Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Ms Rendle,
Thank you for your ‘proforma’ reply to my email.
May I ask you to give full and proper answers to the following questions?
Why exactly was Roger Coghill invited to attend the Science Festival?
Why exactly was he then excluded?
Who exactly (names required) refused to share a platform with him?
On what grounds did they refuse?
Why were their demands obeyed? What influence did they bring to bear on the organisers and what powers (official or unofficial) do they have to decide and control who speaks?
Who was responsible for selecting and then deselecting Roger Coghill? Was it you? If not who? Name please.
Are any members of the Telecommunications Industry going to sell their wares, provide glossy brochures or in any way whatsoever, use this as a platform for their business aims and profits? If the answer to any of these is yes, they should be banned. This is, supposedly, a scientific festival, not a Trade Convention.
It is of course perfectly acceptable for NRPB members to argue for or against the science of mobile phone technology in a fair and impartial debate. It is not acceptable in this forum to have biased, Industry businessmen or women who are not scientists arguing the case, for the profits and benefit of their companies. The appropriate venue for this would of course be a Mobile Phone Trade Convention, to which the public would no doubt be invited. No-one would dream of arguing against this. However, as a point of interest, I wonder whether the Operators would allow an independent scientist like Roger Coghill to speak about the health risks at their Trade Convention?
I believe people are now contacting their local Cheltenham MP, and there will undoubtedly be a great deal of media interest on the actions of the Festival’s organising committee.
I would appreciate full and honest answers to the questions I raise. This is a very serious matter. It affects the lives, health and wellbeing of everyone in this country. So far people have not been given the truth, and their democratic and human rights have been consistently abused by the Government and the Operators. The people are no longer prepared to put up with this. Please be assured that your reply will be published to many thousands of people across the UK. We are confident that this will be of particular interest so close to the election.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Godschall Johnson Executive Committee Mast Sanity
--------
Dear Ms Rendle,
Re Cheltenham Science Festival and Roger Coghill
I know you have already received many emails expressing concern about the exclusion of Roger Coghill from the Science Festival. Your decision is ethically and scientifically inexcusable. But I am sure you know that.
We are all aware of the reasons why he has been excluded. If this is a shameful action by the Mobile Phone Industry and the NRPB, then your cowardly decision to succomb to their blackmail (because that is exactly what it is) is equally reprehensible, and it sullies the reputation of the Festival and those who organise it.
You have deprived people of the right to know, in a forum which should be, above all else, open and free. I thought this only happened in a dictatorship. Try as you will, I do not believe you can justify or excuse your decision. You have chosen to present a biased and self serving agenda which will be no more than a showcase and PR event for the Telecommunication Industry. If the organisers of this Festival have so little integrity that they are willing to sacrifice both truth and debate, then in my opinion Roger Coghill is better off not attending. But if nothing else, honesty should dictate that you delete the word science from the name, as it is not worthy to include it.
Since you have received this from so many others, it is unnecessary for me to make further reference to the worldwide scientific evidence proving health risks from mobile phone technology. All that needs to be said, has been said. Though perhaps you might like to consider that in depriving people of this information, you may be as responsible for putting them at risk as the Operators themselves. In the end it is a matter of conscience.
The following lines may be of interest.
“A time comes when silence is betrayal.”
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
Martin Luther King
Yours sincerely,
Jennifer Godschall Johnson
--------
The Cheltenham Mobile Phone Festival
sorry hastily written but wanted to do it tonight.
cn
Dear Ms Rendle,
I understand that you are arranging the Science Festival in Cheltenham. A wonderful thing to do in this enlightened age. In darker times when science was as much to do with power, money and political influence as with the search for knowlege and understanding, it would have been expected that the business establishment would veto opinions other than their own.
I do hope that your festival will represent a more modern and enlightened approach. Specifically, I do hope that you will reconsider your view to let the multi billion pound mobile phone industry put their view of the relevant science unopposed by that of an independent Scientist Dr Roger Coghill.
If you really are prepared to stifle useful scientific debate because the multinationals are threatening to take their bats and balls home, then what you are proposing is a festival of business, not science and I suggest that you re name it appropriately.
I do hope that you will reconsider your decison on this occasion, presenting any view unopposed is simply unbalanced. If your festival is so dependent on the multinationals finances,it would be better to postpone it until such a time as you can present a balanced programme.
Yours sincerely
Chris Nunn
M.B. B.S M.A. (Cantab)
--------
Dear Ms Rendle,
I am aware of the recent e-mail exchange between yourself and Roger Coghill and your withdrawal of an invitation to him to take part in the Cheltenham Science Festival because, and I quote your own words, "other organisations and speakers, reflecting a variety of different views did not feel comfortable sharing a platform with you". This decision is clearly incompatible with your subsequent statement "we are endeavouring to make sure that all the information reaches a wider audience - giving them a chance to make a formed opinion". Your decision will ensure the opposite of your intent.
The stance of those who refuse to appear on the same platform as Mr Coghill because they disagree with his scientific opinions smacks of blackmail. If your organisation succumbs to this ploy, then you are conniving to a particularly insidious form censorship - and I have to say that I did not serve for 36 years in the HM Forces in the expectation of such an abject approach to freedom of expression.
The bottom line is that if those with different views cannot bring themselves to take part, then the correct course of action must be to either find others who are prepared to engage in honest debate or cancel the event outright.
I urge you to reconsider your decision.
David Baron
Group Captain, RAF (Retired)
--------
I am aware that you have been receiving many e-mails regarding the decision you have made to exclude Roger Coghill from giving a presentation on mobile phones and masts at the Cheltenham Festival of Science. I feel saddened that the might of the mobile phone giants, and also the NRPB/Government, are acting only to protect financial and commercial interests, rather than entering into open and frank discussion to ensure that the safety of the public is ensured.
The decision you have made would be more understandable if Roger Coghill were merely expressing a personal opinion. Instead, he is endeavouring to bring respected and thorough research findings to the public. I would have thought that a Festival of Science would strive to do exactly that.
Your only responsibility is to give all interested parties the opportunity of taking part and putting their views forward to the public. This you have done by inviting the Industry and NRPB/Government to attend the event. The public deserve to hear the facts which are emerging from around the world but are obviously being prevented from knowing the facts by the unscrupulous actions of these organisations.
Please reconsider your position. I am a Parish Councillor and take my duties to the public very seriously indeed. Anyone who is paid (or unpaid) to serve the public has a responsibility to protect the rights of those people over and above any other consideration.
Regards
Cllr Sylvia Wright
--------
For info.
David
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: FW: Festival of Science
Dear Madam,
I am a recipient of some E.Mails regarding the science festival you are organising, and I am so very sorry you feel unable to have Roger Coghill speaking about mobile phone masts and the medical aspects of them. If the mobile phone industry do not want to appear with him, that is their problem, not yours. Your problem now is that you are depriving the public of information. Let them decide what is credible and what is not. No other issue at the moment is such a burning one to the public, and they want information from a reliable source, and I am sure Doctor Coghill is reliable and well known in his field.
From my experience as a District Councillor, I can assure you that the mobile phone operators are less than frank and honest even at appeal level when I would have thought they would wish to be seen as whiter than white. Not so. Good luck with the festival.
I am responding as a private citizen but for your information I add the following.
Diana Pound (District Councillor for Sidlesham and Hunston) Chichester District Council.
Herewith the background to the Cheltenham Science Festival issue. Maximum effort please on Roger's behalf.
David Baron
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:25 PM
Below my email you'll find an exchange between Roger Coghill and a lady organising the Cheltenham Science Festival - emails in reverse order, self-explanatory. Some of you may wish to write also - politely and without aggro, but with a clear view. This is with Roger's express approval - he suggested I pass it on to you.
Regards
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Grahame Blackwell
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Cc: Ann Silk ; Brenda Short ; Chris Busby ; Don Maisch ; Eileen O'Connor ; EMR Australia ; roger@cogreslab.co.uk ; Alasdair Philips
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Ms Rendle
As I'm sure you must be aware, the word 'Science' (the key word in your upcoming event) is derived from the Latin 'sciens', meaning 'knowing'. It is a sad truth that there are those in the mobile telecommunications community - be it in the industry, or among their supporters - who are very keen that the British public should NOT know certain facts in relation to this technology. By taking the stand expressed in your emails to Roger Coghill, below, you appear to be (presumably unwittingly) colluding in that undermining of the claimed intention of your Festival.
It is a mystery to me how you can believe that the intentions of those refusing to share a platform with Roger are anything other than to prevent the audience knowing what he can tell them. Is he supposed to have some contagious disease? Be violent? Abusive? Nove of these is the Roger Coghill that I know.
For decades now Roger Coghill has been warning of the health risks from overhead power cables, risks that have until very recently been consistently denied by official Government scientists. Just last March, the NRPB officially acknowledged what Roger (and some others they refer to as 'maverick scientists') have been saying all those years - that the risk of childhood leukaemia is doubled by exposure to overhead power cables. (Needless to say, they didn't give any credit to those 'mavericks' for getting to the truth years earlier). It appears from the text of these emails below that these are just the people refusing to share a platform with one who is years ahead of them in scientific wisdom - not surprising, but hardly laudible. And hardly in line with the spirit of 'sciens' - knowing.
Late last year a major EU project, comprising many partners from several EU countries, released their Final Report - the REFLEX Report. That Report, which showed multiple unrepairable breaks in DNA (the classic precursor to cancer) from low-level electromagnetic radiation (below Government 'safety' guidelines) includes the following text:
"Since all these observations were made in in vitro studies, the results obtained neither preclude nor confirm a health risk due to EMF exposure, but they speak in favour of such a possibility."
I.e. It is more likely than not, on the basis of these findings, that such health risks exist.
That Report also states:
"Furthermore, there exists no justification anymore to claim, that we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man."
I.e. The claim, so often peddled out by the NRPB and others, that there are no known mechanisms by which EM radiation could cause illness, is no longer tenable.
These are the sort of 'sciens' that those refusing to share a platform with Roger Coghill would rather were not known.
I'm very much aware of the '.gov.uk' in your email address. It's another sad fact that government bodies are strongly 'encouraged' to take the official line - even if that compromises their position in respect of their claimed objectives. I would very much hope that the Cheltenham Science Festival would not be allowed to fall prey to such political gerrymandering - I cannot believe that one in your position would wish for anything other than scientific integrity to take top priority in the organisation of this event.
I run a public information website informing many thousands of people every month about mobile technology health-related issues. I am also in contact with other similar organisations providing information to people all around the world. I shall certainly be putting an item on my website about your event. I very much hope to be able to relay confirmation from yourself that representation of this issue is truly balanced, and that if certain parties refuse to share a platform with a sincere and highly able scientist then this will not deprive the public at your event of the knowledge that he has to share. If others choose not to be there for whatever reason, fine, that's their priviledge - but please don't let their negative attitude spoil it for others, particularly the public who are there to learn.
Yours most sincerely
(Dr) Grahame Blackwell
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Coghill
To: Alasdair Philips
Cc: Ann Silk ; Brenda Short ; Chris Busby ; Don Maisch ; Edward Goldsmith (Business Fax) ; Eileen O'Connor ; EMR Australia ; Gerard Hyland (Business Fax)
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: FW: Cheltenham Science Festival
Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Sent: 15 February 2005 11:58
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Roger,
We are going ahead with the debate, but unfortunately we can not do it with you involved. It is important for us to take a neutral position - that is our responsibility. Therefore we cannot just have you on stage, we need a variety of perspectives and since we cannot get confirmation from anyone else to speak with you then we will need to pursue other speakers who represent all the different views and who are willing to get on stage together. We agree with you that it is important that this debate happens, and is not abandoned.
With best regards,
Gillian
Sent: 15 February 2005 10:06
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Of course the establishment do not feel comfortable sharing a platform with an experienced, world respected, and knowledgeable scientist who can demolish the flimsy and untenable support they offer for the argument that only EM effects which actually burn tissue should be considered as regulatory guidelines. The whole weight of scientific opinion is now against that view.
By not going ahead with this important debate which is of consuming interest to the public, you are effectively aligning yourself with this conspiracy of silence and suppression, Gillian. What are you, as a responsible citizen, going to do about this?? If you kowtow to their aim of avoiding debate then you are simply helping put at risk the health of those in the public living near masts or excessively using cellphones in an increasingly radiative world. Your proper response would be to tell thenm that you plan to go ahead and let me give an exposition, and announce at the Cheltenham Science festival that the establishment refused to appear, because these facts are uncomfortable.
Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Senior Visitor, Emmanuel College, Cambridge
Sent: 15 February 2005 09:36
To: roger@cogreslab.co.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Roger,
Thanks for the email and I'm sorry that you feel we are shying away from the discussion.
We do feel it is a relevant and topical issue that needs to be debated at the Science Festival. Unfortunately we could not programme a balanced dialogue because other organisations and speakers, reflecting a variety of different views, did not feel comfortable sharing a platform with you. I apologise for this, but feel it would be a disservice to our audience to only focus on one element of the debate.
I think because of the sensitivity of the topic we need representatives who can reflect the views of industry, government and the consumer. We are unfortunately not in a position to provide this at the moment, and so we are looking for other speakers who can cover all views. I'm sorry that we cannot offer you the opportunity to take part in the Festival this year but I hope you appreciate that we are endeavouring to make sure that all the information reaches a wider audience - giving them a chance to make an informed opinion.
With best wishes,
Gillian
Sent: 14 February 2005 19:11
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
It seems to me that if the cellphone industry and the NRPB refuse to debate the issue of cellphone health hazards in an open scientific forum, then you are doing a disservice to the public by removing it from your agenda, Gillian: this is suppression of scientific truth, is it not, by default? Are you going to apply the same rule to other public issues?
Wolf and Wolf has just published a report (Intl J Cancer prevention, April 2004) showing that cancer is increased fourfold near cellphone masts within a year of their installation. Thank you for not helping that kind of information reaching a wider audience!
Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Sent: 14 February 2005 18:16
To: roger@cogreslab.co.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Roger,
Many thanks for talking to me last week.
I'm afraid that I have not been able to confirm the other speakers for the debate on the dangers of mobile phones. It is important that the cafes at the Science Festival give a balanced view with different opinions on the various issues, and unfortunately I have not been able to ensure this. Due to this fact I'm afraid that I will have to withdraw the invitation to take part in the event.
I'm sorry for not being able to welcome you to Cheltenham. Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused, and I appreciate your time in speaking with me.
Yours sincerely,
Gillian
Gillian Rendle
Science Festival Coordinator
FameLab Coordinator
Cheltenham Science Festival
8 - 12 June 2005
Thank you for your ‘proforma’ reply to my email.
May I ask you to give full and proper answers to the following questions?
Why exactly was Roger Coghill invited to attend the Science Festival?
Why exactly was he then excluded?
Who exactly (names required) refused to share a platform with him?
On what grounds did they refuse?
Why were their demands obeyed? What influence did they bring to bear on the organisers and what powers (official or unofficial) do they have to decide and control who speaks?
Who was responsible for selecting and then deselecting Roger Coghill? Was it you? If not who? Name please.
Are any members of the Telecommunications Industry going to sell their wares, provide glossy brochures or in any way whatsoever, use this as a platform for their business aims and profits? If the answer to any of these is yes, they should be banned. This is, supposedly, a scientific festival, not a Trade Convention.
It is of course perfectly acceptable for NRPB members to argue for or against the science of mobile phone technology in a fair and impartial debate. It is not acceptable in this forum to have biased, Industry businessmen or women who are not scientists arguing the case, for the profits and benefit of their companies. The appropriate venue for this would of course be a Mobile Phone Trade Convention, to which the public would no doubt be invited. No-one would dream of arguing against this. However, as a point of interest, I wonder whether the Operators would allow an independent scientist like Roger Coghill to speak about the health risks at their Trade Convention?
I believe people are now contacting their local Cheltenham MP, and there will undoubtedly be a great deal of media interest on the actions of the Festival’s organising committee.
I would appreciate full and honest answers to the questions I raise. This is a very serious matter. It affects the lives, health and wellbeing of everyone in this country. So far people have not been given the truth, and their democratic and human rights have been consistently abused by the Government and the Operators. The people are no longer prepared to put up with this. Please be assured that your reply will be published to many thousands of people across the UK. We are confident that this will be of particular interest so close to the election.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Godschall Johnson Executive Committee Mast Sanity
--------
Dear Ms Rendle,
Re Cheltenham Science Festival and Roger Coghill
I know you have already received many emails expressing concern about the exclusion of Roger Coghill from the Science Festival. Your decision is ethically and scientifically inexcusable. But I am sure you know that.
We are all aware of the reasons why he has been excluded. If this is a shameful action by the Mobile Phone Industry and the NRPB, then your cowardly decision to succomb to their blackmail (because that is exactly what it is) is equally reprehensible, and it sullies the reputation of the Festival and those who organise it.
You have deprived people of the right to know, in a forum which should be, above all else, open and free. I thought this only happened in a dictatorship. Try as you will, I do not believe you can justify or excuse your decision. You have chosen to present a biased and self serving agenda which will be no more than a showcase and PR event for the Telecommunication Industry. If the organisers of this Festival have so little integrity that they are willing to sacrifice both truth and debate, then in my opinion Roger Coghill is better off not attending. But if nothing else, honesty should dictate that you delete the word science from the name, as it is not worthy to include it.
Since you have received this from so many others, it is unnecessary for me to make further reference to the worldwide scientific evidence proving health risks from mobile phone technology. All that needs to be said, has been said. Though perhaps you might like to consider that in depriving people of this information, you may be as responsible for putting them at risk as the Operators themselves. In the end it is a matter of conscience.
The following lines may be of interest.
“A time comes when silence is betrayal.”
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
Martin Luther King
Yours sincerely,
Jennifer Godschall Johnson
--------
The Cheltenham Mobile Phone Festival
sorry hastily written but wanted to do it tonight.
cn
Dear Ms Rendle,
I understand that you are arranging the Science Festival in Cheltenham. A wonderful thing to do in this enlightened age. In darker times when science was as much to do with power, money and political influence as with the search for knowlege and understanding, it would have been expected that the business establishment would veto opinions other than their own.
I do hope that your festival will represent a more modern and enlightened approach. Specifically, I do hope that you will reconsider your view to let the multi billion pound mobile phone industry put their view of the relevant science unopposed by that of an independent Scientist Dr Roger Coghill.
If you really are prepared to stifle useful scientific debate because the multinationals are threatening to take their bats and balls home, then what you are proposing is a festival of business, not science and I suggest that you re name it appropriately.
I do hope that you will reconsider your decison on this occasion, presenting any view unopposed is simply unbalanced. If your festival is so dependent on the multinationals finances,it would be better to postpone it until such a time as you can present a balanced programme.
Yours sincerely
Chris Nunn
M.B. B.S M.A. (Cantab)
--------
Dear Ms Rendle,
I am aware of the recent e-mail exchange between yourself and Roger Coghill and your withdrawal of an invitation to him to take part in the Cheltenham Science Festival because, and I quote your own words, "other organisations and speakers, reflecting a variety of different views did not feel comfortable sharing a platform with you". This decision is clearly incompatible with your subsequent statement "we are endeavouring to make sure that all the information reaches a wider audience - giving them a chance to make a formed opinion". Your decision will ensure the opposite of your intent.
The stance of those who refuse to appear on the same platform as Mr Coghill because they disagree with his scientific opinions smacks of blackmail. If your organisation succumbs to this ploy, then you are conniving to a particularly insidious form censorship - and I have to say that I did not serve for 36 years in the HM Forces in the expectation of such an abject approach to freedom of expression.
The bottom line is that if those with different views cannot bring themselves to take part, then the correct course of action must be to either find others who are prepared to engage in honest debate or cancel the event outright.
I urge you to reconsider your decision.
David Baron
Group Captain, RAF (Retired)
--------
I am aware that you have been receiving many e-mails regarding the decision you have made to exclude Roger Coghill from giving a presentation on mobile phones and masts at the Cheltenham Festival of Science. I feel saddened that the might of the mobile phone giants, and also the NRPB/Government, are acting only to protect financial and commercial interests, rather than entering into open and frank discussion to ensure that the safety of the public is ensured.
The decision you have made would be more understandable if Roger Coghill were merely expressing a personal opinion. Instead, he is endeavouring to bring respected and thorough research findings to the public. I would have thought that a Festival of Science would strive to do exactly that.
Your only responsibility is to give all interested parties the opportunity of taking part and putting their views forward to the public. This you have done by inviting the Industry and NRPB/Government to attend the event. The public deserve to hear the facts which are emerging from around the world but are obviously being prevented from knowing the facts by the unscrupulous actions of these organisations.
Please reconsider your position. I am a Parish Councillor and take my duties to the public very seriously indeed. Anyone who is paid (or unpaid) to serve the public has a responsibility to protect the rights of those people over and above any other consideration.
Regards
Cllr Sylvia Wright
--------
For info.
David
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: FW: Festival of Science
Dear Madam,
I am a recipient of some E.Mails regarding the science festival you are organising, and I am so very sorry you feel unable to have Roger Coghill speaking about mobile phone masts and the medical aspects of them. If the mobile phone industry do not want to appear with him, that is their problem, not yours. Your problem now is that you are depriving the public of information. Let them decide what is credible and what is not. No other issue at the moment is such a burning one to the public, and they want information from a reliable source, and I am sure Doctor Coghill is reliable and well known in his field.
From my experience as a District Councillor, I can assure you that the mobile phone operators are less than frank and honest even at appeal level when I would have thought they would wish to be seen as whiter than white. Not so. Good luck with the festival.
I am responding as a private citizen but for your information I add the following.
Diana Pound (District Councillor for Sidlesham and Hunston) Chichester District Council.
Herewith the background to the Cheltenham Science Festival issue. Maximum effort please on Roger's behalf.
David Baron
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:25 PM
Below my email you'll find an exchange between Roger Coghill and a lady organising the Cheltenham Science Festival - emails in reverse order, self-explanatory. Some of you may wish to write also - politely and without aggro, but with a clear view. This is with Roger's express approval - he suggested I pass it on to you.
Regards
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Grahame Blackwell
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Cc: Ann Silk ; Brenda Short ; Chris Busby ; Don Maisch ; Eileen O'Connor ; EMR Australia ; roger@cogreslab.co.uk ; Alasdair Philips
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Ms Rendle
As I'm sure you must be aware, the word 'Science' (the key word in your upcoming event) is derived from the Latin 'sciens', meaning 'knowing'. It is a sad truth that there are those in the mobile telecommunications community - be it in the industry, or among their supporters - who are very keen that the British public should NOT know certain facts in relation to this technology. By taking the stand expressed in your emails to Roger Coghill, below, you appear to be (presumably unwittingly) colluding in that undermining of the claimed intention of your Festival.
It is a mystery to me how you can believe that the intentions of those refusing to share a platform with Roger are anything other than to prevent the audience knowing what he can tell them. Is he supposed to have some contagious disease? Be violent? Abusive? Nove of these is the Roger Coghill that I know.
For decades now Roger Coghill has been warning of the health risks from overhead power cables, risks that have until very recently been consistently denied by official Government scientists. Just last March, the NRPB officially acknowledged what Roger (and some others they refer to as 'maverick scientists') have been saying all those years - that the risk of childhood leukaemia is doubled by exposure to overhead power cables. (Needless to say, they didn't give any credit to those 'mavericks' for getting to the truth years earlier). It appears from the text of these emails below that these are just the people refusing to share a platform with one who is years ahead of them in scientific wisdom - not surprising, but hardly laudible. And hardly in line with the spirit of 'sciens' - knowing.
Late last year a major EU project, comprising many partners from several EU countries, released their Final Report - the REFLEX Report. That Report, which showed multiple unrepairable breaks in DNA (the classic precursor to cancer) from low-level electromagnetic radiation (below Government 'safety' guidelines) includes the following text:
"Since all these observations were made in in vitro studies, the results obtained neither preclude nor confirm a health risk due to EMF exposure, but they speak in favour of such a possibility."
I.e. It is more likely than not, on the basis of these findings, that such health risks exist.
That Report also states:
"Furthermore, there exists no justification anymore to claim, that we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man."
I.e. The claim, so often peddled out by the NRPB and others, that there are no known mechanisms by which EM radiation could cause illness, is no longer tenable.
These are the sort of 'sciens' that those refusing to share a platform with Roger Coghill would rather were not known.
I'm very much aware of the '.gov.uk' in your email address. It's another sad fact that government bodies are strongly 'encouraged' to take the official line - even if that compromises their position in respect of their claimed objectives. I would very much hope that the Cheltenham Science Festival would not be allowed to fall prey to such political gerrymandering - I cannot believe that one in your position would wish for anything other than scientific integrity to take top priority in the organisation of this event.
I run a public information website informing many thousands of people every month about mobile technology health-related issues. I am also in contact with other similar organisations providing information to people all around the world. I shall certainly be putting an item on my website about your event. I very much hope to be able to relay confirmation from yourself that representation of this issue is truly balanced, and that if certain parties refuse to share a platform with a sincere and highly able scientist then this will not deprive the public at your event of the knowledge that he has to share. If others choose not to be there for whatever reason, fine, that's their priviledge - but please don't let their negative attitude spoil it for others, particularly the public who are there to learn.
Yours most sincerely
(Dr) Grahame Blackwell
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Coghill
To: Alasdair Philips
Cc: Ann Silk ; Brenda Short ; Chris Busby ; Don Maisch ; Edward Goldsmith (Business Fax) ; Eileen O'Connor ; EMR Australia ; Gerard Hyland (Business Fax)
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: FW: Cheltenham Science Festival
Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Sent: 15 February 2005 11:58
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Roger,
We are going ahead with the debate, but unfortunately we can not do it with you involved. It is important for us to take a neutral position - that is our responsibility. Therefore we cannot just have you on stage, we need a variety of perspectives and since we cannot get confirmation from anyone else to speak with you then we will need to pursue other speakers who represent all the different views and who are willing to get on stage together. We agree with you that it is important that this debate happens, and is not abandoned.
With best regards,
Gillian
Sent: 15 February 2005 10:06
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Of course the establishment do not feel comfortable sharing a platform with an experienced, world respected, and knowledgeable scientist who can demolish the flimsy and untenable support they offer for the argument that only EM effects which actually burn tissue should be considered as regulatory guidelines. The whole weight of scientific opinion is now against that view.
By not going ahead with this important debate which is of consuming interest to the public, you are effectively aligning yourself with this conspiracy of silence and suppression, Gillian. What are you, as a responsible citizen, going to do about this?? If you kowtow to their aim of avoiding debate then you are simply helping put at risk the health of those in the public living near masts or excessively using cellphones in an increasingly radiative world. Your proper response would be to tell thenm that you plan to go ahead and let me give an exposition, and announce at the Cheltenham Science festival that the establishment refused to appear, because these facts are uncomfortable.
Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Senior Visitor, Emmanuel College, Cambridge
Sent: 15 February 2005 09:36
To: roger@cogreslab.co.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Roger,
Thanks for the email and I'm sorry that you feel we are shying away from the discussion.
We do feel it is a relevant and topical issue that needs to be debated at the Science Festival. Unfortunately we could not programme a balanced dialogue because other organisations and speakers, reflecting a variety of different views, did not feel comfortable sharing a platform with you. I apologise for this, but feel it would be a disservice to our audience to only focus on one element of the debate.
I think because of the sensitivity of the topic we need representatives who can reflect the views of industry, government and the consumer. We are unfortunately not in a position to provide this at the moment, and so we are looking for other speakers who can cover all views. I'm sorry that we cannot offer you the opportunity to take part in the Festival this year but I hope you appreciate that we are endeavouring to make sure that all the information reaches a wider audience - giving them a chance to make an informed opinion.
With best wishes,
Gillian
Sent: 14 February 2005 19:11
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
It seems to me that if the cellphone industry and the NRPB refuse to debate the issue of cellphone health hazards in an open scientific forum, then you are doing a disservice to the public by removing it from your agenda, Gillian: this is suppression of scientific truth, is it not, by default? Are you going to apply the same rule to other public issues?
Wolf and Wolf has just published a report (Intl J Cancer prevention, April 2004) showing that cancer is increased fourfold near cellphone masts within a year of their installation. Thank you for not helping that kind of information reaching a wider audience!
Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Sent: 14 February 2005 18:16
To: roger@cogreslab.co.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival
Dear Roger,
Many thanks for talking to me last week.
I'm afraid that I have not been able to confirm the other speakers for the debate on the dangers of mobile phones. It is important that the cafes at the Science Festival give a balanced view with different opinions on the various issues, and unfortunately I have not been able to ensure this. Due to this fact I'm afraid that I will have to withdraw the invitation to take part in the event.
I'm sorry for not being able to welcome you to Cheltenham. Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused, and I appreciate your time in speaking with me.
Yours sincerely,
Gillian
Gillian Rendle
Science Festival Coordinator
FameLab Coordinator
Cheltenham Science Festival
8 - 12 June 2005
Starmail - 16. Feb, 16:38
