Learn About EMFs

In 1998 an international committee called the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) set radiation and EMF safety limits.

The problem is, the ICNIRP only took into consideration the short term effect of EMF exposure.

“…Induction of cancer from long term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects,” reads their report.

This means the ICNIRP only bothered to look at the short term heating or thermal effects of radiation. They have completely overlooked the fact radiation is cumulative in the human body and ingnored the long-term consequences associated with cumulative radiation exposure.

Despite this, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (known as the Stewart Report) released their expert report on the safety of moblie phones/masts in 2000 and, concluded that the emf emissions from cell phone towers do not cause adverse health conditions because they are below ICNIRP levels.

In the words of Woody Allen, you can be a complete intellectual and still have no idea what’s going on.

SO while the ‘experts’ wax poetically on the safety of cell phone tower emissions, a number of independent scientists were busy lambasting the ICNIRP findings and citing that there were “strong political/economic reasons for wanting there to be no adverse health effect.” (1)

Other words used to describe the ICNIRP findings by various EMF researchers such as Dr. Don Maisch, Dr. Gerald Hyland, Dr. Neil Cherry were “blatantly incorrect…biased…a serious misinterpretation of the facts…the cancer assesment is misleading, inappropriate and flawed…risk assesment based on a house of cards…highly selective…unscientific.”

Although the Stewart Report 2000 reported no adverse health effects associated with cell phone tower radiation, they did recommend that cell phone towers not be allowed within a certain distance from schools. As of 2008 cell phone companies continue to place antennas and towers near schools, this angle of the expert report has been conveniently overlooked.

Footnotes:
(1) Britishlibrary.net/orange/biologeffects.htm (British Library is now defunct)

by Mohammed Al’Ali 2/10/08

A BAN on new mobile phone masts in Muharraq will remain in force until authorities come up with further proof that they are safe.

The Muharraq Municipal Council says it is not convinced by “evidence” submitted by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA), which claims they are not a health hazard.

It has now extended the ban, imposed in December, indefinitely until it is proved they are safe.

The council is also planning to remove mobile phone masts near homes in Muharraq if it is proved they are harmful.

“The door is closed as the TRA has failed to convince us that they are safe,” said Muharraq Municipal Council vice-chairman Abdulnasser Al Mahmeed.

“Unless they can open a window, the decision will remain the same.

“We are also planning to remove existing masts that are close to homes if they are proven to be hazardous.”

The TRA had been invited to give a presentation to both the council and residents last week on the topic of phone mast radiation and health.

It was a chance for the TRA to convince the council to change its mind, but apparently it had an opposite effect.

The issue has been under investigation since September after 150 Busaiteen residents signed a petition against phone masts in their area.

Councillors initially delayed a decision on the issue until the relevant government studies were submitted.

“Everyone is entitled to give his point of view on anything, but in the end, it’s up to the listener to decide whether he believes it or not,” said Mr Al Mahmeed, a former technical team leader at Batelco.

“The TRA says that radiation levels from masts in Bahrain are low compared to other countries, but it doesn’t mean this is no threat to people’s health.

“I am a certified telecommunications engineer, with 11 years experience in the field, but I still doubt what the TRA is saying.

“They (the TRA) gave an excellent presentation, a well-prepared one, but they didn’t give us a definite answer to the question on whether phone masts are dangerous or not.”

He said the TRA argued that increasing the number of base stations actually reduces the amount of radiation each one emits.

That is because it cuts down the distance that telephone signals must cover.

However, Mr Al Mahmeed is concerned that any radiation - no matter how high - could endanger health.

“There are studies saying that masts are dangerous and others saying they are safe,” he said.

“We prefer to consider them as dangerous as a precaution, considering that people’s lives are hanging in the balance.

TRA spectrum advisor Karl van Heeswijk said in October that mast radiation levels in Bahrain were similar to those in the UK, an average of 100,000 times lower than the international recognised safety limits.

He claimed that public misconceptions had vastly overstated the dangers of telephone masts and base stations.

Mr van Heeswijk said the greatest threat to health was from worry and stress people go through thinking about the issue.

He added that more base stations were required in urban areas to connect mobile phone users, but said these were smaller than others used in rural areas and therefore emitted less radiation.

He said if people were not exposed to anything above the recommended level, there was no scientific evidence to show there was a threat to health.

Mr van Heeswijk also revealed that 300 base stations exist in Bahrain, but did not comment on how many more are planned over the coming years.

He said where phone masts and base stations were placed would depend on municipality planning laws, adding that people living or working directly under them had nothing to fear - as tests showed this was the area with the least radiation.

Source: Gulf Daily News 

by Brendan Wedley 2/9/08

Residents near Valleyview Drive are organizing to fight a telecommunications giant’s plan to build a cellphone tower in their neighborhood.

They fear an onslaught of invisible electromagnetic emissions, which some residents believe may lead to health problems.

Telus plans to build a tower on the Scottish Club property at 868 Valleyview Drive. Instead of a typical pyramid-style steel structure, the telecommunications equipment would be housed in a 42-metre tall flag pole.

A Telus official told The Examiner the company follows Health Canada standards that are enforced by Industry Canada.

It’s a “myth” that cellphone towers cause health problems, the official said.

But Steve Partridge doesn’t believe the assurances from Telus.

Partridge lives on Valleyview Drive with his wife, Jane Jopling, and their two sons, three-year-old William and one-year-old Jacob.

The tower will be built practically in his backyard.

“That kind of got me very concerned about the potential impact on our health, and my children’s health and also property value. I don’t think we can ignore that,” Partridge said.

“People don’t like buying homes close to the hydro towers, so if the publicity about this issue continues to grow I think there’s going to be a negative stigma attached to living close to these cell towers in residential areas.”

Telus sent a letter to nearby residents to tell them about the plan for the tower.

It would be a 42-metre tall flag pole with a 14.3-square-metre shelter at the base.

The tower would serve wireless phone coverage requirements for Telus Mobility for about the surrounding 10-kilometre radius, Telus senior planning specialist Alan Lee states.

When Partridge received the letter, he started doing research.

Now Partridge recites Industry Canada guidelines for cellphone towers and Health Canada regulations.

Partridge discusses research on the subject by a Trent University professor.

Health Canada’s permissible emission rate, or level of emissions, is 1,000 microwatts per second; Austria regulations prohibit above 0.1, Partridge said.

“If Austria thinks that their population is going to be harmed by levels above 0.1 microwatts per second, that’s good enough for me,” he said.

Electromagnetic radiation can be produced by items such as electrical wires, computer monitors, light bulbs, cellphones, wireless phones and wireless Internet equipment.

Partridge has a cellphone, but says he mostly uses it as an organizer and for text messages.

“I don’t use my cellphone 24 hours a day, and I’m not being hit with this radiation 24 hours a day, whereas with these towers they don’t shut off. They’re constantly emitting this electromagnetic radiation,” he said.

“In the data I’ve read, studies have shown cancer clusters, insomnia, people developing headaches, chronic fatigue, chronic pain.

“Why are we risking exposing residents to this radiation? Why risk it when we’ve got plenty of open land that can be used that’s not sitting in the middle of a residential neighbourhood, close to schools, close to hospitals?”

There are 13 cellphone stations in the city, an Industry Canada online database shows. Several stations share sites - such as at 1925 Television Rd. where both Rogers Wireless Inc. and Telus have stations.

There are cellphone stations in residential areas, such as at 630 Parkhill Rd., just east of Monaghan Road.

There’s one downtown at 212 Brock St.

Valleyview Drive residents may be surprised to learn there’s already a cellphone tower in their neighbourhood.

Industry Canada records show there’s a Rogers Wireless cellphone station at 1757 Parkhill, which is at Crowley Crescent, around the corner from where Partridge lives.

There are more than 1,000 Telus cellphone stations in Ontario and 20 or fewer have been controversial, said James Kennedy, Telus real estate and government affairs manager.

“Telus has its antennas on pretty much every hospital in Toronto, hundreds of residential buildings - completely and totally safe,” he said.

“There is certainly no evidence to suggest in any way that there are health effects from it. In fact, the overwhelming evidence from it is to the contrary.

“There’s a lot of misinformation. The problem is the science just doesn’t back it up.

“And yet the myth continues.”

Radio has been around for more than 100 years, Kennedy said.

“It’s the same technology,” he said.

Telus continues to build more cellphone stations to respond to customer demand.

Kennedy explained Telus expects wireless phones, wireless cable and wireless Internet will replace land lines in the next 10 years.

The tower on Valleyview Drive is scheduled for construction next year, Kennedy said.

The plan needs to be approved by Industry Canada before construction can begin. Kennedy wouldn’t say how far along this application process is or when Telus expects to get a decision from Industry Canada.

Trent University associate professor Magda Havas argues against putting cellphone towers in residential areas.

“They’re harmful to people,” she said.

Havas has been doing research on radiation since the 1990s. She teaches a course on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.

While the cellphone industry respects Health Canada guidelines, the limits are too high, Havas said.

“The problem is Safety Code 6 does not protect public health. That’s based on a whole series of studies that have been done mostly in Europe,” she said.

“What they’re showing is that there’s an increased risk of cancers when you live within 400 metres of a cellphone antenna and there’s increased symptoms of something that’s known as electrohypersensitivity (EHS).”

Havas listed a host of symptoms associated with EHS: insomnia, chronic fatigue, chronic pain, difficulty concentrating, difficulty with short-term memory, for some people their skin reacts with rashes, for some people it affects their eye sight and for some people it affects their hearing and they may get ringing in their ears.

Havas explained Health Canada standards for electromagnetic radiation levels are based on thermal changes to the body - if it doesn’t heat your body by one degree in six minutes, then it’s safe. “You don’t have to have heating, but you could still have a biological effect,” she said.

An international working group of scientists released a report on electromagnetic fields and health last year.

The group found existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.

It refers to scientific evidence, raising concerns about health impacts including childhood leukemia, brain tumours and Alzheimer’s disease.

The report can be found at www.bio-initiative.org

Havas points to the bio-initiative report as one of the documents that supports her research.

Electromagnetic field exposure is getting higher, increasing the number of people who are becoming very sensitive to the emissions, Havas said.

“When it comes to antennas you’re at a much lower level but a much longer exposure with cellphone towers because every time someone uses that cellphone antenna you’re getting zapped to some degree,” she said.”One analogy is if you’re using a cellphone it’s like smoking and if you live near an antenna it’s like inhaling second-hand smoke and we now know that second-hand smoke is harmful.”

Partridge has invited Havas to a neighbourhood meeting so his neighbours can hear about her research and findings.

“The issue is not preventing cell towers from being built,” he said. “It’s being cautious about where they are placed and looking at the science and saying if there’s an opportunity to keep it away from residential neighbourhoods where we will not be exposing people to this issue, then let’s pursue that.”

Source: Peterborough Examiner

Not only does your cell phone emit hazardous microwave radiation that has been linked to brain tumors, now consumers must take into consideration the risk that their cell phone could explode, causing massive bodily injury and, in at least one instance, death.

In South Korea, a 33 year old man was found dead, presumably killed by a cell phone battery explosion, according to police. The cell phone was manufactured by LG Electronics.

According to police reports, “He was injured in the left side of his chest. His ribs and spine were broken. The explosion punctured his heart and lungs, leading to his death.”

This is one of the first reported cases of a death caused by a cell phone exploding, but there have been countless reports of cell phones exploding and causing injury.

A California teen suffered second-degree burns when her her Kyocera Wireless 2325 cell phone caught fire. The 16-year-old girl’s phone burst into “fist-size flames” without warning, fire investigators said.

A 33 year old Dutch woman was injured when her Nokia phone exploded in her hands. Another man received burns on his legs when his Nokia phone exploded in his pants pocket.

The Associated Press reported that a 13 year old California teen, Michael Sathre, picked up his Verizon phone to make a call when it exploded, leaving him covered in blood.

Marecelino Gonzalez, 62, suffered second-degree burns when his Kyocera phone exploded in his hand as he turned it on. “If it was to my face, it would have blown up in my face,” said Gonzalez, who is contacting a lawyer.

A spokesman for the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSP), Scott Wolfson, said, “CPSC is receiving more and more reports of incidents involving cell phones, and we’re very concerned of the potential for more serious injuries or fires.”

Burns to the face, neck, leg and hip area are among the injuries reported to the CPSC by cell phone users. The agency has said it is working with companies to try to create better quality battery standards.

The cell phone industry has blamed cell phone explosions on off-brand batteries (cheaper batteries that are not brand name) and have urged people to purchase their brand name batteries as a safety precaution.

The problem is, cheap batteries might not be the problem in the first place.

While the cell phone industry insists the problem is limited to counterfeit batteries and defective chargers, consumer advocates say that’s by no means proven. They noted that some of the phones which exploded had been purchased a short time before the fires and the owners had never replaced the batteries or modified the phone in any way.

So why are cell phones exploding? One contributing factor might be the quality of wiring used in the phones. Looking to produce cell phones at a greater profit, cell phones are being mass manufactured in China with thinner and cheaper wiring. That, coupled with the fact cell phone batteries can heat up to 600 degrees, might be a contributing factor.

As always with cell phones, exercise caution. If a new cell phone is producing more heat or you are able to feel more radiation coming from it, it might be due to cheaper wiring and you might want to replace that cell phone.

Also, if a cell phone is dropped, exercise more caution as it could affect the inside wiring, making it more susceptible to spontaneous combustion.

A few years ago, the average person had no idea what ‘EMF’ stood for. That has changed. Cell phone towers are everywhere and everyday a new news article warns of the dangers of EMFs.

Now that the term EMF is known to stand for electromagnetic field, it is time to start understanding the different types of EMF fields, which will help in understanding the health threats associated with each.

Firstly, electromagnetic (EMF) fields, both natural and man-made, are present everywhere in our environment but are naked to the human eye.

One of the main characteristics which defines an electromagnetic field (EMF) is its frequency or its corresponding wavelength. Fields of different frequencies interact with the body in different ways. One can imagine electromagnetic waves as series of very regular waves that travel at an enormous speed, the speed of light. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength. (1)

There are natural sources of electromagnetic fields which emanate from the earth. These natural radiations emitted by the earth are beneficial to man and, in fact, are necessary for his survival on the planet.

More natural electromagnetic fields are produced by the local build-up of electric charges in the atmosphere associated with thunderstorms, we see these charges as lightning.

Many of earth’s creatures- such as birds, bees, and fish- navigate according to the planets electrical and magnetic field. In fact, it is the earth’s magnetic field which causes a compass needle to orient in a North-South direction.

There are man-made EMF fields generated by human-made sources.

All electronic devices emit an EMF field. The electricity that comes out of every power socket has associated low frequency electromagnetic fields. Plugging a wire into an outlet creates electric fields in the air surrounding the appliance. The higher the voltage the stronger the field produced. Unfortunately, turning an appliance off does not mean turning off the EMF field. Since the voltage can exist even when no current is flowing, the appliance does not have to be turned on for an electric field to exist in the room surrounding it. (2)

All forms of X-rays emit EMF radiation.

All forms of wireless communication- such as cell phones, cell phone towers, WiFi, radar, TV/Radio Broadcast Towers, satellite systems in space, GPS tracking systems and the dreaded RFID chip-emit EMF fields. But these EMF fields are different. In order to be able to transmit information wirelessly, the waves oscillate at a higher frequency.

Higher frequency radiowaves are known as RF fields (aka Radio Frequency or Radiowaves) or microwave radiation. RF fields are used to transmit information over long distances and form the basis of telecommunications as well as radio and television broadcasting all over the world.

Microwaves are basically RF fields at high frequencies in the GHz range. In microwave ovens, we use the electromagnetic frequencies to quickly heat food at 2.45 GHz (or 2,450 MHz ).

All forms of wireless communication expose those who live or work near these
installations to their RF fields. The RF radiation is able to travel through buildings and can also be conducted along electrical wires or metal plumbing. Some studies have shown RF radiation levels inside buildings to be more concentrated than levels outside due to conduction. (3)

Footnotes:

(1)Biointiative Report, July 2007 by Olle Johansson, PhD from the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, Section 8 pg 7

(2) ” Section 8 pg 8

(3) ” Section 8 pg 9

Phone makers own scientists discover that bedtime use can lead to headaches, confusion and depression.

The research, sponsored by the mobile phone companies themselves, shows that using the handsets before bed causes people to take longer to reach the deeper stages of sleep and to spend less time in them, interfering with the body’s ability to repair damage suffered during the day.

The findings are especially alarming for children and teenagers, most of whom – surveys suggest – use their phones late at night and who especially need sleep. Their failure to get enough can lead to mood and personality changes, ADHD-like symptoms, depression, lack of concentration and poor academic performance.

The study – carried out by scientists from the blue-chip Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University in Sweden and from Wayne State University in Michigan, USA – is thought to be the most comprehensive of its kind.

Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium and funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, representing the main handset companies, it has caused serious concern among top sleep experts, one of whom said that there was now “more than sufficient evidence” to show that the radiation “affects deep sleep”.

The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely the same conditions, but given only “sham” exposure, receiving no radiation at all.

The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one. The scientists concluded: “The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected.”

The embarrassed Mobile Manufacturers Forum played down the results, insisting – at apparent variance with this published conclusion – that its “results were inconclusive” and that “the researchers did not claim that exposure caused sleep disturbance”.

But Professor Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says: “We did find an effect from mobile phones from exposure scenarios that were realistic. This suggests that they have measurable effects on the brain.”

He believes that the radiation may activate the brain’s stress system, “making people more alert and more focused, and decreasing their ability to wind down and fall asleep”.

About half of the people studied believed themselves to be “electrosensitive”, reporting symptoms such as headaches and impaired cognitive function from mobile phone use. But they proved to be unable to tell if they had been exposed to the radiation in the test.

This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has no measurable effects.

A series of them – most notably a recent highly publicised study at Essex University – have similarly found that people claiming to be electrosensitive could not distinguish when the radiation was turned on in laboratory conditions, suggesting that they were not affected.

Critics have attacked the studies’ methodology, but the new findings deal them a serious blow. For they show that the radiation did have an effect, even though people could not tell when they were exposed.

It also complements other recent research. A massive study, following 1,656 Belgian teenagers for a year, found most of them used their phones after going to bed. It concluded that those who did this once a week were more than three times – and those who used them more often more than five times – as likely to be “very tired”.

Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre, says: “There is now more than sufficient evidence, from a large number of reputable investigators who are finding that mobile phone exposure an hour before sleep adversely affects deep sleep.”

Dr William Kohler of the Florida Sleep Institute added: “Anything that disrupts the integrity of your sleep will potentially have adverse consequences in functioning during the day, such as grouchiness, difficulty concentrating, and in children hyperactivity and behaviour problems.”

David Schick, the chief executive of Exradia, which manufactures protective devices against the radiation, called on ministers to conduct “a formal public inquiry” into the effects of mobile phones.

Source: The Independent

Geopathic Stress (areas of the earth where natural earth radiations are altered and become ‘pathogenic’ to living beings) is still considered by mainstream science to be “new age” and a “psuedoscience” despite the fact that an energy grid covering the earth was first identified by researchers in 1937 and then in more detail in the 1950s.

As far back as 1937, it was discovered that the entire earth is covered with two distinct rectangular energy grid systems similar to the man-made lines of latitude and longitude, but with much smaller rectangles. These zones are askew to each other and overlap.

The presence of these radiation lines was first reported to the International Congress on Radio-Biology at Paris in 1937 by Dr. Fr. Pyre of Bolognes de Orne, France. Energies emitted by intersections of these zones with underground flowing water veins are referred to as Geopathic Stress. Living over Geopathic Stress Zones can prevent a good night’s sleep, and can cause stress resulting in hypertension, M.S., cancer, arthritis, and many other serious conditions.

Geopathic Stress Zones have been found to be very harmful to both humans and animals. Studies have shown that patients in hospital intensive care wards whose beds are over Geopathic Stress Zones have a much lower recovery rate than patients whose beds are not.

In the 1950s, two German researchers identified the two grids in greater detail.

E. Hartmann began his research in 1952 of an energy grid whose lines run North-South and East-West. This grid came to be known as the Hartmann Grid.

The Curry Grid system was identified by Hiller, a dowser, and S. Wittmann, an engineer. M. Curry and S. Wittman worked on the correlation of these polarized fields, and Curry published the findings in 1952. The Curry Grid system runs Northeast-Soutwest and Northwest-Southeast.

The ancient art of dowsing can help you determine whether or not your home is over a Geopathic Stress Zone. Visit the American Society of Dowsers to find out more about how to dowse for earth energies.

An article pusblished in the February 2008 issue of Natural Solutions cites an Isreali study which has found a substantial link between cell phone radiation and cellular damage.

“We use them (cell phones) everywhere…And until now, most evidence supported the safety of cell phones. But in a groundbreaking study, researchers in Isreali have found that cell phone radiation does damage the body’s cells.”

“The scientists exposed human cell cultures to radiation with far less power that that in cell phones and it resulted in the formation of free radicals, which activated an enzyme that has been linked to cancer. ”

One of the researchers, Rony Seger, stated that “the significance (of the study) lies is showing that human cells do react to cell phone radiation”.

Despite this type of research evidence, the FDA and the cell phone industry keep reiterating to the public the slogan that there is no evidence that proves radiation from cell phones is harmful.

The article suggests taking precautionary measures when using a cell phone, such as limiting talk time and keeping the cell phone away from your body when not in use.

Sources:

Natural Solutions Magazine, February 2008, “Cellular Damage” pg 15.

As the debate wages as to whether or not cell phone towers emit radiation that is detrimental to our health, the number of cell phone antennas installed on the roofs of buildings without citizens consent continues to grow. Many people, especially in cities, are living in buildings with antennas or next to buildings with antennas…and many are not even aware of it.

Although countless studies have shown a link between cell phone tower radiation and cancer, the government continues to profit from its relationship with the billion dollar cell phone industry and, as usual, the people lose. Here in the United States, there is absolutely no regulation regarding the installation of cell phone antennas on or near schools. In Great Britain, the UK’s Ministry of Health prohibits the placing of wireless transmitters near public schools without advance consent of the parents and teachers after a full technical briefing.

The following is a firsthand account of the installation of five high frequency
wireless transmission antennas directly across the street from PS 122 in Astoria, Queens in New York City and one parents attempt to have them removed.

The following letter was written by concerned parent Maria Gonzalez on January 10, 2005 and is courtesy of EMR Policy.

“I have been a critical care nurse for 24 years, 20 of those as the assistant critical care coordinator for the Surgical Intensive Care Unit and Trauma Center of a major hospital in New York City, St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center. I have seen death in many guises and strongly fear what radiation exposure can do to human cells and the horrible diseases that can result.

At some point around the end of October or the beginning of November, 2004, twelve cell phone antennas were installed on the roof of 21-80 21st Street. This building is located directly across the street from our local elementary school P.S. 122, in Astoria, Queens. Of the twelve antennas, five face directly into the school building. I do not recall the actual installation of the antennas themselves, but several neighbors remember seeing a large truck with a crane and this is how I assume the towers got onto the roof.

One day as I was picking up my daughters after school I noticed an unmarked white truck in front of the building and several workers working on some large cables. I crossed the street and asked them what they were doing and what those things were up on the roof. One of them very clearly and with a bit of annoyance said to me that they were installing “solar panels” and walked away. Other parents also questioned these workers and were told the same thing.

The following week my husband was at the school to pick up the kids and he came home with a flyer that was being given to the parents by a gentleman outside the school. The gentleman worked for Council member Peter Vallone Jr., and the flyer was to inform us that cell phone antennas had been installed at the location I mentioned above and that once they were turned on they would be beaming RF radiation into our classrooms.

I have two beautiful, healthy daughters, ages 7 and 12. Both attend the school and both sit in classrooms whose windows face directly at the Nextel antennas. I am extremely concerned and frightened for the safety and long-term health of my children. I do not want to see one single child harmed by the actions of Nextel.

Council member Vallone has been in contact with the owner of the building. When informed of our concerns, the owner expressed shock and indicated that he wanted no part of anything which could harm children. He is willing to abrogate the contract. Nextel refuses to do the same. I ran into the owner one day and asked him about the antennas and how he could do this with so many children now being placed in harm’s way. I sensed genuine concern on his part. He told me that he did not really know what they were putting up there. He did not know that there is radiation being emitted from these antennas. He has indicated that Nextel did not clearly explain to him the entire situation. He also indicated to me, as he did to Council member Vallone, that he would like to break the contract and have the antennas removed from his building but that Nextel will not allow it. The building owner has hired an attorney to represent him in this matter.

Our school is a wonderful school, it is a blue ribbon school and considered one of the top schools in the city. 1300 students ranging in ages from 4 through 12 years old attend the school. The administration, faculty and staff number over 100. As a result of my initial involvement and strong opposition I have become the school and parent and community representative in this matter. Nextel came into our community and without any notification or discussion chose to place these antennas irresponsibly, in close proximity to our school.

The building on which these antennas are situated is 3 stories tall. Our school is 5 stories tall. These antennas will beam RF radiation directly into our 4th floor classrooms. Our children will be subjected to this exposure for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for many years. Nextel insists the antennas are safe yet can offer no definitive proof. They base their claims on studies which are outdated and which have been funded by the industry itself. Many other studies, especially from abroad, are raising valid and serious issues and concerns about the long term health effects of these antennas. Clearly there is doubt here. In such a situation and especially where it involves children the obvious thing to do would be to exercise caution.

These antennas should never have been placed near the school and they should now be immediately removed. Serious studies need to be undertaken to determine the effects of these towers on human health. These studies will take time and it is totally unacceptable for anyone to think that we will allow our children to be guinea pigs in the interim. Obviously if 5 or 10 years from now it is determined that there is a safety issue it will be too late for children who have been exposed for all that time.

We have presented our arguments to Nextel. They claim to be a good corporate citizen yet they continue with the plan to turn the antennas on in total disregard to the wishes of our community and with no concern for the safety of our children.

They claim to have done everything according to the law. What rights do we as citizens and members of a community have when it comes to the placement of cell phone antennas? Apparently, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts many of the arguments we would make in opposition. New York City has shown no real concern in the proliferation which is now taking place.

First and foremost these antennas must be removed from their close proximity to our children. Then the laws need to be changed and we, as citizens need our rights back.”

Since children are growing, their cells are dividing more rapidly, making them more susceptible to cellular mutations (aka cancer). Children also have thinner skulls, which allows radiation to penetrate the brain more deeply. (1)

Footnotes:

(1) “Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age” by Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, pg 216

by an anonymous ES sufferer known as “ES Engineer”

I used to be sick for a week from riding in a car. I never knew how much was “road fumes” or EMF.  Now I’m getting around much better, even driving to our ski area, 1.5 hours away.  I’m not a wreck afterwards, as long as I avoid nasty places.  Soon the ice will melt and I’ll be a regular commuter to the mountain lakes for kayaking.  I can’t tell you how wonderful this new freedom with my diesel car is.

The gasoline-ignition engine has spark plugs to ignite the fuel-air mixture.  The ignition (spark) system is a tremedous source of broad spectrum (across many different frequencies) radio frequency noise, as well as lower frequency magnetics.  Because of the grounding of the car body, and the use of the car body as part of the electrical system, considerable electrical emissions exist inside the car.  The alternator is a strong source of emissions also, both low frequency magnetics and up to 1 megahertz from the diode (rectification of AC to DC) noise, when charging.  The alternator must be used for normal operations, as the ignition (spark) system requires constant current.  (And frankly, with all that electrical noise from the ingnition system, why not have it on.)

The diesel engine with mechanical fuel injection has no spark plugs at all.  The fuel-air mixture is self igniting (chemical reaction, no electrical spark) from the very high compression.  Thus, the normal operation of the engine does not generate electric or magnetic emissions, and it does not require any electrical energy to maintain it’s operation.

Since the diesel engine does not require electrical power to operate, the alternator is not required, and can be disconnected for normal daily use.  Over 2 hours of headlight operation off the battery is possible, safely, as diesels normally have enormous batteries for cold weather cranking.  Now the only other electrical emissions are the intermittent use of electrical systems such as window motors, etc.  Avoid the use of the air/ fan motors.  Any brushed DC motor is a terrible source of broad sprectrum RF as well as low frequency magnetics.

Mercedes diesel sedans up to 1985 have mechanical fuel injection and are resonably affordable since diesels are not as popular now.  I have a 1985 300D model, with turbocharger.  Turboed engines are often good for 300,000 miles.  Non turbo engines up to 500,000.  The alternator can be disconnected at the passenger side front fender well junction block. Also disconnect the power to the radio, they are a bad source of emissions from the digital display, even when “off.”   Either pull the fuse, or unplug the connection at the radio itself.

YES, I still dread diesel exhaust, and can’t stay behind one on the road.  I keep the engine very clean, repair all leaks in the engine compartment, and keep the windows up until I’m under way.  I’ve read about conversions for running on used fry oil, they say you then smell like a McDonalds! (I’ve no plans for such a conversion.)

Source: ctaz.com