Cell phone health concerns continue to spread
March 10, 2009 by Mi Kai Lee
Filed under Environment, Feature stories, Freedom, Health, Safety, Technology
Humans are not the only ones affected by cell towers. This tree in front of Kaslo's downtown tower is not taking it very well. (Photo: Mi Kai Lee)
A court in France has ordered the dismantling of a cell phone mast based on the ‘precautionary principle’ because there is insufficient proof that cell phones are harmless. The suit was initiated by residents in the vicinity of the tower against cell phone company Bouygues Telecom. Following the judgements of the Nanterre TGI (District Court) and the Versailles Appeal Court Bouygues Telecom began dismantling its phone mast in the early morning of March 6, 2009.
The Columbia Valley can consider itself blessed that fibre is coming to town. High-speed fibre-optic Internet connections can also be used for voice over IP phone services, such as Skype, and for video conferencing like Webex. The existence of fibre in the valley will in many cases eliminate the need for wireless Internet and the accompanying radio-frequency pollution.
Residents of the Slocan Valley in West Kootenay are not so fortunate. But local activists fought and won a struggle to keep Telus from installing cell phone towers in the Slocan. They now keep a constant watch on the CBC tower on Red Mountain for any future installation activity by Telus. The Valhalla Wilderness Society was a major contributor to the Slocan’s success. Many took up the cause after local politician Colleen McCrory died of brain cancer, which the community attributed to her cell phone use.
On September 24, 2007 the chairperson of the Valhalla Committee for Environmental Health, Richard Caniell, wrote this to Telus:
“At 12:00 noon this date on the CBC radio you were heard once again in
your tape-loop assertion that you couldn’t understand why there was
any opposition in New Denver to the Telus cell phone transmitter
installation as cell phone towers were safe and many studies had
shown this. Be advised, this is false, and a knowing deception as you
have been repeatedly shown the existence of adverse scientific
reports which you find it advantageous to pooh-pooh.“Take notice that this letter and the one copied below, the former
previously sent to Steve Jenkins, Brock Enderton, Health Canada and
others, sets forth the substantive factors connected to health
hazards and potential fatalities about which you can no longer deny
knowledge. Any further claims you make as aforesaid, which have been
repeated by you through the last weeks after your superiors were put
on notice as to the adverse reports, will make you a central figure
in ongoing misrepresentation.“It does not behoove anyone in your position to continue being blind
and deaf to factors which may seriously impact the public health and
especially that of children. Telus does not escape potential
liability, or the public impact of refusing to implement
precautionary principles, because it relies on Health Canada. Telus
is indisputably apprised of the adverse science (as reflected in the
letter copied below, sent to Steve Jenkins and others). Your
continuance with your deceptive, self-serving statements to
promulgate your product in the face of this represents a wanton
disregard of the health hazards which may impact persons here; a fact
which may greatly contribute to your company’s liability and that of
your own.”
In 2007 Germany declared that cell phone usage is hazardous to humans.
The BioInitiative Report published in September 2007 by the University of Albany, New York brings together extensive findings by medical doctors and research scientists from the US, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, China and the UK.
Valhalla highlighted this from the report:
The report states, in connection with wireless devices (cell phones), “there is enough evidence of increased risk of brain tumors to warrant intervention with respect to their use . . . good public health policy requires preventative action.” An important section in the Report sets forth substantive evidence that transmitter radiation is particularly harmful to children and teenagers. The result especially noted by research in other countries is childhood leukemia.
Research published by Professors Mild and Hardell of Orebro University, Sweden, in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, identified 1,429 people living in central Sweden identified with brain tumours in a 2 and 1/2 year period. Those who live in a rural area and used cell phones had a 56% greater likelihood to have been diagnosed with a brain tumour over city users. For those using cell phones for 5 years the rural user’s risk was four times greater. [from Valhalla]
Professor Mild, who is a biologist at Orebro University, states “Mobile phones can use up to 1,000 times more power when they are far away from a base station.” Those using cell phones in rural areas at a distance from the transmitter “absorb far more energy from the handset.”
Valhalla criticizes Health Canada, who have taken the stand that cell phone radiation is harmless, despite strong evidence of health risks.
The Precautionary Principle is increasingly recognized by law courts and governments world-wide. This safeguard is a moral and political principle which states that “if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action”. This principle was adopted by the European Union and other nations.
The EU version states that “preventative action should be taken and damage should, as a priority, be rectified at the source and that the polluter should pay.” Telus does not escape responsibility for its actions simply because they rely on Health Canada, as effective notice of extensive adverse science showing health hazard has been given to them directly, and they are the active parties.
More information:
Collected by Eloise Charet
• BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
• The Government and the phone masts: “An unforeseen crisis” (photos)
• Protect your health from Electromagnetic Radiation (petition)
• You Don’t Deserve Brain Cancer – You Deserve Facts!
• Children and Wireless Technology – Electro – Magnetic Radiation the Invisible Hazard
• Information on the Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
• The EMR Policy Institute
• RFcom.ca – Wireless Communications and Health
• Electrosmog – What Price Convenience?
• Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed San Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network
• Summary of a Public Hearing held in Jersey, Channel Islands
• Jersey Telephone Mast Review (Jersey, 2007)
• Cancer clusters at phone masts
• Telus cell phone coverage map – BC
• Telus cell phone coverage map – Alberta
CVNews related links:
• Mast-Victims.org
• Brain tumour link to teen cellphone use
Congratulations on a great job with this story. As a reporter for our local newspaper, the Valley Voice, I was among the citizen activists in New Denver who did the research on the health impacts of cell phone radiation and helped organize resistance.
I went from having no knowledge of the subject to being shocked at what the international scientific studies were saying, and we arranged a public meeting with Telus. They repeated the textbook argument the industry has agreed upon: that only ionizing (heating) radiation can cause harm, something repeatedly proven false by independent scientists.
The reason we are not being protected from this unsafe technology by Health Canada is that the government is a de facto business partner with telecommunications corporations. Government licenses the microwave spectrum and makes a billion dollars at each auction of a new bandwidth, and in turn the telecom corporations make billions selling time on the new frequencies.
Health Canada has thus proven itself in a classic case of conflict of interest and is no longer in a position to protect Canadians, who must demand that government divorces itself from the industry.
I really think it’s not fair to mention only half the truth;
Did it occur to you to see what the ‘ultimate medical reference’ AKA WHO says about electo-magnetic radiation? Would you care to visit their site at: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/en/ and just listen to them?
How about the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)? clearly stating that: “The balance of epidemiologic evidence indicates that mobile phone use of less than 10 years does not pose any increased risk of brain tumor or acoustic neuroma. For longer use, data are sparse and any conclusions, therefore, are uncertain.
Check them out at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_003.pdf and tell me what you think.
One last point; when a mobile phone uses 1000 times more power to reach a remote cellular site this could only mean two things:
1. It’s better to build more – not less – cellular stations to reduce the power emitted by mobiles and,
2. Since the maximum possible power emitted from any mobile is 0.25 Watts; in normal conditions the power emitted will be 0.25/1000 or 0.00025 watts… I hardly call this hazardous to human health.
Cheers
Sherif
Dear Sherif,
The fact that someone looks for something (or claims to look for something) and does not find it (or claims to not have found it) does not mean the thing does not exist. It merely means they did not find it, for whatever reason.
The fact that someone finds something without even looking for it, because it has crossed their path, is an indicator that something exists. It may not say anything about what they have encountered, but it is evidence that they have encountered something. That is a lot more substantial than never finding anything.
Those who have a vested interest in not finding something will invariably fail to find it. This does not mean it does not exist.
Those who are affected by something will often find what is affecting them.
In deciding whether something exists or not (such as a health danger from cell phone radiation), it is reasonable to put more credence in something seen and identified than in something that is never seen and never identified.
When encountering something that appears to be dangerous, it is important to exercise caution. This is called the precautionary principle. It is a principle of law that has been applied now in the French cell phone case.
This is too complicated…. [and I thought resistance to mobile networks was tough in Egypt, they should see Canda!]
What I am saying is that SO FAR, no health dangers were proven due to LOW DOSE exposure from EMF. It’s like a general consensus, and fankly; WHO won’t lie for anyone.
DOSAGE is the key word, you can kill yourself drinking water if you have an extremely large dose; so for everything else. By the same token, it’s highly unlikely that 0.25 Watts of radiation [from your mobile phone] will hurt you in any way.
That doesn’t mean you don’t follow caution when using your mobile – please do, and do this:
1. Limit your calls to 6 minutes per call
2. Don’t put your mobile in your shirt pocket
3. Don’t leave it and charge it bedrooms
4. Don’t let children play with it.
5. Dont talk or SMS while driving or even walking
Cheers
Sherif
Dear Sherif,
While officially nothing much has been proven, it is plain common sense that if sensitive people are feeling RF pollution effects, then human bodies generally are reacting to them, even at low levels, and even if most people don’t feel or notice it. We don’t notice we are getting cancer either, but it still happens.
I get nauseous within a range of about 25-50 feet from an operating cell phone or one of the newer portable phones. My range of sensitivity to operating microwave ovens is about the same, and the reaction (nausea) is the same.
Cell phone towers make me tired within about 5 minutes, and I get that reaction within a range of perhaps a mile from the mast.
So my point is that, whether it is acknowledged by science or not, bodies are reacting to RF pollution. It is not without effects, and we have no idea whether the effects are harmful or not. I think that if they make me feel ill, then it is the body’s warning that they are harmful.
Fine Mi, point well taken.
Cheers
Even small amounts of non-ionizing radiation are dangerous. Some countries e.g. Austria recognise this and their limits are VERY much lower than countries falling under ICNIRP such as USA , UK , South Africa. the field strengths that citizens are forced to endure under ICNIRP are considered criminal in Austria.
How many people have to die or have their health and their lives wrecked before we acknowledge the real costs of unsafe levels of wireless ?