The EU research study results are reported in the Electronics World, March 2005 edition, as follows:

A four year £ 2.2m EU Study carried out in Germany has concluded that radiation from active Mobile Phone handsets affects the living organism's DNA. Researchers led by Franz Adlkofer found that cells mutated in a way that could not be stopped and which could lead to cancer, particularly in the elderly. The mutation is caused by highly reactive groups of atoms and molecules released by microwave signals.

A further article by Mike Brookes of the European Low Power Radio Association (Trade Organization for the Radio Communications Industry) in the same edition warns directly of the likelihood of litigation now that these Health Effects have been established.

Sian

From Mast Network

by Jeremy Pelofsky

Tue Feb 15, 2005 05:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators are turning their sights on protecting children from indecency on mobile telephones after cracking down on television and radio stations for indecent antics.

The wireless industry should mount an education campaign so parents know how they can shield their children from adult content as more and more have mobile phones, John Muleta, head of the Federal Communications Commission's wireless bureau, said in a letter released on Tuesday.

"With adult content available from a myriad of sources, now more than ever it is important for carriers, content providers, and parents to know what is being done by industry to prevent access to adult content by minors," he said.

"Through responsible action on the part of wireless carriers and content providers this important social goal can be achieved without government intervention and without interference to the provision of content to adults," Muleta said.

He urged the wireless industry association, CTIA, to tell parents what services their children's mobile phones can access and that they can if they want to block pay-per-call voice services and Internet access.

Muleta also asked the industry to review whether it should change its code of conduct to address adult material.

About 21 million, or 33.8 percent, of 5- to 19-year-olds had cell phones by the end of 2004, according to technology research firm IDC.

A spokesman for CTIA said it has a team working on the issue and was "committed to staying ahead of it."

"The goal is to have a rating system in place and also provide additional tools in the form of filtering systems," said Joe Farren, director of public affairs at CTIA.

Unsolicited e-mail messages of any kind to mobile phones are barred by law. But there are no laws on the books that directly address indecency on wireless phones.

The FCC has been cracking down on television and radio broadcasters for violating limits on decency after a series of incidents, including pop singer Janet Jackson baring her breast during the 2004 Super Bowl football game halftime show.

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to consider legislation on Wednesday to increase fines to as much as $500,000 on broadcasters and entertainers who violate decency limits.

Broadcasters are barred from airing indecent material, typically of a sexual or profane nature, except during late- night hours when children are less likely to be in the audience. The limits do not apply to cable and satellite television and radio services.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=7639528


Informant: Gotemf

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:36 PM

Laragh House,
Ardeevin Road,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.

Dear Minister Cullen,

This email is an urgent request that you intervene immediately to stop CIE from progressing with their illegal plans to replace the communication tower/mast that presently exists at CIE property, Ardeevin Road, Dalkey, Co Dublin with a new mast which will be much larger and the expressed intention of which is to accommodate telephonic antennae for Vodafone, without planning permission or consultation with concerned and outraged residents.

The attached letters which I sent on the 3rd inst followed my shock and outrage at discovering on the 2nd inst from Mr Peter Cunningham, Property Section, CIE that it is the intention of CIE to replace the extant single purpose mast/'tower', which is a slim line, innocuous looking communications tower for the dart and is exempt from planning regulation under Class 23 of the 2001 Planning and Development Regulations, with a new much larger mast which is overtly to accommodate Vodafone and then to interpret the planning regulations in the erroneous manner that they have done is an outrageous abuse of planning by CIE and must be stopped forthwith. It has also come to my attention that it is their intention to do the same along the DART line and at no less than 41 locations nationwide.

Following expending much effort and energy in this regard between the 2nd inst and now I received written email confirmation from the Planning Department, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co Council on the 10th inst to the effect that 'The planning Authority consider that Vodafone would not be entitled to erect antenna to the CIE mast without the benefit of planning permission.' They also sent me a copy of a letter that they sent to Mr Peter Cunningham, CIE dated 9th inst. requiring them/CIE to provide details of the nature, scale and extent of the works being undertaken, the purpose of the works and the relevant planning regulations that they are claiming exemption under. The Planning Department also stated their intention to issue a letter to Vodafone stating that they Vodafone cannot erect any antennae to the proposed structure within the curtilage of Dalkey Dart Station 'as it requires planning permission'. They state that they will send this letter when they receive clarification from CIE as to what they are proposing for the site.

It is clear to me that a telephonic Vodafone mast, such as is proposed by CIE in conjunction with Vodafone for Ardeevin Road Dalkey is not exempt from planning permission. Mr Peter Cunningham, CIE in his erroneous communication to me on the 2nd inst. and in an email to my neighbour Mr Vernon on the 7th inst., claimed that the development is exempt. The Planning Dept have confirmed that it is their interpretation of the Regulations that Class 31 cannot be joined with Class 23 exemptions. For CIE to progress with the construction of this mast at this time claiming exemption under Class 23 and knowing that the true purpose of the change in mast is to accommodate Vodafone is an outrageous abuse of planning regulation by CIE. If this is not stopped I will not stop until this outrage is fully highlighted in every possible manner and media. It is blatantly obvious at this time that if they proceed with the new mast in a misleading manner claiming exemption under 23 and with every intention to replace the mast so that Vodafone antennae can be accommodated, and if it is the case that this will be repeated in many other locations, this scandal will have catastrophic ramifications.

I have grievous concerns for my health and safety from such masts. I anticipate that I would suffer so much stress from having to live and sleep under such a beam of emf radiation on a daily basis that I would become ill from that worry and stress. I would therefore be left with no option but to sell the home that I have happily lived in for 20 years. I am informed that the only way I could exclude this radiation from my home is to lead line the entire premises and this would be impossible. I also have evidence that the sale potential and by implication value of my home if such a mast succeeds would be dramatically decreased. Is it fair in a democratic society that a statutory authority for transport under your tutelage can so bend the regulations and abuse the rights of the ordinary law abiding citizen?

I expect my rights to protection of health and property to be upheld by the statutory bodies whose remit it is to do so. For a statutory body such as CIE to injure me or my family I cannot and will never accept. I expect and demand that the precautionary principle as outlined in 'Telecommunications Antennae and Support Structures Guidelines for Planning Authorities July 1996 and which states: 'Only as a last resort and if the alternatives suggested in the previous paragraph are either unavailable or unsuitable should free-standing masts be located in a residential area or beside schools.' be applied in this case. I also bring to your attention the precautionary approach recommended in the Stewart Report http://www.iegmp.org.uk/report/text.htm .

I do not choose or volunteer to become part of epidemiological research by having my body irradiated from a CIE/Vodafone mast as I sleep in my bed at night. If my plea is ignored, the mast is installed and there is injury or loss to me or my family I will hold you Minister personally responsible.

This is more that an economic consideration and profit or loss concern for CIE and Vodafone. It has serious health and safety, moral and ethical implications also and these in my humble opinion must far outweigh financial considerations for decision makers like yourself with the overall responsibility for such decisions. In view of the imminent erection of the mast and therefore the urgency of the matter, the serious concern that I have for my health from the biological effects occurring at exposure levels below the guidelines, I respectfully request that you intervene by taking the protective measures available to you in the 1996 Guidelines and stop this mast at Ardeevin Road, Dalkey.

Yours sincerely,

Rosalie Prendergast
Laragh House,
Ardeevin Road,
Dalkey,
Co. Dublin.


03/02/2005
Mr. Peter Cunningham,
CIE Property Section,
Oriel Street,
Dublin 1.

Re: Vodafone Mast on CIE property at Ardeevin Road, Dalkey, Co Dublin


Dear Mr Cunningham,

Your intention to position a Vodafone mast, approx 10 metres from the curtilage of our house is causing my family and I great distress.

When I discovered from talking to you yesterday that the intention is to replace the existing train communication tower with a dual use Vodafone and train communication tower, that the development is exempt under planning and development legislation and that it was your intention to inform nobody we were outraged.

This is a demand that this mast not be located opposite our house on Ardeevin Road, Dalkey, for the following reasons:

It is my firm belief that this mast will damage my health and that of my family and neighbours.

It is my constitutional right not to be harmed or injured by another and your mast will cause me and others harm by causing me and others stress, anxiety and bombardment by emf radiation.

The available scientific data on cancer risks and congenital abnormalities linked to humans being exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation is inconclusive.

The scientific data is insufficient on:

1. The possible altered response of humans taking medicines. (My husband is taking medicine).

2. On possible combined effects of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation with chemical or other physical agents in the environment.

3. On the possible effects of modulated microwave fields on the central nervous system and the possible existence of ‘power’ and ‘frequency’ windows for such effects.

4. On the possible non-thermal effects.

I am proactive in protecting my health and that of my family and in my job in protecting the health of the community. My knowledge of the aforementioned facts and of your intention to nonetheless force me to accept a beam of this non-ionising radiation to penetrate the cells of my body as I inhabit my abode is already causing me stress. I have a right not to have to wait for reactive epidemiological studies to safeguard my health. I do not choose to wait for 20-30 years for epidemiological studies to prove cause effect of EMF exposure and cancer.

It is acknowledged now that children are particularly vulnerable because of their developing nervous systems. The size of their skulls allows them to absorb more radiation than adults. Some of my neighbours have small babies and soon they will lie in their beds and have this radiation foisted on their innocent care.

The location of Base station masts in the vicinity of schools is now frowned upon. Should the same precautions not apply to a child in their own home, where they will spend proportionately more of their time? I refer you to a planning decision that was made by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council as far back as 1997 and upheld by An Bord Pleanala (Planning Register Reference No. D 97A/0510). Permission was refused for the erection of a mast at an industrial site at Knapp and Peterson, Sallynoggin Industrial Estate in close proximity to a school and in a densely populated area because it would not comply fully with the Guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment to Local Authorities in 1996.

For the same reasons your mast will contravene the Department of the Environment Guidelines 1996. These guidelines clearly state in Section 4.3 that ‘only as a last resort or if the alternatives suggested in the provision paragraph are either unavailable or unsuitable should free standing masts be located in a residential area or beside schools’.

This is a residential area. There are human beings including babies living here.

You advise me that you are exempt from planning requirements under Article 4 of the Local Government Planning and Development Regulations 1997. What about the requirements under the 2001 Regulations? I refer to Class 31 (d) of those Regulations, where it is specified that equipment such as you plan to install (i.e. ‘equipment for transmitting or receiving signals from satellites in space’) shall not exceed 10 metres in height and such equipment shall be situated within 10 metres of the curtilage of any house save with the consent in writing of the owner or occupier there of, or within 10 metres of the window of a workroom of any other structure’. You advised me yesterday that this mast will be 20 metres high and how far do you think it will be from the curtilage of my home?

How do you plan to monitor the field strengths of the non-ionising radiation emissions from the radio station container and communicate the results of such monitoring to the concerned residents?

Finally it states that ‘The planning authority in whose functional area the …..shall be notified by the statutory undertaker in writing of the proposed location of any such structure at least four weeks before such attachement.’

Are you obliged to notify the Planning Department as per above or as per Section 5 declaration? When is it your intention to locate the mast and have you yet notified the Planning Department?

I regard the erection of a telephonic communications mast at the aforementioned location as a threat to my health, well being and peace of mind and a breach of my constitutional right to live in a healthy and safe environment and as such insist that it not be located at Ardeevin Road, Dalkey.


Yours sincerely,

Rosalie Prendergast



c.c. Vodafone Head Quarters; Planning Department, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co Council; Department of Communications Marine and Natural Resources; Comreg.; Minister Noel Dempsey; Mary Harney T D, Tanaiste and Minister for Health; other concerned citizens.



Laragh House,
Ardeevin Road.
04/02/2005

Re: Vodafone Mast at Ardeevin Road, Dalkey

To whom it may concern,

It is the intention of CIE in conjunction with Vodafone to locate a telephonic communication mast at Ardeevin Road, Dalkey. The foundation is already prepared.

CIE claim that they are exempt from planning regulation.

Planning Department are presently investigating this claim and are sending an inspector out to the area today.

I believe that this mast will send emf radiation in the direction of our homes, that this will damage our health and devalue our homes.

There was no consultation whatsoever with any residents in so far as I can ascertain in relation to this.

Yesterday I made my personal protest and demand that this mast not be installed in a letter to CIE and c.c. to Vodafone Head Quarters; Planning Department, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co Council; Department of Communications Marine and Natural Resources; Comreg.; Minister Noel Dempsey; Mary Harney T D, Tanaiste and Minister for Health; other concerned neighbours.

The person responsible in CIE is Mr Peter Cunningham, CIE Property, Oriel Street, Dublin 1. Tel 7032928. e mail peter.Cunningham@cie.ie The contact person in Vodafone is Mr Colin Feeley, Tel 2037777, e mail colin.feeley@vodafone.com

The Stewart Report (2000) on Mobile Phones and Health states that:
‘6.44 The anxieties that some people feel, when the uncertainties in scientific knowledge is ignored can in themselves affect their well-being.

6.39 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 adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.’

The Department of the Environment and Local Government July 1996 Guidelines for Planning Authorities states:
‘4.3 … Only as a last resort and if the alternatives suggested in the previous paragraph are either unavailable or unsuitable should free-standing masts be located in a residential area or beside schools.’

Rosalie Prendergast.


Informant: Colette O'Connell

Haaretz newspaper, 16.2.2005

Requests to erect antennas will be published in public order to make the public resist them. The local authorities have decided to sharpen their fight against antennas erection in a wild way or in places that can endanger public health like schools, kindergardens, hospitals. According to the national programme of cellular antennas, the mayors have no actual possibility to resist the decision to erect antenna.

In order to change this situation, the fighting staff of the local authorities decided to publish in public every request of the companies to erect antenna, to enable the people to deal publicly and legally with the wild erection of antennas. The staff explained that today the mayor can present his resistance to antennas erection but it is only one voice. When the district committee will receive dozens of resistant voices of residents, it can undermine antenna erection.

Herzelia mayor, Yael German, said that national programme of cellular antennas erection sterilize the local authorities from any possibility to influence the location of the antennas and made it a rubber signature. This situation enables the companies to behave irresponsibly and in opacity. The local authorities decided to recruit the public to their fight after they had an economic victory: lately the national committee of planning and construction has decided that the companies which request to erect antennas will have to deposit in the committee a commitment to compensate the authorities for future financial losses for reduction of land value, because of the cellular antennas.

*** The problem remains for the "tiny" antennas which don't need approvals according to the law.


Iris Atzmon

Dear Ms Rendle,

Thank you for your ‘proforma’ reply to my email.

May I ask you to give full and proper answers to the following questions?

Why exactly was Roger Coghill invited to attend the Science Festival?

Why exactly was he then excluded?

Who exactly (names required) refused to share a platform with him?

On what grounds did they refuse?

Why were their demands obeyed? What influence did they bring to bear on the organisers and what powers (official or unofficial) do they have to decide and control who speaks?

Who was responsible for selecting and then deselecting Roger Coghill? Was it you? If not who? Name please.

Are any members of the Telecommunications Industry going to sell their wares, provide glossy brochures or in any way whatsoever, use this as a platform for their business aims and profits? If the answer to any of these is yes, they should be banned. This is, supposedly, a scientific festival, not a Trade Convention.

It is of course perfectly acceptable for NRPB members to argue for or against the science of mobile phone technology in a fair and impartial debate. It is not acceptable in this forum to have biased, Industry businessmen or women who are not scientists arguing the case, for the profits and benefit of their companies. The appropriate venue for this would of course be a Mobile Phone Trade Convention, to which the public would no doubt be invited. No-one would dream of arguing against this. However, as a point of interest, I wonder whether the Operators would allow an independent scientist like Roger Coghill to speak about the health risks at their Trade Convention?

I believe people are now contacting their local Cheltenham MP, and there will undoubtedly be a great deal of media interest on the actions of the Festival’s organising committee.

I would appreciate full and honest answers to the questions I raise. This is a very serious matter. It affects the lives, health and wellbeing of everyone in this country. So far people have not been given the truth, and their democratic and human rights have been consistently abused by the Government and the Operators. The people are no longer prepared to put up with this. Please be assured that your reply will be published to many thousands of people across the UK. We are confident that this will be of particular interest so close to the election.

Yours sincerely

Jennifer Godschall Johnson Executive Committee Mast Sanity

--------

Dear Ms Rendle,

Re Cheltenham Science Festival and Roger Coghill

I know you have already received many emails expressing concern about the exclusion of Roger Coghill from the Science Festival. Your decision is ethically and scientifically inexcusable. But I am sure you know that.

We are all aware of the reasons why he has been excluded. If this is a shameful action by the Mobile Phone Industry and the NRPB, then your cowardly decision to succomb to their blackmail (because that is exactly what it is) is equally reprehensible, and it sullies the reputation of the Festival and those who organise it.

You have deprived people of the right to know, in a forum which should be, above all else, open and free. I thought this only happened in a dictatorship. Try as you will, I do not believe you can justify or excuse your decision. You have chosen to present a biased and self serving agenda which will be no more than a showcase and PR event for the Telecommunication Industry. If the organisers of this Festival have so little integrity that they are willing to sacrifice both truth and debate, then in my opinion Roger Coghill is better off not attending. But if nothing else, honesty should dictate that you delete the word science from the name, as it is not worthy to include it.

Since you have received this from so many others, it is unnecessary for me to make further reference to the worldwide scientific evidence proving health risks from mobile phone technology. All that needs to be said, has been said. Though perhaps you might like to consider that in depriving people of this information, you may be as responsible for putting them at risk as the Operators themselves. In the end it is a matter of conscience.

The following lines may be of interest.

“A time comes when silence is betrayal.”

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Martin Luther King


Yours sincerely,

Jennifer Godschall Johnson

--------

The Cheltenham Mobile Phone Festival

sorry hastily written but wanted to do it tonight.
cn


Dear Ms Rendle,

I understand that you are arranging the Science Festival in Cheltenham. A wonderful thing to do in this enlightened age. In darker times when science was as much to do with power, money and political influence as with the search for knowlege and understanding, it would have been expected that the business establishment would veto opinions other than their own.

I do hope that your festival will represent a more modern and enlightened approach. Specifically, I do hope that you will reconsider your view to let the multi billion pound mobile phone industry put their view of the relevant science unopposed by that of an independent Scientist Dr Roger Coghill.

If you really are prepared to stifle useful scientific debate because the multinationals are threatening to take their bats and balls home, then what you are proposing is a festival of business, not science and I suggest that you re name it appropriately.

I do hope that you will reconsider your decison on this occasion, presenting any view unopposed is simply unbalanced. If your festival is so dependent on the multinationals finances,it would be better to postpone it until such a time as you can present a balanced programme.

Yours sincerely
Chris Nunn
M.B. B.S M.A. (Cantab)

--------

Dear Ms Rendle,

I am aware of the recent e-mail exchange between yourself and Roger Coghill and your withdrawal of an invitation to him to take part in the Cheltenham Science Festival because, and I quote your own words, "other organisations and speakers, reflecting a variety of different views did not feel comfortable sharing a platform with you". This decision is clearly incompatible with your subsequent statement "we are endeavouring to make sure that all the information reaches a wider audience - giving them a chance to make a formed opinion". Your decision will ensure the opposite of your intent.

The stance of those who refuse to appear on the same platform as Mr Coghill because they disagree with his scientific opinions smacks of blackmail. If your organisation succumbs to this ploy, then you are conniving to a particularly insidious form censorship - and I have to say that I did not serve for 36 years in the HM Forces in the expectation of such an abject approach to freedom of expression.

The bottom line is that if those with different views cannot bring themselves to take part, then the correct course of action must be to either find others who are prepared to engage in honest debate or cancel the event outright.

I urge you to reconsider your decision.

David Baron
Group Captain, RAF (Retired)

--------

I am aware that you have been receiving many e-mails regarding the decision you have made to exclude Roger Coghill from giving a presentation on mobile phones and masts at the Cheltenham Festival of Science. I feel saddened that the might of the mobile phone giants, and also the NRPB/Government, are acting only to protect financial and commercial interests, rather than entering into open and frank discussion to ensure that the safety of the public is ensured.

The decision you have made would be more understandable if Roger Coghill were merely expressing a personal opinion. Instead, he is endeavouring to bring respected and thorough research findings to the public. I would have thought that a Festival of Science would strive to do exactly that.

Your only responsibility is to give all interested parties the opportunity of taking part and putting their views forward to the public. This you have done by inviting the Industry and NRPB/Government to attend the event. The public deserve to hear the facts which are emerging from around the world but are obviously being prevented from knowing the facts by the unscrupulous actions of these organisations.

Please reconsider your position. I am a Parish Councillor and take my duties to the public very seriously indeed. Anyone who is paid (or unpaid) to serve the public has a responsibility to protect the rights of those people over and above any other consideration.

Regards
Cllr Sylvia Wright

--------

For info.

David


Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: FW: Festival of Science

Dear Madam,

I am a recipient of some E.Mails regarding the science festival you are organising, and I am so very sorry you feel unable to have Roger Coghill speaking about mobile phone masts and the medical aspects of them. If the mobile phone industry do not want to appear with him, that is their problem, not yours. Your problem now is that you are depriving the public of information. Let them decide what is credible and what is not. No other issue at the moment is such a burning one to the public, and they want information from a reliable source, and I am sure Doctor Coghill is reliable and well known in his field.

From my experience as a District Councillor, I can assure you that the mobile phone operators are less than frank and honest even at appeal level when I would have thought they would wish to be seen as whiter than white. Not so. Good luck with the festival.

I am responding as a private citizen but for your information I add the following.

Diana Pound (District Councillor for Sidlesham and Hunston) Chichester District Council.


Herewith the background to the Cheltenham Science Festival issue. Maximum effort please on Roger's behalf.

David Baron


Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:25 PM

Below my email you'll find an exchange between Roger Coghill and a lady organising the Cheltenham Science Festival - emails in reverse order, self-explanatory. Some of you may wish to write also - politely and without aggro, but with a clear view. This is with Roger's express approval - he suggested I pass it on to you.

Regards

Grahame

----- Original Message -----
From: Grahame Blackwell
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Cc: Ann Silk ; Brenda Short ; Chris Busby ; Don Maisch ; Eileen O'Connor ; EMR Australia ; roger@cogreslab.co.uk ; Alasdair Philips

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:18 PM

Subject: Re: Cheltenham Science Festival

Dear Ms Rendle

As I'm sure you must be aware, the word 'Science' (the key word in your upcoming event) is derived from the Latin 'sciens', meaning 'knowing'. It is a sad truth that there are those in the mobile telecommunications community - be it in the industry, or among their supporters - who are very keen that the British public should NOT know certain facts in relation to this technology. By taking the stand expressed in your emails to Roger Coghill, below, you appear to be (presumably unwittingly) colluding in that undermining of the claimed intention of your Festival.

It is a mystery to me how you can believe that the intentions of those refusing to share a platform with Roger are anything other than to prevent the audience knowing what he can tell them. Is he supposed to have some contagious disease? Be violent? Abusive? Nove of these is the Roger Coghill that I know.

For decades now Roger Coghill has been warning of the health risks from overhead power cables, risks that have until very recently been consistently denied by official Government scientists. Just last March, the NRPB officially acknowledged what Roger (and some others they refer to as 'maverick scientists') have been saying all those years - that the risk of childhood leukaemia is doubled by exposure to overhead power cables. (Needless to say, they didn't give any credit to those 'mavericks' for getting to the truth years earlier). It appears from the text of these emails below that these are just the people refusing to share a platform with one who is years ahead of them in scientific wisdom - not surprising, but hardly laudible. And hardly in line with the spirit of 'sciens' - knowing.

Late last year a major EU project, comprising many partners from several EU countries, released their Final Report - the REFLEX Report. That Report, which showed multiple unrepairable breaks in DNA (the classic precursor to cancer) from low-level electromagnetic radiation (below Government 'safety' guidelines) includes the following text:

"Since all these observations were made in in vitro studies, the results obtained neither preclude nor confirm a health risk due to EMF exposure, but they speak in favour of such a possibility."
I.e. It is more likely than not, on the basis of these findings, that such health risks exist.

That Report also states:

"Furthermore, there exists no justification anymore to claim, that we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man."
I.e. The claim, so often peddled out by the NRPB and others, that there are no known mechanisms by which EM radiation could cause illness, is no longer tenable.

These are the sort of 'sciens' that those refusing to share a platform with Roger Coghill would rather were not known.

I'm very much aware of the '.gov.uk' in your email address. It's another sad fact that government bodies are strongly 'encouraged' to take the official line - even if that compromises their position in respect of their claimed objectives. I would very much hope that the Cheltenham Science Festival would not be allowed to fall prey to such political gerrymandering - I cannot believe that one in your position would wish for anything other than scientific integrity to take top priority in the organisation of this event.

I run a public information website informing many thousands of people every month about mobile technology health-related issues. I am also in contact with other similar organisations providing information to people all around the world. I shall certainly be putting an item on my website about your event. I very much hope to be able to relay confirmation from yourself that representation of this issue is truly balanced, and that if certain parties refuse to share a platform with a sincere and highly able scientist then this will not deprive the public at your event of the knowledge that he has to share. If others choose not to be there for whatever reason, fine, that's their priviledge - but please don't let their negative attitude spoil it for others, particularly the public who are there to learn.

Yours most sincerely

(Dr) Grahame Blackwell


----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Coghill
To: Alasdair Philips
Cc: Ann Silk ; Brenda Short ; Chris Busby ; Don Maisch ; Edward Goldsmith (Business Fax) ; Eileen O'Connor ; EMR Australia ; Gerard Hyland (Business Fax)

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: FW: Cheltenham Science Festival

Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Sent: 15 February 2005 11:58

Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival

Dear Roger,

We are going ahead with the debate, but unfortunately we can not do it with you involved. It is important for us to take a neutral position - that is our responsibility. Therefore we cannot just have you on stage, we need a variety of perspectives and since we cannot get confirmation from anyone else to speak with you then we will need to pursue other speakers who represent all the different views and who are willing to get on stage together. We agree with you that it is important that this debate happens, and is not abandoned.

With best regards,

Gillian


Sent: 15 February 2005 10:06
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival

Of course the establishment do not feel comfortable sharing a platform with an experienced, world respected, and knowledgeable scientist who can demolish the flimsy and untenable support they offer for the argument that only EM effects which actually burn tissue should be considered as regulatory guidelines. The whole weight of scientific opinion is now against that view.

By not going ahead with this important debate which is of consuming interest to the public, you are effectively aligning yourself with this conspiracy of silence and suppression, Gillian. What are you, as a responsible citizen, going to do about this?? If you kowtow to their aim of avoiding debate then you are simply helping put at risk the health of those in the public living near masts or excessively using cellphones in an increasingly radiative world. Your proper response would be to tell thenm that you plan to go ahead and let me give an exposition, and announce at the Cheltenham Science festival that the establishment refused to appear, because these facts are uncomfortable.

Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)
Senior Visitor, Emmanuel College, Cambridge

Sent: 15 February 2005 09:36
To: roger@cogreslab.co.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival

Dear Roger,

Thanks for the email and I'm sorry that you feel we are shying away from the discussion.

We do feel it is a relevant and topical issue that needs to be debated at the Science Festival. Unfortunately we could not programme a balanced dialogue because other organisations and speakers, reflecting a variety of different views, did not feel comfortable sharing a platform with you. I apologise for this, but feel it would be a disservice to our audience to only focus on one element of the debate.

I think because of the sensitivity of the topic we need representatives who can reflect the views of industry, government and the consumer. We are unfortunately not in a position to provide this at the moment, and so we are looking for other speakers who can cover all views. I'm sorry that we cannot offer you the opportunity to take part in the Festival this year but I hope you appreciate that we are endeavouring to make sure that all the information reaches a wider audience - giving them a chance to make an informed opinion.

With best wishes,

Gillian


Sent: 14 February 2005 19:11
To: Gillian.Rendle@cheltenham.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival

It seems to me that if the cellphone industry and the NRPB refuse to debate the issue of cellphone health hazards in an open scientific forum, then you are doing a disservice to the public by removing it from your agenda, Gillian: this is suppression of scientific truth, is it not, by default? Are you going to apply the same rule to other public issues?

Wolf and Wolf has just published a report (Intl J Cancer prevention, April 2004) showing that cancer is increased fourfold near cellphone masts within a year of their installation. Thank you for not helping that kind of information reaching a wider audience!

Roger Coghill
MA (Cantab) C Biol MI Biol MA (Environ Mgt)


Sent: 14 February 2005 18:16
To: roger@cogreslab.co.uk
Subject: RE: Cheltenham Science Festival

Dear Roger,

Many thanks for talking to me last week.

I'm afraid that I have not been able to confirm the other speakers for the debate on the dangers of mobile phones. It is important that the cafes at the Science Festival give a balanced view with different opinions on the various issues, and unfortunately I have not been able to ensure this. Due to this fact I'm afraid that I will have to withdraw the invitation to take part in the event.

I'm sorry for not being able to welcome you to Cheltenham. Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused, and I appreciate your time in speaking with me.

Yours sincerely,

Gillian

Gillian Rendle
Science Festival Coordinator
FameLab Coordinator

Cheltenham Science Festival
8 - 12 June 2005

Good article today - Kate Figes who was Greenham common campaigner is now on a phone mast campaign. Sian


We protest

The last time Kate Figes was involved in activism was at Greenham Common. But when she heard that a mobile phone company planned to erect a mast near her children's school, she started dusting off her placards

Wednesday February 16, 2005

The Guardian

Its good to feel the energy and anger of activism once again. It's 20 years since I joined thousands of women to cut the fence at Greenham Common. Now, like thousands of other angry parents up and down this country, I am picking up my placard once again. Twenty years ago, it was about the threat of nuclear weapons; this time it's a 3G mobile phone mast that Orange seems determined to erect on top of the fire station in Stoke Newington, a densely residential area of north London with three primary schools nearby. It had made me very angry - so much so that my children and I spent last Saturday morning demonstrating outside the fire station with other local parents.

I realise there is something rather tragic about an old campaigner rediscovering her zeal only when her children are directly threatened by something - and a theoretical threat to boot. But it has happened, and the fact is that this is an issue that has stirred up an enormous nest of angry parents, all across the country, from all walks of life - many of whom have never protested against anything in their lives. Local newspapers from Cornwall to Scotland carry stories each week about local campaigns against masts going up in residential areas and near schools. And yet this national concern is largely being ignored by the national press.

I'm protesting about the mast because I feel there is no other way of stopping it, and I feel betrayed by government over this. How can I hope to keep my children healthy when the government does nothing to limit their exposure to electromagnetic fields? It enrages me.

And it enrages others - in some cases, to violence, if only against phone masts. In one Leicestershire town, residents grew so angry that two weeks ago they vandalised a 15m (50ft) mast near two schools. "We're told young people shouldn't use mobiles," says one local mother, "yet they put up these masts where children play."

When the government sold off five third-generation phone licences for £22.5bn in April 2000, it triggered a rush by the phone companies to grab as many sites as possible for potential conversion to 3G, the videophone service nobody appears to want. 3G requires many more base stations to operate effectively and transmits electromagnetic radiation at a higher frequency than 2G, with the highest concentrations within 400m of the mast. The phone companies appear to bulldoze through planning applications and do not need permission at all for masts lower than 15m.

In our case, planning permission was refused by Hackney Council, but Orange appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and managed to get the decision overturned last Christmas - to the complete surprise of the local community. The Mobile Operators Association say that local schools have to be consulted, but few are. Orange says it wrote to the headmistress of the primary school 200m away from our proposed site, but she says she never received the letter. Funny, that.

While that may be a genuine mistake, this is a sneaky old business. The phone companies install masts on top of buildings on Sunday mornings before anyone is awake. They have been known to change over the boxes on existing masts to 3G without telling anyone, while pretending to carry out maintenance. And with little regulation, a rash of masts has spread across London and the countryside, with businesses and local authorities cashing in. Masts are now everywhere - in church spires and on council flats, hospitals, offices, petrol stations and public buildings. A survey conducted by the Daily Mail at the end of January found that one-third of Britain's schools now have a mobile phone mast 200m away or less.

The government and phone companies hide behind the line that there is no conclusive evidence that these masts are bad for health. After all, they haven't been around long enough for research to prove anything much and all we have at the moment is anecdotal evidence from some people who live near masts and suffer insomnia and other ill effects. But a Dutch government study has found that some people exposed to 3G signals suffer from tingling, headaches and nausea. Sir William Stewart, head of the National Radiological Protection Board and the government's chief adviser on mobile phone safety, has said: "I believe on a precautionary basis it would be better if these masts were not placed near schools." Well, that's good enough for me. And if your kids end up in a school in the shadow of a mobile phone mast, you may end up wishing there was something you could do about it.

It's a hard fight, but it helps to know that some communities have triumphed against the might of the phone companies. In Notting Hill in London and Whitton in Yorkshire, residents recently managed to prevent masts being erected near nursery and primary schools. In Gloucester, the sheer weight of public protest has forced O2 to withdraw its plan for a mast 20m from a primary school. But these are rare successes.

This may be a national issue, but the only way to fight each mast is on local issues. In Stoke Newington, it is the London Fire Authority, run by elected councillors on the General London Assembly, which stands to earn tens of thousands of pounds a year from this mast. So we have pulled together as a community in the past few weeks. The lawyer next door has served papers for judicial review in the high court. The designer over the road has produced leaflets and posters. We have thrown up a campaign website with the help of shortal.com (DIY websites) and we walk from door to door asking people to write to the fire authority, urging them to withdraw.

I own a mobile phone and am the first to admit that life would be hard without one. But you can choose whether or not to use a mobile; you can turn it off and limit its use. Those forced to play within the shadows of these masts do not have any choice. And it is cheaper for the phone companies to erect masts in residential rather than industrial areas - that's why they do it. In my view we urgently need regulation forcing mobile companies to share mast sites and to place them in less densely populated areas and away from schools. In countries such as Australia there is a 400m exclusion zone between base stations and inhabited areas. Yet in Britain the mobile giants seemingly have carte blanche.

Until the government does something, I, like thousands of other parents, have no choice but to stand up and shout against something I believe to be wrong. So we hand out leaflets outside the fire station. My 11-year-old daughter carries a placard as I talk to people and collect signatures. And even though it feels at times like David fighting Goliath, there are bonuses in trying. I see more of my neighbours and have made new friends. We share tales of past demos to egg each other on. My daughters now understand that activism can be a positive force, and is their right in a democracy. And they're amused that I did not shirk from being a rebel before I was ground down by working motherhood. "What's Greenham Common?" my youngest asked. So I got the chance to tell her.

Stoke Newington Campaign: http://www.shortal.com/nomast

National campaigns for sensible siting of masts: http://www.mastsanity.org and www.mastaction.co.uk

Facts about electromagnetic radiation:

http://www.radiationresearch.org

Local support groups: http://www.planningsanity.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1415331,00.html


From Mast Network

I am just about to send a letter to Prof. Challis with copies to as many places as possible. I am very grateful for the information re: guidelines from US etc as I shall use it in my letter. Probably put it in where red text is at the moment i.e."(I have no idea etc). Gill Lyden

February 12th 2005

PROFESSOR. Lawrie.J.CHALLIS
Mobile Telecommunications& Health Research Programme
Secretariat Dept. of Health
Radiation Unit Room 688D
Skipton House
80 London Road
London SE1 6LH



Dear Professor Challis,

Further to our previous correspondence. I have received a document: ‘Notes on Harmonisation (with recommendations) from the International Conference on Mobile Communications and Health: Medical, Biological and Social Problems Sept 20th and 22nd 2004, Moscow, Russia. I note that you were in attendance. I also note that the Russians have again been trying to tell our protective agencies that we are running our base stations at too high a level of NON-THERMAL EMISSIONS – the Americans were warned about this in the 1950s and chose to ignore the warning as you probably know, I think I sent you a copy of the Pandora Document? The Russians have been revising the safe levels of these non-thermal emissions, as previous levels (I believe even those were lower than our own are now?) proved still to be damaging to health. I quote from the document:-

1)‘ICNIRP has long sort harmonisation with Russian RF standards but the Russians have maintained that ICNIRP’s thermal effects only approach is not protective of workers and the public. Their (the Russians’) preferred approach is always to take into account possible long term, low level (NONE THERMAL) adverse biological effects (including immunological) from RF exposure, something the ICNIRP steadfastly refuses to acknowledge. As such, Russia’s RF standard is far stricter than those of most countries and is set at levels that are less than levels emitted by most cell phones.’

2) (after new research the Russians say:-) ‘Results have allowed us to establish a threshold of unfavourable effect under EMF exposure, equal to 0.5 mW?cm2 power density. With application of hygienic safety factor of 5 this gives 0.1 mW/cm2PD accepted as mobile phone temporary permissible level (for mobile ‘phone base stations). This value is recognized in new sanitary norms and regulation 2.1.8.41190-03 “ Hygenic requirements to siting and maintenance mobile radio communication means”, (sic) commissioned on 01/06/2003.’ (I have no idea what these figures mean, but your experts will know! G.Lyden)

I think this would mean having more masts because of the low signal, and whilst this is worries me, having experienced the painful effects, if masts were running at the safe levels demanded by the Russians (who after all have a far greater experience of the effects), it is likely that no unpleasant symptoms would be found near them. That would solve all the problems – after all, we have not asked for the Orange mast to be destroyed, merely to be made safe by moving it to a distance of at least 500 metres. No one wishes to lose such a convenient, useful method of communication and enjoyment, but to put people and animals at such risk of damage to their brains, DNA and circulatory systems by having emissions too high is simply not acceptable. I think you should also advocate a change in emissions from the handsets, because in 2001, before I investigated the painful effects for our residents, I had been using a mobile ‘phone for several years and had begin to get irritation in my ears and still have an area under my left ear where there is an uncomfortable, hard lump which sometimes feels painful and is tender to the touch.

It is time our protective agencies took notice of the Russians. It is fact that wherever these serious effects upon health are found near masts the symptoms are the same: chronic insomnia and headaches; nausea; vertigo; earache and tinnitus; sore bloodshot eyes; nose-bleeds plus exacerbation of existing problems. Children and old people are particularly badly effected. Are the public doomed to suffer for over forty years as in Schwarzenburg until scientific tests proved that EMRF (Non-thermal) emissions were causing the problems? When are you all going to listen, instead of wasting time and ruining peoples’ lives by testing in laboratories when the Russians have already done it in the field as well as in labs? We need to be safe and to live our lives in comfort instead of existing with pain and suffering. When will you please lower the rate of non-thermal emissions from mobile ‘phone masts?

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. G. Lyden


cc. John Prescott; Tony Blair; Dept. of Health; Andrew Selous MP; ICNIRP; NRPB; WHO; Minister for the Environment; Dr. J Meara; Beds.

Would-be MP's alarm at siting near schools

A would-be MP in the battle for Luton North has accused the Town Hall of putting children's health at risk by allowing 118 mobile phone masts to put up all across town.

Conservative Prospective Parliamentary candidate Hannah Hall said that many of the masts scattered across town were sited near to, and even on, schools or play areas.

And with new 3G technology being encouraged by central Government the situation would only get worse unless Luton Borough Council took a stand.

Mrs Hall said the council had failed to put a halt to phone companies' rapid expansion of their network in town, despite official concerns over potential long-term health damage to children.

Referring to a recent Government report into the safety of mobile phone technology Mrs Hall said: "I am alarmed at how many masts are located near schools.

"Given the recent findings of the Stewart report that mobile phones are potentially unsafe for children, how can the council continue to wave through planning to put masts near to where children learn and play?"

The report published last month by Sir William Stewart, the Government's chief adviser on mobile phone safety, called for a ban on sitting masts near schools as a precautionary measure.

He also criticised the Government for failing to place proper controls on mast siting and manufacturers for keeping people in the dark about emission levels.

But in Luton at least nine masts have been sited at schools – Icknield High School (two), Stopsely High School (two) and Ashcroft High School (five) – and many more are next to or close to schools, nurseries and playgrounds.

There are also masts at the Luton & Dunstable Hospital and the St Thomas Road and Bodmin Road sports centres.

They range in height from 1.5 metres at Luton Airport to 42m at Newtondale in Leagrave.

And no one company is to blame for this ever-increasing forest of masts in town, which Town Hall says it has no choice legally but to approve.

The masts have been put up by all leading phone companies, with Ashcroft High School alone playing host to T-Mobile, Vodafone (two), Orange and MM02.

Only two months ago residents in the Hockwell Ring began their own battle to halt the installation of a modern T-Mobile 3G mast next to a children's playground.

These updated masts represent the latest in mobile phone technology, allowing video images and the internet to be accessed from people's handsets.

Martin and Shafina Hockridge and neighbours put a temporary stop to a mast being built next to a playground on Acworth Crescent but have been given no support from the council as they continue to fight.

Mr Hockridge said: "Basically the council expert recommends mast planning applications for approval, because the council can't stop them being erected.

"But the council could and should take a stance, even if it's only a moral one. They don't have to vote for approval – they can at least abstain.

"They are in fact collaborators with the mobile phone companies who will always go for the cheapest rental site every time no matter where it is, and often that's a school."

14 February 2005


From Mast Network

Here is the story, read my reply, after it.

Sandi


IS THIS TOWER A HEALTH HAZARD?

bY SHIRLEY ELSBY

10:30 - 14 February 2005

A water tower topped with more than 30 mobile phone masts and radio dishes is part of a national health study.

The tower in Barwell has been chosen because of the number of antennae and mobile phone companies which use it.

It is one of five sites in the country involved in a national safety monitoring programme initiated by Vodafone.

The tower, just off Shilton Road, has caused widespread concern among residents, and Barwell councillor Maureen Cook says the study is long overdue.

"There are a lot of antennae on that tower - I think there are 32 - and it has long been a bone of contention with residents.

"No-one anywhere would say to us 'Yes, they are safe'.

"Also, as a borough council, we have no control over planning applications for these aerials. We can't say no to them.

"If the study proves conclusively that there is no danger from the masts, it will be a huge reassurance and, as councillors, it will be a great weight off our minds.

"If there is a danger, that will give us evidence to go back to the Government and make them change the law."

Resident Trish Smith lives within sight of the tower and said there was much concern about it.

"I am not happy," she said. "I'm concerned about the amount of aerials up there.

"What worries me is the reports that you read in newspapers about people affected by headaches or not feeling well, and children being particularly affected. It would reassure me if we got feedback from the monitoring."

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council's environmental health department has gone into partnership with the county council and Vodafone to monitor the electromagnetic field (EMF) in the Barwell and Earl Shilton area.

Early indications are that the EMF in the area is only a small fraction of the guideline safe level set by the expert body, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.

The tower is owned by Severn Trent Water. A spokesman for the company said: "We own it, it is still part of our supply network and if it is part of this monitoring programme we are happy with that."

The data from the study will be collated and results will be published by the borough council.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=11833982&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=SHIRLEY%20ELSBY&formname=sidebarsearch


As a committee member for Mast Sanity, I feel I must point out that this test being carried out by Vodaphone is entirely irrelevant from the point of view of indications of health risks, for the following reasons

1. The NRPB/ICNIRP guidelines in the UK are the highest in the World so it is very easy to fall beneath guideline levels - see table

Safety levels

Toronto Health Board,Canada 6 units

Russia & Italy 10 units

US Research Base 100 units

NRPB UK 3,300 units

Salzburg Agreement (19 Scientists, 9 counties) 00,1 units

Also only the heating effects are measured and the biological effects are not!

In the latest Stewart report

under the heading "Main Conclusions on the possible Effects of Mobile Phone Technology on Human Health" it clearly states at 1.18 There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occuring at exposures below these guidelines (paragraphs 5.176-5.194. 6.38)

This whole exercise by Vodaphone is a bending of the truth to serve a purpose with roots in financial considerations. Other phone companies distribute misleading leaflets full of misinformation.

The only way for parents to be sure is to research the subject for themselves and not to listen to government assurances or phone company misinformation.

These children are our future and should not be put at risk.

If Sir William Stewart states that we should take a precautionary approach, then these phone companies are breaking all ethical and moral codes in assuring people that this technology is safe when there is uncertainty over the biological effects.

Perhaps we ought to insist that phone companies produce a written and signed legal declaration that the masts and handsets are safe. I would be most amazed if they did!

Parents who need to know the truth can browse our website at http://www.mastsanity.org or phone our advice line on 08704 322 377 Mon - Fri 1pm to 8pm


Sandi Lawrence

Calling activists in Brighton

I found the following leaflet in Brighton.

Gary


DANGER

You may have noticed signs when you came into the hospital warning you to turn off your mobile phones. This is because the signal from your phone may interfere with equipment necessary for saving life. The County Hospital has allowed O2 Airwave to put a Tetra mast above the postnatal unit on the roof. This gives off a very powerful signal and according to a report commissioned by the Police Federation, the Trower report, some of the health effects are as follows: heart problems, blood problems, interference with bone marrow, tumours, increased arthritis, skin problems, ear problems, risk of leukaemia, childhood cancer, sleep problems, depression, memory loss, headaches, fatigue, miscarriage and infertility. Obviously the management of the hospital don't care about anyone's health and think it's alright to fry new born babies.

Peter Sitch O2 Airwave "We comply with government regulations. It may turn out that those guidelines are wrong but that's what we comply with. We're all going to die and environmental factors will have something to do with that, you cannot make anything in life absolutely safe."

If you think this is an outrage you could ring the hospital and ask to speak to the management on 696955 or ring the Argus or ring the union Unison covering the hospital on 01737733300.



Dear Garry,

I have emailed the info to Bill Randell of the Green Party and written the letter below to The Argus. I will try to think what else can be done later.

Sandi


Dear Sir,

Letter for publication please.

The leaflet below was brought to my attention as a committee member of Mast Sanity, a voluntary organization set up to help anyone with queries or problems about masts on a nation level.

I was appalled to see that this Airwave TETRA mast is sited at the hospital, and horrified that it should be on the roof above the post natal unit.

This form of microwave radiation, Airwave TETRA, is the most lethal in Europe, but even with other variations of this technology animals near masts can miscarry, or develop tumours, as research shows.

CATTLE

Of particular interest is a much cited study of cattle, Loescher & Kaes (1998), which when kept close to a base station, recorded reduced milk yields, emaciation, spontaneous abortions, abnormal behaviour patterns, conjunctivitis, heart failure and still births. When cattle were moved away from the base station, their condition and milk yields improved. The severe symptoms reappeared when the cattle were moved back to their original field beside the base station. The symptoms only appeared when microwave transmitters were added to an existing television transmitter. Loescher and Kaes also report the profound effects experienced by the farmer and his family since the microwave transmitters were installed. Similar cases of health effects induced by electromagnetic field exposure were cited. Loescher postulates that the effects are connected to changes in melatonin levels.

More recent reports by Barrie Trower, (Report on the Death of Officer Neil Dring), and G J Hyland (December 2003) have declared that TETRA is a real health risk.

Omega see:
TETRA: A Critical Overview into the death of Officer Neil Dring
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/308367/

I hope you will report the contents of this leaflet in full, or run a campaign so that those who are worried about it can voice their objections to the relevant parties concerned. This is about our children and their future and needs to be addressed.

If you cannot run a campaign, please direct people to Mast Sanity for assistance.

http://www.mastsanity.org Advice Line 08704 322 377


Sandi Lawrence


From Mast Network


Residents protest at mobile mast
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/529231/