Barry Trower: written for Dr Peter Brookes to submit to the Court of Appeal
Just read this. The relevant passage is on page 11 of the document. Attached is the copy we have at w-a-r-t. Hope it helps: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/barry_trower_2005V2.htm
Peter
Hello everyone
The quote in Barry's document is incorrect.
It should read Professor Gerd Oberfield, Public Health Officer for Environmental Medicine, Province of Salzburg, Austria
Trent University is where Magda Havas is based.
Both Gerd Oberfield and Magda Havas responded to a letter in the Washingon Post.
Please could everyone correct this where they have used the quote from Barry's report.
I actually fixed this in Barry's report when I reviewed it at the beginning of last year; don't know what happened that it didn't get updated, but I've attached the original article. Barry is referring to so you can see the context of the quote.
Best regards
Nancy Watts
On Nov. 18 and Dec. 2, Fairfax Extra published guest columns discussing both sides of a debate about the Fairfax County School Board's commercial venture to build cell phone towers at schools. The columns prompted the following letters from two researchers on radio frequency radiation.
Putting Cell Phone Antennas Near Schools Is Too Risky
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/489469/
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page VA10
I read the article in Fairfax Extra by Karl Polzer ["Schools Are No Place for Cell Towers," Nov. 18] and the rebuttal ["Cell Phone Antennas No Threat to Schools," Dec. 2] by John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association.
"While the wireless industry appreciates the concerns of some parents in this instance, they can be assured that no one's health, particularly their children's, would be subjected to any unnecessary risks. The possibility of negative health effects on people in close proximity to cell phone towers has been exhaustively researched by the world's leading health organizations, and all of them have reached the same conclusion: Observing prescribed standards of power emission, such facilities do not pose any threat to human health."
This statement is blatantly false. His reference is to a fact sheet on the World Health Organization Web site that was last revised in 2000 and is now out of date. Even in 2000 the health effects were not "exhaustively researched," and indeed there is much disagreement about what is considered safe. That is why radio frequency guidelines worldwide range more than six orders of magnitude! Since biological effects associated with radio frequency radiation are likely to be the same in Austria, Italy, China, Hungary, Switzerland and Russia, why do these countries have much lower guidelines than the United States?
Recent studies show that people who live within 300 meters of mobile phone base stations have a number of symptoms that are now referred to as electrical hyper- sensitivity and were originally called radio wave illness. These include fatigue, sleep disturbances, headaches, difficulty concentrating, depression, memory loss, visual and hearing disruptions, irritability, skin problems and dizziness. Symptoms are particularly severe for those within 10 meters (30 feet) of a cell phone mast.
Electrical hypersensitivity is a very real phenomenon and is classified as a disability in Sweden. The World Health Organization organized a workshop in October in Prague on electrical hypersensitivity.
Guidelines for radio frequency exposure in the United States and Canada are based on thermal effects. There is now considerable evidence that non-thermal effects exist below existing guidelines and that these may be "associated with adverse health effects," according to the Royal Society of Canada.
These studies tell me that we should be careful with the placement of mobile phone base stations. If in doubt, do not place these base stations near schools and homes and places where people spend considerable time. The adverse biological effects and eventual lawsuits are simply not worth the price of this shortsighted thinking.
Magda Havas
Associate Professor
Environmental and Resource Studies Program Trent University Peterborough, Ontario
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29.html
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. The findings are from 2002 and 2004. It is important to note that cell phone antennas emit microwave radiation all the time and may act as a chronic stressor at low exposure levels. Two of the studies did measurements in subjects' bedrooms and found significant increases in stress-related symptoms as well as neurological symptoms above exposures to 0.005 microwatts per centimeter squared. This is roughly 500,000 times lower than U.S. exposure standards for cell tower radiation. The main symptoms reported by our study were depression, fatigue, sleep disorders and concentration difficulty. These symptoms were related to exposure levels, not distance from the antennas.
Concerning cellular phones, recent research from a 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 World Health Organization. Also, a new study by Swedish researchers confirms previous findings that long-term exposure to cellular phones increases the risk for acoustic neuroma, a benign type of brain tumor.
Exposure guidelines proposed by the World Health Organization are based only on short-term effects and are not designed to protect the public from long-term effects and non-thermal effects.
There is increasing evidence showing that microwave radiation is a threat to well-being and health. Schools and all other places where humans, and especially children, stay for long periods should have safe exposure levels. Before an antenna is mounted, it is possible to calculate the theoretical exposure. It should be noted that under the antennas there can be higher exposure levels because the side lobes of radiation touch ground in close proximity to the radiation source.
In order to reduce the health risks from cell towers significantly, the public health department of Salzburg in Austria recommends exposure levels not exceeding 0.001 microwatts per centimeter squared outside and 0.0001 microwatts per centimeter squared inside buildings. The basis of this recommendation is the empirical evidence that is backed by all three epidemiological cell tower studies.
Because children's bodies are developing and research is not complete on the health effects of microwave radiation, greater caution should be taken in siting cell towers near places where children spend considerable amounts of time. As a general rule, cell towers should not be placed near schools.
Gerd Oberfeld, MD
Public Health Officer for Environmental Medicine Province of Salzburg, Austria
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29_2.html
Informant: Robert Riedlinger
Starmail - am Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005, 22:20 -
http://www.buergerwelle.de/
Rubrik: Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
Peter
Hello everyone
The quote in Barry's document is incorrect.
It should read Professor Gerd Oberfield, Public Health Officer for Environmental Medicine, Province of Salzburg, Austria
Trent University is where Magda Havas is based.
Both Gerd Oberfield and Magda Havas responded to a letter in the Washingon Post.
Please could everyone correct this where they have used the quote from Barry's report.
I actually fixed this in Barry's report when I reviewed it at the beginning of last year; don't know what happened that it didn't get updated, but I've attached the original article. Barry is referring to so you can see the context of the quote.
Best regards
Nancy Watts
On Nov. 18 and Dec. 2, Fairfax Extra published guest columns discussing both sides of a debate about the Fairfax County School Board's commercial venture to build cell phone towers at schools. The columns prompted the following letters from two researchers on radio frequency radiation.
Putting Cell Phone Antennas Near Schools Is Too Risky
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/489469/
Thursday, December 30, 2004; Page VA10
I read the article in Fairfax Extra by Karl Polzer ["Schools Are No Place for Cell Towers," Nov. 18] and the rebuttal ["Cell Phone Antennas No Threat to Schools," Dec. 2] by John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association.
"While the wireless industry appreciates the concerns of some parents in this instance, they can be assured that no one's health, particularly their children's, would be subjected to any unnecessary risks. The possibility of negative health effects on people in close proximity to cell phone towers has been exhaustively researched by the world's leading health organizations, and all of them have reached the same conclusion: Observing prescribed standards of power emission, such facilities do not pose any threat to human health."
This statement is blatantly false. His reference is to a fact sheet on the World Health Organization Web site that was last revised in 2000 and is now out of date. Even in 2000 the health effects were not "exhaustively researched," and indeed there is much disagreement about what is considered safe. That is why radio frequency guidelines worldwide range more than six orders of magnitude! Since biological effects associated with radio frequency radiation are likely to be the same in Austria, Italy, China, Hungary, Switzerland and Russia, why do these countries have much lower guidelines than the United States?
Recent studies show that people who live within 300 meters of mobile phone base stations have a number of symptoms that are now referred to as electrical hyper- sensitivity and were originally called radio wave illness. These include fatigue, sleep disturbances, headaches, difficulty concentrating, depression, memory loss, visual and hearing disruptions, irritability, skin problems and dizziness. Symptoms are particularly severe for those within 10 meters (30 feet) of a cell phone mast.
Electrical hypersensitivity is a very real phenomenon and is classified as a disability in Sweden. The World Health Organization organized a workshop in October in Prague on electrical hypersensitivity.
Guidelines for radio frequency exposure in the United States and Canada are based on thermal effects. There is now considerable evidence that non-thermal effects exist below existing guidelines and that these may be "associated with adverse health effects," according to the Royal Society of Canada.
These studies tell me that we should be careful with the placement of mobile phone base stations. If in doubt, do not place these base stations near schools and homes and places where people spend considerable time. The adverse biological effects and eventual lawsuits are simply not worth the price of this shortsighted thinking.
Magda Havas
Associate Professor
Environmental and Resource Studies Program Trent University Peterborough, Ontario
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29.html
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. The findings are from 2002 and 2004. It is important to note that cell phone antennas emit microwave radiation all the time and may act as a chronic stressor at low exposure levels. Two of the studies did measurements in subjects' bedrooms and found significant increases in stress-related symptoms as well as neurological symptoms above exposures to 0.005 microwatts per centimeter squared. This is roughly 500,000 times lower than U.S. exposure standards for cell tower radiation. The main symptoms reported by our study were depression, fatigue, sleep disorders and concentration difficulty. These symptoms were related to exposure levels, not distance from the antennas.
Concerning cellular phones, recent research from a 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 World Health Organization. Also, a new study by Swedish researchers confirms previous findings that long-term exposure to cellular phones increases the risk for acoustic neuroma, a benign type of brain tumor.
Exposure guidelines proposed by the World Health Organization are based only on short-term effects and are not designed to protect the public from long-term effects and non-thermal effects.
There is increasing evidence showing that microwave radiation is a threat to well-being and health. Schools and all other places where humans, and especially children, stay for long periods should have safe exposure levels. Before an antenna is mounted, it is possible to calculate the theoretical exposure. It should be noted that under the antennas there can be higher exposure levels because the side lobes of radiation touch ground in close proximity to the radiation source.
In order to reduce the health risks from cell towers significantly, the public health department of Salzburg in Austria recommends exposure levels not exceeding 0.001 microwatts per centimeter squared outside and 0.0001 microwatts per centimeter squared inside buildings. The basis of this recommendation is the empirical evidence that is backed by all three epidemiological cell tower studies.
Because children's bodies are developing and research is not complete on the health effects of microwave radiation, greater caution should be taken in siting cell towers near places where children spend considerable amounts of time. As a general rule, cell towers should not be placed near schools.
Gerd Oberfeld, MD
Public Health Officer for Environmental Medicine Province of Salzburg, Austria
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29_2.html
Informant: Robert Riedlinger
Starmail - am Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2005, 22:20 -
http://www.buergerwelle.de/
Rubrik: Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
Starmail - 8. Aug, 22:46
