Wireless City Projects
I was appalled to see the news about the planned blanket Wifi coverage in Brighton. Wifi systems use microwaves at a 2.4 GHz frequency (exactly the same as microwave ovens). There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that long term low level exposure to microwaves causes cell damage in humans, animals and plants, leading to a wide range of illnesses. The health effects range from tinnitus, lack of concentration and insomnia to leakage of the blood brain barrier, spikes of high blood pressure and heart palpitations in the short term to the development of cancer in the long term. More and more people are also developing electrohypersensitivity (EHS) as a result of being exposed to low level microwaves from mobile transmitters and other wireless applications. The government currently advises GPs not to recognise this condition. However in Sweden where it is recognised and statistical data exist, the official estimate is that already 3% of the entire population suffer from this condition. This number is expected to rise as more people become permanently exposed. Just as with passive smoking, people will no longer be able to protect themselves from unwanted microwave exposure in a city with blanket wifi coverage. It is the duty of the government and local authority to protect its citizens’ health and safety by allowing them to have the choice not to be exposed. I urge the council to review this decision and adopt a precautionary approach to this issue.
Andrea Klein
--------
I am so p... off with the Sussex Argus yet again not publishing any of the several letters written my MS members in response to its "Wireless City" cover story a week and a half ago, I have sent the following to four local newsletters in Brighton.
I am in no doubt whatsoever now that they are suppressing anti microwave letters due to the amount of publicity they give to the Telecom industrys products.
Best
Gary
With years of almost total blanking from Councillors after sending information to all of them about the health damage caused by Mobile phone masts (and mobiles, DECT phones, WiFi, wireless baby monitors etc), I was surprised to see Councillor Jeane Lepper writing in April's Hollingdean News standing up for the rights of her constituents against the power of telecom companies to place their health damaging masts virtually anywhere.
This should be a major issue in the impending Council elections. The mountain of evidence proves conclusively that phone masts cause everything from cancer to strokes, leukaemia and Motor Neurone disease to epilepsy. This has been known to thousands of people campaigning against masts for years. Yet the Brighton Argus, as with most newspapers, continues to hype mobiles and WiFi relentlessly whilst printing almost none of the many letters sent to their letters page by myself and other concerned campaigners in Mast Sanity (www.mastsanity.org) trying to warn people of the harm these technologies are causing.
Jeane Leppers' article suggests that other Councillors would oppose further mast applications at the corner of Mountfields and The Crestway in Hollingdean. Why then, have these Councillors not responded to my emails over the years?
I suggest that anyone concerned about the virtually unopposed escalation in wireless technology in Brighton & Hove study the Mast Sanity website
( http://www.mastsanity.org ) and write to the Argus about the effects of this now almost unavoidable technology and the lack of any sane planning controls on their siting, before the forthcoming elections. People also need to know which Councillors will actually stand up for our rights on this issue if they are elected. Certainly not Councillor Roy Pennington, long term Vice Chair of the planning committee, who never refuses a mast whenever he has a casting vote as he thinks mast campaigners are all misinformed. I shudder to think of the health damage this man has caused to huge numbers of people.
In "On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB Reports", Dr Graeme Blackwell (see attachment) quotes from the UK Governments' own Stewart Report into the ICNIRP guidelines used everywhere as the safety measure for phone masts. Note that researchers worldwide are unanimous in that it is the pulsing frequency of the microwaves which cause the damage, NOT the thermal emissions of the masts. Measuring only the thermal emissions, ICNIRP guidelines are thus almost totally useless as safety criteria: "The balance of evidence suggests that exposures to radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.
"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines.
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.
"We recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available."
Dr Blackwell:
"Note that the specific reason for advocating a precautionary approach is scientific evidence that exposure at levels "below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines" may have adverse health effects. How, in the name of all that's rational, can the ICNIRP guidelines be reckoned to satisfy the need for a 'precautionary approach' that is specifically advocated PRECISELY BECAUSE scientific evidence indicates that there may be effects that those guidelines don't cover???
With years of almost total blanking from Councillors after sending information to all of them about the health damage caused by Mobile phone masts (and mobiles, DECT phones, WiFi, wireless baby monitors etc), I was surprised to see Councillor Jeane Lepper writing in April's Hollingdean News standing up for the rights of her constituents against the power of telecom companies to place their health damaging masts virtually anywhere.
This should be a major issue in the impending Council elections. The mountain of evidence proves conclusively that phone masts cause everything from cancer to strokes, leukaemia and Motor Neurone disease to epilepsy. This has been known to thousands of people campaigning against masts for years. Yet the Brighton Argus, as with most newspapers, continues to hype mobiles and WiFi relentlessly whilst printing almost none of the many letters sent to their letters page by myself and other concerned campaigners in Mast Sanity ( http://www.mastsanity.org ) trying to warn people of the harm these technologies are causing.
Jeane Leppers' article suggests that other Councillors would oppose further mast applications at the corner of Mountfields and The Crestway in Hollingdean. Why then, have these Councillors not responded to my emails over the years?
I suggest that anyone concerned about the virtually unopposed escalation in wireless technology in Brighton & Hove study the Mast Sanity website
( http://www.mastsanity.org ) and write to the Argus about the effects of this now almost unavoidable technology and the lack of any sane planning controls on their siting, before the forthcoming elections. People also need to know which Councillors will actually stand up for our rights on this issue if they are elected. Certainly not Councillor Roy Pennington, long term Vice Chair of the planning committee, who never refuses a mast whenever he has a casting vote as he thinks mast campaigners are all misinformed. I shudder to think of the health damage this man has caused to huge numbers of people.
In "On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB Reports", Dr Graeme Blackwell (see attachment) quotes from the UK Governments' own Stewart Report into the ICNIRP guidelines used everywhere as the safety measure for phone masts. Note that researchers worldwide are unanimous in that it is the pulsing frequency of the microwaves which cause the damage, NOT the thermal emissions of the masts. Measuring only the thermal emissions, ICNIRP guidelines are thus almost totally useless as safety criteria: "The balance of evidence suggests that exposures to radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.
"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines.
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.
"We recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available."
Dr Blackwell:
"Note that the specific reason for advocating a precautionary approach is scientific evidence that exposure at levels "below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines" may have adverse health effects. How, in the name of all that's rational, can the ICNIRP guidelines be reckoned to satisfy the need for a 'precautionary approach' that is specifically advocated PRECISELY BECAUSE scientific evidence indicates that there may be effects that those guidelines don't cover???
--------
Wireless broadband Internet dangers
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3482006/
--------
Wireless internet zone to cover City of London
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392339-details/Wireless+internet+zone+to+cover+City+of+London/article.do
BBC news to add comments
Interesting but not surprising that there is no thought given to the possible health effects. Do people realise that the frequencies used for wifi are higher than for mobile phones and the intensities emitted from the wifi transmitters will be of the same order of magnitude (measured in the street) as from a phone mast? These are phone masts by any other name coming to a street near you but with no planning permission needed at all! See http://www.mastsanity.org for what to expect in the way of symptoms if living near a wifi transmitter.
--------
Item published
Brighton's fortnightly Kemptown Rag has come up trumps again and published yet another of my anti telecom rants (that makes about 4 now this year) as always uncensored!
Website http://www.kemptownrag.co.uk
Item:
GARY KEMP
We see constant reassurances from the telecoms industry that their phone masts are safe near schools and housing. Now Brighton and Hove Council wants to follow other major cities in covering us with WiFi - which emits exactly the same frequency microwaves as phone masts.
From 1993, in America for six years, the Telecoms Industry employed 200 research doctors – at a cost of $28.5 million – to study the safety of their microwave systems ( http://www.safewireless.org http://www.health-concerns.org ). The 15 epidemiological studies showed increased tumours, genetic damage, a greater risk to children, and damage to the blood-brain barrier. The scientist leading these studies predicted 30,000-50,000 cancers worldwide in 2006 alone - of just one type of cancer. These results were suppressed.
The Freiburger, Naila, Wolf, Hutter, Santini, Oberfeld, Bamberg (etc) studies ( http://www.radiationresearch.org ) all show increased cancers and illnesses from this industrys' microwaves.
MPs have three times raised the problem of clusters of children (11 or more) with leukaemia around masts (Hansard (21.5.04 & 1.3.05) . Since then another cluster of 12 children has emerged.
O2's Angela Johnson assures us that the World Health Organisation (WHO) allows them to plant their phone masts next to schools and housing. The WHOs' Radiation Health Protection Committee is responsible for the subject of Cellular Technology and Powerlines health effects. It's eight representatives are all mobile phone operator ex employees.
The chairman of this committee, Dr Michael Repacholi, recently resigned following revelations that he received 150,000 dollars a year directly from the cellular phone industry for meetings and travels. Repacholi is documented to have invited power industry representatives to review scientific work and participate in evaluating health standards of electromagnetic fields emitted by power lines. The names of these representatives are all documented. Repacholi systematically downplayed and ignored for years many scientific findings with one common ground: those which show that the cellular technology is not safe and cannot be freely distributed without a health price for the world population. He now works for the nuclear industry and was recently seen on a Panorama programme on nuclear power telling viewers that small amounts of radiation does you good..
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wireless+City
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wireless+City
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrohypersensitivity
Andrea Klein
--------
I am so p... off with the Sussex Argus yet again not publishing any of the several letters written my MS members in response to its "Wireless City" cover story a week and a half ago, I have sent the following to four local newsletters in Brighton.
I am in no doubt whatsoever now that they are suppressing anti microwave letters due to the amount of publicity they give to the Telecom industrys products.
Best
Gary
With years of almost total blanking from Councillors after sending information to all of them about the health damage caused by Mobile phone masts (and mobiles, DECT phones, WiFi, wireless baby monitors etc), I was surprised to see Councillor Jeane Lepper writing in April's Hollingdean News standing up for the rights of her constituents against the power of telecom companies to place their health damaging masts virtually anywhere.
This should be a major issue in the impending Council elections. The mountain of evidence proves conclusively that phone masts cause everything from cancer to strokes, leukaemia and Motor Neurone disease to epilepsy. This has been known to thousands of people campaigning against masts for years. Yet the Brighton Argus, as with most newspapers, continues to hype mobiles and WiFi relentlessly whilst printing almost none of the many letters sent to their letters page by myself and other concerned campaigners in Mast Sanity (www.mastsanity.org) trying to warn people of the harm these technologies are causing.
Jeane Leppers' article suggests that other Councillors would oppose further mast applications at the corner of Mountfields and The Crestway in Hollingdean. Why then, have these Councillors not responded to my emails over the years?
I suggest that anyone concerned about the virtually unopposed escalation in wireless technology in Brighton & Hove study the Mast Sanity website
( http://www.mastsanity.org ) and write to the Argus about the effects of this now almost unavoidable technology and the lack of any sane planning controls on their siting, before the forthcoming elections. People also need to know which Councillors will actually stand up for our rights on this issue if they are elected. Certainly not Councillor Roy Pennington, long term Vice Chair of the planning committee, who never refuses a mast whenever he has a casting vote as he thinks mast campaigners are all misinformed. I shudder to think of the health damage this man has caused to huge numbers of people.
In "On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB Reports", Dr Graeme Blackwell (see attachment) quotes from the UK Governments' own Stewart Report into the ICNIRP guidelines used everywhere as the safety measure for phone masts. Note that researchers worldwide are unanimous in that it is the pulsing frequency of the microwaves which cause the damage, NOT the thermal emissions of the masts. Measuring only the thermal emissions, ICNIRP guidelines are thus almost totally useless as safety criteria: "The balance of evidence suggests that exposures to radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.
"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines.
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.
"We recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available."
Dr Blackwell:
"Note that the specific reason for advocating a precautionary approach is scientific evidence that exposure at levels "below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines" may have adverse health effects. How, in the name of all that's rational, can the ICNIRP guidelines be reckoned to satisfy the need for a 'precautionary approach' that is specifically advocated PRECISELY BECAUSE scientific evidence indicates that there may be effects that those guidelines don't cover???
With years of almost total blanking from Councillors after sending information to all of them about the health damage caused by Mobile phone masts (and mobiles, DECT phones, WiFi, wireless baby monitors etc), I was surprised to see Councillor Jeane Lepper writing in April's Hollingdean News standing up for the rights of her constituents against the power of telecom companies to place their health damaging masts virtually anywhere.
This should be a major issue in the impending Council elections. The mountain of evidence proves conclusively that phone masts cause everything from cancer to strokes, leukaemia and Motor Neurone disease to epilepsy. This has been known to thousands of people campaigning against masts for years. Yet the Brighton Argus, as with most newspapers, continues to hype mobiles and WiFi relentlessly whilst printing almost none of the many letters sent to their letters page by myself and other concerned campaigners in Mast Sanity ( http://www.mastsanity.org ) trying to warn people of the harm these technologies are causing.
Jeane Leppers' article suggests that other Councillors would oppose further mast applications at the corner of Mountfields and The Crestway in Hollingdean. Why then, have these Councillors not responded to my emails over the years?
I suggest that anyone concerned about the virtually unopposed escalation in wireless technology in Brighton & Hove study the Mast Sanity website
( http://www.mastsanity.org ) and write to the Argus about the effects of this now almost unavoidable technology and the lack of any sane planning controls on their siting, before the forthcoming elections. People also need to know which Councillors will actually stand up for our rights on this issue if they are elected. Certainly not Councillor Roy Pennington, long term Vice Chair of the planning committee, who never refuses a mast whenever he has a casting vote as he thinks mast campaigners are all misinformed. I shudder to think of the health damage this man has caused to huge numbers of people.
In "On the Precautionary Approach and the Stewart & NRPB Reports", Dr Graeme Blackwell (see attachment) quotes from the UK Governments' own Stewart Report into the ICNIRP guidelines used everywhere as the safety measure for phone masts. Note that researchers worldwide are unanimous in that it is the pulsing frequency of the microwaves which cause the damage, NOT the thermal emissions of the masts. Measuring only the thermal emissions, ICNIRP guidelines are thus almost totally useless as safety criteria: "The balance of evidence suggests that exposures to radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.
"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines.
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.
"We recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available."
Dr Blackwell:
"Note that the specific reason for advocating a precautionary approach is scientific evidence that exposure at levels "below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines" may have adverse health effects. How, in the name of all that's rational, can the ICNIRP guidelines be reckoned to satisfy the need for a 'precautionary approach' that is specifically advocated PRECISELY BECAUSE scientific evidence indicates that there may be effects that those guidelines don't cover???
--------
Wireless broadband Internet dangers
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3482006/
--------
Wireless internet zone to cover City of London
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392339-details/Wireless+internet+zone+to+cover+City+of+London/article.do
BBC news to add comments
Interesting but not surprising that there is no thought given to the possible health effects. Do people realise that the frequencies used for wifi are higher than for mobile phones and the intensities emitted from the wifi transmitters will be of the same order of magnitude (measured in the street) as from a phone mast? These are phone masts by any other name coming to a street near you but with no planning permission needed at all! See http://www.mastsanity.org for what to expect in the way of symptoms if living near a wifi transmitter.
--------
Item published
Brighton's fortnightly Kemptown Rag has come up trumps again and published yet another of my anti telecom rants (that makes about 4 now this year) as always uncensored!
Website http://www.kemptownrag.co.uk
Item:
GARY KEMP
We see constant reassurances from the telecoms industry that their phone masts are safe near schools and housing. Now Brighton and Hove Council wants to follow other major cities in covering us with WiFi - which emits exactly the same frequency microwaves as phone masts.
From 1993, in America for six years, the Telecoms Industry employed 200 research doctors – at a cost of $28.5 million – to study the safety of their microwave systems ( http://www.safewireless.org http://www.health-concerns.org ). The 15 epidemiological studies showed increased tumours, genetic damage, a greater risk to children, and damage to the blood-brain barrier. The scientist leading these studies predicted 30,000-50,000 cancers worldwide in 2006 alone - of just one type of cancer. These results were suppressed.
The Freiburger, Naila, Wolf, Hutter, Santini, Oberfeld, Bamberg (etc) studies ( http://www.radiationresearch.org ) all show increased cancers and illnesses from this industrys' microwaves.
MPs have three times raised the problem of clusters of children (11 or more) with leukaemia around masts (Hansard (21.5.04 & 1.3.05) . Since then another cluster of 12 children has emerged.
O2's Angela Johnson assures us that the World Health Organisation (WHO) allows them to plant their phone masts next to schools and housing. The WHOs' Radiation Health Protection Committee is responsible for the subject of Cellular Technology and Powerlines health effects. It's eight representatives are all mobile phone operator ex employees.
The chairman of this committee, Dr Michael Repacholi, recently resigned following revelations that he received 150,000 dollars a year directly from the cellular phone industry for meetings and travels. Repacholi is documented to have invited power industry representatives to review scientific work and participate in evaluating health standards of electromagnetic fields emitted by power lines. The names of these representatives are all documented. Repacholi systematically downplayed and ignored for years many scientific findings with one common ground: those which show that the cellular technology is not safe and cannot be freely distributed without a health price for the world population. He now works for the nuclear industry and was recently seen on a Panorama programme on nuclear power telling viewers that small amounts of radiation does you good..
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wireless+City
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wireless+City
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrohypersensitivity
rudkla - 30. Mär, 14:37
