President Obama panel exploring cell tower radiation risks, sign petition

Presidential Cancer Panel Exploring Cell Tower Radiation Risks

29.01.2009 by admin Category Electromagnetic Health Blog

Source: birminghammail.net
Jan 29 2009 by Neil Elkes, Birmingham Mail

January 29, 2009; US PRESIDENT Barack Obama has turned to a Midland anti-mobile phone mast campaigner to help the fight against cancer.

Eileen O’Connor, as a founder member of the Radiation Research Trust, has led the battle against the relentless growth of mobile phone masts and technology for the past seven years.

And now the US President’s cancer panel, set up by Obama to research the possible links with both nuclear and electro-magnetic radiation, has asked Eileen for her views on the issue.

The trust has supported widespread research into the possible dangers of mobile and wireless radiation and campaigns for the technology to be made safer.

Eileen said: “Obama’s panel has launched an information gathering exercise and I was invited to provide evidence”. While I am not building up my hopes, I am delighted the issue is being taken seriously by the President.

“President Obama recently said science is about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say; even when it’s inconvenient and I welcome this approach.”

The evidence gathered by the panel will be considered in drawing up advice to the new President on measures needed to be taken to improve the health of Americans.

Any steps taken are likely to be considered around the world.

Eileen first suspected a link between mobile phone masts and cancer when the arrival of a mast in her home village of Wishaw, near Sutton Coldfield coincided with a cluster of cancer cases, including her own.

The campaign hit the headlines in 2003 when the mast was pulled down in the middle of the night and residents blockaded the site to stop it being replaced.

The Radiation Research Trust funds and draws together scientific research from around the world and lobbies government to adopt a more cautious approach to mobile technology.

A key theory is that it is the electromagnetic radiation frequency, and not intensity or power of the signal, which can cause the damage. It is also thought that some people are more sensitive to the effects than others.

Comment from Camilla Rees, Founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org:

What Obama’s advisors will learn is that people are being made sick by the radiation being emitted from cell towers, health care costs are being driven by related illnesses, peoples lives are unfairly crumbling because of the lack of responsibility exhibited by industry and governments in designing these technologies and the serious biological and DNA-level effects of microwave radiation have been known about for decades. He will also learn that, under pressure from the telecom lobby, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 included language taking away state and local government’s rights to limit towers on health or environmental grounds. This power grab is a travesty that needs to be reversed to protect the health of humans, animals, and nature.

If Obama is the courageous, intelligent, truth telling man we want to believe, informed by his team of the health hazards of microwave radiation, he will need to immediately stop the proliferation of the Wi-Max network underway in this country and press industry to find safer means of telecommunications. He should pressure Congress to mandate the FCC lower EMF emissions guidelines for industry, repeal Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and establish cell-phone and wireless-free neighborhoods, government buildings, public spaces and schools.

These are the mandates of ElectromagneticHealth.org’s Petition to Congress found at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/urge-congress-on-emf-safety-fcc-must-change-exposure-guidelines-for-microwave-radiation-exposure

For journalists wanting to learn more about the known biological effects see www.BioInitiative.org. There is no question there are biological effects, the uncertainties concern the various potential mechanisms of action.