Atawhai

Susan Wells

TCF

Auckland

Dear Ms Wells

Please accept this email as my public response to your call for feedback on the TCF's community consultation guidelines.

First, I have been following the issue of celltower location quite closely and am very surprised to have been informed of the existence of your guidelines just this morning. It is not a good start for your guidelines that they are not readily accessible by the community, even those who are very interested in the subject. Perhaps your advertising

could have been a tad more focussed on reaching the community?

I wish to make a number of points:

1.    The telecommunications industry in general significantly under-discloses the health risks posed by electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Its focus is almost invariably on the acute, thermal effects of exposure and it ignores the long-term, chronic effects of exposure The current standards ignore the results of the international Interphone study which identified the increased incidence of tumours on the side of the head where the cellphone is normally used, as well long term effects such as mental health problems, effects on people who have electromagnetic sensitivity, the effects on pacemakers and other electronic body parts.

 2.    Typically, the latent period between exposure to EMR and the development of symptoms such as tumours is of the order of ten years or more. Widespread use of cellphones has been with us for less than ten years. In other words, it is highly likely that the consequences of EMR exposure is still in its incubation period. Nonetheless, the scientific evidence of chronic harm caused by EMR exposure is overwhelming. All that is required by the telecommunications industry is the recognition that their product is tracking along the same lines as tobacco, asbestos, dioxin and other contaminants. Profiteering at the expense of public health is not going to be a good look when it is widely exposed.

3.    NZ standards are thousands of times less stringent than those adopted by some other countries and are based on the junk science concept that you won't be able to find any negative effects if you don't look for them. EMR kills people. It was used during the Cold War as a weapon.

4.   Some insurance companies and re-insurers decline cover for the effects of EMR. Their prime motivation for being in business is to make money, so for them to refuse cover should, in itself, sound the alarm bells. Other grounds for which they won't provide cover are war, terrorism, act of God and genetic engineering. You are judged by the company you keep. The calculus of insurance companies when declining cover is that although the probability of a particular event happening may be low, the consequences are likely to be catastrophic and beyond their combined ability to pay.

5.    The telecommunications industry demands that any scientific test for the chronic effects for EMR is recognized only if it meets certain extremely stringent criteria set by the industry itself. This has the net effect of requiring that any study showing harm must offer 100% certainty. This is a much higher degree of certainty than is required for establishing guilt for murder (beyond reasonable doubt) or other crimes (on the balance of probabilities) and an unimaginably stricter test than that required for "effects" under the Resource Management Act.

6.    We do not want cellphone towers closer than 500 m from houses, schools or hospitals. If you don't get the density of cover that you want, then bad luck. As it turns out, we don't want to download movies on to our cellphones anyway. We want to use them to make phone calls.

7.    If you really want to do something that will be good for communications and healthy for society, forget about 3G and Next G and spend the money laying fibre optic cable to our houses.

8.  It is important that there be full and open-minded consultation with all affected communities before any home, school, pre-school or hospital is exposed to additional EMR. This consultation needs to be started well before any decision is made. Communities need to be given balanced information about the risks and unknowns and must be made aware of all the options, including (i) the option of co-location of new transmitters with existing facilities and (ii) the option of having a genuine choice as to whether they want additional EMR at all.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am a scientist and am fascinated by technology. But while wireless technology may be cheap and highly profitable for you, it is also nasty and unhealthy for the community. Cellphone technology, while undoubtedly clever, is also going to bring tears before bedtime. And you won't even be able to say you weren't warned.

Ian Ewen-Street BSc, MPhil (Hons1), TSTC, DipOS

Ian Ewen-Street

ian.ewen-street@tasman.net