W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
21 August 2010
Dear Dr. Stuchly,
I am in receipt of a letter you wrote to Mrs. Adair, to reassure her about the safety of having cell transmitters on the roof of her condo. In fact you said,"Personally I would not object to have all those antennas close to my residence, as long as they do not spoil the esthetics of the place. On the other hand, my research (in engineering) was funded by the industry as well, so "I cannot be trusted"."
Your honesty and openness about your association with the industry is refreshing and welcomed. In your letter you also note close affiliation with the IEEE. This allows us to consider the potential for bias, either direct or indirect, in your statements.
Likewise, I will admit that I am not an engineer or a scientist, but have read extensively on the subject of electromagnetic radiation, and have communicated with many independent researchers (e.g. not industry funded). All of these have presented information which is in direct opposition to what you contend. I too have a bias -- I live by several cell transmitters and have seen my friends and neighbours become ill, pets die with cancer at very young ages, and have spent thousands of dollars trying to shield myself and my family from these dangerous transmissions.
Now that our biases are out in the open, I'd like to talk facts.
You say "a broad scientific consensus ... is behind the Canadian safety standards." The only researchers in support of Safety Code 6 that I have been able to find are not independent, even those on the Royal Panel having ties, either direct or indirect, with the industry. Noted scientists from around the world have signed resolutions calling for standards thousands of times lower than Canada's. In fact, many countries already have standards significantly lower and reseachers are asking even these to be lowered further. As you must know, Russia and China have always used the non-thermal standard, not the thermal standard used by WHO and ICNIRP, and followed by Health Canada. Hence, Safety Code 6 is one of the most lax guidelines in the world.
Another fact, WHO and ICNIRP are not independent, and have become closely aligned with the industry. I will refer you to Dr. Don Maisch's document: Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A Case Study of the WHO's EMF Project Task Force which can be found at:
www.next-up.org/pdf/who_conflict/pdf . Even with their biases, they admit that their standards apply to thermal radiation only, and WHO has classified non-thermal radiation as a carcinogen.
May I suggest that you read the BioInitiative Report, which is a compilation of 2000 independent peer-reviewed studies done over decades, which was produced to argue against the industry's constant assertion, which you repeat , that "existing data do not indicate any negative health effects." The evidence is clear, also, when you read the various military and government documents, previously classified, which are being released by Barrie Trower of the UK, and Dr. Glaser of the US, that this type of radiation has been known to be dangerous since WWII. Never was it intended for general use, until the telecommunication industries discovered they could make huge profits from it. Obviously, there is much data which show that non-thermal radiation at levels far below that allowed by Canada is dangerous and is doing harm.
And, finally, to another statement which the industry makes, and which you repeat in your letter: "No reputable scientist and regulatory agency will ever guarantee that "there are NO effects" because a negative cannot be proven by a finite number of studies." Clearly, as I've shown above, reputable scientists are saying the opposite. But further, the industry is playing the game that we, those who are being subjected to the radiation, must prove beyond a doubt that we are being harmed. This is wrong and immoral. What other product has forced its users to prove it doesn't work or is harmful. It should be the industry that proves these devices which emit non-thermal radiation, whether cell phone, cell transmitter, WiFi, DECT phone, etc, are safe, and none have been. We are being told by "experts" like yourself to go ahead, allow these transmitters to be put over your head, allow yourself to be irradiated 24/7. Now that you have information which you may not have had before, I do hope you will refrain from giving such broad reassurances. It is likely that people will suffer the consequences.
Should you wish to discuss anything I've said, or would like more information, please do get back to me.
Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
cc. Mrs. Adair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble
To: Chris Markham
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:56 PM
Subject: Effect on Property Value by Cell tower
Dear Mr. Markham,
I am in receipt of a letter you wrote in response to a question about the impact of a cell tower being erected in a residential neighbourhood. In it you said: "In my opinion a cell tower will not affect the value of any of the strata units. .." Further you said you had not heard of market devaluation yet due to a cell tower. Please allow me to provide you with information which is readily available by googling:
http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value
At this site is the statement from the Burbank (California) Real Estate Association, which provides summaries of devaluations experienced in many cities and countries, many of which are termed "significant". I have no doubt the same would be found to be true in Victoria, if statistics were kept.
I for one can speak to a serious devaluation. I live in a most desirable area but, due to transmitters and towers, my property was devalued 30% by the BC Tax Assessor.
As more people become educated on the health hazards of radiation from these transmitters, I predict that not only will values be lowered, but the homes will become harder to sell if there is a transmitter in the vicinity. The problems with aesthetics can be and are being addressed by the companies hiding the transmitters or disguising the towers, but the health danger cannot be and should not be dismissed. It would, in my opinion, be legally negligent not to tell a potential buyer that a transmitter is on the roof of a condo, or nearby. The offset of improved cell reception, which you offer in your letter, is a weak compromise when health is at stake.
If I may, I would suggest, real estate companies should be anxious, as are we, to ensure that transmitters are not placed near homes or schools, thus making a neighbourhood more desirable and easier to sell.
Should you wish to see health studies, which I intend to Prof. Maria Stuckly, or any further information I would be most happy to send them.
Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
No comments:
Post a Comment