top of page
  • Writer's pictureBruce Lamb

The 5G Mast Sale Moor - The Bigger Picture - Part 3

The Bigger Picture and how it impacts us all. Posts linked and work completed to Date - Globally. Now think local. Cancer rates - Leukemia - Childhood Cancers. St Anne's Primary School is less than 300 meters away. Its time to stand up and take action.

Again this is work in progress and fine tuning will take place as we progress.

What about the Bees - Bio Diversity - IMPACT?

Sale Moors - Bee Colony - We Need Pollinators or WE DIE.

Children Related Extract - Biodiversity Report.

XVI. United Kingdom - Parliament Independent Expert Group Report (Stewart Report)

The Parliament of the United Kingdom commissioned a scientific study group to evaluate the evidence for RF health and public safety concerns.

In May of 2000, the United Kingdom Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones issued a report underscoring concern that standards are not protective of public health related to both mobile phone use and exposure to wireless communication antennas.

Conclusions and recommendations from the Stewart Report (for Sir William Stewart) indicated that the Group has some reservation about continued wireless technology expansion without more consideration of planning, zoning and potential public health concerns.

Further, the Report acknowledges significant public concern over community siting of mobile phone and other communication antennas in residential areas and near schools and hospitals.

“Children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissue of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure.”

“The siting of base stations in residential areas can cause considerable concern and distress. These include schools, residential areas and hospitals.”

“ There may be indirect health risks from living near base stations with a need for mobile phone operators to consult the public when installing base stations.”

“Monitoring should be expecially strict near schools, and that emissions of greatest intensity should not fall within school grounds.”

“The report recommends “a register of occupationally exposed workers be established and that cancer risks and mortality should be examined to determine whether there are any harmful effects.” (IEGMP, 2000)

Being human, it’s easy to forget that we are entirely dependent on our environment and the many forms of life within it.

After all, we are (as far as we know) the most intelligent species around, and we’ve used this brainpower to exert a lot of control on our surroundings.

Yet underneath all the progress that civilization has made, we are still subject to the workings of nature.

One of the best examples of this interdependence is honeybees.

Again - What about your Children!!

I. Summary for the Public

A. Introduction

B. Purpose of the Report

C. Problems with Existing Public Health Standards (Safety Limits)

II. Summary of the Science

A. Evidence for Cancer (Childhood Leukemia and Adult Cancers)

B. Changes in the Nervous System and Brain Function

C. Effect on Genes (DNA)

D. Effects on Stress Proteins (Heat Shock Proteins)

E. Effects on the Immune System

F. Plausible Biological Mechanisms

G. Another Way of Looking at EMFs: Therapeutic Uses

III. EMF Exposure and Prudent Public Health Planning

IV. Recommended Actions

A. Defining new exposure standards for ELF

B. Defining preventative actions for reduction in RF exposures V. Conclusions VI. References

Download PDF • 20.71MB

II. SUMMARY OF THE SCIENCE A. Evidence for Cancer - Children.

1. Childhood Leukemia

The evidence that power lines and other sources of ELF are consistently associated with higher rates of childhood leukemia has resulted in the International Agency for Cancer Research (an arm of the World Health Organization) to classify ELF as a Possible Human Carcinogen (in the Group 2B carcinogen list).

Leukemia is the most common type of cancer in children. There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia. The exposure levels for increased risk are quite low – just above background or ambient levels and much lower than current exposure limits.

The existing ICNIRP limit is 1000 mG (904 mG in the US) for ELF.

Increased risk for childhood leukemia starts at levels almost one thousand times below the safety standard. Leukemia risks for young boys are reported in one study to double at only 1.4 mG and above (7)

Most other studies combine older children with younger children (0 to 16 years) so that risk levels do not reach statistical significance until exposure levels reach 2 mG or 3 mG.

Although some reviews have combined studies of childhood leukemia in ways that indicate the risk level starts at 4 mG and above; this does not reflect many of the studies reporting elevated risks at the lower exposure levels of 2 mG and 3 mG.

2. Other Childhood Cancers

Other childhood cancers have been studied, including brain tumors, but not enough work has been done to know if there are risks, how high these risks might be or what exposure levels might be associated with increased risks. The lack of certainty about other childhood cancers should not be taken to signal the “all clear”; rather it is a lack of study.

The World Health Organization ELF Health Criteria Monograph No 322 (2007) says that other childhood cancers “cannot be ruled out”. (8) There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF exposure but not enough studies have been done.

Several recent studies provide even stronger evidence that ELF is a risk factor for childhood leukemia and cancers later in life. In the first study (9), children who were recovering in high ELF environments had poorer survival rates (a 450% increased risk of dying if the ELF fields were 3 mG and above).

In the second study, children who were recovering in 2 mG and above ELF environments were 300% more likely to die than children exposed to 1 mG and below.

Download PDF • 20.71MB

5G Correlation Report - COVID Symptoms - No Virus - No Test - No Contagion

Download PDF • 1.90MB

Section 16 The Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle has been developed to help justify public policy action on the protection of health where there are plausible, serious and irreversible hazards from current and future exposures and where there are many uncertainties and much scientific ignorance. EMF is characterized by such circumstances.

• The lessons from the histories of most well known hazards show that precautionary- based yet proportionate measures taken in response to robust early warnings can avoid the kinds of costs incurred by asbestos, smoking, PCBs ,X rays etc. Such lessons are relevant to the EMF issue.

Policymakers need to be aware of the systematic biases within the environmental health science against finding a true hazard, in order to not compromise scientific integrity. However, this bias can lead to the health of people or environments being compromised.

• The Precautionary Principle introduces the use of different levels of proof (or strengths of evidence ) to justify actions to reduce exposure, where the level of proof chosen depends upon the nature and distribution of the costs of being wrong in acting, or not acting; the benefits of the agent or substance in question; the availability of alternatives, etc. Waiting for high levels of scientific proof of causality, or for knowledge about mechanisms of action, can be very expensive in terms of compensation, health care, job losses, reductions in public trust of scientists etc.

• The level of proof chosen to justify action does not determine any particular policy measure, or type of action. This is dependent on factors such as the costs of different measures, equity, the origins of the risk, ie voluntary or imposed, etc.

• There is a need to involve stakeholders in helping to frame problems for risk assessments and to choose appropriate levels of proof and types of actions to reduce exposure.

The Police Have Been Handed The Barrie Trower Report & The Genocide Report . They Did Nothing!! Why? See related Articles and Posts.


Barrie-Trower-2009 TETRA REPORT
Download PDF • 2.59MB

D. Public Health Standard of Evidence

The prudent approach from a public health point of view is to take preventive actions as if causation had been proven, while at the same time to continue to search for mechanisms of action. In the case of childhood leukemia and ELF exposure there is a consistent and statistically significant association in most studies, while for many of the other diseases the results are less consistent although strong associations are found in some studies (Figure 2). This bar graph should be considered illustrative only, since the level of certainty may be higher or lower (above or below 50%) depending on the circumstances of the potential risk, and costs of those risks to society.

Whether magnetic fields actually cause childhood leukemia and the other cancers and neurological diseases documented in this Report; or whether it is some other component in the electromagnetic environment that is responsible for the association is a subject of debate within the scientific community, but from a public health point of view it doesn’t matter.

ioinitiative.orThe fact that there are unknowns does not negate or override the ultimate public health responsibility, which is to protect the population from exposures which cause disease. Those who make public health decisions, as well as policymakers who rely on them and who approve construction of new schools and homes near power lines, those who provide insurance or financing of new construction, those who must choose siting routes for new electrical facilities all face making decisions with some uncertainty about the potential health risks from EMF exposure. Important social issues must often be decided on the basis of incomplete or uncertain scientific information

Related posts:

Whose Watching Who?

34 views0 comments


bottom of page