Sunday, October 18, 2009

News from New Zealand / Its happening in Ireland

News from New Zealand
From: Sue Grey []
Sent: Friday, 16 October 2009 11:53 a.m.
To: ''Subject:
Local Government and Environment Select Committee Presentation by TCF yesterday

 Dear Richard

I was in attendance at the LG&E Select Committee hearing yesterday morning where you presented on behalf of the Telecommunication Carriers Forum (with Paul Leslie from Telecom and Andrew Cushin from Vodafone).  

During your presentation I understood that you said that your members (which include Telecom, Vodafone, Kordia and Whoosh) are not qualified to write the law or rules but their role is to follow the various rules and regulations including the RMA, the NES and District Plans and the standards and guidelines which set the minimum standards for emissions etc.

 I think you referred to the NZStandard 2772:1 1999 as an example of standards that your members were not qualified to write, but which they were obliged to adopt.

 I would like to draw your attention to the fact that your members were represented on the Standards Committee which developed NZS2772:1 1999.

 The standard was originally to be a joint Australia and NZ standard but the NZ group separated from the Australian group part way through the process (as the Australians and the single NZ community representative Dr Ivan Beale) wanted more stringent emission standards. This is explained in part in the preface to NZS2772:1 1999. 

After the NZ group was re-formed its membership was as follows:  

Mr Ian Hutchings, (Chairman), Ministry of Commerce, voted yes

Mr Roger Matthews, Local Government, voted yes

Dr Andrew McEwan, National Radiation Laboratory, voted yes

Dr David Black, NZ Institute of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, voted yes

Mr Trevor Woods, Broadcast Communications Ltd, voted yes

Mr Andrew Corney, NZ Assn. of Radio Transmitters, voted yes

Mr Simon Cooke-Willis, Telecom NZ Ltd, voted yes

Dr Ivan Beale, Public representative, voted no  

All the industry representatives (Mr Simon Cooke-Willis for Telecom, Mr Trevor Woods (BCL which I understand is now Kordia), Mr Corney and Dr Black (whose primary EMR related income seems to be from representing Telecom, Vodafone, Transpower, the Australian Telco Hutchison 3G in various forums) and the others with economic interests all voted "Yes" to NZS2772:1.

The sole community representative (Dr Beale) voted "no". This gave the Standards committee the necessary 80% majority to approve the standard.

I do not believe that you submission accurately represented the role that your clients had in developing NZS2772:1 or their more recent role in promoting and drafting the NES which adopted NZS2772:1 as a mandatory standard. This is particularly concerning because the NZS2772:1 uses the wrong standard of proof for assessments of effects under the RMA.

The RMA requires consideration and the avoidance, remedying and/or mitigation of all effects including temporary effects, cumulative effects, potential effects of high probability and potential effects of low probability which have a high potential impact (see RMA section 3). The NZS2772:1 adopts a very much stricter definition before it recognises an effect – as it recognises only effects which are scientifically certain. It therefore protects only against thermal effects –ie immediate burns.

NZS2772:1 1999 ignores all effects that are possible but serious, probably and/or highly probable (but not certain), including the potential RF has alone or in combination with others factors for causing brain tumours, mental heath effects, effects on pregnant women, possible effects on people with pacemakers and other electrical body parts, and effects on the estimated 4% of the population who are electromagnetic sensitive or hypersensitive. These are all "effects" under section 3 of the RMA which should be considered when assessing whether a proposal represents sustainable management that achieves the purposes of the RMA – which requires the enabling of people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and their health and safety.

Even more concerning is that since the NES became law there is often no forum to consider public views about proposed new cell sites. This is despite the recommendation in the NZS2772:1 that "it is therefore sensible in achieving service or [process requirements to minimise unnecessary or incidental RF exposure".

The assumption that the public should bear all the risk and cost of the unknown science, the lack of consultation with communities and the repeated attempts to locate RF transmitters in inappropriate locations such as near schools, preschools and residential homes are some of the reasons why informed community members are so opposed to the current EMR management regime. 

In order to avoid confusion, I would be very grateful if you would inform the Select Committee of the role that Telecom and other industry representatives had in the Standards Committee which developed NZS2772:1 1999 and their active role in developing and promoting the NES.

If you think I have misunderstood anything or you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to ring me on 03 5450878 or email me.

Thank you very much for your consideration.


Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSC, RSHDipPHI and concerned mother for three

Ban the Tower Inc






From: Sue Grey 
Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2009 3:35 p.m.

Dear Ministers of Health, Environment and Infrastructure

You may be interested in the following news from Maine, USA that legislators there (both Democrats and Republicans) have voted unanimously for emergency legislation to require warnings on cellphones for pregnant women and children. This follows the interim results of the international Interphone Study which shows a significant increase in certain types of brain tumours (on the side of the head where the cellphone is used) 10 or more years after even modest cellphone use.

All countries use the same international research. Why do our NZ "experts" continue to deny the biological effects and risks of radio frequency and microwave radiation that European and Asian states (and increasingly also American states) protect against?

Your problems funding Accident Compensation will inevitably get considerably worse when the latent effects of occupational use of cellphones start appearing in large numbers unless NZ urgently reviews its approach.  This is particularly worrying bearing in mind that most insurers already reject cover for health effects cased by EMR and the Limitation Bill may well prevent "product liability" claims where the causation and harm takes time to develop and prove-  thereby putting the whole cost on the public health system.

Thank you for your roles in letting the LG&E Select Committee re-commence its inquiry into matters raised in petitions from communities in Nelson, Auckland and Manukau. This is a big step forward.

It would be excellent if as a result of that inquiry (and/or of your own initiative) you could:

a)    open up membership of the government's Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation to remove members who have no relevant qualifications and who represent vested interests and replace them with members who have expertise in this area;

b)    review the NES to ensure it achieves the sustainable management purposes of the Resource Management Act and the WHO recommendations for consultation with affected communities;

c)     ensure an urgent review of the New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequencies emissions NZS2772:1 to ensure NZ adopts best international practice. In the absence of sufficient funding and /or expertise for review by the NZ Standards Association, you may consider adopting the Swiss standard for EMR emissions, which represents best international practice, is based on all the latest research and enables a country with similar typography to New Zealand to offer the very highest standards of technology to its residents.

As always I'm happy to discuss this issue.

Kind regards

Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI

Ph 03 5450878



EMR news from America 

The Children's Wireless Protection Act introduced as emergency legislation

The Children's Wireless protection Act, unanimous vote, Oct. 15th, introduced as emergency legislation in the state of Maine

Dearest Media,

I wanted to let you know that a momentous thing happened in the state of Maine yesterday, Oct. 15h...A bill, The Children's Wireless Protection Act, calling for warning labels on cell phones for children and pregnant women, was voted in UNANIMOUSLY, by both Democrat and Republicans, as emergency legislation to be introduced in the state of Maine. This means it now goes to committee (we think Health and Human Services but not sure yet) and then to the full legislative body for a final vote in early 2010.

The legislator who introduced the bill is Andrea Boland. Her # is (207) 324-4459 and her email is .

I authored the bill and have posted the list of doctors who have endorsed it on my website, My # is (310) 828-6808. (Website hasn't been updated in a long time as I've been very busy working on a documentary film on this subject.)

Another person who has helped us tremendously is Lloyd Morgan, the primary author of the recent Cell Phones and Brain Tumors, 15 Reasons for Concern paper. He can be reached at (510) 841-4362.

We all relentlessly called, emailed and Andrea made personal visits to legislators to ensure the passage of this emergency bill.

Thank you for your care and excellent reporting in this matter of grave concern to us all and for sharing in this moment of victory with us.

Liz Barris

Ireland Wi Max
The link below is to a web site.  You may want to file it under: what not to do with dangerous microwave radiation.
1.  Take a beautiful healthy island nation (Ireland).
2.  Cover it for miles with very strong dangerous microwave radiation. (Wi Max)
3.  Do not tell the people about the so that they can make there minds up based on scientific reports. 
4.  Keep quiet, do not tell the inhabitants that there are many studies that show the serious adverse health effects of microwave radiation.
5.  Wait to see if cancer, neurological problems, sleep problems and severe health problems appear (maybe years).
Take a look at what is being proposed:

P.S. maybe the Wi Max name should be changed to Wi kill, Wi Sleep, Wi cancer or Wi not use wires, it is safe?
Martin Weatherall