Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)
    Guest
    "Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns become 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 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




    See More: Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns become an Insurance Risk for Telcos




  2. #2
    John S
    Guest

    Re: Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns become an Insurance Risk for Telcos


    "C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns become 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.


    Fer Christ sake!!!! Don't you think that the megawatt TV and FM transmitters
    have more danger than the 45 watt mobile site?

    I sometimes think that some people don't have a life to sit around and think
    up crap like this!





  3. #3
    C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)
    Guest

    Re: Mobile Phone EMF safety concerns become an Insurance Risk for Telcos

    Each of us is cordially permitted our own opinion, however, whilst
    pulsed Microwaves interact with the water dipole and impart momentum,
    the EMF from Radio and TV do not.Therefore, the former are more
    damaging, causing amongst other things, a lowering of the body's
    Superoxide dismutase (SOD) defence system - which is a cellular
    scavenger for free radicals. I won't burden you with the technical
    details, but, that's not good. Furthermore, after almost a century of
    TV and Radio use, local research has confirmed the higher incidence of
    leukemia in children living withing a 7km range of transmitters, which
    we have never doubted. Nevertheless, having a second wrong doesn't
    justify the former.

    Cordially
    C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)




  • Similar Threads