Local council bans mobile masts
Kent County Council has banned all mobile phone masts from its properties because of fears about radiation omissions, and is believed to be the first council to be working towards a complete ban within its boundaries.
Antony Savvas, Network News, Network IT Week 31 Jan 2001
Kent County Council (KCC) has banned all mobile phone masts from its properties because of fears about radiation omissions, and is believed to be the first council to be working towards a complete ban within its boundaries.
KCC said it took the decision following the publication of last year's Stewart report into the possible health risks posed by mobile masts and mobile phones. Council leader Sandy Bruce-Lockhart said: "We take very seriously the findings of the Stewart report [which] called for a 'precautionary approach'."
The council has demanded that mobile operators request planning permission for all masts, even though existing planning law dictates that they only have to request permission if a mast is taller than 15m.
As the landlord of council property, KCC said it is entitled to turn down all requests and is appealing to school governors to do the same where they have jurisdiction.
It is also asking district councils within its boundary to turn down requests where they have jurisdiction, and is seeking the support of private landlords.
Many cash-strapped councils have already allowed masts on their property and are locked into contracts, but KCC's response to the new masts could be replicated up and down the country, posing serious problems for the mobile industry as it seeks to build completely new third-generation networks.
Another weapon set to be used against the mobile companies is the Human Rights Act. Solicitors acting for those opposed to masts claim the Act allows councils to turn down planning applications for masts, even though there is no scientific evidence linking the masts to human health risks.
Social Security staff in east London recently threatened industrial action over the location of masts on their building, and the plan was subsequently shelved.
First published in Network News
Showing posts with label health risks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health risks. Show all posts
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
THE RADIATION IN OUR HIGH STREETS
THE RADIATION IN OUR HIGH STREETS
Jun 14 2007
By Nicole Le Marie
MOBILE phone masts are spreading like a rash in Mole Valley. More and more people are using wireless technology, but how much radiation is all this new technology producing?
A few weeks ago Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, called for a review of the health risks of wireless technology. Although the Department of Health denies that mobile phone masts pose a risk, health fears surrounding the masts are debated time and again.
The Advertiser enlisted the help of Paul Collins and his electrosmog detector to try to ascertain the level of micro-wave radiation that Mole Valley residents are really being exposed to.
The electrosmog detector is a machine that detects the presence of microwave radiation and enables you to hear it as sound.
It reacts to all microwave sources, including cordless phones, wi-fi networks, blue-tooth, 2G, 3G and TETRA masts,and gives an audio indication to the presence of microwaves.
The stronger the field the louder the sound gets, at some points in Mole Valley the machine reached the loudest level possible, with Dorking High Street proving to be an electrosmog hot point.
Paul Collins, a married-father-of-two from Bookham, bought the machine because he believes he is ElectroSensitivie - which means he suffers symptoms such as stinging skin, tinnitus and palpitations when exposed to high levels of electrosmog.
Paul said: "It is not just about telephone masts, but wifi and mobiles add it all up and it's not a pretty picture. There are increasing concerns and scientific evidence that this radiation is causing serious health effects.
"Dorking High Street is particularly intense - from Pump Corner down to the Pippbrook offices the noise produced by the machine is as loud as a machine gun.
"You can guarantee if you went back a decade ago Dorking High Street would be completely quiet.
"The mast on the top of Dorking Post Office is firing beams to a point located somewhere else. Those beams spread out and can end up somewhere in your living room, combined with that there are all the mobiles people are using on the High Street and other technology.
"There are hot spots in Leatherhead, such as near the theatre, but not as loud as the noise the electrosmog produces in Dorking High Street, especially on the side of Sainsbury's and The White Horse Hotel.
We visited the Meadowbank children's playground, which again produced a very loud sound from the electrosmog detector.
Paul said: "Do you really want this where our children are playing? Young kids have underdeveloped immune systems and are particularly susceptible to damage.
"I have been to St Josephs and it is relatively quiet but Ashcombe School has a mast on the roof,and is very noisy in car park area where there is a nursery. "When you can't see or touch something people often find it hard to believe there is problem - look at how long it took people to believe that smoking is bad for you. But in a few years time when the results of all the studies come back, we will regret it."
But in defence a spokesman for Orange, which operates the mast on top of the Post Office, claimed: "The Orange base station in the High Street is a simple low powered radio transmitter, which is operating at around the power of a domestic light bulb."
Orange uses a licensed frequency within the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit and receive signals like any other radio powered device.
Even if this particular mast were removed, there would still be an RF reading of a similar strength as mobile phone masts are not the only source of emissions in the environments where we live and work.
In addition to this, the phone handsets themselves use the same technology, so people walking around using their mobile phones would also pick up a reading.
It is interesting to the industry that people are worried about masts but continue to use mobile phones and it seems there is a reluctance to accept that these are one and the same.
The mast in the High Street is actually operating at hundreds of times below the guidelines that have been set by the Government. It is a high performing site, so clearly there are a large number of Orange users here that use the services this mast provides.
Once you pass Pump Corner into South Street, Dorking, the electrosmog was relatively quiet as was West Street. Areas such as Box Hill are also giving quiet readings.
In the past five years Mole Valley District Council has decided on 110 applications for mobile phone masts or related items. Of these, 74 have been allowed.
Mole Valley District Council said it was concerned to learn of the Advertiser's findings.
A spokesman said: "The council has a statutory duty to consider any valid planning application that is submitted."
New masts or additional equipment on existing structures appear to be demand-led with the continuing growth in usage of mobile phones.
With regard to health issues, the Government advice states that health concerns can be a material consideration in determining applications but it is for the decision maker to determine what weight to attach to such considerations. However, it is the firm view of the Government that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards.
"An application is submitted with a certificate by the operator, which confirms that the emissions are within the guidelines and as a result this council cannot take the matter any further." ..SUPL:
Jun 14 2007
By Nicole Le Marie
MOBILE phone masts are spreading like a rash in Mole Valley. More and more people are using wireless technology, but how much radiation is all this new technology producing?
A few weeks ago Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, called for a review of the health risks of wireless technology. Although the Department of Health denies that mobile phone masts pose a risk, health fears surrounding the masts are debated time and again.
The Advertiser enlisted the help of Paul Collins and his electrosmog detector to try to ascertain the level of micro-wave radiation that Mole Valley residents are really being exposed to.
The electrosmog detector is a machine that detects the presence of microwave radiation and enables you to hear it as sound.
It reacts to all microwave sources, including cordless phones, wi-fi networks, blue-tooth, 2G, 3G and TETRA masts,and gives an audio indication to the presence of microwaves.
The stronger the field the louder the sound gets, at some points in Mole Valley the machine reached the loudest level possible, with Dorking High Street proving to be an electrosmog hot point.
Paul Collins, a married-father-of-two from Bookham, bought the machine because he believes he is ElectroSensitivie - which means he suffers symptoms such as stinging skin, tinnitus and palpitations when exposed to high levels of electrosmog.
Paul said: "It is not just about telephone masts, but wifi and mobiles add it all up and it's not a pretty picture. There are increasing concerns and scientific evidence that this radiation is causing serious health effects.
"Dorking High Street is particularly intense - from Pump Corner down to the Pippbrook offices the noise produced by the machine is as loud as a machine gun.
"You can guarantee if you went back a decade ago Dorking High Street would be completely quiet.
"The mast on the top of Dorking Post Office is firing beams to a point located somewhere else. Those beams spread out and can end up somewhere in your living room, combined with that there are all the mobiles people are using on the High Street and other technology.
"There are hot spots in Leatherhead, such as near the theatre, but not as loud as the noise the electrosmog produces in Dorking High Street, especially on the side of Sainsbury's and The White Horse Hotel.
We visited the Meadowbank children's playground, which again produced a very loud sound from the electrosmog detector.
Paul said: "Do you really want this where our children are playing? Young kids have underdeveloped immune systems and are particularly susceptible to damage.
"I have been to St Josephs and it is relatively quiet but Ashcombe School has a mast on the roof,and is very noisy in car park area where there is a nursery. "When you can't see or touch something people often find it hard to believe there is problem - look at how long it took people to believe that smoking is bad for you. But in a few years time when the results of all the studies come back, we will regret it."
But in defence a spokesman for Orange, which operates the mast on top of the Post Office, claimed: "The Orange base station in the High Street is a simple low powered radio transmitter, which is operating at around the power of a domestic light bulb."
Orange uses a licensed frequency within the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit and receive signals like any other radio powered device.
Even if this particular mast were removed, there would still be an RF reading of a similar strength as mobile phone masts are not the only source of emissions in the environments where we live and work.
In addition to this, the phone handsets themselves use the same technology, so people walking around using their mobile phones would also pick up a reading.
It is interesting to the industry that people are worried about masts but continue to use mobile phones and it seems there is a reluctance to accept that these are one and the same.
The mast in the High Street is actually operating at hundreds of times below the guidelines that have been set by the Government. It is a high performing site, so clearly there are a large number of Orange users here that use the services this mast provides.
Once you pass Pump Corner into South Street, Dorking, the electrosmog was relatively quiet as was West Street. Areas such as Box Hill are also giving quiet readings.
In the past five years Mole Valley District Council has decided on 110 applications for mobile phone masts or related items. Of these, 74 have been allowed.
Mole Valley District Council said it was concerned to learn of the Advertiser's findings.
A spokesman said: "The council has a statutory duty to consider any valid planning application that is submitted."
New masts or additional equipment on existing structures appear to be demand-led with the continuing growth in usage of mobile phones.
With regard to health issues, the Government advice states that health concerns can be a material consideration in determining applications but it is for the decision maker to determine what weight to attach to such considerations. However, it is the firm view of the Government that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards.
"An application is submitted with a certificate by the operator, which confirms that the emissions are within the guidelines and as a result this council cannot take the matter any further." ..SUPL:
Monday, July 09, 2007
REPORT WARNS OF POSSIBLE HEALTH RISKS OF GOOGLE/EARTHLINK WIFI NETWORK
REPORT WARNS OF POSSIBLE HEALTH RISKS OF GOOGLE/EARTHLINK WIFI NETWORK
A report filed by the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors warns of potential adverse health and environmental impacts that could result from a proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network. Dr. Magda Havas, an environmental scientist at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, prepared the scientific analysis of the project, which SNAFU submitted in support of its appeal challenging Mayor Gavin Newsom's citywide WiFi proposal. The Board of Supervisors will hear SNAFU's appeal on July 10, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. in City Hall.
"SNAFU is requesting that the proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network undergo environmental review before it is approved due to our concern about adverse health and environmental impacts," said Doug Loranger, a SNAFU spokesperson.
Dr. Havas, who specializes in electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure health effects, writes that while there have been no studies to date on the effects of exposure to WiFi, the potential for harm can best be seen by examining the scientific evidence emerging from studies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere on people living near cell phone antennas. These studies report adverse biological and health effects at radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures well below levels the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says are safe. Havas' report discusses a number of health effects that have been documented at levels below the FCC exposure limit, including headaches, insomnia, memory loss, slowed reaction time, impaired motor function, DNA breakage and childhood leukemia. These effects occur at levels constituting a small percentage of the safety threshold set by the FCC under its RFR exposure guidelines. Havas also points out that the FCC guidelines are based on short-term exposures (30 minutes) and do not take into consideration the long-term exposures characteristic of a citywide WiFi network.
A study prepared by certified engineer Mitch Maifeld of Zenzic Research also submitted with SNAFU's appeal calculates the potential RFR exposure levels of the WiFi antennas proposed by Google/Earthlink. Maifeld prepared calculations based on exposures to residents living in close proximity to the antennas, which would be mounted on light and utility poles in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco. According to Havas, these calculations reveal that residents may be exposed to radiation levels high enough to potentially induce adverse health effects.
In scientific terms, the Google/Earthlink antennas could expose residents to RFR levels more than 50 times higher than levels associated with a significant increase in headaches, sleep disturbances and dizziness detected in a study conducted in Spain. According to Maifeld's calculations, wireless laptop users could expect exposure levels from a combination of antennas and laptop more than 350 times greater than the levels in the aforementioned Spanish study.
Havas' findings reveal a major lapse in public health protection offered by the FCC RFR exposure guidelines. Her report shows that health effects in the scientific literature appear at levels almost 10,000 times lower than those permitted by the FCC. Havas' opinions are shared by scientists worldwide who have signed the Benevento Resolution, which recommends "proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. WiFi or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure." (See www.icems.eu.)
"Because the City and County of San Francisco is acting as a proprietor and party to a contract with Google/Earthlink and not in its regulatory capacity, it is not preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from fully considering the health issues as it is when cell phone carriers seek to place antennas in the City," Loranger added.
Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, said, "We are calling upon the Board of Supervisors to apply the Precautionary Principle, which is a City ordinance, in addressing our concerns by conducting an environmental study before any decisions are made." Copies of the Havas and Maifeld reports, along with SNAFU's appeal, may be found at the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts (CWTI) website at www.energyfields.org.
For additional information, visit SNAFU?s website at www.antennafreeunion.org.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=761
A report filed by the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors warns of potential adverse health and environmental impacts that could result from a proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network. Dr. Magda Havas, an environmental scientist at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, prepared the scientific analysis of the project, which SNAFU submitted in support of its appeal challenging Mayor Gavin Newsom's citywide WiFi proposal. The Board of Supervisors will hear SNAFU's appeal on July 10, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. in City Hall.
"SNAFU is requesting that the proposed Google/Earthlink WiFi network undergo environmental review before it is approved due to our concern about adverse health and environmental impacts," said Doug Loranger, a SNAFU spokesperson.
Dr. Havas, who specializes in electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure health effects, writes that while there have been no studies to date on the effects of exposure to WiFi, the potential for harm can best be seen by examining the scientific evidence emerging from studies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere on people living near cell phone antennas. These studies report adverse biological and health effects at radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures well below levels the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says are safe. Havas' report discusses a number of health effects that have been documented at levels below the FCC exposure limit, including headaches, insomnia, memory loss, slowed reaction time, impaired motor function, DNA breakage and childhood leukemia. These effects occur at levels constituting a small percentage of the safety threshold set by the FCC under its RFR exposure guidelines. Havas also points out that the FCC guidelines are based on short-term exposures (30 minutes) and do not take into consideration the long-term exposures characteristic of a citywide WiFi network.
A study prepared by certified engineer Mitch Maifeld of Zenzic Research also submitted with SNAFU's appeal calculates the potential RFR exposure levels of the WiFi antennas proposed by Google/Earthlink. Maifeld prepared calculations based on exposures to residents living in close proximity to the antennas, which would be mounted on light and utility poles in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco. According to Havas, these calculations reveal that residents may be exposed to radiation levels high enough to potentially induce adverse health effects.
In scientific terms, the Google/Earthlink antennas could expose residents to RFR levels more than 50 times higher than levels associated with a significant increase in headaches, sleep disturbances and dizziness detected in a study conducted in Spain. According to Maifeld's calculations, wireless laptop users could expect exposure levels from a combination of antennas and laptop more than 350 times greater than the levels in the aforementioned Spanish study.
Havas' findings reveal a major lapse in public health protection offered by the FCC RFR exposure guidelines. Her report shows that health effects in the scientific literature appear at levels almost 10,000 times lower than those permitted by the FCC. Havas' opinions are shared by scientists worldwide who have signed the Benevento Resolution, which recommends "proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. WiFi or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure." (See www.icems.eu.)
"Because the City and County of San Francisco is acting as a proprietor and party to a contract with Google/Earthlink and not in its regulatory capacity, it is not preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from fully considering the health issues as it is when cell phone carriers seek to place antennas in the City," Loranger added.
Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, said, "We are calling upon the Board of Supervisors to apply the Precautionary Principle, which is a City ordinance, in addressing our concerns by conducting an environmental study before any decisions are made." Copies of the Havas and Maifeld reports, along with SNAFU's appeal, may be found at the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts (CWTI) website at www.energyfields.org.
For additional information, visit SNAFU?s website at www.antennafreeunion.org.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=761
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)