-Caveat Lector-
http://www.emfguru.com
http://www.emfguru.com/Uk-halsey-cell.html
THE CELL TOWER EMF PROBLEM
" Little or no published research has been carried out relating
to chronic long-term exposure month after month, year after year
to living close to a Telecommunications Mast and Base Station. "
" ...there was recently a study funded by the Bavarian State
Government in Germany following reported adverse health effects in
dairy cattle only after a Telecoms Mast had been erected. It was
discovered after a period that the cause of the significant drop
in the yield of that herd of cattle and Extraordinary Behaviour
Disorders in some of the cows related to the microwave
transmissions from that Mast. When the cattle were moved away
from its vicinity after a period the milk yield and the behaviour
of that herd was totally restored to normal.
" However when the cattle were returned to the mast environs their
symptoms returned. This was not an isolated incident -- see
Loscher and Kas of Universities of Hannover Veterinary School
and University of the German Army in Munich 1998. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Phone:
Halsey Meyer Higgins Document re Cell Masts (Towers)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: 16 October 1999
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: emfguru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:19:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Halsey Meyer Higgins document re cell masts (towers)....
Hi everybody:
......I am in receipt of another excellent document prepared by a
solicitors office in the U.K. It is full of good information and
some argument about the cell mast (towers) EMF problem as it is
seen in the U.K.....
I wonder why the same thorough approach is not being taken in the
U.K. with regard to the power lines health hazards?? The evidence
to be martialed in that situation is even stronger then the case
made below for "prudent" action to minimize the public risks from
cell phone towers....
Also, take note of the following comment in the conclusion:
"Currently prudence advocates that reliance on the NRPB Guidelines
is no longer sufficient." Amen and Amen.....
The NRPB, of course, is confined to a definition which was framed
to favor the protection of industry ... rather than the people:
requiring that the NRPB recommendations be based on "conclusive"
scientific information. That formulation establishes what we call
in the U.S. a "stacked deck." The very word "conclusive"
establishes a (legal?) barrier AGAINST 'prudent protection' of the
public -- which manifestly should be the highest priority ... in
the U.S. or the U.K......
Cheerio......(Many thanks to the person who sent this to us.
She wishes to be unknown....)
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HALSEY MEYER HIGGINS
SOLICITORS
56 BUCKINGHAM GATE * WESTMINSTER LONDON SWIE 6AE
TELEPHONE: 0171 828 8772 DX2381 VICTORIA 1
FAX: 0171 828 8714
MOBILE PHONES - MOBILE NETWORKS - SAFETY
1. More than a year ago at Dublin Castle on 6th March 1998,
the Irish Minister of Public Enterprise, Mrs Mary ORourke, stated
this is an issue which will grow and grow and will not go away.
Subsequent events have proved her correct in that Public concern
worldwide is growing and not diminishing as the Public grows more
conversant with possible effects from mobile phone usage.
2. The issue breaks down into two different parts, firstly
the safety of using mobiles themselves and secondly and perhaps
long-term more importantly, the question of living close to a
ground based Telecommunications Mast and Base Station.
3. On the issue of mobiles themselves, it is of course the
users choice as to whether they have a mobile in the first place
and then secondly how much they choose to use it. However that
choice or consent is entitled to be a properly informed choice or
consent. Recent disclosures seem to show that prolonged use of a
mobile may not be that safe despite assurances made by the Industry
over the last ten years to that effect. On 24th May, Dr George
Carlo of the Industrys established WTR in America stated that the
Industrys continuing statements that there was no conclusive
evidence against mobiles was not a realistic position to take.
4. The main public concern however does not relate to the
use of the mobile phones themselves where there is that choice.
The problem as perceived by large sections of the public and
particularly communities whose privacy has been invaded by the
erection of a Mast and Ground Base Station is whether long-term
chronic exposure to the low intensity radiation from such
facilities is indeed now safe. Bearing in mind that the assurances
about the safety of the mobiles themselves when used close to the
brain seem now to be somewhat suspect, the question arises as to
whether similar assurances relating to the safety of living close
to a Ground Based Station and Mast are also realistic. The problem
is that such research as has been carried out relates to the
mobiles themselves. Little or no published research has been
carried out relating to chronic long-term exposure month after
month, year after year to living close to a Telecoms Mast.
5. The only indicators, which might tend to provide some
evidence relate to other types of masts, i.e. TV Masts, short-wave
radio Masts and radar installations. There the North Sydney
Australia study showed a significant statistical increase in cancer
cases within the triangle of those three Masts in North Sydney.
Here the Sutton Coldfield BBC Mast study showed increased radiation
levels around the Mast and its near vicinity. In Switzerland, the
Schwarzenberg short-wave Mast was thought to be having adverse
health effects on the local community for years. When a study was
carried out in the mid 1990s by the University of Beme, it was
found that the emissions from that mast did have an effect on the
people in the vicinity.
This was discovered because during the period of the study there
was a significant drop in the symptoms in many people over a three
day period within that prolonged study. It was then discovered,
which was not known at the time, that the transmitter had failed
for those three days and there were no short-wave transmissions.
The Swiss government has now closed the Mast down. Incidentally,
the Swiss health and environmental officials have proposed strict
rules for public exposures from new sources of radio frequency and
microwave radiation. If the ordinance is adopted, which appears
likely, Switzerland will have the most stringent exposure levels in
the world -- based on the precautionary principle -- guideline
levels much lower than those recommended by the NRPB.
There is also the evidence of the Soviets irradiation of the US
Embassy in Moscow, which produced serious adverse health effects.
There is the Skrunda study in Finland with regard to populations
living many kilometres behind the radar installation and those
living a similar distance in front of the radar installation. There
the health conditions of those living in front of that installation
were found to be markedly different, and this has been put down to
the effect of the radar transmissions.
Finally there was recently a study funded by the Bavarian State
Government in Germany following reported adverse health effects in
dairy cattle only after a Telecoms Mast had been erected. It was
discovered after a period that the cause of the significant drop in
the yield of that herd of cattle and Extraordinary Behaviour
Disorders in some of the cows related to the microwave
transmissions from that Mast. When the cattle was moved away from
its vicinity after a period the milk yield and the behaviour of
that herd was totally restored to normal.
However when the cattle were returned to the mast environs their
symptoms returned. This was not an isolated incident -- see Loscher
and Kas of Universities of Hannover Veterinary School and
University of the German Army in Munich 1998.
6. None of these situations appears to relate to thermal
heating of any kind. These effects could not be ascribed to thermal
heating because the distances involved are far too great. However,
they may relate to biological effects from low intensity microwave
radiation over prolonged periods. However, the research has not
been carried out into cumulative effects. It is necessary to ask
why? Perhaps in the light of the Industrys approach over the years
to the mobiles themselves, the answer may be fairly obvious?
In the absence of conclusive evidence that mobiles themselves and
mobile networks are safe -- something the scientists agreed they
can not prove without substantial additional properly structured
research -- it is necessary now to use common sense and prudent
avoidance. The European Treaties relating to the Environment
described common sense as the Precautionary Principle and
preventative action -- see Article 130r.
7. What does prudent avoidance, preventative action, precautionary
approach mean in practice? No-one wants to prevent the advance of
telecommunications. It is a great new boon to living when used
sensibly. However, common sense needs to prevail over the economics
of the Industrys proliferation. There is no need these days to
place Telecommunications Masts and Base Stations too close to
permanently occupied residences and childrens schools. The only
reason that Masts are placed too close, i.e. the near side rather
than the far side of a farmers field is because it is cheaper.
Cheaper because it is nearer the electricity supply, cheaper
because it is easier for maintenance and access from an adjoining
road or track.
However, the requirements are not that spot specific and there is
absolutely no reason why a properly erected and located Mast should
be closer than a minimum of 200 to 250 metres from any inhabited
property, using a ground based Mast and Ground Based Station.
Unfortunately the Industry ignores the obvious because it is easier
and cheaper, and usually regrettably there is no-one to take them
on or to challenge their planning application with the Planning
Authorities.
8 Recently groups all over the United Kingdom, including
Scotland and Northern Ireland have been successful in showing
planning authorities that there is a better way to interpret the
outmoded Telecommunications Legislation (1984) the outmoded
planning circulars and the general ignorance of the fact that
European Union Treaties advocated the Precautionary Principle
(1993 Maastricht) to safeguard the public's health. Governments
are there to be wise and knowledgeable. Governments are not there
to be led by the Industry in pursuit of progress and financial gain
at the expense of the public at large. Governments are there to be
able to interpret properly scientific guidance or advice.
This proliferation of' Network Masts may turn out to be the next
BSE for ignoring the warnings and acting without any common sense
or prudent avoidance.
9 Reverting to the mobiles themselves, it is not common sense
to put a mobile against your head for four or five hours a day
at the incidence of your employer. In law, almost certainly that
Employer is not providing a safe system of work. Equally, under the
Consumer Protection Act it seems probable now that the
manufacturers ought to display some form of health warning on their
products to protect themselves from product liability claims -- and
of course the users to whom then sell the huge number of phones
from internal danger to enable such consumers to make an informed
choice or consent. Possibly, in due course, it will be shown
scientifically that living in too close proximity to a Mast is
damaging to health, and possibly then there will under provisions
of the Human Rights Act 1998 be legal remedies available, which
allow people to seek compensation from the mobile phone network
providers, and also against those who allow the Masts to be on
their land.
This may include eventually even some Local Education Authorities
who seem to be prepared to allow Masts to be erected regardless of
possible risks to the children on school property for whom they are
in loco parentis in return for an annual rental. This aspect is
currently now under investigation by the Secretary of the State for
Education following the meeting of the House of Commons Select
Committee in June 1999 with Representatives of NRPB as mentioned
below.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Scotland
10 Currently parallel with the separate establishment of the
Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh which now has responsibility for
the majority of issues affecting people living in Scotland over one
third of all Scottish Local Planning Authorities have now adopted
or publicly committed themselves to adopting Precautionary Policies
as a direct result of what they perceive to be inadequate official
advice from Government Departments.
11. Local Authorities in Scotland have decided that there are
too many unanswered questions to risk exposing the Public
needlessly to levels of microwave radiation which could or may in
time prove to be harmful to their health. By choosing to keep
transmitter masts away from schools and residential areas local
authorities are not doing anything radical, but merely following
the Precautionary Approach advocated in the European Treaties,
accepted by the UK Government in 1993 at Maastricht.
England and Wales
12 Similarly the influential Local Government Association
(LGA) has now advised its member local authorities to adopt the
Precautionary Approach on the basis that the decision making
process of the Governments Advisory Body the NRPB, based upon
waiting for `conclusive scientific evidence' before acting, is
potentially flawed. On 12th August 1999 the Local Government
Association accused the Government of `dithering' over the
potential danger of cancer and radiation from mobile phone masts.
The LGA Planning Executive Chairman Stated "The Government must
stop dithering and give councils some clear guidance to the threat
posed by Radiation and the planning powers to keep the Public Safe
-- especially vulnerable children and the elderly rather than wait
two or three years until the research is finished".
These statements were made in August 1999 after the Government
issued on 23rd July 1999 letters to the LGA and Members of
Parliament which failed to help authorities make the right planning
decisions or offer them guidance on where masts can be safely
erected.
13 All this has come about after the senior representatives of
the NRPB gave their evidence to the House of Commons Select
Committee in June 1999 explaining firstly that the NRPB under its
statutory legislation could only base its guidance and advice on
`conclusive scientific evidence' as required by its Act of
Parliament. and that accordingly until essential research had been
carried out in their opinion the only "conclusive scientific proof"
related to the properties of thermal heating on which their 1993
Safety Guidelines remained solely based.
Secondly however the representatives of the NRPB made it clear that
until the freshly commissioned research produced some `conclusive
scientific proof' that there were other effects apart from thermal
heating, it was up to Politicians and Planners to exercise their
`own' judgment.
14 On 1 st September 1 999 Belfast City Council ratified the
18th August 1999 Decision of its Development Committee that `no
Transmitter Masts should be permitted on any Council Property',
due firstly to the unknown risks from such masts and secondly
because of `substantial public concern.
Similarly Wyre Borough Council in Lancashire recently decided that
the proposed site for a mast and base station was unsuitable given
its proximity to a nearby primary school and houses which were 190
metres and 40 metres away respectively" This refusal was based on
public fears about possible health risks posed by microwave
radiation. This follows the 1998 Court of Appeal decision finding
that `genuine public fear and concern is a material planning
consideration, even if that fear is irrational and not based upon
evidence -- see Newport BC v Secretary of State for Wales (1998)
JPL 377.
Conclusion
The answer for the time being is Prudent Avoidance and Common
Sense, at least until properly structured research has been
concluded, and then independently assessed. The answer is not to
listen only to the Industry, who have tended to ensure that the
Industry Commissioned research proves their point on safety.
Currently prudence advocates that reliance on the NRPB Guidelines
is no longer sufficient.
Many independent University researchers who have produced adverse
results have had their research funds curtailed, or taken away
which stifles further investigation of adverse effects shown by
earlier research. Governments are elected to be aware of what is
going on, and to protect the public at large when uncertainties
exist, and prudent avoidance should currently prevail over
commercial interests until the further essential research has been
completed and "independently" assessed.
Revised 10th September 1999
AAM
HALSEY MEYER HIGGINS
.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
