O2 criticised for "sneaking through" mast application in Bushey
5:30pm Monday 29th December 2008
Filip Hnizdo, The Watford Observer
Residents in Bushey have criticised a mobile telephone network for "sneaking through" a mast application before Christmas.
A public consultation regarding O2's application for a communications mast in green belt land by Elstree Road started at the end of November and ended on Boxing Day.
Residents concerned about the impact the mast will have on their lives suggested the consultation was intentionally run during a time when many people were on holiday.
O2 communications manager Jim Stevenson strongly denied this saying the application had been ongoing since the start of the year and that the date of the consultation was unintentional.
Almost 50 people have signed a petition against the application, a previous version of which was refused by Hertsmere Borough Council in August.
Melanie Keaney, of Elstree Road, who spearheaded the campaign against the network, said the mast would be an "eyesore" similar to another mast in the nearby Spire Bushey Hospital, and a potential health hazard for residents.
The 38-year-old said: "We used to think lead was safe and smoking was something it was ok to do. Masts haven't been around long enough for us to know what they do.
She added: "There is certainly the feeling that they did try to sneak it through during the holiday period."
Regarding the health risk, Mr Stevenson said: "Nothing has come out of any theory that says it will cause harm to anyone. There is no scientific evidence at all to support the claims and all of them have been very strongly researched and tested."
After reading these comments, Henrik Eiriksson of www.mast-victims.org an "international community of people suffering adverse health effects from masts and antennas in the vicinity of their homes", dismissed them as "completely untrue".
He said: "If you examine the World Health Organisations research database you will find that 80 per cent of studies on people living near mobile-phone masts show harm to health and quality of life of." These alleged effects include "horrifying" reports of brain cancer, headaches and ear-ringing.
Regarding the damage to the green belt Mr Stevenson said the new design of the mast was thinner than the previous design in order to minimise its impact on the environment.
He added that the mast was necessary because of new housing developments in the area and would improve many residents' mobile phone reception.
He invited anyone with any concerns or comments to get in touch with O2.
The petition against the mast can be viewed and signed at www.gopetition.com/online/23976.html
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:35 PM
Subject: O2 phone mast at Bushey
The Watford Observer
30 December 2008
Re - http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/localnews/4008289.O2_criticised_for__sneaking_through__mast_application/
I have just read your story about the proposed O2 phone mast in Bushey and have written to support the information provided by Henrik Eiriksson.
I am a former photographer with the Watford Observer, having worked there during 1974 and 1975, prior to emigrating to Canada and joining the Toronto Police Service. My time at the newspaper was very enjoyable and I often wonder about the friends I met and worked with.
After retiring form the Toronto Police I became ill from exposure to electro magnetic pollution and developed a condition known as electro hyper-sensitivity. This means that I become ill if I am exposed to electro magnetic radiation from devices including cell phones, cell phone antennas, WiFi etc.
I am a founding Director of WEEP - (The Canadian initiative against) Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution. Our organization raises awareness of electrical pollution issues, suggests safety measures and helps many persons who have been harmed by electro magnetic radiation.
The statement in your story about health risk, made by O2 communications manager Jim Stevenson is most disturbing, he is quoted as saying - "Nothing has come out of any theory that says it will cause harm to anyone. There is no scientific evidence at all to support the claims and all of them have been very strongly researched and tested." .
His statement appears to be a lie, which needs to be exposed to your readership. It is very easy to determine that his information is false, by going to the Bio Initiative Report at http://www.bioinitiative.org/ and viewing the vast amount of scientific research which show serious harm to health caused by electro magnetic radiation.
At the end of this message I have attached scientific information from the late Dr. Neil Cherry. This will give you a good understanding about the real dangers of microwave radiation which is used by cell phones and cell phone antenna masts. I hope that you are able to share this with Watford Observer readers.
Please give my best wishes to anyone who who may remember me, from working at the Observer.
Cancer Epidemiology:Increase the incidence of many types of cancer, including leukaemia, brain tumor, testicular cancer, genitourinary and breast cancer, Robinette et al. (1980), Milham (1985, 1988), Szmigielski (1996), Hocking et al. (1996), Dolk et al. (1997 a, b), Beall et al. (1996), Grayson (1996), Thomas et al. (1987), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Zaret (1989), Davis and Mostofl (1993), Hayes et al. (1990), Tynes et al. (1996), Cantor et al. (1995), and many others.
These biological and health effects are consistent with the biological understanding that brains, hearts and cells are sensitive to electromagnetic signals because they use electromagnetic signals for their regulation, control and natural processes, including those processes monitored by the EEG and ECG. There is overwhelming evidence that EMR is genotoxic, alters cellular ions, neurotransmitters and neurohormones, and interferes with brain and heart signals, and increases cancer.
Cell Phone Radiation Research:
For years the cell phone companies and government authorities have assured us that cell phone are perfectly safe. For example, they claim that the particular set of radiation parameter associated with cell phones are not the same as any other radio signal and therefore earlier research does not apply. They also mount biased review teams who falsely dismiss any results that indicate adverse biological and health effects and the flawed pre-assumption that the only possible effect is tissue heating. There is a very large body of scientific research that challenges this view. Now we have published research, primarily funded by governments and industry that shows that cell phone radiation causes the following effects:
Neurological Activity:· Alters brain activity including EEG, Von Klitzing (1995), Mann and Roschkle (1996), Krause et al. (2000). · Disturbs sleep, Mann and Roschkle (1996), Bordely et al. (1999). · Alters sleep EEG after awake exposure, Huber et al. (2000).
Alters human reaction times, Preece et al. (1999), Induced potentials, Eulitz et al. (1998), slow brain potentials, Freude et al. (1998), Response and speed of switching attention (need for car driving) significantly worse, Hladky et al. (1999). Altered reaction times and working memory function (positive), Koivisto et al. (2000), Krause et al. (2000).
· Brain cortex interaction as shown by significantly altered human EEG by cellphone radiation, during a 15 minute exposure, Lebedeva et al. (2000).· Weakens the blood brain barrier (p<0.0001): Persson, B.R.R., Salford, L.G. and Brun, A., 1997.
· A Fifteen minute exposure, increased auditory brainstem response and hearing deficiency in 2 kHz to 10 kHz range, Kellenyi et al. (1999).
· While driving, with 50 minutes per month with a cell phone, a highly significant 5.6-fold increase in accident risk, Violanti et al. (1996); a 2-fold increase in fatal accidents with cell phone in car, Violanti et al. (1998); impairs cognitive load and detection thresholds, Lamble et al. (1999). In a large Canadian study Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) the risk of collision when using a cellphone was 4 time higher, RR = 4.3, 95%CI 3.0-6.5. Calls close to the time of collision has RR =4.8 for 5 minutes and RR = 5.9, p<0.001, for 15 minutes.
· Significant changes in local temperature, and in physiologic parameters of the CNS and cardiovascular system, Khdnisskii, Moshkarev and Fomenko (1999).
· Causes memory loss, concentration difficulties, fatigue, and headache, in a dose response manner, (Mild et al. (1998)). Headache, discomfort, nausea, Hocking (1998).
Cardiac Activity:· Cardiac pacemaker interference: skipped three beats, Barbaro et al. (1996); showed interference, Hofgartner et al. (1996); significant interference, p<0.05 Chen et al. (1996); extremely highly significant interference, p=0.0003, Naegeli et al. (1996); p 0.0001, Altamura et al. (1997); reversible interference, Schlegal et al. (1998); significantly induced electronic noise, Occhetta et al. (1999); various disturbances observed and warnings recommended, Trigano et al. (1999)
· Significantly increases blood pressure, Braune et al. (1998).
· Reduces the pituitary production of Thyrotropin (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, TSH):
· Reduces melatonin significantly, Burch et al. (1997, 1998). A GSM cellphone reduces melatonin, but not significantly in a very small sample (N=18) of subjects, de Seze et al. (1999).
· A reported but yet to be published Australian Study, EMRAA News, June 2000, used a Clot Retention Test on blood samples to detect hormonal changes. A group of 30 volunteers used a Nokia 6150 cellphone for 10 minutes on each of two consecutive days. The CRT test showed significant changes in the thyroid, pancreas, ovaries, testes and hormonal balance.
Reproductive Activity:· Decreases in sperm counts and smaller tube development in rat testes, Dasdag et al. (1999).
· Increases embryonic mortality of chickens, Youbicier-Simo, Lebecq and Bastide (1998).
· Breaks DNA strands, Verschaeve at al. (1994), Maes et al. (1997), which is still extremely significant p 0.0001, at 0.0024W/kg (1.2 m W/cm2), Phillips et al. (1998)
· Produces an up to three-fold increase in chromosome aberrations in a dose response manner from all cell phones tested, Tice, Hook and McRee, reported in Microwave News, March/April 1999. The findings were the same when the experiment was repeated and Dr Tice is quoted as stating: "There's no way you're going to get positive results twice over four different technologies as a chance result."
· Doubles c-fos gene activity (a proto oncogene) for analogue phones and increases it by 41 % for digital phones, Goswami et al. (1999), altered c-jun gene, Ivaschuk et al. (1997), Increased hsp70 messenger RNA, Fritz et al. (1997).
· Increases Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNK), Fesenko et al. (1999).
· Increases ODC activity, Penafiel et al. (1997).
· DNA synthesis and cell proliferation increased after 4 days of 20 min for 3 times/day exposure. Calcium ions were significantly altered, French, Donnellan and McKenzie (1997). Decreased cell proliferation, Kwee and Raskmark (1997), Velizarov, Raskmark and Kwee (1999)
· Doubles the cancer in mice, Repacholi et al. (1997).
· Increases the mortality of mobile phone users compared with portable phone users, RR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.07-1.79, p=0.013, Rothman et al. (1996).
· Increases human brain tumor rate by 2.5 times (Hardell et al. (1999)). Associated with an angiosarcoma (case study), Hardell (1999)
·Hardell et al. (2000), for analogue phones OR = 2.62, 95%CI: 1.02-6.71, with higher tumour rates at points of highest exposure.
· Significantly increases the incidence of eye cancer (Uveal Melanoma), by between OR = 4.2, 95%CI: 1.2-14.5, and OR = 10.1, 95%CI: 1.1-484.4, Stang et al. (2001).
· United States, Motorola Study Morgan et al. (2000)
High Exposure RR = 1.07 (0.32-2.66) n = 3
Moderate Exposure RR = 1.18 (0.36-2.92) n = 3
High/Mod vs Low RR = 1.13 (0.49-2.31) n = 6
This project underestimated cancer rates by using a high cancer reference group.
· Carlo and Schram (2001) report that in the industry funded WTR (Wireless Technology Research) programme Dr Joseph Roti Roti confirmed the Tice, Hook and McRee research showing that cellphone radiation significantly damaged DNA through observed micronuclei formation.
· Muscat et al. (2000) report elevated brain cancer in cellphone users in the United States, with cerebral tumors occurring more frequently on the side of the head where the mobile phone had been used, (26 vs 15 cases, p=0.06) and for a rare brain cancer, neuroepitheliomatous, OR = 2.1, 95%CI: 0.9-4.7. Mean use of cell phones was 2.5 years for cases and 2.2 years for controls, showing that a small increase in cellphone use (0.3 years) produces a large increase in brain cancer risk.
· Cell phone users in Denmark Johansen et al. (2001)
Duration of digital subscription <1 yr 1-2yrs ³ 3 yrs
Relative to reference group SIR 0.7 0.9 1.2
Relative to <1 yr group RR 1.0 1.29 1.71
Other cancers are set out in "Table 2" below. Over 67 % of phone users had used their phones for 2 years or less. The reference group had a higher than average cancer rate than the age range of cell phone users, underestimating the cancer rates. This is shown by Standard Incidence Ratios (SIR) of some groups being as little as 0.6. For example SIR for users for <1>Table two shows that even with little cellphone use, and even with the use of a high cancer reference group, there areseveral elevated cancers approaching significance: Testicular cancer SIR = 1.12, 95%CI: 0.97-1.30, Cervical cancer, SIR = 1.34, 95%CI: 0.95-1.85, Female Pharynx cancer, SIR 2.43, 95%CI: 0.65-6.22, Esophagus cancer, SIR = 1.53, 95%CI: 0.31-4.46 and female breast cancer, SIR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.91-1.26.
Conclusions:To date (2001) over 50 studies have shown adverse biological or human health effects specifically from cell phone radiation. These research results to date clearly show that cell phones and cell phone radiation are a strong risk factor for all of the adverse health effects identified for EMR because they share the same biological mechanisms. The greatest risk is to cell phone users because of the high exposure to their heads and the great sensitivity of brain tissue and brain processes. DNA damage accelerates cell death in the brain, advancing neurodegenerative diseases and brain cancer. Brain tumour is already an identified risk factor. Cell phones are carried on people's belts and in breast pockets. Hence liver cancer, breast cancer and testicular cancer became probable risk factors.
Altered attention and cognition, as well as the diversion of talking on a phone while driving is a significant risk factor for accidents and fatal accidents.
Some cardiac pacemakers are susceptible to active cell phone signals, recommending keeping cell phones away from hearts and pacemakers.
Because the biological mechanisms are shown and EMR has been observed to significantly increase the following effects, there is extremely strong evidence to conclude that cell phones are a risk factor for breast, liver, testicular and brain cancer. It is also probable that we will observe a very wide range of other effects including cardiac, neurological and reproductive illness and death. Since cell phone radiation cause many cell damages including DNA and chromosome damage, all of these effects will also be caused by cell sites.Dose-response studies of neurological, cardiac, reproductive and cancer effects in human populations all point to a near zero exposure level of no effect, Cherry (2000). Since cellphone radiation mimics RF/MW radiation effects which mimics ELF biological and health, the adverse effects occur across the spectrum and includes cellphone radiation, with a safe exposure level of zero.