|
Post Time: 29/01/2009 20:02:32 |
Eli
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Below is a letter submitted to the Melton Times, regarding us 'idiot' phone mast protestors! Penned by someone who works for the industry (surprise, surprise!) Can anyone help us debunk his theories?! Thanks.
Get the facts
I WRITE in response to the article 'We will block phone mast' (Melton Times, last week). I work in the telecommunications industry and I will not use this as a vehicle to lecture anybody about radio-frequency (RF), the electromagnetic spectrum or the difference between ionising radiation and non- ionising radiation.
I would, however, like the people who are protesting against the radio base station which is to be built at Grange Drive to do a little fact finding before making outlandish claims. The protesters should ask themselves the following:-
Are they awarADVERTISEMENTe how little amount of RF energy is given off at these base stations, especially in areas where the public will be able to gain access?
Are they aware the RF energy given off by these base stations is non-ionising and NOT ionising radiation and that the mobile phone network transmits within the same spectrum as the television, radar and satellite frequencies and sits in between these?
Are they aware that we are all surrounded by RF energy on a daily basis regardless of the mobile phone network. Mobile phones, Wireless broadband routers and computer consoles to name but a few items all operate using non- ionising frequencies. Most appliances give off some amount of RF energy including your TV, microwave and refrigerator
Are they aware that they live in the shadow of a TV mast which transmits at thousands of times the power of a radio base station also using non- ionising radiation ? Put into context the mobile phone radio base station will transmit a signal for around one mile but you can obtain a signal from the TV mast up to 25 miles away.
I have friends and family who live opposite the proposed site and connections with the pre-school at Sherard and have no problems whatsoever with this radio base station being constructed.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
|
|
Post Time: 31/01/2009 19:57:16 |
marg5hatesmasts
Total Forum Posts: 15 |
Eli,
As nobody has replied so far, I have sent this email to the Melton Times by way of support for your fight.
As you can see, there is evidence of biological effects from non-ionising radiation reported in the 'Bioinitiative Report' and the EU Parliament and European Commission are taking the Bioinitiative Report seriously.
'European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2008 on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)'.
There is plenty of information on the Powerwatch website if you click around.
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/radio_tv.asp
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/masts.asp
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/index.asp?group=1
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050722_bamberg.asp
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
These are my thoughts anyway.
Can anyone else help Eli?
Regards,
Margaret
=============================================
Letter to Melton Times
Sir,
The telecommunications industry employee who wrote dismissing the mast protesters should do some researching himself!
Do not be misled by mobile industry assurances that non-ionising radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations does not cause health problems. In fact, 10 out of 14 published peer reviewed research studies carried out to investigate the effects of the emissions from mobile phone base stations have found adverse health effects. Note the studies by Eger [2004] found a three fold increase in cancers after 5 years at less than 400 metres from the base station and Wolf & Wolf [2004] found similar results but with a 10 fold increase in female cancers. The abstracts are available on PubMed and on the WHO databases. The international REFLEX Study found that emissions like those produced from mobile phone base stations caused genetic damage.
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/masts.asp
The pulsed non-ionising radiation used by the telecommunications industry does indeed cause physiological effects. Indeed, The Bioinitiative Report which reviewed over 2000 research studies found that ‘non-ionising’ radiation does produce physiological effects. Importantly, the European Parliament and the European Commission have accepted the findings of the Bioinitiative Report. The EU now acknowledges that the present permitted exposure levels are obsolete, UNSAFE and must be drastically reduced based on the physiological effects of the non-ionising radiation.
See: 'European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2008 on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)'.
In Germany and Austria, numerous doctors have been protesting to their governments in Appeals [e.g. Freiberger Appeal, Bamberger Appeal] about the health effects that the radiation exposures are causing in their patients at very low exposure levels.
It is also misleading to imply that there have been no effects reported from radio or TV transmitters. See http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/radio_tv.asp
e.g. Sutton Colefield FM and TV transmitters, Sutro Tower, Schwarzenberg SW radio transmitter, Vatican City radio transmitter.
I live near to a mobile phone base station and I have had to screen my home against the high levels of GSM/3G [measured by an environmental officer] on my pillow that was causing constant non-stop migraines and sleep problems.
The present levels from all mobile telecommunications equipment needs to be drastically reduced as recommended by the European Parliament.
'European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2008 on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)'.
Assurances by telecommunications employees are meaningless and do not protect your family!
M White
===================
'European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2008 on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)'.
It states:
The European Parliament ,
[J.] whereas these problematic developments in environmental health have been accompanied in recent years by the emergence of new diseases or syndromes, such as multiple chemical hypersensibility, dental-amalgam syndrome, hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation, sick-building syndrome and attention-deficit and hyperactivity syndrome in children,
[21.] Is greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report(8) concerning electromagnetic fields, which summarises over 1500 studies on that topic and which points in its conclusions to the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, Wifi, Wimax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline telephones;
[22.] Notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, since they have not been adjusted in the wake of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0Hz to 30 GHz)(9) , obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or of the stricter emission standards adopted, for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children;
23. Calls, consequently, upon the Council to amend its Recommendation 1999/519/EC in order to take into account the Member States' best practices and thus to set stricter exposure limits for all equipment which emits electromagnetic waves in the frequencies between 0.1 MHz and 300 GHz;
And
36. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the WHO.
|
|
Post Time: 02/02/2009 19:52:49 |
Eli
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Thanks Margaret! We've also sent a letter to the Melton Times and will ask for contact details of the guy who wrote the letter. We can at least inform him when the Melton Times don't bother to publish our letters! It's a shame but the editor only seems to publish letters from people berating us protestors, and is never really interested in any of the independent science studies that we quote! Thanks again, Eli. |
|
Post Time: 06/02/2009 11:09:28 |
marg5hatesmasts
Total Forum Posts: 15 |
Eli,
I was actually contacted by the Melton Times Editor for my address, but I notice that my reply did not get published - not even heavily edited!
I notice that one letter has been published on the 5th February. Yours I imagine?
I have found that the local newspaper here is not interested in quoting studies - but then they advertise that their newspaper can be accessed via mobile phones etc.!
Best wishes,
Margaret |
|
Post Time: 06/02/2009 13:20:22 |
Eli
Total Forum Posts: 7 |
Margaret,
The Melton Times surprised us and published both our letter (which they titled Public Health), and yours (which they titled Migraines). They did edit yours significantly (but we had covered the BioInitiative Report and the European Parliament) and ours a little, so all in all I'm impressed, as they have let us down in the past. It was a shame that they didn't publish the links that you supplied, but you certainly will have given the people of Melton some food for thought! All we can do is plant the seed. The Melton Times didn't give us very good coverage when we had a battle on with O2 (even though we arranged a rota so that someone was at the site 24hrs a day for 2 weeks to stop the contractors gaining access!), the Leicester Mercury though saw fit to put us on the front page about 4 times however!
Once again, thank you in helping us get the word out there!
Kind regards
Eli |
