By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 04/11/2005)

People who believe electricity makes them ill should be informed of ways to reduce their exposure to appliances such as computers and hairdryers, a senior government health adviser said yesterday.

Dr Jill Meara, of the Health Protection Agency, said that while there was no scientific evidence to show electrical sensitivity was real, those who thought they were sufferers should be advised to consider keeping their distance from electric devices.

Brian Stein suffers from electromagnetic sensitivity

However, the Department of Health immediately contradicted the advice and a series of scientists criticised the HPA for advising the public how to avoid health risks that had not been scientifically proven.

Dr Meara, the deputy director of the HPA's radiation protection division, said: "There is no proof that the symptoms are caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields, but people still have real symptoms.

"There is sufficient uncertainty that it is worth telling members of the public practical things they can do to reduce exposure in case they feel they are suffering from these fields.

"It would be things like making sure people are far away from their appliances and buying slightly more expensive [low power] hair dryers, unlike those tinny ones that teenagers use.

"It's not an easy thing to study in a lab as people who suffer from it are not comfortable in an environment with a lot of electrical equipment."

But Sir Colin Berry, emeritus professor of pathology at Queen Mary University, London, said: "If there is no scientific evidence that electrical devices are causing people harm, one should be extremely careful about giving advice to people about what to do. If people believe they are being harmed by something they must take their own steps to avoid them, but I don't think it should be part of government policy to advise them about it."

John Adams, professor of risk at UCL, said: "This is yet another example of the modern disease of compulsive risk assessment psychosis - otherwise known as Crap."

Some researchers believe some people suffer symptoms including fatigue, headaches and skin problems when exposed to electromagnetic fields. But mainstream scientific and medical opinion does not recognise electrical sensitivity as a real condition.

A recent review of 30 studies into electrical sensitivity by Dr James Rubin at the King's College London School of Medicine found no evidence that electrical fields cause ill health.

This study and one being carried out at the University of Essex into whether attention span and memory are affected by exposure to a mobile phone mast have received £750,000 from the Government and telecommunications industry.

The Definition, Epidemiology and Management of Electrical Sensitivity report published yesterday was written by Dr Neil Irvine, an HPA epidemiologist in Belfast. He concluded that there was no proven scientific link between electromagnetic fields and ill health.

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrosensitive
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1108878/
Electrical pollution can influence allergies: the asthma plague
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1139199/

But the report found that for some people the symptoms were real and could have a big impact on their lives. It said some people were so badly affected that they were forced to move house, give up their jobs or move to remote areas.

Brian Stein, 56, a businessman from Nottingham, began to get severe pains in his ear while using his mobile phone about four years ago. Now he cannot use a computer or a telephone for more than a few minutes or travel by modern car, electrified train or on long distance flights.

He had to drop out of the Essex University tests because they made him too ill.

He said yesterday: "The one thing the scientists and authorities don't want to do is talk to people like me who are affected. If they did they might find a way to prove that the condition is actually real."

nfleming@telegraph.co.uk

Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 538 7505 or e-mail syndication@telegraph.co.uk

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/04/nelec04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/04/ixhome.html

--------

Dr Jill Meara

National Radiological Protection Board
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OXI1 ORQ, United Kingdom
Fax: +44 1235 822 630
Tel: +44 1235 822 612
E mail:
Jill.Meara@hpa-rp.org.uk
jill.meara@nrpb.org
Jrmeara@aol.com (home)

--------

Electro Hypersensitivity

This is a copy of an e-mail I have sent to Jill Meara following her comments on EHS.

Sylvia


Hello Dr Meara

I corresponded with you a year ago, after I had attended the Symposium on EHS at the Royal College of Medicine, where you gave a presentation. I was heartened by your tone at that meeting, feeling that a new system of investigation was going to take place in order to try to resolve the disputed condition of EHS in many individuals. You intimated that the HPA were to "cast their net wider" in order to take in research from around the World in an attempt to establish whether EMR caused ill health in certain sensitive groups.

When asked by me how your measures were going to help my community in Essington (South Staffordshire) who have suffered the effects of numerous mobile phone base stations for 15 years, you answered "I am afraid these measures will not help communities like yours for 5-10 years".

In the wake of the recent publication of a report on EHS by the HPA this statement has been attributed to you (reported in the Telegraph) -

Jill Meara, the agency's deputy director, said: "In the lab, you can't reproduce the symptoms these people report, so scientifically there is definitely no link."

Estimates of the numbers of people around the world affected by electrical sensitivity range from a few per thousand people to a few per million. In about 10% of cases the symptoms are severe enough to affect quality of life. If people had symptoms, Mrs Meara added, they could try cognitive behaviour therapy, or in the case of headaches, painkillers. "They can also reduce their exposure to electrical fields by changing their appliances."

I would like you to explain to me how my community can follow your advice and what exactly you envisage can happen over the next (now) 4-9 years to make that difference.

If laboratories cannot reproduce symptoms experienced by EHS individuals then £7.5m is being wasted at Essex University - and the only answer is to put funding into epidemiological studies in villages like Essington, and many other communities around Britain, where those symptoms are in evidence. These studies need not span several years - all that is required is to monitor what physiological changes take place in the body in areas of high emissions (also easily monitored).

I would appreciate your comments please.

Regards

Cllr Sylvia Wright

-------

Sylvia,

An excellent letter if I may say so. The wind blows one way and Jill Meara follows; it reverses direction and so does she.

It doesn't need me to tell you that the response, if any, will amount to "a waste of rations" as is said in military terms. But that is no reason for not keeping up the pressure.

David

--------

Dear Jill Meara

There was a recent excellent BBC programme in which their reporter spoke from Sweden and mentioned the financial and practical help available from the Government for victims of electro-sensitivity. As the HPA have now denied that the condition exists - but there are many of us who know we are suffering from ES due to phone masts, a great number of us are now seriously doubting the capabilities of the HPA.

Withholding acceptance/knowledge of a condition that so many people are suffering from will not make the condition disappear, nor will it help the public 'trust' the reliability of the HPA's knowledge and 'protection role'!

I am seriously worried that the Health Protection Agency's current responsibility seems only to protect the interests of big business and not the general public's health!

Please will you confirm if you and your colleagues at the HPA have read and taken notice of the attached reports that are available to everyone to read on the Internet?

1. This 7 page Naila report which sets out the other health risks associated with masts.

http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/naila.pdf

2. PRESS RELEASE May 1, 2005

Cell phone base stations change brain currents and cause unwellness

Research in Austria

The radiation of a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres causes significant changes of the electrical currents in the brains of testees (measured by electroencefalogram, EEG). All the testees said they felt unwell during the radiation, some of them seriously.

That is the result of an investigation by a team of Austrian scientists. They measured alpha 1 (8 to 10 Hz), alpha 2 (10 to 12 Hz) and beta waves (13 to 20 Hz). A small density of GSM 900 and GSM 1800 radiation already caused several significant changes in these three frequency ranges. This means the body is stressed - temporarily this may have some positive effect, in the long run however stress certainly reduces the quality of life, capacity for work and state of health.

The results of the research will be published in international scientific magazines and confirmed by replication. The research was financed by Land Salzburg in Austria. The testees were nine women and three men between 20 and 78, who considered themselves 'electrosensitive'. They were invited to sit in a chair, eyes covered and ears plugged. Of course they were not aware of the sequence of the tests.

The side of the room directed at the cell phone base station was shielded against radiation, except for a small part which could be (un)shielded easily. In the first phase, the radiation density near the head was 26 mikroWatt/m2, in the second phase 3327 mikroWatt/m2 and in the third phase 26 mikroWatt/m2 again. Several other environmental parameters were measured to be sure they could not influence the results, such as radiation by television and FM-radio, noise, CO2, temperature, relative humidity, low frequency magnetic fields and soherics (electrical discharges in the atmosphere, possibly causing radiation).

During the second phase the parameters of all the brainwaves, measured by EEG, changed significantly. Afterwards the testees were asked to describe their experiences. All of them felt unwell during the second phase. They reported symptoms like buzzing in the head, palpitations of the heart, unwellness, lightheadedness, anxiety, breathlessness, respiratory problems, nervousness, agitation, headache, tinnitus, heat sensation and depression.

According to the scientists, this is the first worldwide proof of significant changes of the electrical currents in the brain by a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 metres. It has been scientifically established before that the radiation of cell phone base stations leads to unwellness and health complaints.

Cell phone base stations are not the only source of radiofrequent radiation. Also UMTS-videophones, DECT-telephones, WLAN- and WIFI-networks, C2000/TETRA-networks and many other digital wireless communication systems contribute to the level of radiation. In many houses and offices the densities by DECT and WLAN are higher than those by cell phone base stations.

The scientists involved were dr. med. Gerd Oberfeld (Land Salzburg, dept. of environmental medicin), dr. Hannes Schimke (Salzburg University, EEG-measurements, psychofysiology, statistics) and univ. prof. dr. Günther Bernatzky (Salzburg University, neurodynamics and neurosignalling). The research was supported by dr. med. univ. Gernot Luthringshausen (permanent member of the ethical commission of Land Salzburg, neurology and psychiatry).

Sources in German:

http://www.salzburg.com/cgibin/sn/printArticle.pl?xm=1524270 http://www.salzburg.gv.at/themen/gs/gesundheit/umweltmedizin.htm

and 3.

The Balmori paper supports other truly independent research on animals, where psychology cannot be blamed for ill health and loss of wellbeing.

Omega see "Pulsed microwave radiation and wildlife - Are Cell Phones Wiping Out Sparrows?" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/926007/

I look forward to hearing from you, hopefully with some better news for those of us who are adversely affected by being near mobile phone masts, which we cannot switch off or choose not to live near, as is the case with the mobile handsets.

Yours truly

Jane Lee
Glebelands Otterton Devon EX9 7JJ

--------

Jill Meara e-mails

The following is the dialogue so far on EHS studies:

I corresponded with you a year ago, after I had attended the Symposium on EHS at the Royal College of Medicine, where you gave a presentation. I was heartened by your tone at that meeting, feeling that a new system of investigation was going to take place in order to try to resolve the disputed condition of EHS in many individuals. You intimated that the HPA were to "cast their net wider" in order to take in research from around the World in an attempt to establish whether EMR caused ill health in certain sensitive groups.

When asked by me how your measures were going to help my community in Essington (South Staffordshire) who have suffered the effects of numerous mobile phone base stations for 15 years, you answered "I am afraid these measures will not help communities like yours for 5-10 years".

In the wake of the recent publication of a report on EHS by the HPA this statement has been attributed to you (reported in the Telegraph) -

Jill Meara, the agency's deputy director, said: "In the lab, you can't reproduce the symptoms these people report, so scientifically there is definitely no link."

Estimates of the numbers of people around the world affected by electrical sensitivity range from a few per thousand people to a few per million. In about 10% of cases the symptoms are severe enough to affect quality of life. If people had symptoms, Mrs Meara added, they could try cognitive behaviour therapy, or in the case of headaches, painkillers. "They can also reduce their exposure to electrical fields by changing their appliances."

I would like you to explain to me how my community can follow your advice and what exactly you envisage can happen over the next (now) 4-9 years to make that difference.

If laboratories cannot reproduce symptoms experienced by EHS individuals then £7.5m is being wasted at Essex University - and the only answer is to put funding into epidemiological studies in villages like Essington, and many other communities around Britain, where those symptoms are in evidence. These studies need not span several years - all that is required is to monitor what physiological changes take place in the body in areas of high emissions (also easily monitored).

I would appreciate your comments please.

Thank you for your enquiry. I enclose a copy of our press release and the report that more accurately reflects our conclusions than the press reports. There are a couple of things with noting, firstly we were somewhat surprised to find that most of the scientific studies of Electrical Sensitivity (ES) have looked at people who attribute symptoms to power frequency appliances. The area of radio frequency exposures is less well researched and certainly deserves more attention, hence the studies funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) at Essex and elsewhere. There is no theoretical reason why microwave (radio frequency) radiation should have the same effect on the body as power frequency fields, even though they are part of the same electromagnetic spectrum (as are visible light, ultraviolet and nuclear radiation) so it is unwise merely to extrapolate studies from these different exposures. The MTHR programme is funding epidemiological studies but these are fraught with difficulty in measuring exposures. Most people do not stay in the same place all day and exposures away from home may overwhelm those experienced at home. We have also found that in about half of sites, the largest exposure to people in an area is NOT from the local mast but from one further away. These factors are very difficult to control for in observational studies. Some of the MTHR funding is being used to develop a body-worn exposure meter that may help to make epidemiological studies more useful on the future. I hope this is helpful

Thank you for your reply to my e-mail and for attaching the full report from the HPA on EHS.

I note your comments on epidemiological studies being undertaken and wonder if you could give me more details of where these studies were conducted and the results so far. I would welcome such studies in my village and feel that we would be an excellent subject because of the high number of phone masts and the high incidence of illness and death.

I understand that you need to take care in conducting epidemiological studies on subjects who are electrosensitive, but I still feel that, with todays technology, it is perfectly possible to collect data on the pulsed microwave emissions while monitoring changes in the functioning of the body of the subject. It is irrelevant whether the effects are from a source close by or remote - the main object should be to measure the emissions in the environment where the subject is situated.

I would welcome your further comments on this very serious and urgent matter.


All the MTHR studies are described on the website http://www.mthr.org.uk . The epidemiological study is described as "currently underway" wh ich suggests there are no results yet. As I said in my last E-mail, we are working on a personal exposure device that would allow detection of microwave fields in the environment where people are as they move around.


Could I ask you to let me know if such a device is available as and when this happens. Could you also confirm whether volunteer communities will be sought.

Here is the weblink to the research on the personal exposure meter. As far as I am aware it is not available commercially. You will note that certain problems were found with the test device that need to be addressed. http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/hpa_rpd_reports/2005/hpa_rpd_008.htm

I do not know if volunteers are being sought for the MTHR epidemiological studies, you would be best to make direct contact through MTHR. I have copied this to Nigel Cridland the MTHR administrator here who knows a lot more than I about all the projects.


Thank you for passing on my e-mail to Nigel Cridland. I have looked at the details for the PEM meter, but am more interested in the "body suit" that you spoke of in your previous e-mail.


I think I said "body worn" (i.e. clipped to the belt). I did not mean "body suit. Sorry if I confused you.


Nevertheless, this is the device I am more interested in if you have more details.

I only know of one meter, the PEM.


Then you are right, I have misunderstood. I think what is needed is a device to monitor, perhaps, blood circulation, muscle activity (or lack of), nerve impulses, etc., in order to determine what is happening in the body of the subject. Surely, this is the only way. The present practice of asking the person to describe what they are feeling is leading to the unhelpful diagnosis of "all in the mind".


Not our area of expertise I'm afraid. The nearest I can think of is the physiological monitoring that anaesthetists do while people are under anaesthetic.


If epidemiological studies are being done, I would think this type of device is essential. Otherwise results of such studies are always going to be "inconclusive".

--------

Which shows just how much she is missing the point.

a) there are no epidemiological studies

b) MTHR is exhausted, some research appears not to have been done at all, and hardly any other has been published, except the DSTL on Ca++ which was published before being peer reviewed, the obscure driving and mobiles and one or two other bits. None is particularly accessible and the MTHR website is woefully out of date.

c) the dosimeter testing has been at least partly published by HPA, but tells us nothing other than the capacity to check some features of incident radiation on the wearer as they go about their lives. Undoubtedly of interest it monitors the radiation, not the body response. This must not be used to "prove low levels", because the complaint is already that extremely low levels do have a chronic effect, but that we don't know if the cause lies in the MW frequency, the modulation characteristics, or the power levels, or the combined effects of multiple carriers.

d) The RPD is clearly not the place to pronounce on safety, since they self-confessedly do not have the medical expertise. But since they are part of the HPA it is high time they passed it on to others or undertook meaningful collaboration.

Andy

--------

And this from Nigel Cridland.

Sylvia


RE: Electrosensitivity Von: "Nigel Cridland"
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:50:29 -0000
to: "Jill Meara"


Dear Mrs Wright,

The MTHR Programme Management Committee considers that whilst the availability of a personal exposure meter is an interesting development, further trials would need to be undertaken before it could be used in a full epidemiological study. The Committee has identified a need for work in this area as part of the proposed second phase of the MTHR Programme, for which funds are currently being sought. We are also keeping in contact with European researchers who have work in progress to further evaluate the potential of the personal exposure meter for epidemiological investigations. Progress towards a full epidemiological study will obviously depend on the outcome of this work and the work proposed by MTHR. Any new developments will be published on the Programme web site at http://www.mthr.org.uk

Regards,

Nigel Cridland
MTHR Scientific Co-ordinator.

--------

From: Eileen O'Connor
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:09:37 -0000
Subject: FW: Check out Press Complaints Commission

From Catherine

Press Complaints http://www.pcc.org.uk/index2.html

Commission: The telegraph and the Times ran articles in which they used so called experts to contradict Dr Meara on electrosensativity. 1 SIR COLIN BERRY had no knowledge of the subject. From the quote from him he admits total ignorance of the subject. John Hunt professor of GEOGRAPHY was not even medically or scientifically qualified to send out health advice contradicting a medical Doctor. Making out that people are mentally ill on his advice is very dangerous, as someone recently won a case in European law, who was wrongly committed as insane due to similar ignorance. The use of his Title Professor was misleading as this has no bearing on the subject, as GEOGRAPHY IS NOT THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED, OR RELEVANT for this. The papers did not make his Title of Professor clear. As people were misled by this, a complaint should be submitted, so that this can be corrected in the newspapers. I will also see if a similar thing exists for Academic complaints so this also can be done. I would ask everyone to complain to stop the cover up as the news today about the rise in mouth cancer is very worrying and I fear nothing to do with alcohol.

--------

Dear Jill Meara

Thank you very much for your fast response to my email queries and thank you for your comments.

Please will you expand your kind explanation of research that has to be published in a peer reviewed journal further for me? For instance, is the paper titled 'Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Station' by Ronni Wolf MD and Danny Wolf MD, published in the Internal Journal of Cancer Prevention Volume 1, Number 2, April 2004, eligible to be considered by the HPA?

As I am just an ordinary concerned person who becomes ill in the vicinity of mobile phone masts, I really do need to know how much protection the HPA is affording myself and the great numbers of other people like me. Please will you let me know what journals the HPA continually scours and uses for information on the adverse health effects from mobile phone masts?

Finally, as the methods used in the Austrian research on electro-sensitivity mentioned in my earlier email do not appear to be expensive or complicated, please can you tell me if similar research is currently being carried out in Britain?

In the meantime, thank you once again for your kind assistance so far.

Best wishes

Mrs Jane Lee

--------

Dr Neil Irvine, CDSC NI, coordination epidemiology, Tel: 028 90263765, Tel: 028 90263765

He is regional epidemiologist of HPA Belfast.

I found also dr. Helene Irvine, Public Health Consultant to the Glasgow Health Board, about GSM phones and masts in 2000,
http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/EMF/cell-health/cellphone-health.html
but I really do not know if she is related to Neil Irvine. There are a lot of people called Irvine.

Mike Clark, Mike.Clark@hpa-rp.org.uk answers the questions to Neil Irvine.

Neil Irvine has written about sexually transmitted infections

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2005/050203.asp and

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cache:UXC26P4Jr9UJ:www.aidsmap.com/en/news/B46322FF-ED9A-4FC4-B471-8292356165F3.asp%3Ftype%3Dpreview+%22irvine+n.%22+hpa&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

It is not clear why NRPB has asked Neil Irvine to do the investigation.

Michael Clark of the NRPB says: "There is no evidence for this effect but lots of people report it. They are affected by something, they go a bit strange and all sorts of symptoms appear."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,,1398868,00.html

I think what happens in U.K. now is what happened before in Sweden. Not only the WHO, also Michael Clark of NRPB says many people report EHS/ES.

Still, they act as if it can not be caused by environmental radiation/fields, though the people involved report real physical symptoms and the relationship with more or less radiation/fields.

Dr Neil Irvine, EHSSB Eastern Health and Social Services Board, is mentioned here on page 62 (about physically disabled and sensory impaired people)

http://www.ehssb.n-i.nhs.uk/EBWEB.NSF/0/f374826006e4c54b80256f540041ccd1/$FILE/PDConsultation.pdf
EHSSB is in Belfast.

Neil Irvine has advise about meningococcal disease

http://www.ehssb.n-i.nhs.uk/ebweb.nsf/4cdbab0966e6c2f880256c1d00408939/eafc48183b6e706f80256e6a005171c1?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,irvine

Neil Irvine was one of the authors of a report for HPA before:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/injectingdrugusers/Shooting_Up_2004_data.pdf

He has also co-worked on this:

http://www.cdscni.org.uk/publications/MonthlyReports/Volume_13_2004/No%2011.pdf#search='neil%20irvine%20hpa'

I have no idea why Neil Irvine was asked or proposed to write the HPA/RPD 010 report.

Interesting question, just ask him or the HPA.

Frans

--------

Dr Neil Irvine is described on the title page of the report as: Regional Epidemiologist, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Northern Ireland, HPA Belfast.

Now more evident on Google for this latest report, he does have a history with streptococcal infections, HIV and STDs (for example) and his email is neil.irvine@hpa.org.uk . His final report as published may reveal a poor appreciation of EHS and presentation of the issues, but we really should not assume he is a poor epidemiologist.

I'm afraid that knee-jerk reactions that people are either faithfully represented by the press, or that they are necessarily mad, bad or sad just because they don't say what we want, will just not do. It doesn't mean they are good and faithful scientists either, but the basis of dialogue is respect.

Bear with the frustration in this game, it's a long one, and there is a lot of real communication still to do. We must ask direct pointed questions politely, not criticise people we do not know. (There is highly contrasting recent communication with Jill Meara that can be quite instructive here.)

Andy

--------

Response from Jill Meara

Dear Mrs Lee

Firstly, sorry that I called you Mr Lee in the last E-mail, slip of the finger I'm afraid. In general the HPA looks at evidence from all sources but would give especial weight to high quality reports in the peer reviewed scientific literature. However, even these journals can publish reports that do not have the best methodology or that report "chance" findings that are not backed up by their own results or replicated in later studies. Therefore we would always review the detailed methods of any study for possible sources of bias and confounding. The International Journal of Cancer Prevention is a peer reviewed journal but we would still subject any papers in to a quality review. We do not have a list of "publications that we scan", but would take information from any source, but examine it carefully for quality. The problem with epidemiology is that "cheap and cheerful" methods, whilst attractive to researchers who have limited resources, may not end up with a study that is rigorous enough to trust the conclusions drawn. In many ways epidemiological studies are much more difficult to design than laboratory studies precisely because there is no "control" over the lives of real people. Another point is that not all authors draw conclusions that are supported by their data. If you want to know more about the epidemiological studies going on in the UK at the moment, look on the MTHR website at mthr.org.uk. If you want to know more about the design of epidemiological studies, definitions of bias and confounding etc why not try to get hold of an epidemiology textbook such as "Essential Pubic Health Medicine" which is co-written by the Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson and his late father who was also a legend in Public Health. You could also look at the website of CASP, which is a programme based in Oxford that trains both Health Service staff and patients how to critically appraise the scientific literature. http://www.phru.nhs.uk/casp/casp.htm

I hope these observations are helpful.

Dr Jill Meara
FFPH Deputy Director/Public Health Physician

--------

Er, yes?

What epidemiological studies?

Please, anyone, help me find them here! As far as I have ever been able to tell, there are no MTHR epidemiological studies, just one or two papers discussing the nature of such studies.

See my earlier summary here:
http://www.tetrawatch.net/science/mthr.php

Andy


From Mast Sanity

--------

HPA-RPD-010: Definition, Epidemiology and Management of Electrical Sensitivity
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1115204/

50% increase in cancer in teenagers - Oral cancer cases increase
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1160454/

An open letter to Rod Read, director of Electrosensitivity-UK
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000654.php



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrosensitivity
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=HPA-RPD-010
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Brian+Stein
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Jill+Meara
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Rod+Read
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Nic+Fleming

PETER WALSH

03 November 2005 11:42

Phone mast campaigners are facing a fresh fight to stop a mobile phone mast being put up in the city.

Telecommunications giant Vodafone has submitted plans for a 10-metre timber pole in the prestigious Newmarket Road area to planners at Norwich City Council.

However families living near the Newmarket Road Surgery, close to where the mast is set to go, are concerned about the possible effects the proposal, which includes antennae and associated ground based equipment cabinet, might have.

The Evening News contacted the surgery but was told they had no comment to make about the application at this stage.

"I don't consider that a residential area such as this is a suitable area for a phone mast," said James Lord, 75, who lives off Newmarket Road in nearby Glenalmond.

"I wouldn't welcome anything that requires a large magnetic field which is what microwaves are."

Mr Lord, a retired insurance worker, said masts were better suited to bigger buildings like Normandie Tower, or the new Fellowes Plain complex on the grounds of the former Norfolk and Norwich Hospital site.

The Evening News has campaigned against the installation of mobile phone masts near homes and schools until it is proved safe.

Dr Ian Gibson, Norwich North MP and long-time supporter of our campaign, said: "I would like to know what the doctors feel about it, why Vodafone have positioned it there, and how many people were consulted about it.

"They should really acknowledge the fact they've got to get the public on side."

Dr Gibson appealed to Vodafone to take the wishes of people who live near the mast into account before making these proposals and urged them to get in touch with him.

"I find it difficult to understand why they are doing it," he said. "I've had no complaints from people round this area not being able to get a reception on their phones — it baffles me."

In April 1997 the Evening News reported how people living in the Newmarket Road area were up in arms at plans for a 25-metre telephone mast which they said would lower the value of their homes.

Cambridge-based Ionica has lodged an application with the city council to build the mast just off Newmarket Road.

But homeowners near the site, at the Civil Service sports ground at Wentworth Green, wrote to council planners urging them to block the scheme.

A spokeswoman for Vodafone said the mast complied with safety guidelines which have been put in place to protect everyone whether people lived near to the mast or not.

Omega read "Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?" under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

"It will be improving voice and text services but also bringing new services to local people," she said.

"They are designed to be placed in streets that's why they are timber poles so they blend in with the existing street furniture."

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED03%20Nov%202005%2012%3A05%3A59%3A153

Mobile MPs: the health debate
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAE1F.htm

Am I correct in thinking this article is taken from a phone operators website. Only the views of these MP's aren't what I have read in the past. Ian Gibson has always said that Stewart's precautionary principal has not been followed. He's always been very supportive. This sounds like more biased, phone operator propaganda to me.

John Elliott


From Mast Sanity Network

--------

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAE1F.htm

3 November 2005

Mobile MPs: the health debate What do members of parliament think about the UK's precautionary approach to mobile phones and masts? by Jennie Bristow

The spiked/O2 debate on mobile phones and health has attracted a diverse range of opinions on one of the most perplexing controversies of our time. The high-profile fear that mobile phones or masts might damage our health exists alongside a growing body of scientific evidence that fails to find any adverse health effects from mobile phones or masts. Despite the extent to which mobile telephony has become central to life and business in our burgeoning 'information society', the UK authorities continue to advise a 'precautionary approach' to the public's use of mobile phones, particularly in relation to children.

As our debate shows, the outcome of this ambivalence towards mobile phones has been considerable public confusion. For much of the public, and particularly younger people, mobile phones have become a part of everyday life, whose obvious benefits outweigh any possible health risk. But a vocal minority remains deeply concerned about the present and future effects of mobile phone technology upon our health and wellbeing, and worried about the continuing rollout of mobile technology.

So what do politicians make of this issue? In a preliminary survey, spiked interviewed six members of parliament (MPs) about their own views on the safety of mobile phones and masts and the concerns raised by their constituents, and their opinions about the precautionary approach adopted by the authorities following the Stewart Report of 2000. We also asked how they felt about claims that the official message - 'it's safe to use your phone, but be careful anyway' - has been confusing.

Their responses indicated that MPs, like the public at large, have differing views on whether mobile phones pose a risk to health. Where there is consensus, however, it is that the precautionary approach is the sensible way to go.

When asked 'Do you think that radiation from mobile phones or from mobile phone masts poses a risk to health?', Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes and senior spokesman on environment and rural affairs, replied 'in terms of mobile phones, yes. In terms of masts, no'.

This is an important distinction. While the most vocal campaigns focus on mobile phone masts, much of the research has focused on determining whether there is a risk from handsets. At a time when individuals are increasingly attached to their mobile phones and aware of their personal benefits, it is perhaps not surprising that the reaction against handsets is more muted than the reaction to having a mast in one's backyard. Indeed, when it comes to the concerns raised by Baker's constituents, he explains: 'They frequently raise concerns about masts, which I don't think are well grounded. They never really raise risks about phones, which I think are well grounded.'

Andrew Stunell, Liberal Democrat MP for Hazel Grove and member of the modernisation committee, is less equivocal on whether mobile phones and masts cause a health risk. 'Yes', he says. 'I think the Stewart Committee has indicated that there are some risks associated particularly with the use of phones, and perhaps to a more limited extent masts.' In fact, what the Stewart Committee found was that any link between mobile phones and health risks was 'unproven': an argument echoed by Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North and chair of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology.

When we asked Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP for Worthing West and vice-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mobile Communications, whether radiation from mobile phones or from mobile phone masts poses a risk to health, he replied simply 'no'. Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough and chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mobile Communications, said 'I don't know'. Nor does Andrew Mitchell, Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield and shadow international development secretary: 'I don't know the answer to that, because I rely upon the opinion of experts', he replied. 'It's not really a matter for me as an MP, but my view on all these things is that we should adopt the precautionary principle about them.'

It seems that MPs themselves have differing views on whether mobile phones or masts pose a risk to our health. To what extent have their constituents raised concerns about this issue?

'No one has rung me up to say they're worried about using their phone', says Peter Bottomley. 'A number have got objections to mobile masts, some on amenity grounds and some on health grounds.' Bottomley, like Norman Baker, is a little perplexed by this spread of concerns: 'As I understand it, radiation from masts - unless you're actually dancing with it - is far lower than radiation from the phone you actually use. And as I said, no constituents have rung me with concerns about using their own mobile phone.'

Other MPs' constituents have been more vociferous. Ian Gibson's constituents raise concerns about health risks from mobile phones and masts 'incessantly'. 'There's about six different groups around phone masts', he says. 'They win some, they lose some, and so on.' Andrew Mitchell's constituents have raised concerns 'extensively': 'I raised the matter in the House of Commons because of the concern about health issues, and other issues too', he says. Andrew Stunell's constituents also raise concerns 'to a very large extent. I've got a constituency with 65,000 electors, which is probably about 85,000 people. And I'd say that in the last four years, I've probably had seven or eight communities send me petitions and large numbers of letters, about their fears about mobile phone technology.'

Phil Willis' constituents have raised their fears over mobile phone masts 'very significantly'. He continues: 'I have a relatively intelligent electorate, concerned about the arrogant way in which a number of mobile phone companies set about installing masts with a minimum of local consultation - despite the "10 commitments" of the mobile phone companies, and despite the pleas of government for greater pre-application consultation.'

Whatever their own views on the safety of mobile phones and the concerns raised by their constituents, the small group of MPs whom we interviewed agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Stewart Committee in 2000: that even where there is no conclusive evidence of health risks from mobile phones, a precautionary approach should be adopted towards them. 'It's very difficult to prove a negative, so it's a question of balance - which is why the Stewart Report says, for example, that it's a slightly different line with children than with adults', says Norman Baker. 'That sort of balance is a sensible approach to take.'

'I think all one can do is abide by the view of the experts, so that's what I'd back', says Andrew Mitchell. 'I wouldn't seek to interpose my view as an MP, a layman, above the view of the experts. So I would rely upon the experts for what we should do.' 'If there was a clear risk, it wouldn't be a precautionary approach, would it? It would be risk avoidance', explains Andrew Stunell. Peter Bottomley agrees with the Stewart Committee's approach 'within reason'.

Ian Gibson agrees with the Stewart Committee's conclusion 'absolutely': 'I think the government's going to come out with something on that eventually - in other words, that health is something in terms of planning that should be taken into consideration. There's enough indication that radiation does cause biological effects - that was the point, without being able to say there was no effect whatsoever. There was some biological effect, but there's no effect on people's health as such.'

All of the MPs whom we interviewed thought that the precautionary approach proposed by the Stewart Committee and adopted by the authorities was the right one. But how do they respond to claims that the subsequent public health message - that there is no evidence of harm from mobile phones or masts, but we should take care when using them anyway - has been confusing?

Norman Baker argues that the official attempts to inform the public about the health issues associated with mobile phones were confusing 'certainly in the initial stages', and that there has been 'a lack of anticipation from the industry of the need to deal with what are predictable public concerns, and a lack of leadership from government. Now, it's become slightly embedded and difficult to deal with'. Andrew Mitchell also agrees that the messages have been confusing, 'which is why I've consistently pressed the government to carry out more research and more tests on this'. 'I don't think they've been confusing, I just don't think they've addressed people's concerns', says Andrew Stunell.

For Ian Gibson, the confusion about mobile phones and health comes primarily from mobile operators: 'It's deliberately so by the companies', he says. 'The government hasn't helped, and it's in liaison with the companies. It's part of a smokescreen that's set up.' Phil Willis, on the other hand, seems more concerned about the lack of government leadership on this question: 'In the absence of a strong government campaign actually to make clear what the science is, where research is being carried out and what sensible precautions people can take - particularly with young children and the use of mobile phones - then it's inevitable that some of the more exaggerated claims about health risks from mobile phones and masts will in fact take precedence.'

As the debate currently raging on spiked shows, from the public to policymakers there is still much to be discussed in the debate about mobile phones and health. The issue at stake goes far deeper than what the science to date can or cannot tell us about the health effects of mobile technology, raising questions such as: How useful is the precautionary principle as a way of managing the introduction of new technologies? How responsible is it of the government to refuse to take a firm line on issues of significant public concern? What approach should companies be taking, in the face of a combination of public hostility to masts, public demand for better mobile services, and increasing regulation? And how do we reconcile individuals' desire to make use of new technologies such as the mobile phone with communities' reluctance to allow the development of new infrastructure?

To discuss this and more, join the spiked/O2 debate on Mobile Phones and Health here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/sections/technology/debates/mobilesocietyhealth/

Interviews by Sandy Starr.

Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE1F.htm

--------

Thank you for your recent contribution to the spiked/O2 online debate 'MOBILE PHONES AND HEALTH: WHAT ARE WE SCARED OF?'


Your response was published at:
http://www.spiked-online.com/sections/technology/debates/mobilesocietyhealth/responses.htm

Response at:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE3E.htm
http://www.spiked-online.com/sections/technology/debates/mobilesocietyhealth/responses.htm

The genotoxic effect of mobile phone radiation

[8-Nov-2005]

The Vienna Doctor's Chamber (Wiener Ärztekammer) warns expressly against excessive mobile phone use, especially by children. The reason for this is the recently presented 'Reflex Study' (Reflex-Studie), in which a definite genotoxic effect of mobile phone radiation was seen.

The first consequence is that the Doctor's Chamber has now drawn up a catalogue of guidelines, which stipulates specific rules of behaviour for use of mobile phones. See: Wissenschaft zu Mobilfunk http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk and the Science section of the Bürgerwelle eV website http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html .

Citizens' Initiative Omega, Germany

We look forward to any further contributions you would like to make to this online debate. Please pass on details of the debate to anyone you think might be interested in contributing.

Sandy Starr
spiked Ltd
http://www.spiked-online.com
Tel: +44 (0)20 7269 9234
Fax: +44 (0)20 7269 9235

--------

The spiked/O2 online debate 'MOBILE PHONES AND HEALTH: WHAT ARE WE SCARED OF?', which took place over autumn 2005, brought together industry representatives, policymakers, academics and spiked readers to discuss the ongoing anxieties about the impact of mobile phones on our health, in the context of a substantial body of research finding no evidence of health risks.

I thought you might be interested to read the following 5-page summary of the issues raised by the debate:

http://www.spiked-online.com/pdf/mobilesociety-health-summary.pdf

The next spiked/O2 online debate, on mobile phones and child protection, will launch shortly.


Sandy Starr

spiked Ltd http://www.spiked-online.com

Tel: +44 (0)20 7269 9234 Fax: +44 (0)20 7269 9235


From Mast Sanity

--------

Dear Sandy,

you seem to be presenting a balanced view, but actually there is nothing from anybody directly affected, no description of the actual symptoms experienced (big TNA study was quite consistent with what people report, by the way) - it's rather a theoretical view don't you think? Quite helpful not to present the living reality if you wanted people to think it was hysteria....

Sarah


From Mast Sanity

Fears that another controversial Tetra mast could be 'sneaked' into Bognor have been allayed after councillors rejected a plan for Aldwick Road.

MMO2, the company which builds Tetra masts, wanted to build a 3G mobile phone mast on top of the building at 85 Aldwick Road, Bognor.

The mast would have been used to provide modern mobile phone users in the area with the so-called third generation of mobile phone services such as sending video clips and music downloads.

Full report in the November 3 edition of the Bognor Regis Observer

03 November 2005

Protesters are celebrating after seeing off plans for a mobile phone mast next to a school in Rowsley.

But meanwhile residents in Hackney will be fuming because a similar mast was given the go-ahead in the village.

On Tuesday night Derbyshire Dales District councillors rejected the 20-metre phone mast which would have sat behind Rowsley Primary School at Ashbrook Roofing and Supplies.

Rowsley Parish councillor John Hart, who was at the meeting said: "It was brilliant, I think the planners had every intention of putting it through and they got a surprise when it didn't.

"The research isn't clear about the health affects. I found some research in Sweden which suggests there are health risks from being close to a phone mast."

Omega the research is clear about the health affects. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html


Ted Mellor, chair of the governors at Rowsley Primary School, said: "The mast was inappropriately sited. It was not that far from the school."

Derbyshire Dales District councillor Deborah Reed, who represents Rowsley, Stanton in Peak and Birchover Parish Councils, said: "We are all very happy and would like the company to go away and find a site somewhere else.

"The pole would have been right at the bottom of the garden of a resident, who has a 18-month-old child. And I don't think anyone would like a 66 foot pole by their garden wall.

"We cannot look at health issues because the government lays down the emission levels that a company mustn't go over. They talk about 'ionising emissions' – but who knows what that is?"

However, the same councillors gave the green light to a phone mast from the same firm, Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd, at Bent Lane, Hackney.

John Evans, chairman of Darley Dale Town Council attended the meeting and was very disappointed at the outcome.

He said: "The mast will be an eyesore. People from Matlock will be able to see it. I don't think the mobile phone company are making the effort to camouflage it."

Cllr Reed, who also voted against the phone mast going up in Hackney, said: "I think we are just going to have a proliferation of them. There's another one barely yards away."

A spokesperson for the applicant, Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd said: "We are disappointed that we were refused the mast at Rowsley. The planning officer did recommend this was the best site. We are limited to our options.

"We are going to have to wait now for the decision notice to see if we are going to appeal. We do need a site in the area as there is a demand.

"We amended our application twice at Hackney to make sure we had the best-designed and best -placed mast.

"It was agreed that if we shared the mast with Vodaphone we would have to increase the height to have two sets of antenna."

By Amy Thurston

02 November 2005

http://www.matlocktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=749&ArticleID=1240768

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=282

Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA - Class action ahead? http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1110057/

The new "Solution" for antennas in Israel

I give some further backgound on the new "solution" that is described below at the end of this short article.

Iris Atzmon.


http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=91512

Experts to Recommend Shifting to Small Cellular Antennas
13:15 Oct 20, '05 / 17 Tishrei 5766

(IsraelNN.com) A fact-finding committee made of representatives of the Transportation, Communications and Interior Ministries is due to present its findings to the government by November 10th.

The committee began investigation a solution to the growing concerns and mounting resistance to the large cellular antennas that are becoming increasingly commonplace on the Israeli landscape.

According to some experts, including Prof. Eliyahu Richter who heads the Department of Industrial and Environmental Medicine at Hadassah Medical School, moving to a large quantity of smaller antennas to replace the fewer larger ones would result in less electromagnetic emissions per antenna, explaining that the closer antennas are situated to one another, the less the emissions.

Richter did acknowledge that even to this school of thought there is a down side, stating that this would significantly lower the emissions from each antenna but it would create a situation that everyone would be constantly exposed to continuous low-level emissions, even persons who do not use cellular telephones. He added that we are still uncertain as to the long-term effects of exposure and this has many people most concerned.


The governmental committee was the idea of our Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as a get-away from the threat on the companies several months ago, when the Interior minister Ofir Pines tried to change the current law of the cellular antennas. Pines wanted to give the public the right to resist antennas (which does not exist now by law) and to give compensation for the loss of property value. His suggestion had the support of most of the ministers, but the companies did a very good job at the last moment and his suggestion was not given a chance to be even discussed in the ministers meeting when Sharon decided to set a committee with no authorities, in order to discuss the public health issue etc and to buy time. With the excuse that they cannot inform the public on new antennas because of "security" reasons, the companies caused to turn Pines' offer down. It doesn't matter that his suggestion was not on new antennas but on existing ones, but as he said himself: "the whole world and its wife wanted to kill the suggestion". Several years ago when he wanted to put warning labels on cell phones, the next day the celluar companies representatives flew especially to Israel from Europe and came to his office. Then, he says, he understood with what kind of power he was dealing. Anyway, the first city to adopt the new change and put many small antennas is Modiin, near Jerusalem it will be a test case, but it's not so easy: the residents resist it, they gathered 2300 signatures. I suggested them to demand their mayor to show them a certificate/ approval from the Helsinki Committee which says that he has approval to do human experiments on them, anyway they are equiped with studies and we'll see how it develops. The trick of the small antennas is to neutralize the public right to resist antennas - these antennas require no permission, and they will be hidden in street lamps. The residents said to the TV today: we don't want the phone third generation, we want third generation for our kids !! The mayor was convinced by the environmental ministry that more antennas are less radiation from antennas and from phones, and the municipality will receive 2.5 million shekels from the cell companies and he says that the people will understand that it's for their benefit in the future. In a conference that was held in the city about 2 weeks ago, a cancer patient asked Dr. Stelian Galberg from the Env. ministry, who advances the new "solution", whether he wanted to come to her funeral. He answered that he hoped everything would be allright.

Omega see also http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Stelian+Galberg

The companies reaction to the TV news programm about Modiin today, was that the solution is based on the equation that was presented on the TV screen like this: MORE ANTENNAS = LESS RADIATION. After Modiin they plan to do it in the rest of the country.

Reportage et Annexes sur un Contrôle de Mesures Officielles suivant le protocole ANFR dans les locaux d'ASL (CREST Drôme)

http://www.next-up.org/main.php?param=mesuresctrl

Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA

Please, read:

(START OF COPY) Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA  Class action ahead?

The Mobile telephone manufactures did not succeed with their Stop-proposal at the American High Court. The Mobile phone manufacturers wanted to put a stop for consumers being able to take out court summons. Against them related to health risk from radiation from mobile phones, according to Bloomberg news.

The manufacturers behind the proposal were, between others, Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson. The High Court decision opens up for a class action against the mobile phone manufacturers, to go ahead. A group of consumers in Louisiana demands that every mobile phone user be given a headset to lower the radiation. Analysts tells Bloomberg news that the decision can open up for mass actions, by people who have contracted cancer, running into multimillions against the mobile phone manufacturers.

http://www.dagensps.se/artikel.asp?articleID=13340

Translated from Swedish by Agnes http://www.mast-victims.org/
(END OF COPY)


Olle Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden

--------

Cell phone makers lose case at Supreme Court

Houston Chronicle

10/31/05

The Supreme Court refused today to consider throwing out class-action lawsuits that accuse cell phone makers of failing to protect users from unsafe levels of radiation. The cell industry argued that because the phones comply with federal rules, the lawsuits should be dismissed. Justices declined without comment to consider the appeal...

http://tinyurl.com/cmk9z


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

--------

Cell phone class action cases to proceed
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1114156/