Care needed on mast sites
I am just about to send a letter to Prof. Challis with copies to as many places as possible. I am very grateful for the information re: guidelines from US etc as I shall use it in my letter. Probably put it in where red text is at the moment i.e."(I have no idea etc). Gill Lyden
February 12th 2005
PROFESSOR. Lawrie.J.CHALLIS
Mobile Telecommunications& Health Research Programme
Secretariat Dept. of Health
Radiation Unit Room 688D
Skipton House
80 London Road
London SE1 6LH
Dear Professor Challis,
Further to our previous correspondence. I have received a document: ‘Notes on Harmonisation (with recommendations) from the International Conference on Mobile Communications and Health: Medical, Biological and Social Problems Sept 20th and 22nd 2004, Moscow, Russia. I note that you were in attendance. I also note that the Russians have again been trying to tell our protective agencies that we are running our base stations at too high a level of NON-THERMAL EMISSIONS – the Americans were warned about this in the 1950s and chose to ignore the warning as you probably know, I think I sent you a copy of the Pandora Document? The Russians have been revising the safe levels of these non-thermal emissions, as previous levels (I believe even those were lower than our own are now?) proved still to be damaging to health. I quote from the document:-
1)‘ICNIRP has long sort harmonisation with Russian RF standards but the Russians have maintained that ICNIRP’s thermal effects only approach is not protective of workers and the public. Their (the Russians’) preferred approach is always to take into account possible long term, low level (NONE THERMAL) adverse biological effects (including immunological) from RF exposure, something the ICNIRP steadfastly refuses to acknowledge. As such, Russia’s RF standard is far stricter than those of most countries and is set at levels that are less than levels emitted by most cell phones.’
2) (after new research the Russians say:-) ‘Results have allowed us to establish a threshold of unfavourable effect under EMF exposure, equal to 0.5 mW?cm2 power density. With application of hygienic safety factor of 5 this gives 0.1 mW/cm2PD accepted as mobile phone temporary permissible level (for mobile ‘phone base stations). This value is recognized in new sanitary norms and regulation 2.1.8.41190-03 “ Hygenic requirements to siting and maintenance mobile radio communication means”, (sic) commissioned on 01/06/2003.’ (I have no idea what these figures mean, but your experts will know! G.Lyden)
I think this would mean having more masts because of the low signal, and whilst this is worries me, having experienced the painful effects, if masts were running at the safe levels demanded by the Russians (who after all have a far greater experience of the effects), it is likely that no unpleasant symptoms would be found near them. That would solve all the problems – after all, we have not asked for the Orange mast to be destroyed, merely to be made safe by moving it to a distance of at least 500 metres. No one wishes to lose such a convenient, useful method of communication and enjoyment, but to put people and animals at such risk of damage to their brains, DNA and circulatory systems by having emissions too high is simply not acceptable. I think you should also advocate a change in emissions from the handsets, because in 2001, before I investigated the painful effects for our residents, I had been using a mobile ‘phone for several years and had begin to get irritation in my ears and still have an area under my left ear where there is an uncomfortable, hard lump which sometimes feels painful and is tender to the touch.
It is time our protective agencies took notice of the Russians. It is fact that wherever these serious effects upon health are found near masts the symptoms are the same: chronic insomnia and headaches; nausea; vertigo; earache and tinnitus; sore bloodshot eyes; nose-bleeds plus exacerbation of existing problems. Children and old people are particularly badly effected. Are the public doomed to suffer for over forty years as in Schwarzenburg until scientific tests proved that EMRF (Non-thermal) emissions were causing the problems? When are you all going to listen, instead of wasting time and ruining peoples’ lives by testing in laboratories when the Russians have already done it in the field as well as in labs? We need to be safe and to live our lives in comfort instead of existing with pain and suffering. When will you please lower the rate of non-thermal emissions from mobile ‘phone masts?
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. G. Lyden
cc. John Prescott; Tony Blair; Dept. of Health; Andrew Selous MP; ICNIRP; NRPB; WHO; Minister for the Environment; Dr. J Meara; Beds.
February 12th 2005
PROFESSOR. Lawrie.J.CHALLIS
Mobile Telecommunications& Health Research Programme
Secretariat Dept. of Health
Radiation Unit Room 688D
Skipton House
80 London Road
London SE1 6LH
Dear Professor Challis,
Further to our previous correspondence. I have received a document: ‘Notes on Harmonisation (with recommendations) from the International Conference on Mobile Communications and Health: Medical, Biological and Social Problems Sept 20th and 22nd 2004, Moscow, Russia. I note that you were in attendance. I also note that the Russians have again been trying to tell our protective agencies that we are running our base stations at too high a level of NON-THERMAL EMISSIONS – the Americans were warned about this in the 1950s and chose to ignore the warning as you probably know, I think I sent you a copy of the Pandora Document? The Russians have been revising the safe levels of these non-thermal emissions, as previous levels (I believe even those were lower than our own are now?) proved still to be damaging to health. I quote from the document:-
1)‘ICNIRP has long sort harmonisation with Russian RF standards but the Russians have maintained that ICNIRP’s thermal effects only approach is not protective of workers and the public. Their (the Russians’) preferred approach is always to take into account possible long term, low level (NONE THERMAL) adverse biological effects (including immunological) from RF exposure, something the ICNIRP steadfastly refuses to acknowledge. As such, Russia’s RF standard is far stricter than those of most countries and is set at levels that are less than levels emitted by most cell phones.’
2) (after new research the Russians say:-) ‘Results have allowed us to establish a threshold of unfavourable effect under EMF exposure, equal to 0.5 mW?cm2 power density. With application of hygienic safety factor of 5 this gives 0.1 mW/cm2PD accepted as mobile phone temporary permissible level (for mobile ‘phone base stations). This value is recognized in new sanitary norms and regulation 2.1.8.41190-03 “ Hygenic requirements to siting and maintenance mobile radio communication means”, (sic) commissioned on 01/06/2003.’ (I have no idea what these figures mean, but your experts will know! G.Lyden)
I think this would mean having more masts because of the low signal, and whilst this is worries me, having experienced the painful effects, if masts were running at the safe levels demanded by the Russians (who after all have a far greater experience of the effects), it is likely that no unpleasant symptoms would be found near them. That would solve all the problems – after all, we have not asked for the Orange mast to be destroyed, merely to be made safe by moving it to a distance of at least 500 metres. No one wishes to lose such a convenient, useful method of communication and enjoyment, but to put people and animals at such risk of damage to their brains, DNA and circulatory systems by having emissions too high is simply not acceptable. I think you should also advocate a change in emissions from the handsets, because in 2001, before I investigated the painful effects for our residents, I had been using a mobile ‘phone for several years and had begin to get irritation in my ears and still have an area under my left ear where there is an uncomfortable, hard lump which sometimes feels painful and is tender to the touch.
It is time our protective agencies took notice of the Russians. It is fact that wherever these serious effects upon health are found near masts the symptoms are the same: chronic insomnia and headaches; nausea; vertigo; earache and tinnitus; sore bloodshot eyes; nose-bleeds plus exacerbation of existing problems. Children and old people are particularly badly effected. Are the public doomed to suffer for over forty years as in Schwarzenburg until scientific tests proved that EMRF (Non-thermal) emissions were causing the problems? When are you all going to listen, instead of wasting time and ruining peoples’ lives by testing in laboratories when the Russians have already done it in the field as well as in labs? We need to be safe and to live our lives in comfort instead of existing with pain and suffering. When will you please lower the rate of non-thermal emissions from mobile ‘phone masts?
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. G. Lyden
cc. John Prescott; Tony Blair; Dept. of Health; Andrew Selous MP; ICNIRP; NRPB; WHO; Minister for the Environment; Dr. J Meara; Beds.
Starmail - 15. Feb, 19:51
