World-News

http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/060306/CTM%20-%20cordlessphonedanger.htm


Informant: Our bill of rights

--------

Source: News of the World
Issue Date: Sunday February 05, 2006
By Robbie Collin

Picture Caption: HIDDEN PERIL: Your phone could be putting health at risk as you sleep

Cordless handsets 100 times worse than mobiles, say experts HAVING a cordless phone in your house can be 100 TIMES more of a health risk than using a mobile.

The popular phones constantly blast out high levels of radiation-even when they're not in use.

Landlines are widely thought a safer option than mobiles. But researchers in Sweden now warn cordless phones are far MORE likely to cause brain tumours than today's mobiles.

Emissions from a cordless phone's charger can be as high as six volts per metre-twice as strong as those found within 100 metres of mobile masts.

Two metres away from the charger, the radiation is STILL as high as 2.5 volts per metre-that's 50 times what scientists regard as a safe level.

Powerful

At a metre away the danger is multiplied 120 times-and it only drops to a safe 0.05 volts per metre when you are 100 METRES away from the phone.

Because of the way cordless phones work, the charger constantly emits radiation at full strength even when the phone is not in use-and so does the handset whenever it is off the charger.

The most common cancers caused by such radiation are leukaemias. But breast cancer, brain tumours, insomnia, headaches and erratic behaviour in kids have also been linked. Those with chargers close to their beds are subjected to radiation while they sleep.

Phone watchdogs Powerwatch, using a testing device called the Sensory Perspective Electrosmog Detector, even found electromagnetic fields as strong as three volts per metre in a bedroom ABOVE a room holding a cordless phone.

The group's director Alasdair Philips said: "As ill-health effects have been found at levels of only 0.06 volts per metre, this is very concerning.

"It's likely everyone in a house with a cordless phone will be constantly exposed to levels higher than this."

The shock Swedish report-by scientists Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlbery and Kjell Hansson Mild-is backed up by many medical experts who believe cordless phones are a health risk.

Harley Street practitioner Dr David Dowson said: "Having a cordless phone is like having a mobile mast in your house. I'd recommend anyone who has one to switch to a plug-in phone."

But BT's health advisor, John Collins, disagreed. He said: "There's no conclusive scientific evidence linking the radiation to any of the symptoms experienced. The evidence is that it doesn't do us any harm.

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

"We're a responsible company and abide by all the guidelines set down by recognised experts."

--------

Masts INSIDE Your House?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1451396/

Masts Inside Your HOME, Tumours in Your Head: The Downsides of the Mobile/Wireless 'Revolution'
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1723342/

WLAN, DECT in Schools and Kindergardens
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1579030/

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/critics_fight_to_restrict_cell_towers.htm

Yes, dear Eileen, I have many times pointed this out for you and others - this is one of the very dangerous "grenades" I am always talking about.

Best regards Yours Olle

(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof. The Experimental Dermatology Unit Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden)

--------

I totally agree with Andy 500 feet is still in the danger zone!

Best wishes

Eileen

--------

500 feet?

That's 166m, smack in the zone where the main beam strikes ground. Nice trend; impossible for 3G/UMTS, but also masts placed just outside this are doing schools no favours.

OK, I'm always the pessimist! BUT that is what this means. Just like our 15m height rule in planning encourages slightly lower masts in our streets, beaming straight into 3rd floors, houses on slopes, blocks of flats etc., so mats will appear at 510ft from schools to escape the ruling. Sometimes a rule can be less productive than it seems... and you can pass this observation around for comment if you like as well!

Cheers

Andy

A London community have successfully persuaded their council not to renew the lease of a phone mast on top of a block of council flats.

The lease with mobile phone company Orange expired last year and despite pressure from the company to renew the lease, the London Borough of Greenwich have put the interests of the community, residents and tenants before those of a commercial company as they are supposed to. Orange have been ordered to remove the mast from Westcombe Court by June 30th.

"This is a major breakthrough for other councils and communities because this community has persuaded the council to put their interests before those of the mobile phone company," says Mast Sanity trustee Amanda Wesley.

"Councils have an obligation to put the interests of the community, tenants, leaseholders and residents before those of commercial companies but many seemed afraid of the mobile phone companies. We applaud this council for exercising their responsibilities to residents and the community in this case. This is a victory for democracy. Mast Sanity urges other councils to follow this example."

"Colin Fancy, one of the campaigners involved in the three year battle involving people living in the block of flats and adjacent to it says, " I urge other communities to look into the terms of these leases and their rights. This has been a long and hard three year battle. Not only was the phone mast a visual eye sore in our conservation area but there were health and safety issues, such as the maintenance of equipment, which, overhung walkways in addition to the other health problems we had experienced".

"Councils must be forced to put the interests of tenants, occupiers, and residents as they are supposed to, before those of these commercial multinationals, who are purely motivated by profit and greed."

Clive Akass,
Personal Computer World
25 Feb 2006

Free wireless access services provided by local authorities are likely to proliferate over the next couple of years, according to a leading Gartner analyst.

Ian Keene, vice-president of research, said there were a number of reasons councils could justify the cost of providing access.

The networks could be used for surveillance systems, distributing public information, regeneration of run-down areas and messaging for emergency services.

Social-services applications were a ‘real winner’ because they attract central government funding. 'But the biggest push of all will come from politicians because they see votes in it,' Keene said.

He told a Netevents forum in Garmisch, Germany, that he knew of several local authorities that are considering the move.

But he said it was not clear at this stage whether Wimax, Wifi or some other technology would be most common in municipal networks.

Keene agreed that frequencies used by both Wimax and Wifi are poor at penetrating walls, so the free networks would do little to close the digital divide by offering access to poorer homes.

Some cities networks would result from public-private partnerships, he said.

In one case a council got a free network by allowing its ‘street furniture’ such as lampposts to be used for cellular phone base stations.

In fact the need for base-station sites has turned lampposts into something of a money spinner for councils, the forum was told.

Bath and the City of London have both recently announced plans for public Wifi access. In the US a mucipal mesh network has been set up at Cambridge, Mass. (see story at http://www.pcw.co.uk/2150967 )

FYI from GRAM http://www.nomasts.org.uk

--------

Masts Inside Your HOME, Tumours in Your Head: The Downsides of the Mobile/Wireless 'Revolution'
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1723342/

RISE UP!! ITS YER JACKBOOT ON THE STAIRS...

SchNEWS


YOU'RE HAVING A L.A.R.R-F - Last rites for Parliament under new Bill?

Heard about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? Tedium personified by the sound of it. In fact concealed under this yawn inducing title is possibly the biggest goosestep towards a totally authoritarian society the Blair oligarchy has yet dared to take. It's been dubbed the "Abolition of Parliament Act" by radical firebrands The Times.

Since the advent of the (now looking more liberal by the minute) Criminal Justice Act in 1994, SchNEWS has warned about and reported on the constant bombardment of measures clamping down on civil liberties and eroding our previously hard won democratic freedoms. The repressive grip has continued to tighten over the years, with increased surveillance, Anti-Social Behavioural Orders, ID cards, Anti-Terror laws and the Serious and Organised Crime Bill, to name but a few examples. In fact, of the six thousand criminal offences on the books over a thousand were created by Neo-Labour. These laws continue being abused by the powerful to retain control and iron out any irritating resistance to the great corporate sell-out of the last decade. There is one thing, however, that they've all had in common. All such laws have had to be debated in and voted through...by Parliament.

While this bunch of self-interested ideology-swallowing career politicians have done little to oppose the big crackdown, it has at least meant that everything done has remained fairly visible. Pockets of political opposition have emerged, including some surprising outbursts of sanity from the old loons in the House of Lords and the judiciary. Even some parts of the mainstream media have taken to wondering whether we are getting close to a dictatorship, now that the crackdown has hit Middle England. All this has helped to water down some of the more soviet-like sub-sections of the more totalitarian proposals. Ultimately, we are left with a public record of the law changes which, in theory at least, means that those responsible could be held accountable later.

Overall, none of this was too disastrous for Government Inc. Enough Whips could be cracked, arms twisted and cosy media relationships fostered to ensure that most of the Magna Carta-pulping stuff could get through unscathed. But as Neo Labour's electoral stranglehold has weakened of late, Tony Blair and the spin-doctors have become increasingly frustrated by pesky opposition MPs throwing spanners in the works. Even worse, he's had to contend with a number of muscle-flexing interventions by the very last people he has ever listened to - backbench Labour MPs who aren't quite as on message as they might be.

This has culminated with a number of irritating Parliamentary revolts such as over the 90 days lock-em-up-for-no-reason provision in the Terror Bill, which was kicked out by MPs a couple of months ago. There are also the ongoing, repeated attempts by the Lords to remove the 'glorification' of 'Terror' offence in the same bill. How aggravating must this be for our would-be Lord Protector Blair and his bunch of merry PR men? These laws don't affect any important demographics! Damn public scrutiny! Damn reasoned political debate and democratic decision-making! But how to get around all these problems? Never fear, political genius Tony is here with the answer: let's do away with democratically agreed laws and instead have some LARRs - Legislative and Regulatory Reforms...

CRACKDOWNER

Launched with little fanfare, amongst concerns about bureaucratic red-tape and the inefficiency of out-dated procedures, the aniseed pip at the heart of the gob stopping bill is this: why not just bring in a law that allows the government to introduce, amend or replace any legislation it likes. This can be done without all that tiresome business of needing Parliament approval. Ministers will be able to create new criminal offences at whim. All manner of focus group orientated idiocy cooked up Neo-Labour up in its laboratory of ideas will find its way to a street near you. That way, ministers can get on with carving up power to suit themselves and their corporate overlords. MPs can then get on with legitimising the regime, opening supermarkets and holding local surgeries back in their constituencies. Brilliant!The fact that Neo Labour may not be in power for eternity shouldn't matter - well, Neo-Labour - Conservatives, not much difference there... and there are a few restrictions to ease the consciences of the all important moneyed classes. Orders won't be used to introduce new taxes, for instance, but most of the limitations on their use are fuzzy and subjective. One of the "safeguards" in the Bill is that an order can impose a 'burden' only 'proportionate to the benefit expected to be gained'. And the judge of whether it is proportionate will be...well, the minister introducing the law of course. Whose benefit is of course carefully left unanswered.

Cambridge Law Professor, John Spensor, has referred to it as the 'abolition of parliament' Bill. This bill can be used to detain people for a couple of years (troublesome activists or Johnny Foreigner perhaps), introduce house arrest, and give the police greater powers of arrest and interrogation. It could also be used to set up new courts, and in effect re-write the rules on immigration, nationality, divorce, inheritance and the appointment of judges - all without any parliamentary scrutiny.

SchNEWS aren't under illusions that parliament ever acted in our interests but we're not ready to see absolute power handed over lock, stock and barrel to the spiders at the centre of this web.The whole project bears an uncanny resemblance to the Reich's Enabling Act which allowed the Nazis to legally dismantle the constitution of the Weimar Republic. What do they want that is so controversial that they're not even sure if this parliament of placemen and sycophants is going to push it through? This proposition has already begun to cause ripples and it is imperative that it doesn't remain in the shadows but encounters resistance at every turn.

The Bill is online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html

Headline: COMMONS;
Masts Byline: Press Association
Source: PA Issue
Date: Friday March 03, 2006
Page: 1
Story Text:

By Trevor Mason and Katherine Haddon, PA Political Staff

A bid to change planning laws relating to mobile phone masts was launched in the Commons today with cross party backing.

Leading the move, Tory former minister David Curry said his aim was not to put forward proscriptive plans.

``My Bill is an invitation for the industry and Government to engage in discussion to find a better planning framework ...'' he said. ``It is an invitation to negotiate.''

Introducing his Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill, Mr Curry (Skipton and Ripon) said there was huge and growing concern about the siting of phone masts.

He said even the mobile phone operators themselves accepted there was more to be done to take account of public concerns but previous attempts to change the law had foundered.

Mr Curry also spoke about public fears of health risks linked to mobile phones.

Although there was no current evidence that they were harmful, he drew on his experience at the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the BSE crisis to sound a note of caution.

``I've been around long enough to know that politicians and scientists can only offer current evidence.

``They don't deal in certainties, they don't deal in guarantees, the public increasingly does ask for certainty and guarantees,'' he said.

Sir William Stewart has carried out research into possible health risks associated with mobiles and recommended a continued ``precautionary approach'' to the use of such technology, Mr Curry told the House.

And the MP added that legislation on this matter should take into consideration the possibility that advice on phone use might change.

He said that there was a ``deep level of suspicion'' over the issue.

``I don't think that is healthy.

``I think we need to do this in such a transparent way that the industry feels that its future is secure and that this constant local guerrilla wars, as it were, no longer have to be fought, the public doesn't feel threatened, intimidated or taken advantage of, local authorities don't feel overburdened,'' he said.

Labour's Andrew Dismore (Hendon) said he would support the Bill but called for changes to make it more straightforward.

He said mobile phone masts were a ``major issue'' in his constituency, adding: ``I think Orange is probably the main culprit, closely followed by T Mobile and Vodafone.

``And they do seem to try and wear down communities and their opposition to it by repeat applications, by continuing appeals.

``They wear down local authority planning departments and, frankly, something has to be done about it.''

He said that there had been an application for a mast to go on top of Barnet Hospital, which was declined, as well as a 3G mast upgrade, which does not need consent, at Copthall School.

Mr Dismore added that 3G upgrades had led to a ``huge upsurge'' of planning applications.

For the Liberal Democrats, Andrew Stunell expressed support for the Bill.

Mr Stunell said the ``elephant in the room'' was the ``fantastic'' sums of money involved in the industry.

He said: ``Any constraint on their trade is viewed by them with the utmost suspicion.''

There was ``no way'' that the current planning exemptions could now be justified. The industry was capable of paying Pounds 30 billion for the next generation of mobile phone technology licences.

Labour's Nia Griffith (Llanelli) supported the Bill and warned of a ``Christmas tree effect'' whereby once a mast has been approved other phone companies placed masts on the same site.

Tory David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) said residents had to constantly ``battle'' with different phone companies who made repeated applications for masts. He added that when one operator was refused, another would then apply for a mast on the same site.

Tobias Ellwood (C Bournemouth E) said that with the 3G masts there could be as many as 100,000 masts in the UK - more than double the numbers now. Just because everyone used mobile phones it did not mean there should not be regulation.

For the Tories, Nick Herbert said: ``The principle of the Bill that local communities should be properly consulted must be the right one.

``For too long there has been a creeping attitude that government knows best and too many decisions are being taken away from local control and local communities.''

He urged the Government not to talk out the Bill.

But Jim Fitzpatrick, a junior minister in the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, said the Government could not support the measure and was still speaking when time ran out at 2.30pm.

Mr Fitzpatrick said there was concern about perceived health risks, although research evidence suggested there was no health risk from the masts.

He said ministers were determined to ``move'' on the issue but not through this particular piece of legislation.

``We are giving it attention and will be giving it a lot more attention in the months ahead.''

Mr Fitzpatrick said the more people who used mobile phones, the greater was the need for base stations.

There was considerable disquiet about the infrastructure but the Government believed the current planning arrangements ``broadly strike the right balance''.

Rejecting claims that the Government's objections to the Bill stemmed from the large amounts of income brought in by mobile phone licences as ``scurrilous,'' he added: ``There is no skullduggery going on here.''

Ministers had already strengthened the planning regulations twice since 1997.

STEVE DOWNES

17 March 2006 06:15

A showdown was on the cards last night as councillors launched a bid to force a communications giant to switch off a controversial mast on a police station.

O2 will be told to turn off the equipment at North Walsham after backing down from a High Court battle with a father-and-son who claim it is making people ill.

But members and officers from North Norfolk District Council are likely to get short shrift from the operator, which said last night it would not pull the plug.

Ann Casson, a spokeswoman for the company, said: "We have a valid planning consent for the mast, which is providing a vital service for the community and the police in the area."

The mast provides a signal for a crucial part of Norfolk Police's state-of-the-art Airwave digital radio system across the county.

But it has been at the centre of a bitter battle since it was put up and switched on without planning permission three years ago.

The council eventually received a planning application, which it rejected.

It then launched enforcement action and issued a "stop" notice, which forced O2 to switch off the mast and find an alternative site on the edge of the town.

But the decisions were overturned by a planning inspector appointed by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott - leaving the mast operating again, to the fury of nearby residents who reported a number of symptoms they claimed were caused by emissions.

Matthew Pennington and his four-year-old son Henry, whose home is 100yds from the mast, challenged the inspector's decision on the basis that she had not taken into account the evidence of ill health that he said had been caused by the mast.

Mr Pennington also said O2 had not produced sufficient evidence that it had looked for alternative sites in North Walsham for the mast.

Yesterday, councillors at the joint development control committee heard confirmation that O2 and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) had pulled out of the High Court battle on April 3 and 4 with the father and son.

The move, which is expected to be confirmed by a judge in the next fortnight, means a different inspector at a new appeal will decide the outcome of the saga.

Councillors were told by planning legal enforcement manager Roger Howe that he believed the "stop" notice was now reactivated.

Members gave him permission to write to O2, requesting that the mast be switched off.

Pat Ford, a North Walsham councillor, said: "I certainly want the stop notice served. It will serve the residents and particularly the children of the town."

Candy Sheridan said: "So far we've done everything in our power to stop this. We must do it again."

Local coverage with Mast Sanity prominent and a decent MP standing up for our rights.

Andy


This is a good example of a local paper fully on board. Congrats to them. This took up most of the front page.

Yours, JO'B


West Sussex Gazette

Calls for transparency on mobile phone masts

By JEANNIE KNIGHT and CLARE HAWKIN

March 9th 2006

West Sussex MP has said that it is no longer acceptable for the government to sweep people's concerns about phone masts under the carpet.

The comments were made by Nick Herbert at a House of Commons debate on Friday (March 3) at the second reading of the Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control Bill) proposed by MP David Curry.

His remarks came in a week when a leading campaign group, Mast Sanity, claimed that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was in collusion with the Department of Trade and Industry and watchdog OFCOM, ignoring calls by councils, MPs, MEPs and phone mast campaigners, as well as their own advisors for planning controls, to prevent further despoliation of the country by the telecoms industry.

The group claimed that two separate requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act has been ignored and secret high-level meetings had been held with mobile phone operators.

Mr. Herbert, who represents Arundel and South Downs, said that while mobile phones were important, people were concerned because the siting of masts for them was outside of the planning process.

"In the eyes of our constituents masts can affect people's health, particularly when they are sited close to schools and medical facilities, without any proper consultation with local communities.

"As my Right Honourable friend the member for Skipton and Ripon and other members have explained the problem is that the siting of such masts is effectively outside the planning process. No proper consultation with communities therefore takes place and people feel disenfranchised from the decisions that are taken."

The new bill has proposed that any new masts would be subject to full planning permission and that health concerns should be taken into account when applications are considered.

"The principle of the bill - that local communities should be properly consulted over the location of masts - must be right," said Mr Herbert. "For too long there has been a creeping attitude that the government knows best and a process whereby too many decisions are in effect taken out of local control and away from local communities."

He said that the government should support the principle behind the bill and be willing to discuss it in committee.

It has been suggested that 3G technology - the technology that provides a faster service to handsets and other features, including internet access - will require up to four times as many masts as at present. This would result in 135,000 more masts in the country - 200 for every constituency. Currently 85 per cent of people in Britain own a mobile phone with more than 35.000 phone masts throughout the country.

Mr Herbert added: "The issue will not go away. We must be capable of achieving a sensible balance."

Mast Sanity said there was currently no regulation of the mobile industry in this country. Indeed, one of the requests denied under the Freedom of Information Act was for the findings of the study, which focused on how the Mobile Operators comply with the self-regulatory Codes of Best Practice and Ten Commitments.

Campaigners believe that one of the reasons that the study has not been released by the government is because of the auction of licences for the new broadband regime this week, which completely by-passes local planners and the public.

A report that very probably states that greater planning controls are needed would not go down very well when a regime to expand broadband, which has no planning controls whatsoever, is about to be introduced, it suggested.

A request under the Freedom of Information act was made to OFCOM for statistics on the number of phone masts in Wales. This has also been met with a wall of silence.

"The refusal of these requests, and the arrogant and unaccountable manner in which they have been denied are just the tip of the iceberg," said Mast Sanity trustee, Amanda Wesley.

"Our democratic and human rights are being violated by the conduct of the ODPM, OFCOM and the DTI. One has to ask if the Freedom of Information Act or any report commissioned by the government is worth the paper it is written on when they only seem prepared to release information that will not expose or embarrass them. The same applies to the Litchfield Report and the Stewart Report, both of which included the removal of permitted development rights, along with other recommendations which were ignored. This government seems concerned only with protecting the commercial interests of the mobile phone industry, no matter what the impact on ordinary people is."

Mast Sanity also believes that enormous pressure was put on MPs to snub the Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill debated in the House last Friday, when it was presented by David Curry for its second reading.

"This was the third attempt to get a Private Members' Bill through parliament to tighten planning controls on phone masts, yet here we were again with MPs coming up with the same excuses as to why they couldn't attend on Friday. They are in parliament to represent their constituents and it's about time they made a stand and stood up for the democratic rights of their constituents. If MPs didn't turn up on Friday then they can't look their constituents in the eye and claim to support a precautionary principle," said Mast Sanity press officer Sian Meredith.

"There is growing anger among ordinary people. These cosy chats behind closed doors between the Mobile Operators Association and their members and the government, aimed at promoting and protecting the unique perks enjoyed by the industry are undemocratic. We need a serious investigation into the activities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, OFCOM and the DTI, and the industry now to stop this disgraceful state of affairs from continuing," she added.

During the parliamentary debate MPs were told that while exact figures of masts were not known, it was estimated there are 50,000 base stations in the country, with as many as 300 in some local authority districts.

Concerns were expressed about the 'Christmas tree effect' when numerous other masts were added to a base station, without need for further planning permission.

Following last Friday's discussion in parliament of almost two hours, the debate was adjourned and will be continued this coming Friday.

A spokesman for OFCOM said: "There is no secret about the number of masts. Anyone can look them up county by county on http://www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk .

"We have not had any inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act from Mast Sanity itself. To say whether we have answered queries, we would need to know the name of person who made any inquiry." Residents in East Preston have outlined their concerns after mobile phone company Vodaphone approached the local church about installing a 3G mast in its bell tower.

The plans for St Mary's Church are being handled by QS4 technology, which is part of the Qinetiq defence group and works on behalf of the Church of England. It specialises in designing and installing mobile phone masts in churches and has been involved in hundreds of applications across the country. There are currently 500 churches across the country which have had mobile phone masts installed in them.

Bill Scott of QS4 said that the company's job was to liaise with the mobile phone companies and churches and between the church and residents.

"The CoE asked us to represent them in order that full consultation could take place with local residents," he said. "The church was worried that mobile phone companies were not carrying out as much consultation as they should.

"Masts in churches are much less obtrusive and on the whole people do not mind them as much as normal mobile phone masts. Churches are often the tallest buildings in an area and so are very good places to install masts."

Mr Scott said that the consultation was more involved when a church was concerned than for other mobile phone masts and that it would only go ahead if people in East Preston agreed with it.

St Mary's Parochial Church Council has provisionally approved the mast and is now waiting for the results of consultation.

The extra equipment needed for the mast would be hidden in shrubbery on Station Road.

Two attempts by Orange to install mobile phone masts in the village were blocked last year by Arun District Council.

One resident, who asked not to be named said she was unhappy with the plans. "I was brought up to believe the church to be a sacred place for one to commune with God - I feel it is being abused if masts are allowed to be fitted within it and in its grounds."

There are currently 496 masts in West Sussex, consisting of 355 GSM masts, 31 Tetra and 110 UMTs.


This was accompanied by the following editorial comment:

Masts must be put on hold for now

Mobile phone masts have somehow become part of our countryside and townscapes without the majority of people having had the chance to voice their approval or disapproval.

By stealth the masts have proliferated, and there seems little likelihood that their spread can be halted. As Arundel and South Downs MP Nick Herbert says, the government has swept people's concerns under the carpet. It is time for these concerns to be taken seriously.

Doubts persist over the safety of clamping your mobile phone to your ear at regular intervals, but that's your choice; you can inflict it on yourself if you so wish.

That choice is denied communities when it comes to the siting of phone masts. If there are safety implications - and there seems sufficient concern from different quarters that there might well be - then it is a safety implication for all of us, regardless of whether we are mobile users or not... and most of us are.

As such, the sensible way forward would be to have a moratorium on erecting new masts anywhere near settlements of people until there is conclusive, independently verified evidence that they are not detrimental to people's health.

As things stand no one can categorically rule out the possibility these masts, some years down the line, will be found to have damaged us in some way.

And all this before we have even mentioned the aesthetic downside of having a prominent hunk of metal near your home.

There is endless pussyfooting over the degree of concealment, and, indeed, some new masts are totally unobtrusive. But that's missing the point: Just because it's well hidden, it isn't necessarily safe.

We must proceed with caution for the real cost won't remain hidden for ever.

Baby alarm
Robbie Collin
News of the World Issue
Date: Sunday February 19, 2006
Page: 39 Picture
Caption: PERIL: Alarms 'pose danger'

'Monitors give off deadly radiation'

BABIES are being put at risk of cancer by hi-tech cot monitors which emit deadly radiation, it is claimed.

Parents will be horrified to learn that slow-pulsing microwaves blasted out by modern digital equipment may cause leukaemia, say scientists.

Lab tests have also linked the radiation to potentially fatal brain tumours, breast cancer, headaches and disturbed behaviour patterns in kids.

Consumer group Powerwatch has urged parents to ditch digital (DECT) monitors.

Boss Alasdair Philips said: "We don't recommend they are used. Do not put a wireless transmitter in your child's bedroom and irradiate them unnecessarily."

Emissions, even if the monitor is not in use, can reportedly reach six volts per metre-TWICE as strong as those found within 100 metres of mobile phone masts.

That's a similar amount given off by digital cordless phones, as we revealed this month.

Baby monitoring mats-which check a tot's temperature and breathing-are also a concern because it is claimed they can emit 120 TIMES the safe level of 0.05 volts per metre.

Digital products produce the radiation-but are popular because they provide clearer sound than old analogue monitors.

Expert Dr David Dowson said: "Until more research has been done, I would advise every parent not to use them."

One manufacturer said: "There's no scientific evidence linking radiowaves to symptoms."


DIGITAL BABY MONITORS 'RAISE RISK OF CANCER'
BY JAMES MILLS

20 February 2006 Daily Mail
31

CHILDREN may be at risk of cancer from digital baby monitors, parents have been warned.

The cordless gadgets, which allow babies' breathing patterns to be checked from another room, emit potentially dangerous radio waves even when not in use.

Consumer group Powerwatch warned parents against using them after research suggested the technology increased the risk of brain tumours.

There are also fears it is linked with leukaemia, breast cancer, headaches and disturbed behaviour patterns in children.

Digitally enhanced cordless technology is becoming more popular in baby monitors. But Powerwatch founder, Alasdair Philips, said: 'This technology poses a risk to everyone, but babies in particular should not be exposed to it at all.

'Babies are more likely to be effected because their cells are rapidly dividing as they grow and can be more easily damaged.'

Similar concerns have been expressed about cordless phones.

Last week, research found those who used digital mobiles or cordless phones had a higher chance of getting a benign tumour called acoustic neuroma, though similar studies have found no link.

Dr Michael Clark, of the Health Protection Agency, said he would be surprised if digital baby monitors and base units of cordless phones caused cancer because their electromagnetic fields operate at low levels and the devices are not held against the head.



Monitors baby risk
The Mirror Issue
Date: Monday February 20, 2006
Page: 26

PARENTS have been warned to avoid using new digital cot monitors amid fears they emit cancer-causing radiation.

Emissions were found to be twice as strong as those found within 100 metres of mobile phone masts.

Research suggests the slow-pulsing microwaves used by the transmitters could cause headaches leukaemia, or brain tumours and may disturb sleep or upset behaviour.

Alasdair Philips, from Powerwatch, said: "We don't recommend they are used. Do not put a wireless transmitter in a child's bedroom and irritate them unnecessarily."

--------

Alzheimers/baby monitors/melatonin
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/baby_monitor.htm



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Alzheimer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Alzheimer

Shropshire Star

07.03.06

A stop notice has been issued to prevent the mobile phone company Orange from carrying out further work on a phone mast in West Felton.

The controversial mast has been put up in fields at The Avenue in the village near Oswestry.

But Oswestry Borough Council believes the mast has not been erected in accordance with development rights allowed for certain structures.

It has issued the stop notice, informing Orange that it will have to dismantle the mast or submit a new application for permitted development rights.

Carol Corbett, a member of the West Felton Mast Protest Group, said the stop notice was issued after Orange cancelled a meeting with locals and the local authority and also moved to fix dishes to the mast.

She said: “We are holding a public meeting in the village hall at 7pm tomorrow.” Orange said it cancelled the meeting because of the short notice it was given.

The full version of this article appears in the Oswestry edition of tonight’s Shropshire Star

© 2003-06 Shropshire Newspapers Ltd

http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=43114