Posted by inthesenewtimes on September 6, 2009
172 Common Road
Kensworth Dunstable Beds.
I thank you for writing to me last year. In looking back through my correspondence, I noticed something in your letter of 27th October 2008, which I need to question. You say, "— the occurrence of those symptoms is driven by the perception of exposure and not by a biological interaction of RF radiation with the human body." By that, I presume you mean, that symptoms are only experienced because people are afraid that emissions from masts will harm them – your presumption that this was the case in Kensworth is incorrect!
How can you say that perception of exposure caused the above symptoms, when not one of us had any knowledge of the evidence (none of which I was to find until well into 2002, after I was told that residents had been ill since the mast was put up!). This is the countryside and the area affected is quite attractive – our sole objection was that there was quite enough street furniture in front of homes and we did not want any more!
A petition was sent in protest against the erection of the Orange mast here in late 1999. In spite of this, the local Council's refusal of the mast was over-ridden and the mast was activated on Sept. 1st 2001. None of us had the slightest inkling that there might be any danger from the mast – indeed, I was addicted to my mobile phone and wondered what on earth could be the problem when (in spring 2002) a neighbour asked me if I knew that people by the mast were 'being ill'. When I investigated, I found the symptoms, which I now know are found near masts all over the world (worst of all in America [Where Wi-Fi is in the streets!] and Canada [permitted levels 1000uW/cm2 [microwatts], where emissions have been around for longer.) British permitted levels are 450 microwatts, as you know – but in the Salzburg Resolution – with responsible Government – 9 countries- 19 scientists – permitted levels are 0.1 microwatts.)
It was not until 2004 that I realised that the handsets themselves were also dangerous –I then stopped using my mobile phone – except for long car journeys in case I had a breakdown so that I could call the AA. The phone was off all the time and luckily never had to be used.
Neither the residents affected nor myself knew anything about the emissions from masts. It was within the last two years that Barrie Trower informed me that radar; X-rays; EMR; ELF; 3G;Tetra and Wi-Fi etc were all different aspects of microwaves – until then I had been very puzzled that so many different things could cause the same problems.
Apparently, the moment the mast was activated, one man had a stroke (and a second after the mast was reactivated after being off during April 2002) and several of the residents up to 40 metres from the mast began to suffer insomnia, headaches, nausea and dizziness, which are the most common symptoms. Insomnia is the most debilitating and wearying, as it goes on night after night. In one home, the owner, Alan Brooks (14 metres from the mast) was unable to sleep in any of his thee bedrooms from the moment the mast was activated – unless it was deactivated or the beam was moved (this happens – I have checked with my detector!). He is still sleeping on the floor at the back of his lounge – his house is now un-saleable and he cannot afford to move.
The Bishuns, next door, could not use their front bedroom or lounge – still only one bedroom is usable, Mrs. Bishun uses that, and her son tries to sleep in the other with difficulty. In 2001 Mrs. Bishun's 4 year-old granddaughter suffered severe nose bleeds and earache for which the doctor could find no cause. The child had never suffered this previously, and when the family (Mrs.Bishun's daughter and two grand daughters whose council house had been vandalised, which was why they were staying with the grandmother) were re-housed in Dunstable, her symptoms ceased immediately!
The main symptoms experienced:-
Insomnia and headaches; nausea and dizziness; earache and tinnitus; nose-bleeds, raised blood pressure and strokes; sore, bloodshot itching eyes; extreme thirst – plus ulcerated mucous membrane in mouth and throat; (also two pets developed cancer)etc.
These residents had lived in Kensworth for years – some of them for their whole lives – without experiencing any such symptoms! I think you would have 'perceived' such invasive and debilitating symptoms had they suddenly appeared in your home Professor Coggan!
On the first occasion I spent time in the Fensomes' house (looking over the replies to her appeals regarding the mast), when we had finished and I was about to go home – we walked forward to the kitchen, when I unexpectedly experienced two symptoms which had been felt by Ella and her husband Brian. The first was sudden, fierce pressure on my eardrums. I stopped, queried this, and Ella said they felt not merely 'pressure', but severe earache. On walking into the kitchen, there was a sudden constriction/irritation in my throat, and I lost my voice. Hoarsely I said, 'I've got a sore throat – is this what happens to Brian?" Ella replied that when Brian went into the kitchen he lost his voice completely. Through the kitchen window I could see the mast – 14 metres from the house.
I experience symptoms – not only in Kensworth, but in multi-story car parks with masts atop; near the fire station in Dunstable by the traffic lights – before the fire-station was relocated, and in Houghton Regis shopping centre –overlooked by a huge mast on a building about 30 metres away etc. etc.
The first peer reviewed evidence I saw was Prof. Gerard Hyland's findings re symptoms and was amazed that symptoms in Kensworth so closely resembled those mentioned by him – that worst affected were:-
The very young.
The very old.
Those who spent most time in the houses affected – and
that symptoms ceased when people left the area and returned when they came home.
The Government of Taiwan destroyed 1,500 masts, which had caused similar health problems to those above. It is a pity that our own Government and protection agencies do not display the same sense of responsibility.
Why will our protective agencies not investigate these symptoms? Dr. Neil Cherry told us they are the proof that microwave emissions cause damage to our bodies. I noted that the following also determine who suffers and where will be the most debilitating symptoms:-:-
the orientation of our homes to the beams emitted.
the position of seating arrangements; beds/pillows relating to the beams (e.g. readings of 2.0V/m were found on one pillow on a double bed but nil on the other pillow! This explains why a husband could have insomnia whilst his wife slept well – or vice-versa (ditto, cancer of the brain). Steve Cutler was sitting right in the microwave beam until I advised him to move his chair. His walking problems have lessened since then.
the age of the person affected – young children are extremely vulnerable due to thin skulls and physical immaturity (NB the increase in Lymphomas (brain cancer) in young addicts to mobile phones (-also proved in 1997 by Michael Repacholi to be caused in rodents when their heads are irradiated with microwave emissions). Chromosome/DNA damage has been noted in some cases and sterility in males. The foetus in the womb is extremely likely to suffer damage to DNA, and there has been an increase in autism and ADHD in very young children.
Worsening of existing health problems etc etc.
In fact, investigation is unnecessary, as there is a plethora of peer-reviewed proof, which is being ignored completely, cruelly and deliberately – including the symptoms. The cancer clusters near masts; the increase in autism and Alzheimers and the list of recognisable symptoms as above!
I know the symptoms are real, as I feel the nausea and dizziness and pressure in my ears in the homes affected; near masts when walking in towns – and along the motorway whilst driving past masts. I find it impossible to linger in PC World if I go to buy ink. In strange places I know when there are emissions, because I can feel them – I felt them in my cousin's house the first time I visited – and before I knew they had a Dect phone and Wi-fi. Whilst not expecting any effects from Wi-Fi other that the usual ones – I suffered palpitations in bed next to the upstairs office, and had to leave the bedroom and sleep on the sofa downstairs!
Our bodies are full of electricity – messages travel along nerves via electrical impulses – of course these emissions affect us! The reason why there are so many symptoms, is because individual cells become aware of the message-carrying, pulse – modulated/ RF waves and protect themselves with impermeable membranes which cut them off from communication with the incoming radiation – but unfortunately also from vital communication with other cells. These cells are still alive and continue to develop – that, to me (and for the respected scientists from Russia (Yuri Gregoriev); America (Dr. George Carlo; Allan Frey; Milton Zaret), (Henry Lai); Britain (Prof. Hyland; Prof. Goldsworthy); Australia (Dr Neil Cherry), Toronto Trent Univcersity Magda Havas (No Wi-Fi in schools!) etc. etc.etc. is the perfect explanation for the development of cancer and tumours in association with RF emissions!
I refer you also to Dr Neil Cherry's 'EMR reduces Melatonin in Animals and people, which I found early on in my investigations, and is a report on the epidemiological studies in Schwarzenberg which proved that the Transmitter was making people ill and resulted in the Government turning off the Transmitter for good! Please find enclosed a report by (retired) Professor Andrew Goldsworthy –still associated with Imperial College.
This is an appalling situation. I am told that the new smart-metres which are to be foisted upon us are very dangerous; Wi-fi is already loose amongst us, has given my friend's husband a heart attack, and knocked her unconscious in the street in Wales amongst houses riddled with Wi-Fi and having Wi-Fi hubs. The wife of one man with masses of EMR including Wi-Fi in his house, has multiple sclerosis, and I know of four people at least who have lost the use of limbs in association with emissions. But enough! I could write hundreds of pages of proof. The proof is out there.
I am told by experts that Fibre Optics is the way to provide a Telecommunications system in order for it to be safe and fit for purpose. In fact, Sir Richard Branson is already using it in London and Manchester! People should be told to be very careful with their phones until the Fibre Optics system is in use everywhere. It will take a long time in the present financial situation, but it must be done to prevent the current health problems.
With very best wishes,
George Hooker Nigel Cridland
Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Operational Protection Department
Hazards HPH Radiation Protection Division
Department of Health Centre for Radiation, Chemical and
520 Wellington House Environmental Hazards
133-155 Waterloo Road Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RQ
London SE1 8UG
Professor David Coggon
MRC Epidemiology Centre
University of Southampton
Southampton General Hospital
To: Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: 2 radio towers
another tv station coverage of same event
Komo 4 news
Subject: 2 radio towers in Washington state toppled
This just came out.
KIRO TV has a story on this with videos and more -
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
Scientists at odds over Chernobyl's legacy
5 Sep 2009
The Vancouver Sun
BY SANJIDA O'CONNELL
Wildlife has returned but some scientists report genetic mutations among the birds and animals in the area contaminated by nuclear accident
'We walked out into a wasteland, grey and desolate. The buildings had deteriorated, windows had been smashed. Trees and weeds had grown over everything: it was a ghost town."
It reads like a passage from a post-apocalyptic novel, such as Cormac McCarthy's The Road; in fact, it's how Tim Mousseau describes his first visit to Chernobyl.
In 1999, this professor of biological sciences from the University of South Carolina travelled to the site of the world's most horrific nuclear accident, with Anders Moller, an ornithologist and evolutionary biologist from the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris.
Their research has sparked an intense controversy over the effects of radiation on humans and animals — one which they hope their latest trip into the fallout zone, which sets out in two weeks, will help to resolve.
The basic facts of Chernobyl are well known. At 1.23 a.m. on April 26, 1986, reactor number four at the Soviet nuclear power plant ( sited in modern-day Ukraine) exploded, after an electrical test went horribly wrong. The radioactive material released was hundreds of times greater than the fallout over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, polluting about 207,000 square kilometres of land across Europe and spreading radioactive rain as far as northwest Ireland.
In the wake of the accident, more than 300,000 people were removed from the area and an 2,000-sq.-km exclusion zone was created around the reactor.
Yet recently it has been reported that the abandoned town of Pripyat has become a wildlife haven. There have been sightings of wolves, bears and moose wandering through the deserted streets, and swifts swoop round abandoned office blocks.
The implication is that if wildlife can return so soon, nuclear radiation — and nuclear power — might be less dangerous than has been suggested.
James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory, has written that the natural world "would even welcome nuclear waste as the perfect guardian against greedy developers — the preference of wildlife for nuclear-waste sites suggests that the best sites for its disposal are the tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by hungry farmers and developers".
According to a UN report in 2005, long-term cancers caused by Chernobyl will eventually kill about 4,000 people: an alarming total, but less than predicted.
In fact, in an age of dirty bombs and nuclear proliferation, Chernobyl functions as a grim experiment into the consequences of extensive nuclear fallout. Although radiation levels have dropped significantly over the 23 years, there are still "hot" regions.
Mousseau says that the most contaminated areas measure 300 microSieverts per hour on the Geiger counter, the equivalent of 1,200 times normal radiation levels, or 15 times as much as a chest X-ray.
"Long-term exposure would be deleterious," he adds drily.
The real problem, however, is environmental contamination of radionucleotides, cesium, strontium and plutonium, which have half-lives of 30,000, 29,000 and 24,000 years respectively. Since this means that over that time period, these chemicals will decay to half their previous concentrations, they will contaminate the land for centuries.
"What you need to worry about is eating the food, because ingestion is the main way that one becomes exposed to radiation poisoning here," says Mousseau.
And despite the stories about nature thriving in the Chernobyl area, Mousseau is not convinced.
The first discovery that he and Moller made was that birds in the fallout zone were suffering increased levels of genetic mutations.
The pair examined 20,000 barn swallows and found crippled toes, deformed beaks, malformed tails, irregularly shaped eyes and tumours.
Some birds had red plumage where it should have been blue, or blue where it should have been red.
Thanks to the contamination of the food supply, bird species have declined by more than 50 per cent in high-radiation areas. Only a fraction of the swallows are reproducing and of those that do lay eggs, only five per cent hatch. Fewer than a third of birds survive to become adults.
Mousseau and Moller hope to confirm that these abnormalities are genetic by examining the swallows' sperm.
One of the pair's most interesting findings, outlined in a paper last year, is the connection between antioxidants, radiation and plumage colour: In other words, birds with the brightest plumage are more likely to die.
The explanation is simple. In humans and birds, antioxidants help to quash the effects of radiation.
"Birds that migrate long distances and have bright plumage, such as swallows, have a very high metabolic rate and produce a lot of free radicals as a byproduct, which damage their tissues," says Mousseau.
"They then use stockpiles of antioxidants in their blood and liver to offset this potential damage. Females allocate large amounts of antioxidants to their eggs, which is the reason why the yolk is bright yellow."
But at the end of the birds' migration route, their energy reserves need to be replenished. " What appears to be happening is that in highly contaminated areas, they simply can't do this."
As a result, swallows and great tits are unable to maintain their bright plumage and channel sufficient antioxidants into their eggs, and few chicks hatch.
The insects that they feed on are suffering, too. In the most contaminated areas, there are fewer butterflies, bumblebees, grasshoppers, dragonflies and spiders.
"The fact that insects, including pollinators, are sensitive to elevated contaminants has a significant impact on the rest of the ecosystem," says Mousseau.
It seems like a portrait of an ecosystem in crisis — so how have other scientists reported the opposite?
Robert Baker and Dr. Ronald Chesser, from Texas Tech University, conducted their own study, published in the journal American Scientist in 2006: "We were surprised by the diversity of mammals living in the shadow of the ruined reactor only eight years after meltdown."
Their long-term studies contradicted those of Mousseau and Moller, describing the region as "thriving," with a wild boar population 10 to 15 times higher in the exclusion zone than outside. They also failed to find any type of elevated mutation rate, or evidence that survival among animals living around Chernobyl differs from those in clean environments.
" Chernobyl is not a lunar landscape," says Mousseau. "You can hear birds and mammals, spot the occasional wolf and fox, there are trees and plants — so it's not a complete desert. The reason for this misunderstanding is because there is a quiltwork of contamination, so you could have lots of organisms in one area, and none in another. To a trained biologist, though, it's very obvious."
Those are fighting words — particularly as both teams will shortly publish papers about mammals in the region that have diametrically opposed results.
For his part, Chesser says: "I think that the discrepancy between our work and that of Moller and Mousseau stems from their inattention to details. I will go no further than that. I have no doubt that our work is accurate."
Mousseau is equally forthright: " I'd rather avoid discussing specifics of their work, but no other folks apart from us have been rigorously counting organisms and measuring their distribution and the background contamination. Their work is based on anecdotes."
Regardless of who is right or wrong, there is another tragedy here. Mousseau has started working with the Hospital for Radiation Biology, in Kiev, on a long-term study of humans who live in the area: more than 11,000 adults and 2,000 children in the Narodichesky region, 80 km from Chernobyl.
Mousseau says that the incidence among locals of cancer, birth defects and reduced lifespan is alarmingly high.
"There is a growing mountain of information that all points to significant consequences to the human population of chronic radiation exposure," he warns. "What will be the consequences for the children of these children?"