Subject: EMF/EMR liabilty (Karow)..
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 171517 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
........For Virginia Hines..... I think you may recognize (in Hans
discussion below, with his lawyer)... what I was saying we needed to
convey to your church board (about the liability they were assuming when
they agreed to that tower on the church)....
I perceive very little -- if any -- difference between what he is
describing as Canadian law ("joint and several liability") ... and the way
it would work in most states of the U.S. ... and, also, I believe ... in
the U.K.
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.................
Missed opportunity...
$$$$$ We could have changed the corrupted system!! $$$$$
McCain !!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:15:16 -0800
From: Hans Karow
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: EMF/EMR liabilty
Roy,
today I talked to someone with law experience (Canada) with regards of
liability due to harm/damage of EMF/EMR:
If I, the municipality or any government let allow a company to install a
device on each of mine or their properties and at a later time some
damage/harm occurs to somebody else, then under normal court ruling the
"Joint and Several Liability" will have to apply.
This is standard liability and one of the principals of the British Law. (I
don't know whether this applies in U.S. as well).
Definition: "Joint & Several Liability" : if parties involved in said
installation, including owners of property on which the device has been
installed, have been found guilty of damage/harm, then all parties are
liable 100%. This does not mean, that someone could collect more than 100%
but instead it means that if one party can/will not pay the liability, then
automatically remainder parties will have to come up the compensation money.
As we know telecommunication companies don't have insurance's and I don't
think they have enough set aside to come up for eventual claims, they would
have to use their assets,which they won't because of the shareholders
interests and other powers they can apply. Hence, the property owners (see
above) would have to pay!
I ask you and the list that more info with this regard including legal
referral/sample cases should be obtained and provided in your list.
I am desperate to need info about power companies' liability for my present
230 kV transmission line battle.
[.........Hans, EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT OF DISCOVERY ... to get any
information you want .. FROM THEM..... THAT'S WHAT i TOLD YOU TO ASK YOUR
LAWYER ABOUT..... We can't provide those answers from "out
here".....guru.....]
Hans.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roy L. Beavers
To: emfguru
Date: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:43 AM
Subject: Protesters' victory in phone mast campaign (Segerback)..
..........Forwarded by EMF-L......
.....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???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:36:06 +0100
From: "[iso-8859-1] Per Segerbäck"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Protesters' victory in phone mast campaign
Roy,
Here is the full story from www.telegraph-co.uk from Mars 14:
ISSUE 1754
Tuesday 14 March 2000
Protesters' victory in phone mast
campaign
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
National
Radiological
Protection
Board
Special
investigation:
mobile phones -
New Scientist
Mobile phone
safety issues -
Federation of
the Electronics
Industry
THOUSANDS of mobile phone masts may have to be taken
down after a landmark decision by a Government
planning inspector.
Protesters worried by the erection of phone masts
close to their homes, offices and schools are now
measuring them carefully after Vodafone was ordered
to remove a mast that breached height regulations.
The mast was erected within yards of the home of
Neil Clarkson, of Leeds, who has since developed a
brain tumour.
It was put up under an exemption in planning rules
that says the mobile phone companies do not need to
apply for full planning permission if the mast is
under 15 metres, or 49ft, tall. An inspector from
the Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions ruled that this must include the
concrete base on which a mast is erected and the
antenna on top, which took the Vodafone mast to
16.23 metres, or 53ft.
The inspector, Martin Joyce, dismissed Vodafone's
appeal against an enforcement notice. He said the
mast "materially harms living conditions". Vodafone
was given six weeks to remove the mast or lodge an
appeal in the High Court.
Meanwhile, in what protesters believe could be the
start of thousands of follow-up cases, residents of
Manningtree in Essex are calling on Tendring
district council to remove a mast erected by
One2One within one metre of a conservation area and
close to homes and a school.
They believe that the mast, built on concrete three
weeks ago, exceeds 15 metres. The Mill Hill site is
owned by Tendring Hundred Water Company, within 20
yards of homes, and on a route used each day by
many of the 370 pupils of Highfields Primary
School, Lawford.
No definite health risks have yet been proved to
exist from mobile phones or masts but, as a
precaution, county councils have recommended that
masts are not sited on land owned by schools.
Hilary Cook, headmistress of Highfields Primary
School, said: "The way this mast went up was
shabby. It has really shaken people round here."
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com