Brothers and Sisters: the following article is a result of a recent editorial in the Tribune - about the health effects of cell phone masts in urban communities.

It has bought to mind the new phone towers that I know about throughout Nassau, N.P. I am sure that there are others all over The Bahamas, and only God knows how much more are in the pipe-line: I know of the ones in Gambier Village - next to the primary school, Adelade Village - on the community park where children play, and Prince William School on Cowpen Road east - where children attend.

============================================


Who was responsible for the decision not to warn education authorities of the possible dangers of genetic damage from Wi-Fi radiation?
From Dr Goldsworthy


Subject: Do you want to join in?

I am sending you the following letter that you may like to send to your local MP in an attempt to get Wi-Fi removed from schools, quoting in particular the risk to our children's DNA, based on what is already known about the effects of mobile phones. We could give the MPs the link to my article on the hese website, which sets this out and can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2nfujj . You could then ask the following questions: -

1) Was the Health Protection Agency aware of the published and well replicated data quoted in Dr Goldsworthy's article showing that the radiation from mobile phones broke into fragments the DNA of human cell cultures and animals?

2) If not, should whoever was responsible for gathering the data or evaluating their importance be sacked?

3) If they were aware of the data and had even the slightest suspicion that it might be correct, why was Wi-Fi equipment (which shares a similar technology) not tested in a similar way?

The tests, which use insects and human cells, take just a matter of days to perform, so there is no excuse for not doing them.

4) Who was responsible for the decision not to warn education authorities of the possible dangers of genetic damage from Wi-Fi radiation before exposing a whole generation of our children for the whole of their school life to it?

5) Should they also be sacked?

6) If the classroom "guinea pigs" are to be monitored, exactly how is this to be done, what will be the criteria used and are they adequate to test for permanent genetic damage to a whole generation (and beyond) before it is too late?

You could use these suggestions for a letter as a template or, if you prefer, you could write a letter in your own style.

You might also like to suggest to friends that they do the same (especially if they are teachers) so that we can get a good coverage of the country. I have already written to my own MP.

Andrew


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Goldsworthy


Regards,
Zephyr
A word to the wise is sufficient Bahamas!

WiFi access points transmit at a max of 100mw, that is 0.1 Watts.
Cell phones transmit at a max of 500mw, that is 0.5 Watts.
Cell phone towers transmit at a max of 20 watts.
Love 97 transmits at about 5000 watts.
100 Jamz transmits at about 10000 watts.
ZNS TV transmits at about 50,000 watts.

You tell me where the danger lies.

The danger lies in these towers finding themselves more and more amoung the general population, and they do transmit radiation which I understand is more hamful to the young.

I believe that we all need to update ourselves on this particular issue.


WiFi access points transmit at a max of 100mw, that is 0.1 Watts.
Cell phones transmit at a max of 500mw, that is 0.5 Watts.
Cell phone towers transmit at a max of 20 watts.
Love 97 transmits at about 5000 watts.
100 Jamz transmits at about 10000 watts.
ZNS TV transmits at about 50,000 watts.
You tell me where the danger lies.

... well, you'd better start tossing out those microwave ovens, then! more radiation than everything you've cited so far ;-).

The danger lies in these towers finding themselves more and more amoung the general population, and they do transmit radiation which I understand is more hamful to the young.
I believe that we all need to update ourselves on this particular issue.

My point is that the people who get up in arms about the dangers of cell phones and wifi don't understand simple physics. They hear the term radiation and panic. Lightbulbs radiate, your computer radiates, your body radiates, your speakers in your stereo radiate. Some radiate heat, some sound, some electromagnetic. All of these are non-ionizing types of radiation, which, simply put, means that unless you are subjected to insane levels, they are completely safe. Ionizing radiation on the other hand, such as that produced by X-rays, Uranium, Plutonium , the sun, etc can be quite dangerous.

Lets go back to my point about the TV towers for a minute. A cell phone tower transmits at tops 20 watts, that is two and a half thousand times less than ZNS 13. So even if we had two and a half thousand cell phone towers in Nassau, the radiation levels would be the same as one television station.

If it makes you feel better, you can go put on your tin foil hat. I on the other hand will go back to being cooked by the radiation of my 60 watt light bulb in my bedroom, and the 30 milliwatts from my WiFi card.

besides we are talking about basic wifi right .. like wireless routers??
Kids watch too much TV, more radiation coming from that, and then the Sun!

NOTE:Why are you against mobile phones - they can be very useful surely?

We are not against mobile phones. They are very useful and have saved lives in emergencies. We are against the unregulated growth of the new mast network for the third generation (3G) of wire-less communications because the new masts are not only closer together (especially in urban areas) but also operate at higher frequencies. We believe that the evidence strongly suggest the higher frequency services (like 3G and the new Tetra services) are more dangerous to humans, especially children.




My point is that the people who get up in arms about the dangers of cell phones and wifi don't understand simple physics. They hear the term radiation and panic. Lightbulbs radiate, your computer radiates, your body radiates, your speakers in your stereo radiate. Some radiate heat, some sound, some electromagnetic. All of these are non-ionizing types of radiation, which, simply put, means that unless you are subjected to insane levels, they are completely safe. Ionizing radiation on the other hand, such as that produced by X-rays, Uranium, Plutonium , the sun, etc can be quite dangerous.
Lets go back to my point about the TV towers for a minute. A cell phone tower transmits at tops 20 watts, that is two and a half thousand times less than ZNS 13. So even if we had two and a half thousand cell phone towers in Nassau, the radiation levels would be the same as one television station.
If it makes you feel better, you can go put on your tin foil hat. I on the other hand will go back to being cooked by the radiation of my 60 watt light bulb in my bedroom, and the 30 milliwatts from my WiFi card.

Interesting, this morning when I saw this post I also came across this on the BBC news website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm

Note: In 2000, the same year the Stewart Report was commissioned by the UK Government, T-Mobil in Germany (the parent company of T-Mobile) commissioned a highly-rated independent research institute, the ECOLOG Institute in Hanover, to review all relevant available research to date with regard to the health risks from mobile telecommunications.

This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers found strong indications for the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology. Experiments on cell cultures at power flux densities much lower than the guidelines, yielded strong indications for genotoxic effects of these fields, like single and double stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes. The findings that high frequency electromagnetic fields influence cell transformation, cell growth promotion and cell communication also point on a carcinogenic potential of the fields used for mobile telephony. The study also found teratogenic effects (birth deformities) and loss of fertility in animal studies. Moreover, disruptions of other cellular processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the control of cell functions by enzymes, have been demonstrated.

Numerous experiments on humans as well as on animals proved effects on the central nervous system, which reach from neuro-chemical effects to modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain functions. Loss of memory and cognitive function, for instance, have been demonstrated by animal experiments. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on certain cognitive functions. Possible risks for the brain also arise from an increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier to potentially harmful substances, observed in several experiments on animals exposed to mobile telephone fields.

The ECOLOG report also found indications for disruptions of the endocrine and the immune system. High frequency electromagnetic fields cause stress reactions, showing up in an increased production of stress hormones in experimental animals and they lead to a reduction of the concentration of the hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals and humans. Melatonin has a central control function for the hormone system and the diurnal biological rhythms and it is able to retard the development of certain tumours.

A common observation in many of the studies was the importance of pulse modulation. Pulse modulated fields seemed to have a stronger effect than continuous fields and that in some cases, it was the pulse of a certain frequency which triggered the reaction, and absence of pulse, or pulse of a different frequency, led to less significant effects or no effect at all.

In sum, the ECOLOG report came to dramatically different conclusions than the Stewart Report and called for an immediate downward regulation of the power flux density that should be allowed by the guidelines, by a factor of 1,000.




Interesting, this morning when I saw this post I also came across this on the BBC news website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm

what doesnt kill you instantly gives you cancer...I refuse to live my life in fear!

This is not an issue of fear, but rather one of public information and education. I prefer to live and learn - instead of accepting everyhing as it come without question.



what doesnt kill you instantly gives you cancer...I refuse to live my life in fear!

life is a terminal disease anyway...

...so we just lay down and play dead when confronted by serious matters, therefore.


life is a terminal disease anyway...

...so we just lay down and play dead when confronted by serious matters, therefore.

yes. (and while were at it we can have food heated in 30 seconds and we donthave to worry about our calls being dropped in a clogged network a la insufficient towers)

sarcam off/

Cool, love ya self mon...


yes. (and while were at it we can have food heated in 30 seconds and we donthave to worry about our calls being dropped in a clogged network a la insufficient towers)
sarcam off/