Transcript Photo Album

The Secret Life of
Mobile Phone Towers
(No recording please)
"I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time, the
greatest polluting element in the Earth’s environment is
the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.
I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than
warming, and the increase in chemical elements in the
environment.”
Dr. Robert O Becker - Nobel Nominee
Disclaimer
The speaker does not act as an authority. All content herein
is for general information purposes only and provided in
good faith “as is” without prejudice, claim or warranty.
Persons who are concerned about the health, legal,
economic or other aspects of the subject matter presented
are advised to consult a licensed practitioner.
An exemption is claimed under the Fair Use provision of the
DCMA for any included copyright material.
How Waves Behave
From the Phone Tower to You
EMR travels through the air as an invisible wave of varying intensity
The frequency of its repetitive peaks is measured in cycles per second
Distance between each successive peak is the metric “wavelength”
Example: 850MHz CDMA exposes the body
to 850 million energy pulses/second …
at a wavelength that approximates that of
the adult human skull
Each Antenna Concentrates and Projects the Waves
Effective Isotropic Radiated Power
Three sector coverage
Greater dosage for homes at
higher elevation relative to base
Depending on the vertical tilt of the antenna,
maximum field intensities occur at a predictable
distance from the tower’s base
Ocean Shores School
Pre-school
Proposed Telstra tower in populated area
showing radial distances of 200 and 500 metres
Suffolk Park
7 Mile Beach
Coverage is affected by propagation losses and variations
in terrain, with 20-30Km line-of-sight possible
Regulated Safety Standards
Thermal vs. Non-thermal Effects
Is Australia Up-to-Date?
Australian limits are based upon simple heating,
i.e. how much microwave exposure would raise
1Kg of salt water (a brain) 1 degree in 6 minutes
Trend Toward Biologically Based Standards
Australia
India
“43% of the world’s population has better protection than Australians”
Australian EMR safety standards are dealt with by
ARPANSA, the ACMA and industrial codes of practice.
They adopt recommendations from ICNIRP and the World
Health Organisation (WHO).
These entities function as a network of mutual
endorsement, populated largely by industry promoters.
They instigate and cite studies that reflect their views on
“safety”, and attempt to discredit those that do not. The
latter includes thousands of peer-reviewed papers by
respected scientists on non-thermal biological effects.
"The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
carcinogenic to humans ..."
"I assume you know that I am electrically sensitive. I never place
a mobile phone next to my head because in one second I would
develop a bad headache. I use the phone in speaker mode."
Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland,
Former Director-General of WHO
and Norwegian Prime Minister
Assumed vs. Actual Safety
Current standards are “catch-all” rather than based upon
biological testing of each new type of signal
The “Precautionary Principle”
When Standards May Not Be Enough
ARPANSA Fact Sheet 14
“However, the technology is new and it is impossible to be completely sure there
isn’t some risk.”
“Due to lack of evidence on mobile an cordless phone use by children, ARPANSA
recommends that parents encourage their children to limit their exposure.”
“Some research has indicated that non-thermal effects from low-level EMR
exposure may also occur. However, the existence of these effects and their
implications has not been sufficiently established to allow for them in the
standard.” (Deleted from current version)
Letter dated 20 March 2013
“ARPANSA does not regulate policy in the education department. It is up to
schools to apply the precautionary minimisation requirement in the ARPANSA
standard as they see fit.”
ARPANSA Fact Sheet 2
“The Standard incorporates a ‘precautionary approach’ which requires owners of
RF sources to minimise unnecessary exposure of the public to RF fields. Australian
regulators and codes of practice will decide how this statement is applied.”
Phone tower within 100 metres of a Ballina day care centre.
Dept. of Education guidelines specify 500 metres minimum
International Bans and Warnings
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
US Teachers Federation
World Health Organisation (possible carcinogen)
European Economic and Social Committee
BC Teachers Federation
Ontario Catholic Teachers Association
Parliament of HESSE (Germany)
USA Progressive Librarians Guild
Ontario Teachers Union
International Committee for Electromagnetic Safety
National Teachers Union (US)
State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields
Bavarian Parliament
German Teachers Union
Paris City Council
Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
UK Teachers Union
Australian Communications Authority (2000 Report)
City of Frankfurt Germany
Israeli Ministry of Education
Gibb's Report (Australia)
Interdisciplinary Society for Environmental Medicine
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Health Canada
Austrian Medical Association
United Teachers Union (US)
University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute
Irish Doctors Environmental Association
Supreme Court of India
National Education Association (US)
Israeli Ministry of Health
Porto Alegre Resolution (100 Scientists)
Russian National Committee on Non-ionizing Radiation
European Environmental Agency
Vienna Medical Association
Freiberger Appeal (6,000 Doctors)
International Society for Environmental medicine
US Food and Drug Administration
American Bird Conservatory
US Environmental Protection Agency
German Federal Government
UK Department of Education
Venice Italy Resolution (57 Scientists)
Physicians for the Environment (Switzerland)
EU Parliament
International Association of Firefighters
Salzburg Public Health Department
National Library of France
Progressive Librarians Guild
National Education Association (US)
Finnish Health Authority
“Electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on
thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date
and inapplicable today.”
US Department of the Interior
“The EESC emphasises the need to step up the application of
the precautionary principle, bearing in mind the risk of nonthermal biological effects of electromagnetic emissions.”
European Economic and Social Committee
“The application of the precautionary principle to the siting
of radiocommunications infrastructure should include a
consideration of the uncertainty of the science on nonthermal effects."
Communications Alliance (Australia), Industry Code C564
“One must respect the precautionary principle and revise the current
threshold values; waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof
can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case
in the past with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco. “
European Parliamentary Assembly
Potential Health Impacts
Thousands of Peer-reviewed Studies
Now Provide Scientific Certainty on
Biological Effects
"It just so happens that the frequencies and
modulations of our cell phones seem to be the
frequencies that humans are particularly sensitive to.
If we had looked into it a little more, if we had done
the real science, we could have allocated spectrums
that the body can’t feel.
The public should know if they are taking a risk with
cell phones. What we are doing is a grand world
experiment without informed consent."
Dr. Alan Frey, Microwave Auditory Effect
Carrier frequencies chosen for mobile telephony fall within
the range of maximum absorption by brain tissue
Unlike the gradual transitions of signals from radio
and analogue TV, the instantaneous rise time of
digital phone pulses exerts a “hammer-like”
inductive force upon living tissue
A Few Population Studies
UK: In April 2007 The Sunday Times reported that seven clusters of cancer
and other serious illnesses have been discovered around mobile phone
towers in the UK, raising concerns over the technology’s potential impact
on health there.
PARIS, FRANCE: In 2003 Telecom giant Orange has suspended operations
at a school phone mast site in Paris after eight cases of cancer were
confirmed among children in the district.
WALES: Near Cardiff in Wales, at least eight residents in the parish of St.
Georges and St. Brides have died of cancer in the past five years. In every
one of the 10 houses on a residential street close to the Sandy Heath
transmitter in Bedfordshire, there has been a cancer death."
US: In 2006 17 people around a mobile phone tower in Norfolk County in
the US reported symptoms of microwave sickness including headaches,
fatigue, nausea an dizziness since the installation of the tower. The tower
is to be removed."
In the UK in 1999, analysis conducted for The Sunday Times by Professor
Gordon Stewart, one of Britain's leading epidemiologists, shows there
may be a significant increase in the risk of cancers, including leukaemia,
associated with mobile phone masts.
The study revealed an increased incidence of cancer within up to 7km of
masts. Subsequent inquiries have unearthed possible clusters in London,
Bedfordshire, south Wales and the Midlands.
People in one area near the mast were found to be 33 per cent more likely
to suffer from cancer. Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer,
brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure within a radius of 400 yards
of mobile phone towers.
One of the studies, in Warwickshire, showed a cluster of 31 cancers
around a single street. A quarter of the 30 staff at a special school within
sight of the 90ft high mast have developed tumours since 2000, while
another quarter have suffered significant health problems.
Australian neurosurgeon Dr. Charles Teo has
reported an observed increase in brain cancers
attributed to mobile phone microwaves
Shrunken Nerve
Cells Reported
Children absorb more microwave radiation
due to thinner bones and higher water content
A Cover-up? What’s at Stake
Public Rejection, Litigation, Tower
Relocation, Load on Health System
"Residential
neighborhoods and
schools must not be
exposed to the risk
of radiation emitted by
the MPBSs that could
cause cancer,
miscarriages
and diseases of the
nervous system, and
could even drive people
to suicide, the
legislators said."
“If a direct link between EMF
and human health problems
were established, it would
open doors for new claims
and could ultimately lead to
large losses under product
liability covers.”
Swiss Re
“While to date we have been
able to obtain limited insurance
against these risks, the
preparedness of insurers to
give this type of insurance cover
is reducing and even this limited
insurance cover may not continue
to be economically viable.”
Telstra
Industry-funded studies are statistically less likely than
independent studies to show increased risk from EMR.
Results can be manipulated through restrictive
protocols, short timeframes and ineffective stimuli
Public Surveillance
One Reason
Why Governments
Protect the Telco’s
Ocean Shores Tower
Reported Biological Effects Below
the Proposed Field Intensities
Predicted Exposure
Maximum
ARPANSA time averaged legal limit for public exposure
(WCDMA850 - “3G”) = 450uW/cm2
Multiply by 0.18% = 0.81uW/cm2
Future Expansion? 4G, Multi-band, NBN Wireless …
Prediction Exceeded by Over 3x
EMR measurements taken near antennae
on a water tower in Lennox Head NSW
were the highest on record since ARPANSA’s
compliance testing program began in 2007
Additional Concerns
Future Expansion/Co-location,
Wildlife, Visual Amenity, Property
Value, Fire Hazard
Byron Bay Tower - Present Day
Current informal peak readings exceed 21mW/m2.
This equals 2.1uW/cm2, or 2.6 times more than the
0.81uW/cm2 figure for Ocean Shores
Reduced Property Value
Ninth Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference 2003
One-third of the respondents said they would be prepared to pay 0-9% less for a property
nearby a CPBS, one-third were prepared to pay 10-19% less and the remaining one-third
would pay 20% or more, less for such a property.
“The opinion survey results were generally confirmed by the market sales analysis using a
hedonic house price approach. The results of the sales analysis show prices of properties
were reduced by around 21% after a CPBS was built in the neighborhood.”
National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s survey “Neighborhood Cell
Towers & Antennas - Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” June 2, 2014
Of the 1,000 respondents, 57% had previously experienced cognitive effects from
radiation emitted by a cell phone, wireless router, portable phone, utility smart meter, or
neighborhood antenna or cell tower. 63% of respondents had previously experienced
physical effects from these devices or neighborhood towers and antennas. 94% said a
nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or
the price they would be willing to pay for it.
79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a
few blocks of a cell tower or antennas.
Electrical faults and lightning strikes can cause fires
inflicting property and environmental damage
Request Our Free DVD
Compiled by
Read for yourself the science on biological
effects of EMR, most at exposure levels lower
than those permitted in Australia
Included are over 3,000 publications
Thank You
Question Time
There are no “conclusive”, “known”, “meaningful”, etc. health effects from EMR.
Note the qualifying adjectives. Without them, this type assertion would be patently
false. There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies documenting a wide range of
adverse biological effects, many with immediate or cumulative health impacts.
Latency for appearance of overt symptoms can be decades.
The balance of evidence is on the side of no adverse effects.
Industry funds its own studies to counter emerging evidence of harm. These can be
predisposed to “overlook” unfavorable data by contriving the observed timeframe,
the inherent susceptibility of test subjects, and/or parameters of the administered
influence. Is ANY documented risk acceptable?
EMR is “natural”. It has been part of our evolution for millions of years.
This attempts to lump all EMR into one category. Manmade EMR is orders of
magnitude stronger and differs in frequency and variety. In fact, it has totally
obscured natural energies. Unlike natural energies, there is no evolved protection
or predetermined biological response. We are the test subjects.
If you use a mobile phone, cordless phone or wireless modem, all these are stronger
sources of EMR than even a nearby tower.
True. But exposure from the latter is 24/7 and involuntary. Parents could not
practice the “precautionary principle” widely recommended for children.
The tower is within Government safety standards.
Our Government regulators rely upon the WHO and ICNIRP, both NGO’s staffed by
industry supporters who downplay opposing views. Extensive scientific evidence
exists of disorders well below the current standard, which is predicated upon
outmoded thermal testing. Is their reliance “reasonable”?
The “precautionary principle” is already incorporated into the standard.
Then why are additional safety precautions officially recommended by government
regulatory agencies and product manufacturers?
TV and radio have been around for 50 years. If EMR was a problem we would have seen
effects by now.
We have. Dozens of surveys show increased health problems near broadcast
towers. Additionally, the legacy analogue signal of TV and radio is far less bio-active
than the pulsed digital microwaves of current technologies.
The 1998 ICNIRP guidelines have been (not are) accepted by the world’s scientific and
health communities; these guidelines are both consistent with other (not all) stated
standards and published by a highly respected and independent scientific organization.
Note the clever use of language to embue this NGO with ultimate authority. Their
distinctly unscientific objective is to label as incompetent anyone who disagrees
with their unyielding industry supportive stance.