A strange kind of law: the non ionizing law in Israel
Iris Atzmon wrote:
The non-ionizing law in Israel entered into effect in January 2007. Or so it was supposed to be, but it isn't.
The law is in fact not yet in operation because of the section of removing antennas from sensitive places. This removal of antennas and keeping them further away, will cost about 900 million shekels. The controversy between the ministries of communication and environment is about who will fund removal / moving the antennas. The chairman of the parliament committee of environment, Ofir Pines, considers to apply to the high court and to the state comptroller. Pines and the committee were supposed to approve clauses of the law (like distances and all the small details which are the most important) but the clauses were not sent to the committee although Pines asked them for more than half a year from the ministries of communication and environment. The committee was supposed to approve the clauses before January and since it didn't, the law has not entered into effect by the government. A representative of the communication ministry said that the law will have an effect also on the prices of electricity. Pines will try another thing- to file the clauses to the parliament for approval as a bill, hoping that this step will accelerate the displacement of the antennas. ( http://www.ynet.co.il economy ).
This law forces every new installation that emits non-ionizing radiation, to receive a permission first from the ministry of environment. The permission is supposed to be based on the level of radiation that is emitted and if the installation does not stand in the radiation levels, then it is a criminal responsibility and no one wants to take this responsibility, especially because one thing was "forgotten" in this law: the level of radiation is not stated in the law. The power company does not want to expose its workers to criminal lawsuits and the private sector claims that the ministry of environment has prepared a non practical law because no one knows the levels of radiation that enable obeying to the law. The result is that many projects are now posponed and this trend will continue and the cost will be billions of shekels, the projects are posponed because people don't want to take the chance about the radiation levels. This law was rolling for about 8 years and the power company succeeded in delaying it, but now the law is not clear and Dr. Stilian Galberg from the ministry of environment said that he gave up to the power company and instead of asking them to stand in radiation level he only asks to sign that they will do the maximum they can to reduce the radiation level. "Instead of setting low radiation levels like in Europe, for example, we were more flexible" he said. (The marker 6.5.07)
Re: A strange kind of law - the non ionizing law in Israel
In the state of Massachusetts in the late 1990s, the mobile phone companies were required by law not only to provide for any proposed antenna an application to the local town or city, but also to the state Department of Health, Radiation Control Division.
Among other requirements, the State application included esimated power density levels to be produced from the proposed antenna, particularly those in the surrounding, occupied structures.
These applications gave us a great deal of information, with which we were able to resist the installation of many antennas and towers. Where we had power density levels, we were able to compare them with levels at which harm had been demonstrated in toxicologic and epidemiologic studies.
Although the industry persisted in lying to officials, lawyers and local communities, stating that no one (official or nonofficial) could legally refuse antennas based on a "health" argument, we in fact were able to do so frequently, first by pointing out that the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not use the word "health", and perhaps more importantly, that we were submitting peer-reviewed, scientific evidence perfectly acceptable under the Supreme Court's Daubert Rule for admissibility.
As a result, there was arguably a stronger and more successful resistance movement in Massachusetts than in any other US state.
Hope this may help. There exists no credibility in antenna laws or regulations without reference to the radiation levels the antennas emit.
Susan Clarke
Environmental Healh Advocacy League (ENHALE)
The non-ionizing law in Israel entered into effect in January 2007. Or so it was supposed to be, but it isn't.
The law is in fact not yet in operation because of the section of removing antennas from sensitive places. This removal of antennas and keeping them further away, will cost about 900 million shekels. The controversy between the ministries of communication and environment is about who will fund removal / moving the antennas. The chairman of the parliament committee of environment, Ofir Pines, considers to apply to the high court and to the state comptroller. Pines and the committee were supposed to approve clauses of the law (like distances and all the small details which are the most important) but the clauses were not sent to the committee although Pines asked them for more than half a year from the ministries of communication and environment. The committee was supposed to approve the clauses before January and since it didn't, the law has not entered into effect by the government. A representative of the communication ministry said that the law will have an effect also on the prices of electricity. Pines will try another thing- to file the clauses to the parliament for approval as a bill, hoping that this step will accelerate the displacement of the antennas. ( http://www.ynet.co.il economy ).
This law forces every new installation that emits non-ionizing radiation, to receive a permission first from the ministry of environment. The permission is supposed to be based on the level of radiation that is emitted and if the installation does not stand in the radiation levels, then it is a criminal responsibility and no one wants to take this responsibility, especially because one thing was "forgotten" in this law: the level of radiation is not stated in the law. The power company does not want to expose its workers to criminal lawsuits and the private sector claims that the ministry of environment has prepared a non practical law because no one knows the levels of radiation that enable obeying to the law. The result is that many projects are now posponed and this trend will continue and the cost will be billions of shekels, the projects are posponed because people don't want to take the chance about the radiation levels. This law was rolling for about 8 years and the power company succeeded in delaying it, but now the law is not clear and Dr. Stilian Galberg from the ministry of environment said that he gave up to the power company and instead of asking them to stand in radiation level he only asks to sign that they will do the maximum they can to reduce the radiation level. "Instead of setting low radiation levels like in Europe, for example, we were more flexible" he said. (The marker 6.5.07)
Re: A strange kind of law - the non ionizing law in Israel
In the state of Massachusetts in the late 1990s, the mobile phone companies were required by law not only to provide for any proposed antenna an application to the local town or city, but also to the state Department of Health, Radiation Control Division.
Among other requirements, the State application included esimated power density levels to be produced from the proposed antenna, particularly those in the surrounding, occupied structures.
These applications gave us a great deal of information, with which we were able to resist the installation of many antennas and towers. Where we had power density levels, we were able to compare them with levels at which harm had been demonstrated in toxicologic and epidemiologic studies.
Although the industry persisted in lying to officials, lawyers and local communities, stating that no one (official or nonofficial) could legally refuse antennas based on a "health" argument, we in fact were able to do so frequently, first by pointing out that the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not use the word "health", and perhaps more importantly, that we were submitting peer-reviewed, scientific evidence perfectly acceptable under the Supreme Court's Daubert Rule for admissibility.
As a result, there was arguably a stronger and more successful resistance movement in Massachusetts than in any other US state.
Hope this may help. There exists no credibility in antenna laws or regulations without reference to the radiation levels the antennas emit.
Susan Clarke
Environmental Healh Advocacy League (ENHALE)
rudkla - 12. Mai, 11:57
