http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/Research/emf-emr/EMR-Reduces-Melatonin.htm

About Dr Neil Cherry (1946 -2003)
http://www.neilcherry.com/profile.php

Further research by Dr Neil Cherry
http://omega.twoday.net/files/neil_cherry_research


Dear Jane, I don't know if Dr. Cherry's web-site is still available, as he died (I believe not long after he wrote this paper. I consider this to be absolute proof of the effects of EMRF. Both the animals and the people suffered depletion of melatonin whilst the mast was on and an increase in production of the hormone whilst it was off.

The fact that this hormone is 1. essential for restful sleep; 2. triggers T cells which kill off mutated cells and 3. boosts the human immune system explains why people:-

1. get insomnia when emissions affect them.

2. Are liable to get leukaemia and cancer in proximity to emissions

3. are increasingly susceptible to infections after exposure to emissions.

The Swiss Government had done then exactly what our government is doing now - MADE LOTS OF MONEY FROM THE COMPANY RUNNING THE TRANSMITTER WHICH CAUSED ALL THE ILLNESS! After the scientific tests demanded by the victims proved the actual effects, the government capitulated and the transmitter was turned off (I believe in the 1990s). It had been there since 1938!!!! Panyas Zambellis gave me this information and I'm sure he has a whole lot more. Hope this is readable and useful. Best regards, Gill Lyden

--------

Dear Roger, Dr. Cherry's paper may be out of date, but surely, the fact that the scientific tests carried out in Schwarzenburg proved beyond any doubt that EMR damages health in a specific way is still relevant? Especially as it explains why people suffer from insomnia, are liable to get cancer or benign tumours and are more susceptible to infectious diseases?

Even a person like me, who has only a basic knowledge of medical matters can follow that reasoning. In my opinion, anyone reading Dr. Cherry's paper should be instantly enlightened regarding the dangers of EMR, and any medical expert; the NRPB; ICNIRP etc I who ignores this and does not act upon I consider to be criminally irresponsible.

Dr. Cherry's evidence is fairly recent - 1990s. The victims of Schwarzenburg suffered from 1938 until then before scientific tests were carried out.

There is also proof from the Pandora document, when the Russians used their knowledge of the sickening effects of EMR upon their workers in that field (found in the 1950s!!!) to bombard the American Embassy during the 60s and 70s and caused the staff there to suffer the usual symptoms and the Ambassador to die of a leukaemia like illness and many other members of staff to have '40% raised white bloodcell count'! The American government knew about these effects yet they allowed the bombardment and suffering to continue in order to see the results, paying 'compensation' to those who had suffered. Some compensation!

It has already been proved that these effects are factual, and we/Government should not ignore the evidence. What is the use of carrying out tests over and over again? Mast Sanity has provided evidence of other tests which prove damage to animal DNA. Why can we not get Government to carry out tests on all the people who are suffering in their own homes? Instead of wasting time on laboratory tests when there is already enough evidence to warrant a hold being put upon proliferation of masts - AND IT IS BEING IGNORED! Look at the list of further proof at then end of Cherry's document - and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

--------

Gill and all,

1. The relations Ca+2 ions - melatonin - T-cells is a little bit more complex: In some more details: Mutated cells may escape apoptosis (planned death for too heavy DNA damage) for RFR causes also expression of genes coding for heat shock proteins (hsp genes): These hsp proteins may be considered as miniscaffolds helping cell's proteins to function at high temps, pollution, infection, radiation, etc, thus allowing cells whose protooncogenes' (taking part in normal cell division) DNA is mutated to cause enhanced gene expression, i. e. cell sivisions, and may get further mutations until loss of control of cell division, then a cancer cell clone emerges. Now if tumour suppressor genes (mainly p53) are not hurt themselves, they would function in probably T cells to destroy developing cancer. If they have got mutations themselves, they may fail to restrain the emerging cancerous clone. Incidentally if p53 gene is hurt until not functioning, no irradiations and chemptherapy would help that unlucky individual.

2. You are perfectly right. Exposed people that have low melatonin suffer twice, for melatonin is also an excellent free radicals scavenger. So such people are less protected and thus, more vulnerable to get cancer.

The familiar symptomes people experience around masts have been found statistically significant by an excellent study of Santini et al (2003). He sent me his paper and I saw it in detail.

As for the Schwarzenburg case let me citate Neil (Cherry on safe exposure levels, 2000): "Experimentation is not always possible but where it is, it is very powerful. For example, in the Schwarzenburg Study, involving a shortwave radio tower, a significant dose-response relationship for sleep disturbance was observed. Confirmation of cause and effect came from turning the transmissions off for 3 days without notifying the residents. Sleep quality improved significantly (p<0.001), with a delay of about one day, even in the group with the lowest exposure (Group C). This shows that even though they experienced the lowest exposure, the RF signal was still interfering with their brains and their sleep. When the transmission was turned off permanently, measured human melatonin levels rose significantly (Prof. Theo Abelin Pers. Comm.). This is a biological mechanism but it was identified after the assessment of cause and effect was concluded."

Neil also analyzes in same article the Moscow embassy case in very detail. So Neil every time when been asked about safe level, always answered: "ZERO"...

As for low frequencies' damage, it may be due to inherent or modulated frequencies that match natural brain's and cause damage. For example: TETRA 4 slots emisions pulse lasts for ~57 milliseconds, now, divide 1000 ms by 57 ms you get ~ 17 Hz, that matches natural neural signal enhancing calcium efflux (16 Hz), then calcium goes out, melatonin goes down, etc etc. Some modulated or inherent frequencies, such as 4.5 Hz may cause brain non function or paranoid reactions, at 6.6 Hz depression or suicidal, at 11 Hz mania or rage, and 25 Hz may cause severe vision problems up to blindness, and/or heart attack... Such data was obtained during development of psychotronic weapons in the EAST and in the WEST.

Enough depressing information for one sunny morning.

Dr. Zamir Shalita

--------

Cancer Clusters in Vicinity to Cell-Phone Transmitter Stations
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/580224/

PETER WALSH

09 April 2005 13:57

Concerns about mobile phone masts and how close they are to homes and schools has emerged as a key election issue as the battle for the Norwich North seat hots up.

Dr Ian Gibson, who is seeking re-election as the Norwich North MP, has been an outspoken supporter of the Evening News's Put Masts On Hold campaign since it was launched in 2000.

But Dr Gibson, who helped bring world mast expert Sir William Stewart to the city for a debate on masts, has a pretender to his mast campaigning throne in the shape of Tory Parliamentary candidate James Tumbridge.

"Because people are concerned about where masts go, we're going to request that all masts require planning permission and that means we all have a say about where masts go," said Mr Tumbridge.

The Tories' five-point plan also states that local authorities should be able to take health concerns into account and requires phone operators to show the development does not result in "unacceptable damage to visual amenity" or harm environmentally sensitive areas.

Under Conservative policy, councils would also be required to draw up their own supplementary planning guidance to ensure consistency as part of the policy, which also calls for a single process for deciding masts.

"As a patent lawyer, I have spent a great deal of time looking at mobile telecommunication technology in the past year," said Mr Tumbridge, who also pledged to look at effects of handsets on health.

"Following recent talks with Dr Richard Gitlin, a US expert in mobile phone technology, I know that handsets rather than masts are the greatest concern. I will therefore press for research into both masts and handsets if I am elected.

"The Evening News is right to keep this issue in the news — I hope the people of Norwich have the chance to know who is really offering a policy for our benefit."

The Evening News is campaigning against the installation of masts near homes and schools until it is proved they are safe.

Dr Gibson, who has helped hundreds of campaigners fight mast applications near to homes and schools, said he was unperturbed by Mr Tumbridge's Tory challenge.

"His opportunism knows no bounds, poor desperate chap," said Dr Gibson. "Jumping on the bandwagon is one thing, but working over a long period trying to change Government policy is another."

Dr Gibson said it was only now that the campaign against mobile phone masts was starting to have an effect that the "opportunistic semi-politician" had shown an interest. "My advice to him would be don't give up the day job," said Dr Gibson.

Are you fighting plans to put up a mast near your home? Call Alasdair McGregor at the Evening News on (01603) 772443 or e-mail al.mcgregor@archant.co.uk

Apr 8 2005

By Clare Casey

PROTESTERS took to the streets over plans for a third phone mast in a conservation area.

They were armed with "Are you listening Lambeth?" banners and a 500-strong petition calling for two O2 masts in Nevena Court, Brixton, to be removed and proposals for a third to be quashed.

Clare Macdonald, of Appach Road, 40, said: "Not only are they a complete eyesore that loom over our homes but they are a grave health risk.

"They don't even have planning permission for one of them."

Phone giant O2 put up the 3m masts on a three-storey block of private flats at the corner of Effra Road and Brixton Water Lane more than a year ago - but it only had permission for one. T-Mobile now wants to share the site and add a third, which has sparked fresh fury among residents.

Henrietta Mayhew, 40, of Appach Road, said: "I have a 20-month-old and a baby and every time I look up at the masts I worry about what they are doing to their health."

Councillor Toren Smith has joined the fight.

He said: "These masts are tall and extremely bulky with 'branches' coming off them - they are a terrible intrusion."

A Lambeth council spokeswoman confirmed one of the masts had been erected without permission.

She added: "We have spoken to O2 about this and they will co-operate by applying for retrospective planning permission.

"As with every application, the council will then consider public opinion before a decision is made."

A spokesman for O2 said he was unaware the company did not have permission for both of them.

He said: "I doubt whether the masts will be removed but I would be happy to meet with residents to allay their fears.

"We use plastic casing that can be made to look like a chimney and that could be an option here."

A spokesman for T-Mobile confirmed it had recently submitted a plan to the council for the shared site.

He said: "We sympathise with residents but, based on 40 years of research, we strongly believe the masts present no health risks."

by DAVID MACAULAY

12:00 - 08 April 2005

A leading MP has praised an Express & Echo campaign as he received a petition against a phone mast planned for the heart of a residential part of Exeter. Plans by Vodafone for the transmitter in Heavitree Road prompted over 700 city residents to sign the petition, which was set up by the Echo.

The antenna would be near several schools and a nursery, and directly outside the Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital's maternity unit.

The Echo is campaigning to find a more suitable site and to address health fears over mast emissions.

Richard Spring, the vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Mobile Communications, has praised the campaign.

He was behind a Private Members' Bill to bring in new controls on masts.

The West Suffolk MP will pass the petition to the five other committee members. He said it was time the Government gave more control on phone mast bids to local communities and councils.

"This is a matter of people power," he said. "The Government will have to listen to what people are saying.

"I absolutely applaud the Echo for what it is doing because there are more and more of these campaigns and anti-mast groups, and clearly in the Commons now there is very real concern."

Mr Spring's Bill would have allowed councils to consider the health implications of mobile phone masts before passing applications, while making all masts subject to planning control.

At present those under 15 metres high do not require permission.

But the Bill ran out of Parliamentary time last year.

A copy of the petition was last month presented to officials at Vodafone's head office.

The firm insists the Heavitree site is the only one suitable for the mast.

It says that all emissions from its mobile phone masts fall within strict Government guidelines

by Heather Slater

Apr 8, 2005, 08:34

Campaigners against mobile phone masts are preparing for a new battle after it was revealed that yet another could be on its way to Lichfield.

They are already fighting plans for a 24-metre high Vodafone mast in Eastern Avenue - and now Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd is considering installing one at a nearby business park.

Hutchinson 3G has notified Lichfield District Council of its intention but has not yet submitted a formal planning application.

The 20-metre mast would be on the Walter Tipper site in Britannia Enterprise Park, Europa Way.

Campaigners from Stowe Concerned Residents Against Masts are still waiting to find out if a mast proposed for Eastern Avenue, close to Charnwood Primary School, is given the go-ahead.

They fear too many masts are springing up in Lichfield and fear they are a potential health hazard, particularly to children.

Chairman David Brain said he had not seen the latest plans by Hutchinson 3G but he is concerned about them.

"Why is there a need for so many of these masts. Why are they being foisted upon us?" he said.

"There is good mobile phone coverage in Lichfield for all services, the vast majority of people don't want the things.

"The key thing next is whether or not the Vodafone mast in Eastern Avenue goes to the planning committee. I am hoping they will knock it on the head and decide they are wasting their time."

Alan Begley, from the Boley Park Action Group, successfully fought plans for a mast near Darnford Park in north Lichfield earlier this year.

He was also concerned by the news of the latest mast. "We seem to be getting a hell of a lot of proposals at the moment for masts which is quite worrying," he said.

Prospective independent county councillor John Walker said: "The mobile phone companies seem to be grouping the masts all together in this area but the people won't put up with this, it is not something we want on our back doorstep."

THE fourth planning application for a telecommunications mast and base station on land at Belvedere and Caldervale Sports Club at Holden Road, Reedley, is up for discussion by Pendle Council's Brierfield and Reedley Committee on Tuesday.

The application is for a 17.5m monopole mast with six antennae, three cabinets, associated equipment and a compound to be sited between the two rugby pitches.

The telecom company, O2 (UK) Ltd, plans to replace two of the existing three floodlight columns, which stand on a banking between the sports pitches, and utilise the monopole to take the floodlights at their current height, 15m.

The application, the third by O2, has met with a storm of protests, despite the company having submitted a "certificate of compliance with accepted standards of safety in respect of radio frequency emissions" with its application.

More than 80 letters of protest have been received by Pendle's planning department together with a petition containing 201 signatures.

Between them they list 38 different points of objection, including reference to the Stewart report stating children should not be exposed to mobile phone microwaves, other health issues, the high visibility of the mast, closeness to homes, possibility of vandalism, intrusion into the landscape, and the fact that mobile phone masts should not be put on sports fields used by children.

Planning officer Kathryn Hewertson has recommended refusal on planning grounds that "the proposed mast by virtue of its size, appearance and bulk would represent an alien, intrusive and incongruous feature in the landscape close to a number of public vantage points and residential properties to the detriment of visual and residential amenity".

The telecom company says there is a need for better telecommunications coverage in the Reedley/North Burnley area.

08 April 2005

Burnley express

FURIOUS families are protesting against plans to site a second mobile phone mast near their homes.

More than 100 people in the York Avenue and Dene Terrace areas of Jarrow have signed a petition objecting to the controversial proposal.

They were still reeling from being told mobile phone company Orange has been given permission to put up a mast when they heard rival firm Vodafone is planning another. Now the residents have redoubled their efforts to stop the second mast going ahead.

"I'm really disappointed with the whole situation," said Michael Fay, of Dene Terrace. "People living around here really are horrified. "These things are an eyesore and it makes me angry that the decision has been made by the Secretary of State, who has no interest in the area and has probably never even visited it. "We have received lots of support not only from local residents, but also from people who use the area every day and who are totally opposed to plans to put up another mast."

Neighbour Mary Harrison, 71, added: "I think it's appalling. They only put one up a couple of weeks ago, and now there's going to be another one. "Not only are they unsightly, but it's also suspected they can cause damage to people's health. It's disgusting this is happening again."

South Tyneside Council confirmed the reason that two masts are to be sited so close together is because both Orange and Vodafone want to serve the surrounding area. "The preference is to put masts in industrial areas," said a spokesman. "However, because of the location of industrial areas, they're not always certain to get coverage. "Therefore mobile phone companies often need to put their masts in non-industrial or residential areas, where they use slimmer masts.

"The council has to make a judgement on the siting and appearance of mobile phone masts, and consider the visual impact on surrounding areas. "In terms of health concerns, Government guidance states that if a proposed mast meets the international health safety guidelines, local authorities in processing applications should not consider the health effects further." Current laws state that planning officials cannot block applications on the grounds of health and safety alone.

National campaign group Mast Sanity gave advice to those protesting to object plans as soon as possible. It also urged nearby schools and nurseries to get involved, which can lend more weight to an argument.

People can contact Mast Sanity by calling (08704) 322 377 between 1pm and 8pm from Tuesday to Friday. You can also log on to the website http://www.mastsanity.org

By CHRIS ROBINSON

08 April 2005

South Tyneside (Shields Gazette)

Bromley Council has recently been on the receiving end of some criticism both directly and in the local press about the way we have been dealing with mobile phone masts.

I, together with all my colleagues, fully appreciate the impact such masts can have on the amenity and feelings of local people. The planning rules and guidance issued by central government are however extremely complicated and undoubtedly confusing; in short they are a mess and I will do my best to explain.

"There are three categories of procedure: "

1. Those that require planning permission; these are dealt with on their planning merits, local residents are consulted and their views taken into account. Only if amenity is not harmed and they are within government safety guidelines do the council contemplate granting them. All too often the council, having refused them, are overruled by government inspectors on appeal.

2. Those that are ‘permitted development’ but require ‘prior approval’ over siting and design. Again local residents are consulted and the above comments apply.

3. Those that are of an allegedly ‘minor nature’ and these do not require council permission. Consultation is not undertaken by the council but this is left to the telecommunications operator.

The recent local controversy concerning two masts with six antennae being erected on the shops/flats in Westmoreland Place falls into the latter category. Unfortunately, the message seems to have been widely circulated in the areas that in some way the council is at fault or is to blame.

For this type of mast, the facts are clear. No application has to be submitted to the council, the council is therefore not in a position to notify local residents, no council consent is required and there is no right of appeal.

The council can only withdraw the ‘permitted development’ entitlement in specified exceptional circumstances which rarely apply.

I do sympathise with local residents but the problem does not lie at the council's door; it is about time the government and telecommunications operators got their act together and started engaging the public.

For my part I will be pressing the government to alter the legislation to bring all such matters under planning control so that the public can be properly consulted.

Councillor George Taylor, Portfolio Holder for the Environment (Bromley Council)

10:06am Friday 8th April 2005

We all do a lot of moaning about mast siting, the poor planning legislation and bias that the Government shows towards mobile operators, but rarely do we get an opportunity to tell politicians that their policies stink by actually voting them out of office. In the UK we get this chance on May 5th 2005! If you have complained about TETRA or 3G masts in your area being put up with scant regard to your views, how can you in all good conscience go and vote for Blair or his supporters - or any other pro-mast politician, when you have the chance to vote against them? You can't!

Also it is no good voting for the candidate who came third last time, since you are wasting your vote! If you want to make a difference VOTE TACTICALLY against the Labour MP (or other pro-mast politician), by voting for the candidate who was runner-up last time. For those whose best bet to beat one of Tony's Cronies is a Tory you'll have to swallow hard since the Tories have promised to tighten up mast planning regulations and Labour haven't, so be brave and vote Tory this time or shut up about the mast that Vodafone or O2 just put up after the 56 day limit expired! The Lib-Dems have said that they will also tighten up legislation, given the opportunity! For your constituency and the best candidate to vote for, see the web address below.

As for John "Two Jags" Prescott, the man behind the ineffectual "ODPM" who don't allow Health concerns to be taken into account in mast planning, he is the man who deserves to be out of his job as Deputy PM and as an MP! If you have any friends or relatives in the east of Hull, please, please, persuade them to vote Lib Dem to make him lose his seat! He deserves it for the suffering he has allowed to continue.

For further information on Tactical Voting, please go to our friend's website at http://tacticalvoting.net - that is Tactical Voting dot Net! You could even download a poster to print and put up in your car or house window.

Don't take things lying down - fight back! And please, please ask your friends to vote tactically too, if it will put more anti-mast MPs into Parliament!

HAM / No Masts

--------

We are sickened by Hull East's John Prescott's hopelessness in tackling the complex issues around Telephone Mast Planning. He as Deputy Prime Minister has allowed masts to be put up near our schools and by our homes, and when it came to upholding our Human Rights against the Telephone Operators he withdrew his case in the High Court. He also buried any tightening of legislation as the General Election was announced.

We are encouraging people to tactically vote against him in the General Election. See the campaign site at http://tacticalvoting.net

This is normal people speaking out against a useless individual who has done nothing to counter the power of the Telecoms companies.

We encourage everyone to display our "2 Jags - No Clue" poster around Hull and encourage anyone they know in his constituency to vote Lib Dem to get rid of him. This is because, in Hull East, the Lib Dems are in the best position to beat Prescott out of all the other candidates from the 2001 results. We note that at least one Hull person brands him a useless MP, so we would be doing the people of East Hull a BIG FAVOUR.

We further encourage people in other constituencies to Tactically Vote Against Blair's Cronies. See who they recommend at http://tacticalvoting.net .

Help Put Mast Planning on the Election Map

No Masts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1453314,00.html


From Karen Barratt