In einer über dreistündigen Debatte wurde am 28. Mai 2009 im Liechtensteiner Landtag über den so genannten «Mobilfunk-Fortschrittsbericht» zur Senkung der Strahlenbelastung auf den 1.1. 2013 diskutiert. Weil die vier Mobilfunkanbieter in ihren Berichten ankündigen, dass sie das Land verlassen werden, wenn die vom Landtag im Mai 2008 beschlossene Senkung des Grenzwertes auf 0.6 V/m nicht rückgängig gemacht werde, entwickelte sich eine lebhafte und spannende Debatte.
CONCENTRATION: Speakers at a conference yesterday said that while many people work very hard to help the environment, their scattered efforts make progress slow
Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, Jun 06, 2009, Page 4
Decentralization, localization, ethics and more public participation may be solutions to challenges that the environmental campaign is facing worldwide, speakers said at a conference in Taipei yesterday.
“Previously, mistakes and failures by human societies were limited - in both space and time - in the damage they could achieve,” said Brendan Mackey, chairman of Earth Charter Initiative’s (ECI) International Education Advisory Committee.
In ganz Europa nimmt die Zahl der elektrosensiblen Menschen zu. Es ist deshalb sehr bedauerlich, dass das Europaparlament in der von Ihnen angesprochenen ...
POLICE behaviour at the G20 protests in London could have been caused by the frequency used by officers' Airwave radios
Police Review article
5 June 09
Airwave allegations after G20 protests
Sarah Bebbington
POLICE behaviour at the G20 protests in London could have been caused by the frequency used by officers' Airwave radios interfering with their brainwaves, one expert has said...
THOUSANDS of slow-growing brain tumours could be affecting Airwave-users in the UK, according to a physicist who specialises in the health effects of radio waves.
Barrie Trower, an independent research physicist who studies the effects of radiation on the brain, has predicted that officers could feel the effect of anything between 1,090 and 7,630 cancerous growths.
Mr Trower used research from the journal Scientific American, which stated there was a 0.206 per cent increase in the chances of contracting tumours by mobile phone users, to calculate how many Airwave users could be at risk.
The figure followed a report by Prof Lawrie Challis, the Government's lead scientist on mobile phone research, published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2007, which stated there was an association between tumours and prolonged mobile phone use. Mr Trower compared this to 300,000 police officers and staff, and other Airwave users.
He said: 'This suggests a potential for a possible 1,090 slow growing tumours, but it could be much more. It could be up to 7,630. I do not want to stop police officers using Airwave if they want it, all I want is a referendum on it. I would like people to be aware of what the dangers are. In my opinion, police officers are not being told the truth about Airwave.'
Airwave, ACPO and the National Policing Improvement Agency denied these claims. An ACPO spokeswoman said: 'There is no evidence that Airwave causes cancer or is responsible for behavioural change.'
An NPIA spokesman added: 'The statements attributed to Mr Trower are wholly speculative and have no basis in fact. Airwave has been in everyday use in every force in England, Wales and Scotland for many years for every type of policing event.'
An Airwave spokeswoman said: 'Research continues to enhance scientific understanding about radio waves and health.
'The international scientific consensus is that there is no evidence of any adverse health effect within accepted exposure limits, regardless of frequency or modulation.'
Radio may face withdrawal call
THE Police Federation of England and Wales has said it will instantly call for Airwave to be withdrawn if associated ill-health effects are proven.
Paul Lewis, secretary of the federation's health and safety sub-committee, said: 'We would never advocate using any technology that would endanger the lives of police officers.
'In the past, we have stated that we would instantly call for the Airwave system to be withdrawn if it is proven to be detrimental to the health of users. We maintain that stance.
'We value scientific research and deem it to be wholly necessary, particularly where health and welfare could be at risk.'
He added: 'Police officers put their lives on the line to protect society and they need the right technology to do the job.
'In many ways Airwave has already proved itself to be an invaluable asset to policing since its complete introduction in 2005.
'There is still a debate over possible long and short term health effects. We cannot and will not ignore the risks associated with Airwave.'
A Government directive on phone mast planning applications has been effectively overturned by the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon. John Prescott.
Government Planning Policy Guidance on masts, PPG8 (Para 98) states: "... it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. ... In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them". But a Planning Inspector who by all accounts followed that advice to the letter failed in his statutory duty - according to the Deputy Prime Minister.
An official Government Planning Guideline that is at variance with the expressed view of the Deputy Prime Minister (and final arbiter of planning issues in the UK) has no place in the planning process and should be withdrawn immediately. Until then the self-contradictory stance of the Government on this issue is untenable, making a mockery of the Democratic Process in respect of mobile phone masts.
Now read on ...
On 26 September 2003 a landmark victory was achieved for those campaigning for the British public to have a say in the safety of their own living environment and that of their families. A High Court Judge signed a Consent Order that finalised the quashing of a Planning Inspectorate appeal decision. The decision, to allow an Orange mobile phone mast to be erected in Grove Way, Chorleywood, was over-turned on the basis of the Inspector's "failure to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns of the claimant in his decision letter". The First Secretary of State offered to concede the case and to pay reasonable costs.
The case was submitted under S288 of a challenge to an Inspector's decision based on the sole ground that as there was an ICNIRP certificate the inspector did not need to look at health further. The Treasury Solicitor, instead of going forward or even submitting any defence, has negotiated a settlement agreeing that a consent order be granted for the reason quoted above.
The Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 8 says that, where an ICNIRP Certificate exists for a proposed mast, there is no need for a Local Planning Authority to consider health issues or concerns any further. This has led to the virtual dismissal, by Planning Inspectors and therefore by LPAs, of objections on health grounds to mast applications (since all of them hold an ICNIRP certificate). Over the past year or so, however, there has been an increasing tide of evidence that so-called 'non-thermal' effects from masts are potentially harmful to people's health – and ICNIRP certification only relates to thermal effects – i.e. the microwave heating effect of mast radiation. In other words, there is a serious potential health risk recognised by many eminent scientists that is in no way covered by ICNIRP certification – and up till now it has been taboo to mention it in planning circles, thanks to PPG8.
Not any more. This Decision makes it very clear that slavish adherence to PPG8, unquestioning reliance on ICNIRP certification, is not enough. It may well be that the Government stepped in and conceded this case to forestall an otherwise inevitable High Court Ruling that would have then gone down as Case Law, to be cited in other similar situations. No matter. The point is clearly made, the cat is well and truly out of the bag.
An MM02 Airwave spokesman is quoted earlier this year as saying (with some rancour) "There is a lot of information on the Internet". He's right, there is. There is also an increasing wealth of information coming out through the media – newspapers, TV, radio – and none of it gives any cause for public confidence regarding phone mast safety. The behaviour of some of the phone mast operators (notably Airwave) is also giving rise to increasing public concern. Is it any wonder that people fear for their own health and that of their children? That fear alone is a Material Planning Consideration, it cannot be denied. It unquestionably affects people's wellbeing and quality of life (and can therefore legitimately be included in any objection to a planning application). This is of itself a substantive planning issue, quite apart from the actual health hazard posed by a mast – at the very least one could say without fear of contradiction that there is now 'reasonable doubt' as to phone mast safety. The head-in-the-sand approach is no longer tenable (though our own 'protection' body, the NRPB, still advocate this ostrich posture – see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3157676.stm ).
The law requires that Government guidelines be interpreted in the light of prior legislation. In the case of PPG8 this includes the Human Rights Act. In the words of previous High Court rulings, such guidelines must not be allowed to "fetter the decision-maker's discretion" in the planning process. This latest Ruling makes it crystal clear how that principle should operate in practice.
PPG8 is guidance. It is no longer (and should never have been) 'carte blanche' for masts to go up anywhere and everywhere with a total disregard for legitimate public health concerns. Yasmin Skelt's victory is a victory for us all, and a victory for commonsense and democracy.
It is more dangerous and prevalent than the swine flu. You cannot see it, taste it, or smell it. It is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in industrialized society today. There is virtually no unexposed population.
What is it? Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
There are two types of EMFs: low frequency electromagnetic fields from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines; and radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers.
The City of Cordova has given GCI conditional use permits to install four cellular towers within our city limits. There is a rapidly growing body of evidence – going back 30 years – that shows health risks can and do occur at low exposure levels to EMFs: everyday levels that can be thousands of times below public safety limits.
Wenn das Telefon krank...
http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/t/6f73cb93cafc5207
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=elektromagnetische+Strahlen
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Strahlenschutz
https://omega.twoday.net/search?q=elektrosensibel
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Funkloch
https://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Alzheimer
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Alzheimer
https://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Joachim+Mutter
