Jan.Clark@legislature.Maine.gov
Dear Maine Legislators
Thank you for considering the Cell Phone Warning Bill HP 1207, LD 1706
http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280035199
I strongly encourage you to pass this bill and to do everything in your power to warn the citizens of Maine about the known consequences of exposure to electro magnetic radiation.
There are good reasons to believe that electro magnetic radiation is the worst environmental health threat that the world has known. Unfortunately we will only know that for sure, in several years time and by then warnings and action may be to late.
Please examine the scientific evidence which warns of the great danger that we all face, and make a decision based on that evidence. Please do not be fooled by unscrupulous research that has been sought and paid for by the industries that make huge profits from emitting electro magnetic radiation.
I have attached one scientific document, an extract from the Polish Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology (Szmigielski, S), published by Pub Med. This study shows a huge increase in cancer to the persons who were exposed to radiofrequencies and microwaves during their military service. These are the same frequencies that our families are now being exposed to each day.
Yours sincerely
Martin Weatherall
Co Director WEEP
www.weepinitiative.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed power line would run from New England through New York
Sunday, February 28, 2010 1:54 PM
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3903604
Source: Connecticut Post) By John Burgeson, Connecticut Post, Bridgeport
Feb. 28--BRIDGEPORT -- An Ontario-based company has announced plans for a major $3.8 billion, 355-mile transmission line that would link New York City and southern New England with Canadian hydroelectric and wind power sources. The line would be installed mostly under major bodies of water, including Lake Champlain, the Hudson River and Long Island Sound, terminating in Bridgeport.
The company behind the project is Transmission Developers Inc., also known as TDI.
Save the Sound, the environmental group that successfully fought the proposed Broadwater liquified natural gas pipeline in 2008, said it will meet with TDI next week before deciding on whether to oppose this idea, too.
"We haven't seen any of the details yet so we can't say how we would think about the project just yet," said Leah Schmalz, Save the Sound's director of legislative and legal affairs. "We're looking forward to sitting down with developers to hear how they chose the path that they've chosen."
TDI said that the 2,000-megawatt line would be less than 6 inches in diameter. One megawatt can supply about 1,000 homes with electricity, so this line could, in theory, could supply about 2 million homes. There are about 1.5 million homes in Connecticut, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Unlike most high-voltage transmission lines, it would use direct current instead of alternating current, so as not to generate possibly harmful electromagnetic fields, often referred to as EMF radiation.
The power would primarily come from new hydropower and wind generation projects being developed in Canada, TDI said.
At the line's termination in Bridgeport, a converter station would be built to change the direct current to alternating current,
One of the company's high-voltage, direct-current cables is already in place under the sound, between Shoreham, L.I., and Norwalk. Others are in place between the United Kingdom and France, and between Italy and Greece, and several other places around the world.
"We see ourselves as building part of America's new super-transmission highway," said Donald Jessome, president and CEO of TDI, in a prepared statement.
TDI said that it hopes to complete the line by 2015.
"There's been no permit filing made here with our department as yet," said Phil Dukes, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Utility Control. He added that DPUC officials have sat down with TDI planners to go over the project.
"There are a lot of proposals to bring power to the region, which is likely to result in lower-cost power to Connecticut," Dukes said. "But a lot of these projects are a long way to coming to fruition."
The line would almost completely avoid the use of overhead power lines. It would mostly be buried under water beds, using a water jet as a trench-digging device, which the company said has a minimal impact on the environment.
The trench would be only a few inches wider that the cable itself, and it would be about 3 feet deep. TDI said that after the cable is buried, it's almost impossible to tell where it's located.
Still, part of the line's route in the bed of the Hudson River would skirt the part of the river near Albany, so as not to disturb buried PCB sediment there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tooth Enamel to Gage Radiation Exposure
Teeth carry a record of our past experiences
By Tudor Vieru, Science Editor
February 27th, 2010, 07:35 GMT
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Using-Tooth-Enamel-to-Gage-Radiation-Exposure-136139.shtml
According to investigators, human teeth are extremely sensitive to recording information about past experiences we may have encountered, in the sense that they store data on the environmental pollution and radiation levels we came across at some point in our lives. Knowing this, a group of researchers is currently working on developing an advanced method of deriving these dataset from our teeth, in manner that could yield results which are usable in practical applications. They say that this line of study also has tremendous implications for national security.
Team members from the new initiative say that enamel – the hard layer covering the outside of our teeth – can store radiation readings with great accuracy. They add that devising a way of understanding them could provide emergency responders with methods of determining precisely how much radiation a certain individual was exposed to, for example in the case of a dirty bomb explosion. "Dental enamel is quite a remarkable material. There's a world of information in the tooth," Howard University in Washington College of Dentistry professor Barry Pass says, quoted by LiveScience.
The expert and his team are currently working on developing a new technology, called Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR), which could basically assess the levels of free radicals inside materials such as enamel. These substances are atoms with an extra, unpaired electron, which tend to be in the habit of replenishing their pairs by stealing electrons from healthy tissue and DNA. This makes them very damaging to healthy tissue, but they are also produced in specific amounts when a person is exposed to radiation. Therefore, they can accurately be used as a marker to gage the degree of exposure a certain individual has had.
"These free radicals are generated in proportion to the radiation exposure. The absorption of microwave energy is proportional to the concentration of these free radicals," explained Pass earlier this month, at the meeting of the American Physical Society, held in Washington, DC. He added that the team's new method relied on bombarding a small sample of tooth with microwave radiation. Apparently, free radicals absorb wavelengths in this particular region of the electromagnetic spectrum. "Ideally what we want for rapid triage is something that's non-invasive. You want to be able to get unambiguous data so you can triage or break down the victims into subclasses. You want to be able to operate in a variety of environments by minimally-trained individuals," he concluded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are We Expecting Too Much of Ofcom?
Extract from Ofcom's official website: What is Ofcom? Ofcom is the communications regulator. We regulate the TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms and mobiles, plus the airwaves over which wireless devices operate.
We make sure that people in the UK get the best from their communications services and are protected from scams and sharp practices, while ensuring that competition can thrive. Ofcom operates under the Communications Act 2003. This detailed Act of Parliament spells out exactly what Ofcom should do. The Act says that Ofcom's general duties should be to further the interests of citizens and of consumers. Meeting these two duties is at the heart of everything we do. Accountable to Parliament, we are involved in advising and setting some of the more technical aspects of policy, implementing and enforcing the law. Independent of Government, our decisions and advice are not swayed by party politics, which allows us to act solely in the interest of citizens and consumers.
http://www.Ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/3Glicences/3Glicences/
1.8 We are asking stakeholders to consider the following questions when responding to this consultation:
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not grant the request to vary the five Wireless Telegraphy Third Generation Mobile Licences by increasing the permitted maximum in-band EIRP to 68dBm as soon as practicable? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not also apply the increased permitted maximum in-band EIRP to future 2 GHz MSS/CGC licences? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Such a request for information seems like a straightforward, honourable and reasonable position to take. Participation by 'stakeholders' - those who have something to gain or lose, is granted to all comers, for free. On the face of it, the consultative processes may seem like democracy in action.
But there is another interpretation: Yet more of our 'inalienable' right to unpolluted living space is about to be taken from us, and those with the power to do it are granting us the opportunity to express our opinion, to 'get it off our chest', as it were.
There are a number of reasons why consultation 'rights' might be granted:
· It makes the organisation asking appear fair and reasonable.
· It defuses opposition and protest.
· It divides and conquers (views flow into organisations, decisions flow out).
· It allows people with little or no power to believe they have some influence.
· It allows a gullible public to believe their rights are being treated with respect.
· It allows the recipients to 'weigh the evidence' according to their criteria.
The organisation offering the 'consultation' naturally cannot promise any particular action in response to concerns expressed as they do not know in advance what those views will be. They are nevertheless often the sole arbiter of which views are represented and what weight is given to them - they also control what data is published and when.
· The consultative process relies on those being consulted believing that their views may have a beneficial influence.
· Consultation takes the anger, force and motivation out of opposition. It provides a wall against which to throw sand.
· It provides insight into detail, strength of feeling and likely opposition.
· It buys time during which implementation plans can be fine-tuned to minimize the cost of adverse reactions.
· It provides apparent legitimacy for the chosen course of action.
Anything you get for free has got to be of questionable value. Being given the opportunity to express ones views, to defend one's rights, by those who have the power to remove them, is a free opportunity that does not come without cost. After a suitable delay, expect a statement to the effect of: "All stakeholders have been given the opportunity to express their views and all submissions received by the deadline have been considered."
Freely handing over one's thoughts is a matter of trust. For many, Ofcom, particularly by its continued slavish adherence to the ICNIRP standard and its enthusiastic support for digital roll-outs, has failed to demonstrate that it is an official branch of this government that warrants the trust of those made ill by the technologies they promote.
Submissions which fall broadly in favour of the published plan may suggest additional business opportunities and will surely point to advantages of the plan which may be promoted to those less convinced by its benefits. Submissions broadly against the plan allow arguments to be identified and counter-arguments to be developed, disseminated and practiced.
Ofcom are not there to protect the public's health. There is nothing in their statement about safety and deciding on 'citizen's best interests' covers a multitude of sins. Delivering willing and reassured consumers to the incredibly powerful and influential telecommunications industry seems a plausible explanation. But why should such an outrageous thing be allowed to happen, especially regardless of the consequences suffered by some people? Never mind the billions of pounds/dollars/euros/yen that smooth the process, Governments cannot achieve sufficient intelligence information to counter terrorism without the support of the telecommunications companies. Our collective security is unfortunately now dependent on a dangerous and unequal alliance between Government and Very Very Big Business.
But people will say things like:
"If we don't tell Ofcom our views when they do ask, how will they know what we want? Ofcom will say we don't care and go ahead anyway."
What is the point of telling Ofcom our views if we are not convinced Ofcom or the Governments 'technology partners' will not simply use our input to legitimize their actions? Is the mobile mast power upgrade a 'done-deal' and is public consultation merely 'window dressing'? Why should the disenfranchised have any influence now when they have had precious little before?
If these words are representative of wider feelings, they may resonate with EMF Refugees across the world. Perhaps others will be inspired to share their otherwise private submissions with a wider and perhaps more receptive audience.
Does Ofcom deserve our respect and trust? Do we believe in its objectives? Do we support what it says it stands for? Do we feel our elected officials and unelected representatives who nonetheless speak and act on our behalf and with our authority, do we believe them to be smart, well-informed and influential enough to do us justice and safeguard our wellbeing?
1. Sufferers of EHS are reeling under the onslaught of wireless-radiation that by Ofcom's authority they are now subjected to, everywhere they go. Unprecedented in the history of the planet, never before has so widespread, constant and untested wireless technology been unleashed on the whole ecosystem without adequate oversight and controls.
2. The UK Government, through Ofcom, has allowed, indeed encouraged everyone's forced participation in the biggest uncontrolled biological experiment since the Nazi's. Ordinary people who are unable to tolerate even the present level of these now ubiquitous emissions are losing their jobs, their homes, their opportunities - their lives. They have no access to medical and dental care, their ability to travel is curtailed, they are forced into isolation. Their rights are quietly being stripped from them.
They have become outcasts and refugees in their own homelands. In short, like the polar bears, wolves and the American Indians, they are quietly having their habitats taken from them under official sanction. It is already a scandal. It is obscene that this intolerable situation is being promoted under official acquiescence. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate this process and should not be allowed. The people at Ofcom should be ashamed to be associated with enabling such a power increase.
3. Mobile phone radiation was not safety tested before it was let loose on the public. It is now impossible to conduct case controlled studies into its biological effects. There are now no un-irradiated individuals, animals or plants, let alone bees. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate the damage being done and should not be allowed.
4. Mobile phone base station emissions in our collective environment do not exist in isolation. They are part of the cacophony of digital signals to which we are now all subjected. Until it is known why they and other forms of man-made digitally pulsed microwave radiation makes some people sick, allowing an increase in radiated power is dangerous, irresponsible and should not be allowed.
5. Incredibly, Ofcom does not know how much digitally pulsed microwave radiation is emitted from all the transmitters on the masts to which it, on the Government's behalf, grants licences. Ofcom does not ask the operators and the operators are not obliged to provide information on the number of individual transmitters or their antenna gain in any particular direction. Even if Ofcom did know, because each licence application is considered in isolation, they have no idea of the total emissions from any given mast, rooftop or other installed facility.
6. Even if Ofcom conducts measurements, it is clear to those adversely affected that in the digital realm, gross power levels are an inadequate metric for assessing biological effects. Indeed Ofcom do not appear empowered to consider biological effects, deferring to other equally complicit organisations such as ICNIRP, the UK's Health Protection Agency - HPA and The World Health Organisation - WHO to cover their ignorance, lack of remit and lack of influence.
7. Even if Ofcom had all of the information believed lacking, they have no way of factoring in all the other exposures to which people are subjected as they go about their normal daily business. Digital Terrestrial TV - DTV, Digital Audio Broadcasts - DAB, satellites, airborne radar and HAPS to name but a few. Wireless alarm systems, leakage from microwave ovens - the list goes on and on, never mind those ignorant or foolhardy enough hold mobile phones to their heads. Where is precaution in any of this? Until more is known about the now undeniable adverse biological effects of pulsed digital microwave radiation and other forms of man-made electromagnetic radiation, increased signal strengths from mobile phone base stations should not be allowed.
8. This Government and Ofcom are subservient to, and slavishly compromised by the ICNIRP standards which allow blanket exposure based on gross analogue power levels, taking into no account the non-thermal effects of digital signals. Increased levels of digitally pulsed mobile phone base station microwave emissions should not be allowed.
9. Britain, like the rest of the world has allowed itself to be swept up on a wave of technological advantage with scant regard for the health consequences. Ofcom have been instrumental in that process. A public health tsunami of unimaginable consequence is building.
So if you wish to participate in Ofcom's 'consultation' and share your thoughts with them, go right ahead.
A similar 'consultation process' was enacted in Sweden in 2000. It took years for all the data to eventually surface, and then only because a few enlightened dedicated people made it happen.
If you want to know how others might feel about an increase in licensed mobile phone base station power, you have only to consult Black On White, the testimony of over 400 Swedish people whose lives have been destroyed by electromagnetic radiation.
It is available as a free download from http://www.feb.se/feb/blackonwhite-complete-book.pdf As for being out of date, it is even more relevant now than it was in 2000.
Ofcom have given us the spur on which to collect our thoughts. Please use this opportunity to share them with the rest of the world who are watching from the wilderness.
Submitted by Richard Love
