Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns becomes an Insurance risk for telcos

"Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns becomes an Insurance risk for telcos"


Our group is currently fighting a major telco that wants to place 6
mobile
phone towers next door to a primary school and within 500m of 7 others.
Despite current talk about safetly levels and standards, we feel that
not enough is known about mobile phone tower EMF to justify this
situation.
According to Australian Federal Law, Telcos are excempt from
town-planning
and local government laws and moreover, do not have to consult with the
community or private property owners before installing these towers.
While C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R (TM) IS NOT AGAINST MOBILE PHONE USE, the
unhindered proliferation of microwave EMF is a
major concern due to its unknown long-term biological effects,
including the possibility of cancer.

Due to the recency of the technology, Mobile phone EMF safety has not
been edequately confirmed and what research has been undertaken is
essentially incomplete. Therefore, while we believe in the just and
democratic freedoms of the pursuit of wealth, we also believe in the
universal rights of man, which grant each and everyone of us the right
to "a standard of living adequate for health and well-being", including
protection to mothers and children (Art 25) and "the right to a healthy
and balanced environment (Art 28)". Unfortunately, these rights are
being violated across Australia by a lack of corporate responsibility.
This time six towers will be erected literally metres away from
schools, private residences, public libraries and a nursing home on
the basis that EMF is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately,
society is not a court of Law and on this issue we have gone well
beyond the point of reasonable doubt. Safety is not a gamble, it is an
investment in our future and one that must be protected at all costs.

Furthermore, safety is the preceptor of health, which the World Health
Organisation defines not only as the absence of disease or infirmity,
but also as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social
well-being". How can this be achieved when a parent is concerned about
the multitude of detrimental effects attributed to the phone tower
radiation, including the real possibility of cancer, upon their
children? In fact, a threat need only be perceived as harmful in order
for it to be so, it need not be real at all!


Thank you

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)
Concerned Resident's United Stand Against Detrimental Electromagnetic
Radiation

Sydney, Australia

===============================


The following article may be of interest to some of you. Please help us
by
passing on this information. It may assist us in changing the law in
this
country and bringing sanity back to the industry everywhere!

================================
Insurers Baulk at Mobile Risk
An April edition of the Observer reported a leading Lloyds underwriter
as
having refused to offer product liability cover to mobile manufacturers
for
damage to user's health. The firm cited the striking resemblance
between the
development of the asbestos and tobacco health issues and the current
mobile
phone problem, both of which will end up costing insurers a fortune.
Recently the giant Insurance group Swiss Re stated in their publication
Electro-Smog A Phantom Risk, that on the basis of today's present
knowledge
alone it must be expected that a EMF claim would succeed. This view has
been
supported by the recent exit from the re-insurance market of
Scandinavia's
biggest insurance group, Skandia. They cite reducing exposure (sic.) to
potential EMF claims as being one of the reasons.
In this regard, corporate providers should guard against complacency in
relying on present day government advice to protect themselves against
any
future potential liabilities. The experiences of the asbestos industry
is a
sobering reminder of this. Although a manufacturer will always be
ultimately
liable for it's product, it is inconceivable that an employer
insistent upon
it's work force using mobiles, would be
totally exempt from involvement in any actions for damages by
employees.

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/report.htm

 

NIMBY

 

<snip>

I'd be more concerned about the danger of the towers falling over
in high winds and hitting the school. Or the psychological damage
from having such an eyesore in view. But as far as credible
evidence for dangers from EMF, you may as well worry that
the emisions will attract hostile UFOs.


Bob Masta
dqatechATdaqartaDOTcom

D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator

 

see:

http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop.html

You can't prove that no risk occurs (if that is what you want) but you can
assess relative risk which is extremely low (e.g. compared to fumes from
teachers smoking on their break)

relax

 

Geez, you antismokerists never miss a chance to promote your religion, do
you. You and your kind are as bad as the "Have you been saved?" crowd -
your faith is based on as much actual truth as theirs is. This guy does
a pretty good job of exposing their lies, but you're about as likely to
read it as a fundy is to join a witch coven:
http://www.lcolby.com/

Thanks,
Rich

 

I used to smoke. I had your attitude. I smartened up. I feel better and my
clothes don't stink. (Yes -I also smoked a pipe as well as cigarettes and my
father who died due to other causes at age 86 smoked a pipe) but this
personal evidence is simply that -insufficient to make a case. So is the
personal evidence and examples cited by the author of the reference you
gave.
My present opinion is that "I don't eat shit so why should I breathe it?"
If you wish to do so, I have no desire to infringe upon your freedom.
If you wish to share your smoke with me, you infringe upon my freedom.

Even if the risk from smoking is small (and as with cell phone bases, the
state of "no-risk" is unprovable) my statement- the one that offends you- is
still true.

You're welcome

 

This is something I have always wondered about: People worry about
electromagnetic fields from the towers, but happily place a mobile phone
against their head (or allow their children to do so), which produces
much higher field strengths.

And note that mobiles produce electric fields all the time (to keep the
contact with the net), not only while you are actually phoning with
them.

 

Actually, plenty of people worry about the handsets as well. The people who
only seem worried about the towers are probably really just coming up with an
excuse for why they don't want what they consider to be an ugly structure in
their neighborhood.

True, but the human body models for specific absorbed radiation (SAR) make
measurements based on the "total dose" of electromagnetic power. This is
orders of magnitude lower when the phone just has to respond to an occasional
"ping" from the tower than when you're actively talking.

 

I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is grand sweeping
bans based on nothing more than religious fanatacism.

I say, give bars/restaurants/etc the option. Put up a big sign:

DANGER!
This establishments permits smoking.
If you don't like smoke, smoking, or smokers, then
STAY OUT!!

But that makes way too much sense for the politicos and their groupies
to grasp.

Thanks,
Rich