Subject: Halsey Meyer Higgins document re cell masts (towers)....
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 231901 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
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 definiton 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.....)
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
..........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????..........
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 bas
ed.
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 1 8th
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 1 90 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:Tim RobertsNormal Tim Roberts2BMicrosoft Word for
Windows 95Go@DocumentSummaryInformation
ÿÿÿÿ Microsoft Word Document
HALSEY MEYER HIGGINS
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com