It's definitely in the air, a wind of change is felt here. I hope I will be able to make you feel the wind wherever you are. There is a wave of Israeli public awareness to the issue of the microwave radiation, the antennas, the not-so-safe-as-thought cell phone, following non-usual strong media activity in the last two weeks, a chain of reactions happened as a result of my new book which exposed new data to one reporter who decided this was a good reason for him to investigate this issue and bring it to the TV prime time, and shook the 3 national newspapers as well. (Yediot Ahronot, Maariv, Haaretz).

1. Last Friday night on prime time was part 2 of a show inside the weekly news, a show that focused on the cellular technology and gave a non-"balanced" view but a public health point of view. THIS IS RARE! The commercial channel, which gets most of its funding from the cellular industry, exposed:

- How they Israeli law had been prepared two years ago, a law which gives total freedom to the companies to erect antennas everywhere. The communication minister then, Reuven Rivlin, is the one who cooperated with the companies to delete one clause from the law: a clause which said that the public had the right to oppose to antennas. A technion professor, Rachel Alterman, was kicked out of the committee on the subject because she was the only one to insist that the public would have the right to resist.

- Sorek and Refael, two state bodies which are supposed to be independent on the issue of the radiation safety, receive money from the cellular industry for their work. The problem: they publish biased information to the public about the safely of the radiation, and this information says that there are no known negative effects, no known a-thermal effects, cancer is "probably not" a possibility from the radiation [cited from Sorek's brochure]. In addition they are involved in preparing the antennas and they support the view that we need maximum antennas in the country. In addition they mamage the whole issue of radiation measurements to the public, (and their equipement is found to be calibrated in a strage way), so how can these bodies be taken as real "independent" bodies? !!

Refael expert who is responsible for the radiation safety in the country, and is a state worker, is also a paid consultant to three cellular companies, the power company and the wired phone company. He said in the show that he doesn't see any problem here.

- The companies erect the antennas in the eyes height of people, under their nose, for example it showed antenna which looks like a big box and is located about 1 meter from a desk in a store, behind the desk the workers stand and the box is behind them without them knowing it's cellular antenna, and it's not above them, it's just near their bodies.

- Stelian Galberg, responsible for antennas in the country, in the Environmental ministry, who usually is very supportive for the companies view, says to the camera that what's going on with the antennas is "rape".

- A worker of the Env. Ministry says that he is responsible for 2000 antennas and can follow only about 3% of them.

- the former responsible for antennas in the Env. ministry says that he wouldn't allow his children to live near antenna like he wouldn't allow them to live in front of a smoking power station.

- My message as shown on screen was that
1. People are flooded with disinformation about the radiation, they are told that it is a matter of opinions rather than facts, they are told that the matter is "not proven and not refuted" and other sentences which sound beautiful, but they are actually not provided with INFORMATION in hands. I also said in reaction to the exposure about Sorek and Refae"l that they are perceived as neutral bodies and the public believes their distributed information about the radiation ["there's is no problem"], and rely on them, without being aware that there are vested interests here. I hope I raised the doubt in people's minds. I did get good reactions from people saying I said brave things they hadn't think about before.

2. Before the show and during the week, the 3 newspapers were full of the antennas issue, telling of some of the things the show would expose, and published a map with hidden antennas in the country.

3. PM Ofir Pines is leading a very important move - he wants to change the law, so that people and municipalities will have the right to resist. According to the law municipalities don't have the basic right to say "no" to antennas and two municipalities in Israel filed a suit to change that. Herzelia is one of them. The mayor of Herzelia wants to prevent antennas being placed near sensitive places but she cannot do it because of the law.

4. The show "Popolitics" on cellular antennas last Tuesday was very hot, I think the peak moment was when the mayor of Herzelia, Yael German told of how she was threatened by the Cellular Forum [PR office of 3 Israeli cellular companies]. Tal Zilberstein, the Cellular Forum executive threatened the Mayor of Herzelia that he would consider to turn off all Herzelia from cellular communication if she continues to lead her public activity to against cellular antennas inside cities. Yael German brought the letter to the TV and read it, she also reported it to the person in charge of preventing cartels in the country, with the request to close down the Cellular Forum because the Forum aim was supposed to be to raise public awareness and not threaten mayors.

Roman Bronfman, the PM who leads a move to prevent erecting 18,000 for the 3G, who was attacked by the cellular companies [they complained to the ethics committee of the parliament saying he was lying about the 18,000 number which had been their own report !...] said on screen that the Cellular Forum would be closed down.

5. The part 1 Friday TV programme about the cellular phones showed the DNA breaks found by Prof. Franz Adlkofer in the REFLEX project. He told that the industry's reaction was to totally ignore his finding, and that the DNA breaks contradict the common knowledge which held the opinion that the non-ionizing radiation is too weak to damage big molecules.

Dr. Elihu Richter said that the dizziness and headaches the phone-users feel is evidence for internal damage inside the brain. Dr. Sigal Sadezki, who leads the Israeli arm of the Interphone study was vague in her message but did say that she was worried about children, that their use of phones should be limited, and that Ahlbom's study caused her a "switch" because if something can cause benign tumors, it can also cause malignant tumors. The fact the reporter caused her say these things, raised many eyebrows. People who know her position as it has been for many year, were surprised, including people who work with her. Her position has been to ignore research and evidence (epidemiologic and labratory) on DNA damage and cancer in her lectures to the public, and not warning the public nor children. She says that only the Interphone study would bring the answers, and that "it is not proven nor refuted". She has a serious problem giving legitimation to Hardell's studies, she prefers to ignore his findings. Don't think for a sec that I buy her "new" face: I am not deaf and she said on the same programme that "it is not known whether a-thermal effects exist". HA!

The general public didn't notice this but I don't need another proof to see that she didn't really do a switch, and that is why I was disturbed by the fact that the programme focused on her and presented her as the main actor in the scientific field in Israel: "The most senior researcher in Israel". I think that if the most senior researcher in Israel doubts non-thermal effects, we have a serious problem in Israel in catching up with the last 40 years of scientific research !!

Also in that part 1 programme I presented Dr. Alasdair Philips COM device near a cell phone showing that cell phone irradiates to distance, saying to the reporter that if he speaks on the phone and his wife is near him, then he is not the only one to absorb the radiation but his wife as well, and it can also be the baby, the dog. The COM device showed red color even at 1 meter distance. It was a strong illustration and first time the public learnt of the passive exposure from the phones.

Part 1 (phones) was rather weak and vague and full of technical effects, but still showed things that had not been shown in the mainsteam ever. Even the findings on Ahlbom, which had not been published in the main newspapers until this day, were presented on the screen in front of 20% rating rate, which is enourmous. In spite of my efforts to make the TV present Hardell's findings as well, I encountered huge power of interests who caused these findings to be shut up. Anyway they are presented in the book. The efforts to shut them up only tells me how much they threaten on the industry. In contrast, part two (antennas) was very strong, and was presented in a serious, clear way.

I know of parliament departments which changed their wireless phones to wired phones, and citizens who did that as well. I know that several municipalities were flooded with phone calls from worried citizens, and the TV was flooded as well with hundreds of calls. I know of people who now have a problem when they pick up the cell phone. They don't look at it as an innocent device anymore. No, these are not all people, but these are enough people for a good start !

Iris Atzmon.

--------

I must say there is a real groundswell of anti mast activism now isn't there? The anti mast demo outside Brighton Town Hall (outside a planning meeting) on Thursday is a first in this area and I'm amaxed at the extent to which other people have taken the initiative and advertised it extensively via flyers and door to door leafletting. A lot of people have had enough of those spineless gits on the planning committee just waving applications through - about time we put the wind (of change) up them!!!!!!!

Gary


From Mast Network

by Staff Reporter, Birmingham Post

Mar 7 2005

Customers at two Birmingham garages are being forced to freewheel their cars off the forecourt - because of interference from nearby phone masts.

Visitors trying to leave National Tyres and Car Spares on the Stratford Road are being forced to push their cars nearly 100 yards out of range of the masts on the roof of the Centre Court office block.

It is believed the mast's rays are interfering with car's immobilizers and alarms.

Clive Carter, from National Tyres garage, and Keith Murphy, from Car Spares, which are both near the mast on Stratford Road, said many customers could not start their vehicles in their forecourts.

Mr Carter said: "This has happened at least 20 times in the last year. The strange thing is that when a car is pushed down the road it starts easily. The mobile phone masts seem to be the only explanation for it."

Dr Gerald Hyland, a phone mast expert and former senior physics lecturer at Warwick University, said the rays were likely to be interfering with the cars' ignition systems.

And he said radiation from the masts could also be damaging our health.

He said: "If these rays are strong enough to cause interference with car alarms, then we should be concerned about what they are doing to our bodies."

"We are much more sensitive to radiation than cars are."

"People want to use mobile phones and you can't use them without a mast, but masts are often placed in insensitive areas and can be stronger than they need to be. They should never be near a workplace or near people."

It is thought that rays from phone masts can also interfere with a car's locking system and unexpectedly activate a vehicle's alarm.

More than 40,000 mobile phone masts have been installed in the UK, and a further 10,000 are needed for the increasingly popular third-generation videophones.

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/post/news/tm_objectid=15266453%26method=full%26siteid=50002%26headline=mast%2drays%2dcause%2dalarming%2dtrouble-name_page.html


Informant: Sylvie

by Lisa Black

Tribune staff reporter

Published March 4, 2005

As she drove by Winnetka Covenant Church on her way to work, Loretta Livingston noticed the new steeple under construction, never guessing what lay hidden beneath its soaring white exterior.

Topped with a tiny cross, the recently completed 120-foot steeple concealed an array of antennas that allow four wireless companies to transmit cellular phone signals.

"I thought it was taking them an awful long time to put it up," said Livingston, who works at a Wilmette day school.

With cell towers proliferating across the national landscape, resistance from communities has forced many towers to go undercover. Some are concealed within grain silos or attached to street lights and chimneys. Others are disguised as flag poles, large boulders, even palm trees.

The stealthy effort using church steeples has been especially pronounced, with one proposal in Northbrook dubbed the "bell tower cell tower."

Such concealment strategies, relatively common on the East and West Coasts, are on the rise across the Chicago area, as residents often reject the unsightly towers, which typically range in height from 30 to 200 feet.

In California and Florida, some cell towers are fashioned in the shape of palm trees, or on the East Coast, as pines.

"In the beginning, the trees were, to put it politely, not very realistic," said Steve Meyer, business development manager with Tucson-based Larson Camouflage, which has hidden two cell towers in fake grain silos in Gurnee.

"Now you have very realistic trees. If you have a picnic beneath one, you'll know it's fake. But if you're driving by, it tends to blend in," he said.

Industry experts say they find objections to new cell towers especially daunting within affluent areas, where residents demand good phone reception but decry the towers' effect on property values.

In suburbs such as Wilmette, where residents once fought the use of fake fiberglass rocks to hide cable equipment, the "not in my back yard" reaction is typical of most communities, officials said.

"People now are much more sensitive than in the early days of wireless," said James Estes, executive chairman of California-based VelociTel, which recently completed Winnetka Covenant's steeple-tower. "The demand to conceal antennas is increasing dramatically."

The number of cell towers has risen 18 percent every year since 1985, with nearly 175,000 of them peppering the country by 2004, according to an annual survey by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, based in Washington.

Churches, for one, have reaped benefits in helping the wireless industry. By welcoming the cell towers, they may earn up to $3,000 a month or more in lease agreements with telecommunications companies.

Winnetka Covenant, located in an annexed portion of Wilmette, couldn't afford a new steeple until VelociTel picked up the $225,000 tab. The monthly lease payments, too low to jeopardize the church's tax-exempt status, will help replace the roof, said John Breidenbach, a church member and architect who designed the project, completed about a month ago.

"I did approach the pastor about commemorating the steeple and cupola with the ringing of cell phones," Breidenbach said.

Resident Justin Zubrod, who lives across the street from the church, said he doesn't have a problem with the high-tech steeple.

"It raised a bunch of concerns, no doubt, but these things are popping up everywhere," he said. "When people put up towers, you don't know what will happen."

Yet the gussied-up cell towers fail to impress some residents. Wilmette village officials had planned to examine a Sprint proposal that requested placing a "stealth antenna" at St. Joseph Catholic Church. But anticipating a negative reaction, church officials pulled the request off the agenda, said Jim Liput, business manager for the church.

In Northbrook, Sprint recently withdrew an application to build a 90-foot cell tower at St. Peter United Church of Christ, which would have been hidden by a three-sided structure and faux carillon.

Neighbors complained that it would have looked unsightly, and the village's Plan Commission said the tower exceeded height limitations, said Thomas Poupard, Northbrook's director of community planning.

Poupard said he has found it equally difficult to identify new sites for water towers.

"Some communities paint them blue, to try to make them blend into the sky," he said, adding that many villages solve both problems by hanging cell phone antennas from water towers.

Concealing a cell tower does not come cheap, adding $100,000 or more to the project, according to a report by the cellular telecommunications association.

And critics complain that more research should be done on the health ramifications of cell towers, especially because they have become so pervasive. The Food and Drug Administration and the wireless industry maintain that the low levels of electromagnetic radiation have not been proved to be harmful to humans.

But Marne Glaser, an Evanston psychologist who has studied the research on cell phone radiation, said some studies have shown biological effects on human and animal tissue and organs.

"Of course the towers are tall, and so it's not the same dose as you'd get from a cell phone," said Glaser, a member of the EMR Network, a national non-profit organization concerned about electromagnetic radiation. "But it is chronic, and you can't hang up on a cell tower. They're 24/7."

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune


Informant: Don Maisch



Concern over church phone masts: Fury as vicar claims mast 'a gift from God'
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/545252/

Concerned citizens, please encourage your own MPs, State and federal to get up in Parliament and speak like Paul Pearce. If they already have can you send me copies of their speeches please? Thanks.

I am convenor of a relatively new org Tower Sanity. In our short 9 months we have managed to get a commitment from our Federal Communications Minister of a forum between Tower Sanity, the industry, key government agencies such as ARPANSA and the ACA, and her office.


Anne Wagstaff
Convenor
Tower Sanity Alliance
http://www.towersanity.org



MOBILE PHONE TOWERS

Page: 56

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [4.37 p.m.]: I inform the House of a major issue of corporate insensitivity and greed, combined with regulatory connivance, to achieve commercial outcomes rather than community protection. It is an issue that particularly affects suburbs in my electorate, but is impacting on communities broadly across Sydney. I refer to the proliferation of 3G masts being installed by Hutchison Communications, better known as Orange. Not only are these devices visually intrusive, but European studies have also concluded that they are potentially injurious to health. The failure of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [ARPANSA], being the Federal agency responsible for the establishment of standards for emissions of electromagnetic radiation [EMR], to consider the adoption of the precautionary approach to the emission standards borders on the negligent. The standard adopted by ARPANSA is primarily designed to facilitate the introduction of 3G technology, and thus its commercial success, rather than being predicated on the objective of ensuring the protection of public health. ARPANSA's role in the facilitation of the introduction of the 3G network needs to be examined.

At a so-called community information session conducted by Hutchison, the community was shocked to see representatives of the standards-setting authority speaking on behalf of the carrier. At no point did any representative of Hutchison seek to address any of the substantive issues raised by the community. Indeed, the best way to describe the presentation by ARPANSA representatives was a snow job. They peddled the usual drivel that the emissions from a base station are comparable to that of a 60-watt light bulb and are, thus, equally harmless. Several researchers have comprehensively debunked that comparison. It is highly inappropriate that representatives of a Federal Government agency charged with a public responsibility to set standards to protect the general public from harm should treat questions from the community with contempt and provide answers more appropriate to a kindergarten class.

Hutchison Communications, a Hong Kong-based multinational company, bid for one of the 3G licences. It paid a significant amount of money for it. Indeed, it would seem that it paid too much and has recently been forced to deal with Telstra. In order to get a return on its investment it needs to get blanket coverage over the major metropolitan centres. This essentially means putting masts roughly every kilometre, depending on the topography. It also means installing them regardless of the development pattern of the area. In Bronte, it has callously installed a mast immediately adjacent to a children's playground, within 200 metres of Bronte Public School, within 300 metres of a child care centre and in the heart of a residential area. Hutchison ignored hundreds of objections, petitions and submissions from State and Federal members and public meetings. Indeed, Hutchison personally attacked me for questioning its proposal by way of a broadly distributed letter. Whilst I thank the company for promoting me, its hysterical reaction to a valid criticism came as a surprise. I could almost feel that I had touched a raw nerve.

I add that councillors from Waverley Council and members of the public who challenged Hutchison's actions also were attacked. The only acknowledgement of public sentiment was to "reconsider" its proposal for the duration of the Federal election campaign, thus defusing the issue during the Federal campaign and letting Malcolm Turnbull, who claimed that he had acted on the issue, off the hook. Within two weeks of the election, a curt letter was sent advising residents that it was proceeding with the original proposal. Hutchison is fully aware of the potential risks arising from the EMR emissions. In an earlier application, Waverley Council sought to impose a condition seeking a waiver for liability for any future health impacts arising from the consent. Hutchison refused to give such a waiver and successfully appealed to the Land and Environment Court.

It should be noted that under the Federal legislation telecommunications carriers can override local and State planning schemes. This provision was included to ensure the expansion of core public infrastructure for community benefit. It is now being used to ensure the expansion of networks for commercial benefit. I point out that the sole advantage-and I use that word advisedly-of the 3G technology is that video can be sent through mobile phones. It is hardly what I would consider a core need of the community and certainly not a need that warrants the potential health impacts. I refer to a study conducted by G. J. Hyland of the University of Warwick in which he identifies non-thermal influences on human physiology and a further study conducted on behalf of the Dutch Government. The latter study concluded that the test group was exposed to third generation base station signals. The exposure had a significant impact in that the test group felt tingling sensations, headaches and nauseous.

These findings replicate findings from eastern European studies, particularly Russian studies. Russia has set a standard requiring much lower levels of emissions than that set by ARPANSA. Germany has required the establishment of low or no emission zones around sensitive sites, such as schools. Regrettably, ARPANSA bases its standards on purely thermal guidelines. The British inquiry by the Stewart commission concluded that there was an undefined impact on persons of higher sensitivity, including prepubescent children. Yet Hutchison has placed its facility, for its commercial benefit, right next door to a children's playground. Corporate greed, corporate callousness!

This whole sorry episode demonstrates the essential flaw in allowing core infrastructure, such as telecommunications, to become the subject of commercial objectives. Core infrastructure should be for the greater public good, not private gain. There is an urgent need for the Federal Act that regulates communication carriers to be changed to ensure that local communities have a right to decide whether as a community the supposed benefits of the new technology outweigh the risks. There is also an urgent need for an inquiry into the rationale used by ARPANSA to determine the appropriate level of human exposure to EMR, whether the standard was set to facilitate industry needs, the reliance on industry-sourced data rather than independent research and whether it is appropriate for the agency charged with setting the standard for EMR emission to attend a public forum organised by a commercial licence holder to advance the commercial interests of that licence holder.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20041111032


Informant: Don Maisch

Australia: Schools tighten mobile use to curb text bombs

Sydney Morning Herald [Australia]

03/07/05

Students will soon need a permission slip from their parents to bring mobile phones to school as part of a crackdown on cyber bullying in public schools. Fears that mobile phone text messages were being used to intimidate students have prompted NSW Premier Bob Carr to today announce an anti-bullying plan in schools. 'Students need to know they can leave home each day and they are not going to be faced with the misery of being picked on at school,' Mr Carr told ABC radio today."

http://tinyurl.com/45mln


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

The CanalSur News. Wednesday 2 of March of the 2005.

The City council of Ubeda (Jaén) has approved a municipal ordinance on antennas of the mobile telephony that prohibits new facilities and orders retirement to 200 meters of scholastic centers of the already existing ones with the purpose of reducing the visual and environmental impact of this patrimony city of humanity.

According to the councilwoman informed about New Technology, Luisa Leiva (PP), this decision has been adopted "because of the saturation and the city-planning disorder that until now has taken place in the municipal term and more specially in the renaissance enclaves" of this declared patrimony city of humanity by UNESCO.

Therefore the installation of new antennas of mobile telephony in the urban helmet is prohibited except in the cases in which the location of the antennas outside the city supposes a damage of the services of cover of the operator and this one is credited with technical information, "always with sound insulations according to the effective norm". On the other hand, the delegated councilman of Urbanism, Francisco Mendieta (PA), affirmed that the antennas at the moment installed within the city will have to be moved to the outside unless it credits that its transfer will cause significant alterations in the services of the operator at issue. In any case, the norm will limit prohibit the location of antennas to less than 200 meters of buildings like schools, institutes or centers of health and will force the operators to use "the best existing technology than it allows to obtain the smaller visual and environmental impact", as well as "with the purpose of reducing the electromagnetic radioactivity". As far as the wiring in buildings, the Municipal ordinance establishes that the installation in the facades of the buildings will not be allowed, under the scope of the Special Plan of Protection of the Historical Set, forcing the construction company of new constructions to bury the wiring.

http://www.terra.es/personal/kirke1/noti63/ymnt.htm

Informant: Sylvie


Translation Spanish-English: omega

Thank you all for your replies we have found them very useful. David I have forwarded on the email as you recommended I have sent it to the Bishop of Blackburn and the Archbishop of York, I don't know whether I will get a response but any pressure we can keep up at this moment in time is worth it. I have attached the letter we are sending to the local PCC will also amend it for the board of goveners and copy both the bishop and the archbishop. If anyone could take a look and advise on any changes to content we would be grateful. Suefurg not sure on the news as I don't know of any marshes around Longridge. Andy I have also sent your article to the bishop and archbishop and will be including it in my letter to the PCC. Sylvia the insurance angle is a good one and one we have pointed out before but it wont hurt to remind them. Good luck to everybody reading your emails inspires us to keep fighting.

Debby and Karl



Dear


Re – at Paul’s church tower – proposed mobile phone telecommunication mast.

I am writing to you as you are a member of the Parochial Church Council. I am a resident of Mersey Street, Longridge and my child goes to the local Berry Lane Church of England Primary School. I am writing on behalf of my own family and other residents and parents of children at the school.

I am aware that you would have been at the presentation by vodafone and party to the decision to allow the mast to be erected in the church tower. I am also aware that at the presentation you would have been given only one side of the argument.

Where I agree that enough evidence has yet to be presented to our government to stop masts being erected, they were satisfactorily convinced in 2000 to recommend that mast companies (Stewart Report 2000) took a precautionary approach which means that they should be avoided being erected near schools and our more vulnerable residents i.e. our children.

You will have been given a long presentation about how the microwave radiation the mast will emit will be many times lower than the ICNIRP guidelines which is correct and they have their certificates to prove it. The problem with the ICNIRP guidelines is that they are set so that the radiation will not have a thermal effect, (they will not cook us) the experiments to set these guidelines were carried out on dead pieces of meat.

What has not been tested is their effects on the living organism, there are no guidelines set for microwave radiation exposure to live human beings.

At this point I would like to dispel a few widely quoted misconceptions

“Its only the same as the radiation from TV and Radio station masts” this is not true they are completely different frequencies as you should have been shown.

“They are less powerful than your own mobile phone” this is not true they are in fact more powerful than your mobile phone and they pulse out radiation 24 hours a day 7 days per week, where as the mobile phone only emits radiation when you talk through it, being turned on is not enough it has to actually be being used to emit any radiation.

“They are no more dangerous than your microwave oven” again this is not true. The microwave oven has shielding inbuilt and again it is only used at short bursts.

There are many more that you may have heard we certainly have the real truth is that thousands of people are living under the shadow of mobile phone mast and clusters of people around them are falling ill and some dying, there has been an independent UK survey of the health of people living around mobile phone masts the results of which are horrifying, this survey Sir William Stewart the composer of the Stewart Report 2000 is now looking in to.

I have enclosed with this letter a list of the only known previously published studies on the effects of masts on people.

Our government is sufficiently concerned to now be financing our own UK research into the effects of electro magnetic radiation (the same thing under a different name) but the results will not be available for another two years. I have also included a recent report by Dr Hyland one of the original contributors to the Stewart Report 2000 both of which I hope you will read and consider.

If any of the information I have provided to you in this letter gives you any doubts about the original decision to allow this mast into the tower at St Paul’s, all I ask is that you urge Reverend Simon Aiken to reverse the decision.

We are genuinely worried about this issue especially for the health and well being of our children, friends and families.

If you require any more information please contact me we have over the last few months gathered a great deal of information that we will be only to pleased to let you read.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter

Yours sincerely

Deborah Kirkup


From Mast Network

This is a reminder that there is to be an anti mast demonstration this Thursday (10th) from 3.40pm outside Brighton Town Hall where the Council will be discussing the siting of phone masts.

We have suffered (and my own measurements confirmed this almost two years ago) harmful levels of microwaves from masts in most central and many outlying areas of Brighton & Hove for years. As far back as 2002 the doctors who researched and drew up the Freiburger Appeal were demanding immediate reductions in radiation levels, an immediate end to further mast development and the siting of masts hundreds of metres away from residential areas, hospitals, schools and other sensitive sites. Yet we have seen and continue to see masts including Tetra and now 3G going up all the time and radiation levels now at obscene levels throughout central areas.

Queens Park Mast Action http://www.queensparkmastaction.co.uk will be demonstrating against a mast proposed for the junction of Queens Park Road and Pankhurst Avenue - one of about 16 planned for the Brighton & Hove area. There will almost inevitably be masts radiating you and your homes anywhere in the urban areas of Brighton and Hove and residents have virtually xero rights in preventing these and any further ones. Furthermore some Councillors on the Council planning committee do not even use the powers they do have to protect our rights and health.

Please come along if you can and demand that Councillors do everything they can to take your "health concerns" into accouint in mast siting applications from telecom companies, which they are legally obliged to do.

Regards
Gary Kemp.


From Mast Network

http://www.mayeticvillage.fr/QuickPlace/antennes-relais/Main.nsf/8A6555B4311F2976C1256C7F008280FB/9E4C596D3904B1E1C1256F96005FC637/?OpenDocument

The inquiry concludes that it is chance, or in statistic terms, «to the usual fluctuations around the average incidence».

For information, Saint-Cyr l'Ecole is the name of the town. Saint-Cyr is also the name of the famous School for military elite.

Sylvie



Collectif + Town hall of Saint-Cyr l'Ecole
Saint-Cyr l'Ecole, january 27th 2005

The town hall of Saint-Cyr military school the School and the collective of local associations parents of pupils and defense of environment (ADEEO, FCPE, GPEI) are indignant at the presentation which made conclusions of the started medical investigation at the end of 2002. After a long talk and on the basis of report/ratio of a hundred pages, the DDASS of Yvelines and the INVS explained why "the number of cases of cancers [ of child ] of all types observed in Saint-Cyr military school is higher than the number of awaited cases, whatever the rates taken for reference". The factor of excess compared to the normal is of 2 all confused cancers; it is 4 for the tumours of the central nervous system.

However, the investigation does not make it possible to highlight a cause among the studied assumptions. It concludes randomly, or in statistical terms, "with the usual fluctuations around the average incidence". It is pointed out that InVS "considered on the basis of current scientific knowledge which it was not justified to study an association between the antennas of mobile telephony and the appearance of pathologies"... contrary to the initial request of associations. There is thus well an excess of cancers with Saint-Cyr military school , but no explanation was found among the assumptions selected. And if the cause were among the isolated assumptions?... For two years, the DDASS and the INVS have inquired remotely by consulting data bases, refuse the assistance of the municipality for the implementation of an exhaustive census of pathologies near the population and refuse to consider the whole of the exposures to the electromagnetic fields. What could justify the urgency to close the study today without proposing of another explanation that the "chance", whereas the conclusions are ready since October 2004 and that the committee of follow-up of the investigation was maintained in the ignorance of the progress of the work since nearly two years?

Vis-a-vis these results, the telephone operators already seemed to be delighted by the conclusions of this investigation, priding themselves not to be not responsible for pathologies. It is thus more than necessary to continue this investigation to prevent that the principle of precaution cannot be evoked any more by the communes, anxious to preserve their inhabitants. This is why, the town hall of Saint-Cyr military school and the collective of associations refuse the investigation closure since it did not succeed. They ask that the proposals disallowed until now be finally considered.

To know: the realization of an investigation near the whole of the population of Saint-Cyr military school and measurements of electric and electromagnetic fields realized independently of the operators of the sector. Mr. Philippe Lavaud, mayor of Saint-Cyr: * ADEEO: Association of Defense of the Environment of Gold Ear * FCPE: Federation of the Councils of Parents of Pupils of Saint-Cyr military school School * GPEI: Grouping of Parents of Pupils Independent of Saint-Cyr military school the School With the support of national association Robin of the Roofs ( http://www.robindestoits.org ) Contacts Presses: * For associations of Saint-Cyr military school: Sophie Guerson (01 30 58 53 65) * For the town hall of Saint-Cyr military school: Guillaume Lefevre (01 30 14 82 51) * For Robin of the Roofs: Etienne Cendrier (01 40 18 02 81)


Translation French-Englisch: omega

I have just written to the ODPM personally to request a regulator for mobile phone companies in view of the fact that my letter has only gone to another time and money consuming exercise.

Below is a copy of the letter to be sent to this study.


Sandi



Here is the letter that makes the matching pair, which has been posted

Sandi


I want you to know what is going on with these mobile phone companies, the worst of which seem to be 02 and Airwave, but my complaint is about all of these companies.

I have asked an intermediary to pass on my request for a regulatory body for mobile phone companies, since self-regulation is very clearly not working.

I now realize that you have just put in place a time and money consuming study (ARUP and the University of Reading ) where a copy of my letter is to be sent.

I am therefore asking you myself to put in place a regulatory body immediately where phone companies, who are angering and frustrating decent citizens of the UK all over the country, can be policed.

Please show us, the electorate, something we have not seen from your government…….. care and concern for us and our human rights.

As a committee member, Advice Line co-ordinator and TETRA email co-ordinator for Mast Sanity, I am well aware of the mood of the people I speak to or email throughout every week.

I have chosen to ask this of you as an individual rather than under the Mast Sanity umbrella because I also enclose a letter I have written for the people of the UK to send to Government to let it know their thoughts and feeling.

I enclose a copy for your information.

This is the only way this government leaves open to us, and I believe strongly that the people have the right to address a government that was elected into power for the people and by the people.

I will not rest until the tide of misery brought by this mast invasion is turned.

I blame the Government as much as the phone companies for ignoring the rights and wishes of the people in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Sandi Lawrence



28th February 2005

I am a committee member of Mast Sanity as well as Advice Line co-ordinator.

I take calls from members of the public twice a week, most weeks, and stand in for others on occasions when they are unable to take phone calls.

I am also helping in a local campaign against what residents here call "the bullying tactics" of 02. This, because we are now on the fourth campaign since December 2003!

In December 2003, 02 applied for a mast to be erected at West Park, Aldwick, and residents objected because there is already a Hutchison 3G mast there which makes some people unwell. (They recover when they go on holiday, or out of the area for a week or two, thus indicating that this existing mast is a major cause)

Our district council refused this application and 02 appealed, so it went to the Bristol Inspectorate, where it was refused permission again.

In December 2004, 02 again put in a planning application for a 17m mast and this was again rejected by the district council on February 16th 2005.

The following day, council notices were put up to announce that 02 had entered into a joint planning application, received on February 8th 2005, with Hutchison (which has the existing mast on this site) for a 20.5m mast with 6 antennae, 3 for Hutchison and 3 for 02.

This is blatant bullying, in the eyes of the local residents, because 02 has been refused three times already on visual aspects i.e. the height, and the height increases with each application. There is no indication that they have investigated another possible site and locals are afraid that 02 will add TETRA, either lawfully or otherwise, as they did on the Feltham, Bognor BT mast last year.

We are aware that 02 still have the right to appeal on the planning application which was refused on the 16th February 2005 , if this latest application is again refused. So we could run into a 5th campaign!

Because residents have become exhausted with this continual onslaught, we complained to OFCOM and the DTI, who both denied responsibility. A phone call to the ODPM confirmed that there is nowhere for people to complain to about this aggressive, insensitive bullying by phone companies, who do not even bother to consult local residents.

I hear the same story from all over the UK on the Advice Line for Mast Sanity about all the phone companies. Also they are putting out literature to say mobiles and phone masts are safe! That is not strictly true, even by government standards, as reference to biological effects is mentioned in the Stewart report under 'Main Conclusions on the Possible Effects of Mobile Phone Technology on Human Health' at 1.18 and 1.19.

The suggestion in 1.18 that "there may be biological effects occurring at below these guidelines" is tantamount to saying there is an element of doubt.

While 1.19 goes on to say "We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential health effects".

Since phone companies and the Government quote Stewart at every twist and turn, why do they misquote it for their convenience in misinforming the public?

For these reasons would you please be kind enough to raise these issues in the meeting of 16th March 2005 and ask that phone companies should be make accountable for these tactics and this misinformation by way of a body which can regulate them properly, for it seems that they are not to be trusted to self-regulate!

The local campaign here has written to the district council requesting that the council asks the government to fine these phone companies for wasting councils' time and money on repeated application and appeals (which may further burden council tax payers!)

This point could also be raised if you would.

Ordinary, law abiding, people across the UK are becoming incensed by the behaviour of phone companies and angry with this government for allowing it to happen, and for manipulation the planning laws to aid and abet these companies.

It would not take much to gather a great pile of examples, but I have chosen to let the Government know our feelings in the enclosed letter to be sent to government departments by the people across the UK. I enclose it for your information.


Yours sincerely

Mrs Sandi Lawrence



Enc: The Voice of the People of the UK
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/the_voice_of_the_people_of_the_uk.htm