Environments include humans

[countgallo]

Hello all

Since humans are part of the environment I was'nt sure if this topic should be titled Environmental Health.

I'm currently writing a theses on the effects of cross-contamination and chain events in organisms subjected to human created radiation.

In simple terms, I'm interested in biochemistry and how electromagnetic fields affect bovine/foodstuffs and how the gene mutations created (possibly due to low level non-ionising radiation) affects the human food chain.

As an example, nuclear plants affect the wildlife around the plant and as such humans will in some cases come into contact with the wildlife that passed through or lived in/around the nuclear plant. As a synonym, the tsetse fly and mosquito carried diseases but these insects were not seen to be the cause of disease until many years later.

Only time will tell what effects long term exposure to radiation has on humans. The genetic nature/structure of other insects and wildlife will tell us much.

My theses includes a short chapter on the evolution of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and cross cultures in global transport of foodstuffs and environmental weather patterns that affect the habitat of wildlife and its inherent migration to populate and possibly contaminate areas/countries unnatural to the migrating species.

Any comments on this issue are welcome.

countgallo

[Deecan]

I found your post very interesting. I am Chairman of TAM {Together Against Masts } located in East Lancashire and with in excess of 4000 members.
Having been in existence for 5 years, I have collected countless scientific reports on the adverse health effects created by exposure to the microwave radiation, given off from Mobile phone masts and also the handsets. Together with considerable anercdotal evidence offered by people livinf close to masts who claim that their illness is as a result of this radiation. As you say this is non-ionising radiation, but the effects are still there. I believe it is the chosen frequency and the fact that the waves pulsate that gives rise to the greatest effects. I have peer reviewed studies that have used both animals and humans in the research. Sadly most are ignored and refuted by the Government, probably due to the obscene amout of revenue that they receive from the spread of this technology.
I am convinced that the decimation of the bird population over the last 10 years or so can be attributed in some way to their exposure to man made microwave radiation.
Of course there are some frequencies that can be beneficial, such as the natural Earth's field, aka as the Schumann Resonance. The NASA site include the fact that after the first manned mission into space, the Astronauts suffered headaches and nausea during their voyage. For this reason an artificial field was created within the spacecraft to recreate the Schumann Resonance, and after this the Astronauts did not suffer in the same way. Proof that non-ionising radiation does have biological effects.

[countgallo]

Hi Deecan

Thanks for your reply.
I'm trying to gather some momentum on the subject and its good to hear from anyone interested in the area of EMF's and the effect on animal (and human) welfare.

I greatly believe that there is a relationship between the electro-magnetic fields generated and reduction in immune systems.

In fact, many scientists agree that the interaction (as you mention) between biochestry of cells due to radiation and corresponding flux density has a very important bearing on the incapability of bearing (i.e. confusion such as that seen in BSE).

I also agree that the 'pulsed transmission' of a radio wave (in the ELF frequency) has an influence on brain patterns but at this moment I'm unsure to what extent.

At a higher frequency, the pulsed wave does have a greater effect since the carrier seems to disturb the pattern of natural brain waves (in humans) and approaches the theory of epidemilogal studies of bovine over the last few decades.

Regarding radiation in the microwave spectra, my research (to date) only includes the lower spectra encountered over the last 20 years from the evolution of GSM 2nd generation mobile phone masts.
However, as you rightly mention, the later mobile phone technologies do require faster transmission and as such the frequencies must be at the upper part of the microwave spectrum (around 2.8 GHz)

This is very concerning since the theory I mentioned in my previous post regarding environmental circular contact/foodchain only enforces your thoughts on continuous exposure to low level non-ionising radiation from these RF masts.

As if BSE was'nt enough, the countryside now has to contend with farmers (who are already feeling the effect of loss of cattle) now have to turn business to possibly siting phone masts to subsidise losses due to BSE.

The population of birds in total 'has' dwindled as you rightly state, but I'm unsure if the increase in EMF's is yet the overall culpret. I suggest that the change in global environment is due to several factors (including incresed radiation), but at this time I think the migration of some species is confounded by issues onkly known to the RSPB.

I agree that that some technologies are unsafe, but I deplore these technologies use animals as their means to secure a human's safe solution for use. Of course, I trust no government where the wellbeing of animals or moreso humans is concerned since the overall objective of any governmental researcher is to favour and bios the results towards the funder.

All lifeforms differ in how they react to any environment.
This includes humans who, from birth, gain their immune system only by being subjected to their surounding environment. I think this is what you are trying to say in your reply. I totally agree, but man needs not enter space to encounter anomilies alien to his environment.
This change in mans environment is now evident on earth as you rightly mention in the earth's natural force field.

electrohypersensitivity as with some bio and neuro chemistry is neither new nor old but is ignored or disregarded by most.

Finally, yes, the theory and the facts of induced EMF's is to cause a biological change in the structure of an atom in its close proximity. The frequency of transmision becomes irrelevant if a subject is subjected to constant irradiation over time. The result is the deformation/mutation of a cell, which in turn is passes on to future generations, be that cattle or humans.

Nice to hear from you Deecan, more on this issue welcome.

[michele cryer]

Hi Countgallo and Deecan,

I'm sorry that I can't add anything to this discussion, except to say that it sounds very interesting and I'm pleased to see it coming along...

Let's hope that one day someone in the governments of this world will really wake up to the problems that are being created for us all, and be brave enough to ignore the interests of the big businesses, and try to rescue the earth...

[Mitch]

This is a really informative debate on the technical side. I think there are several issues around your comments on not trusting government with both human and animal welfare, and they are political issues.

If you look on the vodafone site. www.vodafone.co.uk, go into about vodafone, click down on sponsorship then 'Life Savers Awards'. In there read a personal statement by Tony Blair. A mark of the extent that central government is in bed with big business, and of course has received massive payouts by mobile phone companies to assist in the roll out of 3G masts.

The market has no regard for public health, it is driven by profits. As this government increasingly invites in private investment, courting private business to run or sponsor public services, public health will continue to be disregarded as mobile phone companies drive for increasing profits.

Last week in Ramsbottom an O2 phone mast was approved by Bury Metropolitan Council on a site at Holcombe Brook opposite the Hare and Hounds Pub (near Peel Tower, and in countryside not dissimilar to Walverden Reservoir in Nelson where a mast was refused last month).

O2's argument was that a mast was necessary to improve coverage of their new 3G network in the Holcombe Brook/Hazelhurst areas of Ramsbottom. A petition of 329 names and 9 letters of objection were handed in by local residents who were concerned about safety around phone masts. Councillors at Bury argued that they had to approve the application because 02 would win approval on appeal, and the local authority would have to face substantial cost pay outs.

This was not the approach taken by councillors at Nelson Town Hall last month, which is heartening, but what good is stopping one mast in our local community, when another is slapped up a few miles down the road.

I think the changing shape of local government has a bearing here - you have a big Metropolitan council where most councillors (except two) agreed to a mast at Bury, but councillors in the smaller Pendle Borough Council refusing one. Central government has a preference for the increasing amalgamation of smaller local governments into large Metropolitan ones.

I look forward to hearing more about your independent research Countgallo - a combination of real independent research, a coming together under one umbrella of individual local campaigns against masts, and a clear understanding of the political context of central government working for the favour of big business, whilst disregarding public health has to be the way forward.

What do you think deecan?

[michele cryer]

Speaking only for myself..I agree entirely with your ways ahead Mitch..

[Deecan]

I fully agree with all of your comments Mitch.
The point about the Government being in bed with the phone operators and purely driven by money is well made.
Since the roll out in 2000, following the Stewart report, all LPA's were clearly told that health concerns were not a part of the planning process and if they chose to make an issue about it and turned down a mast application then the particular LPA would be held responsible for the cost of a successful appeal against their decision, normwlly around £20,000. Can you imagine the burden on the Community Charge payer, if say 50 masts were turned down in their area. A typical example of this blackmail is shown at Caldervale Rugby Club site, where the first 3 mast applications were refused. The Operator appealed against the last decision. Normally, the appeal process takes about a year and so the Operator has quickly applied for the fourth time on this same site. Pendle Council now have a double whammy to face. Approve this latest application, allowing a mast to be erected very soon and have the appeal dropped. Or refuse the fourth one and face the consequences of appeal costs, possibly even twice ? Local democracy is being eroded by this Government and larger Metropolitan and/or Regional Assemblies is one of their ploys to take away local opinion.
We now have an added blackmail, where the Gowvernment have warned Sefton Council that if they keep turning down mast applications, they will have some of their grant money stopped. Nothing to do with masts. This policy will no doubt be extended to other Councils that don't comply with the Government's wishes.When will our apathetic public wake up to what is happening ?
This makes it all the more important for everyone to write to their MP to ask him/her to be in the House on the 18th March to support the Andrew Stunell MP Private Member's Bill whcih will remove many of the loopholes that we currently have.

[Deecan]

Here is a link to reach some animal studies associated with exposure to EMF :-
members.aol.com/gotemf/emf/animals.htm