Results 1 to 3 of 3
- 05-03-2005, 11:10 AM #1C.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
- 05-03-2005, 01:59 PM #2John SGuest
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!
- 05-03-2005, 08:08 PM #3C.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
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.nokia
Real estate investment in the UAE
in Chit Chat