News RSS Feed


send_pix

Industry answers to Carlo's damning allegations


THE Stourbridge News put Dr Carlo’s views on phone mast safety to Mike Dolan, executive director of the Mobile Operators Association who represent all the major mobile networks.

These are Mr Dolan’s answers in full.

• Dr Carlo says people living close to the site are in real danger from EM radiation because the human body has not evolved to cope with the type of signals emitted from the masts - Is there any scientific evidence that people will not be harmed by radio waves?

In the UK the mobile network operators design and build their networks to comply with the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) radio frequency (RF)public exposure health and safety guidelines.

Over 500 audits have been carried out by Ofcom since 2000 and these have reported that RF emission levels from mobile phone radio base stations are small fractions of the ICNIRP guidelines.

The World Health Organisation concluded in a Fact Sheet in 2006 that: "Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects."

In the summer of 2005 the World Health Organisation held a three day conference in Geneva on the safety of mobile phone and other wireless base stations which was attended by a large number of scientists and regulators from around the world.

It was as a result of the discussions at that conference that the WHO issued its 2006 Fact Sheet.

At the RRT conference held in London last week the former Director of the WHO EMF Unit, Professor Michael Repacholi, confirmed that this remains the current position of the WHO. This was later reaffirmed at the same conference by the unit's current director, Dr Emilie van Deventer. Dr Carlo was present at the conference.

• The Radiation Research Trust says 80% of research done points to a link between poor health and mast sites, how does the MOA respond to that claim?

That is a misleading assertion. In the summer of 2005 the World Health Organisation held a three day conference in Geneva on the safety of mobile phone and other wireless base stations which was attended by a large number of scientists and regulators from around the world.

It was as a result of the discussions at that conference that the WHO issued its reassuring Fact Sheet on base stations in 2006.

That remains the WHO position as well as the position of public health bodies around the world including the UK Health Protection Agency.

The studies referred to by the RRT were part of the WHO deliberations, but were not considered scientifically robust or persuasive enough to alter those conclusions.

That remains the case.

It is the quality - not the quantity - of the studies which is important.

A UK study on this subject has been undertaken by Imperial College in London and is expected to be published in the scientific literature later this year.

• It is claimed minimum levels set for the UK are based on research done for microwave ovens - Does the MOA accept this and how does the MOA answer the claim the UK allows dangerously high levels compared to other countries?

No. The ICNIRP public exposure guidelines were recommended by the Stewart Report in 2000 as part of a precautionary approach.

This recommendation was reaffirmed by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), now part of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), in January 2005.

The guidelines limit human exposure to radio waves and incorporate large safety factors for the general public, including children.

The ICNIRP guidelines are based on known thermal effects from radiowave exposure, but also in the knowledge of all relevant research undertaken including that relating to possible athermal effects.

At a conference in London last week the Chairman of ICNIRP, Professor Paolo Vecchia, confirmed that the guidelines remain appropriate for the protection of humans from radiowave exposures.

Dr Carlo was present at that conference. The ICNIRP guidelines were adopted by the European Council of Health Ministers in 1999 and are widely used throughout Europe.

• Dr Carlo says the head of the ICNIRP admitted their research was limited - How does the MOA answer the claim we simply don't know what a safe level is and should site masts away from residential areas until more work is done to provide proof mast sites of this sort are safe?

The MOA relies upon the advice of the UK Health Protection Agency, the Department of Health, the World Health Organisation, and ICNIRP in relation to these matters.

I would dispute Dr Carlo's assertion regarding what Professor Vecchia said at last week's RRT conference in London.

I was at the conference and also heard Professor Vecchia speak.

Mobile phones need a network of radio base stations in order to work.

The base stations need to be located in places where people use their phones including residential areas.

Radiowave emission levels from base stations are typically small fractions of the ICNIRP guidelines and are generally about 1,000 times less than the radiowaves experienced by a mobile phone user holding his or her phone against the ear.

The further away a mobile phone is from a base station, the more power it uses to transmit or receive calls. This increases the RF emissions from the handset.

• Is it safe for young children to use mobile phones?

The use of mobile phones by the under 16s is a matter of parental choice and responsibility.

Mobile technology offers reassurance to parents and children who value being able to stay in touch with one another. Parents are able to weigh up these immediate and tangible benefits against unknown health concerns when making choices about their children’s mobile phone use.

The UK Health Protection Agency has adopted a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phones by the under 16s based on the premise that, if some presently unknown adverse health effect from mobile technology were to be established in the future, children might be more vulnerable than adults and would have a longer life-time exposure.

This precautionary approach is, however, not based on any established adverse health effect from mobile telephony.

All mobile phones sold in the UK comply with the guidelines set by the International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and adopted for use by the European Council of Health Ministers in 1999.

Use of these guidelines in the UK for mobile phones and base stations was recommended by the Stewart Report in 2000 and reaffirmed by the National Radiological Board (of which Sir William Stewart was Chairman) in 2005.

The guidelines are kept under regular review by ICNIRP.

In addition, the WHO website contains the following statement relevant children's use of mobile phones: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/ottawa_june05/en/index4.html "Some recent media reports suggest that WHO's International EMF Project has changed its recommendation regarding precautionary measures for children using mobile phones. This followed a meeting in Ottawa, Canada in July 2005 to discuss the use of precautionary measures in areas of public health where there is scientific uncertainty.

To date, all expert reviews on the health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the same conclusion: There have been no adverse health consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below the international guidelines on exposure limits published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998).

The ICNIRP guidelines were developed to limit human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) under conditions of maximum absorption of the fields, which rarely occurs, and the limits incorporate large safety factors to protect workers and even larger safety factors to protect the general public, including children.

Thus, the limits in the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective and are based on all the available scientific evidence.

In 2000 WHO issued a fact sheet (#193) on Mobile Phones and their Base Stations.

In the section under "Precautionary measures" it states "Present scientific evidence does not indicate the need for any special precautions for the use of mobile phones. If individuals are concerned, they might choose to limit their own or their children's RF exposure by limiting the length of calls, or by using "hands-free" devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body."

Not only is the information provided in this WHO fact sheet still valid, but the precautionary measures suggested are still those recommended by the International EMF Project. For further information readers are referred to: http://www.who.int/emf WHO's International EMF Project does not change its position through media reports, rather policies and recommendations will only be amended in documents published through normal WHO information outlets."

• Are phones and masts subject to pre and post market testing?

All mobile phones used in the UK and their supporting radio base stations comply with the ICNIRP public exposure radiofrequency guidelines.

Ofcom has been carrying out audits of radio base emissions since 2000 and these have reported emission levels well below the ICNIRP guidelines.

Use of these guidelines in the UK was recommended by the Stewart Report in 2000 and reaffirmed by the National Radiological Board (of which Sir William Stewart was Chairman) in 2005.

The guidelines were adopted by the European Council of Health Ministers in 1999. The guidelines are kept under regular review by ICNIRP.


Your Say Your Stourbridge

Derick Lattimer, Northwood.Middlesex says...
3:02pm Thu 18 Sep 08

I think Mr Mike Dolan, executive director of the Mobil has vested interests at heart and not the health of the general public,I suggest your readers read the Bio-Initiative Report 610 pages www.bioinitiative.co
m which was not funded by the cell phone industry.the REPORT by 20 international scientists & EMR experts CONCLUDED UNEQUIVOCALLY that there is sound evidence of harmful long term biological effects which can damage the body's immune system and lower resistance to illness.
Derick Lattimer

J Elliott, Bristol says...
9:08am Fri 19 Sep 08

Yes Mr Dolan puts great emphasis on the ICNIRP guideline and how they purport to protect us from the serious risks of phone mast radiation. Lets now examine the facts. The existing RF standards are only designed for one thing. To protect the Industry and their profits. The ICNIRP international guidelines, trumpeted by government and phone operators as providing protection to the general public from phone mast electro magnetic radiation emissions, were introduced in 1992 in the technology's infancy. They were introduced not by scientists, but by technicians. They completely ignored researching the most damaging effects to the human body of these radiation emissions, ie measuring the biological, vibrational effects on the human body and damage to cells. They only researched the thermal (heating) effects of the emissions on dead meat! This absurdity is all that stands between us and the risk of life threatening or chronic disease. These (ICNIRP) guidelines as 'protection' are equivalent to a fireguard in front of a defective gas fire that is emitting carbon monoxide - it might stop you getting burned but you might not be alive to care!

Dr Carlo is the world leader in his field. He was employed by the US cell phone companies to run their health research programme in the 1990’s. Instead of proving that their were no health implications with this technology he began to realise that the opposite was the case. There are now over 2000 peer reviewed research studies which show serious ill health links to this technology. Yes government chooses to ignore such research and and rely on a few vested interested studies funded but the phone operators. (For further information see Powerwatch, Radiation Research Trust and Mast Sanity websites).

Paul10, Stourbridge says...
11:46pm Fri 19 Sep 08

There is no real evidence that mobile phones cause any danger. I wonder how many of those complaining here have mobiles themselves.....? Dr Carlo of course has made a nice little earner from those who listen to his "opinions", and is no more objcetive than the phone companies.

stop-radiation.com, says...
11:39pm Sat 20 Sep 08

Health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony - now being heard.

Texts adopted by Parliament Thursday, 4 September 2008 - Brussels Provisional edition
Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010.



(21) Is greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report(8) concerning electromagnetic fields, which summarises over 1500 studies on that topic and which points in its conclusions to the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, Wifi, Wimax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline telephones;

(22) Notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, since they have not been adjusted in the wake of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields (0Hz to 30 GHz)(9) , obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the
recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or of the stricter emission standards adopted, for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children;

(23) Calls, consequently, upon the Council to amend its Recommendation 1999/519/EC in order to take into account the Member States' best practices and thus to set stricter exposure limits for all equipment which emits electromagnetic waves in the frequencies between 0.1 MHz and 300 GHz;

Google this sentence below it is what cell phones did to my life.
____________________
________________
what's more important - your cell phone or your brain ?
____________________
________________
This will open your eyes how tumors
take time to grow, and when you least expect it you become disabled.


ATruthFulAnswer, United States says...
3:33am Sun 21 Sep 08

Let's reveal the Game here:

The headline reads:
Industry answers to Carlo's damning allegations -- fair enough....

So does this industry spokesperson answer the critical question of Safety from the industry's perspective?

In case you missed it, it is 2008 now.

Do you see how frequently this spokesman uses information that is not up-to date?

Even the 2006 paper he refers to, was based on conversations at a conference in 2005.

Why is that the last several years don't seem to exist for this guy?

What research has come to light that he doesn't want you to know?

The critical question here is one of health and safety of this technology.

Are you convinced of the safety baeed on what he says?

Is EVEN HE convinced of the SAFETY?

This spokesman DOES repeatedly answer one question very well and you have to look closely to see the manipulation:

What he does is play a psychological trick on you.

He WANTS you to ASSUME these things are safe because of the CERTIFYING AUTHORITIES he cites.

He is simply playing the game of referring to "a higher authority."

How many times does he refer to ICNIRP and WHO in his answers?

He is a spokesman for the MOA, not for those agencies.

What does the MOA have to say for ITSELF??? Isn't this why HE is being interviewed?

The plain truth is that the ONLY thing that this man is saying is that Cell Phones and Cell Phone Towers are LEGAL.

Aren't Cigarettes legal?

HE is not saying they are SAFE. He is saying they are within the AGENCY GUIDELINES and thus are LEGAL or IN COMPLIANCE.

Why is this?

Because, just as you, he likely knows that these things are a major health hazard and the only way they can hide that fact is to hide behind government and quasi-government agencies.

Hear these words --

The Cellular Industry and this spokesman are master showmen.

Welcome to The Greatest Show in Earth!

Please Learn the Game:

His answers are legalistic snake oil and double speak.

When these individuals are on the witness stand sometime down the road, the defense will be:

"ICNIRP" made me do it.
or
"WHO" made me do it.

Don't buy it!

Read every question and read carefully every answer.

This is a sophisticated game of Propaganda...

But, don't be fooled.

He clearly says:

"The MOA relies upon the advice of the UK Health Protection Agency, the Department of Health, the World Health Organisation, and ICNIRP in relation to these matters."

What are "these matters"?

You'd think "these matters" would refer to something kind of trivial, wouldn't you?

But "these matters" refer to SAFETY of this technology and this TECHNOLOGY is anything but safe.

If you were a company SELLING, MANUFACTURING and DISTRIBUTING these devices and their towers/masts wouldn't YOU PERSONALLY want to know they are safe?

Would any HONEST person just pass the buck onto someone else's opinion of safety? Wouldn't you want to do your own PRIMARY research?

YOU'D WANT TO KNOW FOR YOURSELF, WOULDN'T YOU?

Is it really okay to make an unsafe product and pass the responsibility on to an outside agency to rubberstamp it?

It is like robbing a bank, but saying that your friend said it was okay.

Does that MAKE it okay?

Read the Bioinitiative Report and see how much you are being snowed by this nonsense.

It's Free:

http://www.bioinitia
tive.org/

Shame on you MOA.

and also visit:

http://nomasts.org.u
k/

Once you see HOW the game is played, you will no longer be in the dark.

The game for the companies is to claim LEGALITY -- NOT SAFETY and pass the SAFETY QUESTION onto others with whom they yield tremendous influence.

This is circular and...SICK. TOTALLY SICK.

Pay close attention to exactly what the say.

Now you know.

If ANYONE you know lives near a Cell Phone Tower / Mast please alert them to the health hazards.

Oh...and as for the commenter that talks about how much George Carlo makes...that is ridiculous.

I'm sure Mr. Carlo makes a bit less than what any one of these wireless companies or carriers makes in an afternoon.

For an up-to-date list of studies, visit:

http://www.powerwatc
h.org.uk/science/stu
dies.asp




blaze, Kutztown, PA USA says...
10:39pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Dr. Becker recently passed away, but below is an excerpt from his book. I'd like to say we are all safe from microwaves as long as we are gnotobiotic (germ- and virus- free) - which we aren't - but even if we were, it appears we'd still be affected by microwaves.

As an electrosensitive who can literally 'feel' microwaves, we're playing with fire...

Cross Currents by Dr. Robert O. Becker (pages 194-197)

In the early 1980's, the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine funded a very large, very expensive study at the University of Washington, under the direction of Dr. Arthur W. Guy. In this study, rats were continuously exposed to high frequency microwaves of 2.45 gigahertz (with one gigahertz equaling one billion hertz) at approximately 0.5mW/cm2, twenty times lower than the "safe" thermal level. The exposures lasted for as long as 25 months, and 155 different measures of health and behavior were collected.

This appeared to be a well-designed study that would finally answer the question of whether there were any potential hazards to human beings from chronic exposure to microwave radiation. According to Guy, "The results revealed few differences between the exposed and control rats, and those differences for the most part were either not statistically significant or came and went, suggesting that they may be due to chance."

However, one striking observation was noted: "Primary malignant tumors developed in eighteen of the exposed animals but in only 5 of the controls." Guy hastened to explain that the incidence of cancers even in the experimental group was actually lower than normally expected for the strain of rat used in the experiment. He suggested that no hasty conclusions should be drawn, and that a "consensus among most investigators that the only strong evidence for the hazards of microwaves is found at high levels of exposure" was still valid.

The project was wide reported in the press and discussed in scientific meetings, and it was the subject of a major article in the September 1986 issue of Scientific American (from which the quotes have been drawn). A significant aspect of the experiment was not reported either in that article or in the popular press - but at the scientific meeting at which the results of the study were first reported, it was revealed that all of the animals used, both experimental and control were gnotobiotic (a term meaning germ and virus free). This circumstance alone was responsible for a major part of the $5 million cost of the project.

To produce gnotobiotic animals, the young must be delivered by cesarean section under the strictest possible sterile operating-room conditions (much more stringent than those in use in operating or delivery rooms for people). Following delivery, the animals must be raised and then housed in totally sterile environments for the entire duration of the experiment. This type of environment is akin to the decontamination rooms used to house the astronauts after they returned from the moon, or the "bubbles" within which children born without immune systems are housed.

The use of gnotobiotic animals seems to be not only totally unnecessary, but undesirable as well. Neither we nor the laboratory rat normally live in a sterile world, devoid of bacteria or viruses. On the contrary, we live surrounded by uncountable numbers of organisms. We generally do not get sick unless we are injured and bacteria enter the body through the wound, or unless our immunity is inadequate and we get a communicable disease or infection. An experiment on germ- and virus-free animals has no relevance to the real world.

The point becomes even more apparent when two established facts are considered. First, present evidence shows that at least 20% of human cancers are caused by viral infection, and the percentage is considerably higher in animals. Therefore, animals that are maintained in a germ- and virus-free state have an incidence of cancer that is much lower than expected. Second, it is well-established that exposure to any abnormal electromagnetic field produces a stress response. If the exposure is prolonged, the stress-response system becomes exhausted, and the competency of the immune system declines to below normal. In such a state, animals and humans are more susceptible to cancer and infectious diseases.

One can only conclude that the experiment at Washington was deliberately designed to sharply reduce the incidence of cancer and infectious diseases in the exposed animals. There can be no other reason for the requirement that the animals be gnotobiotic.

Therefore, if we knew the facts in advance, and we wanted to set up a "scientific" project to expose animals to microwaves for a long time but were required to get negative results, we would have only one choice - to use germ- and virus-free test animals. Being gnotobiotic, both the unexposed control animals and the exposed experimental animals would be protected against the usual dangers of infection and cancer. In Guy's study, the fact that the experimental animals had a lower-than-normal incidence of cancer was totally expected. What was unexpected and highly significant was that even with this protection, the cancer incidence in the animals exposed to microwaves was four times that in the control animals.

The well-designed experiment that should have "proved" that microwaves are safe fell into a trap, and the nature of the trap is revealed by the types of cancer that occurred in the experimental group. These were mainly limited to cancers of the pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands; these cancers were accompanied by a significant number of pheochromocytomas, which are benign tumors of the adrenal glands. There were no significant cancers of any of the usual tissues.

The experiment was designed to prevent the results of stress, but the planners forgot that it would produce stress. Because stress resistance is mediated chiefly through the three glands just mentioned, we must conclude that the microwave exposure produced an extremely high level of stress - so much so that the resultant prolonged hyperactivity of these glands led to their becoming cancerous. Considering the extreme stress experienced by the exposed animals, if the animals had been normal (rather than gnotobiotic) the entire experimental group would have died of infection or cancer before the close of the experiment.

Some of the 155 biochemical determinations done by Guy in the course of the experiment confirm this interpretation. Plasma cortisol is one of the chemical substances produced by the adrenal glands under conditions of stress, and it was one of the substances measured in the experiment. At the start, the plasma cortisol was equal in both the control and experimental groups; in the early months of microwave exposure, however, cortisol in the experimental group was elevated above that in the control group, indicating that the experimental animals were reacting to stress. By the latter phase of the experiment, the plasma cortisol of the exposed animals was depressed below that of the controls, indicating that the stress response systems of the experimental animals had become exhausted. This result is exactly as expected for a condition of chronic stress.

These data, which are buried in a multivolume official Air Force report of the project, were first published in the July-August 1984 issue of Microwave News. The experiment was planned cleverly, but not cleverly enough. It clearly indicated that chronic exposure to microwaves at levels 20 times below the established safe thermal level, produced profound stress and ultimately exhaustion of the stress-response system. Because the experiment involved gnotobiotic animals, this resulted only in an increase in cancers of the stress-response glands. Had the experiment been performed under real world conditions, the result would have been catastrophic for the exposed group of animals.

Your sayYour Stourbridge

comment Add your comment

Register for a FREE Stourbridge News account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.

Please register now or sign in below to continue.


LOCAL WEBSITES

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »