Please, join us in petitioning Dialog

In support of our cause, please, send an email to

Dr. Hans Wijayasuriya, CEO, Dialog

requesting him to take necessary action to abandon the installation of the Dialog cell phone antenna base at 94/3 Elie House Road, Mutuwal, Modera

the address is

hans@dialog.lk

Here is a specimen of such a request which you may want to develop after reading our appeals.

——————————–

Dear Dr. Hans Wijayasuriya,

We are aware that Dialog has been constructing a cell phone tower antenna in the midst of a dense neighbourhood at premises 94/3, Elie House Road, Mutuwal, Modera on a three storied house. A two storied house directly opposite the Dialog installation is separated by a mere 20 feet gravel road. The neighbours fear that constant exposure to radiation from the Dialog antennae would cause them various illnesses and potentially cancer in the long run. We are concerned about the well being of these people who are expressing their concern over this installation. Please, kindly take necessary action to remove this installation from the above premises.

Thank you.
Yours

Below is a list of Sri Lankans who are on the board of Directors and the Board of Management of Dialog

If you know any of these gentlemen/ ladies, pl. make the same request from them.

Dr. Shridhir Sariputta Hansa Wijayasuriya Director / Group Chief Executive
Upali Gajanaike Chief Executive Officer Dialog Tele – Infrastructures
Sandra Marlene De Zoysa Group Chief Customer Officer
Nushad Mario Jayasingha Arachchige Perera Group Chief Marketing Officer
Chief Executive Officer – Dialog TV
Kavantissa Danudra Weerawardane Ratnayaka Group Chief Corporate Officer / Group Chief Officer – Enterprise Business
Palliyaralalage Don Vincent Pradeep Kumar De Almeida Group Chief Technology Officer
Mohamed Zuraish Shayam Majeed Group Chief Programme Officer
Wewage Viranga Supun Dep Weerasinghe Chief Executive Officer – Dialog Mobile
Waduge Lalith Tasman Fernando Group Financial Controller
Chandramohan Villavarayan Chief Financial Officer – Dialog Broadband Networks
Peter Suren Goonewardene Chief Operating Officer – Dialog Television
Chief Operating Officer – Fixed Telephony & Broadband Services
Salitha Priyanka Undugodage Vice President -Technology -Fixed Telephony & Broadband Services

Advertisements

11 responses to “Please, join us in petitioning Dialog

  1. Vangeesa Sumanasekara

    copy of an e-mail sent to Dr. Hans Wijayasuriya,

    Dr. Hans Wijayasuriya,
    CEO,
    Dialog

    Dear Sir,

    It has come to my attention that your company is in the process of constructing a new Cell Phone Tower-Antennae in the densely populated area of Elie House Road, Modera. As you would clearly know, there is a great concern among the health research communities in the world that the increased production of radio waves, as a result of the advancement in cellular communication technologies, have escalated number of membrane sensitivity disorders such as autism, as well as increasing the threat of cancer. In response to the growing protests against the random installation of devices releasing electromagnetic radiation, many countries in the world have regulated such instances so as to avoid or reduce the possible health risks involved. Consequently, it is now widely accepted that radioactive towers should be located at a safe distance from schools, hospitals and residential areas.

    It seems to me, however, that this newly constructed Antennae in Modera is violating this universally acknowledged standard of cellular networking. As a responsible and nationally popular business organization that has pioneered the field of cellular communication in Sri Lanka, I sincerely hope that you will take necessary actions to rectify this situation in Eli House Road in Modera and help guarantee the safety of all those who are affected by this potentially serious health hazard.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Vangeesa Sumanasekara

  2. Girigoris the One

    Is this a joke? How do u think base stations are established in ‘more developed’ countries if there is such a significant risk? Where exactly on the articles that u mention on da site dat say there is a proven link between base stations n cancer?
    I DO NOT support ur petition as its baseless n silly. There are standards for maximum emmission of radiation dat has to get govt approval before Dialog or any mobile phone operator for dat matter can set up a base station.
    There are already thousands of similar base stations in the world established near densely populated areas without any problem.

    Stop being selfish n let others get good reception for gadsake

  3. a neigbour at EHR

    We are thankful to Girigoris the one for caring to respond to our concerns.

    1. Can you pl. tell us what are the ‘more developed’ countries you refer to? Also, pl. give us the standards they follow, and tell us whether it is the same or whether there is variation in them, at what levels and the explanations for the differences in them?

    2. The demand for a proven link is the key strategy of the industry. Medical research takes ages to prove things. The same happened before a proven link was established between smoking and cancer. Today, cigarette packs carry the mark of death and the amount of cancer causing substance it carries. We would like to turn the question to you. Has the industry proven that there is no link between radiation from cell phone towers and antennas and various forms of sicknesses the people coming under their impact have been experiencing all over the world. The volume of literature around the world is simply immense to quote here. We will give you a summary of some of the available findings below.

    3. Can you, someone, please tell us what are the standards for maximum emission of radiation that Dialog or any mobile phone operator has to get government approval before they can set up a base station.?

    4. That there were millions or billions of people smoking tobbaco all over the world did not say anything to the fact that it was found to be causing cancer, did it?

    5. Who is being selfish when you come into a densely populated human habitat and set up antenna base station that emit radiation without consulting the people in the neighbourhood as to their concerns?

    6. Here is something for you to think about as to how the future would look like in the “developed world” for this technology: San Francisco board passes cell phone emission law
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_hi_te/us_cell_phone_radiation

    7. Now here are some studies you may want to look up. But no studies can beat what people experience.

    http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4908113/

  4. Girigoris the One

    Hope this answers your questions:

    1. UK, France, Denmark, Netherlands and most European countries..
    Check this link on the world GSM body’s website and even the WHO agrees there is no need for ‘special precautions’ :
    http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/health/health_policy.htm

    2. Sort of agree with you on this in (precautionary) principle

    3. his falls under the purview of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission. Refer:
    http://www.trc.gov.lk/about-us/functions-a-responsibilities.html

    4. There is a difference between the words ‘causing cancer’ and ‘may lead to cancer’. Its a subtle difference, but it is different nevertheless

    5. If the kind of consultations you are talking about takes place (with ignorant communities), there will be no mobile phone coverage in Sri Lanka.

    6. Plz reread this article. his pertains to mobile PHONES. Not towers.

    7. Pls read this. It addresses most of your concerns:
    http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/health/mobile_and_health.htm

    • another neighbour

      1. Our question to you is whether all these countries have the same standards or whether they vary and how and why?
      You haven’t answered our query. Pl. show it to us.

      So, you want us to follow the GSMA which “represents the interests of the worldwide mobile communications industry”? Our experience tells us that we cannot trust them to tell us the truth. We would like to hear it as how you see it.

      2. Thanks for agreeing with us on the 2nd point.

      3. We know about the TRC. But can you tell us how it works when it comes to installing an antennae tower or base?

      4. Pl. educate us about the difference between the words ‘causing’ and ‘may lead to’ in terms of the outcome.

      5. So, except people like you, the communities like us are ignorant. And therefore, if mobile phone industry to bring us prosperity, you have to ignore how ignoramuses like us feel about our rights as citizens to live peacefully in our community without being intruded upon by the corporate sector? Good logic for a Corporate sector dictatorship!

      6. Yes, the article is about mobile phones. The world is tightening the rules on their impact on the users. What makes you think cell phone antennae and bases which transmit radiation 24×7 to our full body exposure has no impact on our health?

      7. Why do you keep on recommending to us the industry website? Which company are you representing?

      8. The bottom line is this pal. Cell phone antennae and towers emit radiation. People feel exposure to radiation affect people’s health in innumerable ways. And we don’t want some corporate entity that can think only of its profit to thrust radiation on us in the midst of our neighbourhood.

      9. In this world there are people who can only think of their own selves – the Hobbesian creatures. But there are others too hopefully cares for the well being of the so-called ignorant innocent people and the common world. No wonder with people who fall into the first category expressing views like these Sinhala nationalism is on the rise and rise!

  5. Hi Gigiforis,
    Not a joke man but a genuine concern. So you are a communication industry man, no wonder you think a petition is baseless and silly, I am still not convinced even after reading all your links that “living on top of a base station” will not be harmful to human well being. As you may be aware the developed world is now going in for more and more stringent regulation which has not even been thought of in this part of the world. For gadsake you may be aware that to prove a link between cancer and tower emission may take years and we the ignorant community are supposed to be the lab rats so that you can get better and faster connection. By God! aren’t you a selfish human being!!!!!!

    Another affected party

    • Girigoris the One

      It seemz dat yawl have made ur mind up dat base stations are bad for us n shit. So there is really no need of presentin any more info about dis cos ur mind is already made up aight 🙂

      Big up urself- Hope u also take up other causes such as suicide rates in Sri Lanka and child abuse n all. We need social activists

      Peace! The One out

      • Dear Girigoris

        I am sorry I don’t get most of what seems to be the words you are writing.

        Hence, I could be wrong in my understanding of your text.

        How can you say that we are not interested in information. You haven’t presented us any. Please, give us the data you have instead of referring us to industry websites. Then we can discuss them.

        Now below is some information on what you queried from us.

        We are not looking for causes to take up, pal. Dialog is going to make this our cause. It is right in our face.

        Would you like to visit our place for a tour and see for yourself?

        Just e-mail us for your phone no. we will give you the directions to come.

        another neighbour from EHR

        Studies Show Adverse Health Effects From Cell Phone Towers

        If you aren’t sure that cell phone towers and masts are harmful the following study summaries should convince you. Below are listed six studies that have shown significant adverse health effects on people living near cell phone towers. According to Dr. Grahame Blackwell “these are the only studies known that specifically consider the effects of masts on people. All six studies show clear and significant ill-health effects. There are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such ill-health effects.” (6)

        1. Santini et al. found significant health problems in people living within 300 meters of a cell phone base station or tower. The recommendation was made from the study that cell phone base stations should not be placed closer than 300 meters to populated areas. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002; 50: 369-373.

        2. A Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research study entitled, “Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective Complaints” found significant effects on well being including headaches, muscle fatigue, pain, and dizziness from tower emissions well below the “safety” level.

        3. Gerd, Enrique, Manuel, Ceferino and Claludio conducted a Spanish study called “The Microwave Syndrome” and found adverse health effects from those living near two cell phone base stations. The health effects included fatigue, a tendency toward depression, sleeping disorders, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems.

        4. From an Israeli study published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention, Vol. 1, No. 2, April 2004, Wolf and Wolf reported a fourfold increase in the incidence of cancer in people living within 350 meters of a cell phone tower as compared to the Israeli general population. They also reported a tenfold increase specifically among women.

        5. In the Naila Study from Germany, November 2004, five medical doctors collaborated to assess the risk to people living near a cell phone tower. The retrospective study was taken from patient case histories between 1994 and 2004 from those who had lived during the past ten years at a distance up to 400 meters from the tower site. The results showed that the proportion of newly developed cancer cases was significantly higher in those patients living within the 400-meter distance and that the patients became ill on average eight years earlier. In the years 1999 to 2004, after five years of operation of the transmitting tower, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.

        6. An Austrian Study released in May 2005, showed that radiation from a cell phone tower at a distance of 80 meters causes significant changes of the electrical currents in the brains of test subjects. All test subjects indicated they felt unwell during the radiation and some reported being seriously ill. According to the scientists doing the study, this is the first worldwide proof of significant changes of the electrical currents in the brain, as measured by EEG, by a cell phone base station at a distance of 80 meters. Subjects reported symptoms such as buzzing in the head, tinnitus, palpitations of the heart, lightheadedness, anxiety, shortness of breath, nervousness, agitation, headache, heat sensation and depression. According to scientists this is the first proof that electrical circuits in the brain are significantly affected by a cell phone tower. The distance in this study was a mere 80 meters.

        Two-time Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Gerald Hyland, a physicist, had this to say about cell phone towers. “Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate. Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests.”

        Dr. Bruce Hocking did a study in Syndey, Australia, of children living near TV and FM broadcast towers, which by the way, are very similar to cell phone towers. He found that these children had more than twice the rate of leukemia as children living more than seven miles away from these towers.

        Results in yet another recent study (7) conducted on inhabitants living near or under a mobile phone base station antenna yielded the following prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints: headache (23.5%), memory changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep disturbances

        (23.5%). In this study the participants were given a neurobehavioral test battery measuring such things as problem solving, visuomotor speed, attention and

        memory. Symptoms of exposed inhabitants were significantly higher than control groups.

        Furthermore, Europe’s top environmental watchdog group, European Environment Agency (EEA), is calling for immediate action to reduce exposure to mobile phone masts. EEA suggests action to reduce exposure immediately to vulnerable groups such as children.

        The development of brain tumors in staff members working in a building in Melbourne, Australia, prompted the closing of the top floors of the building. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is housed in the building. Seven staff members were diagnosed with brain tumors and five of the seven worked on the top floor. A cell phone antenna is located on the roof of the building. (8)

        The Orange phone company in England is being forced to remove its mast tower on a building in Bristol, England. The removal is a result of a five-year effort by residents and local authorities to have the mast removed. Cancer rates in the building, which has become known internationally as the “Tower of Doom,” have soared to ten times the national average for the 110 residents living there. The two masts sitting on the roof, one owned by Orange and the other by Vodafone, were installed in 1994. Vodafone has refused the remove its mast. (9)

        Cell Phone Towers Affect Animals

        Animals aren’t exempt from exposure the cell phone tower radiation either. One veterinary school in Hanover, Germany, reports that dairy cows kept in close proximity to a cell phone tower for two years had a reduction in milk production in addition to other health problems including abnormal behavior patterns. (10)

        Firefighters Vote To Suspend Cell Tower Construction On Fire Stations

        Concerned about the effect that masts have on the nation’s firefighters, The International Association of Fire Fighters voted in 2004 to voice its opposition to cell phone towers and antennas being place on and around fire stations. They want proof first that there isn’t a safety issue and have asked for a moratorium on further construction and placement of any more towers or antennas on or around firehouses until such a study can be conducted.

        What Are These Antennas Doing To Our Kids While They’re In School?’t worth the risk. They should not be subjected to microwave radiation when science has proven there could clearly be devastating effects as outlined in the previously mentioned studies. School boards and parent organizations need to be aware of the inherent dangers from such an exposure. It’s been clearly shown that microwave radiation penetrates the head of a child much easier than that of an adult. This is due to the thinner and softer bones in the head of child. (11) Skull bones don’t fully harden until about age 22.

        How Many Cell Phone Towers Are Near You?

        The average person lives within one-half mile of a cell phone tower. Have you ever wondered how close you live or work to one of these towers? Would it bother you if one were right in your backyard? How many of these towers and antennas do you think there are in your immediate area? Find out by visiting the website http://www.antennasearch.com/. Simply type in your address and you’ll get a listing and a map of all the towers and antennas within a short radius of your address. Like most people you’ll probably gasp when you see the numbers. These towers are literally everywhere. Hundreds and hundreds of them are probably located within a few miles of your home or office.

        Watch The Signal Bars On Your Cell Phone

        The signal bars on your cell phone tell you how strong the signal is that are connecting to your cell phone. In other words, the closer you are to a cell phone tower the stronger the signal. The stronger the signal the less power your phone has to use to maintain the connection. A strong signal is indicated by a full set of “bars” showing on your cell phone display. Fewer bars mean a weaker signal. A weaker signal means the cell phone has to work harder to maintain the signal. Consequently, more power is needed to maintain the connection. The more power needed the greater the amount of radiation produced by your phone and the greater exposure to you. So always try to talk in outdoors or in an open space. This allows an easier connection from your cell phone to the nearest cell phone tower. Your phone won’t have to work as hard and less power is used to maintain the signal, which translates, to less radiation exposure for you.

  6. Girigoris the One

    I wasn’t going to reply further, but felt I need to add a bit more for the sake of the VISITORS to this blog who might get misled. I am not tryin to convince the blog administartors since ur mind cannot be changed. Whoever is really interested in finding out the real health effects of electromagnetic fields can google it aight. There is enough credible info out there for u to make ur own judgement.
    The World Health Organisation is one such credible source, and I suggest you read this-
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html

    As u can see from the following article, WHO is unbiased on the matter-
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

    The following article addresses some of the concerns of this blog & also comments on a study mentioned in the comments section above-
    http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2010-04-20/article/35079?headline=Cell-Phone-Towers-Should-We-Fear-Them-

    Be careful of studies conducted by well meaning fools, n before u put them up as valid, also plz bother to look up whether there have been any commentaries that refute their findings. Dat would be helpful.

    indecent comment removed

    • While there are many sources which says the same thing you say, that is, “no conclusive proof’ can be produced, there are many recognised bodies of scientists including this one http://www.emrpolicy.org/ in Washington D.C. , which have been presenting their findings and views to US congress hearings and many other Western /European states with increasing success.

      By the way Girigoris, we visited your site just out of curiosity and found you to be a terribly sexist, misogynist with whom we would not like to waste out time in the future believing you would understand our concerns. Hence, with this comment, this correspondence is closed.

      For example, Here are the people who conducted the bioiniative report.

      Only an idiot would call such people fools.

      BioInitiative Report:

      A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard
      for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

      List of BioInitiative Participants

      Organizing Committee Members

      Carl F. Blackman*, Ph.D.
      Founder, Former President and
      Full Member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society
      Raleigh, NC USA
      *opinions expressed are not necessarily those of his employer,
      the US Environmental Protection Agency

      Martin Blank, PhD Associate Professor
      Former President and Full Member of Bioelectromagnetics Society
      Dept. of Physiology. College of Physicians and Surgeons
      Columbia University
      New York, NY USA

      Prof. Michael Kundi, PhD
      Full Member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society
      Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna
      Vienna, Austria

      Cindy Sage, MA, Owner
      Full Member. Bioelectromagnetics Society
      Sage Associates
      Santa Barbara, CA USA

      Participants
      David O. Carpenter, MD
      Director, Institute for Health and the Environment
      University at Albany East Campus
      Rensselaer, NY USA

      Zoreh Davanipour. DVM, PhD
      Friends Research Institute
      Los Angeles, CA USA

      David Gee
      Coordinator Emerging Issues and Scientific Liaison
      Strategic Knowledge and Innovation
      European Environmental Agency
      Copenhagen, Denmark

      Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Prof.
      Department of Oncology
      University Hospital
      Orebro, Sweden

      Olle Johansson, PhD, Associate Professor
      The Experimental Dermatology Unit.
      Department of Neuroscience
      Karolinska Institute
      Stockholm, Sweden

      Henry Lai, PhD
      Department of Bioengineering
      University of Washington
      Seattle, Washington USA

      Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD, Prof.
      Former President and Full Member of Bioelectromagnetics Society
      Board Member, European Bioelectromagnetics Society (EBEA)
      Umea University, Department of Radiation Physics
      Umeå, Sweden

      Amy Sage, Research Associate
      Sage Associates
      Santa Barbara, CA USA

      Eugene L. Sobel, PhD
      Friends Research Institute
      Los Angeles, CA USA

      Zhengping Xu, PhD
      Guangdi Chen, PhD
      Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory,
      Zhejiang University School of Medicine
      Hangzhou . People’s Republic of China

      Reviewers (partial)
      James B. Burch, PhD
      Arnold School of Public Health
      University of South Carolina
      Columbia, SC USA

      Nancy Evans, BS
      Health Science Consultant
      San Francisco, CA USA

      Stanton Glanz, PhD
      University of California, San Francisco
      Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
      Cardiovascular Research Institute, Institute for Health Policy Studies
      San Francisco, CA USA

      Denis Henshaw, PhD
      Professor of Physics
      Human Radiation Effects Group
      Wills Physics Laboratory
      Bristol University, Bristol, UK

      Samuel Milham, MD
      Washington State Department of Health (retired)
      Olympia, Washington

      Louis Slesin, PhD
      Microwave News
      New York, NY USA

      ——————–

      Protect Yourself from Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) hazards by supporting the BioInitiative Report recommendations on EMR exposure limits.

      The EMR Policy Institute is putting forward this petition to endorse the recommendations of The BioInitiative Working Group Report. We are seeking support from other organizations whose missions call for responsible public health policy for children, for workers and for the general public both where they work and where they reside. We are also seeking the endorsement of individuals to call for tougher EMR safety policy globally as spelled out in the report: BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF).

      Following the Petition language is the statement of support for The BioInitiative Report that was issued on September 17, 2007, by the European Environmental Agency (EEA). It summarizes the importance of the BioInitiative Report and the EMR safety actions it recommends.

      Petition:
      We, the undersigned, find that current government limits do not protect the public from adverse health effects from electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from devices such as power lines, cell phones and wireless internet devices and their associated antenna sites, TV and FM broadcast towers and radar.

      Most of the existing limits on this form of radiation are 1 to 4 thousand times too lenient to prudently protect humans from adverse health effects ranging from Alzheimer\’s and other neurodegenerative diseases, reproduction problems, sleep reduction, learning, memory, slowed ability of the body to repair damage, interference with immune function, cancer and electrohypersensitivity.

      Based upon the scientific evidence set forth in The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) and a large body of additional research, we recommend that the following limits of electromagnetic radiation be set to not exceed:

      I. Extremely-low frequency (ELF). Power Lines, appliances, interior electric wiring and other ELF-radiating devices:
      A. Homes, schools and places where children spend large amounts of time: 1 milligauss *(1mG) for new construction; 1 milligauss (1mG) for all existing occupied space retrofitted over time.
      B. All other construction: 2 milligauss (2mG)

      *A milligauss is a measure of ELF field strength used to describe magnetic fields from appliances, power lines, interior electrical wiring,etc. A milligauss, abbreviated, is mG. Just as the power density of high frequency RF fields can be described in µW/cm2 or the corresponding electrical field in V/m, the parameter most easily measured for ELF is the magnetic field.

      II. Long-term (cumulative) Radiofrequency Radiation*(RF)
      A. Outdoor Pulsed- such as cell phone antennas, radar, TV and FM broadcast antennas, wireless internet antennas: One tenth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.614 volts per meter. * (0.1 µW/cm2 or 0.614 V/m)

      *Radiofrequency radiation (RF) power density is measured in microwatts per centimeter squared or volts per metmer and abbreviated (µW/cm2)or (V/m).
      Radiofrequency Radiation is used when talking about emissions from broadcast, radar and wireless facilities, and when describing ambient RF in the environment. In the United States and Canada, for example, the amount of allowable RF near a cell tower is one thousand microwatts per centimeter squared (1000 µW/cm2) for some cell phone frequencies.

      B. Indoor Radiofrequency Radiation (RF) such as cell phones, wireless internet equipment and the radiation that permeates buildings from outdoor sources. One hundredth of a microwatt per centimeter squared or 0.194 volts per meter (0.01 µW/cm2 or 0.194 V/m). Typically, RF power density from higher frequency outdoor sources such as UHF television or cell phone antenna base stations drops by a factor of ten when it permeates buildings. Lower frequency signals such as lower channel VHF TV and FM are not as severely attenuated as the higher frequencies.

      Future research may demonstrate that these recommended levels are not protective enough; therefore, public policy makers should remain open to lowering them as the scientific evidence accumulates.

      ———————-

      Statement of support from the European Environmental Agency:
      Radiation risk from everyday devices assessed
      17 Sep 2007 http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/

      A new report raising concerns about the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on human health calls for tougher safety standards to regulate radiation from mobile phones, power lines and many other sources of exposure in daily life. The “BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) was compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals. The EEA has contributed to this new report with a chapter drawn from the EEA study, \”Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000\”

      The EEA study reviews the histories of a selection of public and environmental hazards, such as asbestos, benzene and PCBs, from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm, to subsequent precautionary and preventive measures. Cases on tobacco smoking and lead in petrol are forthcoming.

      Although the EEA does not have specific expertise in EMF, the case studies of public hazards analyzed in the publication show that harmful exposures can be widespread before there is evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding of how that harm is caused.

      “There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives. We must remember that precaution is one of the principles of EU environmental policy,” says Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the EEA.

      Current evidence, although limited, is strong enough to question the scientific basis for the present EMR exposure limits, according to the BioInitiative Working Group.

      http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/one.htm

      —————-

      What is electromagnetic radiation (EMR); the electromagnetic spectrum; electromagnetic fields (EMFs)?

      (Excerpts and illustrations from Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves by B. Blake Levitt, Harcourt Brace, 1995. Used by permission of author.)
      *All links below will open in a new browser window. All documents on this page are PDF files.

      Electromagnetic radiation is the term used to describe electromagnetic energy radiating away from its source. It is expressed in wavelengths calculated along what is called the electromagnetic spectrum. There are many wavelength magnitudes along the spectrum, which includes everything from the earth’s own natural pulsations, to electric power, to visible light, to cosmic events.

      The electromagnetic spectrum is divided into ionizing and nonionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation consists of very short wavelengths (like X-rays), which have enough power to knock electrons off their nuclear orbits and therefore can cause permanent damage at the cellular level, such as cancer or genetic mutations. Nonionizing radiation consists of longer wavelengths with generally less power and is considered incapable of knocking electrons off their orbit around the nucleus. Energy is directly related to the inverse of wavelength. The longer the wave, the less energy it creates; the shorter the wave, the more energy it can create.

      Although less powerful, nonionizing radiation is capable of causing a host of biological effects, so it is far from harmless.

      The dividing line between ionizing and nonionizing radiation is around visible light. The problem is that visible light covers a wide portion of the spectrum. (Each color, for instance, is a different wavelength.) So no on can say precisely where one form of radiation leaves off and the other begins, but it is thought to be in the lower ultraviolet ranges, or possibly below.

      Electromagnetic field is the term used to describe electric and magnetic fields. In general, a field is defined as a space in which energy exists. Actually as field is a concept used to describe the influence of something on its surrounding area.

      Electric fields exist whenever electric charges are present, that is, whenever electricity or electrical equipment is in use. A magnetic field is produced whenever there is electrical current flowing in a conductor or wire. All magnetic fields run perpendicular to electrical current. In other words, while electric current runs in straight lines, magnetic fields surround the line in circular fashion. When the electricity is turned off, there is no magnetic field, although an electric field will still exist to some extent in any wire or conductor.

      All electromagnetic fields are expressed in wavelengths and move outward at the speed of light – approximately 186,00 miles per second.

      Both electric and magnetic fields decrease rapidly with distance from the source.

      Some common consumer products have complex electromagnetic fields. A television screen or the cathode-ray tube on a computer monitor, for instance, plugs into a wall outlet, thereby using electricity in the 50-60 Hz area, then utilizes a broad band of wavelengths that extend all the way up through the visible-light spectrum. At the top ends of the screen’s field, the ionizing band may well be crossed into.

      ————————

      What is radiofrequency /microwave (RF/MW) radiation?

      (Excerpts and illustrations from Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves by B. Blake Levitt, Harcourt Brace, 1995. Used by permission of author.)

      Radiofrequency radiation falls between about 3 kilohertz and 300 gigahertz on the electromagnetic spectrum. This is a broad area on the electromagnetic spectrum which includes many frequencies and wavelengths.

      Microwave (MW) radiation runs from a few megahertz up to around 100 gigahertz, which is used for military communications.

      All radio waves (RF/MW) radiate into space at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), and each wave is associated with a wavelength and a frequency. Wavelength refers to the distance that the wave travels through space in a single cycle between one peak or valley of the radio wave and the next. Frequency indicates the number of waves in one second.

      Since the radiofrequency range is such a broad one, the wavelengths vary considerably. There are long waves, medium waves, and short waves, and further categories called extremely low frequency (ELF), very low frequency RF/MW radiation(VLF), low frequency (LF), medium frequency (MF), high frequency (HF), very high frequency (VHF), ultra high frequency (UHF), super high frequency (SHF), and extremely high frequency (EHF). Microwaves occupy the ultra, super, and extremely high frequency bands; radar is a part of the microwave frequencies. Currently, mobile telecommunications consumer devices such as cell phones generally operate between 800 and 2400 megahertz. However, future consumer products are being developed that operate at much higher frequencies.

      RF/MW radiation is transmitted by all types of telecommunications antennas. The environment around antenna sites (called “near” fields) can be electromagnetically complex, to say the least. Radio waves couple with each other as well as with other frequencies, and in some circumstances (like the presence of metallic objects) can create what are called standing waves or “hot spots”, meaning that they do not radiate into space, but remain within a set area at high intensities. Couplings can add to or subtract from each other, and complex fields of high power intensities can and regularly so interfere with nearby radios and TVs – and undoubtedly with a person’s innate biological fields as well. There is some indication that certain FM frequencies may create standing waves in the brain that the body cannot dissipate. It is also one of the concerns about mobile phones that use microwave frequencies.

      ———————
      Are there demonstrated effects to humans from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)?

      (Excerpts from Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves by B. Blake Levitt, Harcourt Brace, 1995. Used by permission of author.)

      It has been known all along that RF/MW radiation excites the water molecules in human tissue and causes heating, and most attempts at setting safety standards have been based solely on that aspect. But the nonthermal effects are the more important and biologically fascinating ones.

      In humans, EMFs in various frequencies have been found to adversely affect calcium binding at the cell surface, DNA synthesis, and cell division; to alter circadian rhythms, affect or alter some important enzyme activities, and affect specific glands like the pineal and the hypothalamus area of the brain as well as the production of certain neurotransmitters, like seratonin and dopamine production; to increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier; to create artificial stress responses; to overstimulate the immune system initially, then suppress is and decrease T-lymphocyte production; and to promote malignant tumor growth with particular concentrations in the central nervous system, in the blood and skeletal systems, and in glandular tissue. The eyes, the brain, and the testes seem to be especially prone to abnormal effects from the RF frequencies. The eye serves to amplify some RF/MW frequencies, which is probably why increases in posterior cataracts have been observed in some microwave workers. (Microwaves are also known to increase drug sensitivity in people taking glaucoma medication). The testes are very close to the body’s surface, which is probably why increases in testicular cancer have been reported in law-enforcement officers who have rested functioning radar guns in their laps. In addition, it appears that the human anatomy has specific windows of sensitivity at which certain bioeffects have been repeatedly observed, but not at other frequencies.

      The Soviet Union did some interesting RF/MW research on behavioral aberrations that is unparalleled in the United States. It has been known for many years that low-intensity EMFs produce adverse effects on the autonomic and central nervous systems of humans and animals in strengths far too low to cause tissue heating. For years U.S. researchers dismissed much of the Soviet research, partly for political reasons but also because they could not replicate many of the studies because the Soviets (for security reasons of their own) left out important details. With the end of the Cold War, some of these gaps have been filled and American researchers have been able to replicate some Soviet work.

      Radio-wave sickness is the term the Soviet researchers used to describe a clinical syndrome in those occupationally exposed to EMFs, particularly RFs/MWs. It included functional disturbances of the central nervous system such as headaches, increased susceptibility to fatigue, increased irritability, dizziness, sleepiness, sweating, concentration difficulties, memory loss, depression, emotional instability, mild limb tremors, cardiac arrhythmias, increases in blood pressure, and appetite loss. Thyroid enlargement, benign adrenal-gland tumors, and rashes were also observed. Less common but also reported were hallucinations, insomnia, fainting, and internal organ or intestinal difficulties. Also, auditory channels were stimulated when the head was exposed to low-power, pulse-modulated RF.

      Of additional interest with regard to long-term, low-level exposures was research done with Polish career military personnel in the late 1980s by Stanislaw Szmigielski and co-workers, at the Center for Radiobiology and Radioprotection in Warsaw. The military personnel, whose major exposures were from the radar/microwave frequencies, but with some 50-hertz exposures also involved, were found to have a six times higher cancer incidence than nonmilitary test subjects. Most of the malignancies were lymphomas and leukemias. Szmigielski is also known for work on EMFs and immune suppression that suggested a biphasic reaction of initial stimulation followed by overall suppression.

      Some results from studies of populations in the vicinity of broadcast towers include:
      · Honolulu, Hawaii: In 1984, the EPA measured RF levels at twenty-one sites near broadcast towers and found that at two sties the levels exceeded the ANSI standard. Nearby residents had complained of RF-associated shocks and burns, as well as interference with electronic equipment. EPA also found that the incidence for all cancers in both men and women was significantly higher in those living near broadcasting towers than in those not living near such facilities.

      · Schwarzenburg, Switzerland: A study of residents living near a radio broadcast tower documented sleeping disorders, lowered concentration, high blood pressure, and anxiety.

      · Sutton Coldfield, Great Britain: An epidemiology study found elevated levels of adult leukemia in residential areas near broadcast towers.

      · Australia: Increase in childhood leukemia and mortality from leukemia in residential areas near broadcast towers.

      · Pescara, Italy: Effects on the immune systems of women who did not work outside of the home and who lived in the vicinity of broadcast towers with various television and radio transmitters.

      See also: Johnson Liakouris, Ana, “Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves?”, Archives of Environmental Health: volume 53 No. 3, 1998, pp.236-283.The author reviews statistically significant health effects noted in the Lilienfeld Study of U.S. Embassy personnel in Moscow (Johns Hopkins Foreign Service Health Status Study). Johnson Liakouris found that “the disregarded health conditions match the cluster attributed to the radiofrequency sickness syndrome, thus establishing a possible correlation between health effects and chronic exposure to low-intensity, modulated microwave radiation.”

      See also: Hyland, G.J., “Physics and biology of mobile telephony,” The Lancet, volume 356, November 25, 2000, pp. 1833-1836. Hyland writes that, “Not withstanding uncertainty about whether the non-thermal influences reported do adversely affect health, there are consistencies between some of these effects and the neurological problems reported by some mobile-telephone users and people who are exposed longterm to base station radiation.

      One international body that is considering further study of RF/MW adverse bioeffects is the European Parliament. In 2000, the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Research, Division Industry, Research, Energy, Environment and Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) also sought Dr. Gerard Hyland’s input on the possible adverse health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. See Dr. Hyland’s report at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/00-07-03_en.pdf

      See also: Santini, Roger, Arguments in Favor of Applying the Precautionary Principle to Counter the Effects of Mobile Phone Base Stations, Testimony presented to the French Senate Parliamentary Office for Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Alternatives, March 6, 2002.

      See also: Sage, Cindy, “Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Growing Environmental Health Crisis? San Francisco Medicine, March 2001.

      See also: Catania Resolution
      16 scientists participating at the International Conference, “State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields: Scientific and Legal Issues”, which was organized by ISPESL, the University of Vienna, and the City of Catania, held in Catania (Italy) on September 13th -14th, 2002, have published this resolution. These scientists have also agreed to “establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMFs and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.”

      See Also: Freiburger Appeal
      22 medical doctors of the Interdisciplinary Association for Environmental Medicine (Interdisziplilnare Gesellschaft fur Umweltmedizin e. V. IGUMED) met in Germany in order to discuss the increasing burdens brought on by high-frequency-radiation (radiofrequency/microwave radiation) and to talk about possible remedies. A result of this meeting is the October 9, 2002, “Freiburger Appeal.” (See excerpts below.)

      Out of great concern for the health of our fellow human beings do we as established physicians of all fields, especially that of environmental medicine, turn to the medical establishment and those in public health and political domains, as well as to the public. . . .

      Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see – especially after carefully directed inquiry – a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as:
      · Installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity
      · Intensive mobile telephone use
      · Installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the neighbourhood

  7. Hi,
    The WHO’s EMF safety standards are based on the recommendations of the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP self nominates and elects its own members (only 12) of them, many of whom have worked for related industries before or after this role. You might be interested in this link – some useful references and a campaign to lobby the WHO to revise its standards/processes.
    http://thetruthaboutmcs.blogspot.com/2011/07/campaign-for-revised-who-emf-safety.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s