Connect with us

Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns becomes an Insurance risk for telcos

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM), May 3, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. "Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns becomes an Insurance risk for telcos"

    Our group is currently fighting a major telco that wants to place 6
    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
    According to Australian Federal Law, Telcos are excempt from
    and local government laws and moreover, do not have to consult with the
    community or private property owners before installing these towers.
    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

    Sydney, Australia


    The following article may be of interest to some of you. Please help us
    passing on this information. It may assist us in changing the law in
    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
    having refused to offer product liability cover to mobile manufacturers
    damage to user's health. The firm cited the striking resemblance
    between the
    development of the asbestos and tobacco health issues and the current
    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
    alone it must be expected that a EMF claim would succeed. This view has
    supported by the recent exit from the re-insurance market of
    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
    future potential liabilities. The experiences of the asbestos industry
    is a
    sobering reminder of this. Although a manufacturer will always be
    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
  2. John Smith

    John Smith Guest


  3. Bob Masta

    Bob Masta Guest


    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

    D A Q A R T A
    Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
    Home of DaqGen, the FREEWARE signal generator
  4. Don Kelly

    Don Kelly Guest


    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)

  5. 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:

  6. Don Kelly

    Don Kelly Guest

    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
    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
  8. 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
  9. Joel Kolstad

    Joel Kolstad Guest

    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.
  10. 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:

    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.

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day