* Police officer settled a lawsuit against an Australian Police Service - New Pollution Rules Overpower California - Mass demonstration with more than 100.000 participants prevents High-voltage power lines (3/12/02)

Tramès per Klaus Rudolph (Citizens' Initiative Omega)

Police officer settled a lawsuit against an Australian Police Service

Dear Klaus

Thank you for your email. I recently settled a lawsuit against an Australian Police Service who I sued over my exposure to a Two Way radio antenna which I claimed caused cancer in my right testicle whilst a police officer.

I had a full brief of evidence ready to go to trial but the Police decided it was to risky as the case was strong and offerred me a settlement. Due to the financial and other strains on my personal and family life I accepted.

I am quite happy to assist any of your colleagues with their cases if they desire. I think I am one of the few who has reached a settlement and am the holder of a number of medical documents relating to my case which may be of some assistance.

Adrian Francis

New Pollution Rules Overpower California

U.S. Laws Jeopardize State's Air Standards
Jane Kay, San Francisco Chronicle Environment Writer

Saturday, 30 November, 2002

New air pollution regulations issued by the Bush administration undermine an important tenet of national environmental laws: the rights of states to adopt stricter controls than the federal government, environmental lawyers and California officials say.

This part of the new regulations portends an ominous shift in federal policy that could threaten scores of unique environmental measures adopted by California in areas from air quality to pesticides to drinking water, they say.

"This is the first time in history that the federal government has attempted to pre-empt states' rights in the area of environmental law," said Richard Toshiyuki Drury, a lawyer at Communities for a Better Environment, an Oakland advocacy group. "We've never seen anything close to this."

Officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has the authority to approve or disapprove the state regulatory programs, deny that the new regulations are an attempt to limit state authority.

The new federal regulations determine when oil refineries, power plants and big factories have to install modern pollution controls. The rules issued last week allow companies to expand without installing state-of-the-art pollution control equipment if they keep their emissions below a certain level. "Under the Clean Air Act, there's a lot of flexibility that the states have. We have to respect that," said Matt Haber, EPA senior energy adviser in San Francisco.

California's rules are far more restrictive. Since 1976, every refinery, power plant, chemical or other factory that has been built, rebuilt or modernized has had to undergo a state review, which ultimately leads to requirements to retrofit and install modern pollution control equipment.

It's the heart of the state's clean air law and applies to thousands of big manufacturing and other plants. Altogether, these plants account for about 45 percent of the state's air pollution, compared to the 55 percent released by cars and other mobile sources, according to the state Air Resources Board.

California's program will come under scrutiny to determine if it is in accord with the new federal rules, and state officials are worried.

Part of that concern comes from the following language contained in the 600- plus pages of regulations:

"For states that choose to adopt all the new . . . provisions, we expect that the (state approval process) will be expeditious. Of course, the review and approval process will be more complicated for states that choose to adopt a program that differs from our base programs."

Even though the programs may be different, the EPA's Haber said there is "a very good chance" of California showing its program falls in line with the new federal rules.


California officials fear that, in the end, the decision over the state's right to a different, tougher program will be a battle with the Bush administration.

"The problem is that the reviews are typically political reviews and not technical reviews. And we usually lose," said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the state Air Resources Board. "California has the tightest motor vehicle standards on Earth, the best toxics program and the nation's only consumer products regulation for air pollutants. A lot of people think (the Bush administration regulations) are an opening gambit in an exercise to dilute California's authority here," Martin  said.

California already has been battling with the federal government over its effort to use a reformulated gas without MTBE or other gas additives and operate a program requiring a certain percentage of zero-emission vehicles.


Environmental lawyers say the new regulations open the door to restrict states on a host of major environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

At stake in California, environmental groups say, are air-pollution and other major environmental laws that are far more protective than the federal government's:

-- Cars, trucks, buses and sport utility vehicles built for sale in California must meet stricter emission standards. And a certain percentage of vehicles sold in the state must have no emissions.

-- Gasoline and diesel fuels must be formulated to comply with state specifications. The state wants to tailor cars and fuels to work together to reduce air pollution.

-- An anti-toxics law passed by voters in 1986, known as Proposition 65, requires businesses to warn consumers if products contain unsafe levels of chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects.

-- Drinking water standards in the state apply to MTBE, the gasoline additive and suspected carcinogen that has turned up in some drinking water supplies, while the EPA doesn't have a standard.

-- Pesticides that win EPA approval still must pass California  conditions showing they can be legally sold and applied in this state. The state is the only one that requires a public-comment period before a new pesticide can be registered.

-- While federal laws require major manufacturers to estimate releases of pollutants, the state requires real-life inventories of handling and release of the chemicals.


Businesses long frustrated by the state's tougher laws greeted with satisfaction the federal government's flexibility over when they have to buy new pollution controls.

Jeff Wilson, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, which represents major oil refiners such as ExxonMobil, BP and Texaco, said his group has run into problems with California's stringent requirements as they relate to routine maintenance. Wilson cited cases where a refiner has brought in high-powered hoses and steam-cleaning equipment to rinse off storage tanks. While the refiners consider the maintenance very routine, it has triggered new reviews -- a costly process for the companies, Wilson said. "We are cautiously optimistic that under this new proposal, that will be revisited," Wilson said.

Already, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and the New England states intend to file legal challenges against the regulations on two issues: infringement of states' rights and downwind pollution from more loosely regulated businesses.

John Walke, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said, "If the Bush administration feels emboldened to gut this central clean air program, one shudders to imagine what other anti-environmental agenda that they will pursue concerning all of our environmental and public health protections."

Chronicle staff writer Zachary Coile contributed to this report from Washington. / E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com

Informant: Don Maisch (excerpt)

T-Mobile issues mobile mast warning

By Nick Farrell [22-11-2002]

Service will suffer if anti-mast campaigners get their way, operator says

One of the UK's leading mobile operators has warned that current service quality cannot be maintained unless more masts are constructed to cope with the increasing traffic.

T-Mobile, formerly One 2 One, told the BBC that service would suffer if campaigners thwarted attempts to build more masts. The company expects the volume of mobile phone calls and text messages - not including third-generation traffic - to grow by 25 per cent over the next three years. But residents in many areas are strongly against construction of antennae near homes or schools.

They argue that no more masts should be erected in such areas until more is known about the effects that low-level RF radiation may have on the long-term health of children.

Currently, placement of low-level sites does not require planning permission, and can be put up without protest.


Informant: Dr. Miguel Muntané

Teneriffa: Mass demonstration with more than 100.000 participants prevents High-voltage power lines 

http://www.eldia.es/2002-11-30/index.htm ; message and commentary from Jörg Wichmann

The largest demonstration found in the history of Teneriffa, take place at the past Saturday (23. November 2002). More than 100.000 demonstrators spoke here a clear vote against a High-voltage power line through a nature protectorate. In the result, the already terminated agreements were nullifyed to the building of the High-voltage power line.

High-voltage power lines issue low frequency, mobile radio transmitter and mobile phone high frequency. The feared health sequences are however very similar. One before short introduced large low frequency-study in California clear found promoted statistically significant connections between low frequency electromagnetic fields as well as children leukaemia, brain tumor, Lou-Gehring-illness among other things. Expanse epidemiological studies brought similar results to light so that the WHO classified meanwhile low frequency elektromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic". In Spain, one has already begun to dismantle in the region around Madrid and in other zones with the High-voltage power lines, they are are now transferred underground so that the population in the concerned zones will be exposed no longer to the elektromagnetic fields of these High-voltage power lines. 

An interesting detail and an obvious parallel to the mobile radio-limits is there that in Germany the limit for low frequency magnet fields lies always yet in 100 Mikrotesla , whereas the threshold effect (statistically belaid clearly increased cancer risk) enters in about 0,2 Mikrotesla.

Citizens' Initiative Omega
If you want our (normally daily) Newsletter in German, sometimes partially in English, please go to

Note: Citizens' Initiative Omega works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many hours of daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to support our activity for people around the world with a donation or an aid fund unique or on regular base, you can do it here https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=Star.Mail%40t- online.de&return=http%3A//www.grn.es/electropolucio/00omega.htm&no_note=1&tax=0&currency_code=USD

If you have informations which you would like to share with your friends and colleges around the world and which are from common interest, please send us this informations, we will send them out. Thank you.

Disclaimer:  The informations contained in our EMF-Omega-News are derived from sources, which we believe to be accurate but is not guaranteed.

Citizens' Initiative Omega is not responsible for any errors or omissions and disclaims any liability incurred as a consequence of any of the contents of this resources.