Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Cellular towers become talk of towns

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Updated: 02/23/2009 11:42:41 PM PST

The only notice Glendale resident John McMahon got that T-Mobile USA planned to erect a 34-foot tall cellular telephone tower in front of his home was a slip of paper that looked like a flier advertizing pizza.

It said the company planned to construct the tower on a right-of-way strip of grass between the road and the sidewalk in front of his house. When McMahon realized what was about to happen, he and several of his neighbors contacted the city to complain.

"I was horrified," said McMahon, 38. "Aside from the health risks ... it could affect my ability to sell my house."

The Glendale City Council in January placed a moratorium on the construction of cell phone towers while city officials studied the issue. About two

weeks ago, T-Mobile withdrew its application to build the tower in front of McMahon's home.

The incident is just the latest in a growing national fight to restrict the proliferation of towers near homes, schools, churches and other locations. Alarmed by the spread of the towers in hundreds of locations throughout Los Angeles County, a coalition of grass-roots groups - Residents Engaged Against Cell Towers (REACT) - are pushing for a moratorium on new construction in the county.

Activists say the towers - often disguised as trees - are a neighborhood blight, reduce property values and place residents at undue health risk.

A number of them spoke last week in opposition to a T-Mobile application to build a cell tower on the roof of a CVS Pharmacy in Windsor Hills. The Regional Planning Commission denied the conditional use permit.

"We've joined forces with people who have spearheaded efforts in their own communities because we've found countless other areas are fighting T-Mobile too," said Sally Hampton, a Windsor Hills resident and founding member of REACT.

Residents from Glendale, Escondido, San Diego, Mission Viejo, Burbank and beyond attended the meeting.

In a prepared statement, T-Mobile spokesman Steven Caplan said the company plans to appeal the planning commisions' denial to the Board of Supervisors.

Caplan noted that nearly 20 percent of homes only have wireless phones and nearly half of the 911 calls made in the United States come from cell phones.

"T-Mobile and the rest of America's wireless industry are working to respond to an unprecedented demand for mobile services in their homes," Caplan said. He added that locating towers is a rigorous process based on scientific analysis and modeling and customer input.

"Commercial, industrial and non-residential areas are considered first, but because our customers are increasingly using their wireless devices at home, it's also necessary for us to place wireless facilities in and around residential neighborhoods."

While many are concerned that cell phone radiation may cause cancer or other health problems, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.

The Federal Communications Commission regulates cell phone base stations, which operate at higher power than cell phones. The radio frequency exposures people experience from base stations are typically much lower than from cell phones because the antennas are mounted on towers and buildings and are further away from people, according to the FDA.

Still, in response to growing consumer concerns, Dan Rosenfeld, senior deputy for economic development for county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, said the supervisor's office is working with the Department of Public Works and County Counsel's Office to craft a policy to address the height, appearance, number, location and the approval process for cell towers.

"It only makes sense that any neighborhood would be concerned about what gets built there," Rosenfeld said. "These towers can be large, can have a visual impact as well as potentially an economic impact on property values."

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation

Monday, February 23, 2009

By Sue Kovach

Dr. Carlo’s Continuing Work

Every day, we’re swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and a slew of other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear—sometimes for hours each day—exposure to EMR is growing and becoming a serious health threat.

But there’s a huge public health crisis looming from one particular threat: EMR from cellular phones—both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals—which studies have linked to development of brain tumors, genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions.1-9 Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.10

George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. That program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use.

In this article, we look at why cell phones are dangerous; Dr. Carlo’s years-long battle to bring the truth about cell phone dangers to the public; the industry’s campaign to discredit him and other scientists in the field; and what you can do to protect yourself now.

Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing
The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the “low power exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, “Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems.”

Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR)—dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so low that we can’t detect it.

The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies’ service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, “None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they’re conducted or who’s conducting them.” What’s going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.

Flawed Danish Study Reports Cell Phones are Safe

In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10 Newspaper headlines blared: “Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe,” while TV newscasters proclaimed, “Go ahead and talk all you want—it’s safe!” The news seemed to be a holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, it’s a flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The industry’s public relations machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide.

According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves there’s no risk from cell phones is a blatant misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very dangerous false sense of security.

“Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because they’re observational in nature instead of experimental,” Dr. Carlo explains. “It’s possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomesthat still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they’re judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators.”

Key problems with the study are:

There are few discernable differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who wasn’t. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With few differences, it’s nearly impossible to find a risk.

Users were defined as anyone who made at least one phone call per week for six months between 1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is not discernable.

The “exposed” people used ancient cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today.

From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure.

During the study’s time frame, people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the study.

There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users.

The study itself was inconsistent with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data does not add up.

The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. “Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests—especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety.”

To learn more about the dangers of cell phones and to read Dr. George Carlo’s full formal analysis of the Danish cell phone study, visit the Safe Wireless Initiative website at

Lawsuit Prompts Safety Studies

In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day.

The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies, but, says Dr. Carlo, “The industry had lied. The only studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested for safety.”

Dr. Carlo Heads Cell Phone Research

Cell Phone Radiation: What You Need to Know

Originally developed for the Department of Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole.

Questions about cell phone safety arose in the early 1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit alleging that cell phones caused his wife’s death due to brain cancer.

To address the questions surrounding cell phone safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). Dr. George Carlo was appointed to head WTR’s research efforts.

Under Dr. Carlo’s direction, scientists found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, impaired DNA repair, and interfered with cardiac pacemakers.

European research confirmed Dr. Carlo’s findings. Studies suggest that cell phone radiation contributes to brain dysfunction, tumors, and potentially to conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, neurodegenerative disease, and behavioral and psychological problems.

Dr. Carlo brought safety information about cell phones to the public through his book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, and by creating the Safe Wireless Initiative and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry.

The best protection against cell phone radiation is keeping a safe distance.

Always use a headset to minimize exposure to harmful cell phone radiation.

Forced to take action, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR), to perform the study. Dr. Carlo developed the program outline and was asked to head the research. Oversight of the issue was charged to the FDA, though it could have and probably should have gone to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which fought hard for jurisdiction. But the industry had enough influence in Washington to get whatever overseer it wanted. It simply didn’t want to tangle with EPA because, says Dr. Carlo, “… the EPA is tough.”

“Anything that’s ever made a difference in terms of public health has come from the EPA,” he says. “But safety issues that are covered in corruption and questions seem to always have a connection to the FDA, which has been manipulated by pharmaceutical companies since it was born.”

When called to help with the cell phone issue, Dr. Carlo was working with the FDA on silicone breast implant research. The choice of Dr. Carlo to head WTR seemed unusual to industry observers. An epidemiologist whose expertise was in public health and how epidemic diseases affect the population, he appeared to lack any experience in researching the effects of EMR on human biology. Based on this, a premature conclusion was drawn by many: Dr. Carlo was an “expert” handpicked by the cell phone industry, and therefore his conclusions would only back up the industry’s claim that cell phones are safe.

Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be an easy target. He quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists to work with him, bulletproof experts owning long lists of credentials and reputations that would negate any perception that the research was predestined to be a sham. He also created a Peer Review Board chaired by Harvard University School of Public Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that made FDA officials more comfortable since, at the time, the agency was making negative headlines due to the breast implant controversy. In total, more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the project.

Strict Study Guidelines

Once all involved agreed on what was to be done, Dr. Carlo presented the study’s stakeholders in the industry, the government, and the public with a strict list of criteria for moving forward.

“The money had to be independent of the industry—they had to put the money in trust and couldn’t control who got the funds,” he says. “Second, everything had to be peer reviewed before it went public, so if we did find problems after peer review, we could use that information publicly to recommend interventions.”

A third requirement was for the FDA to create a formal interagency working group to oversee the work and provide input. The purpose of this was to alleviate any perception that the industry was paying for a result, not for the research itself. But the fourth and last requirement was considered by Dr. Carlo to be highly critical: “Everything needed to be done in sunlight. The media had to have access to everything we did.”

The Research Begins

The program began, but Dr. Carlo soon discovered that everyone involved had underlying motives.“The industry wanted an insurance policy and to have the government come out and say everything was fine. The FDA, which looked bad because it didn’t require pre-market testing, could be seen as taking steps to remedy that. By ordering the study, law makers appeared to be doing something. Everyone had a chance to wear a white hat.”

Dr. Carlo and his team developed new exposure systems that could mimic head-only exposure to EMR in people, as those were the only systems that could approximate what really happened with cell phone exposure. Those exposure systems were then used for both in vitro (laboratory) and in vivo (animal) studies. The in vitro studies used human blood and lymph tissue in test tubes and petri dishes that were exposed to EMR. These studies identified the micronuclei in human blood, for example, associated with cell phone near-field radiation. The in vivo studies used head only exposure systems and laboratory rats. These studies identified DNA damage and other genetic markers.

Says Dr. Carlo: “We also conducted four different epidemiological studies on groups of people who used cell phones, and we did clinical intervention studies. For example, studies of people with implanted cardiac pacemakers were instrumental in our making recommendations to prevent interference between cell phones and pacemakers. In all, we conducted more than fifty studies that were peer-reviewed and published in a number of medical and scientific journals.”

Industry Seeks to Discredit Findings, Scientists

But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at the start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being said by the scientists behind closed doors.

The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come. Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers, but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint.

The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a lot to lose.

Fearing the industry would selectively release research results at best, or hold them back at worst, Dr. Carlo and his colleagues took the information public on their own, creating a highly visible war between the scientists and the industry. An ABC News expose on the subject increased the wrath of the industry.

According to Dr. Carlo, “The industry played dirty. It actually hired people to put negative things about me and the other scientists who found problems on the internet, while it tried to distance itself from the program. Auditors were brought in to say we misspent money, but none of that ever held up. They tried every angle possible.”

This included discussions with Dr. Carlo’s ex-wife to try to figure out ways to put pressure on him, he says. Threats to his career came from all directions, and Dr. Carlo learned from Congressional insiders that the word around Washington was that he was “unstable.” But all the character assassination paled in comparison to what happened next.

Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlo’s house mysteriously burned down. Public records show that authorities determined the cause of the blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo refuses to discuss the incident and will only confirm that it happened. By this time, enough was enough. Dr. Carlo soon went “underground,” shunning the public eye and purposely making himself difficult to find.

Why Cell Phones are Dangerous

A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.

“The near field plume is the one we’re most concerned with. This plume that’s generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone’s antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station,” he explains. “The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves.”

A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn’t do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an “invader,” setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren’t from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.

Here’s what happens:

Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.

Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.

Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.

Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells can’t communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can’t keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage.

With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder?

“One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it’s never seen before.”

As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use, it’s too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr. Carlo. “We’re never going to see that in time to have it matter. Here in the US, we’re six years behind in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an increase, the ticking time bomb is set.”

Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide.

“This means we’re on the beginning curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends serious public health consequences,” says Dr. Carlo. “This is what’s not being told to the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases your exposure.”

Gauss Meters: Detecting Electromagnetic Radiation

Invisible electromagnetic radiation surrounds us each day, emanating from diverse sources such as power lines, home wiring, computers, televisions, microwave ovens, photocopy machines, and cell phones.

While undetectable to the eye, scientists have proposed that electromagnetic radiation may pose serious health effects, ranging from childhood leukemia to brain tumors.

As scientists continue to unravel the precise health dangers of electromagnetic radiation, it makes good sense to avoid these potentially dangerous frequencies as much as possible. A gauss meter is a useful tool you can use to measure electromagnetic radiation in your home and work environments.

Using the gauss meter at varied locations, you can easily detect electromagnetic radiation “hot spots” where exposure to these ominous frequencies is the greatest. Armed with this crucial information, you can then avoid these areas, re-arranging furniture or electronic devices as needed in order to avoid unnecessary exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Following the loss of his home, Dr. Carlo collaborated with Washington columnist Martin Schram—who in the course of the work did his own research to corroborate Dr. Carlo’s view on things—to write Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age (Carroll & Graf, 2001). He wrote his book as what he thought would be a last volley at the cell phone industry.

“I needed to tell the whole story in one place. I didn’t have the resources or the manpower to match what the cell phone industry was doing to try to discredit the work,” says Dr. Carlo. “Based on the book, a number of lawsuits were brought against the industry, and insurance carriers began excluding cell phone-related health risks in their coverage. It created a very difficult situation in the industry and for myself. I was worn out fighting that battle. In 2002, after I’d done my book tour, I just decided to take a break for a couple of years.”

Instead of taking a break, however, Dr. Carlo ended up working behind the scenes, setting up an organization and a registry for the benefit of consumers. It was a creative solution as part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a Illinois citizen against the cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo personally. The lawsuit alleged that the cell phone industry, WTR, and Dr. Carlo were conspiring to hide the dangers of cell phones. Dr. Carlo was offered a way out of the suit because his book had made it clear he wasn’t on the same page as the industry.

“I wanted to make sure the litigation brought at least some value to consumers. We created the Safe Wireless Initiative ( for disseminating information on the dangers and on prevention, and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry ( to track information voluntarily provided by cell phone users, particularly those who believe they’re experiencing health effects. Post-market surveillance hadn’t been done before, and the registry does that. It will help direct future research of potential health effects related to cell phone use. In the end, we did the best we could to get some benefit for consumers.”


To repair damage and build the body’s defenses against the onslaught of EMR, supplements—along with dietary changes, stress reduction, weight control and exercise—make you stronger, more balanced, and better able to face the assaults of EMR. Antioxidant supplements that fight free radicals are especially desirable.

Says Dr. Carlo: “You as a human being are put under siege by the electromagnetic soup we’re swimming in, and this isn’t hyperbole, it’s true. When you answer your cell phone, radio signals are around you. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Our general ability to compensate for those insults is becoming compromised by the ever-increasing background of EMR.”

Taking as many precautions as you can goes a long way to reducing the risks. However, Dr. Carlo cautions that there is no silver bullet solution. “It’s a complicated problem, and while we tend to look for a quick fix, there is none here. Over the next decade, I hope we figure out how to change the way signals are transmitted. A thousand years from now we will have evolved, but that’s not helping us now. This will take time, but consumers have to be empowered to help themselves in the interim.”

European Research Confirms Cell Phone Dangers

The industry took its tricks elsewhere—to Europe, which had picked up the ball and began funding independent research to corroborate or confirm the work of Dr. Carlo and his team. The work was completed in mid-2004 and when it was released,12 it not only provided independent scientific corroboration of the work done by Dr. Carlo’s group, but also took the work a step further and showed how the problems were occurring mechanistically. This information formed a biologically plausible hypothesis for how cell phone radiation could be related to so many diseases.

Dr. Carlo noted, “The industry exerted pressure on the scientists who conducted the work, including renowned German scientist Dr. Franz Adlkofer. It first tried to change the conclusions of the work, then to delay its public release. Then Dr. Adlkofer, the lead scientist, was attacked in the media and threatened privately with no more research money, a ruined reputation—similar to what we experienced in the WTR. But this situation attracted the attention of a German documentary filmmaker, who decided to do a film on the cell phone issue.”

It was enough to bring Dr. Carlo into view again, as he was asked to participate. The film, The Boiling Frog Principle, by Klaus Scheidsteger, builds on information from his first film, The Cell Phone War, and will be released in 2007. Its intent is to integrate the latest political and scientific evidence from around the world, and bring forth to consumers important information on cell phone dangers that was previously withheld.

Economic Implications

Currently in the US, there are seven class action lawsuits moving forward against the cell phone industry, says Dr. Carlo, and nine other cases that are personal injury cases brought by people with brain cancer. In the past two years, two workers compensation awards were given to people with brain tumors based on a link between their tumors and their cell phone use in the workplace. Both of these cases occurred in California.

“What we have now is a major litigation burden, a vulnerability the cell phone industry has never before been under,” Dr. Carlo says. “They’re uninsured for these health risk claims and are already positioning themselves for a congressional bailout, like the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s. They’ll lose a couple of these lawsuits and once they do, there’ll be an onslaught of new litigation against them.”

The country can’t afford for the cell phone industry to go under, Dr. Carlo says, as it would have a disastrous impact on the entire economy—some estimates say over 30% of investment stocks in retirement funds are tied to telecommunications shares. That’s why Congress will figure out a way to bail out the industry.

“The industry thinks they can afford to continue on with this institutional arrogance, endangering millions of men, women and children because, at the end of the day, they believe they’ll not be held accountable. They think they can continue to manipulate consumers.”

A Looming Health Crisis

It’s been nearly 12 years since the WTR was funded. Despite Dr. Carlo’s revealing research and the corroborating research of other scientists from around the world that continue to follow, a search of media reports today on the subject of cell phone dangers tends to suggest one of only two conclusions: There is no risk, or no one has yet proven the risk. That’s at odds with more than 300 studies in the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting an increased risk of disease. Clearly, something doesn’t add up.

The industry’s manipulation of the media to consider only one study at a time obfuscates the big picture.Individually, there’s little to see. But the depth and breadth of the science that points to the problem, and the compilation of studies, make the future look frightening. Like the September 11 tragedy, where no one in government talked to each other and did not see it coming for lack of a big picture view, the health crisis from cell phone use looms darkly.

“When you put all the science together, we come to the irrefutable conclusion that there’s a major health crisis coming, probably already underway,” warns Dr. Carlo. “Not just cancer, but also learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and psychological and behavioral problems—all mediated by the same mechanism. That’s why we’re so worried. Time is running out. When you put the pieces of the puzzle together, it’s such a wide ranging problem. It’s unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.”

Protecting Yourself

The most effective technique for protecting yourself against the dangers of cell phone radiation is keeping the phone at a distance from the body. Simply using a hands-free headset is a big step. Headsets keep the cell phone’s antenna at a distance of six to seven inches away from the body, thus eliminating near-field exposure. Wired headsets can act as an antenna to draw some ambient EMR, but not much, so using one is still preferable to holding the phone to your head. Wireless headsets should be avoided, as they draw much more far-field EMR.

The safest headsets have hollow air tubes, similar to those used in stethoscopes, instead of wires.They offer protection against both near-field and far-field exposure. If possible, avoid wearing the phone at your waist, which exposes the hip bones to radiation. Eighty percent of red blood cells are formed in the hip bones. There are also newer cell phones available capable of functioning in speaker phone mode. This enables you to talk on the phone while keeping it at a safe distance from your body. If you are able to conduct most of your conversations using a speaker phone, this could enable you to use a cell phone without encountering the intense radiation exposure that occurs when holding it to your ear.


1. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries. Int J Cancer. 2007 Apr 15;120(8):1769-75.

2. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology. 2004 Nov;15(6):653-9.

3. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int J Oncol. 2006 Feb;28(2):509-18.

4. Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M, Hallquist A. Cellular and cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in different age groups. Arch Environ Health. 2004 Mar;59(3):132-7.

5. Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed. 2006;51(4):202-9.

6. Westerman R, Hocking B. Diseases of modern living: neurological changes associated with mobile phones and radiofrequency radiation in humans. Neurosci Lett. 2004 May 6;361(1-3):13-6.

7. Available at: Accessed May 17, 2007.

8. Available at: Accessed May 17, 2007.

9. Available at: Accessed May 17, 2007.

10. Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK, Johansen C. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13.

11. Hayes DL, Wang PJ, Reynolds DW, et al. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. N Engl J Med. 1997 May 22;336(21):1473-9.

12. Diem E, Schwarz C, Adlkofer F, Jahn O, Rudiger H. Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro. Mutat Res. 2005 Jun 6;583(2):178-83.

Nutritional Protection against Cell Phone Radiation

As growing evidence points to the potential adverse health impact of exposure to cell phone radiation, scientists are seeking strategies to prevent or mitigate these effects. Currently, nutritional researchers are exploring whether melatonin, vitamin C, and and vitamin E can ameliorate the detrimental effects caused by radiation emitted by cell phones.

To date, a total of eight studies have pointed to the protective effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E in stemming the damage caused by cell phone emissions. In particular, these agents show promise in averting the increased oxidative stress that is thought to contribute to an increased risk of certain cancers. These studies have unveiled statistically significant protective effects of melatonin and vitamins C and E against the effects of the radiation frequency at which cell phones emit and receive radio frequency radiation.

Six of these eight studies were controlled, short-term studies (ranging from 10-30 days) in rodents. Each study examined 24-30 subjects. Study subjects were divided equally into three groups: one group received radiation exposure; another received active treatment with melatonin only, vitamin C only, or vitamins C and E before radiation exposure; and a control group did not receive radiation or active treatment. After the treatment period, scientists examined skin sections for radiation injury and analyzed blood and urine for markers of oxidative stress. They found significant kidney damage, skin changes, oxidative stress, and fibrosis in the animals who received radiation exposure only. Remarkably, these effects were reversed in the groups that received melatonin13-16 and vitamins C17,18 and E.17

Another two controlled studies in rodents, one of 10 days’19 and another of 60 days’ duration,20 revealed that melatonin significantly protects against retinal (eye)20 and kidney tissue19 damage caused by cell phone radiation, as compared with subjects that did not receive melatonin.

Despite this compelling evidence, other avenues of research still need to be pursued after contradictory findings from seven different studies that have looked into the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin levels in the body.

In one study, melatonin levels in the blood were measured in 226 male electric utility workers who were categorized according to cell phone use. The study concluded that workers who used cell phones for more than 25 minutes per day had decreased melatonin production and revealed a relationship between increased cell phone use and decreasing melatonin levels in the blood.21

Yet six other studies—two in humans22,23 and four in rodents24-27— found that melatonin levels remained unchanged after radiation exposure. One human study did suggest that cell phone radiation may impact melatonin onset time. These were small studies, however, the majority of which were less than 28 days’ duration.

Melatonin is a vital natural neurohormone (hormone secreted by or acting on a part of the nervous system) that acts as a potent free radical scavenger and antioxidant. Melatonin regulates the daily circadian rhythm and is essential to self-repair and regeneration. Given melatonin’s protective effects, these findings warrant further research into the effect of cell phone radiation on melatonin in larger, longer-term, well-controlled human studies.

—Bina Singh

13. Oktem F, Ozguner F, Mollaoglu H, Koyu A, Uz E. Oxidative damage in the kidney induced by 900-MHz-emitted mobile phone: protection by melatonin. Arch Med Res. 2005 Jul-Aug;36(4):350-5.

14. Ozguner F, Aydin G, Mollaoglu H, Gokalp O, Koyu A, Cesur G. Prevention of mobile phone induced skin tissue changes by melatonin in rat: an experimental study. Toxicol Ind Health. 2004 Sep;20(6-10):133-9.

15. Ayata A, Mollaoglu H, Yilmaz HR, Akturk O, Ozguner F, Altuntas I. Oxidative stress-mediated skin damage in an experimental mobile phone model can be prevented by melatonin. J Dermatol. 2004 Nov;31(11):878-83.

16. Yariktas M, Doner F, Ozguner F, Gokalp O, Dogrutt H, Delibas N. Nitric oxide level in the nasal and sinus mucosa after exposure to electromagnetic field. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 May;132(5):713-6.

17. Balci M, Devrim E, Durak I. Effects of mobile phones on oxidant/antioxidant balance in cornea and lens of rats. Curr Eye Res. 2007 Jan;32(1):21-5.

18. Oral B, Guney M, Ozguner F, et al. Endometrial apoptosis induced by a 900-MHz mobile phone: preventive effects of vitamins E and C. Adv Ther. 2006 Nov-Dec;23(6):957-73.

19. Ozguner F, Oktem F, Armagan A, et al. Comparative analysis of the protective effects of melatonin and caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) on mobile phone-induced renal impairment in rat. Mol Cell Biochem. 2005 Aug;276(1-2):31-7.

20. Ozguner F, Bardak Y, Comlekci S. Protective effects of melatonin and caffeic acid phenethyl ester against retinal oxidative stress in long-term use of mobile phone: a comparative study. Mol Cell Biochem. 2006 Jan;282(1-2):83-8.

21. Burch JB, Reif JS, Noonan CW et al. Melatonin metabolite excretion among cellular telephone users. Int J Radiat Biol. 2002 Nov;78(11):1029-36.

22. Wood AW, Loughran SP, Stough C. Does evening exposure to mobile phone radiation affect subsequent melatonin production? Int J Radiat Biol. 2006 Feb;82(2):69-76.

23. De Seze R, Ayoub J, Peray P, Miro L, Touitou Y. Evaluation in humans of the effects of radiocellular telephones on the circadian patterns of melatonin secretion, a chronobiological rhythm marker. J Pineal Res 1999 Nov;27(4):237-42.

24. Koyu A, Ozguner F, Cesur F, et al. No effects of 900 MHz and 1800 MHz electromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone on nocturnal serum melatonin levels in rats. Toxicol Ind Health. 2005 Mar;21(1-2):27-31.

25. Hata K, Yamaguchi H, Tsurita G, et al. Short term exposure to 1439 MHz pulsed TDMA field does not alter melatonin synthesis in rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 Jan;26(1):49-53.

26. Bakos J, Kubinyi G, Sinay H, Thuroczy G. GSM modulated radiofrequency radiation does not affect 6-sulfatoxymelatonin excretion of rats. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Dec;24(8):531-4.

27. Heikkinen P, Kosma VM, Alhonen L, et al. Effects of mobile phone radiation on UV-induced skin tumourigenesis in ornithine decarboxylase transgenic and non-transgenic mice. Int J Radiat Biol. 2003 Apr;79(4):221-33.


Sunday, February 22, 2009

比南利区建电讯塔 居民签名促拆除

二零零九年二月二十二日 晚上七时八分


他们是于上午在冷谷比南利(Lengkok P.Ramlee)大草场发动签名运动,同时拒绝任何无线发射器及电讯塔,包括WiMax电讯塔安装在该区内,为他们的家园保留一个健康居住环境。










Wednesday, February 18, 2009

14 die of cancer in seven years living next to phone mast with highest radiation levels in UK

Article in
By Rebecca Camber
Last updated at 11:15 AM on 23rd June 2008

Fourteen people living within a mile of a mobile phone mast that emits one of the highest levels of radiation in the country have died of cancer.

Four of the deaths have been in a cul-de-sac yards from the site.

A further 20 residents have developed tumours in the last seven years, although they have survived.

Campaigner Wendy Baggott, pictured with campaigners at the tower, says 'it's a threatening presence'

Those living in the shadow of the mast have begun a campaign for its removal, claiming that it has caused a cancer hotspot. The Health Protection Agency is investigating.

Worried parents are refusing to take their children to the playing fields where the mast is sited for fear of damaging their health.

The mast was erected in 1995 on a disused water tower on the High Acres estate in Kingswinford, near Dudley, West Midlands.

Threat: The mast, attached to a water tower, casts a shadow over Bartic Avenue in Kingswinford, West Midlands

But campaigners claim health problems started among the 700 residents of the estate when more antennae and dishes were added in 2001.

It serves four mobile phone operators.

Experts from the communications watchdog Ofcom, who carried out tests on the mast, say it has the highest radiation level of any phone mast site surveyed in England this year.

Victim? Betty Genner, who died of ovarian cancer in January 2003, with her husband John
However, the radiation was still within UK safety guidelines.

Wendy Baggott, 52, who leads a protest group against the mast, which is only 200 yards from her home, said: 'It feels like a threatening presence looming all over the neighbourhood.

'Over the last seven years there have been 14 cancer deaths in the area. Four of those happened in this road. The wellbeing of the whole community is being affected.'

The retired NHS clinical auditor, whose husband Clive has twice contracted skin cancer, said: 'It is a massive concern to us that there is a children's play area so near to it.

'Parents and grandparents around here won't let their children go there because they are terrified they could get cancer.'

Happier times: Dorothy Day, who died from Eaton Lambert syndrome in 2005, with husband Leonard

One resident, Michael Morris, died from a brain tumour in 2003 aged 57.

His widow Pamela, 61, said: 'There have been so many people in the neighbourhood who have died of these cancers.

'Michael used to take the dogs for walks up there by the tower and I wonder if it might have been that.

When these masts came I think it was when he started to go downhill.'

The 14 deaths have included Betty Genner, who was killed by ovarian cancer in 2003 aged 68, and Dorothy Day, 69, who died two years later from cancer.

Six months ago another woman succumbed to a brain tumour. All of them lived within a mile of the mast.

Sufered: Michael Morris, who died of a brain tumour in 2003, with wife Pamela

The Government insists mobile phone masts pose no threat to the public.

But some campaigners believe the radiation from masts could be powerful enough to change the composition of body cells, making them more susceptible to cancer.

An Ofcom spokesman said: 'This is the highest level of exposure that we have recorded in England this year.

'The tower recorded levels 5,000 times below the safe exposure limit. It was not an excessive level of radiation.

'Other results around the country have been found to be around similar levels and this is well within the safety limit.'

A spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said: 'No concerns have been raised by general practitioners or other local health services in the area about any greater than expected numbers or unusual cases of any serious illnesses.

'Further contact is being made with local general practices to confirm that they do not have any specific concerns.'

But Yasmin Skelt, from pressure group Mast Sanity, which campaigns against the spread of mobile phone masts, said: "The Government keeps refusing to believe there is a problem. China and Russia realise this and keep their limits at a sixtieth of what we have got.

"We are being told nothing about the health effects, agencies that should be helping the British public are not helping. Why are we putting up with it?"

Mobile phone masts emit almost ten times as much radiation as a microwave oven

Radio waves from the masts penetrate more than an inch into the body's tissues
The radiation emitted by a mobile phone held against the head is far more powerful than that produced by a mast

In 2000, a report backed by the Government concluded there was no definite link between masts and ill health

There are 51,000 phone masts in the UK

Saturday, February 7, 2009

An interview with Parents Against Cell Towers at Schools

Article in

February 07, 2009

A weekend interview with ...
... Bill Cook, a leader with Parents Against Cell Towers at Schools (PACTS). Cook, a South Tampa parent and activist, spoke with reporter Jeff Solochek about the group's motivations and future plans.

Where did this group come from?

It's the joining of two organizations. One was the group of parents who mobilized to oppose the tower at Coleman, who were then contacted and grouped together with the parents at Pride Elementary who already had a tower put on their campus without their knowledge and without their consent and without their input. And we sort of merged our organizations together, and we are now bringing in parents from more schools as well. ... So it's really a countywide organization now of parents who are concerned about towers on school property.

Is it mostly Hillsborough? Or are you expanding beyond Hillsborough also?

Right now we're in pretty much only Hillsborough, though we've had parents reaching out to us from Pasco County and Pinellas County.

What is your big concern about cell phone towers?

There's really three issues. One is that the process that is being followed is one that is antithetical to appropriate use of school property and appropriate land use designation. What we mean by that is... whether or not a tower will or will not be put up on a school property in a residential area has been delegated all the way down to a principal. And the principal is in fact an employee of the land owner. In no other situation does an employee of the land owner get to met the determination about appropriate use.

The second problem is that the county itself, the School Board, does not have someone who is an expert in cell tower safety and cell tower issues. They use a company that has a contract to financially benefit from the towers being put forth as their so-called expert, when in fact these people have an immediate financial interest in the towers going up. So rather than getting a balanced review of the issues and concerns, you get a sales pitch. ... And the information is biased and at times either incorrect or significantly misleading. And it's misleading about a significant issue, or two significant issues.

One is property values. They will tell you that cell towers will not affect property values. But we know that the largest organization of independent appraisers in the United States has come out and said that in fact towers do affect property values. And I think anyone with common sense would think a 130-foot tower 100 feet from your property line might have a negative impact on your ability to sell your home, or the asking price you're able to get.

The other critical issue is one that is becoming more and more so, one of health and safety. The fundamental component is that for many years the FCC and all the regulatory agencies that look into cell towers were looking at only one type of radiation. And that's called thermal, or ionizing, radiation. ... No one has done any significant, long term ... study of the long-term impact of long-term exposure to low level RF radiation.

What has happened though are a couple of important things. Dr. George Carlo, who was hired by the wireless industry ... has now come out and said that he believes there is potential for significant health concerns, and that children are those who are potentially most vulnerable and susceptible.

Why do you think it is that schools would not take these kinds of issues into consideration when they're all about children?

It's perplexing to us. Because the amount of money involved is a paltry amount of money. We're not saying schools don't need money. But in reality, when you look at the real numbers, the way it breaks down is this. The school budget is $1.7 billion. ... The amount of money raised by towers this past year was $145,000. That's 0.0082 of a percent of the budget. ... To put it another way, it's 75 cents a student in Hillsborough County. ...

I think the other thing is the wireless industry has done a phenomenally good job of putting information out there to school districts that are desperate for money that this is an easy way to raise money with no potential side effects. And they cite that the FCC has said the side effects of towers are safe. But the growing body of scientific voice is saying that the FCC standards ... are 1,000 times too weak. ...

So your basic issues are fairly well laid out now. Why do you feel like you have to fight so much?

We just came from a meeting with the Board of County Commissioners for Hillsborough County over a change to the land use bill that was put by the people of Collier Enterprises to make it easier to place cell towers on school property. No one knew that this was going on. This went on last summer. They were small noticed meetings. When we found out about it, people went to speak. The county commissioners said, Wait a minute. We didn't know about this. We are very concerned.

Going back to your question, we don't know why the School Board is so resistant. I think sometimes when you take a position and you are invested in it, either politically or emotionally, it's difficult to back away from it sometimes. They've already put towers at several schools. What are they going to tell those principals? They've entered into a contract, I think perhaps unknowingly, and without adequate vetting of the issues. I think that's where they're from. So we're a little perplexed.

It really isn't that much money. Yes, it is some money, and some money is helpful. But the risk vs. the benefit is so, so significant. And we encounter School Board members who will say things that are blatantly misleading to the press. I was present when one of the School Board members said to Kathy Fountain ... when Kathy Fountain said, 'Well, what about Pride Elementary? I hear there's a lot of objection from parents at Pride.' And Candy Olson said, No, it's just one mother who is upset.

Well, I know for a fact that they presented the School Board with 300 names on petitions. That's more than one. ... In fact, taken as a whole, I think there's a broad growing number of parents who are concerned about this for a number of reasons. ... And there are many people who don't have children in the schools who are still impacted by these towers.

So what is it you want them to do?

We are seeking a moratorium on the placement of towers on school property until we can have an open and fair public hearing on the issues, and then let the community decide. In addition ... we're opposed to towers on school property. Certainly we need them. We're not saying we shouldn't have them. But they don't belong on locations where children are directly impacted and exposed all day long.

Do you think there's anything that other parents need to be doing to educate themselves to decide if they want to join you or the group on the other side, if there is one?

Here's the challenge. When you go on the Internet, you will see hundreds and thousands of hits on this issue. Some of it is just junk science. It's bogus science. And it takes a lot of filtering. But we've done hundreds of hours on this, and I've personally spoken to some of the noted scientists involved. ... I encourage people not to take the information that is provided by the school and the School Board at face value. They need to bring a certain level of skepticism to that information.

People can disagree as to whether you should have towers on school property. But they need to do that with the full assessment of the information.

Your concerns may have foundation, but you do yourself no favors by relying upon the "expertise" of someone who's little more than a snake-oil salesman in a lab coat. George Carlo spent many years coordinating research on behalf of (and favorable to) the tobacco industry, then moved on to direct studies for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. Ten years and dozens of studies later, CTIA cut off his money. Carlo then sued CTIA and lost, began inundating the news media with tales of RF danger and coverup, and started shilling for manufacturers of products that supposedly protect against RF radiation. He worked for a couple of years as a consultant for BioPro, a pyramid marketing company, until they stiffed him on a stock agreement. Now that there was no money in BioPro for him, Carlo then went public with tales of their sleazy business practices and started shilling for other "RF protection" device manufacturers. Run a Lexis search for his name and see what you come up with; try browsing through BioPro's last 2007 SEC filing, too (AGLV, search for the word "consultant").

Friday, February 6, 2009

Phone antennas:a catastrophe for public health

Dr Sandrine Wittman is a researcher in molecular biology at
the Léon Bérard Cancer Research Centre in Lyon.

For this citizen of Chassieu, where her children go to the Louis Pradel primary school, the installation by the phone company Orange of a mobile phone antenna near the school would be, in her own words, "a real catastrophe for public health". Interview.

>> In the course of your work, have you observed any damage that could be attributed to mobile phones or phone masts?

During the last ten years we've noticed a marked increase in the number of cancers of the salivary glands, which are not protected by the skull when a mobile phone is being used. These new cancers are now showing up in progressively younger women.

What's more, we're now treating young children who have leukaemia, who used to go to a school in Lyon where the antennas have now been taken away.

>> Is there in your view a connection between the problems linked to mobile phones and those linked to phone masts?

They're the same kind of electromagnetic waves. Long-term exposure to the microwaves from mobile phones can split up the DNA in cells and thus trigger the cancer.

As for phone antennas, we know that they pave the way for the accumulation of toxic molecules in the brain, which can lead to the premature onset of Alzheimer's disease and also to brain tumours.

Among children an increase in leukaemia cases has been observed which is very suspect.

>> Have we got examples of sites where the antennas have caused damage to people's health?

There is an investigation under way at Fourvière Hill, an area that has the most contamination from mobile phone antennas of anywhere in France. Among other symptoms, an increase in headaches, in sleeping problems and memory loss have been observed, but also more serious pathologies such as cancer, including cases of leukaemia.

In the light of all these observations, the principle of precaution should be applied.

王康立:影响未来城市规划 不合法电讯塔,拆

2009/02/06 12:07:17





他强调,并非反对合法化所有的发射站,不过,槟城童军总部、圣约翰救伤队总部和拉哈(Lahat Court)公寓屋顶的电讯发射站因太靠近住宅和学校而遭到附近居民的强烈反对,就应该马上拆除。






童军总部电讯发射站广告牌 市会暂冻结批准更新执照









王美丽:收集逾千签名 促拆除3非法发射站