On point (4), if we are right that EHS is due to disturbance of the body's normal balance of nitric oxide, then in theory there are several mechanisms to either prevent the synthase responding, to reduce the resulting NO, to reduce superoxide (with which it reacts), or to reduce the peroxynitrite this results in etc. It isn't just a free radical issue, so melatonin is an incomplete response, but Vit B12 and selenium might be a good combination, for example. But EHS, if it is dose-respondent, will affect NO to different levels in different places, and the medication in a different combination EMF may end up being harmful.

BUT, why should 5% of the population have to pop pills so the rest can use a harmful technology? Should we have a prophylactic cancer pill so it doesn't matter about passive smoking?

Andy


Andy, of course we should not end up popping pills. The disturbance of the nitric oxide is about pH ? Your view is chemical, I am moving to an electromagnetic view, interference as the basic mechanism, resonance and polarisation, resulting in effects, consequences (eventually with co-factors), and in the end symptoms (by the senses - therefore it is called electrohypersensitivity, though we don't have senses for electromagnetic fields, except for the eyes of course). Chemical reactions are slow, electromagnetic communication between cells is fast. And distorted, if the structure of coherent electromagnetic radiation from masts corresponds with the structure (frequency, pulsation a.o.) of the communication within the body - Williams says interference HAS to take place then, otherwise the laws of physics should be reviewed.

--------


I understand exactly what you are saying Frans, and I am not talking about something that happens in one small location of the body and has to be transmitted chemical to chemical along the line. Rather it may even change the electrical lines of communication.

Even molecules resonate, and the NO reactions are very fast and happen in every cell independently and simultaneously. Moreover many people's EHS has a lag effect: they don't feel it straight away, but it continues after the EMF event. Other effects are more immediate, such as my "TETRA lines" phenomenon, but I think that is electromagnetically different as well.

What is particularly intriguing is that NO reactions lie behind every symptom of EHS, and every longer term problem related to EMF as well: thyroid, epilepsy, Alzheimer's, CFS, MND, cancer etc.

I don't know what the EMF-to-molecule mechanism is. But since EMF is already known to affect the activity of the NO synthases, then if EHS is all about something else, it's very odd that NO is nonetheless implicated as potential cause for every symptom. Have you read Martin Pall on the same avalanche effects in MCS and CFS?

What is equally intriguing is why people of all shapes and sizes are affected by microwaves from 300 MHz up to 5GHz in the same way, even though some are square pulsed, some more sinusoidal, and some hardly pulsed at all.

Andy

--------

Frans/Andy

I think that electro-hypersensitive people may be the tip of the iceberg. It may be that people who have immediate and unpleasant effects from EMR, because they can "feel" the emissions, therefore do not hang around too long. However, many other people who can't detect the emissions in this way could, nevertheless, eventually suffer for long term low level exposure. For instance, if cancer cell reproduction is stimulated by the radiation, the "victim" may not necessarily "feel" that this is taking place.

If this is the case, then we would all end up having to take medication just to prevent illness.

Sylvia

--------

Sylvia, You are perfectly right: Radio emissions of all kinds, induce activity in many genes, including protooncogenes that start to act as oncogenes for they have (known)sequences in the DNA, that react to EMFs of all kinds. Othert genes induced are those coding for heat shock proteins: The proteins coded act like little scaffolds helping cell proteins activity continue quite normally, in unfavourable conditions (such as high temerature, infections, pollutants enterd the body etc) and they also break the BBB barrier from blood to the brain, allowing the pollutants (and some medicines) pass from the blood directly into the brain. In addition these proteins help DNA injured cells: They arrest their division, and let them to pull themselves together, and correct the DNA, mutaions included. If DNA has been reasonably corrected, the cell may resume regular life. But, if DNA is uncurable, these proteins lead the cell into a self programmed death (apoptosis). But these proteins may also assist cells that became cancerous to escape the apoptosis, then multiply and develop to full scale cancer.

Zamir

--------

Zamir

have you yet come across EMF damage to the SOD1 gene? The reason I ask is that mutation can mean the superoxide dismutatase Zn,Cu SOD loses Zinc and the ability to retain its copper, so the SOD turns into a peroxynitrite producer instead of inhibitor. This is a characteristic common to familial and sporadic ALS (MND to us), and the reduced SOD is known as ALS-SOD. This might explain a lot.

Andy

The Mast Sanity National Conference is being postponed from 8th October to two days in the Spring of 2006. There has been important developments in recent months in the mobile phone and Tetra mast issue. We therefore want to invite more speakers from outside the UK. We also want to allow more time for debate and discussion between delegates (always enjoyable!). The location will still be Central London. The AGM will also be held next year. We regret the postponement. All attendees who have paid will get their money back and have priority booking for next year.

Best wishes, Yasmin Skelt, Conference Organiser, Mast Sanity

Well said! So what now!?!?!

Pete.

--------

Pete

I suggest you see if your planning authority will challenge this decision. They can appeal on the grounds this decision wasn't right. Your MPs involvement may help in getting this.

Failing that and possibly anyway residents may want to write to the chief executive at the planning inspectorate in Bristol - Katrine Sporle challenging was the decision fair, transparent, open, consistent and impartial. Was justice done and seen to be done. What criteria was planning inspector instructed to use. what training did the inspector have, how did the decision compare with others - cite Bath where I live - a recent decision where inspector said visually unacceptable so why was mast considered visually acceptable in Malborough. Inconsistent!

Also get a copy of what documents operator submitted. Chances are there is something wrong with something. They shove in a load of technical data assuming it won't be challenged. particularly as regards the coverage data which is usually seriously flawed. eg the same coverage and technical data for a 12.5 meter high 2g mast won't apply to a 3g mast. - Sometimes information the operators provide is verging on being so deliberately false that it is verging on fraud as in a case I am involved with at the moment. So there could be ways forward.

Sian

--------

You can always appeal based on article 174 of the European Treaty, precuationary principle, if there is enough evidence (even if scientific proof is not 100%) authorities have to decrease the risk by precautionary measures, this even goes first above existing contracts.

The evidence of real life (cases) and the 8 epidemiologic and 2 provocative research on masts and people in the vicinity (see http://www.stopumts.nl/english.php ) plus half of the laboratory findings is enough evidence.

Of course if you can proove the permit was wrong or the decision making was not democratic or else, it is nice, but don't use too much energy for this, in the end it is an environmental pollution with impact on health (including well-being, according to the WHO-definition). Rio 1992, European Treaty art. 174.

--------

pete

Paragraph 10 of the planning system general principles - a document produced by ODPM - states that local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations determine otherwise.

I assume the planning authority said the mast was contrary to the local plan and the planning inspector may have said need for the mast was a material planning consideration which overwrites this or words to that effect. I think the planning authority could challenge that. A material consideration must be genuine and the development in the public interest.

Who says the need for a mast is a material planning consideration? on what basis is need a material consideration? Who's need? What need? Need for what? Who needs a 3g mast? You could argue there is no need. They need 80% of population by 2007 - but 80% isn't a 100%.

You may want to read the inspector's report and see if there is anything that you can persuade the local authority (perhaps councillors first) that they can appeal over. But remember time limits on appeals.

In a case in Bath a year ago an inspector overruled the planning committee's refusal and gave 02 permission. The councillors didn't know they could have appealled and residents didn't know planning authority could appeal. Residents were badly advised on their rights to appeal inspector's decision and deadline had then passed.

So I challenged planning inspectorate decision myself with the residents and planning inspectorate admitted their decison was flawed but said they had no legislative powers to change decision. So we went on a media campaign with councillors support as they were so angry and with MPs support on grounds that a) planning committee decision to refuse mast was overruled by planning inspectorate and planning inspector report was terrible. b) planning inspector then admitted decision to overrule was flawed

Councillors were prepared to revoke planning permission as they were so angry about the way the whole thing had been handled and called a meeting to do it. 02 came along to meeting and said they wouldn't build the mast but look for another site so they met councillors and went to look at other sites. They have so far stuck to their word and are expected to submit a planning application soon for another site. They may still try and build the mast although councillors say they wouldn't dare. If your councillors can be persuaded that they must protect their town and their residents they could do the same.

Sian

--------

From Karen Barratt

I do not think removing John Prescott would make any difference. Just before the the last election an announcement was promised from the ODPM re: response to Stewart update etc. I was told on very good authority that there would be some "movement" on planning which while not going as far as Mast Sanity would like, would at least be "radical" by ODPM standards. In the event it was delayed amid the calling of the election and all we got was a bland statement from Yvette Cooper promising "research" into the issue. When I asked my source what had happened I was told that the ODPM proposals had been blocked by No.10 and the DTI. Many MPs are concerned about the situation (they're certainly aware of it) but the problem is that govt policy is being driven by vested interests and an obsession with technology as a solution to all our problems.