The telco regulator is appealing the Information Commissioner's decision that the public has the right to know where cellphone masts are located
This message is to remind you that you can use 'Freedom of Information'
or 'Information Commissioner's' resources to find out information about
cell phone antennas and other antennas in your area.
When reading this story, you need to ask - what are the cell phone
companies trying to hide, by not wanting to disclose the location of
cell phone masts? If a person develops cancer, should that person not be
able to get information about antennas nearby which are emitting strong
levels of C radiation, that may be related to the development of the
cancer?
If a person is electro hyper sensitive (EHS) and cannot live in his home
due to electro magnetic radiation, should he not be allowed to see the
location of cell phone antennas, so that he may find a safe place to live?
Martin
The telco regulator is appealing the Information Commissioner's decision
that the public has the right to know where cellphone masts are located
Read More...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03/lapdog_ofcom/
--------
Important: phone mast information
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:13 pm (PST)
Campaign for health studies around mobile phone masts
I would like to stress the importance of recording existing phone mast site information for future health studies following the news regarding the decommissioning of phone masts by the phone operator.
Please take photographs of the phone mast site on a regular basis, make sure you include the date the picture was taken, you could include a copy of the daily news paper in your photograph showing the date on the paper in the picture.
Download details about your phone mast from sitefinder ASAP http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/ while the information is still available. Please read the enclosed email above from Martin Weatherall regarding the withdrawal of information supplied by the operators to sitefinder.
One of the greatest problems in phone mast health studies is the history of a certain site. It is important to have complete and detailed site history. This should be headed up by the authorities under the freedom of information act.
Every change such as the new mast sharing idea will make it harder to pinpoint health effects. This is why it is important to have all telecom data on hand for future health surveys. All decommissioned phone mast sites emission history should be recorded and held on record for up to 50 years for future studies.
The authorities should monitor all the RF/MW sources (Radio, TV, GSM, UMTS, Base Stations, etc.) and record when the source is shut off, showing date of decommission.
Details of Technical data such as (system, antenna type including the type number, azimuth, mechanical down tilt, electrical down tilt, antenna input power, height of the antenna above ground, exact coordinates of the antenna) from the respective authority even for sources that had been operated 30 years ago should be held on record.
This is of extreme importance, lobby your local councillors and MP to fight for this information to enable researchers to carry out epidemiological studies today and in the future.
Eileen O'Connor
Trustee - EM Radiation Research Trust - UK registered charity
http://www.radiationresearch.org/
Re: Important - phone mast information
Posted by: karlmuller30
Fri Mar 7, 2008 1:13 am (PST)
This is INCREDIBLY important. The operators of course record full details of every single call made from their masts, they have the history. We need the full radiation history to know what happened around each mast. I believe we have the right to know what radiation we are being exposed to by military, police, commercial microwave links, and commercial and military radars as well.
There must be nowhere the industry can hide when the tsunami of health claims starts flooding in. It will take just take one class action case in the US to succeed (as I understand it, there are seven such claims currently moving through the courts) and **that** will be **that**. I remember a top top lawyer here telling me about how much money there would be in claims against the cellphone companies ... I could almost literally see the dollar signs spinning in his eyes. Millions and millions for each mast. And they cannot get health insurance for handsets. I wonder what they are really doing behind the scenes to prepare for this. I have asked the operators innumerable times if they have set aside reserves for health claims, they just duck.
The very, very worst mast we've encountered in Johannesburg had
(according to the company which leased the mast) -- military, police, dept of intelligence, Telkom microwave and cellphone antennas on it. The cellphone masts were the lowest on the pole, about 8m off the ground. This is the one mast where we measured levels that looked as though they might be higher than ICNIRP overall, right off the scale on our Elektrosmog meter, the people across the road were being totally fried. The woman had died of breast cancer, the man there had prostate cancer and severe Alzheimer's (wonderful old guy, very intelligent, but was clearly in great trouble). Heart palpitations, headaches and sleeplessness. All of these symptoms disappeared when he slept at his daughter's house. We gave him a letter recommending that he move, as he was clearly sensitive to this radiation. Beautiful house. Such a shame.
The mast was right next to another house, which had a satellite dish in the garden, on the ground, on the other side of the house to the mast. This was the only place they could find where the mast didn't blank out their satellite TV reception.
We have a Freedom of Information Act here too, and -- when we have time -- we're going to look at getting all this information. We really need to know what's in the air. It is simply outrageous that because this pollution is invisible, it is basically deemed not to exist.
Thanks for this, it's extremely useful for us, and you are doing brilliantly there Eileen, this is quite an inspiration.
Re: Important - phone mast information
Posted by: CGamba
Fri Mar 7, 2008 1:50 am (PST)
They know they have a big problem and have set aside money for this for years. I was told this by someone who works in the Insurance Industry on the legal side. They have also put the onus for liability on the landowners ect in the contracts, Read the report by a Barrister working for an international Insurance loss adjusters on tetra by Rowena Bryant Jones. She is a trained Barrister working for the insurance industry and her report is a complete legal case for someone to use. The companies are also putting their masts in street furniture and they are talking about people getting a mast in their home if they have a phone. The problem with the pulsed signals being used is they are very high at the pulse but the industry levels it out. I found a very high pulsed signal from Radar. One pulse in 4 was at the highest level on the instrument for measuring, but may have been even higher than that. Class actions are the answer to getting the problem recognised. Under the freedom of information act you can get the information from ofcom in the UK on what is on a mast. Military stuff is exempt. Other Countries must also have regulatory bodies to manage the spectrum who have the information. Planning authorities were told to keep information on masts and i have reports from several places of what is on them obtained from planners at the local Authority. The real culprits or criminals in this are the people in the NRPB in the UK for their cover up of the problem. The WHO as well and you will find the same people all the time sitting on everything claiming there is not a problem. They are liars, as well as guilty of crimes against humanity.
Catherine
Re: Important - phone mast information
Posted by: karlmuller30
Fri Mar 7, 2008 2:46 am (PST)
Very interesting, Catherine, thank you. I am not sure that they have set aside reserves in South Africa, but: we shall see.
We had a very interesting conversation with an insurance man once. We had been invited to measure in the neighbourhood (this was actually the very same mast I was talking about, festooned with antennas). It was about 6pm, and this guy meet us Scotch in hand and had already had quite a few drinks, I have a feeling this may have helped him talk. He said they provided insurance cover of up to R20 million per mast (about $2.5 million at today's rate) for health claims, but they would not insure handsets for health risks. His explanation was "It's harder to prove with a mast" -- very interesting.
We have looked at contracts here, and it's murky, but we don't see that the landowner is on the face of it liable, although there are possible challenges to this which we pointed out to one landowner. I wish I could remember the details -- it was a church that wanted a mast in their 11m-high steeple, and they were very smug that they had a legal opinion that they were not liable for any damages, but we found something in the environmental legislation that may have changed that. Nonetheless, we scared the church off, it seems, by using other means. (I threatened to leaflet the entire neighbourhood, which is near where I live, telling them what the church wanted to hide in their steeple, and how they had no regard whatsoever for the health of their neighbours ... )
I asked them if they were going to have to put a warning sign on their steeple, and they stared at me rather blankly.
I can't find any reference to that report by Rowena Bryant Jones, perhaps you could post it on the forum or mail it to me, Catherine? Sounds very interesting.
I still think that one is entitled to know, even with military stuff, what level of radiation we are being exposed to. Perhaps we must just measure it ourselves and publish it. I was told a story by the former technical head of our Independent Communications Authority of SA, which is supposed to safeguard the public's interest in regard to broadcasting and which issues all the licences, one Wojtek Skowronksi. (Icasa does not lift a finger to protect the public on health grounds, Wojtek said that's the dept of health's problem -- and the dept of health suspended all its regulations in November 2002, so we have no regulations in force, and no protection at all in SA).
Anyway, Wojtek told me that he was always amused to see what happened in the parking lot of Johannesburg International Airport (now OR Tambo Airport). People would have their car immobiliser remotes, and would be vainly pressing them and trying to get their cars started. The radar at the airport would interfere to the point where many people couldn't start their cars. People need to know exactly where these high radiation levels are, so that for example a cleaner who works every day at the airport and starts getting headaches, knows that he is getting unusually high radiation doses.
The key to this is actually the insurance industry. They were very badly burned by tobacco, asbestos and pollution claims. It's interesting, the Prudential wrote to the US government as early as
1918, saying that they were no longer insuring the lives of asbestos workers, as they could see in their loss ratios that this was not a good risk, they could see these workers were dying young. It took the health authorities about 50 years to catch up with what the insurers saw. I think they are being very cautious with cellphones, the insurance industry is facing a beating with increasing global weather events, so they cannot afford to take on another disastrous risk.
We need something on this from an insurance insider.
The WHO and the NRPB (HPA) are without doubt culpable, but I'm beginning to think the real villains who set the whole ball rolling are actually to be found at the US Food and Drug Administration. To this day, the US remains totally uninformed about the risks. I saw a long story from AP the other day, about how there are now more cellphone users than non-users, and how this was the most fantastically fast-spreading technology of our times. Not one word about health risks (although the story may have been edited, it was in our Star newspaper here). I am considering taking this paper to the Press Ombudsman for biased reporting, because it is time now that there was acknowledgement that there are severe health risks attached to this technology.
I am still intending a long posting on the whole genocide/crimes against humanity aspect. The truth is, this is ultimately the only way to go. This whole thing is SO huge, it is a conspiracy at such a vast level, that it can only be tackled at that level.
In the meantime, I am being kept very busy with silly things. If anyone knows Cheryl Welsh of mindjustice.org (formerly Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse), they will know about "street theatre", where people are harassed in the strangest of ways. I've been suffering quite a bit of street theatre lately, truly, life's a cabaret old chum. But I'm always inspired by a T-shirt I saw once, it said: "Annoy the bastards -- SURVIVE".
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=EHS
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electromagnetic
or 'Information Commissioner's' resources to find out information about
cell phone antennas and other antennas in your area.
When reading this story, you need to ask - what are the cell phone
companies trying to hide, by not wanting to disclose the location of
cell phone masts? If a person develops cancer, should that person not be
able to get information about antennas nearby which are emitting strong
levels of C radiation, that may be related to the development of the
cancer?
If a person is electro hyper sensitive (EHS) and cannot live in his home
due to electro magnetic radiation, should he not be allowed to see the
location of cell phone antennas, so that he may find a safe place to live?
Martin
The telco regulator is appealing the Information Commissioner's decision
that the public has the right to know where cellphone masts are located
Read More...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/03/lapdog_ofcom/
--------
Important: phone mast information
Posted: Thu Mar 6, 2008 12:13 pm (PST)
Campaign for health studies around mobile phone masts
I would like to stress the importance of recording existing phone mast site information for future health studies following the news regarding the decommissioning of phone masts by the phone operator.
Please take photographs of the phone mast site on a regular basis, make sure you include the date the picture was taken, you could include a copy of the daily news paper in your photograph showing the date on the paper in the picture.
Download details about your phone mast from sitefinder ASAP http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/ while the information is still available. Please read the enclosed email above from Martin Weatherall regarding the withdrawal of information supplied by the operators to sitefinder.
One of the greatest problems in phone mast health studies is the history of a certain site. It is important to have complete and detailed site history. This should be headed up by the authorities under the freedom of information act.
Every change such as the new mast sharing idea will make it harder to pinpoint health effects. This is why it is important to have all telecom data on hand for future health surveys. All decommissioned phone mast sites emission history should be recorded and held on record for up to 50 years for future studies.
The authorities should monitor all the RF/MW sources (Radio, TV, GSM, UMTS, Base Stations, etc.) and record when the source is shut off, showing date of decommission.
Details of Technical data such as (system, antenna type including the type number, azimuth, mechanical down tilt, electrical down tilt, antenna input power, height of the antenna above ground, exact coordinates of the antenna) from the respective authority even for sources that had been operated 30 years ago should be held on record.
This is of extreme importance, lobby your local councillors and MP to fight for this information to enable researchers to carry out epidemiological studies today and in the future.
Eileen O'Connor
Trustee - EM Radiation Research Trust - UK registered charity
http://www.radiationresearch.org/
Re: Important - phone mast information
Posted by: karlmuller30
Fri Mar 7, 2008 1:13 am (PST)
This is INCREDIBLY important. The operators of course record full details of every single call made from their masts, they have the history. We need the full radiation history to know what happened around each mast. I believe we have the right to know what radiation we are being exposed to by military, police, commercial microwave links, and commercial and military radars as well.
There must be nowhere the industry can hide when the tsunami of health claims starts flooding in. It will take just take one class action case in the US to succeed (as I understand it, there are seven such claims currently moving through the courts) and **that** will be **that**. I remember a top top lawyer here telling me about how much money there would be in claims against the cellphone companies ... I could almost literally see the dollar signs spinning in his eyes. Millions and millions for each mast. And they cannot get health insurance for handsets. I wonder what they are really doing behind the scenes to prepare for this. I have asked the operators innumerable times if they have set aside reserves for health claims, they just duck.
The very, very worst mast we've encountered in Johannesburg had
(according to the company which leased the mast) -- military, police, dept of intelligence, Telkom microwave and cellphone antennas on it. The cellphone masts were the lowest on the pole, about 8m off the ground. This is the one mast where we measured levels that looked as though they might be higher than ICNIRP overall, right off the scale on our Elektrosmog meter, the people across the road were being totally fried. The woman had died of breast cancer, the man there had prostate cancer and severe Alzheimer's (wonderful old guy, very intelligent, but was clearly in great trouble). Heart palpitations, headaches and sleeplessness. All of these symptoms disappeared when he slept at his daughter's house. We gave him a letter recommending that he move, as he was clearly sensitive to this radiation. Beautiful house. Such a shame.
The mast was right next to another house, which had a satellite dish in the garden, on the ground, on the other side of the house to the mast. This was the only place they could find where the mast didn't blank out their satellite TV reception.
We have a Freedom of Information Act here too, and -- when we have time -- we're going to look at getting all this information. We really need to know what's in the air. It is simply outrageous that because this pollution is invisible, it is basically deemed not to exist.
Thanks for this, it's extremely useful for us, and you are doing brilliantly there Eileen, this is quite an inspiration.
Re: Important - phone mast information
Posted by: CGamba
Fri Mar 7, 2008 1:50 am (PST)
They know they have a big problem and have set aside money for this for years. I was told this by someone who works in the Insurance Industry on the legal side. They have also put the onus for liability on the landowners ect in the contracts, Read the report by a Barrister working for an international Insurance loss adjusters on tetra by Rowena Bryant Jones. She is a trained Barrister working for the insurance industry and her report is a complete legal case for someone to use. The companies are also putting their masts in street furniture and they are talking about people getting a mast in their home if they have a phone. The problem with the pulsed signals being used is they are very high at the pulse but the industry levels it out. I found a very high pulsed signal from Radar. One pulse in 4 was at the highest level on the instrument for measuring, but may have been even higher than that. Class actions are the answer to getting the problem recognised. Under the freedom of information act you can get the information from ofcom in the UK on what is on a mast. Military stuff is exempt. Other Countries must also have regulatory bodies to manage the spectrum who have the information. Planning authorities were told to keep information on masts and i have reports from several places of what is on them obtained from planners at the local Authority. The real culprits or criminals in this are the people in the NRPB in the UK for their cover up of the problem. The WHO as well and you will find the same people all the time sitting on everything claiming there is not a problem. They are liars, as well as guilty of crimes against humanity.
Catherine
Re: Important - phone mast information
Posted by: karlmuller30
Fri Mar 7, 2008 2:46 am (PST)
Very interesting, Catherine, thank you. I am not sure that they have set aside reserves in South Africa, but: we shall see.
We had a very interesting conversation with an insurance man once. We had been invited to measure in the neighbourhood (this was actually the very same mast I was talking about, festooned with antennas). It was about 6pm, and this guy meet us Scotch in hand and had already had quite a few drinks, I have a feeling this may have helped him talk. He said they provided insurance cover of up to R20 million per mast (about $2.5 million at today's rate) for health claims, but they would not insure handsets for health risks. His explanation was "It's harder to prove with a mast" -- very interesting.
We have looked at contracts here, and it's murky, but we don't see that the landowner is on the face of it liable, although there are possible challenges to this which we pointed out to one landowner. I wish I could remember the details -- it was a church that wanted a mast in their 11m-high steeple, and they were very smug that they had a legal opinion that they were not liable for any damages, but we found something in the environmental legislation that may have changed that. Nonetheless, we scared the church off, it seems, by using other means. (I threatened to leaflet the entire neighbourhood, which is near where I live, telling them what the church wanted to hide in their steeple, and how they had no regard whatsoever for the health of their neighbours ... )
I asked them if they were going to have to put a warning sign on their steeple, and they stared at me rather blankly.
I can't find any reference to that report by Rowena Bryant Jones, perhaps you could post it on the forum or mail it to me, Catherine? Sounds very interesting.
I still think that one is entitled to know, even with military stuff, what level of radiation we are being exposed to. Perhaps we must just measure it ourselves and publish it. I was told a story by the former technical head of our Independent Communications Authority of SA, which is supposed to safeguard the public's interest in regard to broadcasting and which issues all the licences, one Wojtek Skowronksi. (Icasa does not lift a finger to protect the public on health grounds, Wojtek said that's the dept of health's problem -- and the dept of health suspended all its regulations in November 2002, so we have no regulations in force, and no protection at all in SA).
Anyway, Wojtek told me that he was always amused to see what happened in the parking lot of Johannesburg International Airport (now OR Tambo Airport). People would have their car immobiliser remotes, and would be vainly pressing them and trying to get their cars started. The radar at the airport would interfere to the point where many people couldn't start their cars. People need to know exactly where these high radiation levels are, so that for example a cleaner who works every day at the airport and starts getting headaches, knows that he is getting unusually high radiation doses.
The key to this is actually the insurance industry. They were very badly burned by tobacco, asbestos and pollution claims. It's interesting, the Prudential wrote to the US government as early as
1918, saying that they were no longer insuring the lives of asbestos workers, as they could see in their loss ratios that this was not a good risk, they could see these workers were dying young. It took the health authorities about 50 years to catch up with what the insurers saw. I think they are being very cautious with cellphones, the insurance industry is facing a beating with increasing global weather events, so they cannot afford to take on another disastrous risk.
We need something on this from an insurance insider.
The WHO and the NRPB (HPA) are without doubt culpable, but I'm beginning to think the real villains who set the whole ball rolling are actually to be found at the US Food and Drug Administration. To this day, the US remains totally uninformed about the risks. I saw a long story from AP the other day, about how there are now more cellphone users than non-users, and how this was the most fantastically fast-spreading technology of our times. Not one word about health risks (although the story may have been edited, it was in our Star newspaper here). I am considering taking this paper to the Press Ombudsman for biased reporting, because it is time now that there was acknowledgement that there are severe health risks attached to this technology.
I am still intending a long posting on the whole genocide/crimes against humanity aspect. The truth is, this is ultimately the only way to go. This whole thing is SO huge, it is a conspiracy at such a vast level, that it can only be tackled at that level.
In the meantime, I am being kept very busy with silly things. If anyone knows Cheryl Welsh of mindjustice.org (formerly Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse), they will know about "street theatre", where people are harassed in the strangest of ways. I've been suffering quite a bit of street theatre lately, truly, life's a cabaret old chum. But I'm always inspired by a T-shirt I saw once, it said: "Annoy the bastards -- SURVIVE".
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=EHS
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electromagnetic
rudkla - 5. Mär, 09:50
