Thank you Andy and Sylvia,

I am most interested in your theory about DECT phones. When did they first appear?

There have been alot of cases of cancer near where I was yesterday, but these started long before I came to Kensworth. One lady had cancer of the breast and said it was a radio aerial causing it, but there is no aerial where she said it was, but there is one about 300 yards away and of course that was there long before 2001 when the Orange mast was erected.

The same lady told me that there had been about six other cases of cancer in the same road (in fact I had spoken to a lady previously whose husband had had cancer of the jaw - they live opposite the lady with breast cancer). There have also been animals effected nearby- three dogs 1. cancer of mouth. 1. area unknown. 1. small growths appearing on paws which owner has removed by the vet.

Change of subject. I am reading a very interesting book (loaned by Phil Watts, thank you Phil!) The Zapping of America, which gives detailed info re Pandora and the American Embassy etc. The symptom of raised white bloodcell count experienced there made me ask victims in Kensworth to get there white bloodcell count checked last year, but none of them have done it. I found out about two cases 100 metres from the mast last year - the doctors can find no reason for the symptom as there is no infection. How about everyone affected getting their white cell count checked? I thought if there is a high number of cases it may be evidence to use in appeals.

This is the sort of thing the Dept of Health should be looking at instead of spending £10,000,000 on more lab tests.

What does everyone think?

Best regards,

Gill Lyden

--------

Gill

Andy Marino wrote this in 1995:
http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Papers/102Hematology.pdf

Elevated white blood cell count was also a feature of the Skrunda study. And once again, there is direct association between white cells and nitric oxide production.

This is not an exclusive feature to microwave masts, but EMF in general at low modulation frequencies, which includes power lines.

And yes, this kind of assessment needs to be made over time among people in mast-exposure environments, but it does require that the sources also be removed/switched off for a period as well. Can it really be more expensive to switch some masts off while assessing the "recovery period", than setting up expensive lab operations??

Andy



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster

Thought you may find this of interest from May edition 2004 of WDDTY vol 15. no 2.

Wireless microwaves and health.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/873p9


Gary

Today's Observer - this needs a response via Letters

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:

Shortcut to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/mobile/article/0,2763,1515005,00.html

Friday, June 24, 2005 3:01 PM

Here is something my son fell over in a Danish newspaper, checked out and mailed to me. It really is worth checking out.

The YES men http://www.theyesmen.org are 2 guys who have made a documentary-film, where they pretend to represent big heartless corporations at industrial-seminars etc.

And they do a: "Identity correction" which they describe as:

"Honest people impersonate big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them.

Targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else."

They have invented an advanced joke in "the Acceptable Risk Calculator" which can tell corporations and governments if a project can get to be a "golden skeleton in the closet" based on risici involved, how many they expect will be killed and in which area the project will be launced in.

They use a a model the Bhopal catastrofe, but there are many similarities with the mobile communication industry bullies.

Specially read about their hilarious "Acceptable Risk Calculator" præsentation, during which they were applauded by a flock of corporate "yobs": http://www.dowethics.com/risk/launch.html

They have put the whole issue in a nutshell.


Best regards.

Agnes

http://www.mast-victims.org

--------

Agnes is right here, the WHO, not just WTO, weighs cost and benefit of risk, and decides money "benefits" or how many lives.

I'll add this page too as a good example of how desperate achieving common sense has become:

http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/iceage/index.shtml


Andy

--------

Yes Andy.

And so does Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They might tell us to turn off our Telly on the wall, not let it run on standby. (So that we can run Birmingham on the saved electricity for a year). But at the same time they force through thousands and thousands of mast installations that are on standby or running 24/7/365 so the power stations spew out a million tons of gases.

You bet I am pleased that I now live on the top of the Malvern Hills, because when they succed in melting down the North and the South pole I´ll still have dry feet.

Who can take their Environmental “For The Good of Mankind” Holier Than Thou crap seriously???

Best regards.

Agnes

http://www.mast-victims.org

--------

OK everyone. Let's see if this masts network can make a dent. How about every one of us sends a message to our own MP with this question. Here's the background, what to say and how:

http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MTU1Nzg

extracts:
"Stephen Reilly, a spokesman for the [Government-backed Energy-Saving Trust], said it was 'scary' that half of Britons were not aware household power consumption contributed to climate change. He said appliances left on standby contributed to 50 million tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions from homes each year, putting an average £200 a year on energy bills. He said: 'People don't think about this. This is definitely a contributor to climate change. It's wasted energy.'

"A spokesman for Defra said the department had negotiated a significant cut in the power consumption of television sets while on standby and was working to expand guidelines to cover other appliances.

"Mr Morley urged consumers to ensure they did not waste power. He said: 'The energy we use at home contributes to climate change so saving energy is not just good for people's pockets. It is good for the environment. About half of our target cuts in carbon emissions to combat climate change have to come through energy efficiency ... switching off electrical appliances rather than leaving them on standby makes a huge difference and is a measure we can all take.'

"Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman, who obtained yesterday's figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said: 'I am astounded by this. This is absolutely shocking with climate change the biggest threat we face appliances are pumping out millions of tons of greenhouse gases for no good purpose whatsoever. Manufacturers should ensure that appliances should only be put on standby by choice. When things are turned off they should stay off."

Now 3G base stations:
http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/lca/abstract/doi/lca2004.12.193

"The UMTS network in its state of 2004 according to the 2001 planning and with the accordingly calculated number of customers and data transfer causes 2.1 times more CO2 emissions and requires 2.4 times more (non-renewable) primary energy per customer than for the GSM system in its current state"

What is more, we have it reliably that the power requirements of the combined 3G networks is a serious supply issue, especially so in the current "energy-crisis" context.

Here, then, is the letter [adapt as required]:


Dear [MP]

I was seriously concerned to learn how much energy is being wasted through household appliances not being switched off when not in use. The figures from DEFRA released in the Independent newspaper on 23 June show this amounts to 1 million tonnes of CO2, or enough wasted energy to power 400,000 homes. It would be encouraging to learn that more was being done to make it easier to turn appliances off with a switch that did not just go onto standby, and with reassurance that "settings" would not all be lost in the process. I hope you will lend support to this.

But above all I am very seriously concerned, and for good reason, about the energy demands of the combined new 3G mobile phone national networks being installed.

I understand from industry sources that once installed, these will place a significant additional burden on the national electricity supply, and that running 24 hours a day all year round, the energy and climate burden of this technology is going quite unnoticed. Furthermore, industry calculations are that the whole system requires 2.4 times the non-renewable energy per customer than the existing GSM network. Please do your utmost to confirm the figure for 50,000 always-on base stations, so that it can be rightfully compared to the DEFRA figures above, about which it, seems, we all want to do something practical.

The reason I raise this point is that everyone is painfully aware of the controversy surrounding the latest round of mast erections, of the increasing numbers of people obliged to live near them, increasing numbers who complain of adverse effects, or of property devaluation, of the absurd absence of any democracy in their siting, the irrelevance of safety guidelines and the dearth of base-station research. And now we find that there is much concern over wasted energy in the home, while all possible good is being more than undone by this money driven product promotion. This government must be challenged over selling the 3G licences for £23 billion, then obliging the operators each and all to cover the entire country, causing universal controversy and now over taking no consideration to the environmental impact.

I hope you will be so moved to ask questions in the House, not just in relation to telecommunications planning, but its true and lasting impact on people, housing and the environment - and of course, trust.

yours [etc.]



How? It's really easy.

Fax your MP:
http://www.faxyourmp.com/index.php3
or better still, write:
http://www.writetothem.com/

Go for it. Little effort, big point.

Andy

--------

I have tested the equipment boxes associated with "lamppost masts" using a meter hired from Powerwatch. This measured electrical fields, not an ACOM or COM Monitor. I was surprised to see that they gave out about half the reading that standing under a powerline did (25 for equipment box and around 50 for a powerline going through Rickmansworth). That was radiating onto a pavement near a pedestrian crossing. A child in a buggy would be getting full blast. I think the issue of the electrical power these things use has been an issue ignored by all the organisations who are concerned about energy use. I want to do something about this but have been too busy on other issues. Perhaps we need to raise awareness of this with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Government and so on. The power used for the mobile phones themselves must be a huge drain on power resources. Perhaps those campaigning against windfarms should switch off their mobile phones at the same time.

Best wishes, Yasmin Skelt (Chorleywood, Hertfordshire, England)

BBC News website 25.06.05

The body which runs Roman Catholic schools in the region has intervened in the row over a mobile phone mast near a Warwickshire primary school.

The Diocesan Schools Commission is to ask phone company 02 to move the mast away from St Edwards RC school in Coleshill.

Parents of pupils at the school say the mast is responsible for complaints such as headaches and nosebleeds.

O2 has denied that its mast is responsible for the complaints.

Around 40 children at the school left class on Friday morning to join a protest against the siting of the mast.

The Diocesan Schools Commission, which owns St Edwards, said it understands the concerns but says it is not qualified to comment on the alleged effects of the mast transmissions.

It has agreed to ask O2 to relocate the mast as a gesture of goodwill.

Farnham Today 24.06.05

SURREY county councillor Pat Frost has pledged her support for local residents’ groups fighting to stop mobile telephone operator Orange erecting masts in Farnham. Ms Frost is following the example of fellow county councillor David Munro and South West Surrey MP Jeremy Hunt in criticising Orange for its proposals to site masts at a number of locations in south Farnham. “I am very concerned about masts generally and I think Orange need to rethinks its whole strategy,” said Ms Frost. “I don’t want to see lots of masts in Farnham and I would welcome the opportunity to talk with Orange and to ask them if they have got this right.” Ms Frost is concerned that Orange is not liaising with local residents over its proposals for the masts. “We don’t want to see masts all over the Bourne or Abbots Ride but it’s not just these places, it’s all over south Farnham which concerns me. I think that it is better for the people who live there if it is resolved sooner rather than later,” she said. Zofia Lovell, secretary of the Abbots Ride Residents’ Association, is grateful for the support of Ms Frost. “We agree with Pat Frost. We represent more than 60 households and adjacent roads who have been left in a state of ‘limbo’ by Orange who constantly avoid communicating their precise intentions to the people it most affects, causing stress and anguish,” she said. “The proposal by Orange to erect a 15-metre high mast at Waverley Lane and Tilford Road will adversely blight the approach to Farnham from Godalming and Tilford. Mobile phone masts will intrude on an area of great landscape value, as officially recognised by Waverley Borough Council. It is the intention of the Abbots Ride Residents’ Association to ensure that Orange is not allowed to ruin Farnham,” she added. Ms Lovell believes that all the anti-mast action groups in Farnham must work together if Orange ’s proposals are to be defeated. “We have been liaising with Ray Cuckow ( Manor Gardens ’ Mast Action Group) and Niki Hearnshaw (Bourne School Mast Action Group) and they have been supportive. The problem is everybody is fighting on their own and everyone is hoping that these issues will go somewhere else,” she explained. “What we need to do is to get Orange to come up with a proposal that is realistic. A realistic proposal is one that is as far way from homes and schools as possible.” This is a sentiment expressed by residents surveyed by the Manor Gardens ’ Mast Action Campaign Group. A key finding shows 97 per cent of residents preferring a single taller mast on high ground rather than the current proposal for 14 masts sited among homes and schools in Farnham. Ray Cuckow, joint campaign co-ordinator, said: “It is clear that the overwhelming majority prefer a single mast in the Bourne Woods. This is a sensible choice environmentally and minimises the very real safety fears. Orange should now withdraw their Manor Gardens and Bourne School proposals immediately.”

This is Staffordshire

12:00 - 24 June 2005

A Town's mayor is calling on residents to bombard MPs with their concerns over mobile phone masts. Stephen Ellis, who is also shadow portfolio holder for planning on Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, said shocking figures released by companies revealed up to 130,000 extra mobile phone masts could be needed across the UK.

He said that represented an average of 209 extra masts for every parliamentary constituency.

Mr Ellis said the figures had been triggered as mobile phone technology expands.

He said: "Many people are understandably concerned about the alleged health risks associated with mobile phone masts.

"Current planning laws allow masts less than 15m tall to be installed without needing any planning permission. This means masts could be put up in residential areas or near schools without people being made aware or allowed to comment.

"The government is currently reviewing planning regulations for masts. I believe all masts should be subject to planning permission like all other development proposals."

The Acceptable Risk Calculator

Here is something my son fell over in a Danish newspaper, checked out and mailed to me.

It really is worth checking out.

The YES men http://www.theyesmen.org are 2 guys who have made a documentary-film, where they pretend to represent big heartless corporations at industrial-seminars etc.

And they do a: "Identity correction" which they describe as:

"Honest people impersonate big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else."

They have invented an advanced joke in "the Acceptable Risk Calculator" which can tell corporations and governments if a project can get to be a "golden skeleton in the closet" based on risici involved, how many they expect will be killed and in which area the project will be launced in.

They use a a model the Bhopal catastrofe, but there are many similarities with the mobile communication industry bullies.

Specially read about their hilarious "Acceptable Risk Calculator" præsentation, during which they were applauded by a flock of corporate "yobs": http://www.dowethics.com/risk/launch.html

They have put the whole issue in a nutshell.

Best regards.

Agnes
http://www.mast-victims.org

--------

Agnes is right here, the WHO, not just WTO, weighs cost and benefit of risk, and decides money "benefits" or how many lives.

I'll add this page too as a good example of how desperate achieving common sense has become:

http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/iceage/index.shtml

Andy

Wakefield Today

CONCERNED residents will fight plans to boost the power of a mobile phone base station on top of a block of flats in Wakefield.

Operator Orange is proposing to upgrade its facilities on the roof of Gill Syke House, off Thornbury Road, to cater for third-generation services.

But residents and councillors are opposed to the move and fear the health implications of boosting the station’s signal to four times its current strength.

Gill Syke House resident Jean Abbott, 60, said: “It’s ridiculous. These antennas and microwave dishes are only four feet from my bedroom. We opposed this base station when they first proposed it, taking it to the courts, but we didn’t get anywhere.

“There’s already one microwave dish on there but now they are proposing four more.”

Mrs Abbott said she never wanted the base station on the roof, she said it was a “monstrosity”.

Coun Bill Sanders, representing Wakefield West, said: “I have been contacted by various people about this plan all concerned about the possible health risks. There are several schools in the vicinity and Mike Waddington of Cathedral High School has expressed his concerns about the plans.”

He is opposed to the plans along with fellow Wakefield West councillors John Colley and Tory group leader Mike Walker.

Coun Colley said there were already telephone masts dotted around Lupset and Thornes and believed this plan was unnecessary.

Mr Waddington, acting headteacher at Cathedral High School, on Thornes Road , said: “On behalf of all connected with our school, I feel the need to register concern regarding the proposed upgrade to the mobile phone base station.”

23 June 2005

Jun 22 2005

Ellesmere Port Pioneer

RESIDENTS are delighted plans for a mobile phone mast have been withdrawn.

More than 200 people in the Stanney Lane area of Ellesmere Port expressed opposition to the scheme.

But when it came to be discussed by borough planners, they were told it had been formally withdrawn.

Jonathan Edwards, for Vodafone, said: 'It may be we have to resubmit it at this location but, before this becomes the case, we will consider the alternatives with you.'

Eric Bowler, who helped organise a public meeting last month against the proposal, welcomed the withdrawal of the scheme.

But he said: 'Vodafone are looking for alternative sites so we've got to be vigilant and, if they come back here, we will oppose it again.'

Vodafone had wanted a 13.5m column with three antenna, an equipment cabinet and associated works near Underwood Drive.

But residents, worried about the health effects of having the mast near their homes and Stanney High, campaigned vigorously against it.

As well as the public meeting, they gathered a 103-name petition and a letter signed by 83 people. These were all sent to the council, with letters on behalf of 17 other homes.

A planning report, compiled before the application was withdrawn, said: 'Given the visual impact on the residential area, a refusal would be justified.'

It suggested Vodafone look at alternative sites, such as near Cheshire Oaks.

The council has refused a separate mast scheme. O2 wanted to put a 12.5m mast at Vauxhall Motors Boxing Club on Station Road, Little Sutton.