Atawhai

Q & A on WDDTY (What Doctors don't tell you)

Question: In WDDTY vol 5 no 3, your cover story on power lines gave evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields was harmful to people, particularly children. I was wondering whether electromagnetic fields are the same as the electromagnetic radiation transmitted from mobile phone masts. I live in the centre of Warminster practically next door to a B7 building. They have recently installed four mobile phone masts on the roof of their building, and plan to install several more over the next few months. Does WDDTY know of any research which shows these masts to be harmful? - AP, Wiltshire

Answer:

Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin. We spoke to the UK's acknowledged electro pollution and magneto therapy guru Roger Coghill, founder of Coghill Research Laboratories (www.cogreslab.co.uk), whose family coat-of-arms motto is 'Non dormit qui custodit' (roughly translated as 'No peace for the guy looking after the place'), which seems rather appropriate.

'The difference between electromagnetic fields [EMFs] and electromagnetic radiation is that, with the field, the energy doesn't actually leave the source whereas, with radiation, the energy forms a closed loop that leaves the source entirely. That's the basic difference,' he says, 'so that radio frequencies (radiation) completely escape the transmitting antenna.

'But the thing is that these antennae don't only emit radio frequencies, they emit a cocktail of frequencies which include very long (or extra-low) frequencies [ELFs],' he adds. 'These are the components in the signal so, in that case, a radio mast of the kind used in cellphone telephony comprises both a field and a signal. Both of these are imposed upon anyone within a kilometre or two (in the case of radio frequencies) or hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometres (with ELF fields).'

The Missouri-based American EMF guru Roy Beavis (http:/emfguru.org), says the difference between the EMF of power lines, and the electromagnetic radiation of cell phones and their towers is a difference of frequency (wave length). So, does that 'difference' introduce any significant health risks? 'We don't know for sure,' he says. 'Perhaps - and, if so, it seems likely to be as a matter of degree mainly. They both have the same physical or radiation characteristics. There has been more study of power-line exposures than of cellphone towers, though I regard the present evidence as sufficiently convincing in the case of cellphones per se (the sets we hold in our hands to our ears). I am not so sure about the risk from the much weaker signals we get from the towers. Much more study is needed on the tower exposures.'

Radio waves, microwaves, visible light and X-rays are all examples of electromagnetic waves which are produced by the motion of electrically charged particles. These waves are also called 'electromagnetic radiation' because they radiate out from electrically charged particles. They travel through empty space as well as through air and other substances.

Children in the home are at particular risk from EMFs. Several studies have established a link between childhood cancer and exposure to electromagnetic radiation (Am J Epidemiol, 1979; 109: 273-84; Lancet, 1990; 335: 1008-12).

But adults are at risk too. Overhead power lines can concentrate pollutants in the air, raising the risk of cancers of the lungs and skin (Am J Epidemiol, 1996; 143: 841; Int J Radiat Biol, 1999; 75: 1505- 21, 1523-31).

Professor Denis Henshaw, of Bristol University's Human Radiation Effects Group, took 2000 field measurements and found that the toxic effects of EMFs could extend up to more than 100 yards (91 metres) on either side of power lines. He also proposed a theory as to how EMFs could cause cancer. According to Henshaw, living near power lines, where radiation levels are dozens of times the legal limit, may increase the concentrations of carcinogenic airborne particles that are produced naturally in the soil and as a result of local traffic pollution (Int J Radiat Biol, 1999; 75: 1505-21). This hypothesis is consistent with earlier research showing potentially toxic interactions between alternating EMFs surrounding power lines and radioactive breakdown products of naturally occurring radon gas (Int J Radiat Biol, 1996; 69: 25-38).

However, in the case of base stations, the government recently (March 2003) extended its £7.4 million initiative to investigate the possible health hazards of cellphone technology to include the base stations as well, following the publication of a report by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, part of a project called the Link Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR), which was set up to look into the possible impact of mobile telecommunications on health.

This initiative includes an epidemiological study of early childhood leukaemias and other cancers near to mobile-phone base stations. As far as we know, this is the first programme of such research into this area of concern.

The government's Stewart Report highlighted public concerns and uncertainty regarding the health effects of mobile telephony, including base stations. Although levels of RF (radio frequency) radiation associated with mobile-phone base stations were thought to be low (and, in some cases, indistinguishable from background radiation), the Stewart Report noted that 'the possibility of harm from [base station] exposures insufficient to cause important heating effects of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence.'

The MTHR study will determine whether or not childhood cancer cases occur more frequently near mobile-phone base stations than would be expected from the national distribution of births. But this information on its own will not be able to say whether any excess risk near mobile-phone base stations is causally linked to base-station emissions.

28 October 2009

Long-term use of mobile phones can cause brain tumours, a major World Health Organization study will finally announce later this year.

People who have used a mobile phone for more than 10 years face a 'significantly increased risk' of developing brain tumours such as glioma, says the Interphone study, which reviewed the evidence from 13 countries, involving around 12,800 people. It will publish its conclusions later this year following a delay of four years.

Study head Dr Elisabeth Cardis said the report will include a "public health warning" about mobile phone usage, especially among children. France has been one of the first countries to act, and has banned the use of mobile phones in primary schools. The UK has merely cautioned about the overuse of the phones by children and adolescents.

The Interphone researchers said that six of the eight studies they reviewed found that mobile phone usage increased the risk of glioma by up to 39 per cent, while the risk of acoustic neuroma, a benign tumour between the ear and the brain, increased nearly four times among people who had used a mobile phone for more than 10 years.

Despite its findings, some critics believe the Interphone study has played down the real risks by including people who use a mobile phone only infrequently, and by excluding children altogether. Critics point out that the study was partly funded by the mobile phone industry, whose own research has invariably failed to find any link between its products and brain tumours.

(Source: Daily Telegraph, October 24, 2009).

The Wellingtonian

John Key and Sue Kedgley might seem unusual political bedfellows, but they are evidently in accord over the unsatisfactory matter of cellphone towers springing up all over New Zealand.

Ms Kedgley, a long-serving Green MP, has been hot on this one for some years now, and she's right.

It is ridiculous that cellphone towers can be plunked in the middle of communities and that there is almost nothing residents or even local councils can do about it.

Our front page story this week about a Two Degrees cellphone tower in Karori is a case in point.

Not only are the cellphone towers, which can be 15 metres high (or almost double the height of a lamp-post), unsightly but, after extensive research, it is still entirely possible that they are a significant health hazard.

No-one yet knows for sure the long-term effects of constant exposure to the electromagnetic radiation that the cellphone towers emit, so you'd think the prudent course of action would be to act cautiously.

Instead, the Labour Government pushed through a regulation change two years ago that gave cellphone companies a virtual carte blanche in this matter, and in doing so removed the rights of New Zealanders.

As things now stand, cellphone companies are permitted to install a 1.8m telecommunications cabinet outside every house.

There is no compulsion for telephone companies to share facilities, which means that each company can ? and invariably does ? go ahead and install its own tower.

As in the Karori case we cite this week, these towers, a blot on any landscape, can be but 50 metres apart.

When the last Government's environment minister, Trevor Mallard, was considering the matter of these towers, he was at pains to try to pull together a cohesive nationwide policy, because previously it had been ad hoc and at the discretion of local bodies.

However, the consultation process was flawed.

The telephone companies and other interested parties, such as Broadcast Communications Ltd, had the best part of a year to draw up their plans. The public, though, had just a month to reply, despite the complex nature of the issue.

Despite the best efforts of a few politicians, notably Ms Kedgley, the whole thing slipped into law before many people realised the implications.

We at The Wellingtonian tried hard through 2007 to make people aware of the importance of the issue, with a succession of front-page stories, but at the time people did not really seem to care.

They do now, as ever more towers are installed.

What's to be done?

Obviously it will need a change in the law.

In that regard it has been heartening to learn of Prime Minister Key's reported comment to Manukau mayor Len Brown.

The Prime Minister has been reported as saying that he would recommend to Cabinet a review of the lack of consultation requirements in the national environmental standards for telecommunication facilities.

Mr Key has proved a sensible and pragmatic prime minister during his first year at the helm and, if indications are correct, he may retrieve a ludicrous situation before even more damage can be done.

Lack of consultation claimed

By JOSEPH ROMANOS - The Wellingtonian

The installation of a Two Degrees cellphone tower in Marsden Village, Karori, has drawn further complaints from neighbours.
The tower has had a chequered history. It was to have been installed about 400 metres away, in front of the Cellar Room, opposite Standen St, but complaints from neighbours led to it being moved to a car park behind the Four Square store in Marsden Village.
The Wellingtonian reported earlier this month the complaints of Karori resident Elizabeth Alley about the new position. Since then further concerns have surfaced.

Chris Clarke said the 15m high tower (nearly twice the height of a lamp-post) was being built just 20m from his house and will ruin the view from his new patio. He says although he lived near the new cellphone tower site, he received no notice from Two Degrees about its plans.
Two Degrees chief executive Eric Hertz told The Wellingtonian owners of properties adjacent to the new site had
been consulted, and that a meeting of concerned residents had been called.
He said Two Degrees' tower fell within the council's District Plan. He wrote to Two Degrees and received a reply from Mr Hertz, which said in part that "it is always our intention and practice to consult with affected parties".

"We're very affected," said Mr Clarke, "and we received no notification. It seems to me the company wanted to cover
itself. It has received permission from the Four Square owner to put the tower in its back yard and after that has really just pressed ahead with its plans.

"I invited Two Degrees here [to] look at it from our point of view, but they have not done so." Mr Clarke said he was also concerned the value of his property would decrease.

Mr Hertz said that the Marsden Village tower would be a slim-line mast, similar in shape and size to a light pole or electric utility pole.
"This is currently a permitted activity under the operative District Plan, up to a height of 15 metres."

Two Degrees agreed with the Wellington City Council that it would make every reasonable attempt to communicate with owners of adjacent properties near any new tower built. "In this instance it involved a letter from us to adjacent properties to 147 Karori Rd."

The properties written to, he said, were 149, 145, 143, 141 Karori Rd and 8 and 10 Marsden Ave. Mr Hertz said that as a result of concerns raised, the pole had been repositioned.
He said he agreed with the idea of co-locating on existing towers. "We try to do this wherever possible," he said. "In dense urban areas, this is often impossible. The reason is that in urban areas the RMA [Resource Management Act and council discourage us from building structures over a certain height.

"However, the taller tower structures are more easily shared. Urban areas require tower structures that are more in tune with the other utility and light fixture poles already in the area.
"The sum of this is the trade-off between larger shareable structures and smaller, less obtrusive structures." Mr Clarke remains unconvinced. "I realise this thing is probably a fait accompli, but I'm annoyed," he said. "We live in an area that has a commercial zoning, so there is more likelihood of this sort of thing happening. However, the original cell tower site down the road is also zoned commercially. The company took note of residents' complaints on that occasion. I wish they'd done the same here."

Mr Clarke said as far as he is aware, four properties had been notified of the decision to place the cellphone tower in Marsden Village, but he was never written to. "It went ahead without our knowledge some months ago, and then there was an informal meeting attended by just one resident," he said.

"We didn't even know about the meeting." Mr Clarke questioned why the cellphone tower was needed. He said there was already a 13-metre tower about 50 metres away. "Why can't they share resources, instead of every company putting up its own towers?"

Sue Kedgley MP

Greens.org.nz

The public has a right to be consulted before cellphone towers, or antennae are constructed next to their homes, schools and playcentres, said the Green Party today.

"It is incredibly unfair that telecommunications companies can put up transmitters and antennae on power poles next to people's homes without having to inform them or consult with them," Green Party MP Sue Kedgley said.

There has been a wave of protests sweeping New Zealand about cellphone antennae being constructed next to schools and houses, without community consent adn there have recently been protests in Eastbourne, Manukau, Pakuranga and Point Chevalier.

In response to a series of hard hitting questions in Parliament today, Minister Ryall confirmed that the public does not currently have a right to be consulted on cellphone towers being put up in their communities.

"The rules need to be urgently changed so there is a requirement to consult with communities before cellphone towers or antennae are put up next to homes, schools and playcentres," said Ms Kedgley.

Recent international research shows electromagnetic radiation from cellphone towers may affect people's health, even at low levels of exposure.

"Until we know these towers are safe the Government should stop allowing them next to homes, schools and playcentres ? it is absolutely crucial that we take a precautionary approach and put people's health first.

"It is simply not fair that people's home property values can be instantly and significantly reduced because cellphone towers or antennae are built next to them without the owner's knowledge or consent."

The Prime Minister has reportedly told the Manukau Mayor Len Brown that he would recommend to Cabinet a review of the lack of consultation requirements in the national environmental standards for telecommunication facilities. This review needed to happen immediately, said Ms Kedgley.

Further information:

National environmental standards for telecommunications facilities, Ministry for the Environment - www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/standards/qa-telecommunication-standards.html

BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard

for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) at www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

Anger over cellphone tower outside homes, TVNZ website - http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/anger-over-cellphone-tower-outside-homes-3087219

By KIRAN CHUG - The Dominion Post

ANDREW GORRIE/The Dominion Post

Jeremy Lovell-Smith, with the aid of a ladder, took his protest against Vodafone installing a cellphone antenna to new heights.
Mr Lovell-Smith spent about an hour yesterday on the lighting pole at Shortt Park in Oroua St, Eastbourne, because he wanted Vodafone to put the antenna further away from residents, on the other side of the park.He said he decided to get down when police were called, and while he accepted that the antenna would be positioned there, he still had concerns about its impact on residents' health.
Senior Sergeant Brent Register of Lower Hutt said no action was taken against Mr Lovell-Smith.
Vodafone spokeswoman Alison Sykora said the protest caused a slight delay, but work would continue to install the antenna today.
It extended the existing network with a 1.5-metre-long and 30-centimetre-wide panel.
There were no harmful health effects associated with the antenna and it had minimal visual impact, she said.

Vodafone had consulted residents extensively and spent two years deciding on where to put the antenna.
The protest would not change those plans.
Mr Lovell-Smith said 30 residents, who also had health concerns about the antenna, joined him as contractors started the installation.

Dear Ministers and Jim 

Please find attached a report explaining international concerns about scientists who are also employed as consultants for business interests. This is exactly the type of concern many communities have with so called academic researchers such as Dr Black on the New Zealand Government's "Interagency Advisory Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation".   

I have a long outstanding OIA request with Mr Turnbull (from NRL) seeking explanation as to how Dr Black continues to be described as an academic from Auckland University when in his own evidence for the Transpower transmission lines inquiry he stated that he is simply an unpaid honorary lecturer and he apparently has neither lectured not published any academic research on EMR for many ears.

 After considerable delay you advised that Dr Black was working on the Mobykids study. However the most recent Interagency Committee minutes (9 September 2009) identified that NZ currently had no funding for that study. I wrote to your again on 7 October seeking clarification of how your reconcile your advice to me that Dr Black qualified as an academic because of the work he is doing on the NZ part of the Mobykids study with the information in the minutes that there is no funding for this study. Nor did your explanation address why Dr Black had been given "Auckland University academic" status for the last few years since he ceased employment with Auckland university. 

My concern is not just theoretical. It was Dr Black's minuted comments about the August 2007 Bioinitiatives Report (tabled in Parliament by Sue Kedgley last Thursday) that "he doesn't place weight on reports that reinterpret research findings and that this report does not include any research" that highlights the powerful and dangerous influence that he has on the Committee. The Bioinititives Report is a substantial review of a considerable number of scientific studies by numerous highly regarded international experts. It is a review of existing research ? hence it does not include new research.  That is what reviews are. It is significant that the same Bioinitiatives report led to the EU undertaking a significant review of its standard for EMR emissions. I remain hopeful that New Zealand will do the same.

 I continue to look forward to your urgent advice as to the correct status of Dr Black so that all members of the committee and the public who read the Committee's minutes are properly informed as to the interests he represents (and which category of representative he qualifies as).

 It is also interesting to note in the most recent minutes the comments from Simon-Cooke Willis- (Telecom's representative on the Interagency Committee). Mr Cooke-Willis's minuted comments clearly indicate his role in representing Telecom' on this Committee. This is contrary to the statements made by Mr Westlake during the TCF presentation to the LG&E Select Committee on Thursday 15 October.

 I would be therefore also grateful for your advice as to what follow up the Select Committee has undertaken with Mr Westlake to correct the apparent inaccuracies in his statements.

 Thanks

Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc

Robert Smith | Friday October 23 2009 - 02:49pm

The Green Party jumped back on the anti-cellphone tower bandwagon again this week, reducing the complex issue to crowd-friendly soundbites.
Arguments over the deployment of cellphone masts around the country have raged for years, with companies and government organizations all struggling to find a solution that would keep everybody happy.
This did not prevent Green Party MP Sue Kedgley from scoring political points over the towers in parliament this week.
She complained it was "incredibly unfair" that telecommunications companies could put up transmitters and antennae on power poles next to people's homes without having to inform them or consult with them.
Health minister Tony Ryall conceded that the public did not have a right to be consulted on cellphone towers being put up in their communities while assuring Ms Kedgeley of the safety of the tower.
This did not stop Ms Kedgeley from calling for a review of the national environmental standard so that telcos would be required to consult with local residents before constructing cellphone masts next to people's homes and schools.
The campaign against cell sites is a guaranteed crowd-pleaser - it's not hard to connect with voters concerned about their health and the fact that their skylines could be tainted with the sight of towers, as long as the work already going into public consultation and issues such as co-location are ignored.
2degrees has been the most active tower builder over the past 18 months as it established its network in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown, and is now in raising the money to take that network nationwide.
2degrees spokeswoman Bryony Hilless said the telco considered it good practise to carry out consultation with those affected by the erection of towers and some cases did require a formal consultation process under the Resource Management Act.

Consultation can hold up some projects for months and an absolute requirement to consult anybody in the region who could be affected in any way would only delay more towers, when escalating demand and increasing competition see the need for more sites grow.

Standing up in Parliament and scoring political points is easy enough, especially when nobody want a tower in their back garden, but it won't solve the ongoing problem.

By MATT BOWEN - Eastern Courier

PEOPLE POWER: Rowan Hegley, far right, and his many supporters forced telco 2degrees to temporarily abandon cell site work at 145 Clovelly Rd.

Photo: MATT BOWEN 1

t's a matter of right and wrong, say residents.
Last week mobile contractors for telecommunications company 2degrees arrived at 145 Clovelly Rd to put up a controversial cell tower.
But they soon left without turning a sod.
Manukau City Council granted the company permission to install the equipment under the National Environmental Standards in September.
Rowan Hegley, who lives at the address with his wife and five children, saw the two trucks and six men arrive before noon.
He quickly called other residents for help.
A vocal group of 20 protesters turned up brandishingsigns while Mr Hegley's car was parked on the verge, making work impossible.
The scene that developed was at times "tense".
Mr Hegley says a 2degrees representative showed up and tried to move them along.
"We told him we weren't going to do that.
"We've tried everything through the right channels and we've been ignored."
A network of more than 50 people, many of whom have been affected by 2degrees cell sites in their neighbourhood, have pledged to drop tools and stand in solidarity with the Hegley family whenever contractors return.

"If I went to work this morning I could have come home and had a cell tower outside the house," Mr Hegley says.
"Our homes and lives are worth much more than a commercial venture funded by offshore money."
Allan Pilbrow, who lives near an unsightly cell site at Elimar Drive, Farm Cove, says they won't lie down and "it's just going to get more and more niggly".

He says these sites were pushed through before the new guidelines on cell sites were adopted by the council.
"In business we sit down and come to a rational decision ? the only winner here is 2degrees. They'll sell the company off or something in the future and we'll be left with this here forever."

A council spokeswoman says the matter is between 2 degrees and the residents.
They have the right to be there and carry out their legitimate business, she says.
"The company is considering the next step but they can take the matter up with the police."
Spokeswoman for 2degrees Bryony Hilless says they will be proceeding with the site.
"It's up to the team here to talk with the council and determine the best way forward. And we'll have to review our options as it goes on."

Robina Richardson

From: jeffcoat
Sent: Thursday, 15 October 2009 9:53 a.m.
To: Pavan Sharma
Subject: Opposition to Cell Towers near schools and residences

Dear Madam

Please forward this to the Select Committee on Cell Towers.

A quote from Cell Towers and Brain Tumours?15 Reasons for Concern.

"In a world where a drug cannot be launched without proof that it is safe, where the use of herbs and
natural compounds available to all since early Egyptian times are now questioned, their safety subjected to the deepest scrutiny, where a new food cannot be launched without prior approval, the idea that we can use mobile telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi and mobile phones without restrictions around our five year olds is double?standards gone mad. I speak, not just as an editor and scientist that has looked in depth at all the research, but as a father that lost his beloved daughter to a brain tumour."

Chris Woollams MA Biochemistry (Oxon)
Editor Integrated Cancer and Oncology News (icon magazine)
CEO CANCERactive.