From: Marcey Kliparchuk [mailto:marcey.klip@yahoo.ca] Sent: March-31-14 7:29 PM To: Spectrum Operations - Operations du Spectre Subject: Comments - CPC2003

Spectrum Management and Telecommunications

Hello, Here are my comments on Cell Tower Policy CPC 2-0-03 for your consideration. Sincerely, Marcey Kliparchuk

Facilitated by Canadians for Safe Technology

March 30, 2014 

Attn:  

Director, Spectrum Management Operations Industry Canada, 235 Queen Street, 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5.  Canada Gazette, Part I, reference number (DGSO‐001‐14). 

Re: Comments CPC‐2‐0‐03 

I applaud the proposed changes to notify community members regardless of tower size 

when a tower is going up in their community and to clearly mark notices, but much 

more needs to be done. Considering the fact that the dangers of wireless frequencies 

are now part of medical education offered as *Continuing Education Credits that 

Physicians may take as part of licensing across North America and Western Europe, we 

can no longer ignore the fact more changes are desperately needed to protect the 

public.  

In addition to the currently proposed changes, I would like to ask that: 

1. Individual parents of children in schools and daycares be notified of proposed 

tower installations, if the school or daycare lies within the notification area. 

Rational: Parents of children in schools that are in the notification area of proposed 

towers are not required to be notified in the consultation process but since children 

spend so much time of their day at school or in daycare, parents have a right to be 

consulted. Health Canada encourages parents to take these measures to reduce their 

children's RF exposure from cell phones since children are typically more sensitive to a 

variety of environmental agents (2011). Since RF radiation is classified by the World 

Health Organization (WHO) as a 2B carcinogen in the same category as lead and DDT, 

families have a right to be consulted.  

The  Taiwan  government  removed  1500  phone  masts  sharing  that  “Taiwanese 

legislators ordered the removal of 1 500 mobile phone masts stating that homes and 

schools must  not  be  exposed  to  the  risk  of  radiation.  The  action  by  the  Taiwanese 

government was  one  of  the major  changes  implemented  by world  leaders  to  protect 

members of the public from extreme negative health effects caused by electromagnetic 

fields and cell masts.” http://www.times.co.sz/News/78164.ht 

2. All residents within the notification area are notified of proposed tower 

installations regardless of “natural buffers” such as streets which currently 

prevent these residents from being notified. 

Rational: Due to the concept of the street being considered “a natural buffer,” the 

number of affected residents which are notified may be drastically reduced. For example, 

because the street next to the Dayspring Tower installation in Greenfield, Edmonton, AB, 

was considered a “natural buffer”, only residents living in single family homes or 

duplexes were notified, but a much larger number of affected residents directly across 

the street, including several apartment buildings, were not notified.  

 

The idea of the street being a “natural buffer” is not conducive to an open and 

transparent public consolation, in particular when that area has far more residents per 

capita, than the area that was consulted. Residents in this community were extremely 

frustrated by the lack of consultation with the surrounding community. 

3. Nursing Home Residents and their caregivers, and hospitals are included in the 

notification area. 

Rational: The World Health Organization (WHO) on Electromagnetic Fields admits 

“Guidelines do not protect against potential interference with electromedical devices.” 

Physicians and caregivers should be notified about changes to electromagnetic fields as 

the WHO admits they are not intended for people with pacemakers. 

http://www.who.int/peh‐emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index4.html 

Key Point #3  

Guidelines are set for the average population and cannot directly address the 

requirements of a minority of potentially more sensitive people. Air pollution guidelines, 

for example, are not based on the special needs of asthmatics. Similarly, 

electromagnetic field guidelines are not designed to protect people from interference 

with implanted medical electronic devices such as heart pacemakers. Instead, advice 

about exposure situations to be avoided should be sought from the manufacturers and 

from the clinician implanting the device. 

In addition to my initial suggestions, I would also like to see the changes requested by C4ST listed below, and agree completely with their rational provided. 

4. The inclusion of non‐tower structures (building‐mount, roof‐top, hydro‐pole, 

utility pole, etc...) installations are included in the notification and consultation 

process. 

 

5. We request that changes and or modifications to existing towers/antennas in 

place that would raise the RF output of the structure by more than 25% be 

included in the notification and consultation process. 

 

6. We request that the distance around a tower that requires notification as per 

section 5.2 (Public Consultation Process) be increased from 3 times the tower 

height, to 10 times. 

As well, I would like to request: 

7. A moratorium on tower installations within 500 meters of schools (including 

Universities and Colleges), and/ or require that the tower output not exceed 10% 

of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. 

Rational: Many peer reviewed studies exists which document health hazards of cell 

tower radiation of those living within 500 meters of cell towers. Since children spend 8 

hours or more of their days at school, and since they are legally required to attend 

school, they should be entitled to a higher degree of protection. A new study from Brazil 

found that 80% of cancer victims lived within 500 meters of cell towers. 

http://www.next‐up.org/Newsoftheworld/ClustersEmfCem.php 

 

We should learn from countries such as Bombay, where they successfully reduced cell tower radiation by 90% to 10% of ICNERP, or Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, as evidence of health risks continues to mount. In fact, on Sept 16, 2013, the City of Mumbai, India adopted a policy prohibiting cell towers on schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, and juvenile correction homes; prohibiting nearby antennas from being directed toward such buildings; and requiring that antennas on such buildings be removed.  The policy also requires the approval of 70% of the residents of an apartment or condominium building, and the approval of 100% of the residents of the top floor, before antennas are installed on the roof.   

http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Public%20Relation%20Officer/Press%20Release/Public%20Notice%20for%20Chief%20Engineer%20Development%20Plan%20Department%20eng.pdf 

 

 

SDSU Cancer Cluster Victims – Nasatir Hall 

 

1) Rich Farver                                        ROOM 131  2) Charles Cutter                                    ROOM 131 3) Lou Terrell                                         ROOM 131 4) Ms. Laurel Amtower                         ROOM 131 5) Mrs. Kathy O'Hara                            ROOM 131 6) Richard Funston                                ROOM 131 7) Dr. Paul Sargent                                Nasatir Hall 8) Samantha Stauber   Across from   Nasatir Hall 

                                                           

Rich Farver SDSU Cancer Cluster Victim 

On July 5, 2013, the Supreme Court of India upheld a decision of the High Court of the State of Rajasthan to remove all cell towers from the vicinity of schools, colleges, 

hospitals and playgrounds because of radiation “hazardous to life.”  The over 200‐page November 27, 2012 Rajasthan decision reviews worldwide evidence that cell towers are harming human beings and wildlife.   

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=israni%20%22union%20of%20india%22%2

0%22high%20court%22%20rajasthan&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%

3A%2F%2Fwww.rtiindia.org%2Fforum%2Fattachments%2Fchit‐

chat%2F8595d1358495483‐no‐mobile‐towers‐near‐schools‐hospitals‐directs‐

rajasthan‐hc‐no‐mobile‐towers‐near‐schools‐hospitals‐directs‐rajasthan‐high‐

court.pdf&ei=80MeUq7ONMnkyQGJmYGwDA&usg=AFQjCNFCfNEmAnTRaTYhfxag1U

QdZohJkg  

 Most importantly, I would like to request that: 

 

8. 51% of residents must approve of the tower installation before it can be 

approved and installed. 

Rational: It does residents little good if they are consulted, but even if they do not agree, 

the tower is installed anyways. If this country is still a democracy, then the decision as to 

whether to erect a tower should be based on the will of the majority of the residents in 

an area. 

German Court Ruling on Cell Antennas  

Posted in News Updates Written by FOCUS Online  

Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH)—Cell phone antennas on rooftops only with 

consent of all shared property owners 

 

Apartment owners of a condominium association must not enforce the installation of 

cell phone antennas on their rooftop against the will of individual apartment owners. 

 

The Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH) in Karlsruhe announced this decision in 

its ruling on Friday. Due to the controversy over possible health effects from cell phone 

antennas,  

there is “at least the serious possibility of a reduction in the rental or sales value of the 

condominiums,” the explanation said. 

Therefore, all apartment owners would have to support such a decision (Az.: V ZR 

48/13) 

5.5 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 

In light of the following information, I again ask Industry Canada to consider requiring cell tower radiation levels to be turned down to 10% of current allowable levels. 

2007: European Environmental Agency, Europe’s top environmental watchdog, calls for immediate action to reduce exposure to radiation from Wi‐Fi, mobile phones and their masts. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10463870 

May 2009: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urges Congress to focus on the potential connection between electromagnetic fields and “Bee Colony Collapse”. http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic‐health‐blog/emf‐and‐warnke‐report‐on‐bees‐birds‐and‐mankind/ 

March 2014 Dept. of Interior attacks FCC regarding Adverse Impact of Cell Tower Radiation on Wildlife 

The Department of Interior charges that the FCC standards for cell phone radiation are outmoded and no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife.  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

PRLog (Press Release) ‐ Mar. 24, 2014 ‐ BERKELEY, Calif. ‐‐ The Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance of the United States Department of the Interior sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce that addresses the Interior Department's concern that cell tower radiation has had negative impacts on the health of migratory birds and other wildlife.  The Interior Department accused the Federal government of employing outdated radiation standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a Federal agency with no expertise in health.  The standards are no longer applicable because they control only for overheating and do not protect organisms from the adverse effects of exposure to the low‐intensity radiation produced by cell phones and cell towers:  "the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today."  The Department criticized the Federal government's proposed procedures for placement and operation of communication towers, and called for "independent, third‐party peer‐reviewed studies" in the U.S. to examine the effects of cell tower radiation on "migratory birds and other trust species."  More information is available at:  http://www.saferemr.com/2014/03/dept‐of‐interior‐attacks‐...  Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley 

Contact Joel Moskowitz ***@berkeley.edu  http://www.prlog.org/12299815‐dept‐of‐interior‐attacks‐fcc‐regarding‐adverse‐impact‐

of‐cell‐tower‐radiation‐on‐wildlife.html    ‐ retrieved March 30, 2014 

References 

* The program has been approved by the American Academy of Family Practice (9.25 

CME), the American Holistic Nurses Association (9 contact hours) and through CE 

Brokers for the State of Florida for all health disciplines.  They are also approved for 11 

PDAs by the National Certification Commission on Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine 

(NCCAOM), the Kentucky Board of Dentistry and by the National Certification Board 

for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. 

http://www.thermoguy.com/pdfs/Integrative_Health_Forum_on_Medical_Education

_Including_Wireless_Exposure.pdf 

Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Marcey Kliparchuk 

GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BAN OR WARN AGAINST WIRELESS 

TECHNOLOGY 

1993: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The FCC’s exposure standards are “seriously flawed.” Official comments to the FCC on guidelines for evaluation of electromagnetic effects of radio frequency radiation, FCC Docket ET 93‐62, November 9, 1993. 

1993: Food and Drug Administration (FDA): “FCC rules do not address the issue of long‐term, chronic exposure to RF fields.” Comments of the FDA to the FCC, November 10, 1993. 

1993: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): The FCC’s standard is inadequate because it “is based on only one dominant mechanism—adverse health effects caused by body heating.” Comments of NIOSH to the FCC, January 11, 1994. 

1994: Amateur Radio Relay League Bio‐Effects Committee: “The FCC’s standard does not protect against non‐thermal effects.” Comments of the ARRL Bio‐Effects Committee to the FCC, January 7, 1994. 

2000: UK Department of Education: Children under 16 should not use cell phones except in an emergency. http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2000/news‐08052000_uk_schools_warned_over_radiation.htm 

2002: Interdisciplinary Society for Environmental Medicine (3000 physicians in Germany) recommends banning cell phone use by children and banning cell phones and cordless phones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, events halls, public buildings and vehicles. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/pdfs/20021019_englisch.pdf 

2003: American Bird Conservancy and Forest Conservation Council: Brought a lawsuit against the FCC because millions of migratory birds were being disoriented by microwave radiation and crashing into cell towers. http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/1498 

2004: International Association of Fire Fighters opposes communication antennas on fire stations. http://www.iaff.org/HS/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp 

2005: Salzburg, Austria’s Public Health Department bans WLAN and DECT phones in public schools. http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi‐fi‐is‐removed‐from‐schools‐and.html 

August 2005: Austrian Medical Association: Warns against Wi‐Fi, cordless phones, and cell phone use by children. http://www.thepeoplesinitiative.org/Wifi_and_Schools.html 

August 2005: Vienna Medical Association warns against Wi‐Fi, and cell phone use by children up to age 16. http://freiburger‐appell‐2012.info/media/EMF%20Guideline%20OAK‐AG%20%202012%2003%2003.pdf 

2006: Frankfurt, Germany’s government states it will not install Wi‐Fi in its schools until it has been shown to be harmless. http://www.icems.eu/docs/deutscher_bundestag.pdf 

2006: UK schools remove their wireless networks: Prebandal Preparatory School, Chichester, West Sussex; Ysgol Pantycelyn School in Carmarthenshirem, Wales; and Stowe School, in Buckinghamshire, England. London Times, November 20, 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article642575.ece 

2007: Ballinderry Primary School, Ireland: Removed Wi‐Fi to protect young children. http://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi‐fi‐is‐removed‐from‐schools‐and.html 

2007 Bavaria, Germany’s Parliament recommends against Wi‐Fi in schools. http://www.icems.eu/docs/deutscher_bundestag.pdf 

2007 Australian Democrats: The “explosion in wireless communications technology” is causing widespread illness. http://www.democrats.org.au/docs/2007/Joining_the_Dots_ExecSummary.pdf 

2007: European Environmental Agency, Europe’s top environmental watchdog, calls for immediate action to reduce exposure to radiation from Wi‐Fi, mobile phones and their masts. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10463870 

2008: International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety (comprised of scientists from 16 nations): Recommends limiting cell phone use by children, teenagers, pregnant women and the elderly. http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm 

return to top of page 

2007: Therold, Ontario closes down its citywide Wi‐Fi pilot scheme. http://www.glastonburynaturalhealth.co.uk/WhyWi‐Fi.html 

2008: Lakehead University, Ontario bans Wi‐Fi on campus. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/15/ontario‐wifi.html 

2008: Madhya Pradesh, India: Bans cell phones in schools by both students and teachers. http://www.indiaedunews.net/Madhya_Pradesh/Teachers, students_unhappy_with_mobile_phone_ban_in_schools_5241/ 

2008: National Library of France: Removes Wi‐Fi because of health concerns and limits installation to cable connections. http://www.next‐up.org/pdf/FranceNationalLibraryGivesUpWiFi07042008.pdf 

2008: Paris, France removes Wi‐Fi from four public libraries because of health concerns. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286‐35451555_ITM 

2008 Sainte‐Geneviève University, Paris: Removes Wi‐Fi from its library because of health concerns. http://www.next‐up.org/pdf/AnalysisWiFiHotSpotsDeactivationSainteGenevieveLibraryParis24052008.pdf 

2008: Progressive Librarians Guild recommends against wireless technology in libraries. http://libr.org/plg/wifiresolution.php 

2008: Russian National Committee for Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection warns that cell phones are unsafe even for short conversations. Children under 16, pregnant women, epileptics, and people with memory loss, sleep disorders and neurological diseases should never use cell phones. http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/rncnirp_children.pdf 

2008 Sebastopol, California: Reneges on its contract to install citywide Wi‐Fi. http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/24/town‐of‐sebastopol‐c.html 

2008: University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute: Children should never use a cell phone except in an emergency. http://www.post‐gazette.com/pg/08205/898803‐114.stm 

2008: Voice (UK Teachers Union) calls for a ban on Wi‐Fi in schools. http://www.voicetheunion.org.uk/index.cfm/page/_sections.content.cfm/cid/1326/navid/434/parentid/330 

2009: Hérouville Saint‐Clair, France: Bans Wi‐Fi in public schools. http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/4.html 

2009: Irish Doctors Environmental Association: Warns that current safety guidelines are “not appropriate.” http://www.ideaireland.org/ 

2009: Karnataka State, India: Bans cell phones in all schools and pre‐university colleges. http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/14/stories/2009091454460500.htm 

May 2009: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urges Congress to focus on the potential connection between electromagnetic fields and “Bee Colony Collapse”. http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic‐health‐blog/emf‐and‐warnke‐report‐on‐bees‐birds‐and‐mankind/ 

December, 2010: French Parliament passes a law prohibiting advertising cell phones to children under 14; prohibits children up to age 14 from using cell phones in pre‐schools and public schools; requires cell phones to be labeled with SAR values and a recommendation to use headsets. http://www.enviroblog.org/2010/12/french‐cell‐phone‐radiation‐disclosure‐at‐point‐of‐sale.html 

May 27, 2011: Council of Europe passes a resolution recommending wired Internet connections in schools, and the creation of radiation‐free zones to protect electrosensitive people. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta11/eRES1815.htm. 

August 30, 2011: The Israeli Ministry of Education publishes guidelines strictly limiting the use of mobile phones on all school grounds, citing children’s and youths’ increased risk of malignant tumors and the “passive exposure” experienced by children who do not use phones. http://norad4u.blogspot.com/2011/09/israeli‐ministry‐of‐education‐is‐going.html 

September 8, 2011: Pretty River Academy in Collingwood, Ontario removes Wi‐Fi from campus as a precaution, joining Roots and Wings Montessori school in Surrey, British Columbia. http://www.safeschool.ca/uploads/CTV_School_cuts_WiFi.pdf; http://www.safeschool.ca/School_Bans_WiFi.html 

Feb 13, 2012: Citing safety concerns, the Ontario English Catholic Teacher’s Association representing 45,000 teachers, is calling for a ban on new Wi‐Fi installations in the province’s 1,400‐plus Catholic schools and advocating that computers in all new schools should be hardwired as well. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/13/toronto‐oecta‐wifi.html 

March, 2012: the Austrian Medical Association (ÖAK) releases guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of health problems caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields. http://www.aerztekammer.at/documents/10618/976981/EMF‐Guideline.pdf 

June 19, 2012: The Russian National Committee on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection has officially recommended that Wi‐Fi not be used in schools. http://youtu.be/5CemiJ‐yIA4. 

25 Aug 2012: Israeli Minister of Health Rabi Yaakov Litzman states that he supports calls to action for a ban on Wi‐Fi in schools. http://www.mast‐victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=5723 

5 July 2013: Supreme Court of India upholds a decision of the High Court of the State of Rajasthan to remove all cell towers from the vicinity of schools, colleges, hospitals and playgrounds because of radiation “hazardous to life.”  The over 200‐page November 27, 2012 Rajasthan decision reviews worldwide evidence that cell towers are harming human beings and wildlife.  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=israni%20%22union%20of%20india%22%20%22high%20court%22%20rajasthan&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtiindia.org%2Fforum%2Fattachments%2Fchit‐chat%2F8595d1358495483‐no‐mobile‐towers‐near‐schools‐hospitals‐directs‐rajasthan‐hc‐no‐mobile‐towers‐near‐schools‐hospitals‐directs‐rajasthan‐high‐court.pdf&ei=80MeUq7ONMnkyQGJmYGwDA&usg=AFQjCNFCfNEmAnTRaTYhfxag1UQdZohJkg 

15 Aug 2013: Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, representing 76,000 teachers, recommends that cell phones be turned off in classrooms, and that all WiFi transmitters be labeled as part of a hazard control program.  http://annualmeeting.ca/wp‐content/uploads/2013/07/Session‐71.pdf 

16 Sept 2013: City of Mumbai, India adopts a policy prohibiting cell towers on schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, and juvenile correction homes; prohibiting nearby antennas from being directed toward such buildings; and requiring that antennas on such buildings be removed.  The policy also requires the approval of 70% of the residents of an apartment or condominium building, and the approval of 100% of the residents of the top floor, before antennas are installed on the roof.  http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/go/km/docs/documents/MCGM%20Department%20List/Public%20Relation%20Officer/Press%20Release/Public%20Notice%20for%20Chief%20Engineer%20Development%20Plan%20Department%20eng.pdf 

DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CALLING FOR STRICTER REGULATION AND/OR A MORATORIUM ON WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY 

http://international‐emf‐alliance.org/index.php/appeals, http://www.ralf‐woelfle.de/elektrosmog/redir.htm?http://www.ralf‐woelfle.de/elektrosmog/allgemein/appelle.htm, http://www.avaate.org/IMG/doc/Alcalaci.doc 

Vienna Resolution 1998 Salzburg Resolution 2000 Declaration of Alcalá 2002 Catania Resolution 2002 Freiburger Appeal 2002 Bamberger Appeal 2004 Maintaler Appeal 2004 Coburger Appeal 2005 Oberammergauer Appeal 2005 Haibacher Appeal 2005 Pfarrkirchener Appeal 2005 Freienbacher Appeal 2005 Lichtenfelser Appeal 2005 Hofer Appeal 2005 Helsinki Appeal 2005 Parish Kirchner Appeal 2005 Saarlander Appeal 2005 Stockacher Appeal 2005 Benevento Resolution 2006 Allgäuer Appeal 2006 WiMax Appeal 2006 Schlüchterner appeal Brussels Appeal 2007 Venice Resolution 2008 Berlin Appeal 2008 Paris Appeal 2009 London Resolution 2009 Porto Alegre Resolution 2009 European Parliament EMF Resolution 2009 Dutch Appeal 2009 Int’l Appeal of Würzburg 2010 Copenhagen Resolution 2010 Seletun Consensus Statement 2010 Potenza Picena Resolution 2013 

 

Taiwan had mobile phone masts removed 01/08/2012 00:00:00 KWANELE DHLADHLA Font size:

MBABANE - Taiwanese legislators ordered the removal of 1 500 mobile phone masts stating that homes and schools must not be exposed to the risk of radiation.

The radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations could cause cancer, miscarriages, and could even drive people to suicide.

The action by the Taiwanese government was one of the major changes implemented by world leaders to protect members of the public from extreme negative health effects caused by electromagnetic fields and cell masts, among other wirelessly connected communication services.

In relation to the action by the Taiwanese government’s recent action; Lobamba Lomdzala Member of Parliament, Marwick Khumalo, advised that it would be wise to stop the installation of all cell masts with immediate effect, then conduct relevant research that would determine whether or not the project could continue.

"Any government that cares about the welfare of its people would jump at the opportunity availed by the Taiwanese government through their action to discontinue the process," said Khumalo.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), met in Kyiv at Standing Committee level May 27, 2011 calling on European governments to ‘take all reasonable measures’ to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, ‘and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours’.

According to parliamentarians, governments should, ‘or children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises’, and put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially ‘targeting children and teenagers.

Furthermore, the International Agency Research on Cancer (the foremost cancer research body in the world), the World Health Organisation and European Parliamentary Assembly are finally listening. First, in May 2011, IARC in Lyon issued a press release stating that radio frequency electromagnetic fields have been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (group 2B) based on an increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.

　

Campaigners saw this as a major breakthrough since it had long been noted that if research paid for by the mobile phone companies themselves, the independent studies left open-minded scientists　in little doubt.

According to researcher and environmental activist, Eileen O’Connor; "All electromagnetic radiation has a potentially hazardous threat. And that includes masts opposite your home and the poorly researched but ubiquitous Wi-Fi … and it takes 20 years for the brain and the nervous system to form fully (after the cell mast effects)."

Lobamba against installation of mast

MBABANE - Due to the proven negatively extreme health effects of cell masts and electric magnetic forces, the Lobamba Lomdzala constituency plans to turn down the proposed installation of a cell mast in their area.

To ensure their stance will be implemented, the constituency’s leadership has appointed the Indvuna yeNkhundla to represent them and ensure that their position is carried through even at inner council’s level.

A proposal has been made to install the cell mast in one of the commercial areas of the constituency.

This revelation was made by Lobamba Lomdzala Member of Parliament Marwick Khumalo in an interview yesterday.

"The decision to refuse the installation of the cell masts has been made in consideration of the extremely negative health effects and to allow us to have more time for research on where it would be suitable to construct the cell masts, if need be.

"However, currently our stance as the leadership of the area is that it should not be installed in the commercial area, as initially proposed," said Khumalo.