Maine House nixes cell warnings / ILLEGAL TOWERS / Symposium / Expert warning /La Maison du 21e siècle / No science to indicate Harm?

W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
26 March 2010

Maine House nixes cell warnings

(AP) – 6 hours ago

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine House of Representatives has rejected a watered-down version of a bill to require cancer warnings on cell phones.

The original measure sought to require warnings on mobile phones and their packaging that electromagnetic radiation from the devices can cause brain cancer, especially in children.

But with the industry and Gov. John Baldacci opposed to the measure, the bill was scaled back to direct state health officials to add links on their Web site to existing federal cell phone advisories. It also would urge federal agencies to do more research on cell phone use and ask the industry to bolster consumer education on cell phone safety.

The Maine House on Thursday rejected that version.
The bill's prospects in the Senate do not look bright.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILLEGAL TOWERS
1 more sealed, 10 removed

New Delhi, March 18
Hindustan Times

The MCD continued sealing illegal mobile towers in various parts of the city today. In Karol Bagh, while one mobile tower was sealed, 10 towers were removed by cell phone operators. "We sealed one tower today. We will take action on two more towers in Karol Bagh," said D.V. Verma, deputy commissioner of Karol Bagh zone. There are 198 existing cell phone towers in Karol Bagh that have the requisite permission. Next week, the MCD will shift its focus to illegal cell phone towers in South Delhi.

Meanwhile, hearing a petition by Indus Towers, the Allahabad High Court fixed the next date for March 30, and ordered that no lease be cancelled or tower removed in pursuance of notices issued till March 30.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20100319/1065/ttc-illegal-towers-1-more-sealed-10-remo.html
--------------------------------------------
VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_11jWWqtQ

MCD begins sealing of unauthorized mobile phone towers

March 18, 2010

The Municipal Council of Delhi (MCD) Thursday initiated the sealing of unauthorized mobile phone towers in Delhi with Karol Bagh being the first locality to be hit in the process. A look at the top news stories at 10:00 am IST on Mar. 18,'10.

For more news and analysis, log on to

www.zeenews.com

http://mobiles.get-a-free-ring-tone.com/bulletin-1-mcd-begins-sealing-of-unauthorized-mobile-phone-towers-march-18-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28th International Symposium on Man and His Environment in Health and Disease

The Chemical Mechanisms Leading to emf sensitivity

June 3-6, 2010

http://www.aehf.com/symposium_2010/2010Symposium.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2010-03-24, at 18:26, EMFacts Consultancy wrote:

A new Post "#1232: Expert warning on increasing microwave exposures"

From Georgiy Ostroumov:

The most dangerous sources of microwave radiation I should like to tell you about the most dangerous sources of microwave radiation (EMF, RF; electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, high frequency microwave radiation, etc). I am seeing that many people are suffering from microwave radiation but they do not often know about sources (radiating units) of the strong radiation.

Allow me to introduce briefly myself. I live in Kotka,  Finland. I am a radio engineer, Ph.D. in the field of microwave technique. My skills are measurements of microwave radiation and reduction of all radiations (microwave radiations and low frequency fields) from mobile phones. I am electrosensitive.

European Parliament resolution (on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields) was published (2.4.2009). The European Parliament calls on all parties to follow precautionary principle (ALARA- As Low As Reasonably Achievable). The European Parliament has suggested many ways to reduce exposure of the general public to microwave radiation. It was planned for full frequency range up to 300 GHz. How are the plans being carried out?

The joint statement from the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities (exposure of the general public to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields) was quickly published (16.11.2009). It was done only for radiofrequency range from 10 MHz to 2,500 MHz (2.5 GHz). There is such opinion in the statement:"

According to measurements performed in all the Nordic countries exposure of the general public to these background fields is typically far below 1/100th of the exposure limits. The Nordic authorities therefore at present see no need for a common recommendation for further actions to reduce these radiofrequency fields."

The Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities referred to the exposure limits of the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection).

By the way, we know exposure limits, which are far below 1/100th of the exposure limits of the ICNIRP.  The joint statement is a half-truth.

Let us say whole truth about microwave radiation.

I can speak to you only about Finland. Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) says itself that the background fields are up to 1/1000-1/200th of the exposure limits of the ICNIRP in some living places. It means 4,500-22,500 µW/m2.

Moreover, STUK recently evaluated background fields as 1/42th of the exposure limits (in Turku). But many independent researchers say that a safe level is only up to 100 µW/m2(indoor). Thus those background fields should be reduced essentially. A safe level of the background fields for mobile communication should be within the limits of 0.1 and 10 µW/m2. It is ALARA-principle for mobile communication (in this case all base station radiate as low as possible and so do all mobile phones).

The Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities said:"If the number of fixed antennas is reduced, mobile phones will need to use higher power to maintain their connection, thereby the exposure of the general public may increase". That needn't be so. For example, the European Parliament urges the authorities responsible for authorizing the siting of mobile telephony antennas to reach agreement, jointly with the operators in that sector, on the sharing of infrastructure, in order to reduce the volume thereof and the exposure of the public to microwave radiation.

Is it enough? I should give you my examples.

Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities should carry out at least their own suggestion ("The Nordic authorities wish to emphasize the fact that to reduce the total exposure received by the general public from wireless communication systems, it is necessary to carry out integrated planning that takes into account radiation emitted both from fixed antennas and hand-held devices such as mobile phones.").

It is very important because of strong radiation emitted fixed antennas of microwave units (see below). I have to emphasize the fact that the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities inform correctly about this problem. But they had better do correctly something. What am I speaking about? The STUK is the leading organization in the Finnish project COSMOS (cohort study of mobile phone use and health). As many as 30,000 persons were engaged in this study. Unfortunately there are not any measurements of the radiation emitted from fixed antennas in the Finnish project. Thus this long-term (at least for 10 years) study is entirely wrong.

But allow me to tell you about the greatest danger. Why did the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities speak only about radiations (background fields) in the radiofrequency range  from 10 MHz to 2.5 GHz? I have measured all background fields in frequency range from 1 MHz to 7 GHz with spectrum analyzer in my bedroom. Total radiation in frequency range from 1 MHz to 5 GHz is about 400 µW/m2. Total radiation in frequency range from 5.725 GHz to 7 GHz is about 130,000 µW/m2. It means already 1/77th of the exposure limits. Moreover, I measured radiation in this frequency range in other places of some towns.

Levels of the radiation were 200,000-2,000,000 µW/m2 (1/50th-1/5th of the exposure limits).

Individual unit radiated strongly for a long time! How about total exposure in those places? Such bad situation is typical for the towns of South Finland.  Thus long-term radiation (the background fields) in the frequency range from 5.725 GHz to 7 GHz is doing ecological catastrophe in many towns of Finland.

Exposure of a user to this radiation is as dangerous as exposure of the user to radiation from his or her mobile phone! Just imagine!  That is why, it is important to carry out measurements of all background fields (microwave radiations emitted from all fixed antennas) when health of mobile phone users is studied.

I did not measure all radiations in frequency range from 5 GHz to 5.725 GHz because of radars. I cannot calculate exactly total exposure in this frequency range because the radars emit strong short pulses for the time being. By the way, weather radar radiation (peak) in my bedroom was 230,000 µW/m2 (distance is about 30 km! Frequency range is 5.5-5.65 GHz). The weather radar irradiates accidentally neighboring towns too. Perhaps it is dangerous.

There are many various radiating units in the frequency range from 5.725 GHz to 7 GHz. But the most dangerous units for general public are microwave radio relay links and terrestrial base stations for satellite communication. These units irradiate people mostly because of inappropriate installation of antennas. Our predecessors installed the antennas chiefly out of the towns on high masts (70-100 m). Some years ago situation was changed. The antennas are being often installed in the towns on shorts masts (15-30 m) at present. In this reason exposure of the general public to microwave radiation is increasing dramatically.

Both radio relay links and terrestrial base stations work in frequency range above 7 GHz too. (Who would calculate correctly total exposure to radiation for whole frequency range? No one from the Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities can do it at present.

According to the ICNIRP, correct value of exposure is only SAR (Specific Absorption Rates-basic restriction quantity) in frequency range up to 10 GHz. Of course, one can use the other value-power density (reference level quantity) in this frequency range, but it does not matter. Correct value of exposure is only power density (basic restriction quantity) in frequency range above 10 GHz.

Thus one has total exposure in whole frequency range (both below 10 GHz and above 10 GHz), but one has no any possibility to calculate correctly level of danger! Of course, both all ecological organizations and some countries, as well as I, have always measured power density only).

Please note, that radio relay links, terrestrial base stations for satellite communication and radars may have different frequency ranges in various countries. For the most part microwave radio relay links should be replaced with optic fiber and/or free space optic.

These radiations could be reduced to zero without any technical problems. By the way, booth optic fiber and free space optic often are more cost-effective than microwave radio relay links are.

All strong radiations should be reduced significantly because exposure of the general public to these background fields is typically far above 1/100th of the exposure limits. Level of these radiations might be reduced to 10 µW/m2. Fortunately there are few living places with strong radiations in the radiofrequency range from 10 MHz to 2.5 GHz in Finland. Unfortunately there are many towns with strong radiations in frequency range above 5.725 GHz in Finland. How about your countries? We are all in trouble, I am afraid.

Thank you for your attention.
Georgiy Ostroumov

P.S. I and my friends had sent our notes about radiations to blogs of the STUK, afterwards the blogs were removed at all! Nevertheless one can read our notes, including the STUK censored blogs (mostly in Finnish) at Link:

http://beyondcreativity.blogs.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dossier exclusif Printemps 2010 "La Maison du 21e siècle" :

"Les Québécois, champions des cancers liés à l'électrosmog"

http://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/Canada.php#1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think there's room in this for reasonable scientific discussion." Iseman replied.

"There is no science to indicate that there is any harm," Egly retorted,

New Cell Tower Site Approved

Laguna Beach Independent

Grad also noted that numerous studies available on the worldwide web review the risks of exposure to radiation emitted from cell-phone towers. ...

http://www.lagunabeachindependent.com/news/2010-03-26/Front_Page/New_Cell_Tower_Site_Approved.html

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

To Members of the Maine Legislature / Cell Tower in the Bell Tower / brain tumor spreads

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News

26 March 2010

The Science and Public Policy Institute

24 March 2010

To Members of the Maine Legislature:

My name is Dr. George L. Carlo, and I am Chairman of the non-profit Science and Public Policy Institute based in Washington, D.C. Since 1993, I have overseen the world's largest research effort regarding the safety of cell phones. Support for this work has included $28.5 million from the mobile phone industry itself, with oversight by a specifically impaneled U.S. Government Interagency Working Group, and independent peer review coordinated through the Harvard University School of Public Health. My training in epidemiology, medical science, pathology and law, as well as seventeen years of experience as an independent leader in the cell phone regulatory, scientific and public policy world, give me a uniquely informed perspective on cell phone safety and cell phone dangers.

From this perspective, I was shocked today to learn of the outright misrepresentations and misstatements of fact now being propagated by the cell phone industry to convince you to vote against the legislation offered by Representative Andrea Boland (D-Sanford). Her bill would allow for an informational label to be affixed to all cell phones sold to uninformed consumers in your state. This misleading and factually inaccurate industry driven information is being carried on the website of the CTIA, the primary industry trade group as well as other individual company websites. There is no doubt that you also have been visited by cell phone industry lobbyists, laden with neat packages of data that weave a fabricated story also aimed at manipulating your vote.

To be sure, the minority report that has been forwarded to you from your Health and Human Services Committee presents a legislative action that is necessary to protect the citizens of Maine.

While Maine is the first state where such important consumer protection steps would be taken upon passage of the bill, it will not be the last. This type of legislation is now slated for introduction in federal and other state legislatures, bolstered by the need for such steps once government leaders are clear about obvious facts that create public health vulnerabilities among more than 280 million Americans, including children and pregnant women in Maine. These citizens believe that government entities such as yours are protecting them – an expectation that is both reasonable and responsibly mandated by the oaths attendant to elective public office.

The relevant facts are these:

• Cell phones were first introduced into U.S. commerce in 1984. However, unlike all other radiation emitting devices, cell phones were exempted from pre-market safety testing, the regulatory and legal requirement that ensures only safe products make it into the U.S. marketplace. At that time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is the safety authority with jurisdiction over cell phones, accepted that the evidence proffered by the industry derived from microwave oven studies, would suffice as definitive proof of consumer safety. Thus, the affirmative duty of the cell phone industry to directly prove safety prior to marketing was sidestepped. That error in judgment by the FDA in 1984 set in place a cacophony of misguided regulatory, legal and political moves that have had deleterious impact on hundreds of millions of U.S. consumers – if only because they erroneously believe they are being protected when in fact they are not. And, if the dire predictions from emerging science regarding brain cancer and other cell phone related health effects prove true, it is an error that has already cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. The legislation being considered in Maine is a critically important step to stop that bleeding.

• While the collusion of the mobile phone industry and partnered government authorities including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has created what amounts to an immensely confusing scenario for you to sort through, you can be sure that the profit motives of the industry propagate misinformation that is prevalent in cell phone advertising, company websites, package inserts, owners manuals, trade association propaganda and government agency assertions. Thus, the informational label you are being asked to vote on is necessary for practical reasons – it is source of truth that your citizens deserve.

• In addition, the facts suggest that the warning label is a legal imperative. In both our federal and state legal systems, it is not the responsibility of consumers to prove that cell phones are dangerous in order to elicit protective measures from government and industry. The product liability litigation and the regulatory systems underscore that the legal, moral and ethical burden of proof has been and continues to be on the cell phone industry to guarantee that their products that have been introduced into commerce are safe. To this point in time, the cell phone industry has failed to meet their burden of safety proof on any count. In fact, existing data show danger, not safety.

• During the 1990s', the program I headed which was funded by the mobile phone industry was intended to fill the safety study data gaps caused by the FDA's error of omission in 1984. Our work was specifically designed to meet all FDA standards for safety studies, including Good Laboratory Practices and other assurances of scientific rigor. As such, that work remains the only legitimate safety data on cell phones upon which a direct safety assessment can be made. Among the more than fifty studies completed in our program, were results indicating: genetic damage in human blood exposed to cell phone radiation; more than a doubling in the risk of rare neuro-epithelial brain tumors among cell phone users compared to non-users; and a statistically significant correlation between the side of the head where cell phones are used and the location of tumors among cell phone users. Any one of these findings, had they been completed in the context of mandated pre-market testing prior to 1984, would have prevented cell phones from making it into the market place. At the conclusion of the program in 1999, we recommended to both the cell phone industry and the FDA that a safety warning, similar to that now being proposed in Maine, be issued to cell phone users. No government or industry protective steps were taken.

• The FDA has continued to fail in its duty to protect consumers from cell phone dangers. Historically and presently, the FDA refuses to demand both that cell phones undergo safety testing prior to marketing and that the industry look for health problems post-market among cell phone users. Post-market health data collection is standard practice for manufacturers of all other radiation emitting devices. It appears that the FDA is not seeking these data because it lacks the political will to recall or ban cell phones that pose dangers. At any point, the FDA can exert its authority and require that protective steps be taken. However, if the FDA's history on cigarette regulation is any gauge – the time lag between the Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packs in the 1960s and the FDA's first real regulatory action taken in 2009 was more than fifty years – consumers will be left unprotected and on their own for many years to come. The Maine informational label gives consumers a necessary interim remedy.

• The FDA has de facto abdicated its consumer safety responsibility regarding cell phones to the FCC, an agency with no statutory safety authority. While the FCC has the duty to ensure fair and balanced use of the airwaves, the Congress has never seen fit to empower the FCC with safety duties. Even under its far-reaching 1996 revisions to the Telecommunications Act, the Congress limited the FCC authority to publishing emission guidelines that companies must meet in order to obtain a license to sell specific phones. That testing for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is done by the industry itself with results submitted to the FCC on a voluntary and selective basis. The FCC does no post-market field-testing to ensure that those emission guidelines are met after phones are put into commerce. The 'honor system' is in place with the 'fox guarding the henhouse' for all practical purposes. Most importantly, however, is that the FCC's emission guidelines are not predictive of consumer safety. Promulgated in 1996 for digital phones and in 1997 for all other wireless devices, the emission guidelines are based on thermal data (harkening back to the microwave oven studies of the 1980s) and have been widely dismissed by the public health community as having no relevance to the pathological mechanisms through which cell phones do their damage.

• The cell phone industry has failed to do its legal duty in proving safety and the federal regulatory system has failed and continues to fail consumers by succumbing to constant industry political pressure.

• Further, the courts have weighed in as well. A series of recent appellate court decisions in both federal and state courts, including a decision by the United States Supreme Court refusing to grant certiorari in a petition brought by the cell phone industry to bar state court actions for cell phone dangers against the industry, has directed that states should address the issues of cell phone safety on their own. There are at least six cases active in the United States where claims of cell phone caused brain cancer are being adjudicated. Therefore, the informational label legislation proposed in Maine is directly in line with what the courts have decided regarding the appropriate division between federal and state responsibility in assuring safety among cell phone users.

Representative Boland is a courageous and thoughtful legislator who has gone where many other politicians in the United States can be expected to go over the next year. She has identified a problem, cut through the morass of confusion surrounding it, and has offered a practical solution that will protect the unprotected in your state. The informational label proposed in the bill you are considering should be a 'no-brainer'. It simply seeks to level the playing field for your citizens, so that they can make informed decisions about their health and the health of their families regarding cell phone devices devoid of necessary safety proof.

I would be happy to discuss and provide support for any items raised in this letter.

Sincerely yours,

G. L. Carlo
Chairman
The Science and Public Policy Institute
The Institute for Healthful Adaptation
Washington, D.C.
571-277-1332
866-620-4459

Cell Tower in the Bell Tower

Church Cell Tower Meeting
WXXA

"Cell phone towers should not be placed near schools, residents where children live. We don't know exactly what the level of the hazard is but we should ...

See the news video -

http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Church-Cell-Tower-Meeting/CLOn9iwYRkCZC3CPQqHDdw.cspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eleanor Mondale's brain tumor spreads

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/87623247.html

WCCO Radio host Eleanor Mondale is embarking on a new round of chemotherapy after an MRI scan showed her brain cancer has grown.

A message Sunday on Mondale's CaringBridge website says the scan at Mayo Clinic in Rochester showed her tumor "has made some small inroads."

Mondale, the daughter of former Vice President Walter Mondale, was found to have brain cancer in 2005, and had a recurrence in 2008. She has been on leave from WCCO since last year.

Mondale, 50, has previously treated her cancer with chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Her CaringBridge site says in addition to the new round of chemotherapy starting Tuesday, further surgery is an option as well.

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