W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
16 April 2010
Gulf Islands Driftwood (BC Canada)
Letter - Exposure to radiation
http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/letters/90845404.html
Published: April 14, 2010 10:00 AM
The comment under my photograph in last week's Salt Spring Says was in response to a question that a reporter asked people outside the library. ("Are you concerned that Wi-Fi in the library would have health risks?")
I was told that in the new library, computers might be connected by Wi-Fi, a type of radiation, rather than cables. The question was about the significance of exposure to radiation. It is difficult to express serious thoughts in a spontaneous one-sentence answer. So I hope a more detailed answer may be helpful.
Disabilities by injury or diseases are usually felt when they occur, and most such disabilities are temporary. Most radiation exposure has the opposite effects. Nothing is usually felt at the time of exposure. Radiation enters the brain, but it never disappears. So each person's radiation exposures are cumulative in their effect.
In 1975, the Science Council of Canada created a Committee to report on five toxic exposures, one being radiation. I was appointed to serve on the committee. The other members were senior scientists. Their knowledge was supplemented by scientific specialists in radiation who provided evidence at our regular meetings in Ottawa. If I remember correctly, the conclusion of the committee in 1977 was that the effects of radiation exposures are cumulative in creating the risk of brain damage. Since then, there have been major increases in radiation exposures, and in the types of radiation.
I have not kept up-to-date in reading medical journals, but I read two summarizing news bulletins, and I have not noticed any relevant change in knowledge of the risks.
If I understand correctly, Wi-Fi (like cell-phones) has not been out long enough for any comprehensive research on the significance of its radiation. However, a quick look online shows that some research has been done. One example is a study concluding that Wi-Fi radiation kills brain cells.
Regarding the possibility of Wi-Fi radiation in the new library, the marketing of new types of equipment that are simple to use, and the lack of any noticeable harm, do not strike me as a good reasons for increasing our risks of brain damage.
Terence G. Ison,
Salt Spring
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW and IMPORTANT BOOK
Electro sensitivity and Electro hypersensitivity - A Summary by Michael Bevington
Michael Bevington, Chair of Trustees of ES-UK, has written a 43 page book designed primarily for doctors, but also suitable for all of us to present to family, friends, colleagues and MPs, among others.
It outlines ES, its symptoms and existing medical tests in 16 pages followed by some 800 references to scientific papers relating to this illness.
There are two purchasing options for you to consider:
1. £10 donation payable to ES-UK, which will buy a physical copy of the book and which will be mailed to you.
2. £5 donation, which will buy you a PDF file of the book
Either make payment via the ES-UK web site internet donation button at www.es-uk.info and send a confirming email with your preferred mailing address details, to media@es-uk.info.
Or please mail a cheque payable to ES-UK for £10.00 with your own personal address details to:
REF: BOOK
BM Box ES-UK
London WC1N 3XX
UK
Sarah Dacre
sarah.dacre@gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel bans the iPad in clash on wireless frequency standards
Customs officials said Thursday they already have confiscated about 10 iPads since Israel announced the new regulations this week
Jerusalem — The Associated Press Published on Thursday, Apr. 15, 2010 8:55AM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Apr. 15, 2010 3:25PM EDT
Israel has banned imports of Apple Inc.'s AAPL-Q hottest new product, the iPad, citing concerns the powerful gadget consumes too much capacity on wireless networks and could disrupt other devices.
Customs officials said Thursday they have already confiscated about 10 of the lightweight tablet computers since Israel announced the new regulations this week. The ban prevents anyone — even tourists — from bringing iPads into Israel until officials certify that they comply with local transmitter standards.
"If you operate equipment in a frequency band which is different from the others that operate on that frequency band, then there will be interference," said Nati Schubert, a senior deputy director for the Communications Ministry. "We don't care where people buy their equipment. ... But without regulation, you would have chaos."
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission allows Wi-Fi broadcasting at higher power levels than are allowed in Europe and Israel — meaning that the iPad's stronger signal could throw off others' wireless connections, Mr. Schubert said.
The iPad combines the features of a notebook computer with the touch-pad functions of the iPod. It went on sale in the U.S. on April 3. Apple this week delayed its international launch until May 10, citing heavy sales in the U.S.
Israeli officials said the ban has nothing to do with trade and is simply a precaution to assure that the iPad doesn't affect wireless devices already in use in Israel.
Although Israeli standards are similar to those in many European nations, Israel is the only country so far to officially ban imports.
Mr. Schubert said he expects the problem to be resolved as Apple moves closer to the international release.
In the meantime, confiscated iPads will be held by customs — for a daily storage fee — until their owners depart the country or ship the gadgets back to the U.S. at their own expense.
Apple's chief distributor in Israel, iDigital, declined to comment on the Communications Ministry's decision, and a message left at Apple's headquarters in California was not immediately returned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents fight phone tower near school
The children and parents of Rainworth Primary School at Bardon, Brisbane (400 pupils), have been protesting for the last six months over plans by Telstra to put up a mobile phone tower 170 metres from the school.
They've organized themselves into a determined and vocal group, setting up a website (http://notowersnearschools.com) and they're not afraid to take on the giant Telstra.
Telstra claims there is no conclusive scientific evidence that the towers pose a health risk.
The group has established a legal fighting fund, which currently stands at $15,000.
The parents would like not just to prevent their own tower being built but they are also demanding legislation, to protect residential and school zones from having to live next to a mobile phone tower.
"Until scientific studies prove 3G EMR is safe, mobile phone towers should be kept away from community-sensitive locations, such as schools," the website states.
The group has already enjoyed some success, winning an interim order against Telstra, which told the company they couldn't go ahead with constructing the tower on December 22 last year.
Last week, Telstra made another submission to the courts, saying they still want to go ahead as soon as possible
A final decision is expected in March.
Telstra have recently claimed that the 'professional facilitators' have been brought in to escalate the protest.
A similar battle took place in Summer Hill, NSW, over the last few months, however Telstra is forging ahead despite the opposition and will begin construction of a tower 70metres from a child care centre this week.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Brian Lehrer Show: Electro-Magnetic Field Manual – WNYC
Electro-Magnetic Field Manual. Thursday, April 15, 2010 ... and don't know about the health effects of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and wi-fi. ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reader Commentaries:
Cell Phone Sites and the Politics of Cancer
By Harry Brill
Thursday April 15, 2010
The French Hotel and Cafe on Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley has agreed to allow the installation of ten cell phone antennas on its roof. Most of those who work there will not in the short run feel any different, and those who do, perhaps by experiencing headaches, fatigue, or poor concentration, are unlikely to attribute it to the electromagnetic emissions. The same applies to the many cafe customers for whom it is a second home. Since these rays are invisible and silent, they can be easily ignored. In the long run, however, the emissions will not ignore them.
The combined power and influence of government and the private sector have subjected the members of the public to a major assault on their health. For a long while, the federal government claimed that exposure to asbestos and cigarettes were safe. The belated public recognition that these are carcinogenic has unnecessarily cost many lives and much human suffering. Now the mythology is that the current level of emissions are safe persists despite plenty of solid evidence to the contrary.
The history of this official betrayal began in 1996, when the 104th Congress and President Clinton bowed to a multimillion dollar campaign by approving the notorious Telecommunications Act.
Passed overwhelmingly by both the Democrats and Republicans after only 1 1/2 hour debate in each house, its purpose was to remove any serious obstacles that could frustrate the interests of business. This incredibly undemocratic law effectively eliminates the legal rights of the public to oppose the installation of cell phone sites on environmental and health grounds. Both state and local government are prohibited from adopting emission standards that would be safer for the public than the very inadequate and dangerous levels set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). So by law, for example, presenting evidence of substantial cancer rates among those living near cell towers is prohibited.
As the risks of exposure to electromagnetic radiation were already suspected, Congress and President Clinton should not have ignored these warnings. In fact, just a few months before the bill was passed a Senate committee held hearings about cancer among law enforcement officials who use traffic radar guns. A few years earlier a congressional committee, responding to media publicity on the cancer risk among cell phone users, also held hearings.
Had the legislation mandated the safest possible levels of emission, it would certainly not have been a death blow to the industry or its ability to earn a profit. In some countries, the level of emissions is set hundreds of times lower than in the United States. But safer standards would entail additional costs, which the industry is committed to avoiding.
What the deregulatory Telecommunications Act of 1996 accomplishes most of all ,then, is to expose the public to the highest level of emissions to assure the industry the highest rate of profit. Indeed, the institutional obsession with profit maximization explains why we lack clean air, clean water, and more generally, a green environment.
Since the Telecommunications Act passed, more evidence has emerged about the dangerous consequences of electromagnetic radiation. Yet Congress has failed to revise the legislation.
Consider the following. In the German city of Naila a study found that those who reside within a radius of two-tenths of a mile from cell towers were three times more likely to develop various cancers than those living further away. Breast cancer topped the list. In a neighborhood in Tel Aviv, the incidence of cancer was quadruple for residents living near a cell tower. Children are especially vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation. Their rate of leukemia due to cell site exposure is twice the average for children living further away. Generally, the risk of cancer appears to be related to the proximity of residents to cell sites. In an apartment building in London, the rate for those living on the top floor, right below the cell site, was 10 times higher than the average for the City.
In the U.S. the emission level is set by the FCC. The problem, however, is that FCC is regulated by the industry. Rather than protecting the public, the FCC serves to insulate the industry from public interference. This is not surprising since many of its employees are either past or future employees of the industries over which they have oversight. It is as if the FCC is a subsidiary of these corporations.
Like the air we breathe, the hazards of electromagnetic radiation are difficult to avoid. There are almost 2 million cell sites and antennas in the U.S. and these numbers are growing rapidly.
Among the reasons that we are unaware of the high density is because more than a fourth of those installed are camouflaged. As the newsletter EM Watch notes, cell phones are installed inside chimneys, church steeples, and even on trees and flagpoles. Also, some gas stations and tombstones accommodate antennas. Cell towers and antennas are also being installed on top of buildings and schools. The fees that some property owners are tempted with apparently outweigh any concerns they may have about the health risks of those who occupy these properties and who live in the neighborhood. But not only businesses are tempted by the industry.
In El Cerrito, a neighborhood is battling against the installation of a 77 foot transmission tower in a boy scout camp close by. The camp would receive $2,200 a month.
There is an upside to the prevalence of cell phone sites. The very large number of individuals and families from diverse social and economic backgrounds creates a tremendous potential for mass based organizing that addresses the assault on our health and well being. Not least, it is an issue that an alert, well organized public can prevail.
Those of you who are interested in learning about the density of cell site radiation in your neighborhood should access the following web address: www.antennasearch.com . Then type in your address and follow through. Be prepared for an unpleasant surprise on the extent to which you and your family are being bombarded. Then share the information and your concerns with neighbors.
Encourage both neighborhood and inter-neighborhood meetings to discuss how best to confront the outrage. By ignoring or making light of the problem, we have much to lose. Fortunately, there is a growing awareness of the risks of electromagnetic emissions. By acting together, we have much to gain, including our right to live a life that is not cut short by the narrow selfish interests of corporate America.
Web site www.weepinitiative.org e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org
To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution
