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'
Police officer settled
a lawsuit against an Australian Police Service
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.
New Pollution Rules
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,
"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
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
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
LAWS AT STAKE
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
-- 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
-- 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
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 email@example.com
Informant: Don Maisch (excerpt)
T-Mobile issues mobile
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
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
; 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
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.