Marlborough and the mast...
SCIENCE, POLITICS AND MOBILE PHONES!
By Jennifer Godschall Johnson, Committee Member of Mast Sanity
The
Mast Movement believes that there should be an urgent independent investigation
into the potential dangers of mobile phone technology.
The official response has always been to give little if any credit to the
evidence proving health risks. The
claims that there is nothing to worry about must stop, because the very fabric
of our society, legal, political and social, has been predicated on
this propaganda – and who will take responsibility if it is as false
and dangerous as we believe it to be?
We must have a moral and responsible approach to a technology that is now
so deeply embedded in our daily lives.
Contrary
to what those in the Industry and a number
of politicians would like the public to believe, it is not the intention of the
Mast Movement to stand in the way of progress or to prohibit either the use of
mobile phones or the supporting technology.
Our sole aim is to ensure that the technology is made safe and that
the health and safety of the public is protected.
This is an extremely grave environmental issue which affects the
entire population, human and animal.
The
research / evidence from independent scientists and doctors points very strongly
to a substantial risk, especially to children, and we feel that this risk is not
being properly acknowledged or addressed by those who bear the responsibility of
public welfare. Whilst it is clear
that the use of mobile phones is a matter of choice, it must be acknowledged
that for those who live in the shadow of masts, there is no choice and often no
chance of escape.
The
increase in mobile phone usage means there is an even greater imperative for
proper safeguards in the phones themselves and in the supporting infrastructure.
In other words, the more phones we have, the more masts we need, the
greater the potential risks. Yet
the Government is predictably deaf to this logic.
For obvious reasons there is no official recognition of ill health either
now or in the long term, so to put the necessary scientific and social
precautions in place would be seen as a potentially devastating admission.
But insurance companies (and the biggest names are included in this) are
refusing to underwrite the telecom industry.
Why would insurers, experts in risk assessment,
never normally shy of making substantial profits, refuse such huge
financial temptation, if mobile phone technology was as safe as they would like
us believe?
It
was originally intended by Government that there should be a warning, as with
cigarettes, on the use of mobile phones, especially by children.
Although this was strongly advised by the Stewart Report, the policy has
not been enforced – again for obvious reasons.
The obligation encumbent on Operators to supply these leaflets at the
point of sale, is almost always ignored.
Indeed the Operators find the warnings a great embarrassment, since they
conflict with the self interested view that there are no health risks.
The Government frequently suppresses reports whose results are embarrassing or which are contrary to the desired official line, even when the suppression of these results could potentially risk health and safety on a massive scale. The report it commissioned on electricity pylons and childhood leukaemia, whose findings were so damning, is a recent, sad example. The Government sat on this report for three years until it was ‘outed’by concerned individuals. What other reports on vital issues of public health and safety have been kept from us? Can one trust Government/Industry health assurances when there is such an obvious conflict of interest?
The
official language, in connection with telecommunications technology, is
carefully chosen and ambiguous. It
goes as far as it is possible to imply that there is no risk, without actually
using those words. The
result is that the public have been falsely led to believe that mobile phones
are safe. This has never been
proved. On the contrary, there is
now overwhelming scientific and medical (as well as anecdotal) evidence,
suggesting potential serious risk to both human and animal health.
The doubt alone should be enough to require the Precautionary Principle
as advised by Stewart. In fact it
is extremely worrying that Stewart has been so selectively quoted by the
Industry. Despite being bound by
officialdom, even he now appears to be concerned at the way his report has been
used, and an update is due in November which may go some way to redressing the
balance. Nevertheless,
Britain allows the highest emissions in the world.
It also relies totally upon the out of date ICNIRP guidelines for public
protection. ICNIRP applies only to
thermal emissions, though it is the pulsed emissions which are the cause of so
much concern. It is these
pulsed emissions, independent scientists maintain, that break the blood-brain
barrier, reduce the production of melatonin, and precipitate life threatening
illnesses. Many
scientists and doctors of world renown, now believe that there is a convincing
connection between the technology and the increase around masts of cancer
clusters, childhood leukaemia, epilepsy, brain tumours, Motor Neurone Disease,
as well as debilitating, if less serious, conditions.
With
so much conflicting evidence, there should be an immediate moratorium on the
rapid proliferation of masts while the technology and planning policies are
re-examined to take these grave issues into account.
The Industry, aware of the sword of Damacles poised above them, is in a
roll-out frenzy. Once in situ, it
will be virtually impossible to remove a mast, and even when it is finally
accepted that a risk to health exists (as with smoking) it is most doubtful that
there will be any retrospective policy.
This is a human catastrophe waiting to happen – and unlike using a
mobile phone – living near a mast is not a matter of choice.
It
is now known that those who dare to oppose the official line are frequently
discredited, or have their funding removed.
It is hardly surprising. The
Mobile Phone Operators paid the Government nearly £23 billion for telecom
licences. Any suggestion that there
is a health risk would be disastrous to this hugely powerful global industy.
To illustrate this point, the scientist Barry Trower who worked for the
MOD at Porton Down as a specialist and expert in microwave technology, was
commissioned by the Police Federation to assess Tetra, because of his expertise
in this field. His findings were
contrary to what was desired and quite shocking.
The results were
subsequently dismissed, his recommendations ignored and his reputation
discredited. Another instance
concerns the scientist Roger Coghill. It
involves Dr David Coggan, an epidemiologist who is on a number of very
influential boards – he is head
of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, he
is on the Medical Research Council, he is also a member of the Independent
Expert Group on Mobile Phones - and of course he is a member of the NRPB.
The mobile phone research funding is administered by the NRPB.
Dr Coggan, though officially independent,
is more realistically, a scientific Government
spokesman. I quote from an article written by Roger Coghill in the Ecologist
(May 2002) in which he highlights the questionable practices deployed in the
funding system. His article goes on
to say …..
“Those
responsible for allocating this funding also include Dr David Coggan at
Southampton University. Coggan is
another epidemiologist on record for disbelieving weak EMFs can have adverse
effects. In 1998 Surrey University
asked him and fellow IEE member Dr David Jeffries to examine my PhD thesis.
I rejected both examiners when I discovered an internal memo written in
advance of the scheduled oral examination, setting out reasons why I had been
failed. The matter has been
languishing unaddressed before the university visitor ever since, and the PhD
award lies in abeyance.” The
career
of
Roger
Coghill, an independent, ethical and highly qualified scientist, has been
irreparably damaged by this action.
The career and reputation of Dr Gerard Hyland, a biophysicist of world
renown, has also suffered because he has dared to produce evidence which would
be damaging to the telecom industry.
Despite the combined efforts of the Industry and those scientists who prosper by condemning all views suggesting health risks, the compelling evidence grows worldwide and will not be suppressed. Reasonable calls for a more robust precautionary approach are dismissed as being unnessary, provocative and alarmist. The thrust of the official arguments is that ill health suffered by residents living near masts is mainly psychosmatic – the result of stress and an over-active imagination. Health is unlikely to be a real problem, and those who disagree are hypochondriacs who should see a psychiatrist rather than a medical doctor.
But
these cynical methods to ward off public concern are losing credibility.
Fewer people than ever trust official assurances,
they have not forgotten the legacy of human suffering inherited as a
result of corporate greed and political expediency.
The assurances of safety of asbestos, cigarettes, thalidamide, BSE, DDT,
electricity pylons, pesticides and
chemicals, all spring to mind. Anecdotal
evidence, which should by rights, be a proper consideration in research, is, in
this technology, treated with disdain, as though it is somehow improper.
Yet anecdotal evidence is essential and even obligatory in ascertaining
the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical drugs. To paraphrase Dr Hyland ‘If
mobile phone technology was a drug, it would not be allowed for public
consumption. It would be banned.’
He also says “Clearly there is a growing opinion world-wide that the
criteria on which safety guidelines are currently based are inadequate and in
need of complete revision.” If
anecdotal evidence is dismissed, on what criteria are the ‘accepted’
scientists basing their conclusions? Few
of their scientific results stand up to close scrutiny, unlike the unbiased
results of independent research. As
the internationally renowned scientist Professor Lief Salford says, ‘mobile
phone technology is the biggest human experiment in the world.’
In addition to ordinary mobile phone masts, thousands of Tetra masts are being relentlessly rolled out, often illegally, and also before research is completed. Hundreds of police officers are now suffering ill health through using Tetra. Two officers have tragically died and others are already suffering potentially life threatening illnesses since it was introduced. Now residents, forced to live in the shadow of Tetra masts, are also showing signs of serious ill health. All of this was predicted - and then suppressed. Public health, and money, nationwide, are at risk for a system that is a £2.9 billion technical disaster, and literally hundreds of millions more of OUR money will be thrown into the pit rather than scrap it. MP’s are asking questions, and the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are launching inquiries into Tetra. A secret report prepared by Northumbria Police Authority says, “It was originally envisaged that Airwave would be the primary mechanism for carrying mobile data, but the capacity for data is much lower than expected and not suitable for all mobile services.” This report is just one of many complaints from top officers and key technicians on the project. Several police forces are developing their own mobile services rather than use Tetra. They want ‘bearer independence’, because, quite apart from health concerns, Tetra is already obsolete even before the roll-out has been fully implemented! Yet they are still being forced (some have even used the word blackmailed) to go with Tetra. This would be a shocking state of affairs even if there was no viable alternative. But safer and better alternatives do exist – it is just that higher powers with much to lose, are preventing their use.
Planning
and Legal systems have been manipulated in order to favour the Industry, and in
many cases this has resulted in the denial of people’s democratic and human
rights. This is not a biased
opinion, it is something which is being discussed at the highest levels in
Europe and even in the UK Parliament, where opposition parties are putting more
accountable telecom policies into their manifestos.
The Green Party is especially concerned about the risk to health from all
masts, and in particular has
already called for a moratorium on Tetra.
There
are many who are also deeply concerned by the risk to our wildlife.
Neither animals nor birds are susceptible to psychosomatic illness or
hypochondria, so when those near masts fall ill, abort or have deformed young,
it is not all in the mind. The
fact that they improve (like humans) when removed from the vicinity of the
masts, and decline when returned to the area, suggests that this is not
coincidence either. As for
birds, it is now known that owls, at the top of the bird food chain, have been
in devastating and mysterious decline over the last few years.
This time frame maybe significant and should not be ignored.
The ongoing proliferation of masts could produce a barren future for our
familiar and precious wildlife.
The public are not being adequately protected by the ICNIRP guidelines, and consequently the Precautionary Principle is not being observed. Our children are callously put at risk. In a few years time, the full consequences of this will be felt across the nation, and although no-one wishes to be alarmist, we are talking about a high probability of increase in serious diseases and the human suffering involved, all of which could have been prevented. It seems as though we are all expendable in the great quest for corporate profit and political power.
The
Mast issue is of paramount importance. It
affects our wildlife and environment as
well as the health of every single person in this country.
We are disempowered and abused by the present system.
More than that, the nation’s future has become a lottery with the
growing risk to our children. No
government or global industry, however powerful, should be allowed to gamble
with our lives.
For
more information and essential references please go to www.mastsanity.org
“Mobile
Phones and Masts, the Health Risks”, a
Powerwatch publication by Alistair and Jean Philips, is also an
excellent, comprehensive and accessible source of information.
21st
October 2004 Jennifer
Godschall Johnson (Committee Member Mast Sanity)