By Chris Morris on Mon, 30 Nov 2009
News: Dunedin

Growing concern over the proliferation of cellphone towers could prompt changes to the Dunedin City Council's district plan.

The council is expected to call for public submissions on possible changes to the rules section of its district plan by the middle of next year, and council hearings committee chairman Cr Colin Weatherall said he expected objections to cellphone-tower rules to be raised.

That could include arguments from both sides, with some residents wanting tighter controls and cellphone companies seeking greater leniency in the rules governing their towers.

Cr Weatherall's comments came as concern grew in Dunedin over the construction of three cellphone towers.

The Otago Daily Times last week reported Brighton couple Stephen and Kaye Wilson were considering selling their home, or appealing to the Environment Court, after the council approved plans for a 30m-high cellphone tower near their property.

The tower, to be built by Vodafone New Zealand on land owned by the council, was more than twice the height allowed under district plan rules, but was approved after a council assessment of the environmental effects found in the firm's favour.

In a separate case, Blackhead Rd resident Barbara Mason told the ODT she was concerned at the sudden appearance of a Vodafone tower built on private land 100m from her rural residential property.

The tower was installed in March while she was on holiday, and a second Telecom tower was planned for another privately-owned property nearby.

Asked about the two developments, Cr Weatherall said both towers complied with district plan rules, including height, and a staff assessment had not identified any houses nearby which were adversely affected.

They therefore required only the consent of the owners of the sites they were to be built on before being granted non-notified resource consent.

Cr Weatherall said the council was not able to consider concerns over possible adverse health effects from cellphone tower emissions, but he could understand community concern over the towers' sudden appearance.

The district plan needed to be updated to "modernise" and reflect community concerns, he said.

Updating the plan would include public submissions and a hearing, and the process would be open to everyone, he said.

chris.morris@odt.co.nz

Press Release for Immediate Release

Select Committee Report into Electromagnetic Radiation

Ban the Tower is delighted with the report of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee into Electromagnetic Radiation, which was released yesterday.

The Inquiry was initiated last year in response to a 3101 signature petition from Sarah Allen and others opposing a proposed 22m Telecom celltower next door to Atawhai Playcentre.

“The community joined forces to lobby Telecom, councillors and MP’s to find an alternative site. A team of parents did a huge amount of research, set up our own website to share information and even made a film letter for then Prime Minister called “Dear Helen Clark”” says spokesperson Sue Grey

By Chris Morris on Thu, 26 Nov 2009

Brighton woman Kaye Wilson says she may be forced sell her home, after the Dunedin City Council approved plans for a 30m-high cellphone tower nearby.

Mrs Wilson and husband Stephen were among 10 residents to oppose plans by Vodafone New Zealand to build the tower on rural land it owned beside Scroggs Hill Rd, overlooking Brighton.

This week, they learned the council had granted resource consent for the tower, which when built would be more than twice the height allowed under district plan rules.

Mrs Wilson yesterday told the Otago Daily Times the couple would be seriously considering an appeal to the Environment Court or selling their home.

She was worried about possible health problems arising from emissions from the cellphone tower, and Mr Wilson - at a public hearing last month - spoke about losing the views he had expected to enjoy in his retirement.

"We are furious, absolutely furious. It just drives me nuts that they can just do these things.

"Neither of us want to live under a cellphone tower," Mrs Wilson said.

Vodafone wanted to build the tower to meet growing demand for cellphone services in the area, and had identified the land - previously owned by the council - overlooking the township and 1.5km from Brighton beach.

It would also be built near two neighbouring properties, located 85m and 160m away, an existing Telecom facility, and would be 2km south of the Saddle Hill landscape conservation area and 1km north of the South Coast Coastal Landscape Preservation area.

Residents opposed to the application objected to the effect on their homes' property values and views, and possibly to their health.

At a hearing last month, Mr Wilson told the council's hearings panel, headed by independent commissioner Allan Cubitt, the tower would "loom" over the couple's home.

Mr Cubitt, in his written decision, acknowledged the tower's height would breach district plan rules.

Despite that, the tower would compare favourably with others that could be built on the site as of right, which would comply with district plan rules but be wider and more visible, he believed.

The committee had discussed at length the visual effect the tower would have on neighbours, but judging it was "subjective and difficult", he said.

The decision was "very finely balanced" with adverse visual effects from some locations and, in particular, the Wilsons' property, he said.

However, the overall effect would not be "overly significant when compared to the effects of a permitted facility", he said.

Concerns about possible health problems from cellphone tower emissions was not an issue for the panel to consider, although the tower met relevant New Zealand standards, he said.

His comments came as a parliamentary select committee rejected calls to ban cellphone towers near schools and homes, but recommended the Government consider reviewing the national standard for cellsite emissions, amid strong public concern about their safety, Radio New Zealand reported yesterday.

Conditions attached to the consent required the tower to be painted grey to help reduce the visual impact, and not have cables, wiring or other similar infrastructure attached to the exterior.

Submitters have 15 working days to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court.

By MARIANNE KELLY

• Howick and Pakuranga Times

A FIGHT over freedom of expression has resulted in a back-down by bureaucrats.

Last month, opponents to cellphone masts being sited outside houses conveyed their message to passing pedestrians and motorists with signs and banners on their roadside fences.

But they were horrified to receive abatement notices from Manukau City Council including fines of $300 per head, not per property.

But last week the residents were surprised to receive a hand-delivered letter from the council saying the fines and abatement notices were cancelled.
“Amazing what a bit of fighting back and standing up for your rights can do,” say Tina and Rowan Hegley, who are opposing plans to prevent a mast being placed in front of their property at 145 Clovelly Road, Bucklands Beach.
Fiona Jeffcoat and her husband Daniel Yu came to the forefront of protest when telco 2degrees applied to put a mast at the entrance to Paparoa Park in Howick, 12 metres away from the boundary of their Litten Road property and 34 metres from their bedroom.
After they put a protest banner on their fence, they were disgusted to receive abatement notices and a $300 fine each.

“Apparently the council had complained and then issued the fines,” Mr Yu says.
“When asked who instigated the fines, we were told we would not be allowed that information.

“In fact, every family who has signs protesting towers outside their homes has been fined $600. What a coincidence. This would have risen to $1500 per family if not paid in 28 days.”

Mr and Mrs Hegley say the letters dated November 6 did not reach them until November 10, leaving them with just three days to seek legal advice and conform with the November 13 deadline.

They refused to pay on the grounds the notice was unlawful, and contrary to their rights and freedom of speech.

“When we were asked to put up these signs on behalf of the National Environmental Society, we were happy to help spread the word about the unjust issue of cellphone masts being erected outside residential properties without the owners’ or occupiers’ consent,” they say.

“A decision was made by Manukau City Council to do just this without our consent.

“Therefore, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights, we were happy to protest the right ‘not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without our consent’.

“We also, under this act, have the right to freedom of expression – to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

“This was being done by way of protest signs on our property fence, not outside our property.”

Ms Jeffcoat and Mr Yu were angry that, not only was their consent not required for the proposed mast, but they were also not allowed to protest.

Like the Hegleys, they received a hand-delivered letter explaining that the case had been dropped.

“I suspect that the council may have realised its ‘approach’ was not going to go unnoticed and perhaps it was time to pull its head in,” Ms Jeffcoat says.

“Freedom of expression may be alive and well in other parts of New Zealand, but clearly not in Manukau,” says Mr Yu. “Albert Einstein so wisely said, ‘the attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while’.

“That time is over, if in fact it ever existed.

“Roll on the super-city elections in 2010. Be assured, we will not make the same mistake twice

From the Aucklander

I've been told Fiona Jeffcoat was fined $300 for hanging a 'No cellphone towers' sign on her own home fence, without permission from Manukau City Council.

Since when has this freedom of expression, posted on your own property, been an offence?

To add further insult, her husband also got a $300 fine for being married to her and agreeing with the message on her sign.

Good job I didn't walk past and say "Good on ya, mate'' or I might have copped a fine too.

Have the Nazis taken over, or what?

Brian Morris
Flatbush

The Nelson Mail

Nelson's anti-cellphone tower campaign group is disappointed a parliamentary select committee report does not make a specific recommendation to ban cellphone towers from next to schools and playcentres.

However, the Ban the Tower group is grateful the committee has looked into the issue and hopes the Government will adopt the committee's report, which lists four recommendations.

The report into electromagnetic radiation, penned by the local government and environment select committee, recommends the Government review the membership of a government committee which assesses health effects of non-ionising fields.

The select committee inquiry was initiated last year in response to a 3101-signature petition from Nelson resident Sarah Allen opposing a proposed 22-metre Telecom cellphone tower next door to Atawhai Playcentre.

The committee also took two other similar petitions into consideration during its inquiry.

Ms Allen said she was "slightly disappointed" the committee did not specifically recommend that cellphone towers not be erected next to schools and playcentres.

She said the report was not entirely accurate either in saying that issues over a Telecom tower being erected next to Atawhai Playcentre had been resolved. The issue was not a closed book, and Telecom was still proposing to put the tower next to the playcentre if it could not find an alternative site, Ms Allen said.

The 15-page report says three petitions outline concerns over the effects of cell towers on human health.

"We believe that the Atawhai case exemplifies the problematic issues that can arise when telecommunication companies attempt activities that affect local communities, the challenges of appropriate engagement with affected communities, and general concerns about safety."

Ban the Tower group spokeswoman Sue Grey said she was delighted with the report. "This report is an amazing example of what can be achieved by communities when they work together, even if you are up against the biggest corporates. It is excellent news that the select committee has listened to our concerns."

The committee asks the Government to consider how regulation might be improved so "development of infrastructure can proceed in a way that safeguards community interests".

It also suggests the Government looks at reviewing standards for radio frequency fields.

25/11/2009 7:28:01 NewsTalkZB

The Greens want an independent review of cellphone towers.

A select committee report has recommended the Government review the New Zealand standard for radio frequency fields to ensure it is in line with the world's best practice.

Green MP Sue Kedgley says there are risks associated with low-level exposure to electromagnetic radiation and she wants a review of the standard which allows cell towers to be erected without consulting the community.

The Greens say recent international research shows electromagnetic radiation can affect people's health and increase the risk of brain tumours. It says adverse health effects can happen at levels of exposure that are thousands of times below the current safety limit.

Ms Kedgley believes the Government should play it safe and stop allowing cell towers, antennas and masts to go up next to homes, schools and playcentres

"People's health should come first. Telecommunications companies must also be required to consult with the people affected before they put up towers or transmitters in their communities."

Recently, Rowan Hegley, a resident of Bucklands Beach in Auckland, parked vehicles in front of a power pole outside his home in order to stop the new telco company 2degrees from erecting a cellphone tower on it.

Petition 2005/179 of Sarah Allen and 3,100 others, Petition 2008/8 of Andrew Crawford, and Petition 2008/32 of Sharon Stewart, David Collings and 1,451 others (I.9A) (24 November 2009)

The committee has now reported to the House on the cellphone tower petitions. Its report can be accessed online

By TOM PULLAR-STRECKER - The Dominion Post

Vodafone, Telecom and 2degrees have agreed on the minimum steps they should take to consult communities when they are building or upgrading cellsites.

The guidelines have been criticised as "woefully inadequate" by Green MP Sue Kedgley, who says mobile network operators should sit down with community groups and councils before they identify possible sites, and agree on locations that are least intrusive.

"I can think of a couple of cases where they have been able to find a location the community can live with."

Bar any consultations they are required to carry out under council rules, the telcos have only accepted an obligation to inform people who live "immediately adjacent" to cellsites in residential areas of their intentions, along with the managers of any nearby "public facilities", such as schools.

State-owned transmission company Kordia and wireless network operator Woosh are also signatories to the guidelines, drafted by the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, an industry body.

When cellsites in residential areas are upgraded, carriers should write to people immediately adjacent to the cellsite at least 20 days before any construction begins, explaining what is being done and why, the forum says.

In the case of a new cellsite, those people should be informed before any council consents are sought, and again before construction begins.

2degrees is not a member of the forum, but spokeswoman Bryony Hilless says it helped draft the code and supports it.

It expects to build or attach its equipment to several hundred more cellsites over the next few years as it expands its coverage and reduces its reliance on roaming on Vodafone's network outside the main centres.

Ms Kedgley says she is being contacted every week and sometimes daily by "distraught communities".

The forum had carefully used the term "community engagement" rather than consultation, she says. "As far as I can see, all they are really doing is saying they will let people know a few days ahead of time that a cellphone tower is about to be constructed outside their home. This is not genuine consultation."

Ms Kedgley has called for a review of a national environmental standard approved by the previous government last year that means cellsite and wireless transmission towers less than three metres tall do not usually need resource consent.

Forum chairman Richard Westlake says there are "pretty robust" planning rules protecting communities.

View article...

Dear Minister

I would like to bring to your attention serious concerns about New Zealand's report to the WHO "WHO International EMF Project

14th International Advisory Committee meeting New Zealand country report 2009"

This report is available from:

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/mapnatreps/NEW_ZEALAND_Report_2009.pdf

The relevant part of the report states:

"Cellsites

There has been increased concern over the past year about cellsites, due partly to

publicity about the new National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication

Facilities discussed previously, and partly to the rollout of a new cellular network and

modifications of sites and installation of new sites by the two existing cellular network

operators. Measurements made by National Radiation Laboratory staff continue to

show that maximum exposures in publicly accessible areas around cellsites are

generally less than 1% of the ICNIRP limits (and typically much lower still). This

remains the case even where several sites are within a few tens of metres of each other.

One community group presented a petition to the Local Government and Environment

Select Committee, seeking (amongst other things) the prohibition of cellsites within 1

km of educational facilities, and a legislative requirement for notification and

community consultation for sites in residential areas. The Select Committee held

hearings but further consideration was postponed by an election."

As you know I have kept a very active interest in this issue for the last 18 months or so. During that time I have made regular contact with numerous community representatives around New Zealand and internationally. I have also presented oral and written submissions to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee and initiated regular contact with various Ministers, opposition MPs, public servants at the NRL, Ministry of Health and Ministry for the Environment and with various Telco representatives. I have also provided information to the government's Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation, received and considered all the minutes and made suggestions seeking more qualified representation on that committee and the removal of vested interests.  I believe I have a very clear understanding of community concerns about cell sites.  

Despite my active engagement in this issue I have not been made aware of any community concern arising solely from publicity about the new NES. To characterise the concerns this way minimises the serious and genuine concern of many experts, parents and other community interests throughout New Zealand about the current state of EMR management in New Zealand.

All the individual and community submissions on the NES opposed the proposed regulation for a variety of significant reasons, including public health concerns, the inadequacy of NZS2772:1 1999 and the removal of the rights provided by the RMA, in a way that undermined the sustainable management purpose of that Act. The process for adoption of the NES was abysmal. Nobody who was employed by government apparently reviewed the submissions (this task was contracted out) and so far as I can ascertain, not a single point of concern raised in any public submission was addressed. The mandatory s32 report was delayed to so late in the process that it became meaningless and the Minister asked himself and answered the wrong question (see s44 of the RMA) before signing off on the Regulations.

The very serious and widespread public concerns about EMR management in New Zealand include requests for:

a) exclusion zones around schools, preschools and homes ? or at least much stricter criteria there to create an incentive for Telco's to locate new towers in sane places

b) a review of NZS2772:1 1999 to ensure best international practice and much stricter emission limits;

c) revocation of the "NES" (Resource Management National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications) Regulations 2008 which the Telco's largely wrote themselves and which gives them exemptions form all the usual environmental requirements for consultation and risk benefit assessments;  

d) removal of vested interests from the Government's Interagency Advisory committee and more representation from people who have expertise in assessing the health effects of non-ionising radiation; and

e) NZS2772:1 1999 adopting the wrong standard of proof and a far too narrow test to meet the definition of "effect" in s3 of the RMA.

Your report to the WHO seriously understates the degree of public concern and overstates the government's response to address these. The responses taken by the NZ government to date do nothing to address the inadequacies of NZS2772:1 (and the ICNIRP standard) which protects only against the microwave-oven type "thermal" effects of EMR and which provides no protection at all against the biological effects of much lower levels of EMR. Nor does it protect against effects on pregnant women, effects on people who are sensitive or hyper-sensitive to EMR, effect son people with pacemakers, the cumulative effects of EMR and other toxins and EMR with metals.  To protect against biological effects the maximum permitted limits should be reduced to 1/100 or preferably 1/1000 of the limits allowed by NZS2772:1 1999. I have seen no evidence of regular monitoring of any cellsites to support claims made in the report.  

It is very important that New Zealand reports accurately to WHO. I am therefore very keen to understand how the NZ situation came to be reported in these terms.

Please could you provide:

1) all draft reports and all documentation and evidence relied on that shows how the NZ report came to be submitted to WHO with this content and who authorised this.

2) copies of monitoring relied on to support the claim that "maximum exposures in publicly accessible areas around cellsites are generally less than 1% of the ICNIRP limits (and typically much lower still). This remains the case even where several sites are within a few tens of metres of each other."

3) Please also include the date and circumstance so this monitoring as the results you suggest are very different than the monitoring results that have been provided to me;

4) Any other information relied on by your officials to support the claims in the report and the sources of this information; and

5) Please could you also advise the date of the NZ report to the WHO and the period of time it covered.

I presume it is a relatively straightforward task to provide this information as it should all have been assembled to assist with the preparation of the report.

My preference would be for this information to be provided electronically.

Please ring me (ph xxxxxxxx) if you have any queries about the scope of this request. Meanwhile, please could you advise who will be handling my request.

Thank you for your interest and assistance.

Regards

Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI

Atawhai

Nelson

I remember a story that I was told at school when I was a kid. The story was about a machine using X-ray to allow parents buying shoes to see live that the shoes were perfectly fitting their children feet. I do not know why that story marked me but I also remembered that the story ended because radiations. So I have done a bit of research and I have found some information on that story, it looks very similar to the cell phone story.

Published: May 22, 1921:

Microwaves in telephony are dangerous ... This story just proves again that we do not learn from mistakes ?

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

http://staff.tamhigh.org/lapp/xray.pdf

By SHANE COWLISHAW - The Southland Times

Last updated 05:00 14/11/2009

Telecom has been accused of "corporate thuggery" by Windsor residents and business owners angry at plans to build a cellphone mast in the area.

Telecom subsidiary Chorus has a certificate of compliance from the Invercargill City Council and will soon build the mast in King St behind United Video.

The mast can be up to 18 metres high and will be sited as little as 10m from neighbouring houses.

Residents are angry the tower did not need public consultation to be approved and yesterday vented their anger at a public meeting.

Chorus spokeswoman Melanie Marshall, acquisitions manager Michael Letts and RF engineer John Ratuszny met about 30 disgruntled residents at the North Presbyterian Church.

The meeting was barely under way before proceedings became heated, with many residents complaining they were not notified about the tower.

Windsor Florist owner Caren Hall said she had received a letter from Chorus only on Thursday. She was disgusted the trio were defending the decision to build the mast but had not even visited the site. "Good luck sleeping at night guys, I hope you have dreams to Africa."

Bill Robertson, whose property is closest to the mast, said he was "devastated, gutted and dismayed".

Meeting organiser Paul Fitzgerald said the notification was inadequate and described the process as "corporate thuggery".

The science behind the effects of cell tower radiation was inconclusive and the long-term effects unknown, he said.

Ms Marshall said the process complied with resource management and council requirement and radiation levels would be well below the New Zealand standard.

"The debate in the scientific community is on mobile phone use, not on mobile phone sites."

The company policy was to try to minimise the number of sites so placing one tower in the right place meant fewer towers in the community. "When we have to build this infrastructure when people are using them it's always going to be in someone's back yard, if not yours then someone else's."

Joan Kennedy said she felt Telecom was railroading the little people and there was nothing residents could do to stop it.

A possible drop in property prices was also a hot topic.

One resident said a family had been about to sell their $500,000 house but after an article in The Southland Times about the mast the prospective buyer had pulled out.

The house was now advertised for $449,000 and could drop further if it did not sell, she said.

Residents were angry building trustee Roy Barnsdale had agreed to the deal. But, speaking after the meeting, Mr Barnsdale said he had assumed Telecom would have to go through a public consultation process and had been surprised to find out no consent was needed.

At the end of the meeting Ms Marshall said they would review the site and again look at alternative options

By JIM CHIPP - The Wellingtonian

Residents of Hay St in Oriental Bay are aggrieved that a second cellphone transmitter is to be installed on a neighbouring building.

Wellington City Council has issued Telecom with a certificate of compliance for seven panel antennae and three cabinets on the roof and upper walls of the Kensington apartment building.

The certificate means no resource consent is required.

Similar devices are operated by Vodafone on the same building.

Hay St resident Helen Foot has written to the apartment building body corporate secretary on behalf of 32 neighbouring residents, who include Trade Me millionaire Gareth Morgan, requesting a meeting with the apartment board before installation begins.

Ms Foot said recent research indicated that there could be serious adverse health effects from long-term exposure to this radiation.

"We are getting zapped now [by Vodafone] and we are going to get double-zapped soon."

A national environmental telecommunications standard was implemented in early 2008, which effectively exempted telecommunications equipment from the Resource Management Act or any council authority.

Equipment which complies with the maximum permissible emission level and size can be installed by telecommunications companies wherever they like, as of right.

Kensington Apartments board secretary Maggie Miller said the board would not meet with Hay St residents.

"We have declined the request on the basis that we have a legally-binding contract with Telecom. Regardless of anything else, we are simply not able to change that."

Ms Foot said Hay St residents were frustrated that they had no say on the location of the devices and were considering what subversive action they could take to compromise unwelcome cellphone sites.

Telecom communications executive Katherine Murphy said the company is always happy to listen to the concerns of residents but in this case have not heard from anyone.

"When looking into building new mobile sites we always consider any concerns residents may have, and balance those concerns with the demand for mobile services in the area."

Dear Ministers

Even if you are not concerned about the effects of cellphones on kids brains, you may be interested in their effect on male fertility!

This study is one of hundreds which identify adverse "biological effects" from low level exposure RF EMR (radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation).

The New Zealand standard (NZS2772:1 1999) does not recognise the possibly of EMR causing and long term biological effects (it protects only against the short term heating/microwave oven type effect). This is despite the potential for long term biological effects from RF EMR now being established beyond any doubt and despite the now ignored advice in the MfE/MOH National Guidelines for Managing the Effects of Radio Frequency Transmitters that exposure should be avoided where possible.

Other countries have emission limits 100 time more stringent that New Zealand's.  The governments of other countries and many international experts have issued warnings that children's exposure to RF/EMR should be minimised.

Why is New Zealand unnecessarily exposing its children to EMR. Think of the long term public health and environmental consequences if the research is correct. Why cant best international practice and a more precautionary approach be adopted? Why is the government not informing our residents of the risks so people can make their own decisions about the exposure they and their children are prepared to accept? Why are all the usual community participation rights for environmental legislation excluded in the case of EMR ? despite the enormous public concern and the increasing knowledge of the longer term risk form even low level exposure?

I look forward to your advice as to what action you are taking to address these concerns.

As always I'm very happy to discuss.

Regards

Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI and concerned mother of three

Cell Phone Use Could Damage Semen 

Mobile Phone Use: Brain Tumor Risk

From: (MIN)

Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2009 5:12 p.m.

To: Sue Grey

Subject: RE: Celltowers story on Target ! the Sue Grey email

Dear Ms Grey,

On behalf of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment, I acknowledge receipt of your email, received 28 October 2009, in which you request the following information:

- a copy of the full statement that you made to Target plus all related communications to you and/or to your office from any of your own officials, the National Radiation Laboratory and any other public servants which led to this statement being released to Target?

- I would also be grateful for you advice as to if and when the NZ government intends to take action to bring New Zealand inline with best international environmental practice in relation to the management of celltowers, and other radiofrequency.

Your request will be responded to under the provisions of the Official Information Act. Your request for urgency has been noted.

Yours sincerely

-----Original Message-----

From: Sue Grey

Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2009 8:11 am

To: Hon. Dr. Nick Smith (MIN)

Subject: Celltowers story on Target !

Dear Minister

I am very concerned that the statement attributed to you on "Target" last night may be misleading and deceptive. I do not know if the show accurately represented your words.

Your words bore similarities to misleading claims made in the house by Damien O'Connor prior to the election about this issue and presumably were prepared by the same individual or organisation.

Please could I urgently have (by reply email) a copy of the full statement that you made to Target plus all related communications to you and/or to your office from any of your own officials, the National Radiation Laboratory and any other public servants which led to this statement being released to Target?

I would also be grateful for you advice as to if and when the NZ government intends to take action to bring New Zealand inline with best international environmental practice in relation to the management of celltowers, and other radiofrequency.

Thanks

Sue Grey

Auckland City Harbour News

Pt Chevalier residents are waiting to find out if a proposed mobile phone site in their neighbourhood could be built elsewhere.

The 12-metre pole with three panel antennas was due to be built by Telecom outside 320 Pt Chevalier Rd earlier this year.

But it was met with an angry community response because locals felt the pole had been planned with little regard for them.

Residents Sarah and Alan Wild said at the time in a letter to Telecom that they may have to move away from the area to avoid radiation effects.

Mr Wild now says there are three to four alternatives being looked at in the vicinity of a similar 2 Degrees site near the Meola Rd and Pt Chevalier Rd intersection.

"We went out with Telecom to see what they're up to."

He says there are strict restrictions for selecting a site.

"They're still close to residential areas."

Mr Wild says a tower could be placed in the Meola Reef car park, something the community would be happy with.

But he thinks a cell tower would need a line of sight to areas it would provide coverage for so it may depend on the geography of the area.

"The ball is in their court," he says.

"They haven't told me what their intentions are."

Telecom spokeswoman Katherine Murphy says residents' concerns and feedback have 
been taken on board.

"Since our meeting in September we have been working with the Auckland City Council to look at alternative sites.

"It's important we find a balance between delivering the mobile services the local community demands and taking into consideration the concerns of the affected residents."

She says potential sites are reviewed for suitability in respect to the coverage they could provide, land availability and other requirements.

"While we're still working through this process there isn't much more we can say, however, we will report back to residents when we have reached a decision with the council."

By DIANA WORTHY - Waiheke Marketplace

A battle to get fears heard by government over health effects from cell mast emissions are another step closer thanks to MPs and a reported pledge from the prime minister.

Manukau mayor Len Brown is claiming prime minister John Key has told him he will recommend a review to Cabinet.

It would be about the lack of consultation requirements in the National Environmental Standards for telecommunication facilities.

Meanwhile, Auckland Central National MP Nikki Kaye, Labour list MP Phil Twyford, and Green MP Sue Kedgely are all offering help to get Waiheke voices heard.

Miss Kaye has forwarded a request from a Surfdale campaign group for one of its members to appear before the Local Government and Environment select committee.

The group wants permission for member Stuart Reuben to present medical research showing how phone mast emissions can threaten health.

Surfdale resident Dr Reuben is an internationally recognised scientist pressing for a re-think over the National Environmental Standard for radio frequencies.

Now Dr Reuben along with other core campaigners Andrew Crawford and Stephanie Honeychurch are waiting to know if the request will be granted.

They say it is important the committee is presented with independent evidence before it finishes its deliberations from recent petition hearings on the issue.

Both Miss Kaye and Mr Twyford are members of that committee.

Last February the group organised a 700-signature petition against cell mast proposals, with Miss Kaye pledging to "walk the petition" herself to environment minister Nick Smith.

Now Labour MP Phil Twyford has also offered help and will be meeting with the group on 23 November.

He says he has already heard from many other community groups on the issue and concerns are being discussed by the select committee.

Mr Twyford says it is clear there is no conclusive evidence internationally on the health effects of exposure to radio frequency fields but it is important to act with caution.

"There's enough concern here and abroad that exposure to electro-magnetic radiation from cell phone towers could have an effect in the future.

"So we need to take the precautionary principal to undertake further research - and for government to base its policy on the precautionary principal.

"Labour is calling on government to review the New Zealand Standard for radio frequency fields to ensure it is still in line with best practice.

"We (Labour) are calling on government to review the membership of the interagency committee on this issue. We want to ensure greater community representation and expertise and research assessment. We want the government to consider how the regulatory environment can be improved so infrastructure can be developed in the interests of the community.

"I'm meeting the group on Waiheke and will do whatever I can to help."

Tonight campaigner Green MP Sue Kedgeley will be at a free public meeting at Surfdale Hall from 6pm. The meeting will include a pot-luck supper.

Residents will be able to hear Ms Kedgeley's views about the right to consultation before towers can be erected and health threats.

She believes the countrywide growth of cell towers was partly sparked by the introduction of a new law and the passing of the National Environmental Standard by the last government.

Ms Kedgely claims the standard was drawn up by the telcos and is one of the most permissive in the world.

October 26, 2:48 PMLA Women's Health ExaminerVirginia Hopkins

The results of the decade-long Interphone study on cell phone safety are that heavy cell phone use increases the risk of developing brain tumors later in life.

 The study, which focused on three types of brain cancer and tumors of the parotid gland, found a significant increase in cancer after a decade or more of cell phone use.

When a cell phone tower connects with a cell phone, electromagnetic radiation is created. When the cell phone is held against the ear, this radiation penetrates the brain.

According the Daily Telegraph in London, the World Health Organization (WHO) will soon publish the results of the Interphone study, which was conducted in 12 countries by the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC).

Head researcher Dr. Elisabeth Cardis told the Telegraph, "In the absence of definitive results and in the light of a number of studies which, though limited, suggest a possible effect of radiofrequency radiation, precautions are important. I am therefore globally in agreement with the idea of restricting the use by children, though I would not go as far as banning mobile phones as they can be a very important tool, not only in emergencies, but also maintaining contact between children and their parents and thus playing a reassurance role. Means to reduce our exposure (use of hands-free kits and moderating our use of phones) are also interesting."

 These results from the Interphone study follow closely on research published in the Oct 13 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which reviewed existing research on the association between cell phones and brain tumors. It found that when just the well-done studies were included, there was an 18% increased risk of brain tumors in cell phone users, and that they tended to occur on the side of the head that the cell phone was used most.

In the United States, which did not participate in the Interphone study, there are 270 million cell phones in use. Senator Tom Harkin, now head of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has promised to probe more deeply into the question of a link between cell phones and brain cancer.

There's no argument that cell phones emit an electromagnetic field, a form of microwave radiation, that enters the brain when the cell phone is held against the ear, and there's good research showing that the field does affect brain function. Although research has not shown that short term cell phone use causes cancer, a large population study from Sweden has shown that people who use cell phones for more than ten years on the same side of the head have a 40% higher risk of certain types of brain tumors. The Interphone study adds to this evidence.

Cell phone users can distance the brain from electromagnetic fields by using the speaker phone function, a headset, or by texting.

 For more information about safer cell phone use read Tips for Safer Cell Phone Use.

BOULDER, Colo.--(Business Wire)--

Dr. Magda Havas, Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University, Canada will present new evidence showing a link between heart irregularities and electromagnetic fields from wireless phones at the American Holistic Medical Association conference in Cleveland, OH on Friday, November 6^th and at a conference of the EMR Policy Institute in Golden, CO, Sunday, November 8th.

Havas` 25-person study is Phase I of a 100-person study examining the heart`s reactivity to microwave radiation emitted by common DECT cordless phones. This is the first time such striking effects from microwave radiation being emitted by wireless phones has been documented scientifically in a double blind study and it is important information for health practitioners to know. Patients today experiencing electrohypersensitivity symptoms are commonly put on drugs for other conditions with similar symptoms, instead of being taught how to create an electromagnetically clean environment to eliminate symptoms.

Symptoms of electrohypersensitivity include headaches, difficulty concentrating, insomnia, heart irregularities and much more. (See EHS Quiz at www.magdahavas.com) Radiation emitted from DECT portable phones is the same microwave radiation as emitted by cell phones. Havas` new study will add to the growing interest in the health effects of cell phones, broadening the focus beyond cell phones` association with brain tumors to their effect on other systems, including the heart. Senate hearing were held in September on this emerging public health issue, organized by Sen. Arlen Specter and Chaired by Senator Tom Harkin and the subject is of growing concern among government leaders nationally.

In the attached image (or download image here: http://sn.im/t0fzw), note Subject B experienced an increase in heart rate on exposure to a nearby portable phone.The heart rate immediately returned to the baseline after the cordless phone was unplugged.

Havas` study on heart rate variability was blinded, which means that the volunteers did not know when the phone was on or off. Most of the volunteers did not respond to the exposure, but those who did respond experienced arrhythmia (irregular beats of the heart) and/or tachycardia (rapid heart rate). These symptoms were often accompanied by feelings of anxiety.

Havas states, "While not everyone who is electrically sensitive responds in this manner, those who do will have difficulty being in environments where microwave radiation is present, which is virtually everywhere in our modern, wireless culture." She adds, "Cordless phones and cell phones as well as wireless computers and wi-fi networks generate this form of microwave radiation."

Additional symptoms of EHS include headaches, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, poor short-term memory, difficulty sleeping, skin problems, tinnitus, nausea, and dizziness. Many of these symptoms are subjective and difficult to measure.

Havas` study, to be presented at the conference in Golden, CO this Sunday, heralds the ability of health practitioners to determine if cardiac irregularities might be triggered by electromagnetic radiation before resorting to invasive or chemical symptom-suppressing cardiac therapeutics. She and co-investigator Jeff Marrongelle, DC of Schuylkill Haven, PA will also present the findings at the American Holistic Medical Association conference in Cleveland, OH this Friday, November 6th.

Dr. Havas`s is a world-renowned expert in electromagnetic fields. Her current research is concerned with the biological effects of electromagnetic pollution including radio frequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current. She is co-author, with Camilla Rees, of the new book, "Public ealth SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution"(Amazon: http://sn.im/szxq8).

To register contact EMR Policy Institute Vice President, Deb Carney at (303) 526-9666 or deb@carneylaw.net

ElectromagneticHealth.org is a public health and environmental advocacy organization educating the media, physicians, schools, business leaders, patients with chronic illness and government about the health hazards of electromagnetic fields.

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=6090087?=en

ElectromagneticHealth.org
Emily Robertson, 641-715-3900
Ext 61768#

Emily@electromagnetichealth.org