The statements in bold below were taken from an article published in a community newspaper: Constantiaberg Bulletin on 1 Sep 2016
“Engineers argue that EMR radiation is safe”
“Cell towers are blanketing our neighbourhoods with radiation. It’s particularly frightening that radiation from our telecommunication and power line technology is damaging the DNA in our cells. It is clear to many biologists that this can account for the rising cancer rates.” The constant electromagnetic radiation from communication towers could lead to cancer and also cause neurological, cardiac and respiratory disorders, scientists say.” As cell biologists, we can understand what the cells are saying and it’s quite clear. But when you have physicists and engineers and politicians and industrial people who are sitting and making these decisions as to what is safe, we’re getting into a situation where it’s more and more of this radiation in our environment with no apparent control. And the levels are so high that we’re getting the biological reactions and the medical problems, that are beginning to afflict people in larger numbers.” source
Let the scientists, engineers who state it is safe prove that cell towers are NOT harmful…. Where are the studies? If no scientific evidence is provided then the statements as to safety hold absolutely no weight or credence. We all know the saying “show me the money” The motto here should be…”Show me the Proof”…
With respect to cell phones, Dane Snowden (spokesman for the US wireless industry association) is on record as testifying to the State Legislature of Vermont: “Industry has not said once – not once – that cell phones are safe. The Federal Government …has said it is safe.” source
There are parallels with cellphone towers too.
“One receives a million times more radiation from using a cellphone than from a mast. If anyone is concerned about radiation from a mast, then they should never use a cellphone…”
This is a meaningless and unscientific statement as it doesn’t mention distance to mast, length of time of exposure and the accumulative exposure from various sources, including other nearby masts, antennae and Wi-Fi . It’s an extreme statement not taking into account how sparingly a cellphone may be used. Commenting on an industry-funded study in 2010, Paul Elliott (professor at Imperial College) made a similar statement saying that he was reassured as he’d estimated that a day’s exposure from a mobile phone tower equals about 30 minutes of cell phone use. But in the same year the World Health Organisation’s Interphone report said that “heavy users” are more at risk of developing glioma tumours and defined heavy use as just 30 minutes a day. source
A cell phone irradiates you only when you want it to [choice], a cell phone tower irradiates you when the service provider wants it to!
Also note that microwave radiation intensities can be a trillion to a quintillion times higher than natural background levels (based on actual measurements, Johansson 1997)
“There is no evidence to indicate health risks from cell masts”
Dr Henry Lai: A critical question in considering the biological effects of cell mast/tower radiation is “can low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) cause biological effects?” The answer is “Yes”. A list of studies showing biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR is in Table 1 of this publication
In 2011, Time Magazine pointed out that the reclassification of EMR as a possible carcinogen “is notable because until now, the WHO had reported that ‘no adverse health effects have been established for mobile-phone use.’” [source] According to Dr Jonathan Samet, Chairman of the Working Group for the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. Following queries about the classified he clarified further that the concern was no limited to cellphone radiation, “The classification covers radio frequency electromagnetic radiation, which would include wireless.”
There is a big difference between “no evidence” and “no conclusive evidence”.
more here: According to ICNIRP there is “no conclusive evidence” of any adverse effects from high frequency radiation
“Radiation reduces by square of the distance…”
This is true but the ICNIRP guidelines (underpinning our local policy) are based only on thermal effects, not biological. These are the guidelines of the Austrian Medical Association based on evidence of biological effects. Their benchmark guidelines take into account biological effects measured at a few orders of magnitude below ICNIRP guidelines. [more: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914]
Once example of cancer risk is the recent NTP study conducted with power levels below the thermal limits.
EHS symptoms are largely put down by WHO to being a psychosomatic disorder
The official World Health Organisation (WHO) stance referred to and quoted in the policy is outdated – from 2005 – and in the last decade the WHO has unfortunately not kept up with the scientific evidence in this area.
Here is one recent example of EHS occurring “as a bona fide environmentally-inducible neurological syndrome”: study
It is also worth noting that the WHO is not infallible, as a study published in the reputable medical journal “the Lancet” highlighted in 2007. When developing “evidence-based” guidelines, the World Health Organization routinely forgets one key ingredient: evidence…. The researchers also raised concerns about “distinctly non-transparent process” resulting in reliance on “blind trust”. WHO’s director of research policy Dr. Tikki Pang said that some of his WHO colleagues were shocked by the Lancet’s study, but he acknowledged the criticism had merit, and explained that time pressures and a lack of both information and money sometimes compromised WHO work. [source]
“The Health Council of the Netherlands concluded that “the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge.”
Cindy Sage: The Health Council of the Netherlands ‘report’ is dated 2008. Much has changed. The BioInitiative Report was updated and the evidence strengthened considerably in the 2012 BioInitiative Report, and in the 2014 update of the Genotoxicity and Neurological Effects Sections (Henry Lai, PhD, author). Engineers who continue to dispute the scientific and public health evidence in 2016 will run into the newly released NTP animal toxicology report showing increased risk for heart and brain cancers and pre-cancerous lesions. They also must update their thinking with the WHO IARC classification of RF as a Possible Human Carcinogen.
The European Parliament and its member countries unanimously adopted a resolution in 2009 to address public health risks from EMF and wireless technologies, in line with the BioInitiative Report. The European Environmental Agency director has given high visibility to the issue and recommended health agencies review and act to implement precautionary measures, particularly for children…
One of the key authors of this valuable collection of studies is Dr Henry Lai from the University of Washington whose research work demonstrating a potential link with cancer was attacked by Motorola in the 1990s with concerted effort made to discredit him. In this leaked Motorola memo in the words of Motorola executives, they claimed to have succeeded in “War-Gaming ” the Lai-Singh Experiments demonstrating DNA damage at below so-called safe exposure levels – the smoking-gun reveals itself as legitimate researchers are constantly countered by wireless industry propagandist: war-gaming-memo. And here is an article written about Dr Lai by the engineering writer in the University of Washington’s College of Engineering): Wake-up call
Electrosmog (the invisible electromagnetic radiation supposedly resulting from the use of both wireless technology and mains electricity) does not exist…
Wireless communication by definition must comprise transmitted and received modulated radio waves. Wireless = radio waves. Communication = modulation of those radio waves.
Electromagnetic radiation is invisible and “electrosmog” (not to be confused with actual smog) is a term widely used – even by the cellphone industry.
Here is an extract from a 2004 Swisscom patent. Swisscom is a major telecommunications provider in Switzerland – a country where the adopted exposure limit is 1/100th of ours.
“The influence of electrosmog on the human body is a known problem. The health risk from mobile radio transmitters, handys and DECT telephones has been an explosive subject among the general public at least since the enormous breakthrough in mobile radio technology in the 1990s….The risk of damage to health through electrosmog has also become better understood as a result of more recent and improved studies. When, for example, human blood cells are irradiated with electromagnetic fields, clear damage to hereditary material has been demonstrated and there have been indications of an increased cancer risk… Thus it has been possible to show that mobile radio radiation can cause damage to genetic material, in particular in human white blood cells, whereby both the DNA itself is damaged and the number of chromosomes changed. This mutation can consequently lead to increased cancer risk. In particular, it could also be shown that this destruction is not dependent upon temperature increases, ie is non-thermal.”
“Insufficient cellphone coverage is putting communities in danger because people won’t be able to reach emergency services without a landline”
Cellphones certainly can play a valuable role in security services – however the problem is not a lack of masts, but an exponential increase in wireless traffic in recent years resulting in the need for an ever-increasing number of masts in unsuitable locations. What is needed is education on the responsible use of communication technology, encouraging cable over wireless where possible and reducing unnecessary wireless traffic. Put simply, more traffic = more radiation = more masts in sensitive areas. This is not a popular message though when there’s a profit incentive and conflict of interest. As there clearly is in the case of Mr Court who develops software for iPhones and iPads and is quoted almost exclusively throughout this article.
“Putting communities in danger” – isn’t that statement in itself hypocritically alarmist? And what about the high incident of muggings for wireless devices, especially among young people?
Mr Court says he relies on international opinion and not scaremongers who “cherry pick information and make sweeping claims”
International opinion is not keeping up with the rapid deployment of wireless technology. The research quoted in Cape Town’s policy document is from 2004, 2002, 2000 and 1998!! Mr Court and the authorities should be reading up to date international scientific studies and facts, not so called international opinion. At one point international opinion was that smoking was harmless and it was not until 1998 that the World Health Organisation finally classified it as a definite carcinogen.
In May 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe recommended that their member states “pay heed to and protect “early warning” scientists”.
The “2013 Late Lessons from Early Warnings” report is the second of its type produced by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in collaboration with a broad range of external authors and peer reviewers. The case studies across both volumes of Late lessons from early warnings cover a diverse range of chemical and technological innovations, and highlight a number of systemic problems. The ‘Late Lessons Project’ illustrates how damaging and costly the misuse or neglect of the precautionary principle can be, using case studies and a synthesis of the lessons to be learned and applied to maximising innovations whilst minimising harms. And also note that it was the ordinary and non-scientific person who first drew the authorities attention to environmental dangers before the scientific community gave any form of notice.
It was once international opinion that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
by not having enough masts in a local area cellphones will typically generate more radiation into the ear
It is true that in areas of low cellphone reception cellphones will generate more radiation. They should not be held to the ear and texting should rather be encouraged which it has been. It is unfortunate that the general public have been lulled into a false sense of safety without proper education on the harmful effects and this needs to happen. There will still be those people who choose to ignore the concern for themselves and their children, but that is their choice. Those forced to live next to a mast don’t have that choice though and the accumulative effect of all the non-ionising radiation in our environment is having an effect as studies have demonstrated.
As distances between cell masts are reducing it is becoming more of a problem for people who are sensitive to non-ionising radiation. According to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler when 5G arrives it’s likely that millions of new cell towers will spring up to handle the traffic and this is not the only technology that will require more and more cell towers. According to a recent consumer article, 5G could require cell towers on every street corner unless consumers opt for less robust wireless connectivity or reliable high speed cabled connectivity. [source]
ad hominem attacks
Using terms like “alarmists”, “scaremongers” and other derogatory terms has been an effective method for shaming and silencing people who raise concerns. “Tin foil hats”, “Luddites”, “unscientific”, “anti-technology”, “pro the Dark Ages”, “hypocrites”, “hippies” etc… Surely it’s time to move beyond these cliched insults and engage in more constructive debate…
“the earth , sun and the rest of the universe exposes us to different levels of EMR all the time”
“The evolutionary development of the human species took place under the presence of the natural electromagnetic spectrum (Earth’s magnetic field, Earth’s electric field, spherics, Schumann resonance). Those influences have been part of our biosphere like the oxygen content in the air or the visible light spectrum, and they have been integrated into our biological functions.” [EUROPAEM_EMF_Guideline-2016]
There has not been enough time for a “survival of the fittest” electromagnetic radiation proof group of humans to evolve. And what could the potential cost of this route be to electro-sensitive people (and by extension all humanity).
In the study “Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity” the authors suggest that the increased adverse biological action of man-made EMFs is due to the fact that they are polarized in contrast to the natural ones. [http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914]
The City of Cape Town has adopted a precautionary approach
The City of Cape Town’s 2015 TI Policy includes a letter from the National Department of Health, from whom the City they take guidance. This letter includes the statement that “local and other authorities, in considering the environmental impact of any particular base station, do not need to and should not attempt, from a public health point of view, to set any restrictions with respect to parameters such as distance to the mast, duration of exposure, height of the mast, etc.” [p46]
The City has confirmed that the 50m distance only applies to habitable structures in relation to the antenna and where they exceed the ICNIRP public exposure guideline.
We have also been advised by Council that “the policy is just a guideline for decision makers, it does not provide ANY rules and the decision makers can deviate from the policy.”
Pictured below is a mast erected in a school playground in Lentegeur, adjacent to homes with young children. Just one of numerous examples.