World-News

Listen to interview here:
http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/media/audio/ontariotoday/20a.ram

read text and comments here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/canada/2007/04/toronto_students_banned_from_u.html


Informant: gotemf

By Deborah Linton

PLANS to install two mobile phone masts have been thrown-out by planners.

Service provider, T-Mobile, applied to Bolton Council to erect a 12.3 metre-high mast on land in Market Street, Little Lever. The firm also sought permission to install a 12 metre mast on a grass verge opposite McDonalds, in Chorley Old Road, Bolton.

But Bolton Council's planning and highways committee refused the proposals last week. Councillors said the first set of plans were out-of-keeping with the area.

Cllr Mary Woodward said: "The main issue is where this thing is going, in a very busy area, behind a bus shelter. There are at least three other telephone masts in Little Lever. The mast is designed to look like a lamp post but then again how many lamp posts do we need?"

Opposing the plans, one resident said: "This is a major footfall in Little Lever. It's the wrong place."

Cllr Roger Hayes suggested that T-Mobile look into scrapping the Chorley Old Road plans and sharing a 45 ft mast that is to be installed by O2, at the junction of Moss Bank Way and Captain's Clough Road, in Smithills.

Cllr Barbara Ronson said: "I'm worried about the visual amenity on that grass verge. It would be quite striking as it comes into view."

Defending the plans, Martin Dale, on behalf of T-Mobile, had told the committee: "This is visually acceptable within the street-scene. We are creating a replica telegraph pole. Refusal cannot be justified on the basis of concerns about health."

© Copyright 2001-2007 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1355143.0.phone_mast_plans_thrown_out.php

By Paul Keaveny

A GOVERNMENT planning inspector has quashed a move by Bolton Council to force a telecommunications giant to remove a 47ft mobile phone mast.

T-Mobile erected the mast on the footpath next to the Shell petrol station and in front of Tonge Cricket Club, in Crompton Way, last year.

The mast is designed to provide coverage to Crompton, Bradshaw, Hall i'th' Wood and areas around Tonge Moor.

A mix-up led to T-Mobile believing it had been granted permission to install the equipment so it erected the mast.

The council refused to give retrospective permission and ordered the company to pull down the mast as well as remove three equipment cabinets, claiming they were a potential hazard.

T-Mobile appealed against the decision and a hearing was held in front of government inspector Paul Taylor. In his formal ruling, Mr Taylor quashed the council's enforcement notice.

A council spokesman said: "It was unfortunate that the inspector did not agree with the council's evidence on this matter. We were of the view that the mobile phone mast blocked the pavement on Crompton Way in a fashion that might have affected users of the footway and highway.

"The council will continue to deal with the many applications from mobile phone operators in a way that best protects the communities of Bolton."

Cllr Nick Peel, chairman of the planning and highways committee at Bolton Council said: "We try to encourage the companies to erect masts to the minimum height and where possible to mast-share."

Graeme Mitchell, Bolton's group planning officer, said: "The mast obstructs the view of people crossing the road at that point, and vehicles would not get a good view of them."

The council argued the equipment narrowed the path and prevented pedestrians passing each other safely.

James Bevis, who represents T-Mobile, said: "Pedestrians would stand close to the kerb and the mast would not obstruct the view."

© Copyright 2001-2007 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.1353325.0.phone_mast_will_stay_after_pull_it_down_move_fails.php

RTC-Be : Antennes Relais, les Ecologistes de Wallonie déposent une proposition de décret à 0,6V/m (vidéo).

http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/06Vm.php#1

http://wifinetnews.com/archives/007580.html

From Andrea: I sent this comment:

Glenn, you claim that good science should be based on the simple idea to test, reproduce and isolate factors. If we were to adhere to this reductionist and fragmentising view, we would never be able to solve the problem of environmentally induced systemic illnesses.

Illnesses such as Autism, MS, ME or indeed Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or Electrohypersensitivity cannot be fully understood by reducing them to such a one dimensional level. You have to look at possible genetic pre-conditions, metabolic pathways, diet and a variety of environmental factors, electromagnetic fields being one of these. It is the industries selling products likely to be environmental triggers for systemic disease, which stand to benefit from your reductionist and fragmented science model. What you call “anti electronic signal industry” is an ever growing group of concerned individuals, none of them working for money or profit, trying to raise awareness of the fact that we are engaging in the largest uncontrolled epidemiological experiment ever.

With regards to signal strength, you certainly know that 10 feet from a wireless computer, you are exposed to around 0.06 µW/cm2. There are studies which have found microwave effects on human EEC and behaviour at levels as low as 0.0000000027 µW/cm2 (Bise, 1978). Lastly, to counter your dismissive mention of Russian studies, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in 1997, the German Telecommunications Authority commissioned a review of the body of Russian studies (dating from 1960-1996, not 1920 - 1950), which came to the following conclusion: “EMFs can be considered as a ‘silent distressor’, the bio-active effect of EMFs is dependent on a variety of different factors and the pathogenic effect only shows after years of exposure. With regard to the symptoms, there are similarities to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.”(Hecht and Balzer, 1997). Get off your high horse and check the facts yourself!



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=autism
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=autism
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Chronic+Fatigue+Syndrome
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=electrohypersensitivity
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=electrohypersensitivity
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi

Here's a link to Bill Thompson's website: http://www.andfinally.com/.

E-mail him direct via the address there.

Frank



And mine...

Since when did the BBC start receiving bribes from the wireless industry? How can Bill Thompson be allowed to peddle such outrageous lies in his article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6583815.stm ) such as "There is no evidence that electromagnetic radiation at radio frequencies, where the energy levels are too low to dislodge electrons and affect molecular bonding, can cause health effects except by heating tissues." Where do I begin with the hundreds of studies that Mr Thompson claims simply do not exist? Did he bother to attend Dr George Carlo's presentation in Westminster inn February when Dr Carlo, the man who ran the US cell phone industries' own health research program in the 1990's describes the mechanism by which cells and DNA are damaged by microwave signals from mobile phones, masts, Wi-Fi and related devices? A mechanism, Mr Thompson may want to realise, that has nothing to do with heating. He seems to be quoting the pseudo science that the mobile phone industry has been promoting since the early 1990's that has been proven to be based on false assumptions. I sincerely hope the BBC send someone more competent than Mr Thompson to do some real research into this very important issue and publish a complete retraction of his nonsense, together with an honest explanation of what really happens when a cell membrane detects signals from a wireless system.

Simon



I've done mine:-

This item entitled "Wi-fi? Why worry?" is the most opinionated baseless and biased piece of reporting I have seen so far on the BBC website.

The parts stating "Unfortunately the science says he is wrong, and his students are suffering as a result." and "Cellphones heat the brain and could cause problems. Wi-fi doesn't, and it is safe." can not be substantiated, are conjecture and belittle a serious topic.

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN FORTHWITH and Bill Thompson should be reprimanded for such baseless and biased statements. It does not deserve to be present on the BBC site where people may actually believe it and think that the BBC endorses such statements.

The last part "My daughter is sitting here as I write, her new wireless laptop beside her, and I'm a lot more worried about the damage she would do if she dropped it on her foot than I am about the impact of the low power radio waves it emits." is sick! It reminded me immediately of John Gummer feeding the beef burger to his child at the height of the BSE / mad cow crisis.

Martin



Please forward Is there no end to the BBC's bias? Can any MP's raise the issue in the House of Commons? The BBC reporting is now at odds with the reporting from the serious broadsheets.

Sarah



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Carlo

Fox News

04/23/07

It’s convenient and widely available but a growing group of researchers warn that WiFi may be hazardous to your health. William Stewart, the head of Britain’s Health Protection Agency, is worried that wireless Internet access may pose a health threat — particularly to children — and is privately calling for a study of the hazards of WiFi, the Independent reports. Researchers believe that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the phones, cell-phone towers and WiFi masts are contributing to an ‘electric smog’ that could pose a future health risk. The researchers say this smog of electromagnetic radiation is 1 billion times stronger than the natural fields in which living cells have developed over the last 3.8 billion years. Children may be more vulnerable as their skulls are thinner and their nervous systems are still developing, not to mention that they’ll be exposed to more radiation over their lifetime...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267829,00.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi

Apr 23 2007

Matthew Aplin, South Wales Echo

Residents in another area of the city are protesting about a mobile phone mast that will stand just 30 metres from a primary school.

Residents of Maindy Road, Cathays, Cardiff, have voiced their concerns after T-Mobile applied to build a 12-metre 3G technology mast adjacent to Cardiff Muslim Primary School.

Michael Jones, 58, a retired lecturer, is one of more than 50 people who have signed a petition against the mast.

He said: 'There is uncertainty in the long term about being exposed to rays and I think where there is an uncertainty, precautions should be taken. There is another mast less than 100 yards away so there will be double the threat. It's not nice to think we could be living with something that is potentially damaging our health .

'There has been no public meeting which would've been good practice. All we've had is information about the planning application.'

Headteacher of Cardiff Muslim Primary School, Clare Fox-Rashed, 34, shares Mr Jones worries.

She said: 'We have started our own school petition agreeing with the concerned residents. I don't think it's appropriate to have a mobile mast built so close to the school.'

Another resident, Con O'Leary, retired, 70, is worried about his house value. He said: 'It's bound to affect the value of all our properties and that can't be a good thing. It's going to look ugly too'.

© owned by or licensed to Western Mail & Echo Limited 2007

http://tinyurl.com/2f87wc