Comments on: Local doctor shares his views on dangers from electromagnetic field radiation

By: Lloyd Burrell

Lloyd Burrell — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:14:34 +0000

Dr Harper is so right. I went from being perfectly healthy 8 years ago to one day being very electrosensitive because of my rather excessive cell phone use. I can’t use a cell phone anymore. At the time this seemed something of a curse but I now see this more of a blessing. Because of this sensitivity I have been able to discover alternative medicines, and homeopathy in particular.
As Dr Harper shows we are all subject to much more pollution in our every day lives than we realize, because much of it is invisible. There is a growing public awareness of the dangers of cell phones but many people remain ignorant of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation in our own homes even from sources as hamless as a burglar alarm see http://electricsense.com/?p=1058

By: AGomez

AGomez — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:18:55 +0000

Section 704(b)(iv) of the Telecom Act states:
The Act provides:

“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

In Sprint Spectrum v. Township of Warren Planning Board, 737 A. 2d 715 (N.J. Superior Ct. App. Div. 1999), the court ruled:

“The actual preemptive language of the Act rests upon a demonstration by the applicant of compliance with RF emissions as established in the applicable federal regulations. That language, by its own terms, requires compliance with federally-established RF emissions levels as a prerequisite to preemption.

The FCC has published “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance,” (Practical Guidance) June 2, 2000. In the introduction of this document, the FCC stated that the “voluntary guide [was] to assist state and local governments in devising efficient procedures for ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC’s limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.” In other words, the FCC has acknowledged that local governments have the authority to devise procedures to confirm that a facility complies with FCC RF standards.

Today, our nation’s workers are routinely exposed to RF radiation in violation of the FCC human exposure limits because wireless antennas are everywhere – on rooftops, sides of buildings, utility poles, hidden inside buildings. As a result, workers are routinely compelled to work close to and in front of RF transmitting antennas.

A comprehensice RF safety program is needed to protect all workers and the public. Until then, no wireless service provider can demonstrate 24/7 compliance with RF standards, a prerequisite to federal preemption under the Telecom Act.

By: www.ocafn.org

www.ocafn.org — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:36:33 +0000

The TCA act section 704 reads this and there are Legal grounds to stand on.
The Section states no city or state shall deny a permit based on environmental or health issues of RF, to the EXTENT the RF is IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FCC STANDARDS.
Basic Rule number one 1.) Is the bottom of the antennas 33 feet from ground level.
if the answer is NO – then the city can hire at the expense to the applicant to GAIN AN RF ENGINEER 3rd party to make sure they are in compliance !!!!
There are MIN. Standards per FEDERAL LAW – CITIZENS NEED TO REINFORCE THIS TO OUR City Elected Officials, The wireless industry has Ran Far too long like a wild college party boy out of control ruining our quality of life NOT FOLLOWING SIMPLE RULES!

By: M. Yount

M. Yount — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:33:40 +0000

This article is extremely one-sided. While Dr. Harper may believe this all to be true, I don’t see a lot of hard evidence presented in this article, or a voice from an opposing side. This reads as one man’s opinion and the paper is giving him a soap box. C’mon Coast News, you can do better. This feels a lot like fear-mongering because of someone’s pet issue.

By: holly Manion

holly Manion — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:57:31 +0000

Are you sure you have your facts right? I believe the 1996 Telecommunications Act refers to placement of cell phone towers not Internet antennas. Check it out.

By: Wi Fi Search

Wi Fi Search — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:00:22 +0000

KELLY School Has a lower height WI Fi Antenna located in the middle of the school!!!
Not to mention the high powered electric lines across from the school!
Folks even Chicago Elementary School is suing because the children at their school who hosted a wifi antennas have become ill with leukemia-
the FCC STATES Its absorption research is done on FULL BODY ABSORPTION of AN ADULT BODY!!!!! FOR THERMAL EFFECTS ONLY -

By: DavidNL

DavidNL — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:51:43 +0000

Where I wrote ‘transmission tower’ it should read ‘cell tower’. Brian Stein electrosensitive CEO is at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq298Ir4rHw

By: DavidNL

DavidNL — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:46:20 +0000

My story is translated from Dutch. It is of the utmost importance. You could be affected too.
I have a PhD in electrical engineering. I worked at a multinational electronics company in The Netherlands on the design of integrated circuits (chips) for the newest generation of mobile phones (LTE).
I worked with a view on transmission tower and right next to a Wi-Fi accespoint. Three years ago.
I owned a smartphone, Wii, everything. From 1995 onwards I had a mobile phone, after that one of the first UMTS phones.
Problems first started with a headache when I sat beside the WiFi router. Afterwards fatigue, nausea, and concentration problems.
On one location, I would feel those after being there for some hours, and on another location I would not.
It is important to note that I had already worked there for months without feeling anything. So there seems to be some kind of ‘incubation time’.
Months later, it got worse and I got the same complaints also from working for on my laptop, and even at ordinary computer monitors. I still have this now after several years.
You can imagine that it took me months before I even dared to believe it.
Then I found out this is called electrosensitivity.
The ‘scientific’ argument is often used against us. Obviously I fully support the scientific methods. Except for the ‘provocation studies’, which are very damaging to us.
Many people are believers in ‘this cannot be wrong’. Love of the technology is making them blind. I have been there and can understand this. Let go of it for a while.
Let me show you some scientific evidence from ‘the other side’. A special issue of Elsevier Pathophysiology, a respected scientific journal, outlining health effects like DNA damage, blood-brain barrier effects etc.:
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/patphy/issues/contents?issue_key=S0928-4680(09)X0003-9
I am writing this on my computer although I can only work on it for a few hours until the monitor starts giving me a sharp headache. Just a few years ago, I could work all day and night at the computer without problems. In fact, I happily worked with computers all my life (starting with the Commodore 64 when I was 8 years old). Not anymore now.
The condition depends on physical condition (sports and relaxing helpt) and the sensitivity varies from day to day. I got much improvement from avoiding Wi-Fi, cordless home phone base stations, and transmission towers (but that’s almost impossible).
After years of changing my habits, concentration is much improved. Today I feel better (time scale of reaction is slowed) but the impact is still there (frequently light headache), and fatigue. The vulnerability remains. It comes back when I spend days in close vicinty of a Wi-Fi acces point, for example.
When I switch to another type of monitor (I must have tried 10 by now) first all goes well and then, after some months, I start getting a headache from it.
The immune system seems to be involved. It’s like an allergy.
We are NOT crazy. These are 100% physiological and not psychological problems.
Electrosensitives are not wrongly attributing their health problems to wireless and electronic equipment. The electromagnetic fields from the equipment are causing the health problems.
Well, I am praying for the ‘technology lovers’ that they don’t get it themselves.
Now I have to stop because the monitor is giving me a headache.
For the curious: google “Brian Stein Youtube”

By: Gerry Duffett

Gerry Duffett — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:01:36 +0000

Documents / GerryLeaks / Toronto / Radio Frequency Weapons / Torture / EIR

……torture

"Radio Waves used as Weapons"

http://www.ei-resource.org/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=6&func=view&id=1679&catid=7

Posted by :

Gerry Duffett

3358-A McCowan Rd
Basement
Scarborough Ontario
Canada M1V 5P5

duffett52@yahoo.com,
gerryduffett@fastmail.ca,

http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general

By: Sharon Noble

Sharon Noble — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:21:30 +0000

President Obama’s Panel on Environmental Causes of Cancer needs to receive the information that people like Dr. Harper have discovered. It is criminal that the powerful lobby groups have taken control of our lives, all for profit. The only recourse is to demand that the Telecom Act be revised. Honorable people like Dr. Harper must speak up and demand to be heard whenever and wherever possible. If Americans realized that the US’s standards for radiation are among the worst in the world, maybe more would be concerned.