence'
as required by its Act of Parliament. and that accordingly until essential
research had been carried out in their opinion the only "conclusive
scientific proof" related to the properties of thermal heating on
which their 1993 Safety Guidelines remained solely based.
-
- Secondly however the representatives of the NRPB made
it clear that until the freshly commissioned research produced some `conclusive
scientific proof' that there were other effects apart from thermal heating,
it was up to Politicians and Planners to exercise their `own' judgment.
-
-
- 14 On 1 st September 1 999 Belfast City Council ratified
the 18th August 1999 Decision of its Development Committee that `no Transmitter
Masts should be permitted on any Council Property', due firstly to the
unknown risks from such masts and secondly because of `substantial public
concern.
-
- Similarly Wyre Borough Council in Lancashire recently
decided that the proposed site for a mast and base station was unsuitable
given its proximity to a nearby primary school and houses which were 190
metres and 40 metres away respectively" This refusal was based on
public fears about possible health risks posed by microwave radiation.
This follows the 1998 Court of Appeal decision finding that `genuine public
fear and concern is a material planning consideration, even if that fear
is irrational and not based upon evidence -- see Newport BC v Secretary
of State for Wales (1998) JPL 377.
-
-
- Conclusion
-
- The answer for the time being is Prudent Avoidance and
Common Sense, at least until properly structured research has been concluded,
and then independently assessed. The answer is not to listen only to the
Industry, who have tended to ensure that the Industry Commissioned research
proves their point on safety. Currently prudence advocates that reliance
on the NRPB Guidelines is no longer sufficient.
-
- Many independent University researchers who have produced
adverse results have had their research funds curtailed, or taken away
which stifles further investigation of adverse effects shown by earlier
research. Governments are elected to be aware of what is going on, and
to protect the public at large when uncertainties exist, and prudent avoidance
should currently prevail over commercial interests until the further essential
research has been completed and "independently" assessed.
-
- Revised 10th September 1999
-
- AAM
-
- HALSEY MEYER HIGGINS
-
- Detect
EMFs Yourself
|
