New Page 1

What really infuriates me about the whole Cell Phone Tower and Wi-Fi saga are people/institutions/standards dictating the amount of microwave radiation I should be exposed to. The roll out of Cell Phone Towers in front of homes and schools will now be exposing large numbers of people to the equivalent of standing within 1.5m of a microwave oven on full. This may be in their lounge, kitchen or bedrooms. Most people will have no idea that this has occurred. It is equally infuriating knowing that with a bit of planning this could be avoided or minimised. Below I have compiled some of my notes on the topic, it is very wide but I guess what would be of most interest is the industry influence aspect and health effects. It is not like tobacco and asbestos where there was a grand industry cover up. However there is too much obvious risk of industry influence in our legislation (NES), NZ Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields, the NZ adopted standard (ICNIRP standard), WHO EMF experts/industry funding and total studies on EMF. So while there is no industry cover up there is definitely a huge trail of industry influence in all of this. I do not believe there is a conspiracy, it is more an evolution of this over time with industry pushing the boundaries across the board. We have a situation where the turkeys decide when to have Christmas, hopefully this documentary will bring Christmas sooner than later. With regards to health I have research on the Microwave Auditory effect which is a recognised effect but should not occur at the levels measured. The Motorola scientist who was referred to me by the NZ National Radiation Laboratory could not discount that weeks of exposure to Microwave Radiation in my lounge caused the tinnitus. There are six of us who have developed tinnitus, five are new developments and one was an increase of the existing condition. One couple have sold their home and moved overseas. Penny has more compelling instances on this which would take another documentary to cover fully. From the research I believe that the symptoms are more subtle, variable and will take longer to manifest. That said there is no process to actively monitor the situation as the scientific advice is against this, therefore it may takes years before the facts are established. For example how will a parent ever know why their baby is crying at night because he/she has developed tinnitus from the Cell Phone Tower opposite the room? Precautionary Principal -When the risk is small but the consequence is great then precautionary principal should be applied. This is an international law and is enshrined in NZ RMA. Sue Grey is expert in this area. -You will get industry officials, bureaucrats all advising that they follow this but clearly this is not evident -I have collated hundreds of studies which all conclude various non-thermal effects from RF and EMF -Various countries take a precautionary approach Swiss, Russia, Israel, China etc NZ EMF Standards and National Environmental Standards (NES) -Provided the installation does not heat up nearby residents then Cell Phone Towers can be installed in front of homes and schools -The standards do not take into account non-thermal effects -The National Environmental Standards were developed by the Telecommunications Forum which ignored the responses to its drafts. The Manukau City Council insisted that community consultation continue, however this was ignored. The NZ Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields -The main issue with this committee is that it is industry dominated and therefore unlikely to consider the views of public or seriously consider differing scientific evidence WHO -When WHO adopted the ICNIRP standards the lead EMF expert (Dr Mike Repacholi) was also the ex-chair of ICNIRP. Since then several WHO EMF experts have served as on the ICNIRP committee. WHO also receives significant amounts of industry funding for its EMF work. ICNIRP -This is a private organisation which elects its 14 Committee members -The 14 Committee members have past links to industry which introduces the risk of industry influence -The organisation is not accountable to anyone and therefore has is no official process in which their works can be seriously challenged from within the organisation. -The organisation does not need to provide transparency with its decisions and once again the decisions cannot be officially challenged from within the organisation. -What is NZ rationale for adopting a standard from a private organisation which is not accountable and clearly has issues with industry influence? Industry Funded Studies -There is a consistent pattern with the majority of industry funded studies claiming no effects where as the independent studies show no effects, negative and positive. effects -To remove the risk of industry influence then the studies should be ranked lower or removed totally from policy making Interphone Study - This was a WHO initiated study with several countries (including NZ) to determine if there are any increased cancer rates of Cell Phone users. All country studies were completed in 2005, however the full results have been delayed for over 5 years - A number of the country studies showed increase cancer rates for 10+ years of heavy users - There are serious concerns that the results which show harm are being minimised, undermined, ignored or will never be released - NZ Interphone study Dr Alistair Woodward was lead Bioinitiative Report - I have noted that many institutions have dismissed this report for various reasons - The Bioinitiative Report is one of the largest collections of EMF studies that show biological effects in the world - It is incorrect to use some generic reason as rationale to dismissing the 100s studies presented in the Bioinitiatve report Solutions - When the risk is small but the consequence for harm is great then the precautionary principal should be applied - Cell Phone Towers need to be sited in elevated and remote locations (as in the past) with Councils and Government amended legislation to allow them in any appropriate location and suitably camouflaged. -The Telecommunications companies are the architects of the legislation and I would expect them to be flexible to any changes -Salzburg State in Austria has standards which I believe are suitable for NZ Personal Precautions -Meanwhile if a Cell Phone Tower is installed in your neighbourhood then people can take precautions by not residing in areas that have a clear view of the tower at up to 100m. -Purchase EMF blocking curtains or netting (which can be imported at great expense) or install metal mesh fly screens for those rooms in clear view. -Contact an EMF expert (apart from NRL I only know of one expert in Wellington) for further advice. -Residents should also reduce the amount of daily exposure to EMF. Replace with fixed line router or minimise WIFI access in home. Replace with fixed line phone or move the cordless phone base station to an area in the home that is at least 5m away from the occupants at all times. Reduce use of Cell Phone. Some Common Misconceptions The public are advised not to be concerned Cell Phone Towers produce less output power than a 25W light bulb. However the reality is that all three panels can output up to 300W or the equivalent of 1500 Cell Phones. A home which is 30 -40 meters away can expect the amount of microwave radiation in parts of the house equivalent to standing 1.5m away from a microwave oven. The public are advised that all is fine as we have lived in the age of AM/FM/VHF/Satellite transmissions without issues. However the reality is that those closest to these towers will receive radiation that is 1 million times stronger (uW/cm2 not pW/cm2) than those transmissions. Many do not know of the events that occurred at Ouruhia when the radio mast was upgraded to transmit several FM channels. The public are advised that our standards are robust as they are based upon the World Health Organisations standards. However they do not know that WHO standards are derived from a private organisation which has a clear lack of accountability, transparency and also industry influence cannot be ruled out. The public are advised that the large body of international studies show no effects. Yet there are hundreds of international studies showing effects. The public are told that the Cell Phone Towers need to be in residential areas and opposite schools to provide greater coverage. Yet Cell Phone Towers can transmit up to 30km in marine areas and each Cell Phone Tower I investigated had alternative areas where it could be sited away from residences. It seems that cost was the main driver for placing it in a particular location. The public are advised of all the benefits of the new technologies, data transfer, phone based applications, wider coverage. Yet the rush to market has introduced unreliability’s to our telecommunications infrastructure that has never been experienced before. The public are advised that house prices are unaffected. One of the largest and most comprehensive studies on this was performed in Christchurch and this clearly showed price reductions of up to 15% post installation. The public are advised that those who oppose Cell Phone Towers and Wi-Fi are misinformed, conspiracy nutters, political activists and scare mongerers. Many are average Kiwis who are simply concerned for their health and the health of others. However we include physicians, scientists, engineers, lawyers, teachers, accountants, executives and academics. Well this was supposed to be a quick email, so will leave it at this point. Let me know if you need more information. Regards Toa

I received this from Toa, and immediately asked him to publish it on the Website, as I thought is was so good.