English Docs concerning Cell Phones and Cell Phone Masts
Starmail - 19. Jun, 23:22
Mobilfunk Archiv (Englisch)
19
Jun
2005
Cellphone health lawsuit to go ahead
The legal firm, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran has said that a federal judge in Maryland ruled this week that a class action complaint challenging the cell phone industry's failure to disclose safety issues relating to certain phones sold to consumers in Washington, D.C. and Maryland should be remanded to the D.C. Superior Court in which it was originally filed. The Honorable Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the plaintiff's motion for remand, thereby authorizing the case to proceed in state court.
The complaint, which was originally filed in September, 2002, charges cell phone manufacturers Audiovox, Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, Qualcomm, Kyocera and Samsung with selling cell phones to consumers without disclosing pertinent safety information.
The allegations in the complaint concentrate on defendants' "decision whether or not to communicate to the consumer information regarding the important safety debate raging within the industry, (many details of which are known only to industry insiders)."
The complaint also challenges defendants' failure to disclose the true meaning of their "Specific Absorption Rate" levels for their cell phones.
The complaint alleges that such misrepresentations and omissions violate state consumer fraud laws and that the proper disclosures "would allow consumers to decide for themselves" whether the safety debate warrants a consumer's modification of their cell phone usage and/or model choice.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased a wireless handheld telephone in Maryland or the District of Columbia, between January 1, 1989 and the present, that was manufactured by one of the defendants.
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/13161.php
The complaint, which was originally filed in September, 2002, charges cell phone manufacturers Audiovox, Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, Qualcomm, Kyocera and Samsung with selling cell phones to consumers without disclosing pertinent safety information.
The allegations in the complaint concentrate on defendants' "decision whether or not to communicate to the consumer information regarding the important safety debate raging within the industry, (many details of which are known only to industry insiders)."
The complaint also challenges defendants' failure to disclose the true meaning of their "Specific Absorption Rate" levels for their cell phones.
The complaint alleges that such misrepresentations and omissions violate state consumer fraud laws and that the proper disclosures "would allow consumers to decide for themselves" whether the safety debate warrants a consumer's modification of their cell phone usage and/or model choice.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased a wireless handheld telephone in Maryland or the District of Columbia, between January 1, 1989 and the present, that was manufactured by one of the defendants.
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/13161.php
Starmail - 19. Jun, 22:16
17
Jun
2005
Mobile Phones & Cancer
Starmail - 17. Jun, 15:15
Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
The industry/establishment's recitation is that 'evidence' of mast safety comes from an esteemed International body known as ICNIRP supported by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the British Medical Association (BMA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon.
Sounds impressive. So does it mean that all their pronouncements are quite separate and so additive, coming from unchallengeable sources?
No.
The BMA have not conducted any technical or original work. Their Interim Report 2001 and Update 2005 only re-state the published Reviews of ICNIRP participants, including the UK's NRPB (now HPA).
The original selection of which research to include and more importantly what to exclude for review, apart from how it was assessed, rather determines all conclusions. Visit the BMA website - they are not offering any independent certainty, just echoing the less than independent 'experts' applying their erroneous dogma.
When we hear 'World Health Organisation', what is meant is The WHO EMF Group - until recently led by Michael Repacholi, an ICNIRP stalwart, and his few industry connected seconded helpers. There is very good reason for the public not to have confidence in the impartiality of this group. The IARC are also represented on the ICNIRP Committee. The Cancer establishment have never been inclined to shine light on environmental causes of cancer when it is man made. Though they are relaxed so long as it's a 'natural' source.
Current wheeze in explaining localised excesses (e.g.masts, nuclear, ) is that - 'viruses are involved'.
Nifty, since there are well known particular cancers of viral origin, such as cervical -hpv/warts, liver - hep and Epstein-Barr virus.
So, 98% of cancer resources much publicly donated, goes in every other direction, but usually towards the progression mechanisms linked to the creation of 'treatments', on behalf of big pharma. A perfect world.
What we see throughout is the fine tradition of elites endorsing the statements of other elites.
Arthur J.
How about this?
Sarah
1. The ICNIRP Guidelines
The ICNIRP guidelines as officially endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) were formulated in 1998 and largely adopted in the Western world..
They state:
"Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions..." http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf
That is to say that the ICNIRP only protect against short-term heat effects, i.e. we won't be Œcooked in the beam! There are no guidelines to protect against any other effects!
However in 1992 The German Federal Radiation Protection Agency had published a statement, which clearly referred to non-thermal, biological effects of microwave radiation and marked a watershed in our understanding of living systems. "Specific effects which are not related to heating have been described in the scientific literature for approximately 15 years. If a high frequency radiation is amplitude modulated with another frequency, field effects can occur, which do not exist under unmodulated radiation. These manifest mostly as changes in the permeability of the cell membranes. For example, it has been found that with high frequency radiation with a frequency of 147 MHz, which was modulated with frequencies between 6 and 20 Hz, the calcium efflux from cell cultures was significantly increased (by 1020%) for certain frequencies. Generally, a complex dependency of these effects on intensity and frequency has been observed, showing that certain frequency windows are particularly active. These membrane effects have been replicated many times, so that their existence has become established scientific knowledge. It needs to be noted that the SAR values used in some studies were lower than 0.01 W/kg, and therefore significantly below the threshold of thermally relevant intensities."
Mobilfunk - die verkaufte Gesundheit (Mobile communications - the sell-out of health) by Dr med Hans-Christoph Scheiner, published by Michaels Verlag, March 2006 The source listed in the Bibliographie of the book reads: Strahlenschutzkommission SSK, 1992: 'Schutz vor elektromagnetischer Strahlung beim Mobilfunk'. Bundesanzeiger Nr 43, 03. March 1992, Veroeffentlichungen der Strahlenschutzkommission, Band 24. The original publication can be ordered here http://www.ssk.de/pub/kurzinfo/b24.htm
An eminent epidemiologist, Prof. J.R. Goldsmith, said: "There are strong political and economic reasons for wanting there to be no health effect of RF/MW exposure, just as there are strong public health reasons for more accurately portraying the risks. Those of us who intend to speak for public health must be ready for opposition that is nominally, but not truly, scientific."
http://tinyurl.com/2el57h http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=30
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Competing interests, conflicts of interest: Who's funding WHO?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3347390/
ICNIRP Guidelines
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1538462/
The guidelines are obsolete
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/705630/
Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/
ICNIRP clarification
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2406287/
The Precautionary Principle and Regulation of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/686111/
GUIDELINES BASED ON KEY STUDIES
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/678269/
Emissions from Cell Sites below International Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/676712/
ICNIRP Guideline Critique
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619583/
Mobile Telephony: Standards more than insufficient
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/618857/
Current planning guidelines do not recognise adverse health effects of masts
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1594205/
The Inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/567526/
The ICNIRP Saga
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566278/
On ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2289938/
The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1414514/
ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1822415/
Measure people, not masts
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/559799/
WLAN, DECT in Schools and Kindergardens
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1579030/
Letter to the WHO from the WSF (World Social Forum)
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/501745/
WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Gunde
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organization
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/WHO_OMS.php#10
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldsmith
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Scheiner
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
Sounds impressive. So does it mean that all their pronouncements are quite separate and so additive, coming from unchallengeable sources?
No.
The BMA have not conducted any technical or original work. Their Interim Report 2001 and Update 2005 only re-state the published Reviews of ICNIRP participants, including the UK's NRPB (now HPA).
The original selection of which research to include and more importantly what to exclude for review, apart from how it was assessed, rather determines all conclusions. Visit the BMA website - they are not offering any independent certainty, just echoing the less than independent 'experts' applying their erroneous dogma.
When we hear 'World Health Organisation', what is meant is The WHO EMF Group - until recently led by Michael Repacholi, an ICNIRP stalwart, and his few industry connected seconded helpers. There is very good reason for the public not to have confidence in the impartiality of this group. The IARC are also represented on the ICNIRP Committee. The Cancer establishment have never been inclined to shine light on environmental causes of cancer when it is man made. Though they are relaxed so long as it's a 'natural' source.
Current wheeze in explaining localised excesses (e.g.masts, nuclear, ) is that - 'viruses are involved'.
Nifty, since there are well known particular cancers of viral origin, such as cervical -hpv/warts, liver - hep and Epstein-Barr virus.
So, 98% of cancer resources much publicly donated, goes in every other direction, but usually towards the progression mechanisms linked to the creation of 'treatments', on behalf of big pharma. A perfect world.
What we see throughout is the fine tradition of elites endorsing the statements of other elites.
Arthur J.
How about this?
Sarah
1. The ICNIRP Guidelines
The ICNIRP guidelines as officially endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) were formulated in 1998 and largely adopted in the Western world..
They state:
"Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions..." http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf
That is to say that the ICNIRP only protect against short-term heat effects, i.e. we won't be Œcooked in the beam! There are no guidelines to protect against any other effects!
However in 1992 The German Federal Radiation Protection Agency had published a statement, which clearly referred to non-thermal, biological effects of microwave radiation and marked a watershed in our understanding of living systems. "Specific effects which are not related to heating have been described in the scientific literature for approximately 15 years. If a high frequency radiation is amplitude modulated with another frequency, field effects can occur, which do not exist under unmodulated radiation. These manifest mostly as changes in the permeability of the cell membranes. For example, it has been found that with high frequency radiation with a frequency of 147 MHz, which was modulated with frequencies between 6 and 20 Hz, the calcium efflux from cell cultures was significantly increased (by 1020%) for certain frequencies. Generally, a complex dependency of these effects on intensity and frequency has been observed, showing that certain frequency windows are particularly active. These membrane effects have been replicated many times, so that their existence has become established scientific knowledge. It needs to be noted that the SAR values used in some studies were lower than 0.01 W/kg, and therefore significantly below the threshold of thermally relevant intensities."
Mobilfunk - die verkaufte Gesundheit (Mobile communications - the sell-out of health) by Dr med Hans-Christoph Scheiner, published by Michaels Verlag, March 2006 The source listed in the Bibliographie of the book reads: Strahlenschutzkommission SSK, 1992: 'Schutz vor elektromagnetischer Strahlung beim Mobilfunk'. Bundesanzeiger Nr 43, 03. March 1992, Veroeffentlichungen der Strahlenschutzkommission, Band 24. The original publication can be ordered here http://www.ssk.de/pub/kurzinfo/b24.htm
An eminent epidemiologist, Prof. J.R. Goldsmith, said: "There are strong political and economic reasons for wanting there to be no health effect of RF/MW exposure, just as there are strong public health reasons for more accurately portraying the risks. Those of us who intend to speak for public health must be ready for opposition that is nominally, but not truly, scientific."
http://tinyurl.com/2el57h http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=30
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Competing interests, conflicts of interest: Who's funding WHO?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3347390/
ICNIRP Guidelines
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1538462/
The guidelines are obsolete
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/705630/
Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/
ICNIRP clarification
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2406287/
The Precautionary Principle and Regulation of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/686111/
GUIDELINES BASED ON KEY STUDIES
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/678269/
Emissions from Cell Sites below International Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/676712/
ICNIRP Guideline Critique
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619583/
Mobile Telephony: Standards more than insufficient
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/618857/
Current planning guidelines do not recognise adverse health effects of masts
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1594205/
The Inadequacy of the ICNIRP Guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/567526/
The ICNIRP Saga
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566278/
On ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2289938/
The ICNIRP Guidelines: RF risk assessment built on a house of cards
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1414514/
ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1822415/
Measure people, not masts
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/559799/
WLAN, DECT in Schools and Kindergardens
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1579030/
Letter to the WHO from the WSF (World Social Forum)
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/501745/
WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Gunde
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organization
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/WHO_OMS.php#10
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldsmith
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Scheiner
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP+guideline+critique
Starmail - 17. Jun, 09:39
16
Jun
2005
Anger at plans for phone mast in church spire
Starmail - 16. Jun, 11:40
MP JOINS CEMETERY PHONE MAST BATTLE
http://www.stratford-herald.co.uk/mainstory.php?ID=315&PHPSESSID=2ecbac7bfec2fbc93be6e976d0a32049
Informant: NoName
Informant: NoName
Starmail - 16. Jun, 11:38
15
Jun
2005
A great historical Trial against Orange is going to be taken
Orange Relay Antennas in Crest, Drome, France.
- Latest news -
After an adjourdment from Orange, a great historical trial against Orange is going to be taken. A summary procedure is going to take place in the Court of Justice in Valence on Wesdnesday 6 of July 2005 at 9.00 am.
The preliminary investigations of the summary procedure have been lasting for more than a month and a half and the file is more than 200 pages.
42 files from neighbourhood represent more than 150 people related to ASL.
This means that about more than 35 per cent of people living in the near aera which is directectly irradiated by the dangerous Orange relay antennas are concerned. These people suffer from biological and sanitary symptoms (not counting the ones in hospital).
Moreover, it is the first time for France to claim that the principles of precautionary measures which are written in the French Constitution are set (examinations by the scientists).
Since the scientist leader of l'AFSSE, Pr. Denis Zmirou, who had to cope with pressures from Scientists and Associations, the myth about the harmlessness of the electromagnetic fields of the mobile phone is a failure and a real danger.
Orange is well aware about this.
So Orange directly irradiates people with its fields of its strong relay antennas.
http://www.sauvonsleon.fr
contact@sauvonsleon.fr
http://mitglied.lycos.de/newsomega/news/charter_of_the_environement.pdf
http://mitglied.lycos.de/newsomega/news/refere_contre_orange.JPG
http://mitglied.lycos.de/newsomega/news/asl_france_refere_contre_orange_france.doc
- Latest news -
After an adjourdment from Orange, a great historical trial against Orange is going to be taken. A summary procedure is going to take place in the Court of Justice in Valence on Wesdnesday 6 of July 2005 at 9.00 am.
The preliminary investigations of the summary procedure have been lasting for more than a month and a half and the file is more than 200 pages.
42 files from neighbourhood represent more than 150 people related to ASL.
This means that about more than 35 per cent of people living in the near aera which is directectly irradiated by the dangerous Orange relay antennas are concerned. These people suffer from biological and sanitary symptoms (not counting the ones in hospital).
Moreover, it is the first time for France to claim that the principles of precautionary measures which are written in the French Constitution are set (examinations by the scientists).
Since the scientist leader of l'AFSSE, Pr. Denis Zmirou, who had to cope with pressures from Scientists and Associations, the myth about the harmlessness of the electromagnetic fields of the mobile phone is a failure and a real danger.
Orange is well aware about this.
So Orange directly irradiates people with its fields of its strong relay antennas.
http://www.sauvonsleon.fr
contact@sauvonsleon.fr
http://mitglied.lycos.de/newsomega/news/charter_of_the_environement.pdf
http://mitglied.lycos.de/newsomega/news/refere_contre_orange.JPG
http://mitglied.lycos.de/newsomega/news/asl_france_refere_contre_orange_france.doc
Starmail - 15. Jun, 18:24
14
Jun
2005
Tower protests increasing in Australia
Starmail - 14. Jun, 19:10
Santa brings 3G to New Zealand
Starmail - 14. Jun, 19:03
Is Wi-Fi dangerous?
From Abdullah:
Hi,
Is using wireless WiFi for internet connections dangerous? We have the base station transmitter on nearly all the time in our house, so that we can use wireless internet in the house. Any thoughts about this?
Have any studies been conducted about this?
Also, I live quite near to a tall building which has several mobile phone masts on it. Will that be dangerous? I know studies have been done about mobile phone 'base stations', but does a mobile phone mast qualify as a base station, or is it referring to something different?
The actual masts look like this:
http://www.travelstore24.ltd.uk/acatalog/1_mobile_phone_mast_thumbnail.jpg
There are quite a few of them on the top of the building, and the building is, roughly, 200 metres away, as the crow flies.
Thanks for your help.
--------
Hello,
I am VERY surprised about your mail and your lack of knowledge about the danger what represents the exposition to microwave radiation (from 800-2,40 MHz). I am telling this to you not for saying "your are a silly" no, no! I am telling this because I can´t stand the desinformation campain of the mobile-corporations, and even goverments, that lead to people to doubt about this danger.
OF COURSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS: THERE ARE EVEN LAWS ABOUT EXPOSITIONS!
The "only" question is: Who made the law? People? Or politicians with the help of mobile-corporations? DO YOU KNOW ANY POLITICIAN WHO IS BOTH BIOLOGYST AND PHYSICIAN? And who has a PHD in microwaves and health? I am afraid that you don't. We don't know any, of course.
So I highly recommend you READ all you can, join in a association against the antennas and try to minimize the radiation from your nearest antennas (if is possible - which is ALLWAYS possible -).
I send you a link about the use of mobile phones and brain tumors.
http://www.braintumor.org/about/whats_new/documents/05WhatsNewMobilephonearticle.pdf
Its proved and well known that at ANIMALS (there is no doubt) cancer, and other illness appear.
But animals dont pay and dont buy mobile phones...so they dont worry.
Please: READ. Its the better way to learn.
And dont wait to find the article which says: "mobile phone = cancer" ITS IMPOSSIBLE to prove that (even in tobacco!!). Association between cancer and any cause is ALLWAYS statistical association. Which is: "if you use 2 hours a day a mobile phone during 20 years you have 40% more probability of developing a cancer at your brain"...or so.
Omega there is no uncertainty about the unsafety of such equipment. See under:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html and
"Cancer Cluster" http://omega.twoday.net/stories/663825/
Good luck.
tpartisan
P.S.: Maybe fire is a "temporal" solution to your problem.
--------
School sued for installing a wireless computer network
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_11-10-03.html
Health statement about Dr Miguel Muntané and his family
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_20-11-03.html
--------
WI-FI" KILLERS? DURING MORE THAN 30 YEARS ....WITH THE SAME "HEALTH LIE"?
28 junio 2003
EUROPEMEDIA
Denmark
Mobile masts safe as houses - report
27/06/2003
Editor: Christina Verdiani
There is no health risk from radiation from mobile transmitters, according to a recently released review by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
The review concludes that the strength of radio waves from the mobile network in Denmark is below the international limits recommended by ICNIRP. The review also concludes that there is no reason to believe that there should be a link between sources of radio waves and the development of cancer.
The findings of the review are based on a number of analyses made in countries such as UK and Sweden, as their mobile networks are the same as to the one in Denmark.
Comment thereto by Dr Miguel Muntané:
"WI-FI" KILLERS?
"HEALTH LIE" AND DEAD MASS "WITH THE "SPHERICAL COW CONCEPT".........
"HEALTH LIE" ACCORDING TO A RECENTLY RELEASED REVIEW.........
DURING MORE THAN 30 YEARS...WITH THE SAME "HEALTH LIE"?
1. There is no health risk from radiation from mobile transmitters, according to a recently released review.........
2. The review concludes that the strength of radio waves from the mobile network in Denmark is below the international limits recommended by ICNIRP.
3. Their mobile networks are the same as to.........
REMEMBER:
THE SAME "HEALTH LIE": FALSE PROTECTION BASED ON THE "DEAD MASS".
DEAD MASS BASED ON THE "SPHERICAL COW CONCEPT".
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega230.htm
--------
Effect of prolonged RF exposure to human body
Mar 13 2004, 3:51 pm
Howard Eisenhauer wrote in message
60 Minutes aside, for anyone interested in what the various research results from investigations into RF fields & their effects on lab rats (& people) actually are have a look here:
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html
Take the hour to read thru it & make up your own minds.
Howard.
Informant: John Michael Williams
Hi,
Is using wireless WiFi for internet connections dangerous? We have the base station transmitter on nearly all the time in our house, so that we can use wireless internet in the house. Any thoughts about this?
Have any studies been conducted about this?
Also, I live quite near to a tall building which has several mobile phone masts on it. Will that be dangerous? I know studies have been done about mobile phone 'base stations', but does a mobile phone mast qualify as a base station, or is it referring to something different?
The actual masts look like this:
http://www.travelstore24.ltd.uk/acatalog/1_mobile_phone_mast_thumbnail.jpg
There are quite a few of them on the top of the building, and the building is, roughly, 200 metres away, as the crow flies.
Thanks for your help.
--------
Hello,
I am VERY surprised about your mail and your lack of knowledge about the danger what represents the exposition to microwave radiation (from 800-2,40 MHz). I am telling this to you not for saying "your are a silly" no, no! I am telling this because I can´t stand the desinformation campain of the mobile-corporations, and even goverments, that lead to people to doubt about this danger.
OF COURSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS: THERE ARE EVEN LAWS ABOUT EXPOSITIONS!
The "only" question is: Who made the law? People? Or politicians with the help of mobile-corporations? DO YOU KNOW ANY POLITICIAN WHO IS BOTH BIOLOGYST AND PHYSICIAN? And who has a PHD in microwaves and health? I am afraid that you don't. We don't know any, of course.
So I highly recommend you READ all you can, join in a association against the antennas and try to minimize the radiation from your nearest antennas (if is possible - which is ALLWAYS possible -).
I send you a link about the use of mobile phones and brain tumors.
http://www.braintumor.org/about/whats_new/documents/05WhatsNewMobilephonearticle.pdf
Its proved and well known that at ANIMALS (there is no doubt) cancer, and other illness appear.
But animals dont pay and dont buy mobile phones...so they dont worry.
Please: READ. Its the better way to learn.
And dont wait to find the article which says: "mobile phone = cancer" ITS IMPOSSIBLE to prove that (even in tobacco!!). Association between cancer and any cause is ALLWAYS statistical association. Which is: "if you use 2 hours a day a mobile phone during 20 years you have 40% more probability of developing a cancer at your brain"...or so.
Omega there is no uncertainty about the unsafety of such equipment. See under:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html and
"Cancer Cluster" http://omega.twoday.net/stories/663825/
Good luck.
tpartisan
P.S.: Maybe fire is a "temporal" solution to your problem.
--------
School sued for installing a wireless computer network
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_11-10-03.html
Health statement about Dr Miguel Muntané and his family
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_20-11-03.html
--------
WI-FI" KILLERS? DURING MORE THAN 30 YEARS ....WITH THE SAME "HEALTH LIE"?
28 junio 2003
EUROPEMEDIA
Denmark
Mobile masts safe as houses - report
27/06/2003
Editor: Christina Verdiani
There is no health risk from radiation from mobile transmitters, according to a recently released review by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
The review concludes that the strength of radio waves from the mobile network in Denmark is below the international limits recommended by ICNIRP. The review also concludes that there is no reason to believe that there should be a link between sources of radio waves and the development of cancer.
The findings of the review are based on a number of analyses made in countries such as UK and Sweden, as their mobile networks are the same as to the one in Denmark.
Comment thereto by Dr Miguel Muntané:
"WI-FI" KILLERS?
"HEALTH LIE" AND DEAD MASS "WITH THE "SPHERICAL COW CONCEPT".........
"HEALTH LIE" ACCORDING TO A RECENTLY RELEASED REVIEW.........
DURING MORE THAN 30 YEARS...WITH THE SAME "HEALTH LIE"?
1. There is no health risk from radiation from mobile transmitters, according to a recently released review.........
2. The review concludes that the strength of radio waves from the mobile network in Denmark is below the international limits recommended by ICNIRP.
3. Their mobile networks are the same as to.........
REMEMBER:
THE SAME "HEALTH LIE": FALSE PROTECTION BASED ON THE "DEAD MASS".
DEAD MASS BASED ON THE "SPHERICAL COW CONCEPT".
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega230.htm
--------
Effect of prolonged RF exposure to human body
Mar 13 2004, 3:51 pm
Howard Eisenhauer wrote in message
60 Minutes aside, for anyone interested in what the various research results from investigations into RF fields & their effects on lab rats (& people) actually are have a look here:
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html
Take the hour to read thru it & make up your own minds.
Howard.
Informant: John Michael Williams
Starmail - 14. Jun, 11:19
