Betreff: Fw: [Mast Network] Article for the Ecologist |
Von: "Iris Atzmon" |
Datum: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:29:52 +0200 |
SCIENCE,
POLITICS AND MOBILE PHONES!
By Jennifer Godschall Johnson, Committee
Member of Mast Sanity
The Mast
Movement believes that there should be an urgent independent
investigation into the potential dangers of mobile phone technology.
The official response has always been to give little if any credit to
the evidence proving health risks. The claims that there is nothing to
worry about must stop, because the very fabric of our society, legal,
political and social, has been predicated on this
propaganda – and who will take responsibility if it is as false and
dangerous as we believe it to be? We must have a moral and responsible
approach to a technology that is now so deeply embedded in our daily
lives.
Contrary
to what those in the Industry and a number
of politicians would like the public to believe, it is not the
intention of the Mast Movement to stand in the way of progress or to
prohibit either the use of mobile phones or the supporting technology. Our
sole aim is to ensure that the technology is made safe and that the
health and safety of the public is protected. This
is an extremely grave environmental issue which affects the entire
population, human and animal.
The
research / evidence from independent scientists and doctors points very
strongly to a substantial risk, especially to children, and we feel
that this risk is not being properly acknowledged or addressed by those
who bear the responsibility of public welfare. Whilst it is clear that
the use of mobile phones is a matter of choice, it must be acknowledged
that for those who live in the shadow of masts, there is no choice and
often no chance of escape.
The
increase in mobile phone usage means there is an even greater
imperative for proper safeguards in the phones themselves and in the
supporting infrastructure. In other words, the more phones we have, the
more masts we need, the greater the potential risks. Yet the Government
is predictably deaf to this logic. For obvious reasons there is no
official recognition of ill health either now or in the long term, so
to put the necessary scientific and social precautions in place would
be seen as a potentially devastating admission. But insurance companies
(and the biggest names are included in this) are refusing to underwrite
the telecom industry. Why would insurers, experts in risk assessment, never normally shy of making substantial
profits, refuse such huge financial temptation, if mobile phone
technology was as safe as they would like us believe?
It was
originally intended by Government that there should be a warning, as
with cigarettes, on the use of mobile phones, especially by children.
Although this was strongly advised by the Stewart Report, the policy
has not been enforced – again for obvious reasons. The obligation
encumbent on Operators to supply these leaflets at the point of sale,
is almost always ignored. Indeed the
Operators find the warnings a great embarrassment, since they conflict
with the self interested view that there are no health risks.
The
Government frequently suppresses reports whose results are embarrassing
or which are contrary to the desired official line, even when the
suppression of these results could potentially risk health and safety
on a massive scale. The report it
commissioned on electricity pylons and childhood leukaemia, whose
findings were so damning, is a recent, sad example. The Government sat
on this report for three years until it was ‘outed’by concerned
individuals. What other reports on vital
issues of public health and safety have been kept from us? Can one
trust Government/Industry health assurances when there is such an
obvious conflict of interest?
The
official language, in connection with telecommunications technology, is
carefully chosen and ambiguous. It goes as far as it is possible to
imply that there is no risk, without actually using those words. The
result is that the public have been falsely led to believe that mobile
phones are safe. This has never been proved. On the contrary, there is
now overwhelming scientific and medical (as well as anecdotal)
evidence, suggesting potential serious risk to both human and animal
health. The doubt alone should be enough to require the Precautionary
Principle as advised by Stewart. In fact
it is extremely worrying that Stewart has been so selectively quoted by
the Industry. Despite being bound by officialdom, even he now appears
to be concerned at the way his report has been used, and an update is
due in November which may go some way to redressing the balance. Nevertheless, Britain allows the highest
emissions in the world. It also relies totally upon the out of date
ICNIRP guidelines for public protection. ICNIRP applies only to thermal
emissions, though it is the pulsed emissions which are the cause of so
much concern. It is these pulsed emissions, independent scientists
maintain, that break the blood-brain barrier, reduce the production of
melatonin, and precipitate life threatening illnesses. Many scientists
and doctors of world renown, now believe that there is a convincing
connection between the technology and the increase around masts of
cancer clusters, childhood leukaemia, epilepsy, brain tumours, Motor
Neurone Disease, as well as debilitating, if less serious, conditions.
With so
much conflicting evidence, there should be an immediate moratorium on
the rapid proliferation of masts while the technology and planning
policies are re-examined to take these grave issues into account. The
Industry, aware of the sword of Damacles poised above them, is in a
roll-out frenzy. Once in situ, it will be virtually impossible to
remove a mast, and even when it is finally accepted that a risk to
health exists (as with smoking) it is most doubtful that there will be
any retrospective policy. This is a human catastrophe waiting to happen
– and unlike using a mobile phone – living near a mast is not a matter
of choice.
It is now
known that those who dare to oppose the official line are frequently
discredited, or have their funding removed. It
is hardly surprising. The Mobile Phone Operators paid the Government
nearly £23 billion for telecom licences. Any suggestion that
there is a health risk would be disastrous to this hugely powerful
global industy. To illustrate this point,
the scientist Barry Trower who worked for the MOD at Porton Down as a
specialist and expert in microwave technology, was commissioned by the
Police Federation to assess Tetra, because of his expertise in this
field. His findings were contrary to what
was desired and quite shocking. The results were subsequently dismissed, his
recommendations ignored and his reputation discredited.
Another instance concerns the scientist Roger Coghill. It involves Dr David Coggan, an epidemiologist
who is on a number of very influential boards – he
is head of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, he
is on the Medical Research Council, he is also a member of the
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones - and of course he is a
member of the NRPB. The mobile
phone research funding is administered by the NRPB.
Dr Coggan, though officially independent, is
more realistically, a scientific Government spokesman. I quote from an article written
by Roger Coghill in the Ecologist (May 2002) in which he highlights the
questionable practices deployed in the funding system.
His article goes on to say …..
“Those
responsible for allocating this funding also include Dr David Coggan at
Southampton University. Coggan is another
epidemiologist on record for disbelieving weak EMFs can have adverse
effects. In 1998 Surrey University asked
him and fellow IEE member Dr David Jeffries to examine my PhD thesis. I rejected both examiners when I discovered an
internal memo written in advance of the scheduled oral examination,
setting out reasons why I had been failed. The
matter has been languishing unaddressed before the university visitor
ever since, and the PhD award lies in abeyance.” The career
of Roger Coghill, an independent, ethical and
highly qualified scientist, has been irreparably damaged by this action. The career and reputation of Dr
Gerard Hyland, a biophysicist of world renown, has also suffered
because he has dared to produce evidence which would be damaging to the
telecom industry.
Despite the combined efforts of the Industry and
those scientists who prosper by condemning all views suggesting health
risks, the compelling evidence grows worldwide and will not be
suppressed. Reasonable calls for a
more robust precautionary approach are dismissed as being unnessary,
provocative and alarmist. The thrust
of the official arguments is that ill
health suffered by residents living near masts is mainly psychosmatic –
the result of stress and an over-active imagination.
Health is unlikely to be a real problem, and those who disagree
are hypochondriacs who should see a psychiatrist rather than a medical
doctor.
But these
cynical methods to ward off public concern are losing credibility. Fewer people than ever trust official
assurances, they have not forgotten the
legacy of human suffering inherited as a result of corporate greed and
political expediency. The
assurances of safety of asbestos, cigarettes, thalidamide, BSE, DDT,
electricity pylons, pesticides and
chemicals, all spring to mind. Anecdotal
evidence, which should by rights, be a proper consideration in
research, is, in this technology, treated with disdain, as though it is
somehow improper. Yet anecdotal
evidence is essential and even obligatory in ascertaining the efficacy
and safety of pharmaceutical drugs. To paraphrase Dr Hyland ‘If mobile
phone technology was a drug, it would not be allowed for public
consumption. It would be banned.’ He also says “Clearly there is a growing
opinion world-wide that the criteria on which safety guidelines are
currently based are inadequate and in need of complete revision.” If anecdotal evidence is dismissed, on what
criteria are the ‘accepted’ scientists basing their conclusions? Few of their scientific results stand up to
close scrutiny, unlike the unbiased results of independent research. As the internationally renowned
scientist Professor Lief Salford says, ‘mobile phone technology is the
biggest human experiment in the world.’
In
addition to ordinary mobile phone masts, thousands of
Tetra masts are being relentlessly rolled out, often illegally,
and also before research is completed. Hundreds of police officers are now suffering
ill health through using Tetra. Two
officers have tragically died and others
are already suffering potentially life threatening illnesses since it
was introduced. Now residents, forced to
live in the shadow of Tetra masts, are also showing signs of serious
ill health. All of this was predicted -
and then suppressed. Public health, and money, nationwide, are at
risk for a system that is a £2.9 billion technical disaster, and
literally hundreds of millions more of OUR money will be thrown into
the pit rather than scrap it. MP’s are
asking questions, and the National Audit
Office and the Public Accounts Committee are launching inquiries into
Tetra. A secret report prepared by
Northumbria Police Authority says, “It was originally envisaged that
Airwave would be the primary mechanism for carrying mobile data, but
the capacity for data is much lower than expected and not
suitable for all mobile services.” This
report is just one of many complaints from top officers and key
technicians on the project. Several police
forces are developing their own mobile services rather than use Tetra. They want ‘bearer independence’, because,
quite apart from health concerns, Tetra is already obsolete even before
the roll-out has been fully implemented! Yet
they are still being forced (some have even used the word blackmailed)
to go with Tetra. This would be a shocking
state of affairs even if there was no viable alternative.
But safer and better alternatives do exist –
it is just that higher powers with much to lose, are preventing
their use.
Planning
and Legal systems have been manipulated in order to favour the
Industry, and in many cases this has resulted in the denial of people’s
democratic and human rights. This is not a
biased opinion, it is something which is being discussed at the highest
levels in Europe and even in the UK Parliament, where opposition
parties are putting more accountable telecom policies into their
manifestos. The Green Party is especially
concerned about the risk to health from all masts,
and in particular has already called for a moratorium on Tetra.
There are
many who are also deeply concerned by the risk to our wildlife. Neither animals nor birds are susceptible to
psychosomatic illness or hypochondria, so when those near masts fall
ill, abort or have deformed young, it is not all in the mind. The fact that they improve (like humans)
when removed from the vicinity of the masts, and decline when returned
to the area, suggests that this is not coincidence either.
As for birds, it is now known that owls, at the top of the bird
food chain, have been in devastating and mysterious decline over the
last few years. This time frame maybe
significant and should not be ignored. The
ongoing proliferation of masts could produce a barren future for our
familiar and precious wildlife.
The public
are not being adequately protected by the ICNIRP guidelines, and
consequently the Precautionary Principle is not being observed. Our children are callously put at risk. In a few years time, the full consequences of
this will be felt across the nation, and although no-one wishes to be
alarmist, we are talking about a high probability of increase in
serious diseases and the human suffering involved, all of which could
have been prevented. It seems as
though we are all expendable in the great quest for corporate profit
and political power.
The Mast
issue is of paramount importance. It
affects our wildlife and environment as
well as the health of every single person in this country.
We are disempowered and abused by the present system. More than that, the nation’s future has become
a lottery with the growing risk to our children.
No government or global industry, however powerful, should be
allowed to gamble with our lives.
For more
information and essential references please go to www. mastsanity.org
“Mobile
Phones and Masts, the Health Risks”, a Powerwatch publication by Alistair and Jean
Philips, is also an excellent, comprehensive and accessible source of
information.
O 21st
October 2004 Jennifer
Godschall Johnson (Committee Member Mast Sanity)