World-News

Bath Chronicle
11:00 - 03 March 2006

So mobile phone operator spokesman, Michael Dolan still, in my opinion, attempts to misinform the public about the inadequacy of the supposed "protective" phone mast radiation (ICNIRP) guidelines (Chronicle, February 23). Independent research regularly proves the dangers to health of this harmful technology.

It is readily available to all (please see Mast Sanity website).
http://www.mastsanity.org/

I challenge Mr Dolan to name one research paper that proves conclusively that there is no long term danger to public health from this dangerous technology.

Unsurprisingly, Mr Dolan liberally quotes the compliant World Health Organisation on this matter.

The WHO's spokesman (and ICNIRP member) Michael Repacholi, heads its radiation department and electro magnetic frequency committee.

He systematically downplays and ignores the numerous scientific findings which prove that this cellular technology is not safe. So why does the WHO's Michael Repacholi refuse to guide governments to take the appropriate safety measures and protect human lives from this worldwide threat to our health?

Perhaps it's something to do with the 150,000 dollars a year he receives from the cellular phone industry.

Hardly surprising, Mr Dolan, that you failed to mention this, or the fact that there is a worldwide petition to remove this dangerous man from his vested interested position.

Omega see under: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409444403 and
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/877606/

With the ever-increasing ill health and cancer clusters appearing in the vicinity of phone masts it is scandalous that the current outdated guidelines, trumpeted by government and phone operators, do not acknowledge the biological effects of the radiation emissions on the human body. They only researched the thermal (heating) effects. These guidelines as 'protection' are equivalent to a fireguard in front of a defective gas fire that is giving out carbon monoxide - it might stop you getting burned but you might not be alive to care.

Omega see "Cancer Clusters in Vicinity to Cell-Phone Transmitter Stations" under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/580224/


JOHN ELLIOTT
Bristol

4th March 2006, Issue 534

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

I even had a local rep try to persuade me.

I still find it to be like selling face masks to overcome traffic pollution. The traffic pollution is doing more than make you cough. Similarly microwave radiation should not be covered up for the whole range of its environmental damage, by persuading people they are personally protected. OK, it might, just vaguely might, help some individuals. But then does one person smoking with filter tips help the passive smoker? It certainly does not. These devices almost encourage phone users to use them more, convinced they are safe. If they modify the outputs of phones the phones will not work. If the phones are not modified, then it might alter the field in the head/ear slightly, but it perpetuates the proliferation of microwaves in the environment: and that is the problem.

So I do not endorse these devices.

Andy

BBC News Online
02.03.06

A council has vowed to make information about potential mobile phone masts more accessible to local residents.

Bournemouth Borough Council says it will publish details of both permitted and potential masts on its website.

It follows concerns raised by residents who say they were not properly informed about masts going up in the borough.

The council also is urging local MPs to back the Private Members Bill, which could give it greater powers over the erection of mobile phone masts.

If the bill is adopted, it means each phone mast proposal will need to have an extensive safety check.

The council will also be able to refuse a mast over precautionary health concerns if it is planned for a residential area.

But the council said it is also looking at using non-residential areas, including parks, to keep future masts away from homes, schools and health facilities.

The planning department must also, from now on, inform councillors of all known permitted phone masts, as well as potential mast developments in the area.

Councillor Richard Renaut said: "Mobile phone masts are necessary in this world, as the majority of people now have mobile phones, but we need to make sure they are located in suitable places."

From Karen Barratt

It is worth mentioning that AP Mobile produced a report on telecoms planning in July 2004 (press conf etc). The Report took evidence from a number of campaign groups eg Winchester, Wishaw etc, local govt and the industry and made recommendations similar to some of those contained in the PMB including scrapping prior approval for masts under 15 metres. I spoke to Mike Dolan (MOA) at the press launch of the Report and he was clearly worried. He needn't have been - the Govt did nothing. I've refered to this many times in interviews and press releases as an example of how the Govt has ignored advice from various bodies. The AP Mobile Group was set up in response to the Winchester campaign's lobby of parliament in July 2001 (I was at the meeting when Mark Oaten and Phil Willis agreed to do it). It was intended to give people like us a voice - the then planning minister Lord Falconer had refused to meet us to discuss the proposed revision to PPG8 (We wanted the contentious paragraphs removed).

Over the years the industry have used the group as another means to lobby because they have the time and money to do it - campaigners don't. This is inevitable. They've sponsored the technology meetings (tea and biscuits thanks to Vodafone etc) but judging by recent newspaper reports don't like it when others do the same thing. Mast Sanity had discussed sponsoring an AP Mobile meeting in the past. I'm sure that would have prompted a simiilar outraged response from the telecom industry. Sometimes you can't win and that's the position AP Mobile finds itself in. It's worth looking at their website www.apmobile.org.uk . to see the way they accept mobile phone technology ie looking for ways to protect against adverse effects rather than damning the whole technology. Meetings about the phones themselves also shifts the focus away from planning and mast-siting (the reason the group was set up in the first place) We can attribute this to effective lobbying by the telecoms but being realistic it is in line with public opinion too. Pepole don't want masts but a majority do want phones as long as the negative 'social' aspects can be sorted out.

I also had a letter from my MP Hugo Swire (tory) who gave me a similar comment, plus a comment about "everyone needing mobile phones" that annoyed me intensely - hence my attached diplomatic letter in response.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/mr_swire_20_2_06.doc

Jane



Dear Mr Swire

Thank you very much for your letter of 16th February 2006, kindly setting out your reasons for your support of Mr David Curry’s Private members’ Bill regarding Mobile Phone Masts.

I am in agreement with all but one of the comments you have made, and that is, in your final paragraph you say, “…we all want to be able to use mobile phones.” With the greatest respect to you as my valued MP, this statement is not correct, the truth is, for many important reasons, huge numbers of people are choosing not to own or use mobile phones. A few of the categories of people not owning/using mobile technology are:

1. People who have already suffered benign or malignant brain tumours will have been strongly advised by their doctors against using mobile phones. People with epilepsy and other serious neurological health problems will also have been strongly advised by their doctors against the use of mobile phones, as it has been known for a long time now that mobile phones can aggravate/worsen these health problems.

I have enclosed a copy email reporting on a new study imminently to be published in the International Journal of Oncology by Dr Lennard Hardell and colleagues, showing statistically significant increases in the risk of benign brain tumours, especially acoustic neuromas, following the use of mobile telephones. WLAN and DECT phones also use pulsing microwave technology and enclosed is a letter from Dr Gerd Oberfeld MD, Head of the Salzburg Public Health Department banning the use of WLAN and DECT phones/equipment in schools or kindergartens.

2. People who are suffering from Electro-Sensitivity will be avoiding using mobile phones or being near anyone else using mobile phones. Myself and many others in Devon, (and throughout Britain), have taken part in some of the truly independent research currently being carried out, but as yet unpublished. These research test results have proved to others and myself that it is not our imagination, as our bodies do exhibit real physiological effects within minutes of being in the presence of active mobile phones and masts.

3. There are a huge number of people choosing not to use mobile phones for moral and ethical reasons. I have enclosed a copy email that contains an extract from the full article from the magazine ‘Ethical Consumer’, www.ethicalconsumer.org, setting out the serious problems brought to the people/environment of the Democratic Republic of Congo, by the mining of coltan used in mobile phones.

4. There are large numbers of people who regard the intrusion of mobile phones an invasion of their personal peace and privacy so do not allow their use on their property. As these people find mobile technology completely unacceptable, they also choose not to own or use mobile phones.

Being an intelligent, interesting person as well as my MP, I appreciate that you are always in great demand, sometimes in areas away from your own constituency. However, I cannot help being very disappointed that you will not be present to vote on this crucially important Bill that affects the whole country.

I have read a great deal about ordinary people’s concern about masts and health throughout the whole of the country, including Scotland. If it is to ordinary Scottish people you will be speaking on the 3rd March next, I would bet that if they were given the straight choice of you speaking in Scotland or voting in London on Mr Curry’s Bill, the voting in London would win.

I believe that unless the Conservatives act as a strong opposition now, making sure all MPs attend to vote on this Bill, the general public will not believe they have what it takes as a party to truly represent and protect the ordinary person. The Conservatives Telecoms Mast Policy good though it is, cannot make immediate changes for the better – unlike Mr Curry’s Private Members Bill which can – but only if voted in! Actions speak louder than words.

Although disappointed, I am still extremely grateful you have said you will be speaking up for local residents suffering from badly sited masts.

Yours truly,

J D LEE

http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=423&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Kerrier District Council’s Planning Committee has decided to withdraw its enforcement notice against the Tetra Mast at Treworval Farm, near Mawnan Smith, in the light of new evidence presented since the beginning of the appeal, and the likely cost to the Council of pursuing it further.

"We beat you in Wales, we'll beat you here; give up now or it will cost you".

Andy

The attached appeared in today's WDDTY broadcast..

Has anyone summarised the complete financial story on mobile phones? Namely the sums paid for what and over how long? Also who gets paid what by the mobile phone companies? If we know the story for other counties that will also help.

We possibly need to analyse the Mobile Phone Companies annual reports to unravel their public statements - does it all add up?

Please send anything useful.

Thanks


EXPERT OPINION: He who pays the piper. . .

We live in the age of the expert, and it is him to whom we turn when we need to understand complex issues. The wise observer, however, treats the explanations of the expert with caution, and rightly so. This is because there is rarely such a thing as an independent expert, whether he is from the world of science, politics or medicine. Too often these hard-up academics are prepared to put their name to anything, provided there's a decent cash inducement involved. This peculiarly 'scientific' practice of the double-blind backhander has been exercised to the full by the tobacco industry, according to recent reports. In 1991 the budget for experts' backhanders totalled $3.3m (£1.9m), and for that the scientists were to argue that there was no health risk from secondary smoke. Tobacco industry lawyers were set the task of finding 'experts' prepared to publish research that 'proved' secondhand smoke was not dangerous, and any problems associated with it could be remedied by good ventilation. Needless to say, plenty of 'experts' came out of the woodwork, who were more than happy to make the claim, even though it is clearly nonsense. Once the papers had been published, the tobacco industry was free to point out these 'independent' findings to government and health officials, who would be suitably impressed not to introduce regulations on secondhand smoke. Operation Backhander began in 1987 and was in full swing two years later, by which time it had recruited consultants from the UK, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and Sweden. It also reached Asia, where every member of an organizing committee of a conference on indoor air quality was a tobacco industry 'consultant'. Researchers can find no evidence to suggest that the operation has been ended, so the next time you hear an 'expert' spouting forth, treat his comments with the greatest caution. You don't know where he's been paid. (Source: European Journal of Public Health, 2006; 16: 69-77).

* GUESS WHAT? The tobacco industry isn't alone in paying for 'independent' experts. The drugs industry has been doing it for years, and oftentimes the expert can't even be bothered to read the paper that he has supposedly written. All the dirty deeds of the drugs industry are uncovered in the WDDTY book, Secrets of the Drugs Industry. To order your copy, click here:

http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?id=4393&did=537

From Karen Barratt

I have just been sent a article (ref above) which accuses the AP Mobile Group of being infiltrated by lobbyists representing mobile phone companies' competitors. This according to the writer Sam Coates explains why among other things the AP Mobile have called on the Govt to require full planning permission for all masts, called for legislation to prevent mobile phone ops introducing services to attract children etc.

I haven't got time to precis the whole thing but I suggest eveyone reads it. It is the latest example of the telecoms propaganda. They must be more worried about the PMB than we imagined.


The Times

February 21, 2006

By Sam Coates

THE parliamentary watchdog is investigating a supposedly independent group of MPs who have repeatedly attacked mobile phone operators while receiving support from lobbyists working for competitors, The Times has learnt.

The All-Party Group on Mobile Communications, which launched its latest assault on the mobile industry at the weekend, is given administrative support by Political Intelligence, an international company of lobbyists.

Neither the parliamentary register nor the group’s own website reveals the lobbyists’ ultimate clients — including internet service providers whose telephony services compete head to head with the mobile industry.

This is an apparent breach of parliamentary rules which state: “Where a public relations agency provides the assistance, the ultimate client should be named.”

Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, has written to the group to demand why the clients are not named.

The move comes after The Times revealed last month how lobbyists have infiltrated the work of supposedly independent groups of MPs.

Sir Philip launched an investigation and is expected to report to Parliament in May.

When challenged by The Times, the head of Political Intelligence refused to reveal the name of their clients, citing commercial confidentiality.

The voluntary code for the lobbyist industry, which Political Intelligence has declined to sign up to, insists on such transparency.

However, Derek Wyatt, MP, the vice-chairman of the group, told The Times that the lobbyists’ clients included the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association and the European Internet Services Providers Association.

Both associations, which together represent thousands of companies, are competitors to the mobile phone industry because they stand to benefit from the rise of internet telephony, such as Skype.

The profits for communications companies depend heavily on the regulatory framework set by governments and the European Union, and can be influenced by all party groups.

Since the all-party mobile group was set up in 2001, it has:

# begun an investigation into mobile companies for overcharging consumers for downloading data abroad;

# called on the Government to require full planning permission for mobile phone masts;

# called for legislation to prevent two mobile phone operators from introducing services designed to attract children.

Mr Wyatt said that Political Intelligence had provided “expensive” clerking services and had found them sponsors for events in the past. But he added that there was no question that they had influenced the inquiries or findings of the group.

“If they [the lobbyist] tried to influence things they would be straight out the door. They don’t work like that. I have never had a conversation with them about that sort of thing.”

Asked why Political Intelligence did clerk for the group, he suggested that it was a goodwill gesture.

Nicholas Lansman, the managing director of Political Intelligence, refused to discuss the company’s clients.

“I have responded to Sir Philip. I am not prepared to discuss our clients because that is confidential. We have complied with all the rules.”

Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2050085,00.html

This one speaks for itself:

Times, 20 February

Bar child mobile services, say MPs
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-10-2049074-10,00.html

Do you trust these money-makers with your kids lives?

Andy


Bar child mobile services, say MPs

The Times

February 20, 2006

By Elizabeth Judge

LEGISLATION to prevent two mobile phone operators from introducing services designed to attract children were called for by MPs and consumer groups last night amid fears over adverse health effects.

The threat of a legal crackdown, from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mobile Communications, was triggered by news that Orange, the French-owned mobile group, and Britain’s O2 are considering services aimed at children.

Orange is believed to be weighing up a UK launch of Zap Zone, a children’s service introduced in France last year. The service, for 11 to 17-year-olds, allows children to download pictures to their phones, create a virtual “bedroom” and engage in online “chat” communities and competitions.

Meanwhile, Peter Erskine, head of O2, is in talks with Walt Disney, the US media group, over the introduction of a Disney-branded service. Insiders said it was “not a done deal” but it is thought that any service would include Disney phones and content. Disney has plans for a branded phone service in the US with Sprint.

Mobile operators in the UK have signed up to a code of conduct, agreeing not to market services to under-16s. The code came into place after a report by Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency. Although he found no evidence of any health threats, Sir William urged caution; children, he said, could be more vulnerable to undiscovered effects of mobile phones.

Orange and O2 both insisted yesterday they would never breach the UK code on marketing services to children. Consumer groups, however, say that mobile companies introducing such child-orientated services would breach the spirit of the code and should be stopped.

Phil Willis, chairman of the All-Party Mobile Group, said: “Whether they are directly marketing is pure semantics at the end of the day. If they are selling services that are attractive to children, then that is against the spirit of the code and the Government has a duty to regulate where the industry cannot self-regulate.” The National Consumer Council said: “Codes of practice are only as good as the support and commitment they get from those who’ve signed up to them.”

Mobile industry insiders say they feel that the UK is adopting a “backward” approach towards children and mobiles. They say there is no evidence of any negative health effects from mobile phones.

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


TXT GENERATION

# About 5.5 million mobile phones are owned by children in Britain

# About 90 per cent of secondary school pupils and one in four seven to ten-year-olds own one

# The Professional Association of Teachers has called on parents not to buy their children video-equipped mobile phones in response to the rise in “happy slapping” incidents

# Text bullying, in which children are sent threatening messages, is believed to have affected 14 per cent of children, according to the charity NCH

--------

Children and mobile phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1063256/