«First  ‹Previous   Page 732 of 733   Next›  Last» 

WHO fact sheet
Austria Created: 16 Dec 2005
A new factsheet from WHO.

WHO fact sheet "EHS"
Fact sheet N°296
December 2005

Electromagnetic fields and public health
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

As societies industrialize and the technological revolution continues, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and diversity of electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. These sources include video display units (VDUs) associated with computers, mobile phones and their base stations. While these devices have made our life richer, safer and easier, they have been accompanied by concerns about possible health risks due to their EMF emissions.
For some time a number of individuals have reported a variety of health problems that they relate to exposure to EMF. While some individuals report mild symptoms and react by avoiding the fields as best they can, others are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle. This reputed sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS.
This fact sheet describes what is known about the condition and provides information for helping people with such symptoms. Information provided is based on a WHO Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity (Prague, Czech Republic, 2004), an international conference on EMF and non-specific health symptoms (COST244bis, 1998), a European Commission report (Bergqvist and Vogel, 1997) and recent reviews of the literature.

WHAT IS EHS?
EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to EMF. The symptoms most commonly experienced include dermatological symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well as neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms (fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, and digestive disturbances). The collection of symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome.
EHS resembles multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), another disorder associated with low-level environmental exposures to chemicals. Both EHS and MCS are characterized by a range of non-specific symptoms that lack apparent toxicological or physiological basis or independent verification. A more general term for sensitivity to environmental factors is Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI), which originated from a workshop convened by the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) of the WHO in 1996 in Berlin. IEI is a descriptor without any implication of chemical etiology, immunological sensitivity or EMF susceptibility. IEI incorporates a number of disorders sharing similar non-specific medically unexplained symptoms that adversely affect people. However since the term EHS is in common usage it will continue to be used here.

PREVALENCE
There is a very wide range of estimates of the prevalence of EHS in the general population. A survey of occupational medical centres estimated the prevalence
of EHS to be a few individuals per million in the population. However, a survey of self-help groups yielded much higher estimates.
Approximately 10% of reported cases of EHS were considered severe.
There is also considerable geographical variability in prevalence of EHS and in the reported symptoms. The reported incidence of EHS has been higher in Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, than in the United Kingdom, Austria, and France. VDU-related symptoms were more prevalent in Scandinavian countries, and they were more commonly related to skin disorders than elsewhere in Europe. Symptoms similar to those reported by EHS individuals are common in the general population.
STUDIES ON EHS INDIVIDUALS
A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.
The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.
It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF. Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment.
There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.

CONCLUSIONS
EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual. The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity. Whatever its cause, EHS can be a disabling problem for the affected individual. EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.
Physicians: Treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person's perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home. This requires:
• a medical evaluation to identify and treat any specific conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms,
• a psychological evaluation to identify alternative psychiatric/psychological conditions that may be responsible for the symptoms,
• an assessment of the workplace and home for factors that might contribute to the presented symptoms. These could include indoor air pollution, excessive noise, poor lighting (flickering light) or ergonomic factors. A reduction of stress and other improvements in the work situation might be appropriate.
For EHS individuals with long lasting symptoms and severe handicaps, therapy should be directed principally at reducing symptoms and functional handicaps.
This should be done in close co-operation with a qualified medical specialist (to address the medical and psychological aspects of the symptoms) and a hygienist (to identify and, if necessary, control factors in the environment that are known to have adverse health effects of relevance to the patient).
Treatment should aim to establish an effective physician-patient relationship, help develop strategies for coping with the situation and encourage patients to return to work and lead a normal social life.
EHS individuals: Apart from treatment by professionals, self help groups can be a valuable resource for the EHS individual.
Governments: Governments should provide appropriately targeted and balanced information about potential health hazards of EMF to EHS individuals, health-care professionals and employers. The information should include a clear statement that no scientific basis currently exists for a connection between EHS and exposure to EMF.
Researchers: Some studies suggest that certain physiological responses of EHS individuals tend to be outside the normal range. In particular, hyper reactivity in the central nervous system and imbalance in the autonomic nervous system need to be followed up in clinical investigations and the results for the individuals taken as input for possible treatment.

WHAT WHO IS DOING
WHO, through its International EMF Project, is identifying research needs and co-ordinating a world-wide program of EMF studies to allow a better understanding of any health risk associated with EMF exposure. Particular emphasis is placed on possible health consequences of low-level EMF. Information about the EMF Project and EMF effects is provided in a series of fact sheets in several languages www.who.int/emf/.
FURTHER READING
WHO workshop on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (2004), October 25 -27, Prague, Czech Republic, www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/hypersensitivity_prague2004/en/index.html
COST244bis (1998) Proceedings from Cost 244bis International Workshop on Electromagnetic Fields and Non-Specific Health Symptoms. Sept 19-20, 1998, Graz, Austria
Ist ein Artikel von Leitgeb!
Bergqvist U and Vogel E (1997) Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic field. A report prepared by a European group of experts for the European Commission, DGV. Arbete och Hälsa, 1997:19. Swedish National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm, Sweden. ISBN 91-7045-438-8.
Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S. (2005) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosom Med. 2005 Mar-Apr;67(2):224-32
Seitz H, Stinner D, Eikmann Th, Herr C, Roosli M. (2005) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and subjective health complaints associated with electromagnetic fields of mobile phone communication---a literature review published between 2000 and 2004. Science of the Total Environment, June 20 (Epub ahead of print).
Staudenmayer H. (1999) Environmental Illness, Lewis Publishers, Washington D.C. 1999, ISBN 1-56670-305-0.

For more information contact:
WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
Email: mediainquiries@who.int
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/print.htm

Want to comment on the WHO factsheet? Go to:
http://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=3&topic=58
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Helmuth Breunig

European Parliament votes in favor of mandatory data retention
Belgium Created: 15 Dec 2005
Another nail in democracy's coffin.

European Parliament, 14 December 2005:
The EP today voted in favour of "deal" on mandatory data retention agreed in secret meetings between the Council (EU governments) and the "grand coalition" of the PPE (conservative group) and the PSE (socialist group).
The measure was "fast-tracked" through the parliament on 1st reading.
The vote was 378 votes in favour, 197 against and 30 abstentions.
The GUE, Greens and UEN groups and some members from the ALDE group voted against the directive in the final vote.
The rapporteur, Alexander Nuno Alvaro (ALDE, DE) withdrew his name from the report.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:
"The European Parliament has failed on almost every count to protect fundamental rights and privacy. The two big parties in the parliament believe more in "inter-institutional loyalty" to the Council (the EU governments) than their responsibility to the people who elected them.
The way this measure was passed is a democratic travesty - rushed through with deals negotiated in secret and not in open committee. When civil society and national parliaments have no chance to find out what is happening, when the proper co-decision timetable is discarded, there is little chance to intervene. Such a procedure diminishes respect for the European Parliament and lacks any legitimacy whatsoever.
Mandatory data retention will place all the communications of everyone under surveillance. In 2002 the same grand coalition steam-rolled through the Directive on privacy in telecommunications opening the door to state agencies. In December 2004 the mandatory taking of finger-prints for passports was agreed and in April 2004 an EU PNR (passenger name record) for everyone flying in and out too. The asylum procedure directive - which is a disgrace to any notion of humanity and the rule of law - was formally adopted last week. The cost of the "war on terrorism" to democratic standards is mounting as each year goes by. Today we have seen another nail driven into democracy's coffin"
Click here to view the source article.
Source: StateWatch 14 Dec. 2005

So who is Barry Thrower?
United Kingdom Created: 15 Dec 2005
6 March 2004

BARRY TROWER

I trained at the Governments Microwave Warfare establishment in 60’s. I worked with the underwater bomb disposal unit, which used microwaves.
In the 70’s I helped de-brief spies trained in microwave warfare.

My first degree is in Physics (I specialised in microwaves)
My second degree is a research degree.
I have a teaching diploma in human physiology.
I teach advanced physics and mathematics at South Dartmoor College.

Author of the Tetra Report for the Police Federation. I predicted the illnesses, which the officers now complain of.
I predicted the illness’s the residents now complain of.
These are illness’s that occurred before my report was published and cannot be psychosomatic.

At a conference in Birmingham I said “ This Government, Industry and Government Scientists will be responsible for more deaths (of civilians) in peace time
than all the terrorist organizations ever.” The evidence I have is showing this is correct. I put my money where my mouth is and stand my ground.
It is easy to prove TETRA is not safe.

I would like those who sign to say it is” and should go ahead, to stand trial in future years for their decisions.

If microwave systems are safe. Why is there a still on-going stealth warfare industry, going back 60 years, based on the fact that these waves
(AT TETRA STRENGTH) are and have been used to cause illness’s now occurring in residents / police officers?
At this point in time it is now into the germ warfare programme. If microwaves did not affect cells, this industry would not exist at all! No microwave communications system can e safe, especially TETRA. They are the same power as in the warfare industry and in Tetra’s case the same pulse rate.

This Industry is a big money earner for everybody who gives permission to go ahead yet they: the Government; Industry; Government Scientists;
do not take any responsibility.
That falls on the Landowner and the user (Police Officer) who “volunteer’s” to use it as part of the 10 & 15 year cancer trial.
The option (given at the Police Conference – Birmingham) was to resign.

Tetra has a possible outlet of 32 Countries and 52 organisations within this Country, at present.
It must be stopped until there is a full judicial and public hearing into every aspect of this industry.
Not as in “Hansard” where the Minister in response to questions say’s “It is within Government guidelines”.
Which is based only on how warm you get: and even then it is wrong.

Somebody, somewhere, must stop what could be the biggest cause of illness around the World since the plague.
This must go public without fear/prejudice from those in a position of power.
The evidence is already to hand and proof can be obtained experimentally. In a few days. I will do it.

It is time that the intelligence of the general public was recognised and their wishes were respected.
As opposed to Governmental pressure from an intimate relationship with Industrial Power/ Money, on planners.

Latest reports

11 children leaving a school (sick) in Sussex.
11 Leukemia and 3 motor neuron diseases around a tetra mast in East Fife.
90 illness’s in Dersley around a new Tetra mast. Sadly, in each case, neither the police nor Industry could attend the MP’s ‘call’ for a meeting.
Only I turned up! How much confidence does that instill in everybody?

Barry Trower

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, roughly 1.8 million people
are electro-sensitive. Electro-sensitivity is best described rather like a food allergy that can only get worse the more you are exposed to it.

Interestingly, a High Court Judge ruled in the case of Yasmin Skelt –v- The First Secretary of State and Three Bridges District Council and Orange PCS
Limited that….reliance on ICNIRP Certification is not enough.

Whilst our Government and its Scientists are keen to promote the knowledge of their scientific advisors, they only represent a small proportion of the
scientists in the world, making judgements on safety levels.

For example: The June 2000 International Conference at Salzburg consisted of 19 of the world’s top scientists in this field and they set the level already
given as 0.1 of our units. It can be argued that the more power given to the companies to ‘pump out’ the more profit they can make. It could also be argued
that as the Government has a huge financial stake with this industry, the Government cannot be unbiased in its decision making processes.

Heat

NRPB and ICNIRP’s safety levels are based purely on thermal effects. Looking at scientific papers, most of the rest of the world disagrees with this assessment. Doctor Cletus Kanavy, Chief of the biological effects group of the Phillips Laboratory’s Electromagnetic Effects Division at Kirkfield Air Force Base in New Mexico, says ‘Large amount of data, both animal, experimental and human clinical to support the existence of chronic non thermal effects….these include behavioural, neural, foetal, blood, metabolic, endocrine and immune problems.

Professor John R Goldsmith who holds 11 Professorships, WHO Officer for Europe and International Consultant for RF Communication, possibly the world’s leading expert in this field (now deceased), wrote in his paper ‘The End of Innocence’ ‘to use the lack of significant heating effect as evidence of lack of risk is the red herring’

During September 2002 at the University of Vienna, 19 of the world’s top scientists met to discuss electromagnetic waves. This was known as the Catania Resolution. They stated ‘we take exception to arguments suggesting that weak, low intensity EMF cannot interact with tissue. There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF induced effects which occur below present ICIRP guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.

In a confidential note to its military personnel in March 1976, document number DST-181OS-074-76 states ‘personnel exposed to microwave radiation below thermal effects experience more neurological, cardio-vascular and haemodynamic disturbances than do their unexposed counterparts. This document from the US Defence Intelligence Agency continues to warn personnel of headache, fatigue, dizziness, menstrual disorders, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety and so on.

Professor Adey, a Fellow of the American Academy of Scientists and a distinguished visitor of the Royal Society of Medicine said ‘of his own research in
parallel with similar studies in Russia in the early 1980’s showed that radio frequency and the lower microwave range affected enzyme systems that regulate growth and division of white blood cells.

Clearly there is experts’ world opinion both military and from Universities showing that radiation below thermal effects can impinge on our physiological functions.

Pulsing

It should be noted that whilst professional bodies have noticed the effects of pulsed microwaves on the physiology of the body, no safety levels exists for
pulses microwave radiation. All mobile communication systems pulse in some way.

Sometimes academic arguments arise where the word ‘pulsing’ is not used and a word like ‘modulated’ substituted. Theoretically, there can be very little difference between a modulated wave and a pulsed wave.

The Health Council of the Netherlands Radio Frequency Radiation Committee say in their 1997 report, page 134 concerning frequencies of 300 Hz to 300 GHz…. ‘The experimental data indicate that the effects of EM fields occur at lower power densities when the object is exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields.
In other words the illnesses already reported, you will get quicker if the microwaves are pulsed. The Freiburger Appeal on the 9th October 2002 signed by approximately 2,000 doctors and scientists says ‘One can no longer evade these pulsed microwaves. They heighten the risk of already present
chemical/physical influences, stress the body’s immune system and can bring the body’s still functioning regulatory mechanisms to a halt.
Pregnant women, children, adolescents, elderly and sick people are especially at risk.

Professor Salford at Lund University in Sweden has shown in his work in the year 2000 that pulsing can alter the permeability of the blood/brain barrier in rats.
If occurring in humans, this could have profound effects on brain function.

In terms of planning, I wonder whether encouraging the use of mobile phones in an around children would not have a detrimental effect on their concentration levels during the school day.

The Accumulative Dose
Professors Sosskind, Provsnitz, Lai, Cherry and a Russian International Medical Commission have all warned about the cumulative effect of these microwaves.

This is not surprising; a property of the electromagnetic spectrum is that these waves are accumulative.

If we go out on a cloudy day we can still get sunburned, it just takes longer, slow cookers work on the same principal.

Professor Sosskind and Provsnitz write ‘an accumulated cellular level damage mechanism is not necessarily related to the intensity but can relate to total dose’.

In their report ‘Mobile telephones, their base stations and health’ from the French Health General Directorate January 2001, they warn of the cumulative
exposure over the lifetime of a child.

This body conclude with an interesting sentence stating ‘biological effects occur at energy levels that do not cause any rise in local temperature’
It can be argued that biological effects may not be hazardous but beneficial. It could also be argued that the responsibility for this decision concerning children should lay with the parents, guardians or those in loco-parentis and not the Planners.

3 G
The new breed of 3 G masts appear to be particularly alarming.
The wave lengths of these microwaves are roughly 14 -15 cm.
This is roughly 6”.
It can be argued that any part of a child’s anatomy – head or organ exposed to these waves will act like an aerial and resonate with the frequency.
This is how aerials work and as we are water-based or fluid based, resonance could occur in these organs or bones, in particular bones containing marrow. The power a child would receive at 30m from a 3G transmitter would be roughly 2 micro Watt per cm² and at 100m roughly 0.2 micro Watt per cm².

Professor Hocking in 1996 wrote that a twofold increase in childhood leukaemia could arise from RFR at 0.2 micro Watt per cm². Similarly, Kolodynski in
1996 said that motor function, memory, attention problems may occur at 0.1 micro Watt per cm².

The new 3 G transmitters also have a higher frequency than most mobile transmitters. This higher frequency comes with more energy. It can be argued that
the symptoms of ‘microwave sickness’ will arise more quickly from children if these transmitters are certainly at these powers near schools.

The two papers previously mentioned show that at 100m the children are twice the level argued by Kolodnyski and at 30m 20 times this level.

It can be argued by the Planning Authorities that children are only in school a few hours a day and do not receive long term exposure.
This argument is flawed in so far as children are really everywhere and the transmitters are quite capable of penetrating their bedrooms and play areas.

The Government

The Stewart Report 2004, Section 9 states: ‘Within the UK there is a lack of hard information showing that mobile phone systems in use are damaging to health.
It is important to emphasise this crucial point’ It can be argued that every time scientific evidence is produced or MPs try and bring up this issue in Parliament, the Government’s response is usually the same and that is ‘We would need to replicate this experiment’, which generally means finding funding which can take a
few years, repeating the experiments which can take up to 10 years and then having it published, which can take another couple of years. Another ‘stock answer’ when complaints are broached towards the Government, it is said ‘our transmitters are within Government Guidelines’. This of course means that you won’t get too warm near the transmitter and nothing else.

In the same report, paragraph 4 ‘The UK Government has given strong encouragement to the development of mobile phone technology’.
With respect to the science, Michael Meacher, Minister for the Environment 1997-2003 wrote, which was published in The Times:

‘Our Universities eye the donor as a potential source of funds and try to ensure nothing is said which might jeopardise big new cash possibilities.’
Academics who raise embarrassing questions –

- Who is paying for the Lab?
- How independent is the peer review?
- Who profits from the research?
- Is the University’s integrity compromised?

Soon learn that keeping their heads down is the best way not to risk their careers, let alone future funding. The message is clear, making money is good and dissent is stifled.

Similarly in the science magazine, Scientific American May 2004, Congressman Henry Waxman wrote an article saying roughly the same of the American Government.

Published in the International Ecologist Science & Technology section, June 2004, they write ‘You will hear statements by supposed experts, always the same few in the pay of the telecommunications industry, to the effect that cell phones, cell towers, microwave radiation have been proved safe in countless studies.
It is an easy lie, one that the news media have been eager to propagate. Such studies don’t exist. Quite the contrary, it has been shown that just as for X-rays there is no safe level of exposure to microwave radiation.

In Parliament on 28th January 2004, 20 pages of questions and answers were printed with respect to MP’s complaining about their constituents ill-health from mobile phone transmitters.

At the end of all this the Minister replied ‘UK/ICNIRP Guidelines are based on a comprehensive assessment of current scientific knowledge’.
It could be argued that this is very selective current scientific knowledge and not a wide based review of research from around the world.

This topic was again brought to Parliament on 10th June 2004, and again dismissed.

On 21st May 2004 again MP’s tried to bring up this debate in Parliament. In Hansard, Section 1245 concerns illnesses of school children and reports on what
the MP’s describe as sensible people. Section 1247, again covers children where in one case 11 children under the age of 11 have leukaemia within the
vicinity of a transmitter and Section 1258, the Stewart Report is quoted as saying ‘The beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school
grounds or buildings, without agreement of the school or parents’.

Again it appears that despite the efforts of many MP’s, transmitters are still being allowed to be erected near schools.

Reported in the Sunday Herald, 4th July 2004 Doctor Keith Baverstok who was the WHOs senior radiation advisor in Europe says that science has been perverted for political ends by Government Agencies which should be protecting public health.

He continues ‘Politics, aided and abetted by some in the scientific community has poisoned the well which sustains democratic decision making’.

He accused the NRPB of mis-using science.

It could be argued that there appears to be no democratic decision making process in where masts are to be sited. If a community does not want a mast, it appears that this community has to take on the communications industry, the Planning Department and the Government in order to win their case.
As the onus is on the community to prove that the mast is dangerous and expenses can run at £140,000 a day, it appears not surprising that both the
Government and the industry are getting their way. It also appears that challenging this ‘super giant’ is futile. The question then is – Is this Democracy?

Legal Responsibility

It was reported in the Saturday Mail, January 22 2005, that when a transmitter was erected outside a house £50,000 was instantly wiped off its value.
If we look at these implications across the country, many billions of £’s must be wiped off the value of houses. The question of course is, who is responsible
for this? Further complications must arise where Planning Permission is not required. It could be argued that legislation should be brought about whereby responsibility is attributed to a named ‘body’.

The Stewart Report 2004, Section 3.0 states ‘It is important that as the Networks develop there is a need for clarity in terms of legal responsibilities and regulations’….

An interesting legal argument can be based on the countries that have over 3% of their population’s electro-sensitive. By association, it could be argued that
3% of this population must also be electro-sensitive.

Electro-sensitivity is written about in the Stewart Report on page 34. Interestingly, the Children’s Act 1989, part 3, section 17, places a legal obligation to
protect children from a ‘perceived risk’. This risk does not have to be real, it could be argued that 3% of our children could be electro-sensitive and therefore should be protected from the harm, supposedly caused by microwaves from base stations.

Also the 1993 UN Directive for Handicapped People, states that they must not be disadvantaged. This argument then may follow that electro-sensitive children cannot be ignored as they have a disability. Clearly, it could be argued that the mobile industry, by introducing such children to their microwaves; if the children are suffering; are breaking the law.

In the Court of Appeal on November 13th 2003, the Court spelled out the duty of care resting on the landowner/occupier of land in respect of activities which
he permitted or encouraged on his land. See Bottomley –v- Secretary and members of Todmorden Cricket Club and others.

An interesting argument is :

- Who are the landowners?
- Do they have full Insurance Indemnity in writing?
- Would this Indemnity cover medical illness for several children for the rest of their lives?

Mr Wulf Dietrich Rose, expert in mobile communications of Kitzbühl, Austria, internationally known for his research works in this field, won his Court case for
the third time on 26th April 2001. He proved, through his studies and researches that mobile radiation represents serious health risks to the nearby living populations like cancer, brain tumours, genetic problems and deformity of newborns.

In this country Appeal Decision APP/U1105/A/04/1137356 concluded that a mast be refused because of … ‘Likely effects of the project on the health of local people’

In 1998 a Court of Appeal Decision found that ‘Genuine public fear and concern is a material planning consideration even if the fear is irrational and not based upon evidence’ – see Newport BC –v- Secretary of State for Wales 1998 JPL 377.

An interesting statement made on 7th June 2004 by Australia’s leading Neuro-Surgeon Dr Charles Teo stated that he has seen a 21% increase in children’s
brain tumours over the past few years. Dr Teo issued a warning on national TV for parents to be aware. It is his opinion that there is a connection between
EMR and the development of brain cancer.

Birmingham City Council Planning Department on 5th January 2004 wrote : ‘I believe that there is a pressing need for urgent further research into the health aspects of telecommunications developments together with a review of the existing guidance and regulations on how such proposals should be considered’.


It was signed by Mr Jones, Chief Planning Officer.

It may be possible that under the Human Rights Act a person’s human rights may be infringed by the sighting of a mast or base station. In so far as the individual’s right of privacy and to quiet enjoyment of the home. Re: The Right of Privacy, Article 8 (2).

UK Case Law also makes it clear that the perceived risk to health need not relate solely to radiation but the stress caused by the actual installation of the mast.

It could be recommended that for in-depth knowledge of this subject, expert legal counsel should be consulted. With reference to Insurance Indemnity, it is worth checking the policy of the landowner. For example: One company excludes any legal responsibility with regard to :

- Personal damage
- Illness
- Disability of any type
- Death
- Mental illness
- Anguish
- Mental or physical pain
- Mental or physical deterioration
- Mental or physical disorder
- Any mental or physical disability
- Any symptoms caused or said to hae been caused by or attributed to the continuous use of mobile telephones.

It could be argued that if you are placing a transmitter near a school, you are encouraging children to use mobile telephones.

It could be argued that Planning Authorities, the Government and the Government Scientists are immune from prosecution because the only ill effects they will recognise are from excess heating. It could also be argued that the insurance companies have not made this comprehensive list of illnesses just for something to do. Their information must be based on worldwide research covering effects below our Government’s guidelines.

Miscellaneous Evidence

There is a plethora of extensive, well researched documents highlighting illnesses caused by microwave sickness around the world. These papers (in their thousands) highlight the illnesses caused by low level (below thermal) microwaves as :

- Arrhythmia
- Heart attack
- Cell death
- Diseases of the blood
- Interference to bone marrow
- Brain tumours
- DNA damage
- Altered Calcium level in cells
- Reduction in night-time Melatonin
- Suppression of the Immune System
- Arthritis
- Rheumatism
- Skin problems
- Lymphatic diseases
- Vaginal discharge
- Vascular system disease
- Tinnatis
- Leukaemia
- Childhood cancer
- Sleep problems
- Mental problems involving depression, irritability, memory loss, difficulty in concentrating, headache, dizziness and fatigue, suicidal tendencies, miscarriage and infertility.

Clearly, this is the work of thousands of overseas scientists, although some are in this country, but below thermal effects, none of these illnesses will be accepted by our Government and its scientists.

It can often be argued that these illnesses are psychosomatic ie: when a neighbourhood sees the erection of a mast, any illness they get is instantly blamed on that mast. Or, psychologically the mast is reported to cause the illnesses.

However, an argument against this are the many cases where masts have been erected without local knowledge and these illnesses still occur.

There are some 40 farm studies where animals have been affected by masts on their land, and once removed, have recovered.
When the animals return they instantly become ill again.

Other studies show effects on the migratory patterns of birds and even insects. Peer reviewed and published works show that plants (trees) can stop growing when exposed to long-term low level microwaves.

It could be argued that everything in this report need to be considered very seriously before the siting of a mast or masts close to schools, residential areas, nursing homes, nurseries and hospitals.

A solution to this problem is not so much where the masts are sited but the power transmitted. If the power transmitted were at the Salzburg level, this would instantly seem more acceptable to the scientific community opposing masts.

The implication of this would probably mean less profits for the mobile industry and mobile phones would not work inside houses. However, mobile phones
would work outside houses and open fields where children are thought to be at most risk from danger and/or accident.

B. Trower
3 Flowers Meadow
Liverton
Devon
TQ12 6UP
Tel: 01626 821 014
My work is done entirely free of charge and I have never accepted money from any person or organisation in the years I have been doing this research.
I consider myself absolutely independent.
All of the documents I have mentioned (enough to fill a suitcase) I am prepared to bring to any Planning Office free of charge, should they wish any photocopies. The last time they were photocopied it took about 6 hours.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Eileen O'Connor

Just take a look at the amount of phone masts 100 metres from the Buncefield Oil Depot, Hemel Hempstead, and wonder!.
United Kingdom Created: 14 Dec 2005
Take a look at the amount of phone masts 100 metres from the Buncefield Oil Depot, Hemel Hempstead.
Please also read about Stray Voltage information provided to Birmingham City Council Scrutiny Committee on phone masts.
Stray Voltage Case 1:
An incident was reported to SCRAM by an electrical contractor some 12 – 18 months ago, he discovered stray voltage in an office block at the
Kingfisher Centre Redditch.
This contractor has been a qualified electrician for over 35 years and was asked to carry out what he describes as very routine work over a weekend.
The work involved moving sockets etc.
He was horrified by the discovery of registering readings at 1000 volts per metre on his equipment and even more astonished when having shut down the
whole of the electricity supply to the building, he found that his metre was still recording 1000 volts.
Concerned by this stray voltage, he ordered the evacuation of all people from buildings and alerted the Electricity Board’s Inspectorate who attended from
George Road, Erdington.
The Inspector was extremely concerned and baffled by what was happening and called upon a senior inspector.
The Contractor was advised that this stray voltage was certainly not caused by anything that he was doing and that in fact it was not electricity,
but likely to be microwaves entering the building from a mobile phone mast close by, and that as his monitor was unable to read microwaves, it was
transferring into electricity or in fact voltage.
This gentleman shares our concern that microwaves equivalent to 1000 volts of electricity are present in the room, and that should it be the case electricity
at that level was emitting into the building the electricity industry would immediately respond. No-one in this present situation is accountable, or can guarantee
that this is not getting into the National Grid.

Dr John Walker has recorded up to 6 volts per metre in a flat in Boldmere.
Stray Voltage Case 2:
A second example occurred at the home of an 81 year old lady in a 7th floor flat in Manchester.
A low frequency hum exists in this lady’s flat. Various officials visited her home over a six month period, heard the hum, but could not attribute it to their
particular remit. Others witnessed the intermittent lighting of an electrician’s screwdriver indicating some type of power surging into the room.
The professionals called into investigate were the Electricity Board, Ofcom Investigating radio waves, Salford University Physics Department and the lady’s
own GP.
All agreed that there was a problem, with low frequency noise and some type of energy which was intermittent and causing painful spasms and electric
shocks throughout this lady’s body.
Manchester Housing at the advice of Ofcom and the GP are re-housing her, but the cause of the problem still remains unknown.
We believe along with a number of scientists that it could again be microwaves from a nearby mast, manifesting electrical type surges.
Witnesses to the Hum and Screwdriver lighting up include a Councillor, Housing Department, a GP, Salford University Physics Department, the Electricity
Board and Ofcom.
A representative from Ofcom advised the lady that she should be re-housed immediately and suggested Manchester City Council referred to the Stewart
report of May 2000 and January 2005, he put his concerns in writing.
Details can be obtained from SCRAM.

Please see details below of masts just 100 metres from the oil plant, could stray voltage checked?
Is is safe to site this amount of masts near a huge oil plant?
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Eileen O’Connor

Could one of the many close 3G UMTS masts have ignited the Buncefield oildepot??
United Kingdom Created: 14 Dec 2005
I have spoken to Barry Trower ex-Government Military Scientist today.
He agrees that if there was a vapour leak in the oil plant, microwaves could ignite and cause an explosion.
He also pointed out that you're not allowed to use mobile phones at petrol stations and that microwaves tracking systems have been suspected in causing some aircraft explosions on empty tanks.
He informed me that aircrafts have been advised in the past to use protective shields around fuel tanks because of tracking devices such as radar
and electromagnetic waves.

He was commissioned to write the report on Tetra for the Police Federation and is currently advising the Fire Authority with regards to phone masts.

Barry totally agrees with me that you shouldn't site microwave phone masts near an oil plant.

Please find further information/reports enclosed with regards to Barry Trower.

Could one of these transmitting Antennae - several being 3G UMTS 2100Mhz - be the cause of escaping vapour being ignited? It certainly demands a thorough health and safety investigation.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Eileen O'Connor

EU's data retention laws could be illegal
Belgium Created: 14 Dec 2005
Proposed European legislation on data retention may be illegal, according to lawyers at the European Council and Commission.

The offending sections of the proposed framework agreement on data retention are the requirements the law would impose on communications service providers. The legal eagles argue that such rules should be addressed by the EU's regulation of the telecoms industry, covered in internal market legislation, Statewatch reports.

The framework document, proposed in April last year by the UK, will require communications service providers to keep user data for a minimum of a year, and possibly indefinitely. Service providers have long been concerned about how much it will cost them to comply with the stringent requirements on keeping and storing data.

In December 2004, the Council reviewed the proposal, concluded it did not go far enough. It called for service providers to be required to retain all the data "processed/generated by the service provider, even if the data have no interest for the service provider".
At the time, EU Policy Director Political Intelligence Joe McNamee, said that the revisions demonstrated a "scarcely believable lack of technical awareness".

According to Statewatch, if the opinion of the EU's legal team is accepted, then the data retention proposal will have to be redrafted to remove all references to the obligations of telecom service providers.

The civil liberties activists go on to point out that the Council and Commission lawyers have confined their evaluation of the proposal to determining whether the law should be part of the EU's criminal, or economic legislation. Statewatch argues that the proposal is fatally flawed because it infringes on the right to privacy, guaranteed by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Register

Ericsson to babysit 3's UK phone network
United Kingdom Created: 13 Dec 2005
More than 1000 staff from 3 are to be transferred to Ericsson as part of the deal.

3 is to hand over control of its 3G phone network in the UK to Ericsson as part of a massive seven-year managed services deal.
More than 1,000 staff from 3 are to be transferred to Ericsson as part of the deal, although the giant operator has confirmed that no redundancies will be made as part of the move.

Financial details were not released but reports claim the agreement could be worth in the region of $3bn (£1.7bn).
A part of the deal the Swedish phone giant will be responsible for the management, operation and performance of 3's network and IT infrastructure in the UK, although the Hutchison Whampoa-owned company retains ownership of the network and IT assets.
Announcing the deal today 3 UK's chief exec Bob Fuller said the agreement was the "most efficient way to own and manage infrastructure of this kind".
Ericsson already has deals in place with 3 in Australia and Italy, where it manages the cellco's multi-vendor networks and in Sweden, where it looks after 3's messaging platform.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Register


The results of the 3 Investigates survey into mobile masts near schools.
United Kingdom Created: 9 Dec 2005
Read the results of the 3 Investigates survey into mobile masts near schools.

The Schools Survey - Results

General
There are 26532 schools in the country.
2350 (8.9%) of these have at least one macro mast between 50 and 200 metres of a school.
There are 4091 mobile phone masts between 50 and 200 metres of a school.
On average 76% of schools have not been consulted about 3G masts near them.

General Consultations
We phoned schools to ask them if they had been informed about any of the masts between 50 and 200 metres of their school.
166 schools replied.
25 of these (15%) had been consulted by the phone company.
40 (24%) had been consulted by their local authority.

Consultations on 3G masts
We phoned schools to ask them if they had been informed about the 3G masts between 50 and 200 metres of their school.
There are 695 schools with 3G masts within 50-200m from the school.
365 schools, with a total of 413 masts replied.

Of the 413 masts, in 101 cases schools (24%) had been consulted by the phone company.

Of the 413 masts, in 104 cases schools (25%) had been consulted by their local authority.

Phone Companies
In a breakdown of the 3G masts in the country, the phone companies are divided thus:

Hutchison: own 462 3G masts within 50-200m from schools.
423 different schools have Hutchison 3G masts within 50-200m.

Of the 423 schools that have Hutchison 3G masts nearby, 254 responded to the survey and 64 (25%) said they had been consulted by Hutchison.

Vodaphone: own 171 3G masts within 50-200m from schools.
147 schools have Vodafone 3G masts within 50-200m.

Of the 147 schools that have Vodaphone 3G masts nearby, 81 responded to the survey and 16 (20%) said they had been consulted by Vodaphone.

T Mobile: own 155 3G masts within 50-200m from schools.
129 schools have T-Mobile 3G masts within 50-200m.

Of the 129 schools that have T-Mobile 3G masts nearby, 77 responded to the survey and 19 (25%) said they had been consulted by T-Mobile.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BBC3

Listen to the Electrosmog: The dreadful noise of the mast next door to your house!
United Kingdom Created: 9 Dec 2005
It does not matter where, or how we live, what our occupation is, what colour of our skin is.
We have one thing in common if we live near to a Mobile/Cell-phone mast/antenna!
The nerve racking noise they make.
Listen in to the thae sound that is making you ill!!
Click here to view the source article.

Ericsson signs £1.5bn deal to manage 3's mast and IT division
United Kingdom Created: 8 Dec 2005
Ericsson signs £1.5bn deal to manage 3's IT division

The UK's newest mobile network operator, 3, is outsourcing the management of its masts and IT infrastructure in a groundbreaking £1.5bn deal that is likely to be copied by rivals.
More than 1,000 employees will be transferred to Ericsson, the Swedish telecoms equipment group which is expanding rapidly in so-called "managed services". It will assume responsibility for the running, maintenance and expansion of 3's 6,300 radio masts and its operational centres. And it has been charged with installing new masts to increase the coverage of the company's 3G services, which can be accessed from 86 per cent of the UK.
Neither Ericsson nor 3 would disclose the financial terms of the deal yesterday, but analysts put its value at about £1.5bn over the seven years of the contract. "This is the largest managed services partnership contract signed by Ericsson to date and one of the largest signed in the industry," Ericsson said. Its shares jumped almost 4 per cent on the news.
3, owned by the Hong Kong conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa, has previously tied up similar outsourcing deals with Ericsson in Australia and Italy. A spokesman said it "allows 3 to concentrate on what it does differently and does best". It has been at the forefront of introducing video content and music downloads to mobile phone users, and boasts 3.2 million subscribers in the UK.
Rival networks are believed to be examining similar outsourcing deals. Ericsson's main rivals in managed services are Nokia and Siemens, while network equipment companies such as Nortel Networks and Lucent Technologies are also potential candidates for some outsourcing work. Such deals would allow mobile companies to cut costs at a time when competition is hotting up in mature markets such as the UK.
Jan Dworski, a telecoms analyst at Handelsbanken, said: "It is generally a tough climate for operators in Europe. If some of them improve their cost picture via this type of deal then that should lead to an increase in interest among other operators."
The deal will benefit Ericsson's core equipment supply business as well as its fast-growing managed services arm. It said it would supply equipment, additional technology and related services to 3 as part of the new relationship between the companies. It gave no details on what equipment it would supply, which had so far been bought by 3 from other vendors.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: By Stephen Foley. Published: 07 December 2005

«First  ‹Previous   Page 732 of 733   Next›  Last»