RADIATION RISK ON THE ROOF
http://tinyurl.com/yk9vtm
http://tinyurl.com/ydtexn
Help required folks. Please see this story "RADIATION RISK ON THE ROOF" in Saturday's (4.11.06) Bristol Evening Post about ill health and cancer clusters in a block of flats:
http://tinyurl.com/yk9vtm
Just to get you interested/annoyed the Orange spokes person said, "It is interesting that the residents believe if the mast is gone they will be free of radiation but this will not be the case. In fact, a 90- second phone call on a mobile is the equivalent in exposure terms to standing in front of a mast for a full 24 hours without moving.
"We are obviously sensitive to the fact that some people who live there have health problems, but there is no evidence to suggest the phone masts are in any way a cause of their various illnesses." Would like the Bristol Evening Post to be flooded with letters if possible (well 2 or 3 at least). It is only me who ever responds to such stories in the BEP so it would be great if a few of you could also write. You can email your letter marked "for publication" to 'epletters@bepp.co.uk' or write to Readers Letters, Bristol Evening Post, Temple Way, Bristol, BS99 7HD. (The usual 250 word limit is given but I have got away with 295 in the past)!
Thanks for your help,
John Elliott
--------
How can 90 seconds on a mobile phone be the equivilent to standing in front of a mast for 24 hours ?????????????????
I just don't get it !!
A mast near me that it proposed has a rating of 100 Watts of output power. What is the output power of a mobile phone ? Does anyone know ? I'm sure I read somewhere that its a few Watts, so its doesn't seem comparable....
Anyone know what Orange might be talking about here ?????
Chris.
--------
Bristol Cancer Cluster in Flats (Vodaphone and Orange Masts on Roof)
I've heard this one before too.
With a mast, the power output is high (100W) but you're tens of metres from it. With a phone, the power output is low (a few Watts), but you're only millimetres from it. The amount of energy you absorb is dependent on:
1. the power output
2. how far away you are
3. how long you are exposed So someone's done the maths and worked out you absorb the same energy in a 90 second call compared to 24 hours at some distance from a mast. I can believe this...
BUT
2 things to note.
Firstly, it's making a huge assumption about the mechanics of any harmful effect. Is harm simply dependent on the amount of energy absorbed? Perhaps prolonged exposure causes more damage than short bursts, in which case a mast on your roof would be more dangerous? Or perhaps it's the other way round - maybe we're immune below a certain threshold, above which damage starts being caused, in which case a mast would be less dangerous than a phone. Without identifying the actual mechanism, you simply can't say. So for Orange to imply the risks are the same is flawed logic. But it gets them a good soundbite...
Secondly, government guidelines clearly recommend children should only use mobile phones in an emergency. This means even a 90 second call is too much. If they're happy to admit that 24 hours near a mast is the same as 90 seconds on the phone, then there's a clear contradiction allowing masts on top of houses where children might live.
Ben
--------
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell
To: epletters@bepp.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: for publication
Dear Editor
[I understand that you have a 250-word limit. If you have to cut this letter, please take those sections that you consider of most concern to your readership. Thanks]
I'm writing in response to your article 'Radiation Risk on the Roof' (Evening Post, 4th Nov). I find it particularly arrogant of the Orange spokesperson to assert that 90 seconds on a mobile is equivalent to 24 hours in front of a mast. She's clearly not up to speed on research showing that the body's recovery processes which restore balance to one's system quite quickly after such a short call have absolutely NO chance of maintaining such balance under a 24-hour exposure, even at far lower signal strength - there's just no respite for those in the radiation field of a mast 24/7. She also shouldn't be making such wild claims without acquainting herself with replicated research findings showing significant reduction in melatonin production - essential for both sleep regulation and as an anti-cancer agent - for those exposed to such emissions for extended periods at night, as people living near to a mast are. It's no coincidence that both sleep disorders and incidence of a variety of cancers are significantly higher in the vicinity of masts according to a number of studies.
Those conversant with the weight of evidence showing health risks from mast emissions can only give a hollow laugh at the 'reassurance' that the NRPB are monitoring the situation - remember the confident claims of government departments over BSE? As for the BMA claim that there's evidence that they're perfectly safe, that just doesn't make sense. The only evidence possible from research studies is on whether or not specific effects have been observed to a significant degree - to be 'perfectly safe', EVERY possible effects would have to have been tested for, a logical impossibility.
On the contrary, the EU-funded 'Reflex' study, conducted over a period of more than four years by twelve partner institutions from seven countries, concluded that in respect of radiation as emitted from both phones and masts "... there exists no justification any more to claim, that we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man." In other words the claim that there's no way that this type of radiation could cause illness no longer holds water. This followed results replicated by a number of the partner institutions showing single and double-strand DNA breaks of the sort that lead to cancer at levels of radiation within our government's 'safety guidelines'.
Come off it Vodafone and Orange. The future may be bright for mobile phone operators under the government's 'Fire away, that's OK' policy, but the cancer clusters in the main beams of masts across the world speak far more eloquently than any ill-informed vested-interest spokesperson for those who gain big bucks while others suffer.
Sincerely
Dr Grahame Blackwell
Lustleigh
Devon
--------
Bristol Cancer Cluster in Flats (Vodaphone and Orange Mast)
Your article of 4th November 2006, “Radiation on the Roof”, moved me so much that I felt compelled to write despite the fact that I am trying to recover after an enforced move from my home where TETRA, 2G and 3G emissions penetrate most areas of my flat and made me quite unwell.
Berkley House is yet another example of the increasing clusters of ill-health across the UK attributed to all technologies using pulsed microwave radiation which includes mobile phone masts, TETRA etc
As the founder member of Mast Sickness UK, I know of many such sites with masts on the roofs of residential flats, offices, industrial units, hospitals, schools and churches. There are also clusters of antennae on sports grounds and in residential areas across the UK. All those I have heard of are also associated with clusters of ill- health, many with higher than average cancer rates which are regarded by authorities as anecdotal evidence.
The scientific proof of harm has been presented to various bodies countless times but it remains discredited or ignored by those with the power to change things, yet the incidents of “anecdotal evidence” keep rising at an alarming rate.
I speak to many people who are unwell around this technology and they have worked out by trial and error over a period of time what is actually making them ill, many after undergoing various medical tests. None wished to blame this new technology which liberates us and gives us so much pleasure but many now have to avoid it, if they can, and cannot use it! There is a growing number of people who have become sensitive to pulsed microwave radiation, just as some are sensitive to electrical frequencies, or others to chemicals, pollen etc.
The wisps of this man-made smog are now becoming a multi –layered blanket of pollution of a new kind that we cannot see and only those who are sensitive to it can feel. Where there is smoke we should look for the fire before it becomes an unquenchable inferno.
All these poor people in Berkeley House, or any others affected, can do is to seek some form of protection or ask their MP to lobby the Government about this growing problem.
I can advise on where protection can be obtained or help in other simple ways.
My email address is MastSicknessUK @aol.com
Sandi Lawrence
Mast Sickness UK
--------
PHONE MAST PLAN FOR HOSPITAL
http://www.louthleader.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=817&ArticleID=1862823
--------
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=cancer+clusters
Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911
http://tinyurl.com/ydtexn
Help required folks. Please see this story "RADIATION RISK ON THE ROOF" in Saturday's (4.11.06) Bristol Evening Post about ill health and cancer clusters in a block of flats:
http://tinyurl.com/yk9vtm
Just to get you interested/annoyed the Orange spokes person said, "It is interesting that the residents believe if the mast is gone they will be free of radiation but this will not be the case. In fact, a 90- second phone call on a mobile is the equivalent in exposure terms to standing in front of a mast for a full 24 hours without moving.
"We are obviously sensitive to the fact that some people who live there have health problems, but there is no evidence to suggest the phone masts are in any way a cause of their various illnesses." Would like the Bristol Evening Post to be flooded with letters if possible (well 2 or 3 at least). It is only me who ever responds to such stories in the BEP so it would be great if a few of you could also write. You can email your letter marked "for publication" to 'epletters@bepp.co.uk' or write to Readers Letters, Bristol Evening Post, Temple Way, Bristol, BS99 7HD. (The usual 250 word limit is given but I have got away with 295 in the past)!
Thanks for your help,
John Elliott
--------
How can 90 seconds on a mobile phone be the equivilent to standing in front of a mast for 24 hours ?????????????????
I just don't get it !!
A mast near me that it proposed has a rating of 100 Watts of output power. What is the output power of a mobile phone ? Does anyone know ? I'm sure I read somewhere that its a few Watts, so its doesn't seem comparable....
Anyone know what Orange might be talking about here ?????
Chris.
--------
Bristol Cancer Cluster in Flats (Vodaphone and Orange Masts on Roof)
I've heard this one before too.
With a mast, the power output is high (100W) but you're tens of metres from it. With a phone, the power output is low (a few Watts), but you're only millimetres from it. The amount of energy you absorb is dependent on:
1. the power output
2. how far away you are
3. how long you are exposed So someone's done the maths and worked out you absorb the same energy in a 90 second call compared to 24 hours at some distance from a mast. I can believe this...
BUT
2 things to note.
Firstly, it's making a huge assumption about the mechanics of any harmful effect. Is harm simply dependent on the amount of energy absorbed? Perhaps prolonged exposure causes more damage than short bursts, in which case a mast on your roof would be more dangerous? Or perhaps it's the other way round - maybe we're immune below a certain threshold, above which damage starts being caused, in which case a mast would be less dangerous than a phone. Without identifying the actual mechanism, you simply can't say. So for Orange to imply the risks are the same is flawed logic. But it gets them a good soundbite...
Secondly, government guidelines clearly recommend children should only use mobile phones in an emergency. This means even a 90 second call is too much. If they're happy to admit that 24 hours near a mast is the same as 90 seconds on the phone, then there's a clear contradiction allowing masts on top of houses where children might live.
Ben
--------
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell
To: epletters@bepp.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: for publication
Dear Editor
[I understand that you have a 250-word limit. If you have to cut this letter, please take those sections that you consider of most concern to your readership. Thanks]
I'm writing in response to your article 'Radiation Risk on the Roof' (Evening Post, 4th Nov). I find it particularly arrogant of the Orange spokesperson to assert that 90 seconds on a mobile is equivalent to 24 hours in front of a mast. She's clearly not up to speed on research showing that the body's recovery processes which restore balance to one's system quite quickly after such a short call have absolutely NO chance of maintaining such balance under a 24-hour exposure, even at far lower signal strength - there's just no respite for those in the radiation field of a mast 24/7. She also shouldn't be making such wild claims without acquainting herself with replicated research findings showing significant reduction in melatonin production - essential for both sleep regulation and as an anti-cancer agent - for those exposed to such emissions for extended periods at night, as people living near to a mast are. It's no coincidence that both sleep disorders and incidence of a variety of cancers are significantly higher in the vicinity of masts according to a number of studies.
Those conversant with the weight of evidence showing health risks from mast emissions can only give a hollow laugh at the 'reassurance' that the NRPB are monitoring the situation - remember the confident claims of government departments over BSE? As for the BMA claim that there's evidence that they're perfectly safe, that just doesn't make sense. The only evidence possible from research studies is on whether or not specific effects have been observed to a significant degree - to be 'perfectly safe', EVERY possible effects would have to have been tested for, a logical impossibility.
On the contrary, the EU-funded 'Reflex' study, conducted over a period of more than four years by twelve partner institutions from seven countries, concluded that in respect of radiation as emitted from both phones and masts "... there exists no justification any more to claim, that we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man." In other words the claim that there's no way that this type of radiation could cause illness no longer holds water. This followed results replicated by a number of the partner institutions showing single and double-strand DNA breaks of the sort that lead to cancer at levels of radiation within our government's 'safety guidelines'.
Come off it Vodafone and Orange. The future may be bright for mobile phone operators under the government's 'Fire away, that's OK' policy, but the cancer clusters in the main beams of masts across the world speak far more eloquently than any ill-informed vested-interest spokesperson for those who gain big bucks while others suffer.
Sincerely
Dr Grahame Blackwell
Lustleigh
Devon
--------
Bristol Cancer Cluster in Flats (Vodaphone and Orange Mast)
Your article of 4th November 2006, “Radiation on the Roof”, moved me so much that I felt compelled to write despite the fact that I am trying to recover after an enforced move from my home where TETRA, 2G and 3G emissions penetrate most areas of my flat and made me quite unwell.
Berkley House is yet another example of the increasing clusters of ill-health across the UK attributed to all technologies using pulsed microwave radiation which includes mobile phone masts, TETRA etc
As the founder member of Mast Sickness UK, I know of many such sites with masts on the roofs of residential flats, offices, industrial units, hospitals, schools and churches. There are also clusters of antennae on sports grounds and in residential areas across the UK. All those I have heard of are also associated with clusters of ill- health, many with higher than average cancer rates which are regarded by authorities as anecdotal evidence.
The scientific proof of harm has been presented to various bodies countless times but it remains discredited or ignored by those with the power to change things, yet the incidents of “anecdotal evidence” keep rising at an alarming rate.
I speak to many people who are unwell around this technology and they have worked out by trial and error over a period of time what is actually making them ill, many after undergoing various medical tests. None wished to blame this new technology which liberates us and gives us so much pleasure but many now have to avoid it, if they can, and cannot use it! There is a growing number of people who have become sensitive to pulsed microwave radiation, just as some are sensitive to electrical frequencies, or others to chemicals, pollen etc.
The wisps of this man-made smog are now becoming a multi –layered blanket of pollution of a new kind that we cannot see and only those who are sensitive to it can feel. Where there is smoke we should look for the fire before it becomes an unquenchable inferno.
All these poor people in Berkeley House, or any others affected, can do is to seek some form of protection or ask their MP to lobby the Government about this growing problem.
I can advise on where protection can be obtained or help in other simple ways.
My email address is MastSicknessUK @aol.com
Sandi Lawrence
Mast Sickness UK
--------
PHONE MAST PLAN FOR HOSPITAL
http://www.louthleader.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=817&ArticleID=1862823
--------
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=cancer+clusters
Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911
rudkla - 6. Nov, 12:42
