(blog) ... palpitations and flat-out fainting — to the electromagnetic radiation produced by consumer electronics such as computers, televisions and cell phones. ...
Is it possible to be allergic to cell phones? (Answer: yes)
ZDNet (blog)
... heart palpitations and flat-out fainting — to the electromagnetic radiation produced by consumer electronics such as computers, televisions and cell phones. ...
Extract from Ofcom’s official website: What is Ofcom? Ofcom is the communications regulator. We regulate the TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms and mobiles, plus the airwaves over which wireless devices operate.
We make sure that people in the UK get the best from their communications services and are protected from scams and sharp practices, while ensuring that competition can thrive. Ofcom operates under the Communications Act 2003. This detailed Act of Parliament spells out exactly what Ofcom should do. The Act says that Ofcom’s general duties should be to further the interests of citizens and of consumers. Meeting these two duties is at the heart of everything we do. Accountable to Parliament, we are involved in advising and setting some of the more technical aspects of policy, implementing and enforcing the law. Independent of Government, our decisions and advice are not swayed by party politics, which allows us to act solely in the interest of citizens and consumers.
1.8 We are asking stakeholders to consider the following questions when responding to this consultation:
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not grant the request to vary the five Wireless Telegraphy Third Generation Mobile Licences by increasing the permitted maximum in-band EIRP to 68dBm as soon as practicable? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not also apply the increased permitted maximum in-band EIRP to future 2 GHz MSS/CGC licences? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Such a request for information seems like a straightforward, honourable and reasonable position to take. Participation by ‘stakeholders’ - those who have something to gain or lose, is granted to all comers, for free. On the face of it, the consultative processes may seem like democracy in action.
But there is another interpretation: Yet more of our ‘inalienable’ right to unpolluted living space is about to be taken from us, and those with the power to do it are granting us the opportunity to express our opinion, to ‘get it off our chest’, as it were.
There are a number of reasons why consultation ‘rights’ might be granted:
· It makes the organisation asking appear fair and reasonable.
· It defuses opposition and protest.
· It divides and conquers (views flow into organisations, decisions flow out).
· It allows people with little or no power to believe they have some influence.
· It allows a gullible public to believe their rights are being treated with respect.
· It allows the recipients to ‘weigh the evidence’ according to their criteria.
The organisation offering the ‘consultation’ naturally cannot promise any particular action in response to concerns expressed as they do not know in advance what those views will be. They are nevertheless often the sole arbiter of which views are represented and what weight is given to them - they also control what data is published and when.
· The consultative process relies on those being consulted believing that their views may have a beneficial influence.
· Consultation takes the anger, force and motivation out of opposition. It provides a wall against which to throw sand.
· It provides insight into detail, strength of feeling and likely opposition.
· It buys time during which implementation plans can be fine-tuned to minimize the cost of adverse reactions.
· It provides apparent legitimacy for the chosen course of action.
Anything you get for free has got to be of questionable value. Being given the opportunity to express ones views, to defend one’s rights, by those who have the power to remove them, is a free opportunity that does not come without cost. After a suitable delay, expect a statement to the effect of: “All stakeholders have been given the opportunity to express their views and all submissions received by the deadline have been considered.”
Freely handing over one’s thoughts is a matter of trust. For many, Ofcom, particularly by its continued slavish adherence to the ICNIRP standard and its enthusiastic support for digital roll-outs, has failed to demonstrate that it is an official branch of this government that warrants the trust of those made ill by the technologies they promote.
Submissions which fall broadly in favour of the published plan may suggest additional business opportunities and will surely point to advantages of the plan which may be promoted to those less convinced by its benefits. Submissions broadly against the plan allow arguments to be identified and counter-arguments to be developed, disseminated and practiced.
Ofcom are not there to protect the public’s health. There is nothing in their statement about safety and deciding on ‘citizen’s best interests’ covers a multitude of sins. Delivering willing and reassured consumers to the incredibly powerful and influential telecommunications industry seems a plausible explanation. But why should such an outrageous thing be allowed to happen, especially regardless of the consequences suffered by some people? Never mind the billions of pounds/dollars/euros/yen that smooth the process, Governments cannot achieve sufficient intelligence information to counter terrorism without the support of the telecommunications companies. Our collective security is unfortunately now dependent on a dangerous and unequal alliance between Government and Very Very Big Business.
But people will say things like:
“If we don’t tell Ofcom our views when they do ask, how will they know what we want? Ofcom will say we don’t care and go ahead anyway.”
What is the point of telling Ofcom our views if we are not convinced Ofcom or the Governments ‘technology partners’ will not simply use our input to legitimize their actions? Is the mobile mast power upgrade a ‘done-deal’ and is public consultation merely ‘window dressing’? Why should the disenfranchised have any influence now when they have had precious little before?
If these words are representative of wider feelings, they may resonate with EMF Refugees across the world. Perhaps others will be inspired to share their otherwise private submissions with a wider and perhaps more receptive audience.
Does Ofcom deserve our respect and trust? Do we believe in its objectives? Do we support what it says it stands for? Do we feel our elected officials and unelected representatives who nonetheless speak and act on our behalf and with our authority, do we believe them to be smart, well-informed and influential enough to do us justice and safeguard our wellbeing?
1. Sufferers of EHS are reeling under the onslaught of wireless-radiation that by Ofcom’s authority they are now subjected to, everywhere they go. Unprecedented in the history of the planet, never before has so widespread, constant and untested wireless technology been unleashed on the whole ecosystem without adequate oversight and controls.
2. The UK Government, through Ofcom, has allowed, indeed encouraged everyone’s forced participation in the biggest uncontrolled biological experiment since the Nazi’s. Ordinary people who are unable to tolerate even the present level of these now ubiquitous emissions are losing their jobs, their homes, their opportunities - their lives. They have no access to medical and dental care, their ability to travel is curtailed, they are forced into isolation. Their rights are quietly being stripped from them. They have become outcasts and refugees in their own homelands. In short, like the polar bears, wolves and the American Indians, they are quietly having their habitats taken from them under official sanction. It is already a scandal. It is obscene that this intolerable situation is being promoted under official acquiescence. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate this process and should not be allowed. The people at Ofcom should be ashamed to be associated with enabling such a power increase.
3. Mobile phone radiation was not safety tested before it was let loose on the public. It is now impossible to conduct case controlled studies into its biological effects. There are now no un-irradiated individuals, animals or plants, let alone bees. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate the damage being done and should not be allowed.
4. Mobile phone base station emissions in our collective environment do not exist in isolation. They are part of the cacophony of digital signals to which we are now all subjected. Until it is known why they and other forms of man-made digitally pulsed microwave radiation makes some people sick, allowing an increase in radiated power is dangerous, irresponsible and should not be allowed.
5. Incredibly, Ofcom does not know how much digitally pulsed microwave radiation is emitted from all the transmitters on the masts to which it, on the Government’s behalf, grants licences. Ofcom does not ask the operators and the operators are not obliged to provide information on the number of individual transmitters or their antenna gain in any particular direction. Even if Ofcom did know, because each licence application is considered in isolation, they have no idea of the total emissions from any given mast, rooftop or other installed facility.
6. Even if Ofcom conducts measurements, it is clear to those adversely affected that in the digital realm, gross power levels are an inadequate metric for assessing biological effects. Indeed Ofcom do not appear empowered to consider biological effects, deferring to other equally complicit organisations such as ICNIRP, the UK’s Health Protection Agency - HPA and The World Health Organisation - WHO to cover their ignorance, lack of remit and lack of influence.
7. Even if Ofcom had all of the information believed lacking, they have no way of factoring in all the other exposures to which people are subjected as they go about their normal daily business. Digital Terrestrial TV - DTV, Digital Audio Broadcasts - DAB, satellites, airborne radar and HAPS to name but a few. Wireless alarm systems, leakage from microwave ovens - the list goes on and on, never mind those ignorant or foolhardy enough hold mobile phones to their heads. Where is precaution in any of this? Until more is known about the now undeniable adverse biological effects of pulsed digital microwave radiation and other forms of man-made electromagnetic radiation, increased signal strengths from mobile phone base stations should not be allowed.
8. This Government and Ofcom are subservient to, and slavishly compromised by the ICNIRP standards which allow blanket exposure based on gross analogue power levels, taking into no account the non-thermal effects of digital signals. Increased levels of digitally pulsed mobile phone base station microwave emissions should not be allowed.
9. Britain, like the rest of the world has allowed itself to be swept up on a wave of technological advantage with scant regard for the health consequences. Ofcom have been instrumental in that process. A public health tsunami of unimaginable consequence is building.
So if you wish to participate in Ofcom’s ‘consultation’ and share your thoughts with them, go right ahead.
A similar ‘consultation process’ was enacted in Sweden in 2000. It took years for all the data to eventually surface, and then only because a few enlightened dedicated people made it happen.
If you want to know how others might feel about an increase in licensed mobile phone base station power, you have only to consult Black On White, the testimony of over 400 Swedish people whose lives have been destroyed by electromagnetic radiation.
Ofcom have given us the spur on which to collect our thoughts. Please use this opportunity to share them with the rest of the world who are watching from the wilderness.
... age, exact type of cancer, kind of mutation, frequencies and EMF intensity data, favorite foods of the victims, tap water yes/no, sweeteners yes/no. ...
Most of Japanese people does not well about these symptoms. The knowledge about care and measures are so poor. Unfortunately, there are many physicians who believes these symptoms are psychological problem.
I am so glad, if my report will be helpful to someone.
- Electromagnetic Hyper Sensitivity Questionnaire 2009 in Japan
- The Actual State of Health Injury by Electro Magnetic Field.
- Symptom, Matter of Medical Treatment and Social/Economical Problems..
A WOMAN who moved house after fearing a nearby electricity sub-station gave her cancer is now fighting plans for a mobile phone mast next to her new home. ...
Arthur Firstenberg, who has actively opposed the proliferation of wireless ... Firstenberg and Monribot, who have homes only 25 feet apart in a west-side ...
Arthur Firstenberg filed a lawsuit Monday in Santa Fe District Court alleging ... Firstenberg wrote in an affidavit that Montribot "agreed to phase out the ...
Arthur Firstenberg claims he was made homeless by his heartless neighbour who ... Firstenberg claims that he's been forced to live in his car because of his ...
Santa Fe man demands half a mill for being near iPhone
Arthur Firstenberg is suing his neighbour for $530,000 for refusing to switch off her iPhone, claiming that the electromagnetic fields generated are destroying his health...
Arthur Firstenberg says the electromagnetic fields from the device are destroying ... Firstenberg has also campaigned against wifi in public buildings and ...
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry Arthur Firstenberg, a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico has been claiming that his neighbor Raphaela ...
Santa Fe Residents Allege City's Wi-Fi Affecting Their "Electromagnetic Allergies"
AHN
They allege the city's Access Points (AP) irritated their "electromagnetic allergies." In their legal effort to ban the signals, the group is using the ...
Man Sues Neighbor for Having Wifi, claims “electromagnetic allergies”.
The Next Web
... recently attempted to get all public Wi-Fi hotspots in the city banned by arguing that the APs irritated their supposed “electromagnetic allergies. ...
Wi-Fi "sensitivity" draws lawsuit from next-door neighbor
Yahoo! Tech
Arthur Firstenberg is suing one Raphaela Monribot, saying that her use of Wi-Fi causes him so ... Firstenberg is not just upset about Monribot's computer, ...
In Santa Fe, a man who says he has "electromagnetic allergies" is suing his next-door neighbor because she has a wi-fi network and uses things like a ...
But that's what New Mexican Arthur Firstenberg is doing, alleging pain and suffering in a lawsuit against his neighbor because those on-24/7 electronics are ...
... claim the wireless internet waves aggravate their “electromagnetic allergies. ... they are classifying their “allergy” or “sensitivity” as a disability ...
WiFi Suit: Arthur Firstenberg Sues Neighbor For Using Electronics
Yahoo! News
According to the Santa Fe Reporter, Arthur Firstenberg, the plaintiff, has been sleeping at friends' homes or in his car to avoid the electromagnetic waves ...
Man Claims to Have Electromagnetic Sensitivity, Sues Neighbour
... ShortNews.com
New Mexico: Arthur Firstenberg is suing his neighbour Raphaela Monribot over her use of electronics. He claims that he is electromagnetically sensitive and ...
A Santa Fe man is reportedly suing his neighbor for allegedly contributing to his “electromagnetic allergy” symptoms. Santa Fe (WiredPRNews.com) – A Santa ...
Refugees of Technocracy (working title) is a story about people suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in a society intoxicated by technology.
