Urgent Action needed re Harrogate 3 Schools Mast
Urgent action needed re harrogate 3 schools mast - please contact your mp now
If the Secretary of State does not appeal,the Harrogate decision health concerns may not be considered in planning applications for mobile phone mast for decades. He has until the ?9th ? 10th december to change his mind
Please write /e-mail /fax/telephone John Prescott NOW if you think he should appeal the decision..
I am attaching a standard letter which I am circulating please feel free to copy and distribute -- altering in any way which you feel appropriate.
Please send copies and ring /write to your mps now we have less than one week.
I rang the ODPM and was told they cant decide what to do as the judgement has not yet been published-- it may be published after the deadline for appeals!
If you are concerned about the health effects of mobile phone masts and want the right to have these concerns considered when a mast is applied for by your childrens school you need to act now!!
If not the battle for our children protection at school and at home may be over for a long time-- this will affect EVERY mast application which follows.
email john prescotts office at
http://www.locata.co.uk/cgi-bin/webdriver?MIval=commons_mail&id=239
From:
To
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
26 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2WH
Tel: 020 7944 4400 Fax: 0207 944 6589
cc MP
Dear Mr Prescott
I am writing to demand that the Secretary of State appeals the decision made by the court of appeal in the case of the Harrogate Mast /Three Schools case.
The issue as to whether ICNIRP certification should be enough to reassure the community of safety of mast emissions was not in my opinion properly considered.
The ICNIRP limits relate only to the heating effects of the mast and do not address the non thermal effects which concern many communities living around masts. It also only relates the immediate effects, and not the long term or biological effects on those continuously exposed.
This is particularly relevant in relation to exposure of Children, as their skulls are less protective against this form of radiation
The Stewart Report recommended adoption of the precautionary principle specifically because insufficient evidence of safety of non thermal effects was available at the time to establish a safe lower limit of exposure.
Increasing evidence from epidemiological studies and controlled laboratory studies in Europe suggests that there are significant non-thermal adverse effects at very much lower levels of exposure than the ICNIRP guidelines.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility not only to the children of Harrogate but to all the children in the UK who will be affected by the court’s decision, which in effect disenfranchises parents from decisions which affect the health and wellbeing of their children.
The court’s decision misrepresents ICNIRP as guidelines which consider all health risks, when they only address the easily quantifiable thermal short term non biological effects.
If this government is to retain ANY credibility in relation to its independence of influence from the multinational phone operators, the Secretary of State must challenge the appeal court decision rigorously and effectively.
The issues are quite straightforward either the Secretary of State
· will not appeal and in so doing will chose to support these multinationals right to ride roughshod over the well informed concerns of ordinary people
or
· he will appeal the decision to enable the health concerns of parents to be properly addressed in relation to the siting of mobile phone masts close to schools.
If the Secretary of State does not appeal the court’s decision it is clear that this government is not able to protect our democracy or our children.
Yours truly,
Find your mps contact details at
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm
Hi, I sent my copy to enquiryodpm@odpm.gsi.gov.uk
Informant: Mobile Phone Mast Campaigners Network
If the Secretary of State does not appeal,the Harrogate decision health concerns may not be considered in planning applications for mobile phone mast for decades. He has until the ?9th ? 10th december to change his mind
Please write /e-mail /fax/telephone John Prescott NOW if you think he should appeal the decision..
I am attaching a standard letter which I am circulating please feel free to copy and distribute -- altering in any way which you feel appropriate.
Please send copies and ring /write to your mps now we have less than one week.
I rang the ODPM and was told they cant decide what to do as the judgement has not yet been published-- it may be published after the deadline for appeals!
If you are concerned about the health effects of mobile phone masts and want the right to have these concerns considered when a mast is applied for by your childrens school you need to act now!!
If not the battle for our children protection at school and at home may be over for a long time-- this will affect EVERY mast application which follows.
email john prescotts office at
http://www.locata.co.uk/cgi-bin/webdriver?MIval=commons_mail&id=239
From:
To
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
26 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2WH
Tel: 020 7944 4400 Fax: 0207 944 6589
cc MP
Dear Mr Prescott
I am writing to demand that the Secretary of State appeals the decision made by the court of appeal in the case of the Harrogate Mast /Three Schools case.
The issue as to whether ICNIRP certification should be enough to reassure the community of safety of mast emissions was not in my opinion properly considered.
The ICNIRP limits relate only to the heating effects of the mast and do not address the non thermal effects which concern many communities living around masts. It also only relates the immediate effects, and not the long term or biological effects on those continuously exposed.
This is particularly relevant in relation to exposure of Children, as their skulls are less protective against this form of radiation
The Stewart Report recommended adoption of the precautionary principle specifically because insufficient evidence of safety of non thermal effects was available at the time to establish a safe lower limit of exposure.
Increasing evidence from epidemiological studies and controlled laboratory studies in Europe suggests that there are significant non-thermal adverse effects at very much lower levels of exposure than the ICNIRP guidelines.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility not only to the children of Harrogate but to all the children in the UK who will be affected by the court’s decision, which in effect disenfranchises parents from decisions which affect the health and wellbeing of their children.
The court’s decision misrepresents ICNIRP as guidelines which consider all health risks, when they only address the easily quantifiable thermal short term non biological effects.
If this government is to retain ANY credibility in relation to its independence of influence from the multinational phone operators, the Secretary of State must challenge the appeal court decision rigorously and effectively.
The issues are quite straightforward either the Secretary of State
· will not appeal and in so doing will chose to support these multinationals right to ride roughshod over the well informed concerns of ordinary people
or
· he will appeal the decision to enable the health concerns of parents to be properly addressed in relation to the siting of mobile phone masts close to schools.
If the Secretary of State does not appeal the court’s decision it is clear that this government is not able to protect our democracy or our children.
Yours truly,
Find your mps contact details at
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm
Hi, I sent my copy to enquiryodpm@odpm.gsi.gov.uk
Informant: Mobile Phone Mast Campaigners Network
Starmail - 6. Dez, 11:35
