Subject: Daily Express scoops big EMF story in U.K. (Pegg)..
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 113229 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
.........Ahhh yes!!! Well done to our brethren in the U.K......!!!
We need a **Sir William Stewart** in the U.S......!!!
"In fact the Government's decision to appoint independent-minded
men like Sir William Stewart rather than allowing the NRPB to run the
show appears to mean we will get a report with teeth....." (FROM
ARTICLE BELOW)
More interesting observations about the NRPB below.....
Thanks to Hazel Pegg for sending the following, her address:
Cheerio......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???
.............>>>>from London, DAILY EXPRESS
CURB ON MOBILE PHONE DANGERS
by KATHY MORAN
Tough new safety laws on mobile phones will be demanded by a hard-hitting
Government report, The Express can reveal.
The amount of radiation handsets emit will be reduced up to tenfold because
of growing fears it presents a serious health risk. And the rules
governing the installation of masts will be tightened. The controversial
recommendations come as phone companies are planning a further 100,000
masts, some only 300 yards apart.
A committee of experts has heard a huge amount of evidence from scientists
and at public meetings up and down the country that the masts and mobiles
are ruining lives and damaging people's health. Members are convinced
that the wide powers given to mobile phone firms to bypass planning
controls are causing misery and stress as well as a potential risk from
radiation exposure.
Although mounting evidence suggests that masts can be a danger to health,
current planning regulations do not allow objections on such grounds.
Angry campaigners have described how masts have been put up just yards
from their homes at night to prevent them from protesting or attempting
to intervene.
In Solihull, West Midlands, police provided an escort for contractors to
install a mast at 4am because of fears of a protest and similar incidents
have occurred recently in Northern Ireland.
Some mothers are keeping their children away from school because masts have
been installed near playgrounds and on classroom roofs.
The new rules will mean an end to companies riding roughshod over the
wishes of councils and communities who are often dismayed to find there is
little they can do to prevent the siting of masts next to schools,
hospitals, in residential areas and parks.
Trudy Clarkson, whose husband Neil was diagnosed with a brain tumour
after a mast was put up 20 yards from their home, welcomed the news last
night. "I believe these masts are a menace and a health risk" she said.
"People are being brushed aside for the sake of profit and it is about
time someone put a stop to it."
The committee, chaired by Sir William Stewart, was formed by Health
Minister Tessa Jowell last April in response to growing public concern
about mobile phone safety.
The 6 billion (U.K. pound) industry has already attracted 24 million users
and phone companies estimate more than half the population will be on the
network by Christmas. The new generation WAP phones, which will allow
access to the Internet, will hugely increase demand, especially from
children.
Next week the Government will open the bidding for one of five "second
generation" mobile phone licences which will see new companies entering
the market - an auction expected to raise more than 2 billion (U.K.
pound) and significantly increase demand for masts.
Planning officers are frequently confused about the grounds on which they
can legitimately object to a proposed mast and how much notice they
should be given under the mobile firms' permitted development rights.
These rights were granted in 1984 to help the fledgling companies
establish networks by limiting the grounds for refusal of a mast
application and setting early deadlines for decisions. And there is no
right to refuse permission for new short-range "microcells" in urban
areas, which are often put up on lampposts less than five feet from
people's bedrooms.
Under the committee's proposed guidelines, councils would be encouraged
to follow the precautionary principle which recommends that planners
should take into account the possibility of a risk to health. Oxfordshire
has already declared a moratorium on new masts near schools.
The Government will be under intense pressure to accept the
committee's recommendations. Liberal Democrat Phil Willis, who invited
international experts to a seminar at the Commons last year to inform
fellow MPs of the potential risks, said: "I'm delighted. This is what I
have been campaigning for for three years.
"These permitted development rights have simply been a way to put
masts in inappropriate locations without elected representatives and the
public being allowed to voice their concerns." Labour's Howard Stoate,
who proposed an Early Day Motion on planning issues which was signed by
160 MPs, said: "If the health fears turn out to be groundless I'll be
delighted but until then we should adopt the precautionary principle and
site masts away from schools and residential areas."
The laxity of British guidelines on radiation exposure - among the
highest in the world - has been another constantly recurring theme
throughout the inquiry and people have told the committee they feel they
are being used as human guinea pigs.
The guidelines set by the National Radiological Protection Board in
1993 allow phones to emit power up to 10 times greater and an electric
field three times stronger than that recommended by ICNIRP, the
international standards body recognised by the World Health Organisation.
Limits in eastern Europe, which has been at the forefront of developing
such technology for military purposes, are even lower. Health fears have
been heightened by the number of under-18s using phones, around one fifth
of the total number of users.
Children under 12 are especially at risk because their brains are still
developing and their skulls provide less protection, allowing them to
absorb up to four times as much radiation from a handset as adults.
The committee is expected to propose the adoption of ICNIRP standards but
more significantly it will also call for guidelines to cover so-called
athermal effects. A growing number of studies indicate mobile radiation
may have a biological effect at exposure levels way below that which
would cause heating.
Some committee members have also been very concerned by the stance of the
NRPB, the Government-funded body which is supposed to provide the public
with independent advice. The NRPB does not accept that mobiles or masts
could be a potential health risk.
Yet published research has linked radio frequency radiation from masts
and mobile handsets to memory loss, DNA damage and a weakening of the
immune system and the blood-brain barrier which protects the brain from
toxic substances.
Evidence from users and those living near masts who complained of dizzy
spells, headaches, skin irritations and fatigue was backed up by a survey
of 11,000 mobile phone owners in Sweden in 1998.
Solicitor Alan Meyer, who has provided legal advice for more than 50
campaign groups, said: "The NRPB in justifying its guidelines relies on
the fact that it can only make recommendations based on 'conclusive
scientific proof'. Sadly, as we have seen in the case of BSE, asbestosis
and miners suffering from emphysema, such proof often comes too late."
Sources indicate that the committee has been listening. One scientist said:
"A lot of people were convinced that the committee was just a Government
ploy to distract attention from the fact that it is about to sell off
more licences to mobile phone companies.
"In fact the Government's decision to appoint independent-minded men like
Sir William Stewart rather than allowing the NRPB to run the show appears
to mean we will get a report with teeth.
"People can see which way the committee is thinking and there is already
a lot of frantic work going on in some quarters to refute its conclusions
before it has even officially presented them."
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com