Mobile Phone Towers

The Secret Life of

(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 intensityThe frequency of its repetitive peaks is measured in cycles per secondDistance 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

Effective Isotropic Radiated Power

Each Antenna Concentrates and Projects the Waves

Three sector coverage

Depending on the vertical tilt of the antenna, maximum field intensities occur at a predictable

distance from the tower’s base

Greater dosage for homes at higher elevation relative to base

Proposed Telstra tower in populated areashowing radial distances of 200 and 500 metres

Ocean Shores School

Pre-school

Coverage is affected by propagation losses and variations in terrain, with 20-30Km line-of-sight possible

Suffolk Park

7 Mile Beach

Regulated Safety Standards

Thermal vs. Non-thermal EffectsIs Australia Up-to-Date?

Australian limits are based upon simple heating,i.e. how much microwave exposure would raise1Kg of salt water (a brain) 1 degree in 6 minutes

Australia

“43% of the world’s population has better protection than Australians”

India

Trend Toward Biologically Based Standards

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.

"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

"The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans ..."

Current standards are “catch-all” rather than based upon biological testing of each new type of signal

Assumed vs. Actual Safety

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

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeUS Teachers FederationWorld Health Organisation (possible carcinogen)European Economic and Social CommitteeBC Teachers FederationOntario Catholic Teachers AssociationParliament of HESSE (Germany)USA Progressive Librarians GuildOntario Teachers UnionInternational Committee for Electromagnetic SafetyNational Teachers Union (US)State of the Research on Electromagnetic FieldsBavarian ParliamentGerman Teachers UnionParis City CouncilElementary Teachers Federation of OntarioUS Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthUK Teachers UnionAustralian Communications Authority (2000 Report)City of Frankfurt GermanyIsraeli Ministry of Education Gibb's Report (Australia)Interdisciplinary Society for Environmental MedicineAmerican Academy of Environmental MedicineHealth CanadaAustrian Medical Association

International Bans and WarningsUnited Teachers Union (US)University of Pittsburgh Cancer InstituteIrish Doctors Environmental AssociationSupreme Court of India National Education Association (US)Israeli Ministry of HealthPorto Alegre Resolution (100 Scientists)Russian National Committee on Non-ionizing RadiationEuropean Environmental AgencyVienna Medical AssociationFreiberger Appeal (6,000 Doctors)International Society for Environmental medicineUS Food and Drug AdministrationAmerican Bird ConservatoryUS Environmental Protection AgencyGerman Federal GovernmentUK Department of EducationVenice Italy Resolution (57 Scientists)Physicians for the Environment (Switzerland)EU ParliamentInternational Association of FirefightersSalzburg Public Health DepartmentNational Library of FranceProgressive Librarians GuildNational 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 non-thermal 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 non-thermal 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 withinthe 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

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."

A Few Population Studies

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

Children absorb more microwave radiationdue to thinner bones and higher water content

Shrunken NerveCells Reported

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.”

“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.”

Swiss Re

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 SurveillanceOne ReasonWhy GovernmentsProtect the Telco’s

Ocean Shores Tower

Reported Biological Effects Below the Proposed Field Intensities

Predicted Exposure

ARPANSA time averaged legal limit for public exposure (WCDMA850 - “3G”) = 450uW/cm2Multiply by 0.18% = 0.81uW/cm2

Maximum

Future Expansion? 4G, Multi-band, NBN Wireless …

EMR measurements taken near antennaeon a water tower in Lennox Head NSW

were the highest on record since ARPANSA’scompliance testing program began in 2007

Prediction Exceeded by Over 3x

Additional Concerns

Future Expansion/Co-location, Wildlife, Visual Amenity, Property

Value, Fire Hazard

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

Byron Bay Tower - Present Day

Reduced Property ValueNinth 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

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

Request Our Free DVD

Compiled by

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.