Important Antenna Victory in Los Angeles

Important Antenna Victory in Los Angeles
From: Doug Loranger
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:19 PM
Subject: Important Antenna Victory in Los Angeles
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Updated: 02/23/2009 11:42:41 PM PST http://www.dailynews.com/ci_11770802

Residents of the View Park/Windsor Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles won an important victory at the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission on February 18 (see article from LA Daily News below). While T-Mobile can still appeal to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors the 3-2 vote to deny a permit for a wireless facility proposed for the rooftop garage on a building hosting a CVS pharmacy, the victory is particularly significant because it marks the debut of a regional Southern California coalition, Residents Engaged Against Cell Towers (REACT), who successfully mobilized for the Feb. 18 hearing.

Organizations involved in this regional coalition include residents from Los Angeles, San Diego, Glendale, Pasadena, Tarzana, Burbank, Mar Vista, Altadena, Baldwin Hills Estates, Sherman Oaks, Ladera Heights, Scripps Ranch, Hacienda Heights, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Mission Viejo, Irvine, Rancho Santa Fe, and Escondido.

Along with the Coalition to Regulate Antennae Siting ( http://www.safeantenna.org ) in New York City, Southern California is one of the current hotbeds of activity on this issue working to take the fight to the national level.
————————————————————————————————————-

This story may make you consider giving up milk altogether. The story mentions ‘using clean electrical energy from the grid’, well good luck with that far fetched idea! There would also be a big question mark about the cleanliness of the energy as it leaves the site, and a very good chance that dangerous high frequency pollution will be caused around the farm. We know that microwaving food damages the quality and goodness, what will it do to the milk?
Martin Weatherall
———————————————
Microwave bulk pasteurization system
By Food in Canada staff | February 23, 2009
http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/foodincanada/news/foodsafetynews/article.jsp?content=20090223_152601_7028
————————————————————————————————————-
Wi-Fi in School
I had a conversation with the parent representative to the French school board (CSF) today – a fellow parent at my children’s school – she told me that the CSF was going to ask Health Canada and the BC Worker’s Compensation Board to do some of it’s own research on EMR from Wi -Fi. We had an exchange – she said that it was not the CSF’s job to set safety limits. Below is my response to an email she sent out earlier this evening. By the way, she is a doctor.
CK
——————————————————-
From: Carl Katz
Date: 2009/2/25
Subject: Re: Parents Ordi-Santé et Principe de Précaution.
To:
XXXXXXXXX, I do appreciate your proactive activity around this. With respect to your comment this afternoon, you are absolutely correct that it is not CSF’s job to establish safety limits, but it should be its first priority to ensure the safety of all of the children in its care. And ANY doubt should be decided for the benefit of the students. Health Canada has NEVER effectively responded to an emerging health threat – tobacco? Asbestos?.

If you watched the BBC Panorama show (Wi -Fi: A Warning Signal), you would have heard Sir William Stewart, U.K.’s top scientist saying the the WHO (OSM) is wrong – that the whole basis of their safety limits are inadequate to protect the population, especially our children. Same for the German government who has warned all citizens not to use Wi -Fi. Is that not telling? Or Gerd Oberfeld and Henry Lai, who are world reknowned for their research into electromagnetic radiation and biological effects – they both said they would pull their children out of any school that had Wi-Fi. And Olle Johansson of the Karolinska institute in Sweden has found biological effects at radiation levels lower than Wi -Fi. If you have not watched it, here is the link to the show:
http://www.mastsanity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=113

In 2002, Lloyds of London and the entire insurance industry excluded health effects from electromagnetic radiation from all liability policies for the wireless industry. This was in response to the work that Dr. George Carlo did with the Wireless Telecommunications Research program from 1993 to 1999 (300 scientists, 28.5 million dollars). Interestingly, the insurance industry has known about and responded to emerging health threats in exactly this manner. They did exactly the same thing for the tobacco industry while tobacco execs continued to say there were no health effects from smoking.

We do not need any more short term epidemiological studies. A two or three year study will not answer the question of what may or will happen after ten or fifteen years – the time it takes for cancerous tumours to present. We now know with certainty, that radiation from Wi-Fi, cellular and cordless home phones cause leakage in the blood brain barrier, breakage of DNA, interruption of intra-cellular communication, and changes in cognitive function (the Stewart Report, 2000).

This is not a “maybe, we need more data” situation. If you don’t believe me, please look at the truly “independent” double blind, peer reviewed research (in other words, not funded by the wireless industry).

We MUST apply the precautionary principle because there is so much evidence (not doubt, evidence). In my opinion, anything less is absolutely reckless.
Respectfully,
Carl Katz
————————————————————————————————————

Cancer Causes Control. 2009 Feb 18. [Epub ahead of print]
Maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and the risk of brain cancer in the offspring. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224378 Li P, McLaughlin J, Infante-Rivard C. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 1110 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A3, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the contribution of maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) shortly before and during
pregnancy on the incidence of childhood brain tumors.

METHODS: A total of 548 incident cases and 760 healthy controls recruited between 1980 and 2002 from two Canadian provinces (Quebec and Ontario) were
included in this study, and their mothers were interviewed. Quantitative occupational ELF-MF exposure in microTesla units was estimated using individual exposure estimations or a job exposure matrix. We used three metrics to analyze exposure: cumulative, average, and maximum level attained.

RESULTS: Using the average exposure metric measured before conception, an increased risk was observed for astroglial tumors (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.4).

During the entire pregnancy period, a significantly increased risk was observed for astroglial tumors as well as for all childhood brain tumors with the average metric
(OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1-2.5 and OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.2, respectively). Based on job titles, a twofold risk increase was observed for astroglial tumors (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 0.8-6.3) and for all childhood brain tumors (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.0-5.4) among sewing machine operators.

CONCLUSIONS: Results are suggestive of a possible association between
maternal occupational ELF-MF exposure and certain brain tumors in their offspring. PMID: 19224378
[PubMed – as supplied by publisher]