Message/enquiry to MOA
Did you spot Don Maisch's "On the infallibility of ICNIRP":
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=159
Do read it, if not. The ICNIRP article it relates to is no startling revelation:
http://www.icnirp.de/documents/epiRFreviewPublishedinEHPDec04.pdf (14 pages) but underlines what the guidelines do not cover.
MOA's site tackles nothing, remaining in a comfort zone.:
http://www.mobilemastinfo.com/information/radiowaves_and_health/health_reports.htm
so for your information, I asked a couple of questions of Stuart Eke (for a change):
"... maybe you can offer a satisfactory response.
Reading the ICNIRP 2004 Review, published in Environmental Medicine Review Dec 04, for all the rest of the article, the concluding remarks:
“Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukemia.”
... seem to make it somewhat unwise to rely on the ICNIRP exposure guidelines as an almost legal guarantee of future safety on chronic exposure to mobile phone bases stations in residential areas. Rather, it seem this is confirmation that there are no guidelines for chronic exposure.
Reading then the BMA position:
"The BMA’s 2001 recommendation to adopt a precautionary approach to mobile phones while research remains inconclusive is still valid. This is compatible with the Government’s own policy. The BMA continues to support the ongoing national and international commitment to research into possible adverse effects of mobile phones. We will continue to keep a watching brief on forthcoming research and policy."
... it seems relevant to ask in what way a precautionary approach is being adopted, at a time when the installation of 5 x 3G networks is being undertaken, with perhaps an additional 130,000 base stations, which are necessarily, for their reduced range, going to have to be in residential areas?
1) Can you demonstrate any examples of active (rather than passive) precaution in this area by the MOA or its members, especially in response to reports of adverse health effects?
Waiting for "forthcoming research and policy" (BMA) is a passive response, and whilst in 2001 this might have seemed appropriate, the pace of installations is massively outstripping any capacity to research in the way the ICNIRP statement demonstrates to be necessary.
2) What steps is MOA taking to ensure that the commonality of features in reports of adverse effects therefore have nothing to do with physiological responses to EMR?
regards
Andy Davidson
Tetrawatch"
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=159
Do read it, if not. The ICNIRP article it relates to is no startling revelation:
http://www.icnirp.de/documents/epiRFreviewPublishedinEHPDec04.pdf (14 pages) but underlines what the guidelines do not cover.
MOA's site tackles nothing, remaining in a comfort zone.:
http://www.mobilemastinfo.com/information/radiowaves_and_health/health_reports.htm
so for your information, I asked a couple of questions of Stuart Eke (for a change):
"... maybe you can offer a satisfactory response.
Reading the ICNIRP 2004 Review, published in Environmental Medicine Review Dec 04, for all the rest of the article, the concluding remarks:
“Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukemia.”
... seem to make it somewhat unwise to rely on the ICNIRP exposure guidelines as an almost legal guarantee of future safety on chronic exposure to mobile phone bases stations in residential areas. Rather, it seem this is confirmation that there are no guidelines for chronic exposure.
Reading then the BMA position:
"The BMA’s 2001 recommendation to adopt a precautionary approach to mobile phones while research remains inconclusive is still valid. This is compatible with the Government’s own policy. The BMA continues to support the ongoing national and international commitment to research into possible adverse effects of mobile phones. We will continue to keep a watching brief on forthcoming research and policy."
... it seems relevant to ask in what way a precautionary approach is being adopted, at a time when the installation of 5 x 3G networks is being undertaken, with perhaps an additional 130,000 base stations, which are necessarily, for their reduced range, going to have to be in residential areas?
1) Can you demonstrate any examples of active (rather than passive) precaution in this area by the MOA or its members, especially in response to reports of adverse health effects?
Waiting for "forthcoming research and policy" (BMA) is a passive response, and whilst in 2001 this might have seemed appropriate, the pace of installations is massively outstripping any capacity to research in the way the ICNIRP statement demonstrates to be necessary.
2) What steps is MOA taking to ensure that the commonality of features in reports of adverse effects therefore have nothing to do with physiological responses to EMR?
regards
Andy Davidson
Tetrawatch"
Starmail - 7. Aug, 09:08
