Welcome to http://www.mast-victims.org

This is a website dedicated to a international community of people suffering adverse health effects from masts and antennas in the vicinity of their homes.

The purpose of this website is to bring together people from all over the world that have become victims of insensitive mast and antenna siting. Telecommunications companies are drowning us in radiation and they are in a state of complete denial on whether these masts and antennas have any negative health impact on the population. Credible scientific research shows that especially mobile phone mast radiation is harmful and people are suffering. Some have even been forced to abandon their homes after becoming ill from radiation.

This has got to change. So far only few people have come forward against the telecommunication industry and those who have deserve to be known and heard.

http://www.mast-victims.org is built as an online community where people living under the threat of masts and antennas can create journals and share their thoughts.



"FORWARD"
by G J Hyland
Associate Fellow
Department of Physics
University of Warwick*, UK
Executive Member
International Institute of Biophysics*
Neuss-Holzheim, Germany

The views expressed below are those of the author, and
do not necessarily represent those of the Institutions with which he is affiliated.

I fully commend the initiative to establish a Website dedicated to the victims of microwave radiation from mobile telecommunication Base-stations (Cell towers). Since the advent of this technology, an ever-increasing number of people in many different countries have been reporting a similar array of adverse health symptoms of a predominantly neurological kind, such as sleep disturbance, headache, inability to focus and concentrate, impaired memory, confusion, and sensation of pressure in the head. The severity of these symptoms displays a wide range of subjective variation, ranging from mild discomfort to great distress - so great, in some cases, that those affected have been forced to sell their houses at financial loss and move to areas that are less electromagnetically polluted in this way.

This is a totally unacceptable state of affairs, which arguably contravenes the Human Right Act, and which, in many cases, has had a quite devastating effect on the families involved. Despite the existence of many well-organised and extremely well-informed local citizen groups, there is an identifiable need for a mechanism of global communication and cooperation whereby the experiences of those who have been affected can be pooled and shared, not only to provide a robust defence against the 'establishment' view that this technology is harmless, but also, hopefully, to identify and focus future epidemiological research requirements; this Website makes a valuable and much needed contribution to realising this important goal.

Sadly, people cannot rely on the protection of their governments in this field of environmental pollution, since governments freely admit to a vested interest in continuing to promote the growth of mobile telephony. In the UK, for example, the Government netted £22.5 Billion from the auction of the 3G licences, whilst the annual revenue from mobile telephony is currently around £1 5Billion; clearly, it is in governments interests not to find any problems with this bounteous technology. Accordingly, we have, in the UK, the obscene spectacle of the government body responsible for protecting the public from adverse effects of electromagnetic exposure (the National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB) being engaged by the mobile phone industry to speak at meetings in support of the safety of their products: the industry knows that it will not be disappointed.

Neither can the public expect an unbiased hearing either in Public Inquiries or in the Civil Courts. For the whole procedure is biased in favour of the Industry, since a judgement against the phone companies would have potentially serious consequences not only for the continued, effectively unregulated expansion of mobile telecommunications, but also, more importantly, on government revenue - a situation that will not be allowed to happen, as has repeatedly been demonstrated.

Given their experience with official cover-ups in the case of BSE/CJD - with initial assurances of no risk and subsequent revelations of cover-ups - the public is now understandably wary of safety assurances from 'official' scientific sources in the case of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Quite justifiably, the public remains sceptical of attempts by governments and the mobile phone industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests, often under the brokerage of the very statutory regulatory bodies (such as the NRPB in the UK) whose function it supposedly is to ensure that the health and well-being of the public is not compromised by electromagnetic exposure. This scepticism is enhanced when those with views contrary to the 'official' perceived wisdom are treated as mavericks who, at worst, should be silenced, or, at best, studiously ignored.

Official assurances of safety in the case of exposure to the microwave radiation used in mobile telecommunications is based on the fact that the levels of emission in publicly accessible areas in the vicinity of Base-stations are thousands of times lower than the levels stipulated in the safety guidelines published by the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The nonsense of being content with such compliance is that these guidelines protect against what is here not actually a hazard - namely getting overheated; the intensity of the radiation is simply far too low for this to occur. At the same time, however, these guidelines neglect the most discriminating feature of all, namely the 'aliveness' of those exposed. When (and only when) alive, the body supports a number of electrical bio-rhythms characterised by different frequencies; perhaps the most familiar are those associated with the activity of the brain and the heart. These rhythms are intimately connected with biological functionality, some being involved in maintaining the delicate balance of biochemicals essential to health, whilst others play a role in the transmission of biological information essential to maintaining well-being.

The fact that the frequencies of some of these bio-rhythms are close to those that characterise the mobile telephony signals makes these electrical rhythms vulnerable to non-thermal electromagnetic interference (just as can occur in the case of radio reception), whereby the integrity of these bioelectrical rhythms can be undermined, and, in turn, health adversely affected - even when the signals are too weak to be able to cause any heating. Thus the potential of the radiation to exert adverse effects arises not because it does any actual material damage, but rather because it interferes with bio-functionality - particularly, in would appear, with natural processes that are intended to afford protection against the development of disease.

It is precisely because of the possibility of a similar deleterious electromagnetic interference between mobile phone signals and electronic control systems that the use of mobile phones is prohibited on aircraft: the prohibition is not thermally driven. Our internal, biological electrical control systems are similarly vulnerable.

It should be particularly emphasised that the repercussion of these electromagnetic sensitivities on the health of those exposed varies from person to person, according to their physiological/neurological/genetic predispositions at the time of exposure. Thus - just as in an epidemic - not everyone is equally affected. Indeed, the health of many people appears (at least up to now) not to be affected at all by exposure to the signals from a Base-station. This situation is, of course, exploited by those with a vested interest in not wishing to find any problems, and is cited in support of their claim that 'there are no established adverse health effects of exposure to these signals'. On the other hand, there are people that are extremely electro-sensitive, who can become very badly affected.

It is a gross scandal that, in the absence of adequate testing to ascertain the extent to which it might be harmful, mobile telecommunication technology has been allowed to be rolled out (and continues so to be) in an essentially unregulated way that results in the involuntary exposure of the majority of the population - a situation that does not obtain in the case of a new drug or foodstuff, which, by contrast, are subject to quite rigorous testing before being licensed. In the case of exposure to mobile telecommunication signals, the 'establishment' view is that if the signals do not heat you, they cannot harm you. In attempts to strengthen this position, every effort is made to rubbish any experimental findings that might suggest otherwise, whilst results that do not pose a threat to safety are uncritically accepted. What, in their view, is considered as an absence of proof of harm is erroneously, but conveniently, taken as proof of absence of harm.

It is impossible to continue to responsibly support this stance - unless one is prepared to dismiss the reports of ill-health as purely psychosomatic - given (i) what is now known about the biological effects that mobile telecommunications signals have, in particular effects allied to their shapes and repeat patterns (which differ between GSM, TETRA & UMTS/3G), and (ii) the fact that since the reported adverse health effects cannot be due to overheating (dependent on intensity) they can only be due to non-thermal interference against which the current safety guidelines offer absolutely no protection. Whilst, in some cases, a psychosomatic element can indeed be a confounding factor, the striking consistency between the nature of the symptoms reported by many people in different countries cannot be ignored - particularly when many of the symptoms were initially discovered under 'blind' conditions - i.e. those affected did not become aware of the presence of a Base-station in their locality until after they experienced ill-health. Furthermore, the consistency between the nature of the reported symptoms and the kinds of non-thermal effects that the signals are known, from laboratory experimentation, to provoke is a compelling reason to take these reports of ill-health seriously, rather than peremptorily dismissing them, as does the 'establishment'.

Given the experience of adverse health reactions provoked by exposure to GSM signals, it is even more irresponsible that TETRA and UMTS were ever allowed to be rolled-out with absolutely no investigations to ascertain whether their particular signals might provoke adverse health reactions in some people.

There is now accumulating evidence that supports the reality of adverse non-thermal influences of the radiation from all kinds of Base-stations. In the case of exposure to GSM, particular mention should be made of the significantly elevated incidence of cancer that correlates with proximity and duration of Base-station exposure found in a recently published study in Bavaria [1], and of adverse effects on well-being and sleep found in two recent Austrian studies not yet published [2]. In the case of exposure to UMTS, many of the symptoms found under controlled conditions in the Dutch TNO laboratory study [3] are precisely the same as some of those reported by members of the public exposed to commercial UMTS Base-stations, endorsing the suspicion that their signals are not as benign as had been assumed. In the case of TETRA, on the other hand, the furore that its roll-out provoked in the UK has resulted in a belated programme of experimentation; this is still in progress, but, from the way it has been designed and conducted, is unlikely to corroborate earlier work suggesting that these particular signals could well affect the integrity of the nervous system.

The commonality of many of the symptoms reported under exposure to the microwave emissions from GSM, TETRA and UTMS Base-stations, despite the quite significant differences between their signals, suggests, however, that non-thermal influences of the kind discussed above cannot be the whole story, and that a more general non-thermal influence of the radiation (which still remains to be identified) must also be at work; one possibility could be that the electromagnetic vector potential is involved in some way.

This Website makes a valuable contribution to the on-going debate over the safety of mobile telecommunications technology by affording a mechanism whereby reports of ill-health attributed to exposure to the signals emitted by Base-stations of all kinds can be registered and recorded. This will permit the possibility of a more systematic study of correlations between reported symptoms of ill-health and exposure conditions than is currently possible, which will hopefully help focus the direction of future research.

1. H. Eger et al. Einfluss der räumlichen Nähe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz, Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 17, 326-332 (2004).

2. G. Oberfeld, H. Schimke & G. Bernatzky; H. Leitgeb et al.

3. TNO-report: FEL -03-C148, 2003. Effects of Global Communication system radio-frequency fields on Well Being and Cognitive Functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints.

Mast-Victims.org - A website dedicated to a international community of people suffering adverse health effects from cellphone masts in the vicinity of their homes.

http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=forward


Informant: Christine Kind

--------

http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=dresden&

Volunteers needed for scientific study in Dresden, Germany

Created: 19 May 2005
Updated May 20:

Mrs. Christine Kind is lending her radiation contaminated house in Dresden, Germany, to a scientific study into the effects of mobile phone masts. The study will be controlled by trusted! and respected scientists. The 4 volunteers needed for this study must be between 18 and 35 years of age and with good health condition. Volunteers must spend from 8 to 14 days in the house.

If you would like to volunteer or want to know more about the study, please send an email to: study@mast-victims.org

5. Mai 2005

Im November 1998 zogen wir (noch freudig) in unser neu erbautes Haus ein, ab Februar 1999 begann der Leidensweg meines Lebensgefährten Herrn Hübner. Es ging los mit Allergien, Bluthochdruck, körperlichen Zusammenbrüchen, er war ständig krank. Im Dezember 2003 und Februar 2004 bildeten Allergieschocks den Höhepunkt.

Seit wir im Haus wohnen wurde er nachts plötzlich wach, war schweißgebadet und hatte regelrechte „Zustände“. Mit den Worten „ich halts hier nicht aus“ verzog er sich zum Schlafen in den Keller, dort stand eine alte Couch. Ehrlich gesagt, ich dachte der spinnt ein bisschen, konnte mir das nicht erklären.

Wie Sie sich denken können suchten wir nach der Ursache, es lag nahe, dass seine Erkrankungen mit dem Haus zu tun hatten. Nichts zu finden, wir hatten biologisch gebaut.

Meine ständigen Erkältungen, Augenentzündungen, Mandelentzündungen, etc. schob ich immer auf Stress.

Meine Eltern wohnen hinter unserem Haus, mein Vater erhielt im Februar 2002 die Diagnose Prostatakrebs mit Knochenmetastasen. Nicht so schlimm im Alter von über 71 Jahren dachte ich mir, mein Großvater wurde 92 mit dieser Krankheit. Aber anders bei meinem Vater, der PSA-Wert verdoppelte sich fast mit jedem Monat. Der Krebs wurde immer schneller, keine Chemo konnte ihn stoppen, im Dezember 2003 verstarb er.

Im März 2004 suchten wir wieder nach der Ursache für die Erkrankungen meines Lebensgefährten und erfuhren von einem unserer Gemeinderäte, dass wir an einem Mobilfunksender wohnen. Wir wussten nichts davon, er ist an unserem Feuerwehrturm angebracht und kaum sichtbar.

Nun holte ich mir alle Informationen die ich kriegen konnte und war geschockt auf was ich da gestoßen bin. Permanente Mikrowellenbestrahlung, 24 Stunden. So ließ ich Messungen für über 1.000.- Euro im Haus durchführen, im Schlafzimmer hatten wir 112 µW/m². Der biologische Grenzwert liegt bei 1 µW/m², der gesetzliche bei 4.814.324 µW/m². Wie würde es uns bei einer Strahlung von 4.000.000 µW/m², noch unter dem gesetzlichen Grenzwert, gehen? Da wären wir alle schon tot!

Und wir haben nicht nur einen Sender im Wohngebiet, nein zwei! Nun wollte ich wissen wie es denn unseren Nachbarn geht und ich machte eine Umfrage. Diese sehen Sie unten. Es geht ihnen teilweise schlechter als uns. Einige leiden ganz furchtbar unter der Strahlung. Sie können gerne mit den Menschen sprechen. Obwohl die Grenzwerte eingehalten sind.

Im März/April 2004 hatte ich keinen Stress, war im Urlaub und trotzdem ständig kränkelig. Ich ging zum Arzt, ließ ein Blutbild erstellen und der Arzt riet mir daraufhin nicht mehr im Schlafzimmer zu schlafen, auch meine 5-jährige Tochter wäre angeschlagen, nur eine Frage der Zeit wann sie krank wird. So zogen wir zu ihrem Papa in den Keller. Und Sie werden es nicht glauben, seit wir im Keller schlafen, uns kaum mehr in den vorderen Bereichen des Hauses aufhalten und den Garten meiden sind wir alle gesund, keine Beschwerden mehr.

Meine Blutwerte haben sich leider immer noch nicht erholt, ich habe ein Blutbild wie ein Krebskranker. Und nicht nur ich, 2 weitere dieser speziellen Blutwerte aus unserem Viertel liegen mir vor, alle ähnlich schlecht. Ich habe schon einiges versucht diese Werte zu verbessern, leider vergeblich. Jetzt beginne ich mit einer neuen Therapie...Wahrscheinlich wird alles erst besser wenn wir hinter einer Wand aus Hasendraht wohnen, dem Strahlenschutzgitter für ca. 8.000.- Euro. Armes Deutschland... Keine Lebensqualität mehr, aber telefonieren können wir sogar im Keller. Sollte der Ausbau der Mobilfunksender fortgeführt werden, müssen wir wohl bald tiefer graben, Glück wer noch einen alten Bunker auf dem Grundstück hat.

Ich schaffte mir ein Messgerät an, im Schlafzimmer haben wir in der Zwischenzeit über 2.000 µW/m², auch im Kinderzimmer. Da würde ich nicht einmal unseren Hund schlafen lassen.

Im September 2004 mussten wir meine Mutter ins Krankenhaus einweisen lassen, ihr Blutdruck ging hoch auf über 200/128. Sie blieb 5 Tage im Klinikum Bogenhausen, dort keine Beschwerden, der Blutdruck blieb normal. Mein Messgerät zeigte an, dass ihr Krankenzimmer frei von Strahlung ist. In ihrem Schlafzimmer messe ich im Bett über 100 µW/m². Das Bett meines Vaters war noch schlimmer verstrahlt. Kaum zu Hause fing der Blutdruck wieder an sich zu bewegen, aber nicht nur nach oben, auch nach unten, da hatte sie dann nur noch einen Puls von 40. Nachdem wir die ganze Front ihres Schlafzimmers mit einem Swiss Shield Vorhang zum Masten hin abschirmen, waren die Beschwerden weg.

Ich wehre mich gegen diese Zwangsbestrahlung, werde Vodafone verklagen und habe einen Bauantrag für ein Strahlenschutzgitter (21 x 7,55 m) gestellt. Dieser wurde mir genehmigt, werde ihn diesen Sommer errichten lassen. Tja, um mir einen Sender vor die Nase zu setzen brauchen die Mobilfunkbetreiber keine Genehmigung...

Die Grenzwerte sind zu hoch, ich verlange dass auf meinem Grundstück nicht mehr als 1µW/m² zu messen ist, wir gesund in unserem Haus wohnen und wieder aus dem Keller ins Schlafzimmer ziehen können. Vor allem meine Tochter will wieder in ihr Zimmer.

Ich weiß dass es beim Mobilfunk um sehr viel Geld geht, aber die Mobilfunkbetreiber müssen durch die Regierung gezwungen werden die gepulste Strahlung abzustellen und mit anderen Technologien arbeiten. Das ist sicher möglich.

Aber nicht nur Mobilfunksender bestrahlen uns permanent, wo keine Sender sind übernehmen das DECT-Telefone, Wireless-Lan und was es da noch so alles gibt. Ich habe in Wohnungen Werte von über 1.000 µW/m² gemessen, obwohl in der Wohnung keines der funkenden Geräte stand. Ganze Wohnblocks sind verseucht, es funkt permanent durch die Wände. Einige merken nichts, andere werden richtig krank, Schlafstörungen sind normal. Nach entfernen der DECT-Telefone berichten mir die Leute, dass Kopfschmerzen, Migräne und Schlafstörungen weg sind.

Es muss alles getan werden damit wir wieder ein normales Leben ohne Zwangsbestrahlung führen können und die Industrie gezwungen wird eine andere Technologie zu benutzen.

Wussten Sie dass alle Handys bei einer Strahlung von 0,265 µW/m² funktionieren?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

M. B.


Auswertung der Umfrage vom 3. April 2004

Es wurden Anwohner der Mobilfunkmasten Feuerwehrturm und Merowingerstraße 14 befragt. 46 Bögen wurden abgegeben.

Beschwerden

Allergische Reaktionen 17 / 36,96 %

Kopfschmerzen und Migräne 26 / 56,52 %

Chronische Erschöpfung 22 / 47,83 %

Innere Unruhe 27 / 58,70 %

Schlaflosigkeit oder Tagesmüdigkeit 43 / 93,48 %

Ohrgeräusche 27 / 58,70 %

Infarktanfälligkeit 3 / 6,52 %

Nerven- und Weichteilschmerzen, die mit üblichen Ursachen nicht erklärlich sind 13 / 28,26 %

Lern-, Konzentrations- und Verhaltensstörungen bei Kindern (z.B. Hyperaktivität) 5 / 10,87 %

Blutdruckentgleisungen, die medikamentös immer schwerer zu beeinflussen sind 12 / 26,09 %

Herzrhythmusstörungen 12 / 26,09 %

Krebserkrankungen wie Leukämie und Hirntumore 4 / 8,70 %

Hirndegenerative Erkrankungen (z.B. Morbus Alzheimer) und Epilepsie 1 / 2,17 %

Benützen Sie in ihrer Wohnung ein Schurlostelefon nach DECT-Standard? 23 / 50,00%

Bürgerinitiative Mobilfunk Kirchheim, Marianne Buchmann, Kreuzstraße 6, 85551 Kirchheim, Tel. 089/9019903-0, Fax -1


Aus: Elektrosmognews vom 08.05.2005

--------

Schutz hinterm Hasendrahtzaun

Familie Buchmann errichtet Bollwerk gegen Mobilfunkstrahlen

Kirchheim - Jetzt macht Marianne Buchmann in Kirchheim ernst. Die Gründerin der Bürgerinitiative Mobilfunk hat die ersten Fundamente schon betonieren lassen. Ab heute wird darauf auf sechs Meter Länge ein 7,70 Meter hoher Hasendrahtzaun errichtet, der größte seiner Art im weiten Umkreis. Hasendraht, so sagen Wissenschaftler, sei der beste Schutz gegen Mobilfunkstrahlen.

Buchmann hofft, mit dem imposanten Zaun endlich Ruhe vor den Strahlen der nahen Mobilfunkantenne auf dem Feuerwehrturm Kirchheim zu haben. Den sechs ersten Metern sollen weitere 15 folgen. Dann hofft die Familie, die seit Monaten nur noch im Keller nächtigt, ihr Grundstück an der Kreuzstraße endlich optimal geschützt zu haben.

Buchmann und ihre Mitstreiter sind überzeugt, dass Schlafstörungen, Unruhe und Herz-Kreislauf-Probleme von der umstrittene Sendeanlage kommen. Jetzt hat die Frau auch die Anlieger an der neuen Sendeanlage am Parsdorfer Weg 10 aufgerufen, an medizinischen Reihenuntersuchungen teilzunehmen: "Um zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt den Nachweis führen zu können, dass durch die Sender Gesundheitsschäden entstanden sind."

Buchmann hat dafür mit dem Kirchheimer Gemeinderat und Praktischen Arzt Thomas Heinik einen Pauschalpreis von 20 Euro pro untersuchter Person ausgehandelt. Heinik wird die Ergebnisse in einem Ordner für eventuelle spätere Verhandlungen und Klagen sammeln.

BR kommt mit Kamerateam

Auch für die Anwohner der Feuerwehr-Sendeanlage ist eine Reihenuntersuchung geplant. Dabei gehe es um den Nachweis von reduzierten "natürlichen Killerzellen". Drei Blutbilder mit sehr schlechten Werten lägen ihr schon vor. Um aber die Aufmerksamkeit des Umweltministeriums zu erhalten, bräuchte man zehn. Die versuche sie jetzt noch zu bekommen, sagt Buchmann.

Ihr eigenes Blutbild und die Werte der Familienmitglieder würden sich ab heute konsequent verbessern, so hofft die Kirchheimerin zumindest: Dann, wenn die ersten sechs Meter des 7,70 Meter hohen Zauns stehen.

Das Bayerische Fernsehen hat sich die ungewöhnliche Zaunerrichtung schon als Termin vorgemerkt und wird heute Mittag mit einem Kamerateam in Kirchheim vertreten sein. Marianne Buchmann sagt, sie wäre nicht traurig, "wenn zu diesem Anti-Mobilfunkanlagen-Event auch noch viele weitere empörte Anwohner kämen". A. Ganssmüller-Maluche

mm

28.06.2005

http://www.marktplatz-oberbayern.de/regionen/mnord/art1607,289390.html?fCMS=8b6a5da260137bf3ff7175b7abf6a16d


Nachricht von der BI Bad Dürkheim

This judgement sets down a valuable legal precedent for those of us with EHS who have been misdiagnosed, shunted into psychiatric facilities and ordered onto inappropriate anti-psychotic medication. Even finding a lawyer to bring a case like this to court is a feat in itself, and then not only for the plaintiff, John Manweiller, to win such a difficult case but to have the horrendous nature of the injustice done to him underscored by granting the plaintiff the highest ever Irish jury award is stunning!

I am one of the many who have been misdiagnosed in a similar fashion but my pleas in Ireland for legal help to bring my case to court here were refused by (among others) the Irish Legal Aid Board and The Irish Human Rights Commission. But with this judgement and the obvious relaxation of time limit for the plaintiff (statue of limitations on medical cases is normally three years) things look far brighter now for similar cases having a happy court outcome.

You have archived a number of postings I've sent you on EHS and misdiagnosis as psychosis. In case the information in some of these postings might in any way help other EHS sufferers who have undergone a similar fate and now wish to consider legal action, here is a selection of them:

Citizens Initiative Omega (C.I.O.) 15/9/02: "Another tragic misdiagnosis of an EHS sufferer who has been locked up and forcibly medicated"

C.I.O. 19/9/02 "EMF and Schizophrenia"
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega25.htm

C.I.O. 5/7/03 "Human Rights violations applicable to EHS misdiagnosis"
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega234.htm

C.I.O. 11/7/03 "Visual demo of effects when EHS is misdiagnosed as psychosis"
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega238.htm

C.I.O. 13/12/03 "Amnesty 2004 Campaign for the Human Rights of EHS sufferers"
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/grn/omega131203.htm

I am also including today a copy of my appeal letter for legal support to the Irish Human Rights Commission in August 03 (my appeal was unsuccessful) as it points up how similar the bases of this court case is with my own. In both instances standard/proper medical procedures were not adhered to. However, I did not include the full horror of medical carelessness in my appeal letter. I omitted that my prior permission was not sought nor was I advised as to the side effects, etc of anti-psychotic medication. Furthermore, even the writing out of this prescription was badly messed up (the combination was wrong) by a doctor and over succeeding months I was turned into a dribbling, shuffling totally demoralised person who could barely think straight and with frozen shoulders which necessitated seeking the help of a private therapist! And yet I was refused all legal redress! Let's just hope we will now see many EHS sufferers who were subjected to similar medical interventions taking their cases to the courts.

MY APPEAL LETTER OF August 12, 2003.

To:

Mr. Des Hogan, Senior Caseworker
Irish Human Rights Commission
17-19 Lower Hatch St., Dublin 2.

August 12, 2003

Dear Mr. Hogan:

This is my formal appeal letter to the negative decision of the Commission's Casework Committee as stated in your letter to me dated 16 July 2003.

I wish the committee to review their decision based on the following reasons:

1. The first reason cited for refusing my request was this: "no human right appears to have been violated insofar as the condition cited ("electromagnetic sensitivity" or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity") is not at present recognised nationally or internationally in medical or legal terms, so as to bring it within the relevant national or international human rights standards".

But the committee ignored in their response to me all the human rights violations in my case that occurred which were apart from ES/EHS. I enumerated these in length in my email to you of July 4, 2003, and you informed me in your letter dated 7 August 2003 that the committee were given copies of the Human Rights violations that I enumerated. Yet, the committee omitted any reference to these. I now request the committee to respond to me regarding the specific violations I present in my emailed account of these of July 4, 2003.

2. The second reason cited for refusal is the committee's belief that my case would not be successful. But this is premised on the fact that ES/EHS has not been formally acknowledged in medical or legal terms. If it were premised on facts I stressed while writing up my list of Human Rights violations that arise in my case, then there could be a far stronger chance of my case being successful.

I believe this to be true because it is widely reported that the Human Rights of patients in mental health care have been shockingly abused. Given that generally acknowledged fact, the abuses I enumerate that I have experienced arise from a context that is known to harbour such abuses. Various governmental, medical and Human Rights organisations (for instance Amnesty International's campaign for 2003) are engaged in reform measures to correct abuses to the Human Rights of patients who have been or are in psychiatric care. It is regrettable that as yet medical misdiagnosis does not feature prominently in their lists for reforms in this area because there is a strong likelihood that given the apparent legal lacuna many patients may have been misdiagnosed. If my individual action which seeks an acknowledgement of wrongdoing in this area--medical misdiagnosis of mental illness--is successful it most likely will benefit a group whose medical experiences are similar to mine. (As Lord Laird of Artigarvan expressed it in yesterday's The Irish Times, p. 14: "Human rights are enjoyed by individuals and a group may collectively benefit.") Please refer to the article "Group set up to prepare new policy on mental health" that appeared in The Irish Times last week (Tuesday, August 5, 2003, p.5)

3. I am now submitting to you new material that highlights that the medical diagnostic process for arriving at a valid conclusion regards my condition was drastically circumvented when I first presented with symptoms in December 1996. In other words standard medical procedures were not adhered to in my case. I wish the committee to refer to the sections relating to diagnostic procedures for establishing the presence of specific mental illnesses as presented by the authors, Patricia Casey and Ciaran Craven in PSYCHIATRY AND THE LAW (1999). Then I wish the committee to refer to my medical file and observe major irregularities in adherence to standard procedures.

Most importantly I wish the committee to be aware that I was not interviewed and my case history was acquired from a relative (a sister) who lived in a different country from me and who had lived a totally different life style. She is a former nun who has lived most of her life secluded in a convent and has been solely domiciled in Ireland. As pointed out in PSYCHIATRY AND THE LAW: "Interestingly, little scientific attention has been directed to establishing the reliability of informants or to identifying those informants who are most reliable." (page 30.)

The authors of the cited text above also describe in quite some detail "The Psychiatric Interview." (31 ff.)I was not interviewed. My consent to allow an informant to be interviewed was not sought. And there was no question of me not being lucid nor incapable of being interviewed. Please refer to footnote 16, page 31 which addresses exceptions to the necessity of requiring a patient's consent. These exceptions did not arise in my case. The G.P. who wrote the note for me to be accepted into psychiatric care did not interview me. I was less than five minutes in her office. Indeed, she didn't even offer me a seat in her office and she was already writing the note as I entered the room based on the prior information of an informant. I stress again that no standard procedures were adhered to in my case.

And the result for me of this waiving of medical standard procedures and being placed on a medical misdiagnostic belt that I couldn't get off is that I am permanently defined as a "former mental patient."

You should be aware that this is the most damaging identity a person could have. Even the fact that I am now focused on legal action to rectify this injustice may be viewed by mental health specialists as symptomatic of mental illness! Being litigious is a characteristic of such people, they say!

I ask members of the committee how they would feel if they had walked in my shoes and this had been done to them in the name of medical care? And what would each of them feel while reading this newspaper caption "Former mental patient takes legal action." Would they not squirm seeing how they were being defined and knowing what being "a former mental patient" conveys?

It is not an exaggeration to say that what has been done to me is equivalent to the very worst libel and due to this medical error I have been doomed to a quality of life that is socially and in many other ways a death-sentence.

I hope the committee will consider what I have said above and I look forward to their response.

Sincerely,

Imelda O'Connor, Ph.D.



THE IRISH TIMES, SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 2005, PAGE 4

"MAN UNLAWFULLY HOSPITALISED AWARDED 3M [EUROS]

A High Court jury has awarded record damages of almost 3 million [euros] to a Dublin man, after it found he was unlawfully detained in a psychiatric hospital and had continued taking a treatment drug because a doctor threatened to lock him up if he failed to do so.

The award is the highest made by a High Court jury and comes after a 1.7 [euros] million award made earlier this month to a woman who was sexually and physically abused by her father over a number of
years.

John Manweiller (64), Rosemount Court, Dundrum, and formerly of Cross Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin, was awarded 2,922,000 and costs - estimated at a total of 400,000 [euros] for both sides - at the close of his successful action against the Eastern Health Board.

Mr Manweiller alleged he was unlawfully detained in St Brendan's Hospital, Grangegorman, from September until December 1984 and also for a time in November 1991.

It is also claimed he was forced to take a drug named Clopixol when discharged from hospital, which he did not want to take.

After the jury members returned with their verdict yesterday evening following an absence of more than three hours, Mr Manweiller said: "I was always confident that I had a good case." He added that he got some of the information for his case under the freedom of Information Act.

Mr Justice Eamon de Valera said there should be a payout of 250,000 [euros] to Mr Manweiller, pending an appeal by the EHB to the Supreme Court.

In his claim, Mr Manweiller sought damages for alleged personal injury, loss and damage sustained by him arising out of the negligence and breach of duty of the EHB, its servants or agents, and for trespass to his person, assault, battery, false imprisonment and breach of his constitutional rights, in particular his right to liberty. The EHB denied the claims.

Mr Justice de Valera and the jury were told by John Rogers SC, with Padraic Dwyer, for Mr Manweiller, that in 1984 his client was living at home with his parents in Cross Avenue. He became upset about his father's will and felt he was not told enough about it. In September 1984 he was sorting tools and asked his mother, then aged 83, about missing tools. She said she knew nothing about them. He raised his voice, and she cried. She left the house to go to his sister, Pauline. Pauline and a brother, Colm, arrived at the house and told him he had to go to St Brendan's [Dublin's best known psychiatric hospital].

Mr Manweiller was driven to hospital and ended up being there until December 14th, 1984. In December a doctor noted he was to get Clopixol, a psychotic drug. The following month he was given Clopixol, to which he had a reaction, and was given another drug to counteract it. Mr Rogers and Mr Manweiller's case was that he should never had been in hospital. There was no legal authority for his being there and the way he was treated. He was on Clopixol for years. In March 1991 he was transferred to a clinic in Baggot Street for treatment, but in November was readmitted to St Brendan's for nearly a month. In 1993 he was moved to a clinic in Cork Street. In October 1994 he was told he was to be taken off Clopixol and was weaned off it.

In their decision yesterday, the members of the jury found that a consultant, Dr Harry Burke, now retired, did not have "good and sufficient reason" to consider it proper to detain Mr Manweiller on September 27th, 1984. The jury also decided that Dr Burke was negligent in prescribing Clopixol for Mr Manweiller on December 4th, 1984, and that Dr Burke and other doctors were negligent in continuing the Clopixol treatment until december 1995.

The jury also found that Dr. Burke threatened to have Mr Manweiller locked up in a unit at St Brendan's if he failed to continue on Clopixol, and Mr Manweiller had submitted to that treatment solely because of the threat.

In addition the jury found that the EHB, its servants or agents, had aggravagted the injury to Mr Manweiller by the manner in which the board conducted its defence of the action."

The two other main Irish daily broadheets--IRISH INDEPENDENT and IRISH EXAMINER also carried the story in today's editions.


Omega see also:

Man gets €3m over psychiatric detention
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0429/manweilerj.html

Schädigung durch Mobilfunksender führt wegen Klagen vor Gericht zu Vergleich

Herr A.G. und seine Eltern klagten gegen den Freistaat Bayern und die Betreiberfirma E-Plus. E-Plus hatte im Jahr 1994 in 17m Entfernung vom Wohnhaus der Familie in einer Gemeinde in Oberbayern ihre Mobilfunk-Antenne auf einem nachbarlichen Gebäude installiert.

Die Familie G. litt darauf unter extremen Schlafstörungen, seit dem Jahr 1999 sahen sich die Eltern des Klägers gezwungen, auswärts zu schlafen. Aber auch der Aufenthalt in der Wohnung tagsüber mit Strahlenwerten (Leistungsflussdichte) von 900nW/cm2 [entspricht 9000 µW/m² = 1,842 V/m (Feldstärke)] war gesundheitlich extrem belastend: Die Mutter des Klägers entwickelte fünf Jahre nach Inbetriebnahme der Sendeanlage ein Nierenkarzinom, das zur operativen Entfernung einer Niere führte.

Auch der Kläger selbst litt seit Installation der Antenne unter schweren Schlafstörungen – beklagt wurden vor allem ein völliges Wegfallen des Tiefschlafes. Neben dem damit zusammenhängenden chronischen Erschöpfungssyndrom bei labormäßig nachgewiesener erheblicher Melatoninreduktion (im Morgenurin) waren zudem ein permanenter beidseitiger Tinnitus (hochfrequente Ohrgeräusche) besonders quälend.

Trotz schlechter Erfolgsprognose entschloss sich Familie G. zur Klage gegen den Freistaat Bayern und die Betreiberfirma. Das Mandat erhielt ein mutiger Umwelt-Rechtsanwalt aus Norddeutschland.

Die Klage wurde zunächst in erster Instanz abgewiesen. Durch anwaltliches Bemühen und gutachterliches Hinzuziehen des Umweltmediziners Dr. med. Scheiner / München konnte die Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens in zweiter Instanz erwirkt werden.

Nach dem dritten ausführlichen medizinischen Gutachten von Dr. med. Scheiner im Frühjahr 2003, das unten einsehbar ist, gingen der Beklagtenseite, also dem Freistaat Bayern mit E-Plus samt ihren Gutachtern, die sich im Tonfall immer außerordentlich überheblich zeigten, wissenschaftlich denn doch die Argumente und „die Luft“ aus. In dieser für den Freistaat Bayern und die Betreiberseite ungünstigen Situation boten ihre Anwälte den Klägern einen Vergleich einschließlich Übernahme der gesamten Anwalts- und Gerichtskosten an. Hauptpunkt des Vergleichs: Der Abbau der Mobilfunk-Antenne !!

Obwohl ein Durchfechten des für die Kläger sich günstig abzeichnenden Rechtsstreites zu einem interessanten juristischen Präzedenzfall geführt hätte, nahm der Kläger - um wegen der Krebs-Erkrankung seiner Mutter keine Zeit zu verlieren- das Vergleichsangebot an.

Zitiert nach: http://www.klima.business.t-online.de/rem_schlaf.htm

Dort ist auch das angeführte Gutachten dokumentiert.


Kommentar

... und befördert zugleich ihre Verschleierung durch Betreiber und Politik

Ein dokumentiertes ärztlich-wissenschaftliches Gutachten bewegte die Beklagten, das Land Bayern und den Mobilfunkbetreiber E-Plus, zum Angebot eines außergerichtlichen Vergleichs. Dies lässt die Deutung zu, dass wegen der erdrückenden Indizienlage von Seiten der Betreiber sowohl die eigene medizinisch-wissenschaftliche wie auch die rechtliche Position als zu schwach angesehen wurden, als dass ein Prozessfortgang für die eigenen Zielen als nützlich angesehen werden konnte. Offensichtlich wurde das Risiko gescheut, dass wegen der langen Dauer der Bestrahlung und angesichts der faktischen Tatsachen die Fortsetzung des Prozesses zu einem rechtsbedeutsamen Nachweis der krankmachende Wirkung des Senders hätte führen können.

Aktenkundig und publik gemacht werden zuerst Gerichtsurteile - derzeit noch solche gegen die Belange von Mobilfunkgeschädigten. Schnell aus dem mehr oder weniger nach Interessen gelenkten Blick der Mediengesellschaft und der öffentlichen Diskussion geraten diejenigen Fälle, die mit einem außergerichtlichen Vergleich beendet werden. Daher sind nur sehr schwer Informationen zu erhalten, über ihre Zahl und die Sachlage, wegen der sie geschlossen wurden.

Einer der Gründe weswegen es sich so verhält, wird durch den hier vorgestellten Fall erhellt.

In der geschilderten gerichtlichen Auseinandersetzung wird der Weg zum Vergleich und damit zum Verzicht auf die Herbeiführung eines Urteils durch die Schädigung auf Seiten des Geschädigten selbst bereitet. Die Belastungen durch die gesundheitlichen Folgen von neun Jahren Zwangsbestrahlung und eines aufreibenden Rechtsstreits gegen eine finanziell übermächtige und einflussreiche Allianz der Mobilfunkindustrie und des Staates führten zur Ermattung und schließlich zum Entschluss aufzugeben, um sich - selbst gesundheitlich beeinträchtigt - wenigstens würdig um ein noch ernsthafter erkranktes Familienmitglied kümmern zu können.

Welche Bedeutung für die Pflege des Rechtes in unserem Staat hat es, wenn zugelassen wird, dass sich eine Schädigung dahingehend auswirken kann, dass der Geschädigte durch die Folgen eben dieser Schädigung davon abgehalten wird, einen rechtlich aussichtsreichen Weg bis zu einem Urteil zu Ende zu gehen?

Es wurde mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit das Zustandekommen eines Urteils verhindert, dem eine allgemein gewichtige Bedeutung zugekommen wäre sowohl hinsichtlich der Wahrung der Belange von Geschädigten als auch in Bezug auf die Einschränkung der Möglichkeiten der Verursacher, ihre Interessen ohne Rücksicht durchsetzen zu können, ebenso wie in Bezug auf die sie deckende Politik.

Vor diesem Hintergrund betrachtet zeigt die gegenüber den Protesten von Zwangsbestrahlten allfällig vorgetragene Entgegnung, dass nämlich bisher noch kein medizinischer und wissenschaftlicher Befund bekannt sei, der vor einem Gericht zu einer durch Urteil begründeten Anerkennung einer vorliegenden gesundheitlichen Schädigung durch Mobilfunkstrahlung geführt hätte, ein anderes Gesicht.

Helmut Breunig


Quelle: http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/elektrosmog-liste/message/5262

I don't know what's going off in our communities or how many people are being put through high levels of EMF in their own homes. I' ve suffered terribly from it, and the levels come through in high surges even when my power is switched off at the mains.

Another point I would mention is that there is a loud clicking sound that comes from my wall power point even when nothing is running. It sounds like the clicking a central heating system makes when it clicks on. Except I don't have central heating. I have had one storage heater running through the entire winter and it runs from a totally different circuit to my wall plugs.

I've noted this sharp click sound also in a room upstairs, and I've no idea what it is. Unless, that is my, electrics have been tampered with to create the situation. Which may explain my high electricity bills even when I'm using the minimum of electricity.

Please don't suggest I contact my utility electrical supplier. Things no longer work that way here in England, where these things are now left as if they don't exist...and the cancer cases grow.

The government we have just pretend... on all things. So you can imagine what is done about the EMF and radiation problem here. It simply doesn't exist.

Maureen

Mr. Philips,

I have written to you in the past about my illness as a result of my use of a digital cellphone, I have a couple of questions for you and I am asking the the EMF group the same.

I have recently read one of your recent communications with Don Maisch stating your fears of the future, and I want to first comment as a person who is already facing early dementia and am scared as hell about it. Yes, I am dealing with all the symptoms of early onset Alzheimers, and it is very frightning?

When I think of the millions of people who are destroying their BRAINS with cellphones I shudder with the thoughts of who the hell is going to care for all these people. How many people have to go through what I and so many other people have gone through before the human race finnally realizes that it made a very big mistake by allowing an entire population be a guinnea pig for this hiddious experiment.

Sorry for going off like that!!

Here is my Question. I would like to communicate with as many other people as I can, who have been affected by cellphones or by celltowers. You mentioned a few people you know personally who are dealing with dementia from their work with the industry, could you ask them if they would be interested in forming a support group to help others who are becoming ill and don't know where to turn.

I have recently gotten the Doctors who are caring for me to believe I have been injured by a cellphone, and they are trying a variety of things to help me cope with the many symptoms I suffer from.

I thank you and all the other people who are trying so hard to bring the EMR-EMF issue to the light it needs so very badly.

Thanks again,

Robert

HLV INFO 60/AT

20-04-2005

Beate Stemmler, Lepsiusstraße 4, 06618 Naumburg/Saale, am 16. April 2005
Mitglied der Bürgerinitiative G.U.T. für gesundheits- und umweltverträgliche Telekommunikation Naumburg/Saale


O F F E N E R M O B I L F U N K – B R I E F an Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder

Herrn Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder, Bundeskanzleramt, Willy-Brandt-Str.1, 10557 Berlin


Sehr geehrter Herr Bundeskanzler,

dieser Brief ist ein Notruf aus meiner Lebenssituation unter der Zwangsbestrahlung durch derzeitig angewendete Mobilfunktechnik.

Ich bin 56 Jahre alt. Ich bin es gewohnt, eigenverantwortlich mit meinem Leben umzugehen. Aufgrund der Regierungsentscheidung, Frequenzen im Mikrowellenbereich an Betreiber von Mobilfunkantennen für flächendeckende Handynutzung zu verkaufen, werde ich derzeit in meinem Bemühen um meine Gesundheit massiv gestört. Diese Frequenzen sind längst durch die Schöpfung an Menschen und Tiere vergeben, um die lebensnotwendige interzelluläre Kommunikation der Organismen zu gewährleisten. Sie stehen keinem Markt zur Verfügung. Keine Regierung hat das ethische Recht, den Schlaf, den Herzrhythmus, die Konzentrationsfähigkeit, die seelische Balance, den Blutdruck, die Lebensfreude und Schaffenskraft, letztendlich das Wohl und die Gesundheit des Volkes zu verkaufen, auch nicht für 50 Mrd. Euro.

Am 25. September 2003 erlebte ich in unserer Wohnung gegen 22.00 Uhr körperliche Sensationen in Form von rhythmischen Gehirnkrämpfen mit nachfolgenden heftigen Herzschmerzen, die ich in keiner Weise einzuordnen wusste. Noch Tage später lief ich benommen umher. Ich geriet nicht in Panik, weil ich bisher weder mit meinem Kopf noch mit meinem Herzen irgendwelche Probleme hatte. Vier Tage nach dieser Attacke sah ich eine neu installierte Mobilfunkantenne in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft 120 m entfernt von unserer Wohnung (in der zweiten Etage) auf gleicher Höhe ohne abschirmende Faktoren wie Häuser oder Bäume dazwischen. Der Betrieb dieser Antenne war laut amtlicher Auskunft ab 25. September 2003 möglich. Nach einigen weiteren Tagen stellten sich bei mir innerhalb dieser Wohnung anhaltende Kopfschmerzen, heftiges Herzklopfen, erhöhter Blutdruck, eingeschränktes Konzentrationsvermögen, Niedergeschlagenheit und ein hohes Bewegungsbedürfnis ein. Im Schlafzimmer ist seither das Ein- und Durchschlafen durch ein von mir nicht beeinflussbares Vibrieren des Nervensystems gestört. Später wurden Veränderungen an der Harnblase spürbar; Ohrgeräusche, Gelenkbeschwerden und gehäufte Entzündungen der Mundschleimhaut, ungewöhnliche Hitzewellen und Schweißausbrüche zu bestimmten Uhrzeiten kamen dazu. Außerhalb der Wohnung vergehen manche Beschwerden nach 15 Minuten, andere erst nach Tagen. Nach und nach fand ich heraus, dass sechs weitere Antennen mit ihrer Sendeleistung unsere Wohnung erreichen. Der Amtsarzt riet nach einer Messung von 0,43 V/m vorsorglich zum Wohnungswechsel. Inzwischen haben wir in manchen Räumen 0,86 V/m. Der deutsche Grenzwert ist für die mobilfunkrelevanten Frequenzen für das elektrische Feld frequenzabhängig auf 27,5 - 61,5 V/m festgelegt (Quelle: Ecolog-Institut Hannover). Doch wohin umziehen? Wann und wo wird der nächste Mobilfunkmast errichtet? Immer mehr Nachbarn benutzen schnurlose Telefone nach DECT-Standard und verstärken ahnungslos die Strahlenbelastung. So sind wir zu Flüchtlingen in unserer eigenen Wohnung geworden. Ich verkrieche mich in wenigen relativ strahlungsarmen Winkeln der Wohnung. Ein Faradayscher Käfig aus teurem Abschirmmaterial für ein halbes Zimmer soll mir helfen, wieder konzentriert zu arbeiten. Nachts schlafe ich unter Stroh. Die Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben in Kinos, Restaurants, Versammlungen, Bussen und Zügen wird je nach Menge der passiven und aktiven Handynutzung zur Qual.

Viele Menschen bringen ihre seltsamen Symptome mit beruflichem oder familiärem Stress, ihrer Arbeitslosigkeit oder ihrem Altern in Verbindung. Ärzte sind meistens ratlos und uninformiert. Wenn sich bekannte Symptome nicht in bewährter Weise behandeln lassen, erfolgt in der Regel eine Überweisung zur psychotherapeutischen Behandlung. Doch solange Ärzte und Therapeuten diese außerordentliche Belastung durch Mobilfunkstrahlung mittels Antennenmasten, Handys, DECT-Schnurlostelefonen und funkgesteuerten Computern nicht zu einem festen Bestandteil ihrer Anamneseerhebung machen, laufen sie unter Umständen Gefahr, ins Leere zu arbeiten. Damit diskreditiert sich ihre kostbare, lebensnotwendige Arbeit.

Zahlreiche Fragen stellen sich bei näherer Beschäftigung mit diesem Thema:

- Bei wie vielen der 16 Mill. Bluthochdruckpatienten in Deutschland (Quelle: „Natur und Medizin“ 3/2004, Mitgliederbrief der „Karl und Veronika Carstens Stiftung“) gibt es einen Zusammenhang mit Mobilfunkbelastung?

- Wer zahlt die Behandlungskosten bei gesundheitlichen Schäden durch Mobilfunkstrahlung?

- Wer zahlt die entstehenden Kosten für eine effektive Abschirmung?

- Mit welchem Recht können Arbeitgeber von ArbeitnehmerInnen das Tragen und Benutzen von Handys am Körper verlangen?

- Mobilfunktechnik kann andere sensible Technik empfindlich stören. Gibt es etwas Empfindsameres als den Organismus von Mensch und Tier?

- Aus welchem Grund unterbleibt die Information und Beteiligung der Bevölkerung bei der Errichtung von Sendemasten?

- Weshalb werden Menschen mit Herzschrittmachern zu ihrem Schutz nicht vor der Installation einer Mobilfunkantenne gewarnt?

- Wie erfolgreich ist das Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz bei der Überprüfung der Selbstverpflichtung der Mobilfunkbetreiber, Schulen, Kindergärten, Seniorenheime und Krankenhäuser mit der unmittelbaren Nähe von Mobilfunkantennen zu verschonen?

- Das Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz hat vor Handy- und Schnurlos-DECT-Telefonnutzung gewarnt. Diese Warnung wurde kaum gehört; war sie zu leise gesprochen?

- Die UnterzeichnerInnen des Freiburger Appells ( http://www.freiburgerappell.de ) sehen einen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Anstieg der Hyperaktivität bei Kindern und der rasant gestiegenen Nutzung der Mobilfunktechnik. Diese Kinder stehen unter großer innerer Spannung, aus der sie sich von selbst nur mit Zappeln vorübergehend befreien können. Wer hilft ihnen, ohne ihnen fragwürdige ruhig stellende Mittel zu verabreichen?

- Wie können sich Kinder und Jugendliche unter Strahlenbelastung, auch bedingt durch das eigene Handy, zu Hause und in der Schule konzentrieren? Pisa lässt grüßen.

- Wie können Busfahrer und Piloten die Beeinflussung ihres Nervensystems durch erlaubte Handynutzung der Reisenden verhindern und „nicht aufklärbare“ Unfälle vermeiden? Beim Aufbau eines Handygesprächs wird der zulässige Grenzwert erheblich überschritten.

- Die Tiere Südostasiens konnten sich mit ihrem Frühwarnsystem vor der Flutkatastrophe retten. Bei uns verschwinden scharenweise Vögel, die Stammgäste waren, und sich nur noch äußerst selten kurzfristig einstellen, vermutlich im Zusammenhang mit heruntergefahrener Antennen-Sendeleistung. Wie wäre es, von ihnen zu lernen?

Sehr geehrter Herr Bundeskanzler,

ich gehe davon aus, dass Ihre Regierung zum Zeitpunkt des Verkaufs der Sendelizenzen nichts von den gravierenden Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit der deutschen Bevölkerung ahnte. Bitte machen Sie umgehend das Thema Mobilfunk und Gesundheit zur Chefsache. Die laufende Regierungsstudie zu dieser Problematik dauert zu lange und ist abhängig von Geldern der Mobilfunkbetreiber. Viele Menschen könnten inzwischen an der Strahlenlast zerbrechen. Die Reflex-Studie, bezahlt mit EU-Geldern, hat Brüche in der DNA-Struktur der Zellen und Genmutationen unter elektromagnetischen Schwingungen, vergleichbar denen eines Mobilfunk-Telefons, nachgewiesen (Quelle: Frankfurter Rundschau vom 13.7.2004).

- Wichtig ist eine Überprüfung des unverantwortlich hohen Grenzwerts unter Einbeziehung der gepulsten Sendeleistung.

- Wichtig und möglich ist es, die Sendeleistung drastisch zu reduzieren.

- Wichtig ist die Schaffung handy- bzw. mobilfunkfreier Lern-, Arbeits- und Lebensräume, analog dem Nichtrauchersystem.

- Wichtig ist die Förderung und Umsetzung innovativer gesundheits- und umweltverträglicher Kommunikationstechnik. Mit vorhandenen Ideen könnte Deutschland eine avantgardistische Rolle übernehmen.

Ich erhoffe mir eine Antwort auf diesen Brief. Jedoch benötige ich keine beschwichtigende Reaktion. Es ist höchste Zeit zum Handeln. Ich wünsche mir, dass es allen Menschen in unserem Land bald vergönnt ist, eine Kommunikationstechnik zu nutzen, mit der die Unantastbarkeit der Wohnung und des körpereigenen Kommunikationssystems gewahrt bleibt. Ich möchte morgens aufwachen und spüren, dass ein böser Spuk vorbei ist und ich mit meinem Herzschlag, meinem Blutdruck, meiner Lebenskraft in den Tag gehen und auch die Vögel wieder begrüßen kann.

Mit besten Wünschen für Ihr hohes und verantwortungsvolles Amt grüße ich Sie voller Hoffnung

Beate Stemmler, Dipl.-Theologin, Psychologische Ehe-, Familien- und Lebensberaterin, Feldenkrais-Lehrerin, SPD-Mitglied


M.f.G.
Alfred Tittmann
c/o HESSISCHER LANDESVERBAND MOBILFUNKSENDERFREIE WOHNGEBIETE e.V.

--------

FW Krämer 21-04-05

Betr. Kommentar zum Offenen Brief an Herrn Bundeskanzler Schröder

HLV INFO 60 v. 20-04-05

Mit großer Aufmerksamkeit habe ich den Brief von Frau Stemmler an Herrn Bundeskanzler Schröder gelesen. Frau Stemmler hat sich sehr große Mühe gegeben, die zutreffenden Argumente zusammenzutragen, und wirkt in ihrer Berichterstattung über die eigenen Erfahrungen überzeugend. Ich bedaure allerdings, dass ich den Optimismus von Frau Stemmler, durch ihren Brief eine positive Wirkung auf dem Niveau deutscher Politik erreichen zu können, nicht teilen kann.

Nach den vielen Aktivitäten und Initiativen des Hessischen Landesverbandes, vielen ähnlichen Aktionen einer Bürgerinitiative in Frankfurt/Main, der ich angehöre, anderer Bürgerinitiativen in Deutschland sowie vieler persönlicher Initiativen, entstanden in der Überzeugung, dass man mit sauberer Argumentation und solidem Wissen deutsche Politiker von dem Gefahrenpotential elektromagnetischer Mobilfunkstrahlung überzeugen und bei ihnen eine ernsthafte Vorsorge anregen könnte, bin ich zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, dass die weitaus überwiegende Zahl von Politikern in Regierung und Opposition dieses Landes kein Interesse daran hat, das Thema zu verstehen und entsprechend zu handeln. Die Gründe sind hinreichend bekannt.

Denn, warum werden seit Jahren Forschungsergebnisse nationaler und internationaler Wissenschaftler systematisch missachtet? Warum haben europäische und außereuropäische Länder die Grenzwerte gesenkt und bewusste Vorsorge eingeführt, während in diesem Land von der Regierung immer wieder betont wird, die Grenzwerte stellten einen hinreichenden Schutz für den Menschen dar? Warum wird hierzulande nicht anerkannt, dass es bei sehr geringen Feldstärken a-thermische Belastungen für den Menschen gibt? Warum verweisen in diesem Lande Regierung und Opposition immer wieder auf Forschungsbedarf, wohingegen die wissenschaftlichen Hinweise aus dem In- und Ausland eine dringend erforderliche und bewusste Vorsorge verlangen? Warum erkennt der größte Teil des politischen Niveaus dieses Landes nicht an, dass in dem hier gegebenen Zusammenhang ein Problem existiert, dem man nachgehen muß? Warum wird hier nicht gehandelt anstelle längst abgedroschene Phrasen, "man nehme die Sorgen der Bürger sehr ernst" weiter zu verbreiten? Warum wird in diesem Land das Vorsorgeprinzip, verabschiedet von der Europäischen Kommission im Jahre 2000, nicht respektiert?

Die Antworten sind klar: Es muss ja schließlich Gründe haben, warum dieses Land dort steht wo es steht, national wie international.

Es ist nicht meine Absicht, Frau Stemmler zu entmutigen, aber die Antwort, die sie erwartet, wird, sofern sie überhaupt Substanz enthalten sollte, mehr Fragen erzeugen als gestellt worden sind.

FW Krämer, Frankfurt am Main

--------

Viele Länder, Bundesstaaten und auch einzelne Städte haben zwischenzeitlich auf Grund von neueren Studienergebnissen und Erfahrungen aus der ärztlichen Praxis ihre Grenzwerte gesenkt oder sog. Vorsorgewerte eingeführt. Deutschland dagegen ist immer noch einer der Spitzenreiter, der seine hohen Grenzwerte verteidigt, wie der internationale Vergleich zeigt:
http://gruen-macht-gluecklich.de/BI/Grenzwertliste.PDF

Quelle: http://gruen-macht-gluecklich.de/bi.html

--------

Verleumdungstaktik der Politik

Den von oft hochkarätigen und gut dotierten Wissenschaftlern bei offiziellen Anlässen verbreiteten Desinformationen begegne ich immer wieder mal mit einem Brief nach etwa dem folgenden Muster:


Sehr geehrter Herr Professor Hagenauer,

es verwundert mich sehr, dass unter Ihrer Mitwirkung zum Thema Mobilfunk von der Bay. Akademie der Wissenschaften das Resümee gezogen wird, es gäbe unterhalb der thermischen Grenzen keine Gesundheitsstörungen. Als Allgemeinarzt habe ich mehrfach Patienten erlebt, die eindeutig durch Mobilfunk krank geworden sind und ihre Beschwerden nach einer entsprechenden Sanierung verloren haben.

Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass Sie als Fachmann solche nicht gerade seltenen Beobachtungen nicht kennen. Warum ignorieren Sie sie? Muss ich hier wieder einmal davon ausgehen, dass Geld schwerer wiegt als die wissenschaftliche Wahrheit und als die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung. Wie lange werden Sie diese Verleumdungskampagne bezüglich der Gesundheitsschäden durch Mobilfunk noch durchhalten können?

Für Tausende von Bürgerinitiativen und all die leidenden Betroffenen sind Sie jetzt schon unglaubwürdig, und für Ihre forschenden Kollegen, die die Situation durchschauen, ohnehin schon lange.

Ich muss schon fragen, für wie dumm hält man uns Bürger eigentlich, wenn gebetsmühlenartig diese immer offensichtlicher werdenden Gesundheitsschäden von einer inzwischen sehr wohl bekannten Gruppierung von Personen immer wieder geleugnet werden, dann aber doch Vorsichtsregeln gegeben werden.

Wenn eines Tages all dies ans Tageslicht kommt und die Verantwortlichen zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden, können Sie nicht sagen, sie hätten nichts gewusst und sich aus der Affäre ziehen.

Aus diesen meinen etwas emotionalen Ausführungen sollte Ihnen klar werden, wie ernst die Lage ist. Stellen Sie sich als Wissenschaftler klar auf die Seite der Wahrheit und flüchten sich nicht in unerfüllbare Beweis-Szenarien der Schäden durch Mobilfunk und in die Länge gezogene Studien.

Der Großversuch an vielen Hundert Millionen Menschen und auch Tieren und Pflanzen weltweit läuft seit wenigstens 10 Jahren. Es ist genügend Beobachtungsmaterial vorhanden, man braucht es nur zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Dr. Dietrich Grün


In der Regel erfolgt auf solche Briefe natürlich keine Antwort, das ist auch nicht meine Absicht. Aber die betreffenden Personen wissen dann, dass man sehr wohl weiß, was hier gespielt wird, und was sie selbst eigentlich auch wissen müssten. Mit solch einem Wissen im Hintergrund lügt es sich nicht mehr so leicht, und dazu noch, wenn einem klar gemacht wird, dass man mehr und mehr an Glaubwürdigkeit verliert und eigentlich auf verlorenem Posten kämpft, denn die Wahrheit lässt sich nicht allezeit unterdrücken.


Quelle: http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/elektrosmog-liste/message/5393


Omega siehe auch „Niedersachsen: Grenzwerte werden deutlich unterschritten - Keine Gefahr für Anwohner durch Mobilfunk?“ unter: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/768857/

--------

Gedanken zum Thema Elektrosmog

Grundsätzliches zum Thema Mobilfunk/Elektrosmog

Früher war das überhaupt kein Thema, da sich die Belastung mit elektromagnetischen Feldern in engen zeitlichen und räumlichen Grenzen hielt: Rasierapparat, Staubsauger, Mikrowelle, Computer usw. waren nur minutenweise oder stundenweise in Betrieb, außerdem konnte man ganz schlicht durch Nichtbenutzung oder Ausschalten dem Problem entgehen. Hochspannungsfreileitungen waren schon immer sehr problematisch und nur durch ausreichenden Abstand zu entschärfen.

Da haben die Belastungen durch DECT-Telefone und Mobilfunk eine ganz andere Dimension erreicht: erstens: die 24 Stunden non Stop Bestrahlung und zweitens hat man kaum noch eine Chance, dem zu entgehen, weil hier eine flächendeckende Versorgung mit elektromagnetischen Wellen besteht.

Nun scheint mir bei vielen (6 % Elektrosensible gibt es bereits) das Maß voll. Der Mobilfunk ist also m.E. der Tropfen, der das Fass zum überlaufen bringt. Einige von uns haben sozusagen ein größeres Fass, da läuft noch nichts über. Aber dies scheint mir nur eine Frage der Zeit, falls wir weiterhin ungebremst und ungehemmt die Belastung mit Elektrosmog steigern.

Hier stellt sich mir grundsätzlich die Frage, wann reagieren wir und stoppen diese (vermeidbare) Belastung ? bei 10 % Elektrosensiblen oder erst bei 20 % ? oder erst dann, wenn wir alle krank sind und endlich die vielbeschworenen „Beweise“ haben (Vodafone-Beschwichtigungshymne, Vers 1 : „es ist ja noch nicht bewiesen“, Vers 2 : “Alle Grenzwerte sind eingehalten“) (und wenn man weiß, wie diese Grenzwerte zustande gekommen sind und wer alles in dieser Kommission sitzt, macht man ohnehin hier ein großes Fragezeichen dran und diskutiert nicht weiter)

Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass zunächst mal die Sendeleistung halbiert wird und kein weiterer Sendemast installiert wird. Dies kann ohne große Einbußen bereits mit den vorhandenen Handys geschehen. Will man jedoch auch im hintersten Kellerverlies noch einwandfreien Handyempfang haben, müsste man andere Handys entwickeln mit verbesserter Empfangs- und Antennentechnik.

Das Problem ist also grundsätzlich lösbar. Es passiert allerdings nichts, wenn wir nicht erkennen, dass die eigene Gesundheit viel wichtiger ist, als der Vodafone-Umsatz. (gemeint sind hier „Vodafone und Konsorten“, also alle Netzbetreiber, die lediglich ihre Geschäftsinteressen durchsetzen wollen)

Eckardt Giese
http://space.arcor.de/eckardtgiese

Quelle: http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/elektrosmog-liste/message/5395

--------

Ängste, Bedenken und Sorgen der Bevölkerung ernst nehmen
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/344928/

Copy of Bev Bush's letter to Mr. Gieve.

13th April 2005

PR8 3HN

Dear Mr Gieve,

I write to you with very serious concerns about Tetra and I have noted that you have been in a position where you could stop this invasion of emissions from Airwave O2 Tetra into our homes.

At present, in close proximity to our home, is a mast that includes antennae and equipment from MMO2, T-mobile, Hutchison 3G and the awful Tetra (O2 Airwave) which we felt the ill effects very shortly after it went up.

We have suffered from many health problems already including vertigo, headaches, vision disturbance, pains in ligaments and tendons which we attribute to the mast and we have had persistent insomnia.

We have spent a lot of money of our own desperately trying to shield our homes from this non-ionising radiation and we are at the end of our tether.

We call for the removal of this mast to a more suitable location. If this is not done, we will wait for proof of the effects of mobile technology on health and property value, which we are sure will come to light in the future. We know there will be proof because we are the living proof of this great risky exposure of humans to a technology that has not been proven safe and should never been allowed to develop and establish itself in such a manner without first total proof of it’s safety.

I have kept records of this notice letter and Mast Sanity and S.C.R.A.M also have a copy.

If you are responsible for setting up Tetra , then it is on your conscience that since Tetra was set up in Ainsdale, the well being of my family and neighbours has been ruined and our enjoyment of our homes has gone.

We no longer like being in our home because we feel unsafe there.

The evidence against Tetra and proof that it is harmful to health is shown by many situations all over Britain where people are suffering because of it.

We are networking as a group and are aware of the misery Tetra is causing across the country.

We call for the removal of Tetra from our doorstep.

Yours Sincerely,

Mrs. Angela B. Bush


Copy of Bush's second letter to Mr. Gieve.

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

To: john.gieve@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: john pugh ; JOHN PUGH ; blaira@parliament.uk ; springr@parliament.uk ; prescottj@parliament.uk ; blearsh@parliament.uk
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: In hope for a better future


13th April 2005

PR8 3HN


Dear Mr Gieve,

I would like you to know that since the introduction of the Tetra Airwave mast 70 yds from our home in Nov 2002 (when approval was made) we have never felt happy in our home. We do not want to live so close to something that has not been proven safe.

In the last year and a half my health has degenerated and this last month the pains in my joints are much worse to the point that they are affecting my ability to work or enjoy life with my family. I believe my immune system is weakened and all I know is that I was full of life and energy before the decision was made to place these masts so near to my home. I would like you to know that our seasonal holiday has been ruined by ill health, constant worry and conversation about whether we can find the means to move away and also we are financially stretched to the limit because we've spent all our savings on screening material to protect us from the noxious emmissions from your masts.

In the last few months our 17 year old son has been complaining of vertigo and I fear for him too as these were the first symptoms of effects of the mast that were apparent in me.

The recent Reflex report AGAIN confirms that microwave emmisssions mess up DNA strands.

I recently acquired a com metre from Powerwatch and discovered to my horror that for several years I have been sleeping with 2.5 volts running constantly through my brain, courtesy of MM02, Hutchinson 3g, T-mobile and in the last year, Tetra.

We have now spent all our savings and more on sheilding material and we're still getting readings from the mast.

I know that you are not concerned for my welfare or all those other poor souls who are being equally blasted by the emissions from an industry that puts profit before health and safety.

Don't tell me it's within thermal guidelines, it's the BIOLOGICAL effects that count.

Would any of you like to be the guinea pig instead ?

Once this danger is proven (and it will be) we will be asking those responsible and the mobile phone companies represented on Ainsdale Telephone exchange roof to account for the damage that has been done to our health and well being in the years that we have had to live under the shadow of your masts. That is, MMO2, Tetra Airwave, Hutchinson and T-mobile. Also, in adddition, further down the road there is Vodaphone 3G.

Our children have to live with this and also my daughter goes to school that has a mast on the roof. No-one should have this invasion into their home without power to do anything about it. This should not be allowed until we KNOW what the dangers to health are.

Now I know why in the last few years I have suffered from unexplained severe vertigo for 4 months, constant waking up every night at 4 am. Pains in my feet, sore eyes, degeneration of vision, thirst, (which has prompted the doctor to send me for tests for diabetes 3 times, only to find I haven't got diabetes!)

The readings in my sister's home are worse and she is very poorly indeed.

I'm absolutely determined that this injustice should not prevail.

Think about it and be prepared.

This is not a matter of trivia, it will become a severe problem eventually for us all and some sensible solutions to the siting of masts must be sought NOW.

I must stress that the anger expressed in this email is aimed at those who have a part in agreeing to place masts where they can cause harm to people.

Next year my family and many local people want the Tetra mast REMOVED from our door step and we will do everything within our power to fight for it's removal to an appropriate site away from our homes.

We will also fight to prevent any company from placing any more masts on the Ainsdale telephone exchange roof. We will not rest until you take away this Tetra mast which has not just ruined our well being but is ruining our lives !

Mr. P. Bush

--------

Dear Sir John Gieve,

It is known throughout the UK that the Tetra system is dangerous, inefficient and has been introduced before proper research has been carried out. The police and emergency organisations and the population of this country have been put at serious risk, and in fact are guinea pigs in a dangerous experiment which will cost far more lives than it will save. The claims of efficiency and protection are blatant lies. Furthermore the introduction of Tetra was legally flawed.

The tender process was a sham and the EU censured the British Government for it actions. No other tenders but theTetra system were admitted. To hide that fact, the Government decided to put in place a procedure based on what other tenders might have been. This was called a ‘Should Cost’ model and it included a 17.5 % profit figure and a provision of £170 million against possible compensation. This compensation provision shows that the dangers, though totally ignored, were fully known even then. It could legitimately be argued therefore, that the whole Tetra debacle is illegal as well as criminally unsafe.

Despite this, the police are being blackmailed into using it even though hundreds of officers are suffering ill health. Two young and fit officers have died already from a very rare oesophagal cancer, located exactly in the position of the Tetra handset. The link is obvious and unavoidable. One officer who was told to take it home for practice, found his young son playing with the handset. The child tragically went into epileptic seizure. This was all the more appalling because his son had no history of epilepsy. There are numerous shocking cases like this, but officers have been threatened with dismissal if they speak out, so they keep silent to save their careers and pensions.

Ordinary people forced to live in the shadow of Tetra masts without their consent and often without their knowledge, are already suffering serious ill health, yet their concerns are being totally ignored. The Report on Tetra by M/W expert Barry Trower, which was commissioned by the Police Federation, warned of the dangers.
Omega see under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/626200/
As a result, the Report was promptly suppressed and no action was taken. This blatant dereliction of duty of care to citizens and our emergency services, is scandalous, and many feel there should be a custodial sentence for those responsible, as it could be claimed that they are guilty of deliberate corporate manslaughter.

As part of the Telecom Industry / Government Alliance, Airwave consistently lies about the success and coverage of the Tetra roll-out. But mast campaigners nationwide, know the truth. They will not be voting for a government that is prepared to risk the lives of its citizens and especially its children, for sheer greed and profit. The Government must be forced to replace Tetra with the safer, more efficient and cheaper Tetrapole system, before it is too late and more lives are lost.

Jennifer Godschall Johnson

Below - Sir George Young's reply to my email in which I also hammered him for not staying or voting for the Spring and Stunell Bills and not signing up to Hesford's EDM. I said campaigners in his constituency would be considering his lack of support, and asked him to explain and put in writing whether he would be more active on our behalf when the next bill happens. He replied immediately - so think it might have had some effect - though wouldn't bank on it. Jenny


Many thanks for the email; I was a supporter of the Richard Spring Bill and stayed in the House of Commons a few Fridays ago, until it was clear that there would not be a vote on the Andrew Stunnell Bill. (I do not sign EDM's as, in my view, they have become a greatly devalued form of political currency with hundreds of them on the order paper.)

I have sent you details of my Party's proposals on the planning aspect of mobile phone masts, which represent an enormous improvement on the present regime and which I hope will command support from the manmy voters who regard this is a key issue in the current campaign.

Best wishes, George Young

--------

FYI. I have just sent the following to my MP Sir George Young and I included the PR on the Welsh Children visiting the Chief Constable about the Tetra mast.

There is a deafening, conspiratorial silence on the Mast issue, and although it appears on all the manifestos - no politicians and none of the leaders are putting this up front on the election band wagon. So, I thought I would point this out to Sir G, and see if I get back a response. Would it be an idea if we all did something similar? To save time and effort, if anyone wants to use this letter, appropriately altered obviously, as a template - that's fine. Should this, or something along these lines, be sent to Charles Kennedy? If so, we could add something about Nokia Davies. What about tempting the lesser parties like UKIP to put this up front? It doesn't matter who they are as long as they start talking about it as an election issue. Those parties who aren't going to get elected have nothing to lose and everything to gain, by talking the issue up. Anyway, this is just a suggestion which I thought we could all use without too much effort. Jenny


Dear Sir George,

Thank you so much for replying to my email concerning Tetra and your comments on the Telecom Bills and EDM's.

I am still not sure whether you are personally convinced or not by the Industry / Government arguments of health and safety regarding Mobile Phone and Mast technology. Whatever your views, there is no doubt whatsoever that this is a major issue right accross the country, and it must be addressed.

Although included in the manifestos of all three main parties, so far we have heard no politician speak publicly on this subject as an election issue. Clearly all parties want the significant revenue that the Industry brings in, and are so much under the thumb of the Telecom Operators that they are willing to risk the health of the nation and abuse both human and democratic rights on their behalf. This is shameful politics.

I hope you will consider speaking to your leader Mr Howard, and advise him that arguably millions of middle-aged, middle class,law abiding people ie typical core Conservative voters, could be turning to the Liberal Democrats unless he takes a strong, public line on this, now. He has made Immigration and Asylum key issues, but there is a far greater risk to the safety and well being to the whole of society, right on our doorsteps. Of course he is not alone in cleverly keeping quiet about the fact that the public is being abused by Telecom Companies. If the Conservative Party really wants to stand out from the others, making this a front page priority could be the answer. A public promise in media interviews to radically change the system in favour of people rather than these bully boy multinationals, could bring the Party back into power, as you would gain at a single stroke, millions of votes across the UK.

People have every reason to fear for their health, and for the health of their children. Every day they see their enviroment blighted and damaged. They are outraged at the biased abuse of the Legal system, the Ombudsman and Planning policies. They know that their properties are being devalued, and now, they are having to withdraw their children from their schools. This is becoming a minefield - AND NO-ONE IS HONESTLY ADDRESSING IT. The pledges in manifestos can be broken unless they are made openly and with a great flourish of publicity. The Conservative Government should honour the rights of the people, not lie low and hope that this will go away - because I can assure you, Sir George - it won't.

We are affiliated to national campaigns on a global level - the truth is now an unstoppable tide, and all the money and power of the Telecoms and their umbilically connected governments, won't stop it. That is a promise. I sincerely hope you will do all in your power to pass this message on to Mr Howard and obtain his commitment to protect rather than abuse the people of this country.

I enclose below, a Mast Sanity Press Release, one of many, which you might find of interest.

Omega see under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/627194/

Kindest Regards,

Jennifer (Godschall Johnson)

--------

The other part of the key. Please take part and encourage as many others as possible to take part. Your message need not be long, but should be firm, polite and incisive.

Andy



You are invited to communicate your displeasure at the introduction of Tetra which was largely under the control and guidance of Sir John Gieve, Permanent Secretary to the Home Office. You will know what you want him to hear from you.

He oversaw the introduction, tendering and its subsequent failure, a device called a 'should-cost' model to ensure that BT got the contract and then supervised the setting up of measures to ensure that the police would overcome their reluctance and accept Tetra.

Since then, he has been the responsible Home Office official who briefed Ministers like Hazel Blears, John Prescott, Mireille Levy, Caroline Flint et al and gave them information distorted by bias from the Home Office and O2 Airwave, as it now is, in order to continue to justify taking no action where the public, MPs, medical authorities and morally-sound scientists were expressing doubts about Tetra.

Tetra is causing problems. It is not proving to be as good as senior officials claim. People are experiencing hardship as a result of it being in their communities and this has caused 900 protest groups around the country to oppose Tetra by whatever means they can.

Sir John needs to be reminded of the responsibility he has and the continuing responsibility for upholding truth and fairness.

By expressing your views to him NOW you can be assured that in future the confidence he has in a deeply flawed system is shaken sufficiently for him to look hard at his own conscience.

If you were to write to him several times over the next 18 hours and copy your views to your MP, the Press will at last be made aware, as will those in the corridors of power that we, the people, are not to be suppressed by their indifference to us.

Send as many e-mails as you can to

john.gieve@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
with copies to your MP, using this formula:
surname+initial@parliament.uk

e.g.
flighth@parliament.uk

Good luck and let us hope that future generations thank you for taking part in this activity.

Below please find a press release from Mast Sanity that deserves maximum exposure.

Yours very sincerely,
John O'Brien
for Tetrawatch and us all.

In order to give you some background to the man, here is an extract from the ^4th Public Accounts Committee Report to the House of Commons.

I will add no comment but the full text is available online.


Mr Osborne

16. May I return to the cost of the Airwave project? It says in this report that local solutions would have been cheaper, although you would argue not as good. Do you have any idea what the extra cost was of the Airwave project versus a local procurement?

(Mr Gieve) The figure quoted in the report is £300 million, which was a comparison with a review conducted for ACPO. As you say, that would not have been a comparable system in terms of functionality.

17. Do you accept the £300 million figure? (Mr Gieve) Yes.

18. Would you not argue that it is quite a lot of money extra to pay for the improvements?

(Mr Gieve) It is a lot of money but we think that it is worth paying for the improvements.

19. Various police authorities thought it was not worth paying. According to paragraph 1.21 of the report several police authorities said they had anobligation to pursue best value and that this radio system did not meet their requirements under local best value. Were they wrong?

(Mr Gieve) They were right in thinking they could have bought something else more cheaply which would have met some of the requirements locally, but not all. You have to understand this was also part of the negotiation with the Home Office on funding this project.

20. Which you solved by bunging all the local police forces money specifically for the Airwave project. You resolved the project by stuffing their mouths with gold.

(Mr Gieve) We resolved it by saying we would pay the costs in the first three years.

21. One of the original ways in which you structured the deal was that local police authorities were going to buy the equipment separately and that was going to encourage them not to over-order their equipment. By paying them directly now and helping them with the initial startup costs are you not watering down that mechanism?

(Mr Gieve) I do not think so. The thinking behind leaving a competitive market in some of the equipment was to get some contestability within the market. If you have more than one person oVering terminals, that in itself would be the main constraint on the price rising. The second point is that we were not paying for the full cost of this. This is a 19-year contract and we oVered to pay £500 million in the three years of the last spending review, that is up to 2003–04. They still have a very big interest in the costs.

22. I am not a technology expert, so you will have to forgive me if I get this wrong. According to paragraph 1.14 you did conduct a review in 1998 of mobile phone technology developments. You tried to identify whether future developments in mobile phone technology would make the system you were buying obsolete. You concluded that was not the case. Do you still stand by that? Have you updated that review? Mobile phone technology has moved on a lot.

(Mr Gieve) This was the examination by Professor Benjamin who reported in 1999. We have not updated that since then. Equally, we have no new reason to think this is going to be outmoded technology.

23. To the complete layman, apart from the encryption, what is the diVerence between this system and giving all your police fficers mobile phones?

(Mr Asque) The difference between the technologies is that this technology was designed to meet a requirement which is subtly different from people using a mobile phone. This requirement for emergency services calls for a high level of integrity in the signal, but especially a very fast call setup. For example, making an emergency call is almost instant in this technology, whereas we all know with a mobile phone, where you have to dial through, it does take an awful long time to make that connection. The technology facilitates that very fast call setup. That is one of the main differences between the TETRA technology and the mobile phone technologies and this includes the ones which are developed now

[Jon Trickett Cont]

45. The fact is that something well over £100 million additional costs per annum are now being incurred so that police officers can speak to each other at best marginally more efficiently than they could in the past.

(Mr Gieve) No, “marginally” is not true.

46. Would you agree with my estimate that the comparative figure in terms of police officers is somewhere between an additional 2,500 to 3,500 police officers?

(Mr Gieve) I cannot do that in my head.

47. ffou have not done that calculation.

(Mr Gieve) I have the cost of a police officer somewhere in my papers. In any business you have to decide whether you put money into equipment or manpower and the police have to decide this on all sorts of fronts: about this equipment, about vehicles, about planes and everything else. ffou could make the same calculation about any of their equipment budgets. It is a matter of judgement. You say this is just so they can communicate across borders better. That is not the whole point. We hope Airwave is going to produce and we think it is, there are signs of that already, very much better communication within police force areas and that is what we are hearing from Lancashire and North Yorkshire. That is an improvement in efficiency.

48. I am going to ask you about that in a minute because some of the figures beggar belief and some of the defence which has been mounted in favour of this beggars belief. From my point of view the two priorities which communities I represent have are: the public being able to speak to the police, which is a very diffcult problem even on 999 calls, it is difficult for people to get through; secondly, the police being able to attend incidents which are occurring in villages and towns. I would have thought that the priority would have been for additional police officers. I see that you disagree with me in relation to that.

(Mr Gieve) No, I do not; we are employing more police officers. We have a record number already and we have plans to increase them.

49. The fact is that you could have employed even more police officers had you not decided to go down what appears to me to be a fairly disastrous track. May I move in a different direction for a second or two? When you found you only had a single bidder for this very costly system, one of the things which the department did was to try to calculate what it would cost for the public sector to provide a similar kind of equipment. I think you cooked the books. You added £ 170 million for the alleged risk which the private sector were taking and you were losing. You added a further £70 million for a contingency sum. Presumably £240 million was added to the cost of the public sector price in order to get it higher than the price which the private sector was bidding. Would you agree with the way in which I have expressed that?

(Mr Gieve) No.

(Mr Webb) We had the private sector comparator undertaken by an independent authority, in fact Charterhouse and Masons Communications undertook that on our behalf. They did that in line with the Treasury guideline for calculating these terms. All of the things included were part of the guideline.

50. I have a note in front of me saying that the risks which the private sector were allegedly taking if they were to be the supplier were valued at £170 million. It does not say that your consultant advised you on the contingency sum, it says that PITO decided to have this contingency sum, that is a further £70 million. You added a quarter of a million pounds to the price of a public sector provider. Is that figure correct?

(Mr Webb) Yes, those figures are correct.

51. Did your consultants, who themselves are in the private sector and may have an interest in trying to load the dice against the public sector, advise PITO to add £70 million for unknown contingencies? Was that the figure they recommended?

(Mr Webb) Yes, it was.

52. Did they identify the £ 170 million of risk which the private sector were allegedly taking and you were divesting yourselves of? Did they recommend that figure as well?

(Mr Webb) Yes, they did. Bearing in mind this was new technology, it had not been done before, it was the largest IT project ever undertaken by the Police Service, risks were identified, particularly in the area of the acquisition of sites, which we have already seen have materialised. There was significant risk in terms of the figures which were being used in this activity and that is why they were included.

53. With the Chairman’s permission, could we ask for some further information on how these prices which are one quarter of a billion pounds in two global sums like this were calculated? That information would be helpful.

(Mr Gieve) Yes; certainly .4

54. Part of this report reads as though you have written it, frankly. It does not read as a report which was written jointly by yourselves and the C&AG. Paragraph 1.23 says “PITO regards the system as an enabler that can reduce the frequency with which police officers have to return to the station and the length of time they spend on tasks such as making telephone calls or receiving briefings”. It goes on to say “. .. not all forces were convinced” of this. May I ask the C&AG what independent evaluation they made of these claims?

(Mr Colman) They are claims about the future and you will see that we word this paragraph very carefully to say these are PITO’s opinions as to benefits which should flow from the introduction of this system. The system was not in operation when we were doing this work, so it was not therefore possible to verify that these savings would be achieved.

55. Have we identified how much time police officers use making telephone calls which is now going to be saved by making radio calls? Somehow they are going to be more brief than the telephone calls the police are currently making. If PITO has made that claim, which sounds bizarre, since I cannot understand why a telephone call takes longer than a (Page ends)


http://www.mastsanity.org
Advice Line 08704 322 377
Press Office 01962 864 388

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11/4/05

RICHARD OF CORNWALL LEADS TETRA RESISTANCE

The days of knights and dragons have returned to Cornwall with a vengeance as the county rises up against TETRA the controversial police communications network being rolled out by O2 Airwave.

Punters placing bets on which single issue candidate may triumph in next month’s general election should look no further than the Labour marginal of Falmouth and Camborne where fifty-four year old grandfather, Richard Smith is standing for the newly formed Removal of TETRA Masts in Cornwall party.

Mr. Smith decided to take action after O2 Airwave erected an unlawful TETRA mast in his community despite the application being turned down by Parish, District and County Council. The company’s record of flouting planning decisions and applying for permission retrospectively is well documented, as are the worrying symptoms experienced by people living near the masts. Problems with TETRA are not confined to the general public. Health and safety concerns have been expressed on behalf of police officers, who are forced to use the equipment.

The TETRA controversy is the latest element in the growing resistance to the relentless march of phone masts across the UK. National campaign organisation Mast Sanity, which already has around nine hundred groups registered, says their advice line receives hundreds of calls each month. People, desperately worried about the proliferation of 3G masts and TETRA, are shocked to discover just how much freedom from planning controls the telecom operators have and how few powers local communities have to resist them. “ The public and the police are being used as guinea pigs. The Government tells people that this untested technology is safe and refuses to sort out the planning chaos,” says Mast Sanity Advice Co-ordinator, Sandi Lawrence.

This is the first time that TETRA or phone masts have prompted a single-issue election stand. Whether it will be a case of “Mr. Smith Goes To Westminster” is a hard one to call. Richard Smith is hoping his stand will inspire others and hopes to pick up the floating votes. “It’s going to be a hard month, but I’m up for it – on your behalf and for all families. Let’s take them on,” he says. Whether or not this Cornish “knight” turns out to be a dragon-slayer, the sitting MP Candy Atherton defending a slender majority of four and a half thousand, would be ill-advised to toe the official Labour Party line on TETRA.

END


From Mast Network

(Auszug)

Berlin, Samstag, 09.04.2005

Beachten Sie bitte die angeblich bedauerlichen Einzelfälle, die aber schon längst keine Einzelfälle mehr sind:

In der historischen Altstadt von Einbeck treibt das örtliche Sozialamt einen kleinen selbstständigen Wollhändler in die extreme Verzweiflungstat und will es anschließend nicht gewesen sein.

Das Sozialamt wollte von dem kleinen Einzelhändler mit dem historischen Wollgeschäft aus der Einbecker Altstadt Unterhaltsleistungen für die pflegebedürftige Mutter.

Obwohl das Recht und die höchstrichterliche Rechtssprechung zugunsten des gewerblichen Geringverdieners keine Auflösng des Hausbesitzes verlangen, kümmerte es das Sozialamt der Stadt Einbeck nicht und trieb den kleinen Kaufmann bis in die Zwangsversteigerung des historischen Geschäftes, das seit 200 Jahren im Familienbesitz war.

Leider ist dieser Anlaß für die schreckliche Verzweiflungstat kein bedauerlicher Einzelfall.

Über die Jahre hinweg gab es in der Nachbarschaft von Einbeck bereits ähnlich verursachte Existenzvernichtungen.

Exemplarisch dafür sei das Schicksal des Schloßbesitzers Artur Frauenholz von der Erichsburg erwähnt.

In gleicher Weise wurde der Eigentümer des alten Forsthauses vom Kloster Amelunxborn in den Konkurs getrieben.

Länger zurück datiert der Fall mit dem Sollingschloß Nienover. Dort gab es ebenfalls behördliche Erpressungen, die den letzen privaten Eigentümer Herrn G. Beyer in die Verzweiflung und bis in Wutreaktionen trieben.

In Gronau an der Leine erwischte behördliche Gängelung den einst beliebtesten Konditor der Stadt und hatte auch den wirtschaftlichen Konkurs mit dem Verlust von Ehre, Vemögen und Einkommen zur Folge.

Wer nun glaubt, daß es sich nur um seltene Fälle der Begehrlichkeit an historischen Gebäuden handelt, der irrt gewaltig.

In diesen Tagen berichtete die Finanzial Times Deutschland von einem gerade aktuell geschehenden Vernichtungsfall einer privaten gewerblichen Existenz in Niedersachsen: Der mehrfach prämierte Tierfilmer Burkhard Lenniger wird mit unzulässigen Steuerforderungen rechtswidrig und systematisch in den Konkurs getrieben.

http://schlanert.heim.at/lenniger
http://www.afk-pirol.org/cvp_news/cvp_news.html

In Deutschland gibt es keinen Schutz für das Vermögen redlicher Menschen mehr.

Knut W. Schlanert
fon +49 30 78714123
fax +49 30 78716378
email: knut@schlanert.de


Ein mehrfach prämierter Tierfilmer kämpft weiter gegen seine Existenzvernichtung (Teil 2)
http://tinyurl.com/88azk

From Jenny. Have been ill over the last few weeks and unable to do anything - even typing hurts. Sorry. My body has gone into total anarchy. All the bones and joints are red hot pokers, I have a permanent nose bleed, migraines, insomnia and not surprisingly, depression. Think I’ll put a paper bag over my head and pretend I’m not here. I had a letter from George Young, and have only just managed the following reply:

“….. I read the Hansard Report on the Stunell Bill, and it’s clear it was not Mr Stunell who talked the Bill out. Fortunately it will be heard again on the 22nd April. I appreciate that in your view the situation remains the same. Nevertheless, it is still the opinion of mast campaigners that it is essential to be present on the day to show support. On a related matter, I note that 157 MP’s signed up to Mr Hesford’s Early Day Motion which states:

“That this House notes with considerable concern that communities up and down the UK are becoming bombarded with mobile phone mast applications, often repeatedly so: further notes that the 10 point guidance by the industry to regulate and regularise such applications is more honoured in the breach than the observance; further notes that it is now almost five years since the Stewart Report dealt with health-related issues and, because concerns are increasing and scientific understanding has moved on and the output of such masts have increased, calls upon the Government urgently to look again at planning guidance in relation to mast applications and to recall The Stewart Committee in order that health aspects of mast applications can be reassessed.”

Among those who signed were other Hampshire MP’s, including Andrew Hunter, Michael Mates and Mark Oaten, so there was deep disappointment that you had chosen not to support it. Not unexpectedly, failing to attend both the Spring and Stunell Bills, or sign up to Mr Hesford’s EDM, gives rise to serious doubts as to your ‘wholehearted’ support of these measures. I wonder if you could clarify your position, particularly on health and the need for safer planning guidelines, as this is obviously of major concern to voters in the run up to the election.

Similar Telecom Bills will continue to be put before Parliament until people get meaningful health and safety protection. The present policies, including planning guidelines, are a farce and offer little or no protection, despite the false assurances from the Government and the Industry. Because the Operators ‘influence’ politicians from all parties, they have virtually unlimited power. Unless MP’s fight on behalf of their constituents, they will be seen to be part of a Government / Industry Alliance which puts big business above the democratic rights of the people, and worse, puts the next generation at risk. I have great sympathy for Sir William Stewart, who appears to have no support from the government for his sensible recommendations, particularly regarding children. Our strong hope is that local MP’s will force the implementation of the precautionary measures he suggests. It may be a cliché, but it’s true nonetheless, words are cheap – only actions count.

The lies, misinformation, illegal actions and appalling ethics of the Telecom Industry have no place in a decent society. But their time is running out. With the huge increase in the mast roll-out, more and more communities are finding themselves in the ‘firing line’. Fortunately Mast Sanity provides all the information they need, and that information has spread fast and far. What politicians and Operators are dealing with now, is an unstoppable tide of anger and mistrust from a newly empowered and informed electorate. A very dangerous animal!

If you wish I can give you details of the independent international research that Sir William Stewart alludes to in his latest report. A subject of such national importance must surely be essential reading for MP’s.

You know my position on this, Sir George, and I make no apology. This issue cannot be buried. It doesn’t matter how much money is involved or how powerful the organisations are, the fact is the British public are being deliberately and criminally put at risk for profit. Politicians either acquiesce in this scandal or they oppose it. It is a matter of conscience. Yours etc....


From Mast Network