- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / What is Barry Thowers conclusions? Remember HE KNOWS the microwaves, he has worked with it for years
Author Message
Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 16 Dec 2005 03:17
Reply 


Document 2.:

In Sir William Stewart’s report page 113, frequencies between 300 MHz and 300 GHz are defines as microwaves.
This is in line with the International Commission’s definition of microwaves as defined in 1998.
Therefore everything discussed in this report is in the microwave frequency.

Microwaves react very differently in our water-based bodies to radio waves.
The term ‘Radio Frequency’ is often used to describe microwaves based communication systems.
It is important that the term ‘Radio Frequency’ is not associated with Radio Waves, but associated with microwaves.
Microwaves are used by the communications industry because they are more penetrative than radio waves.

The Stewart Report 2004 asks that anecdotal evidence be taken seriously in the absence of long-term epidemiological studies, concerning illnesses around the area of mobile phone transmitters. Such anecdotal evidence produced July 2002 refers to 92 cases of cancer around just 19 mobile phone transmitters.
Other illnesses on the same paper refer to breast cancers, thyroid, bowel and blood problems.
Another report dated November 2003 titled ‘School References (school and cell tower antennas)’ from 138 schools lists miscarriages, brain tumours,
cancers, breast cancers and teachers ill within this report. One single school had transmitters on its roof in the Saint-Cyr-l’Ecole quarter of France where
8 cases of cancer were confirmed among children in the district.
Common sense dictates that if you surround the school with mobile transmitters, the children will be able to use their mobile phones in school, this obviously exacerbates the problem of surrounding the children with microwave radiation.

The Stewart Report on page 63, section 4.1.1 recommends …..RF fields to which the public will be exposed will be kept to the lowest practical level that will
be commensurate with the system….

The same page the Stewart Group recommend….. Base Stations sited within school grounds that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of
the school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents. Similar considerations should apply to macro base stations sited near school grounds.

Professor Gerd Oberfield of the Environmental and Resource Studies Programme, Trent University, Ontario, Canada, published a report dated November
and December 2004, titled ‘Putting Cellphone Antennas near schools is too Risky’.
This report states:…..with respect to negative health effects on people living in close proximity to cell phone towers, there are three different epidemiological studies including our recent study. All of them found statistically significant relationships between exposure to radiation and health effects.
Two of the studies did measurements in subject’s bedrooms and found significant increases in stress related symptoms as well and neurological symptoms…. Also depression, fatigue, sleep disorders and concentration difficulty were found. These symptoms were related to exposure levels, not distance from the antennas. A recent research project called EU-Reflex or European Union Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure using sensitive in Vitro Methods shows that cells exposed to cell phone radiation exhibit chromosomal damage well below
the exposure guidelines of the W.H.O.

It is worth mentioning that the ICNIRP Guidelines also the NRPB Guidelines are based purely on the thermal effect of the waves.
No account what so ever is given to the effect of the electric and magnetic of the wave interacting with the physiology of the body.
The WHO’s Guidelines are based on the short-term effects of this radiation. No long-term experiments have been done in terms of safety levels.
Further, no experiments have been done to determine the safety levels from the pulsed microwaves exhibited by all microwave communication systems.

Professor Oberfield’s report concludes…..as a general rule cell towers should not be placed near schools.

The recent Stewart Report on page 31, states: ‘Where a base station is to be installed near a school or college, local consultation is also required prior to
the submission of an application for Planning Permission’. Page 53, continues…we also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from
promoting the use of mobile phones by children.
Placing mobile transmitters in the vicinity of schools cannot discourage the use of mobile phones by children.
Only this last Christmas the German VERUM group which consists of twelve research groups from seven countries, concluded that mobile phones cause
DNA damage. It can be argued that as responsible adults in charge of Planning, giving the opportunity to children to use mobile phones, some responsibility
MUST fall on the Planners for the scientific ignorance of the children.

Referring back to semi-scientific and/or anecdotal evidence concerning masts, at this present time in Osafia, Israel in the last four years, 165 people have
died of cancer from living in the vicinity of antennas. This has now become a legal case.

Scientific research by Dr. John Walker has highlighted cancer clusters within the ‘footprint’ of base station transmissions.
Coloured photographs of cancer clusters can be found in the main part of base station beams.
Theoretically, looking at this research, which has covered several transmitters, it should be possible to predict future cancer clusters.
Dr. Walker’s research is on the Internet.

General practitioners in Naila examined the medical histories of nearly 1000 patients, searching for link between the distance of the patient’s living quarters
from a long-standing mobile phone base station and the incidence of cancer. The physicians distinguished between an inner circle, within a 400m radius from
the tower, and the area outside it. Tumours were found in patients living within 400m of the base station three times more frequently than among patients living outside.

The result of the Naila study, November 2004 shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients
who had lived during the past 10 years at a distance of up to 400 m from the transmitter site, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier.

A similar study from the National Institute of Sciences (Professor Santini) showed from a study of 270 men and 260 women less than 300 m from a transmitter, showed signs of nausea, loss of appetite, visual and motor problems. Less than 100 m the symptoms were irritability, depression, concentration problems, memory dysfunction, dizziness, libido problems, headaches, sleep and skin problems.

The highly respected Professor Olle Johansson in his 2004 paper ‘Malignant melanoma of the skin – not a sunshine story’ states that women seem to be
more susceptible to these electromagnetic waves than men. Possibly because of the influence on hormones within the body. He concludes ..’we believe this environmental factor to be radio frequency, electromagnetic radiation which is capable of affecting the proper function of cell repair and auto immune system mechanisms’.

In an earlier paper Professors Hallberg and Johansson – ‘Cancer Trends during the 20th Century’.
These Professors studied the cancer rates before and after telecommunication systems were introduced into different countries.
They found after the introduction of the systems the cancer rates increased. They conclude….breast, bladder, prostate, lung, colon and cuteaneous
melanoma cancers are all associated with each other….relate melanoma to radio frequency EMF.

It continues, Estonia had a steep increase in the cancer mortality in 1991, the year that the western FM radio frequencies were allowed and introduced
all over the country. This report was published in the Australian Journal of Environmental Medicine, Volume 21, No.1, pages 3-8 (April 2002).

An argument often given against protestors is that cancers cannot develop in under 10 years, therefore all recent cancers cannot be caused by the telecommunications industry. There are many published research papers showing that electromagnetic waves may act as both cancer promoters and
initiators, for example:

Lyle et al 1983 …Hence EMR appears to be both a cancer initiator and a cancer promoter which also enhances progression.
In this way the similarity with cigarettes is quite strong.

Adey 1992…. Many papers give evidence of EMR as a cancer promoter.

Hagmar et al 1994….Microwaves have also been shown to potentize cancer initiators…with exposure to GSM digital base stations….hence EMR is implicated in increasing cancer rates in exposed populations.

Safety Levels

The safety levels set by ICNIRP and the NRPB are the highest in the world. Being thermally based, it is very unlikely, if not impossible for any person to receive
the warming of the body to exceed their safety levels if this person is not sitting right on top of the mobile phone transmitter. As an example of safety levels in units of Microwatts per cm². Our maximum levels for 400, 900 and 1800 MHz transmitters are 2640, 3300 and 10,000 of these units. By contrast Russia and
China have a total maximum of 10 of these units, Toronto has a maximum of 6 and Salzburg has a maximum of 0.1 of these units.

Clearly if you were going into a chemist’s shop and the chemist said ‘you may take either 10,000 pills or 1/10th of one pill there would be confusion.
That is how ridiculous these safety levels look to the rest of the world. Professor Vladimir Binhi of the Russian Academy of Sciences was asked why their
safety levels were so low. He replied ‘In Russia we have experience of what can be achieved by using radio frequency radiation. So we know what we
think is needed to avoid adverse health effects’.

It is published that in Sweden 3.15% of its population is medically recognised and registered as being handicapped from electro-sensitivity.
This number is comparable in California and it is believed Australia. If this number were compared with the population of the UK

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on community script miniBB™ © 2001-2022