Tighter laws on mobile phone antennas
16 February 2007
Brussels' parliament has approved a bill aimed at protecting people and the environment from the effects of electromagnetic rays, notably those produced by mobile phone antennas.
According to the authors of the bill, the proposed law, which should be implemented in two years, would impose standards 47 times more restrictive than the current national law and would apply to a much broader range of frequencies.
The aim is to limit the potential impact of mobile phone antennas on health. This law follows complaints from Brussels citizens about sleep disruptions after the installation of a mobile phone antenna in the vicinity of their homes.
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=36647
--------
ICNIRP (UK, not Brussels) is around 40-55 V/m depending on frequency.
2-3 V/m is typical in houses within 100m of a mast already. I had up to 6V/m where I used to live.
I can't see that there is researched dosimetric reason behind this figure, which is why ICNIRP has hung around so long so securely. So why 3V/m?
Certainly it is not a fix for EHS. Certainly it doesn't challenge the industry a whole lot, but it does have implications for shared sites IF it applies to sites not individual bases. It should also be measured not "as radiated" but "as received/observed" since environments (other than open fields) are complex.
But is this the right measure? Is it equivalent to a limit on power density (measured in W/m^2)? Is energy absorption the issue?
Either way, this limit does not avoid all known EMF effects and I can't see it overturning ICNIRP here in the UK yet.
Andy
Jane
The alignment concerns me. Mast companies will think nothing of this. Each will be "thousands of times below ICNIRP" and no-one is concerned about the combined effect.
Each will also be well within the Brussels suggestion, again for which we have not as yet seen evidence of base that would mean anything to the operators.
Brussels does not apply, and there is no sign that the HPA would adjust its opinion from ICNIRP to this standard without very good reason.
I am currently arguing with council planning and environment about mast numbers 9 and 10 on a small football ground surrounded by dense housing! There are no regulations for ten masts: each is counted on its own. There is no argument that will influence planning in the current state of affairs, I'm afraid.
Sorry
Andy
--------
Brussels news and cell phone harm
This is an interesting story about harm caused by cell phones, from Iris Atzmon in Israel. Please note, that cordless phones used in the home are just as likely to cause similar problems if they are used for long periods. Iris has also attached a news story from Brussels, where the Government has voted to dramatically lower electro magnetic radiation levels, and introduce a strong monetary fine system for non compliance.
Martin Weatherall
Severe Brussels towards antennas GSM
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/brussels_standards.doc
Today I spoke with a 23 years old who suffers from aches deep in the ear and strong pressure in the ear, after examining her on Friday, the conclusion of the doctor from a medical center in Jerusalem was that it had been caused by her cellular phone. He used exaclty these words which she emphasized several times: "YOU TOASTED YOUR EAR". He also told her that lately the doctors received "an internal study" that was not published in the media, which shows that the phone causes terrible damage. When she tried to ask more he didn't want to give her details. He added that he has many patients like her and that the rate of tumors "has increased significantly" lately, and many people come to him with ear and head aches. When she asked him what she can do he told her: "there is nothing that can be done, it is like to be healed from a burn, simply throw your cell phone". He told her of his minimal use of the phone and he always asks people to phone him to the wired phone. She was very shocked from this experience, she has been using the phone since the age of 16 and then she was not aware of possible risk, used to talk 3-4 hours aday. Today she cannot talk more than 5 minutes or else she has strong aches, she suffers all the time from the ear, even in days she doesn't use the phone (but then the pains are less painful) also in the nights it bothers her, it has become a nightmare. Although her awareness of possible damage raised in recent years, she still didn't imagine something like this can happen. Her hearing is still ok, in the past she didn't feel any special symptoms "maybe only a short ear ache". That's the situation. In the clinics the damage is already felt. The public is kept ignorant.
Health to all. Who needs more than that in our crazy world?...
Iris Atzmon.
--------
From Grahame Blackwell.
David
I agree with Phil - but it's a start. It opens up the debate on 'ICNIRP is clearly not enough - and if not, why not ??' ICNIRP is generally agreed to be adequate for thermal effects - so what is it that Brussels are worried about? It can ONLY be non-thermals - and as soon as that's acknowledged it opens the way to seriously questioning the whole basis of the criteria on which 'safety levels' are determined.
It's interesting to note that NOT ONE minister in Brussels voted against this proposal.
This is a very firm wedge in the door of the 'thermal' argument - and it's not going to go away !! The telcos aren't going to like it - and Blaney and his ilk are going to have to work a lot harder for their money once the implications of this become clear at grass-roots level.
Is this perhaps a time for mass petitioning of MPs on the grounds of a nation state in the EU taking a position which clearly calls into question not only the levels used in the UK, but more significantly the criteria by which those levels are set?
You may wish to push this email round the circuit.
Best regards to all of you
Grahame
