World-News

Here we go again... Mast campaigners go back into battle

Concerns that a proposed 12 metre high phone mast near homes in Barton Hills could be a health risk have spurred protesters to vow to repeat a battle they thought they had won five years ago.

The latest plans to put a mobile phone mast on the corner of Quantock Rise and Barton Road brought back memories from the last fight, when more than 100 residents campaigned against a One2One mast.

Paul Caris, who lives near the site, said: "We have only a few years ago fought off the erection of one of these masts. The area abounds with children and no one has proved conclusively that these things are not a health hazard.

"In any case, mobile phone reception is excellent, so why is a new mast needed?"

John Edser, who led the Barton Hills Mast Action Group, said: "It's sad for all the kids round here. There's already a transmitter on that corner. We know from last time that the place they want to put it is so close to the nearest house that it was outside the guidelines of the company that wanted to do it. I think it's an outrage what they're trying to do."

Although John is leaving Luton in the near future and will not be able to lead a campaign against the phone mast, he has pledged to support anyone who wants to step into his shoes.

He said the phone company would have to prove that the need for a mast is greater than the amenity harm, which includes the anxiety caused to local residents for their health and welfare.

A letter from Luton Borough Council to those living near the corner where the mast would be sited said that it did not need planning permission, although the council as the local planning authority could object or raise concerns.

A council spokeswoman said: "Our policy is to consult all residents within 150m of any proposed phone mast. But in the majority of cases the mobile phone company already has the legal right to erect a mast. The council does not have the right to refuse.

"Any comments that have been received from Barton Hills residents about the proposed T-Mobile mast will be reported to a council meeting on May 3."

Since the original proposal five years ago, One2One has become T-Mobile.

13 April 2006

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing.

http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=541&ArticleID=1438697

--------

A council spokeswoman said: "Our policy is to consult all residents within 150m of any proposed phone mast. But in the majority of cases the mobile phone company already has the legal right to erect a mast. The council does not have the right to refuse.

Luton Borough Council making the same mistake that many other Councils have made - there is an urgent need for Local Authorities to be given proper planning advice, preferably not by ECS (Richard Newstead!!)

Sylvia


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

I feel this is important information because more and more people resort to moving to a new place because of mast-radiation in their old house.

But please spread it if you can, as it might be able to help some people.


Best regards.

Agnes


Info for all!

I saw this article in a newspaper shortly after we had to move from our former house in Worcester.

I had a letter from Jim asking if I knew of an insurance company where people could insure against a mobile mast being sited near to a new home, and remembered that I had seen the article, so here it is for everyone’s info.

The only thing is, that it has to be done within 13 months of buying or re-mortgaging a property.

So, I for one will be re-mortgaging as soon as possible.

Althought I live in a really serious “Conservation Area” (Area of outstanding natural beauty) the Malvern Hills,

I know by experience that, that is no guaranty.

My former Worcester home was a listed building in a conservation area, and that did not stop the mast being installed next door.

I hope this info can be of use for many of you

Best regards.

Agnes


Scotsman.com

Mon 23 Aug 2004
Firm Offers 'Home Blight` Insurance
By Nicky Burridge,
Personal Finance Correspondent, PA News

Homeowners worried about the impact noisy neighbours or a mobile phone mast would have on the value their property can take out a new insurance policy, it emerged today.Insurance broker Lucas Fettes & Partners has launched Home Value Protection Insurance, offering people cover against tens of thousands of pounds being knocked off the value of their home as a result of blights in their neighbourhood.

The policy will pay out up to £100,000 plus moving expenses and legal fees for a range of nuisances in the vicinity of someone’s home, including the construction of mobile phone masts, new roads, airports, retail developments and prisons.It will also pay out if noisy neighbours move in and people could even claim on the policy if a brothel was set up next door which caused a nuisance through high noise levels.The policy, which is underwritten by various Lloyd’s of London syndicates, costs a flat fee of £12 a month.The policy must be taken out within 13 months of moving to a new property or remortgaging if a local authority search was carried out, and homeowners must sign a declaration saying they are not currently aware of any problems.The group has described the move as the most important development in the household insurance market since subsidence cover became widely available in the early 1970s.It hopes to take in £1 million in premiums during the coming 12 months, and is looking at marketing the policies through mortgage lenders.Richard Heighton, partner at Lucas Fettes, said: “We are a nation of homeowners and for many our homes are our largest asset.“The impact of blight upon homeowners can be devastating and force many to consider moving, thus incurring significant additional costs as well as loss of equity.“It is for these reasons that Home Value Protection Insurance is being launched.”

Here is link to the story:
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:NIe_A7PHUoIJ:news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm%3Fid%3D3395396+mobile+mast+blight+insurance&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=4

Here is a direct link to the: Home Value Protection Insurance
http://www.lucasfettes.co.uk/content_page.asp?guid={FE5D0643-566D-43FA-ACA0-637DA6CACF0B}


Informant: Eileen O'Connor

By Jacqueline Theodoulou

PUPILS of the Dianellio Gymnasium in Nicosia took to the streets yesterday in a peaceful demonstration against the ever-increasing number of mobile telephone masts situated on buildings surrounding the school. Their gripe was with the government, who they say has not yet guaranteed the antennas are not posing a serious threat to their health.

Holding up banners and chanting “No to the masts, yes to our health!” the children stood outside their school, urging the island’s politicians to do something about the problem.

“They must bring the masts down so that we can have a better life,” a pupil told the Cyprus Mail. “We don’t know if our health is being affected by them and it worries us.”

Currently, there are 13 mobile telephone masts on buildings surrounding the school. On the APOEL football club building, located exactly opposite the school, there are two GSM masts.

Messages on pupils’ placards included “Electromagnetic Radiation: NO it’s killing me”, “Who can assure us that the antennas are not doing us harm? Nobody can guarantee our health”, and “My dear APOEL, why are you putting up your lethal mobile phone masts on your building when you know that they are killing me? If you kill me, how will I come to the football?”

A spokesman for the Pancyprian Committee against Electromagnetic Radiation said there was no national organisation that could guarantee the masts were not causing serious long-term damage.

“You can understand our worries,” he told reporters. “We need to use the principles of protection, precaution and avoidance in order to protect our children.”

The Chairman of the House Education Committee, Nicos Tornaritis of DISY, also attended the demonstration.

“It is unacceptable,” he told the press. “I think it is time for words to become actions. It is unbelievable to have cables surrounding our schoolchildren.”

Green Party Permanent Secretary George Perdikis condemned the Interior Ministry’s decision two years ago to cancel the need for companies to acquire town-planning permission to set up a mast.

“We sounded the alarm bells on time. But it seems the personal interests behind the development of mobile telecommunications – semi-governmental and private – are far more powerful than the need to ensure public health is beyond any possible danger.”

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2006

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=25390&cat_id=1

FYI, and please share with others not yet on my new computer's list.

I wonder whether regulatory agencies should be advised to wait with their decisions on pending and near future applications of power lines and cell towers until the out come of the EMF Exposure Guidelines revision.

Comments?

Thanks, Hans.

Hans Karow
Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE)
1215 Poplar Grove Road
PENTICTON, BC, V2A 8T6, CANADA
E-mail: hkarow@shaw.ca


-----Original Message-----
From: Gunde Ziegelberger
GZiegelberger@bfs.de
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:08 AM
To: hans karow Subject:
Re: EMF exposure guidelines


Dear Mr. Karow,

thanks for contacting ICNIRP regarding your health concerns.

1. Yes, ICNIRP has began the process to revise the exposure guidelines for static and also for low frequency fields. As you might be aware, ICNIRP´s guidelines for limiting exposure to fields up to 300 GHz are based on the scientific knowledge of the years 1997/1998. Research has been going on since then and ICNIRP has issued an in depth review of the scientific evidence concerning the relevance of low frequency electric and magnetic fields for human health (2003). The WHO is going to publish an Environmental Health Criteria Document on this topic in 2006. In view of new resaerch data and their reviews, the ICNIRP guidelines will be revisited. The process will not be finalized before the end of the year.

2. and 3. I could not open the ppt. presentation by Dr. Havas, but according to the title I suggest, that it deals with the inconsistency between the known biophysical effects of low frequency fields and the results from experimental studies on one hand, and the epidemiologic results on childhood leukaemia on the other hand. Also this apparent conflict will be addressed during the revision process.

I hope, I could provide you with the information you have been looking for.


Sincerely,

Gunde Ziegelberger

Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger
ICNIRP Scientific Secretary
c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger@icnirp.org
Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142



hans karow wrote:


Dear Dr. Ziegelberger,

With regards of my questions (please see below) Dr. Ahlbom referred me to your office.

May I kindly ask to please respond to my three questions as stated below.


Thank, you!

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Hans Karow
1215 Poplar Grove Road
Penticton, BC, V2A 8T6, Canada
E-mail: hkarow@shaw.ca


From: Anders Ahlbom
anders.ahlbom@ki.se

Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:31 PM

To: 'hans karow'

Subject: SV: EMF exposure guidelines

To get the official ICNIRP view I suggest to contact the secretariat in Munich. Gunde Ziegelberg is the scientific secretary.


Best wishes,

Anders Ahlbom

Please note new e-mail below:

Anders Ahlbom
Office: + 46 8 5248 74 70; Mobile + 46 70 324 74 70
e-mail: anders.ahlbom@ki.se

_____

Från: hans karow
hkarow@shaw.ca

Skickat: den 1 april 2006 20:07

Till: 'Anders Ahlbom'

Kopia: Magda Havas

Ämne: EMF exposure guidelines


Dear Dr. Ahlbom,

1. During the oral hearing (as indicated below), while cross-examining industry consultant Dr. William Bailey/Exponent, New York, I learned that ICNIRP just had a meeting in Berlin/Germany.

Could you please inform, whether the exposure EMF guidelines will be reviewed in the near future and the guidelines possibly adjusted?

2. May I kindly ask you whether you agree with the statements presented by Dr. Magda Havas at a Hydro One Workshop on >EMFs, Markham Ontario, June 16, 2004, “ Electromagnetic Fields & Cancers: Children at risk with residential and school exposure to EMFs” source:
http://www.stop-emf.ca/hydroone/PresentationEMFHydro_files/frame.htm

If there is anything you do not agree with, could you please state where and why?

3. A particular question would be: do you agree with slide 12, “Exposure Guidelines vs Effects” ?

Thank you for taking the time to respond please,


Hans Karow.


Informant: Eileen O'Connor

--------

I have read nothing in this story to suggest the limits are to be revised downwards, in fact the questions were deliberatly dodged, indeed we know that Repacholi is more interested in refuting the effects of EMR and pointing the finger of blame as being psychological.

Phil Watts


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

--------

Dear Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger,

This is a reminder about my email from the 12.4.06 with regard to the ICNIRP funding.

Thanks Iris.

----- ----- Original Message -----
From: Iris Atzmon
To: GZiegelberger@bfs.de
Cc: Hans Karow
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines to be revised

Dear Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger:

I received the below interesting notice from Hans Karow in Cananda.

Since the ICNIRP is a central organiztion to public exposure to EMF-RF, I think the public has the right to know about the sources of the ICNIRP funding.

Who funds the ICNIRP?

Thank you very much in advance


Iris Atzmon

--------

Dear Gunde Ziegelberger

(please note that I put the references inside my text and then continue the text below the references, it is just for the convenience of the reader to see directly what I mean).

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. However, I find some contradictions inside your text. I don't know who funds IRPA, but I do know something about the WHO. In the ICNIRP sits a person from the WHO, who according to recent publication, receives from the cellular industry $150,000 a year + travel and meeting expenses. reference:

"We also know that he [Mike Repacholi] found a way to skirt the WHO rules that bar direct industry support -the mobile phone manufacturers have said that they provide him with $150,000 a year with additional money for meeting and travel expenses." http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa

Second, If the ICNIRP has contract with the WHO and you are now reviewing the EMF guidelines, it is relevant to note that the person who is in charge of the EMF- R at the WHO, invites the power industry for setting radiation exposure values. Reference: October 1, 2005 WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on EMFs

http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners

WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting, Bars the Press September 22, 2005

http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoehc

and so to say that the funding doesn't come from the industry is not accurate beucause the WHO is not really a "firewall" between the ICNIRP and the industry.

Third, INTERPHONE researchers are funded by the industry and are at the same time at the ICNIRP - this can point to conflict of interest if we assume that the ICNIRP is indeed not industry-dependent. I am aware that the International Union against cancer is a firewall but I think it is more of a semantic thing, the funding comes from the industry no matter what firewalls are put for public image, and we all saw the consequence of this in two TV programmes:

This was on a TV programme at Friday night in Israel and an abstract was published in the newspaper Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=631007

This was a TV programme in Canada http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/iarc/pageone.html

I am not writing this to bother you, but because we the citizens are exposed to radiation according to your decisions, and the above issue should not be taken lightly, I ask for your direct response for the above issue. I write many copies because I want to make sure that the maximum number of people are invloved in this - because if someone gets the smallest scratch from any conflict of interests which is responsible for public health & exposure - then it should be brought to anyone's attention. This is a VERY sensitive issue because it concerns 2 billion people, and every suspicion for fraud has huge consequences. Only yesterday we read in the newspaper that Disney company representaive said: "Disney has said that parents believe the benefits of being able to reach a child at any time are more important than any possible health risks'

Source: Daily Mail Date: 28/04/2006

Thanks in advance Iris.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gunde Ziegelberger GZiegelberger@bfs.de
To: Iris Atzmon atzmonh@bezeqint.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: ICNIRP


Dear Iris Atzmon,

Thank you for your interest in ICNIRP's work.

ICNIRP is a non-profit making organisation legally registered and controlled as such in Germany (i.e., eingetragener Verein, e.V). Its income derives from various sources with the exception of industry. The regular income that ICNIRP receives is an annual grant from IRPA. It also receives support from national governments, most notably from the German Environment Ministry for ICNIRP's Scientific Secretariat based in Munich. All other income is generated by the Commission through contract work (to the exclusion of any work for industry), organisation of scientific meetings and sales of its scientific publications. Currently, ICNIRP's contract income comes mainly from the WHO (to carry out scientific reviews on biological effects and health consequences of low and high frequency fields) and the European Commission.

We also regard this question as being of public interest and have therefore published this information on our website
( http://www.icnirp.org/what.htm ), which we invite you to visit for further details on the functioning of ICNIRP.

Sincerely, Gunde Ziegelberger

Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger ICNIRP Scientific Secretary c/o Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Ingolstädter Landstr. 1 D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim

E-Mail: G.Ziegelberger@icnirp.org
Tel.: ++49-1888-333-2142

--------

Dear Gunde:

On the 29.4.06 I sent you an email and requested your direct reponse with regard to the contect published in Microwave News. You didn't reply to me. I don't know how you view this, but to my understanding, as an organization that receives public importance and leads the international policy on EMF-R, the most ethical thing would be to adress this evidence urgently and not ignore it. Ethics is part of science isn't it?

You wrote me that ICNIRP is scientific and has no industry influence whatsoever, you also directed me to your website which presents the same thing. Then I presented you what everybody can read on MWN about bribe, about clear cooperation with the industry: 6 members of the ICNIRP are in the WHO task group meeting with the industry and with the person who is accused in bribe on the website- to set health standards- together. This is direct industry influence. I think you tried to mislead me, but not only me. You expect the public to relate to the ICNIRP as a scientific body. Activists write you politely questions, and give importance to your views on non-ionizing radiation, they feel commited to your guidance, but I don't see the same commitment from the ICNIRP to explain to to activists, to scientists, and others who are exposed according to your guidelines, about this contradiction.

Sincerely

Iris Atzmon.

--------

----- Original Message -----
From: Karine Chabrel
To: Iris Atzmon
Cc: Gunde Ziegelberger
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: your request of information


Dear Iris Atzmon,

thank you for sending us further information published in the press
(Microwave News) about the World Health Organization. This information reached us also through the Microwave Newsletter, which we regularly receive. However, we regard checking the reliability and accuracy of any press release as being a matter outside of ICNIRP's scope but take note of the information.

You imply that the WHO and IARC are under industry influence. While ICNIRP is not qualified to control the functioning of any international public organization, it is extremely attentive to the correctness and independency of its partners. We are aware that both WHO and IARC follow extremely rigorous codes of behaviour, on which their international trust is based, that ICNIRP shares. As regards the behaviour of the Commission members, let me emphasize that ICNIRP is fully aware of its high responsibility, including the need of independency. Any possible conflict of interest must be openly declared and is discussed within and decided by the Commission.

Best regards,

Dr. Gunde Ziegelberger
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz
Arbeitsgruppe Nichtionisierende Strahlung
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
D-85764 Neuherberg/Oberschleißheim
E-Mail: GZiegelberger@BfS.de
Tel.: 01888/333-2142


Dear Dr. Gunde,

Thanks for your reply. You write that the MWN report is beyond the ICNIRP's scope, and that ICNIRP members are indepenent. But how can you say this - when the ICNIRP member himself is the one who is involved so much with the industry? It proves that you actually don't make sure of the independence of ICNIRP members: If you are really independent, why did you not publish a reservation from Repacholi's corruption? Instead, 6 ICNIRP members agreed to sit with the industry to form health standards. Don't you think it's a contradiction to what you wrote below? Do you not care about the negative publicity Microwave News gives you? it caused you a lot of damage in the public's eye. How is it that ICNIRP commission members, agreed to set standard with the industry: why did the ICNIRP not resist this biased process if they are independent?

For your information, I attach a new doctorat paper that was published recently. It documents that ICNIRP members cooperate with the WHO corruption.

Omega see "Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2310876/

I am not your advocate, but I think you are in a very dangerous route becuase people around here see what is going on, no matter how much you want to protect your organization, and I understand your interest to protect it, but it does not stand in the same line of what happens in reality. It damages your integrity as an organization but more as a person who is responsible to say certain things even when the facts speak differently.

I wish you best regards

Iris.


For your information, the israeli Env. ministry head of radiation department, Dr. Stelian Galberg, wrote that the WHO has collected 250 million dollars in 10 years for research funding on EMR. What exactly they did with the money is not clear. The israeil Env. ministry contributes $10,000 a year to the WHO. "The support received by ICNIRP from the International Radiation Protection Association, the World Health Organization, and the French, German, Korean, and Swiss Governments is gratefully acknowledged".

Iris Atzmon

--------

ICNIRP reviewing guidlines for exposure to EMR
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1864548/

Review of ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2253406/

WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/



http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=ICNIRP
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Ziegelberger
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi

MOBILE TELEPHONE CAN CAUSE CANCER
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/586356/

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

The danger of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/409463/



http://www.buergerwelle.de/english_start.html

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

A ROSTREVOR group campaigning against a mobile phone mast in the village says it is disappointed after learning that the original application for the mast dates back to 2003.

The Rostrevor Action Group Against Phone Masts (RAGAPM) was formed last month in opposition to an application from mobile phone company O2 for a mast on the Drumsesk Road.

Group member Adele Curran said: "The group has viewed the open file at the Planning Office and it has been determined that this application for a phone mast actually originated in 2003.

"The residents are very aggrieved that they were not informed by the planning department that there was a phone mast application in the system since then."

The action group has sent 150 letters of objections into the planning office and a door-to-door petition has gathered a further 100 letters.

The group has had several weekly meetings and has now established a monthly agenda; their first monthly meeting will take place on May 11 at 8pm in the Community Office in Bridge Street. All interested parties are welcome.

© Newry Democrat, 2006.

http://www.newrydemocrat.com/news/story.asp?j=5526

Scores of 02 masts to be removed.

Attached is a copy of letter from Joe Grant, General Secretary of the
Scottish Police Federation.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/scottish_police_federation_letter_from_janes_police_review_community.pdf
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/airwave_article_from_janes_police_review_community.pdf


Eileen O'Connor

Please find attached a few pages from SKEWED which contain information about Fumento. These pages should be put into context by reading the rest of the book and Brave New World of Zero Risk.

http://tinyurl.com/hyf8j

It is quite worrying when you see people fighting old battles over again, we have to learn from history and from what research and writing has been done previously about these individuals and groups, otherwise we waste so much time.

SKEWED is available from the http://www.zero-risk.org site, at I think £9 as is Brave New World of Zero Risk, for £4.

Please find time over the holidays to read these important well researched books by Martin J Walker and do not allow history to be repeated.

Best wishes

Eileen O'Connor



Dr. Magda Havas has sent the following letter, which she has just submitted to the editor of the National Post of Canada in response to a bombastic and astonishingly inaccurate article by Michael Fumento recently printed in the Post.

One almost wonders whether Fumento is actually this ignorant, or is under hire.

Fumento's article follows Magda's letter, below. I suggest that those of us who are able take the time to share some research infomation with Mr. Fumento and the editor of the Post as well. I sincerely hope they both receive enough factual feedback and concentrated censure to make their ears burn, and discourage them from publishing such lies in the future.

The National Post editor: Mr. Fumento: fumento@pobox.com

Before you write Mr. F, you might like to read the scathing piece he wrote about Sam Epstein: http://www.fumento.com/epames.html#

Regards, Shivani


Magda's letter:

I just read Michael Fumento's article "Don't worry, Toronto: WI-FI won't kill you" [Apr 7/06] and I'm disturbed that a reporter can be so ignorant about the facts, biased, and arrogant to boot.

In this article Fumento criticizes and mocks everyone who has an opinion contrary to his own. Is this the type of reporter the National Post wants writing for them?

It's clear to me that Fumento knows nothing about science and hasn't read the research in this field because if he did he would realize that the list of biological effects, identified by Cindy Sage, are all based on published scientific papers.

We are inundating our world with radio frequency radiation without knowing what the long-term consequences are likely to be. Each time we use a cell phone, a cordless phone or other wireless communication device we are sending and receiving radio frequency radiation. A large Swedish study that was just published reported an increased incidence of malignant brain tumors for mobile phone users when the cumulative use was more than 2000 hours and this study includes the cordless phone many of us have in our homes.

In a 1999 report Health Canada stated that biological effects occur below the federal guidelines of Safety Code 6, which is based on heating and does not protect against non-thermal effects, like the increased permeability of the blood brain barrier. Despite this document, Health Canada has not yet established guidelines for non-thermal effects.

Wi-Fi is yet another layer of RF energy to which more and more people will be exposed. People who have become sensitive to this form of radiation will become sick. In Sweden there are more than 250,000 sufferers of electrohypersensitivity (EHS). I wonder how many we have in Canada and how many we will have in Toronto after the Wi-Fi becomes operational.

Ignoring the truth or mocking those who state it won't make it go away.

Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor Environmental Studies Trent University, Peterborough, ON.


Don't worry, Toronto: WI-FI won't kill you
National Post Fri 07 Apr 2006
Page: A20 Section: Issues & Ideas
Byline: Michael Fumento

Remember when microwave ovens caused cancer? Maybe that's before your time; but what about when power lines and electric blankets caused cancer, and computer terminals caused miscarriages and birth defects?

Then, of course, cellphones caused brain tumours. And now, predictably enough, "WiFi" network signals that allow laptop computers to connect to the Internet wirelessly have also become suspect.

All of these scares have two things in common. First, they involve invisible electromagnetic frequency (EMF) transmissions, something many of us find to be spooky -- like invisible creatures in movies. Second, they're all bogus: The angst these scares have caused has been entirely baseless.

WiFi (short for "wireless fidelity") is used in many ways. It's ubiquitous in coffee shops and is used in homes like mine to remotely connect several computers. But whole municipalities, with Philadelphia the biggest and probably soon to be followed by San Francisco, have begun blanketing large areas with transmitters. Anybody there will be able to just boot up and check e-mail or surf the Net.

But that's where the problem lies, say some. No sooner had Toronto Hydro Telecom announced plans in March to convert Canada's largest city into a giant WiFi "hotspot" by the end of the year, than cries of doom arose. "Why should we all become guinea pigs?" a letter to the Toronto Star demanded.

David Fancy, head of the SWEEP Initiative (Safe Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Policies), agrees. "I have never seen any actual peer-reviewed science, epidemiological studies done with human subjects over an extensive period of time, that suggests this is actually safe," he told Toronto's Metro. That could be because Fancy is a dramatic arts professor, and thus may know lots about drama (and melodrama), but little about science and EMF. Those who understand it, conversely, will tell you otherwise.

"Health Canada has assessed the ability of radio frequency fields to cause DNA damage and affect gene expression in human-derived brain cell cultures in four studies since 2000," says spokesman Paul Duchesne. "No negative effect was seen." He adds: "From all the studies we've seen, including those of the World Health Organization, nothing negative has been scientifically proven."

Duchesne notes that WiFi transmitters are little more than radio towers, and in the same category as garage door openers, cordless phones, baby monitors.

It seems the prime fount of the Toronto fear may be another ersatz EMF expert, President Fred Gilbert of Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont. Previously, he was a zoology professor. That might come in handy in dealing with the occupants of rowdy fraternities, but isn't a good background for understanding radio frequencies.

Over the protests of his students, Gilbert has refused to allow campus-wide WiFi coverage, telling IT Business Canada, "While the jury's out on this one, I'm not going to put in place what is potential chronic exposure for our students."

So "chronic exposure" is inherently suspect -- as in chronic exposure to oxygen or to nutrition? Gilbert said his decision was based on a series of studies done for the California Department of Health Services and California Public Utilities Commission, examining EMF such as that generated by power lines or building wiring. But none of these studies found conclusive links to cancer, as Gilbert fears.

Rather, a key source of Gilbert's information, according to the publication Wi-Fi Planet, is Cindy Sage of Sage EMF Design in Santa Barbara, Calif. (She has praised his decision in a letter to the Globe and Mail.)

Not an unbiased source, Sage makes a living by detecting and then remediating "harmful" electromagnetic exposures. She has written and self-published a book, which encourages people into using her services. She was also a respondent to the San Francisco's request for comments on its proposed citywide WiFi network and (surprise!) advised against it.

Science be damned, Sage's Globe letter claimed radio frequency can cause "DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, cell death including death of brain cells (neurons), increased free radical production, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function including memory loss, retarded learning, slower promotion in school and slower motor function and other performance impairment in children, headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders, neurodegenerative conditions, reduction in melatonin secretion and cancer."

Whew! It was probably only an oversight that she didn't include lycanthropy. In short, Gilbert is relying on someone who makes claims unsupported by evidence, and he lacks the ability to compare WiFi to its nearest neighbour, the radio. But then, so does Warren Bell, a board member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

In an interview for a bizarre article in Toronto's NOW magazine, he said WiFi wouldn't be the first time industrialized society has embarked on something that works well in the lab but not so well in the real world. As a result, he said, "we've got ourselves in a number of different corners, something we have subsequently come to regret."

Not the real world? Hello? The first radio broadcast was exactly a century ago. Remember those big wooden boxes that used to pump out Benny Goodman and Guy Lombardo? Me neither; before my time. But that's what we're talking about. If Benny Goodman didn't hurt your parents, WiFi won't hurt you.

In fact, in 2003, Fredericton became the first Canadian city to blanket its downtown with WiFi, and nobody has yet turned into a zombie or had his head explode. But Fredericton offers its WiFi for free, which has a tendency to dampen dissent. The nation as a whole has over 1,400 WiFi hotspots, while the United States has about
48,000, yet no epidemic related to Cindy Sage's parade of horribles appears to have broken out.

Still, one Toronto writer made an interesting suggestion. "If the health officials [go along with the fears] they will have to order the switching off of all radios, mobile phones, garage doors, microwave transmitters, ground all aircraft and return Toronto to the Middle Ages."

Neat! A giant outdoor medieval museum just north of the U.S. border! But I'll bet those darned obstinate Canucks will refuse to go along.

--------

Don't worry Toronto: WI-FI won't kill you?
http://omega-news.livejournal.com/213369.html

nlnews@archant.co.uk

12 April 2006

ARSENAL are on another collision course with residents over plans for 32 phone masts on the new Emirates Stadium.

Club bosses have given the go-ahead to mobile giants Orange, Vodaphone, O2, Hutchison and T-Mobile to put up masts in eight different positions on the roof of their new Ashburton Grove home.

The firms have now applied to Islington Council for planning permission for the controversial masts - causing uproar among people living close to the 60,000-seater ground.

Kirsten Teague, 36, who lives in Drayton Park and is recovering from M.E., said she was horrified when she opened the consultation letter alerting her to the plans.

"I was shocked because I'm aware of the adverse health implications of just one phone mast, let alone 32," she said. "I've got a compromised immune system and I'm really afraid for my own health and that of other residents.

"If readers want to help stop this from happening they should write to the council as soon as they can - this can only be stopped if the council say so."

Arsenal would only confirm that the applications have been submitted to the council for consideration.

But they have come under fire from residents' campaign group, Stadium Neighbours Action Group (Snag), whose members are still furious Arsenal were given the green light to park coaches in residential streets last month.

Snag's Chris Eisen, of Drayton Park, Holloway, said: "If they can't kill us with the coach fumes they are going to radiate us with phone masts. Why don't they just do compulsory orders on all us residents and bulldoze the whole area.

"The main problems associated with phone masts are leukaemia, brain haemorrhages and cancer. Mobile phone companies are trying to ensure themselves against claims but the insurance companies won't go anywhere near them.

"Arsenal will do anything for money and I'm sure the council will just roll over and let them."

A council spokesman said: "Our consultation is still on-going and no decision has been made on these planning applications.

"We know the issue can raise strong feelings in local communities - that's why all mast applications are carefully assessed for visual impact and must meet Government health guidelines. Wherever possible we seek to reduce the impact of masts on local people.

Copyright © 2006 Archant Regional. All rights reserved.

http://tinyurl.com/juw65