World-News

Wed Jan 2, 3:19 PM

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - If you're late for work, a driver using a cell phone may be to blame. U.S. researchers said on Wednesday that people who use cell phones while behind the wheel impede the flow of traffic, clog highways and extend commute times.

Read More...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080102/tecnology/tech_usa_phones_traffic_col_1


Informant: Mark G.

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=1780&end=1800&view=yes&id=2063#newspost

--------

Quackbuster Dr Ben Goldacre Busted

http://www.slingshotpublications.com/dwarfs.html

Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism is yet another book triumph for award winning investigative writer Martin J Walker. Nowhere are Goldacre's sock puppet bad science morés more clearly displayed than in his close professional association with psychiatrist Professor Simon Wessely. Dr Charles Shepherd of the moribund ME Association charity quackbuster eviscerated. The Guardian UK national newspaper that has deliberately attempted to suppress the ethics and morality of science on a substantial scale to be held directly accountable for the Dr Ben Goldacre fiasco.

Jane Bryant, Director, The One Click Group



Bad Science DEBUNKED ­ High Noon for Ben Goldacre
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=1



From: Patrick Holford

Subject: QUACKBUSTING THE QUACKBUSTERS

QUACKBUSTING THE QUACKBUSTERS

Free e-book launched exploring anti-nutritional lobby groups

Have you ever wondered why there is so much opposition to nutritional approaches for today's major health issues? Is it really because the science is weak, or is it more to do with politics and money? I was fascinated to read the free e-book, published this month on the internet, by Martin Walker entitled Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism - Ben Goldacre, Quackbusting and Corporate Science. It explores the associations Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre, and other 'quackbusters' have with an organised anti-nutritional medicine agenda and organisations funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

Those familiar with Ben Goldacre's inability to expose the 'bad science' of drugs and antipathy towards nutritional medicine will not be surprised. Martin Walker, author of Dirty Medicine and Brave New World of Zero Risk, looks at the quackbusting work of Ben Goldacre and others, placing them in the context of the global lobby groups that support the chemical, pharmaceutical, medical and processed food industries. It's an intriguing read. For the first time Walker's work focuses on this lobby's attacks on independent nutritionists, including myself, and traces the history of quackbuster campaigns against vitamin and food supplements.

Walker is giving away this publication as an e-book, in the hope that it will help people organise in defence of nutritional medicine. Like all of Walker's work it is an erudite and detailed read that will certainly enlighten you to the darker side of those organising against non-pharmaceutically based medicine in general, and nutritional medicine in particular.

The e-book can be downloaded for free from http://www.slingshotpublications.com and Walker hopes that many will place it on their web sites to be accessed and downloaded.

I hope you do take the time to read this and let others know about it because literally tens of thousands of people die every year from prescription drugs when better alternatives already exist and millions more suffer unnecessarily and die prematurely from ignorance, some scared off from trying effective, safe, nutritional approaches by individuals like Ben Goldacre and his fellow quackbusters.

If this makes you angry do something about it - let others know about this book and, if you're concerned with the Guardian's one-sided view on medicine why not write to the editor of the Guardian at home@guardian.co.uk. Here's my letter. http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=2183

You can also see excerpts of the book at http://www.holfordmyths.com , our new site for countering false allegations. Martin J. Walker, Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre, quackbusting and corporate science. Slingshot Publications. January 2008. Available free from http://www.slingshotpublications.com



Quackbusting and WiFi

Long article by Martin Walker on UK media and corporate propaganda. Phone masts and WiFi are included.

http://quackbengoldacre.wordpress.com/the_placement/


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

--------

Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre, quackbusters and corporate science

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=831

--------

Read it and Judge for Yourself

Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Dr Ben Goldacre, Quackbusting and Corporate Science
http://www.whale.to/b/walker_gol.html
http://tinyurl.com/2fauax



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Goldacre
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldacre
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=quackbust
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Martin+J+Walker
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3040986/
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/3201200/
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1820313/

By Alex Lewis

A FRUSTRATED St Albans man has been battling the district council for months to get information on a controversial mobile phone mast scheme.

Frank Hore, one of a group of residents who have been campaigning for the council to agree a large mast in Clarence Park to avoid the need for several smaller ones near their homes, made a request under the Freedom of Information Act in June.

Six months later and after a three-stage complaint process, he has still not seen the documents he requested, and the authority has only just agreed to reconsider its initial decision that they were covered by legal exemptions.

Read More...
http://tinyurl.com/2wbn2n



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=St+Alban

Dec 31 2007

BLUNDERING Solihull Council has lost its battle to pull down a mobile phone mast.

The T-Mobile mast in Widney Lane was erected despite Solihull Council having refused permission.

Read More...
http://tinyurl.com/34ut8j



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Solihull

Richmond Hill is a town located a few kilometers north of Toronto. Recently residents discovered plans for two large antenna masts to be located in their community, close to many homes. Dedicated volunteers have formed a group to fight these proposals and have quickly educated the neighborhood about the dangers they will face if the plans are implemented. Please read the Toronto Star story below.

Martin


Planned wireless towers get a poor reception from many residents worried about health.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/289423

--------

Company's options limited: Bell Canada
http://www.georginaadvocate.com/News/Richmond%20Hill/article/72231

--------

[PACT of Richmond Hill] A Reply To Councillor Foster

Many citizens of Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada are fighting to stop the installation of two large cell phone towers, very close to many homes and a children's day care facility. Mr. James Cooper, one of the concerned residents sent this very interesting and thoughtful message to a member of the local council. He has made several good points that may help others who are involved in similar struggles.

Martin.


Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 8:05 AM
Subject: [PACT of Richmond Hill]
A Reply To Councillor Foster

Dear Councillor

I appreciate the reply. I am, however, more than a bit puzzled by your explanation that Council's powers to inform us are outright restricted by the Federal government. In your letter, you stated that "we are allowed only a public information meeting...We have a federally instructed guideline as to how far out the meeting notice goes and that distance is only 30 meters."

Is that indeed the case? My understanding of a "guideline" is that it is suggestive, not mandatory. My other understanding is that the federal government - specifically, Industry Canada - has absolutely no jurisdiction to mandate the extent to which Council may inform their constituents. You obviously know this, since - once the scope of public outrage over the Bell tower approval became apparent - you scheduled a second public information meeting, with more notification, in regard to the Rogers tower application so that we would have the opportunity to let you know exactly what we felt prior to you communicating a response to Industry Canada about the Rogers tower.

And that's the crux of the problem. Council - of which you are a part - never afforded us the sufficient opportunity to get our opinions heard by Industry Canada before you communicated to them that Council had no problem with this location in regard to the Bell tower. As far as Industry Canada was aware, this Council was absolutely fine with this location, and on that basis, Bell was given the go-ahead to proceed. Now, that presented a huge problem for us - since Bell is now largely depending on the fact of your approval to proceed with impunity.

Now, had the Mayor sent off his letter to Industry Canada before that initial approval, expressing his opinion that this was not a good location for a cell tower, Industry Canada's existing consultation protocols would have been engaged, prodding them to attempt a reconciliation of interests between Council and the cell tower proponent. Were you not aware of Industry Canada's consultation protocols before you voted your approval for this tower? If not, does that not make your decision to approve this tower an illegitimate decision, based on a misleading perception of your existing powers? Did not your fellow Council members appreciate that they had the right to dissent by expressing their opinions about this tower to Industry Canada?

Based on what you've communicated to me, I can only conclude that you have fettered your discretion by communicating an approval based on a misunderstanding of your existing powers. Indeed, you cannot overrule or block Industry Canada's powers to issue a licence to a cell tower applicant. On the other hand, Industry Canada's own Guidelines advise cell tower applicants that if a Council acts against a company that places a tower against a municipality's wishes, Industry Canada cannot provide them immunity from any actions initiated by the municipality.

Put another way, what Industry Canada is saying to a cell tower company is, "No one can stop us from issuing a licence (true), and you're free to use it as you wish (true), but we cannot step in and protect you against the consequences of proceeding against the wishes of a land use authority."

Now, let that sink in just a bit. Industry Canada has no jurisdiction over you (they say so themselves on their own website). Conversely, you have no jurisdiction over their powers to issue an approval licence. But make no mistake. They threw the municipalities a bone. They said essentially, "Your opinion is relevant. Give us feedback. Let us know if you guys are against the location or not - since that might impact on our decision to issue an approval licence."

Now, just consider the wonderful possibilities we would have open to us if you had not misunderstood your powers to communicate with us and Industry Canada. In that alternate reality, we would not have Guy Raymond lecturing us that we already had our day in "court", since Council communicated its initial approval of this location for a tower. Perhaps Industry Canada would have mandated that Bell consult further with Council and affected residents to work toward a mutually acceptable solution, as is their present policy.

Obviously, that did not happen. And now we're in a mess that - let's face it - began with Council's inability to initially notify and consult with us.

Fortunately, we recognize that there are indeed other options open to us. We recognize that Council has considerable powers to ensure that residents, going forward, are sufficiently notified and consulted. And have no doubt: PACT is reaching out beyond this ward, across Richmond Hill, to ensure that this present travesty of a "consultation process" never happens again.

But that does not mean the Bell tower issue has been laid to rest with us. Far from it. The tower is up today because Council never recognized its right to communicate a dissent to Industry Canada. On the other hand, Council really had no basis for communicating that dissent because they never even bothered to sufficiently document our opinions - as was their indisputable right to do (contrary to what you have clarified to us).

But now we know. The tower is here on the basis of an illegitimate and faulty decision-making process. With that in mind, we have options. Council has the power to pass resolutions and make public appeals. You have the option to be proactive on this matter and to take it directly to Bell, Petro, and the media on our behalf.

But at this point, we're no longer satisfied by failed efforts. We will only recognize results that operate to reverse the injustice done.

Council has the power to ensure that all affected residents are properly notified. Council has the power to document and tabulate the percentage of residents who oppose a tower at any particular location. Council has the power to publicize those results and to publicly communicate opinions to Industry Canada and cell tower proponents.

The members of Pact all know this. And with each passing day, more of your constituents will know this, as will more residents of Richmond Hill, once they realize the extent to which their Council has not served their interests.

And so, we eagerly await your proactive efforts to obtain a reversal of this present state of affairs.



----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:19 PM
Subject: cell towers

Dear Mr. Cooper

Thank you for taking the time to email me your comments on the cell tower issues.

I think I need to clarify the process that we are presently forced to function under with regards to cell tower applications. The Town has no legislative ability to deny these applications - we are allowed to have only a public information meeting and we send the comments from that public meeting to Industry Canada. We have a federally instructed guideline as to how far out the meeting notice goes and that distance is only 30 meters.

The Bell Tower invitations went to residential addresses to capture the townhouses to the south of the gas station - it was attended by 3 residents out of over 40 households invited and there was no mention at that time of the health issues and I must tell you that I did not even ask about emissions issues because I assumed the safety of these towers had been checked and ok'd for us by Health Canada and Industry Canada..

At the next public meeting I extended the invitation list to include Hiram Road and six people showed up including Rhonda Pomerantz, who is one of the founding members of PACT. It is through Rhonda that I became aware of the issues with the safety guidelines and when Rhonda asked that I have another meeting to invite more stakeholders and try to get some answers on the emissions issues I quickly agreed and Rhonda assisted me by making email contact and I sent out over 500 invites from the Town to a distance of 500 meters from the tower site.

It was clear to all who attended that meeting, which was also attended by Industry Canada, that more information was needed and that is why the next meeting to be held May 12 at Town Hall is so important for all to attend. This municipality, along with our residents, needs to send a strong message to the Federal Government who oversees Industry Canada and Health Canada that we need answers to our questions, and we need a better notification process that goes out as far as 500 meters from the 30 meters that is legislated now.

On May 12, Council for the Town of Richmond Hill will hear a scientist give us information on how Europe has dealt with emissions and reduced the power without compromising the industry...I am also inviting Health Canada and Industry Canada to come and present their data and residents will also be speaking. This will be an important night for information on cell towers to be presented from all sides and for Council to hear from all stakeholders on this issue.

I want to be very clear in everyone understanding that the issue here is not opposition to cell phone technology - it is making sure that the science that allows Industry Canada to create its rules on emissions standards is state of the art and reflects the safest, most up to date information and those rules have to come from Health Canada. I am worried that Health Canada is working with standards that are very old and maybe out of date....However this is all information that will be discovered on the night of May 12.

I can also assure you that on that night I will bringing forth motions to help our Town and set an example for other municipalities on the issues that we need to be able to control - like notification distances and site plans....BUT the most important message must be sent back to the Federal bodies that we need up to date, scientific data to allow these towers to function safely and until that time I will be recommending a distance of probably 500 meters from residential and schools for any plan to be agreeable to our Town. Please remember that Industry Canada presently has the right to OVERULE any comments that we make and put cell towers anywhere they please once a cell company has demonstrated need.

Please plan on attending - with the help of you all we can force change in this industry by up to date standards that reduce the emissions to an acceptable and safe level.

Thank you again for emailing me and with your help we can aim to make the existing towers in our Town safe for the future.

Lynn Foster
Councillor Ward 4
TRH



----- Original Message -----
From: James Cooper
Sent: 03/28/2008 03:47 PM AST
To: Office-Mayor Richmondhill;
Subject: A Message To Our Mayor and Ward Councillor

Dear Mayor Barrow and Councillor Foster:

After months of being told that there was nothing you could do to stop this tower, we are now faced with a fait accompli. The tower is going up at the corner of Elgin and Bathurst.

As you might be aware, the members of PACT are furious about this. They know that, ultimately, this situation came about because of your original approval that was given above our heads.

In fact, in messages from Guy Raymond to members of this group, he is depending on the fact that he obtained your approval back in May.

See, here is our problem - we are all fighting a tower approved by you. Industry Canada has officially wiped its hands of the matter because you already signaled your approval at a time when their consultation protocols might have had an impact. And now, Bell is depending on that approval.

So now we have this tower.

With that in mind, you have now put in place a huge coalition of hundreds of residents (growing by the day, mind you) who will see to it that both of you never get elected to another term in Richmond Hill - so long as this tower remains in place.

We all know Industry Canada's consultation policies, so don't even bother telling us you "had no choice."

Bottom line: You approved this tower without sufficiently notifying us. So, the members of PACT all hold you accountable for this present state of affairs.

We suggest that you don't sit idle and hope that this all passes. As of this writing, a very large bloc of residents are motivated to mobilize against your re-election in this Town.

Since you failed to represent us at the crucial point when it might have had an effect, as citizens, we do have a right to ensure that both of you will no longer play a part in the politics of this Town come next election.

At this point, we don't want to hear excuses. You got us into this mess back in May and then sat around and did nothing. We're only looking for results. Otherwise, you have just sacrificed years of political service for the sake of one cell tower.

We're all reading this email and awaiting your urgent attention to this matter.

--------

CELL TOWER DEMOCRACY ISSUES- MAY 12TH MEETING RICHMOND HILL, ONTARIO

----- Original Message -----
From: PACT Canada Residents Organization
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: [PACT of Richmond Hill] MEDIA RELEASE:CELL TOWER DEMOCRACY ISSUES- MAY 12TH MEETING RICHMOND HILL

Media Release - May 9, 2008

Richmond Hill, Ontario -

Upcoming Council Meeting Monday, May 12th 7:30 pm

On Monday May 12, 2008 commencing at 7:30 pm in Richmond Hill Council Chambers at 225 East Beaver Creek Rd., the Town of Richmond Hill will consider an application by Rogers Wireless to erect a cell tower (the second cell tower at the same intersection) at Bathurst St. and Elgin Mills Rd. W., 100 metres from a daycare and 120 metres from residential homes.

In addition, motions proposed by the residents' group, PACT (Precautionary Approach to Cell Towers) of Richmond Hill, regarding unprecedented consultation protocols will be considered. These consultation motions, if passed, will serve as a test case for local democracy, as affected residents fight for the right to document and tabulate their objections - or consent - to cell tower sitings in their neighbourhoods.

Under Industry Canada's existing guidelines, there is no mechanism in place to receive a formal, documented objection by local residents who object to applications for cell tower sitings. Further, since virtually all municipalities across Canada do not presently document and tabulate the responses of notified residents, the local public does not have sufficient legal or political standing under Industry Canada's existing notification and consultation process.

On Monday May 12th, the membership of PACT of Richmond Hill seeks to present the case for local choice before the Town of Richmond Hill. These motions, if passed, may serve as an historic template to be used by municipalities across Canada fighting to secure the voice of local residents opposed to cell tower sitings in their neighbourhoods.

The Council will also hear guest speaker, prominent Canadian scientist, Dr. Magda Havas, BSC, PHD, associate professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University, where she teaches and conducts her research. She has extensive expertise in electromagnetic radiation and will discuss the latest science on this matter from around the world. She has given similar lectures across North America.

A demonstration will take place for those denied a seat at the Council meeting (which allows seating for only approximately 250 people in two adjoining rooms).

The membership of PACT of Richmond Hill invites members of the media to record and document the proceedings of this historic vote on an issue that will have ramifications for all concerned residents throughout the country.

Background

§ In Richmond Hill, Ontario, one resident was present at a poorly attended information meeting pertaining to a proposed Rogers cell phone tower at the intersection of Bathurst St. and Elgin Mills Road W., and took action to advise the uninformed community. With the help of other communities across Canada, the residents became aware of the most recent science reports and the inadequacy of the Federal Health standards.

§ The community was outraged by the lack of consultation and demanded another Rogers information meeting to which 300-350 residents attended in November 2007.

§ The community outrage grew further when, in the course of their investigation, the group discovered that another cell tower had already been approved by Council last spring at the same intersection, without their knowledge.

§ A grassroots organization-- PACT of Richmond Hill was formed, and many other groups across the country have since become connected over this same struggle.

§ PACT of Richmond attempted to get the Town of Richmond Hill to "unapprove" the Bell tower and, at the eleventh hour in December 2007, the Mayor wrote an "open letter" to express his personal opinion that another location should be found due to enormous community objection and that the location was too close to residents and a daycare.

§ A demonstration was held on April 17, 2008 to object to the lack of democratic process on this issue, to which 300-350 residents again showed up.

§ Despite advising Bell that the Town approval had occurred with inadequate consultation, the Bell tower was erected in March of 2008, and a Canadian flag placed on top, which further infuriated the community.

§ On Monday May 12, 2008, the Rogers tower application will be considered by Town Council. The residents requested a venue to seat at least 500 people. The Town of Richmond Hill has denied this.

§ The Mayor of Richmond Hill, David Barrow, has recently expressed the position that:

(a) it is not the Town's duty to protect residents regarding a health standard set by Health Canada ; and

(b) Town Council does not have a right to approve or disapprove of a cell tower site (even though Industry Canada guidelines allow this right)

§ PACT of Richmond Hill is of the opinion that the the above-stated positions are incorrect.

Sincerely,

PACt (Precautionary Approach to Cell Towers) of Richmond Hill

On behalf of the residents of Richmond Hill

http://www.pactcanada.ca
residentsgroup @pactcanada.ca
Contact :416-577-7910


Informant: Martin Weatherall

--------

Legal letter to Bell dated April 28, 2008
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4902801/

An Informed Response to a Sixth-Former's Reasoned View
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4891552/