Protesters concerned about the 3G mast proposed for Westdene
My latest letter to the widely distributed Kemptown Rag (Every door in Brighton's huge Kemptown area) published yesterday - http://www.kemptownrag.co.uk
Gary
Protesters concerned about the 3G mast proposed for Westdene (Argus, May 28) should be far more concerned about the health effects than the visual impact.
Having taken £22 billion from the Telecom companies in exchange for 80% area coverage of the UK for 3G, the Government is hardly likely to admit this.
The 2004 financially independent Naila study (Germany) [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/398279/ ] by five medical doctors, studied almost 1000 people to assess health risks from 2G (conventional) phone masts. Over a ten year period, they found a tripling of new cancer cases, in people on average eight years younger, amongst people living within 400 metres of the mast, compared to those living between 400 and 800 metres away.
3G requires many more transmitters at much higher power outputs than 2G.
In 2003 the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/726689/ and http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2126709/ ] found significant negative effects including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain and dizziness from 3G mast emissions at less than 1/25000th of accepted (ICNIRP) safety guidelines, occurring within days of exposure to the radiation.
These studies are summarised in "Five studies showing ill-health effects from masts" (2005) by Dr Grahame Blackwell [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/859473/ ], who was involved at a high level in a major EU-funded mobile phone research & development project in the 1990s. He wrote "there are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such ill-health effects".
In "On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB reports" [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/708325/ ], Blackwell demolishes the ICNIRP safety guidelines for phone masts, which are based on the recommendations of Mike Repacholi of the World Health Organisation's Radiation Health Protection Committee [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi ] who recently resigned following revelations of pro industry bias and receipt of $150,000 pa in expenses from the Telecoms industry. See http://www.starweave.com .
Since simultaneous calls to masts are recorded and requests issued for extra masts above a certain number, if people do not want masts, then the answer is obvious.
Or are people happy to also risk brain tumours [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+tumours ] - " A probability rather than a possibility" in intensive mobile users according to Professor Leif Salford of Sweden's University of Lund [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Salford ] who conducted a study of 1600 mobile users?
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
Gary
Protesters concerned about the 3G mast proposed for Westdene (Argus, May 28) should be far more concerned about the health effects than the visual impact.
Having taken £22 billion from the Telecom companies in exchange for 80% area coverage of the UK for 3G, the Government is hardly likely to admit this.
The 2004 financially independent Naila study (Germany) [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/398279/ ] by five medical doctors, studied almost 1000 people to assess health risks from 2G (conventional) phone masts. Over a ten year period, they found a tripling of new cancer cases, in people on average eight years younger, amongst people living within 400 metres of the mast, compared to those living between 400 and 800 metres away.
3G requires many more transmitters at much higher power outputs than 2G.
In 2003 the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/726689/ and http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2126709/ ] found significant negative effects including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain and dizziness from 3G mast emissions at less than 1/25000th of accepted (ICNIRP) safety guidelines, occurring within days of exposure to the radiation.
These studies are summarised in "Five studies showing ill-health effects from masts" (2005) by Dr Grahame Blackwell [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/859473/ ], who was involved at a high level in a major EU-funded mobile phone research & development project in the 1990s. He wrote "there are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such ill-health effects".
In "On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB reports" [ http://omega.twoday.net/stories/708325/ ], Blackwell demolishes the ICNIRP safety guidelines for phone masts, which are based on the recommendations of Mike Repacholi of the World Health Organisation's Radiation Health Protection Committee [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi ] who recently resigned following revelations of pro industry bias and receipt of $150,000 pa in expenses from the Telecoms industry. See http://www.starweave.com .
Since simultaneous calls to masts are recorded and requests issued for extra masts above a certain number, if people do not want masts, then the answer is obvious.
Or are people happy to also risk brain tumours [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+tumours ] - " A probability rather than a possibility" in intensive mobile users according to Professor Leif Salford of Sweden's University of Lund [ http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Salford ] who conducted a study of 1600 mobile users?
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
Starmail - 9. Jun, 11:30
