[Skip to content]
 Home
 News Index RSS XML Feed
 Our researched articles
 Science (General)
   List of studies
   Basic guide to EMFs
   EMF guidance levels
   RF unit conversion
   FAQs
   Other resources
 ELF ("Power" EMFs)
   Overview
   Powerlines
   Substations
   Electrical wiring
   Electrical appliances
 RF ("Microwave" EMFs)
   Overview
   WiFi
   Mobile phones
   Cordless phones
   Mobile phone masts
   Other resources
 Health
   Childhood leukaemia
   Brain tumours
   Electromagnetic sensitivity
   Other health effects
 Action
   Reduce your exposure
   - Mobile phones
   - Phone masts
   - Powerlines
   EMFields store

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!

- Liability disclaimer -
- Privacy policy -
- Cookies policy -
© Copyright Powerwatch 2017

» Printer friendly version

08/06/2006 - MEP stands for common sense approach

Taken from the Salisbury Journal, residents of Ashley Heath are running out of time to object to a 30-metre high Orangs PCS Ltd phone mast in their village.

Powerwatch CommentsThis in itself is no big news, but what is worth of note is the stance being taken by Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas, who is advocating that a higher level of precaution should be applied to the siting of mobile phone masts. Her comments were as follows:

"Research conducted on behalf of the European Parliament has demonstrated those safety guidelines governing the exposure of radiation to the public from mobile phone base stations are inadequate.

"In the face of real health risks we should adopt the precautionary principle and stop allowing masts to be built at sites which are close to residential areas. However, the planning laws make it difficult for local authorities to take risks to human health into account when deciding whether to give phone operators permission to erect masts.

"The government must review the legislation and require local councils to properly apply the precautionary principle, when considering the siting of mobile phone masts."


Ms Caroline Lucas, Green Party MEP

It is good to see recognition that the current exposure standards are simply not appropriate to assess the non-thermal effects being reported. The ICNIRP guidlines do a perfectly adequate job of assessing and preventing the levels required to create significant thermal effects, but new far lower guidelines need to be created to take into account reported effects from those exposed to far lower doses over prolonged periods - such as those people living close to base stations.

When there was a scare about the red food colourant Sudan 1 not that long ago, new guidelines were set in place to protect the British public. Large quantities of ready meals and other food-stocks were removed from the shelves and trashed for having levels over 1000th of the level where brain cancer was found to be being cause in laboratory rat tests. So why, when there is research showing similar cancers in rats from mobile phone radiation at levels the British public are being exposed to, are we not using a similar precautionary stance? What is it about the cellular phoneindustry that make the politicians demand such high levels of repeatable scientific evidence before introducing more appropriate precautionary guidelines?

We strongly suspect that it is the billions of pounds each year that governments around the world are making from mobile phone revenues. The mobile revolution is the modern 'gravey train' - the only really big commercial success story, bringing in enormous funds for industry, commerce and governments. There is no will to try and restrict this at present. Governments tend to think only in 3 to 5 year time frames (to the next election), when the symptoms being tested for (e.g. brain tumours) typically take a minimum of 10 years and, typically, 15 to 25 years to show up in the victims.

[Link to Salisbury Journal Article]

Also in the news

Successful Irish mast protest rally

Following the actual protest march along the N7 (which runs through the town), invited speakers addressed the crowd outside the town hall. Among these was well-known disability rights campaigner and MEP (Ind) Kathy Sinnott. She acknowledges her full support of our EHS campaign for recognition and equally acknowledges that this physical disability is aggravated severely by radiation from masts. She said that she and the British MEP Dr. Caroline Lucas are committed to supporting our cause in Brussels. The primary objective, she pointed out, must be recognition of EHS and following from that would come acknowledgement of multiple illnesses caused by the same radiative source. She suggested that electrosensitives in Ireland should select among themselves a representative best example and then they should bring this case to her and she in turn would bring it to her committee in Brussels.

Powerwatch CommentsIt seems there is a growing momentum behind those wishing to prove that EHS is a real condition and that its association with EMFs is more than just psychological. In context, it is also interesting to note that the Irish Doctors' Environmental Association (IDEA) officially recognise the syndrome, including the association with Electromagnetic fields

[Link to Omega News Article]