Congratulations to Virgin Mobile for breaking ranks with the following announcement. I think it should be 18 not 10 but at least its a beginning in real corporate social responsibility. Motorola's 'damage control' spin doctors, Swicord/Joyner/Elder, will probably be frantically ringing Sir Richard Branson's office to offer a free powerpoint presention on why its okay to sell the phones to kiddies.
See: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/corporate_risk.pdf

A close friend of Branson died of a brain tumour and Branson publicly put it down to most likely his mobile phone use so I would be surprised to see a reversal in Virgin Mobile's public stand.

Also see: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/children_mobiles.pdf

Please widely circulate this message.

Don Maisch


http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/We-wont-sell-to-under10s-phone-firm/2004/12/08/1102182367128.html?oneclick=true

We won't sell to under-10s: phone firm

By Julian Lee, Marketing Reporter

December 9, 2004

Virgin Mobile has broken ranks with the $11 billion mobile phone industry by vowing not to target children younger than 10 in its marketing.

It puts pressure on other operators, in particular Telstra and Optus, to forgo pester power - the way children push parents to buy products.

Telstra, the market leader in mobile phones, is still assessing plans to develop a mobile phone for children as young as five as a way for security-conscious parents to keep track of them.

The plan is part of Telstra's push to grab a larger share of the population using mobile phones by making children familiar with them.

Nearly three-quarters of adults have a mobile phone but only 30 per cent of children aged between 10 and 13 have them, research by Roy Morgan shows.

Children's handsets would have larger buttons and numbers programmed for home or school. They would carry tracking devices and be brightly coloured or shaped like cartoon characters.

Telstra and Optus continue to market their products to children in their early teens through programs such as Australian Idol and teen
magazines.

In Britain, where a third of children aged between 10 and 14 have mobiles, phone companies were asked to adopt guidelines on marketing to children after a report highlighted possible health risks, but many have ignored them. No such guidelines exist in Australia, where operators are free to market their plans to children, even though most are unable to open a line of credit for a phone contract. To get around this, most companies now push pre-paid phone plans.

Virgin Mobile's brand director, Andy Mallinson, told an advertising summit this week: "I'd advocate that your 10-year-old does not have a mobile. It should be used by people who understand the value of what they have in their hand."

Yesterday he added: "It's very worrying when companies such as Telstra are offering a phone, or rather a cut-down version of it, to children under 10. We feel we have a social responsibility to not market phones to them."

Vodafone says its guidelines forbid it from marketing to anyone under the age of 16.

Last night, the Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, said: "I urge all telecommunications companies to take a responsible attitude towards marketing their products to young people, particularly young children."

For Immediate Release
December 8, 2004
Contact: Janet Newton
The EMR Policy Institute
Tel: 802-426-3035
E-mail: JNewton@emrpolicy.org


US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Hands Down Decision in Citizen Challenge to FCC's Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Policy


Washington D.C., December 7, 2004 -- In an opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, No. 03-1336 EMR Network v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, the Court upheld the FCC's decision not to initiate an inquiry on the need to revise its regulations to address non-thermal effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the facilities and products subject to FCC regulation as EMR Network had requested in its September 2001 Petition for Inquiry.

At the request of the EMR Network, The EMR Policy Institute provided legal and research support for this appeal.

"We are considering a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court as the next step in this challenge to current US RF radiation safety policy," stated Janet Newton, President of The EMR Policy Institute.

All background documents and the DC Circuit decision will be posted shortly at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/index.htm


Janet Newton, President
The EMR Policy Institute, P.O. Box 117, Marshfield VT 05658
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: http://www.emrpolicy.org

You may be interested to know that we have just filed an application to prosecute the UK electricity industry for failing to label domestic electrical appliances with a hazard warning, under sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987. This criminal prosecution may be pertinent to those concerned with mast emissions, in view of the extremely low frequency emissions from TETRA and related masts and handsets. I expect that if the Magistrate accepts the case it will attract global media publicity.

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

Coghill Research Laboratories

Visit our website: http://www.cogreslab.co.uk


FromMobile Phone Mast Campaigners Network

People across the country are battling to keep cell towers out of their neighborhoods

by Grace Hood

If you walk about 700 yards from Wendy Little's neighborhood at 9th and Baker Streets in Longmont, you come across what appears to be a light pole surrounded by a high fence. The pole sits behind a commercial building, invisible to street traffic. While it seems harmless to most, Wendy Little knows that there's more than meets the eye. Inside this "light pole" is a cell phone antenna. Last summer Little and others fought to keep this antenna from entering their neighborhood—and lost.

"The first question I had was how does this affect my child?" says Little. "They have thinner skulls. It can effect their brain because their brain is developing. It can cause slow motor skills, affect REM sleep. You start hearing things like that, and I just can't believe this is something that would be around people."

Little joined her neighbor Ann Maziar in an effort to raise local awareness about the tower before it was built. The two went door to door with a petition. They organized a demonstration in front of the proposed site. They even continued going to city council meetings after the appeal to talk about their concerns, some of which pertained to health. None of it worked.

"When I go to city council and they tell me that health isn't really a big concern, being a mother, I'm appalled by this," Little says. 'I can't believe that they're not talking about health."

In fact, city officials were just doing their job. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which established tower building regulations for the cell phone industry, local governments are prohibited from denying building permits based on health concerns.

"There was a lot of concern with respect to health risks that cell phone towers are perceived to create," says Troy Bliss, a Longmont city planner involved with the tower permit approval. "Unfortunately that's not something we have in our regulation to review or comment on."

While Little lost her struggle to keep cell towers out of her community, her concerns are more common than you might think. Eldorado Springs and residents near Lookout Mountain have recently fought to keep antennas out of their communities. In addition to smaller towns, anti-cell phone activists in cities like San Francisco have organized to curb the efforts of the cell phone industry to erect towers. All of these people say the recent national glut of cell phone tower construction has left public health concerns in the dust, and that it's time for communities to protect themselves from what seems to be a growing nexus of potential hazards.

The wireless build-out

In the United States, an estimated 171 million people use cell phones, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), an association that represents wireless carriers.

In order to keep up with growing demand, the cell phone industry has drastically enhanced its infrastructure since the 1996 FCC Act, and that means more cell towers. Today it is estimated that there are roughly 174,000 cell towers, up from around 25,000 in 1996.

"It's a very widespread problem," says Doug Loranger, co-founder of San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna Free Union (SNAFU). "We've gotten contacted from different people around the county."

Loranger has been actively fighting against cell towers in San Francisco since 2000. He originally founded SNAFU in 2000 when a cell phone company wanted to install antennas in a church steeple across from his apartment.

When Loranger found out about the antennas, he immediately started researching how the antenna would impact his community. An engineer by trade, Loranger found an article in the Institute for Electronic Engineers that summarized the research to date on microwave radiation.

"The opening paragraph said conclusively that this stuff has biological effects. So that was all I needed to know. If this stuff can alter your biology, then it can't be good," he says.

Because it is against the law to refuse an antenna permit based solely on health concerns, SNAFU structures its arguments around issues like decreased property values, aesthetic concerns involving the antennas and overall necessity for new antennas.

"If a company can't demonstrate that it has a significant gap in service, the local government has the authority to say no to that antenna," says Loranger.

In several cases San Francisco officials have agreed with Loranger that alleged "service gaps" didn't warrant proposed local cell towers. But if there weren't real problems with cell phone service, Loranger wonders what other motives could be behind all the construction.

"The more of things you put up, the higher price you can charge someone when they want to buy you out in the future," he says. "You're just doing this to hedge your bets, when in fact you're providing perfectly good service to customers."

Those in the cell phone industry feel differently. According to Dave Mellin, regional communications director for Sprint, cell towers are time consuming and expensive to build, often costing upward of $100,000.

"Any time that we construct a tower, it is done because it is necessary," he says. "There's an awful amount of thought and planning that goes into it before any action is taken."

Regardless of why all these cell towers are appearing, many communities find that keeping towers out of their neighborhood involves a whole lot more than just showing up at a city council meeting. Because of SNAFU's familiarity with fighting these types of battles, Loranger says that many California communities like San El Selmo and Santa Cruz have approached him looking for guidance.

"Once these companies realize that people are trying to put in stringent deadlines, they'll descend like hawks and try to prevent that from happening," he says. "I'm still waiting for the right community where the elected people stand up and do the right thing as far as the public is concerned."

A mixed medical bag

It's invisible. You can't see it, and you can't smell it. Radio Frequency (RF) emissions come from many different sources, like FM radios and televisions. They also come from cell phone towers and cell phones at a much higher rate than other antennas. When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established guidelines for these emissions in the mid-'90s, it based the rules on thermal effects. Any RF emissions that fall within the thermal range have the ability to heat human flesh and are therefore hazardous. Those that fall within the nonthermal range were deemed to be safe.

But several laboratory studies within the scientific community have found cell and DNA damage caused by emissions in the nonthermal range. When there is damage on this basic level, the body will attempt to repair itself. If it cannot signal certain cells to die, then the cell will be replicated—along with its defects. This is what leads to runaway cell growth like cancer.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows for sure what the effects are from human exposure to RF radiation. It is known that using a cell phone exposes humans to a significant amount more radiation than what is emitted by a cell tower. But studies haven't concluded that brief, more intense exposure from cell phone use is more hazardous than the low, continuous exposure that comes from cell towers.

People like Doug Loranger and Wendy Little believe that both periodic and excessive exposure to cellular technology can cause health effects, even though there are no epidemiology studies to prove it.

The missing proof is an epidemiological study that connects the laboratory effects of RF radiation directly to actual human health effects. All previous studies have fallen short of this conclusion.

The lack of evidence leads many cell-industry advocates to back the current technology and radiation emissions guidelines. They also assert that most cell towers emit radiation that is thousands of times less than the limits set by the FCC.

Until an epidemiological study emerges that connects radiation exposure directly to human health effects, many speculate that FCC radiation standards will remain the same.

But the prospect of living with the current levels of radiation concern technology experts like Libby Kelly, director of the Council for Wireless Impacts.

"From the volume of calls that I've gotten over the years, there is a growing understanding that we're placing our health at risk," says Kelly. "The outcome is that we may find out we made an enormous mistake."

Safer technology

When Wendy Little and Ann Mazair weren't organizing demonstrations or talking to their community members in Longmont, they were busy looking into their last resort, which was legal action. With the legal costs ranging from $10,000 to $15,000, they realized they had run out of options.

The fact of the matter was the two were not just facing the cell phone companies—they were facing a society that has embraced cell phone use wholeheartedly.

A major sticking point in debate over cell phone towers is that cell phones are viewed by many as a public good, making our lives more convenient. The events of 9/11 further affirmed for many the value of cell phones for maintaining contact with the outside world under any circumstance.

But while many enjoy cell phones for their convenience, the notion of involuntary exposure to radiation is a growing concern. So while many people support the industry, they don't want to live next to the towers upon which the industry relies.

It's a challenging paradox Little is willing to face. In addition trying to find a way to monitor the level of radiation that is now in her neighborhood, she looks toward the future.

"We're going to have to change how we use technology," says Little. "One of our neighbors didn't want to get involved because he said he didn't want to stop progress. What I'm proposing—and I think a lot of people in the nation can be working on this—is that there has to be safer technology."

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com

http://www.boulderweekly.com/newsspin.html


Informant: Teresa Binstock

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=900564


Informant: Andy, Mast Network

Pat Ormsby wrote:

Report from Gauss Network Dec’04

Base Station Siting

In Japan recently there have been a few small victories in terms of recognizing citizens’ to an improved EMF environment, but there have also been setbacks. Plans by Docomo were dropped for a base station in Kasugai, near Nagoya, due to opposition from the local citizens. It is a rural area, and the plans involved a 30 meter tower to improve reception. This is a hopeful sign. Usually Docomo can and does just run over the rights of local citizens. Meanwhile, citizens in Kanagawa Prefecture are taking Vodafone to court in an effort to have a base station removed from the grounds of an elementary school there.

In an ongoing court case in Fukuoka City , Kyushu, a Prof. Nojima, acting as witness for Docomo, simply denied the relevance of famous studies carried out worldwide regarding biological effects of EMF. An extension has been granted to hear further arguments against Prof. Nojima’s position, which have already extended to more than three hours of testimony.

Phoning while Driving

On November 1, 2004, a law was enacted in Japan against driving while talking on a hand-held cell phone. Penalties are stipulated on the level of minor traffic violations. It is still a common sight, and police caught 300 people in violation in the first two weeks in Hokkaido alone, but demand is up for hands-free sets, which can be used as long as they do not impair hearing. Hokkaido recorded 90 accidents caused by drivers talking on cell phones in 2003. Many people suspect the figure is much higher, as it is natural for people to become embarrassed and deny their carelessness.

According to the Shinano Mainichi Shimbun daily of Nagano Prefecture, however, the number of accidents caused by people using hands-free sets exceeded the number being caused by hand-held users in Nagano Prefecture even before enactment of the new law. From January to August 2004, there were twenty accidents reported as caused by a driver using a hand-held phone, with 33 injuries but no fatalities; but during the same period there were 26 accidents reportedly caused by drivers using hands-free sets, injuring 34 people. In September, there was a report of a truck driver using a hands-free set, losing his concentration and colliding with a passenger car stopped ahead of him, injuring the driver of the latter vehicle. The article notes that although a clear cause-and-effect relationship has not been established, these statistics indicate a danger from using hands-free sets as well as hand-held. The police commented that if hands-free sets are not allowable, conversations with passengers in the car would also have to be prohibited.

The December 8, 2004 issue of Gauss Tsushin reported on the ongoing controversy. An engineering professor at Daido Kogyo University in Nagoya studied reaction times of drivers to a flashing lamp in front or to the side. Prof. Keisuke Suzuki divided subjects into non-phone using, hand-held using and hands-free using drivers. He found no significant differences when the lamp was flashed in front of them, but when the lamp was to the side, he found reaction times increased by 2.2 times and 1.7 times for hand-held and hands-free users, respectively, compared to drivers not using a cell phone. He postulates that when people concentrate on the conversation, their field of view is constricted, and says that hands-free is not necessarily safer.

I wonder why he doesn’t run the same test with drivers having non-phone conversations. Is he afraid of what he might find, or is he simply negligent?

Annoyance on Public Transportation Facilities

One of the main topics of discussion at the Gauss Network was the ongoing problem of cell phone use aboard trains and other transportation in Japan. If you have seen pictures of white-gloved station attendants pushing people onto overcrowded trains in Japan, you are aware of what a problem the addition of cell phones can be. It is so packed that it is difficult to breathe, and people have been known to break ribs. When the shirt pocket of the guy pressed against you starts making tinny music, you can’t move away. He’ll manage to wiggle up a hand and answer the darned thing! Let’s say you have a pacemaker. What are you going to do? Step on his toes?

I tolerated the crowds for years, but the cell phones and my awareness of my own negative reaction to them put an end to it. I’m a peaceful person, but I truly fear I could not avoid committing a certain level of violence in this situation.

There are a lot of people like me to one degree or another. Persons with pacemakers feel anxiety when people around them are holding cell phones. In Japan, 36% of people still do not own a cell phone, and 49% find their use on trains a nuisance. Based on this, it would be desirable to obtain prohibition of their use on alternate cars on the trains in recognition of people’s right not to be forcibly irradiated. To accomplish this, we need to make the dangers of EMF more widely known, but of course, we face severe opposition from corporations. Then, of course, there are people who want to be a nuisance. For example, most of society now recognizes the right to a smoke-free environment, but some young people light up just to be a nuisance and there is nothing you can do about them. They are utterly unapproachable. They are aware cell phones are also a nuisance, and they use them just to be defiant.

Anyway, attempts by Gauss Network members to get a dialogue going with the train companies are getting nowhere. The companies just don’t respond. Ideas were discussed, including holding a forum, inviting key decision makers to discuss the problem with us. They may be unaware of the reasons for people’s concerns over cell phone radiation. However, these people are so hard to reach.

Another idea was to continue trying to reach them through the mass media, but they are afraid to touch on problems that do not have broad recognition already, for example, casting cigarette butts out car windows or the chattering and sudden ringing of phones, but not the risk to health in either case. (Also, in the recent set of earthquakes that hit Niigata, cellular service was lost to about 60 base stations, but that was downplayed. All of the publicity touting the necessity of cell phones in emergencies went silent at that time. They didn’t want this to become a topic of public discussion.)

Another idea was use the need of authorities to appease the public to a certain degree. If we are persistent enough, they cannot just ignore us. Or the problem could be associated with the “barrier free” concept, asking people with pacemakers or EHS to speak as witnesses. It was noted, though, that we would need to get a large number of EHS to come, or we risk having them considered as nothing but cranks.

Regarding buses, one company asks people to turn off their phones because the buses are very crowded. It was not known if people actually obey this (probably many don’t). Also, there are about 100 bus companies in Tokyo alone, many associated with railway companies, so policies may vary a lot.

New Books

The new books being published on EMF related topics in Japan are mostly discouraging at this time. “Netto-Oji to Keitai-Hime” (“Prince Internet and Princess Cellphone”) (2004, Chuokoron-shinsha, Inc.) written by psychologist Rika Kayama and journalist Ken Mori, focuses on societal problems caused by IT, and suggests ways of using them ‘wisely’ but ignores the EMF problem.

Another book, “IT ni Korosareru Kodomotachi” (“Children Killed by IT”)(2004, Kodansha), focuses on measurements of alpha and beta waves in children playing computer games, discusses neuronal activity, and mentions sleepless children, but says nothing about the EMF problem.

Really saddening, though, is “Uwasa no Kagaku” (Rumor Science)(Kawaide-shobo, 1998), written by Misa Matsuda, currently a professor of literature at Chuo University, and reported on by Tetsuo Kakehi of Gauss Network in the December issue of Gauss Tsushin. It is not new, but the author continues appearing at EMF-related seminars, espousing her point of view. She claims that dangers from EMF have not been demonstrated scientifically and are therefore nothing by rumors. She classifies such concerns with stories of UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, the abominable snowman and other gee-golly party conversation topics. This drew outrage from Prof. Yo Yamazaki who was in charge of EMF research at IARC (currently at Kansai University Graduate school) for considering seriously conducted research the same as the search for ‘Nessie.’

Mr. Kakehi criticizes her style as that of celebrity gossip columnists. On November 29, he talked with her directly. She said, “Even if something is just a rumor, it sometimes happens to be true, it is not necessarily a lie. I am just saying that fanning fears of danger is not the right way to inform people of reality.”

On a far more positive note, there is “Denjiha Kagakubusshitsu Kabinsho Taisaku” (“Treating Electro- and Chemical Sensitivities”) (2004, Ryokufu Shuppan), by Yasuko Katoh, who is herself EHS. I hope to have a copy of it soon.

From Karen Barratt -this week's local press release which I've also sent to national press

Press release from Winchester phone mast protesters. 7 December 2004

While discussions about further legal action in the Byron Avenue phone mast battle take place, campaigners have not been idle. They have been busy giving their support to the Harrogate community whose local schools are under a similar phone mast threat.

The complexities of the planning system were brought to nationwide public attention with the Winchester and Harrogate appeals four weeks ago. Both appeals were lost but both cases have the potential for a further hearing by the House of Lords. For Winchester mothers Caroline St. Leger Davey and Diane Harrison the issue is whether the planning inspector was WRONG to disregard Orange’s failure to use all its powers to acquire an alternative site. In the Harrogate case it is for John Prescott to prove that a different planning inspector was RIGHT to dismiss a telecom application by reason of community health concerns.

“ The message coming out from these two dreadful appeal decisions,” says campaigner Karen Barratt, “ Is that planning inspectors are only right when they hand the victory to the telecom operators. Both these cases should be challenged.”

Unlike the Byron Avenue case, the Harrogate appeal decision was issued immediately which means the deadline for application to the House of Lords is the end of this week. As a result campaigners from all over the country are bombarding John Prescott with letters urging him to continue the fight on behalf of a planning inspector who got it right. They say that if the Harrogate appeal judgement is allowed to stand, health concerns will be disregarded in future telecom applications with disastrous consequences for the public especially children.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the planning policy which campaigners say puts pressure on local authorities and planning inspectors to dismiss health concerns in favour of telecom operators. “John Prescott must fight the Harrogate decision,” says Karen Barratt. “Otherwise it will look as though he doesn’t really want to win.”

CONTACTS

Karen Barratt tel: 01962 864388
Caroline St.Leger Davey tel: 01962 865716

For further info see http://www.mastsanity.org

THE IRISH INDEPENDENT, Monday, Dec 6, 2004, page 6

DEMPSEY RULES OUT HEALTH WARNING FOR MOBILE PHONES

[by] Eilish O'Regan
Health Correspondent

A Health warning for mobile phones has been ruled out despite complaints by some users that they are suffering dizziness and distorted vision.

It comes as the Christmas demand for mobile phones will leave many parents in particular worried about possible health risks.

Communications Minister Noel Dempsey has confirmed that the "overwhelming weight of evidence is that mobile phones are not responsible for their condition." However, he said focused research is continuing into the area and his officials will continue to monitor the issues of concern closely.

Omega see http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

The minister was quizzed on the "widespread concern" among the medical profession of over exposure to mobile phones here which is resulting in headaches, dizziness, distorted vision and biological effects.

Fine Gael TD (Teachta Daile/Member of Parliament) Jimmy Deenihan asked if it was now time to attach a health warning to the phones in light of the worries. The minister said he was aware of the concerns and he relied on his officials with expertise to advise him on health issues relating to electromagnetic energy."


Informant: Imelda O'Connor

THE IRISH TIMES, Monday, Dec 6, 2004, page 7.

100,000 [EUROS] DAMAGE CAUSED TO KERRY MAST
[by] Anne Lucey

Gardai in Co Kerry are investigating damage costing 100,000 [euros] caused to a controversial mobile mast near Fenit which had been about to go into operation. Damage was caused at the Meteor mast's communications cabin at Ballygarron, The Spa, on the night of November 30th/December 1st.

Gardai said the cabin door was forced open and communications equipment set on fire. The Meteor mast was recently granted planning permission after the telecommunications company appealed a county council refusal to An Bord Pleanala.

There had been widespread opposition to the mast, located between Tralee and Fenit. Overlooking the coastline, it is seen from a wide area.

Sinn Fein TD Mr Martin Ferris was the chairman of an anti-mast action committee, AMAC. The committee disbanded after An Bord Pleanala granted permission to Meteor Mobile Communications Ltd early in September. Mr Ferris said no one in the locality would condone anyone taking the law into their own hands. "But there would be an understanding why it happened," he said. There are up to 50 houses within a kilometre of the mast, Mr Ferris said. The committee had considered taking a case to the High Court but decided against it because of the costs involved, he said.

Kerry County Council had refused permission on the grounds that it contravened the county development plan as it is within one kilometre of residential properties. An inspector from An Bord Pleanala also recommended refusal on the grounds that it "would be visually obtrusive and would have significant impact on the visual amenities of the area." An Bord Pleanala granted permission, referring to the national strategy regarding the improvement of mobile communications, and said the site was not restricted in the county plan.


Informant: Imelda O'Connor

Phone companies flout school mast law
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=325102&in_page_id=1770

Mobile masts by one in 10 schools
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4000321.stm

The primary school that has 27 secret mobile phone masts on its door
http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/NEe1108841.4iw?verticalID=33&vertical=Regulatory


Address:
SOHO PARISH CE PRIMARY SCHOOL
23 Great Windmill Street, W1V 7PH
HeadTeacher: Rachel Earnshaw
Tel: 020 7641 7311
Fax: 020 7641 7334



Getarnte Mobilfunkantennen - Secret Mobile Phone Masts
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/429390/