Safety Standards
Add
you will need a media browser to view.
The emissions from cellsites are covered by the New
Zealand Public Exposure Safety Standard for Radiofrequency Fields, Maximum
Exposure level 3kHz to 300GHz NZS2772:99 (99=year made). We have
been told that the TE7 committee is in recess.
What scientific evidence proved that the
new Safety Standard of 450 µW\cm˛ (microwatts per square centimetre) was a
safer limit than the 200 µW\cm˛ we had in the 1990’s, especially when other
countries are adopting a precautionary approach and limits of only 10 µW\cm˛,
and below, which industry can still operate within.
We are worried that the current NZ
Safety Standards fail to protect people from the radiation. Here you will see NZ’s
rate at 2 (200 µW/cm˛ ) when it has actually been increased to 4.5 (450
µW/cm˛) you will note that Austria's limit is 0.001 W/sqm = 0.1µW/cm˛
which industry can operate within, why does New Zealand need the higher
limit?
We believe that some of the safety
standard setting committee have a vested interest in the outcome and others
have never been suitably qualified to make the right decisions. If we had a
good safety standard, that should protect people, but our standard is based on
ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
previously IRPA) guidelines ICNIRP
guidelines are flawed a b ... Infallibility of
ICNIRP
We believe that ICNIRP is a
self appointed group of so called experts appointed for there views on the
issue mainly supporting industry stance. Check out past and present members and you will see
the same names that appear as experts for industry. The same could be said for the current New Zealand's Safety
Standard Setting Committee. Many international scientists, researchers,
Doctors and health professionals support our view. see Frieburg
Appeal, Salzburg
resolution, Helsinki
Appeal and what's happening in Canada .
We would like to see the government review the current
Safety Standard Setting Committee and the Standard by a totally Independent
body.
We would like to see better Public Representation
on the Standard Setting Committee along with adequately trained medical
practitioners and scientists.
The document "Towards
National Guidelines for Managing the Effects of Radiofrequency Facilities"
briefly discusses the New Zealand safety standard but omits the period prior
to 1990's which shows a large NZ safety standard setting committee from many
and varied backgrounds/occupations and experience that set the New Zealand
Standard for Radio Frequency Levels NZS 6609:1990.
In 1991 with the
emerging technology it was decided to combine efforts and the New Zealand
contingent joined with the Australian committee and streamlined to comprise of
Mr Ian Hutchings, (Chairman), Ministry of Commerce, NZ
Mr Roger Matthews, Local Government, NZ Mr Cedric Gorman, Standards
NZ, NZ
Dr Ivan Beale, Public representative, NZ Dr Andrew McEwan, National
Radiation Laboratory, NZ
Dr David Black, NZ Institute of Occupational & Environmental
Medicine, NZ
Mr Trevor Woods, Broadcast Communications Ltd, NZ
Mr Andrew Corney, NZ Assn. of Radio Transmitters, NZ
Mr Simon Cooke-Willis, Telecom NZ Ltd, NZ
Mr Rod Corrigan, (Secretary), Standards Australia, Aus
Mr Ian Shearman, Chairman of TE/3 (the parent committee), Aus
Ms Mandy Rossetto, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Aus
Mr Steve Guggenheimer, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Aus
Dr Bruce Hocking, Australasian Faculty of Occupational Medicine,
Aus
Dr J Leigh, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, Aus
Mr Don Maisch, Consumers Federation of Australia. Aus
Mr John Lincoln, Consumers Federation of Australia. Aus
Mr Wayne Cornelius, Australasian Radiation Protection Society, Aus
Mr George Georgevits, Australian Telecommunications Users Group,
Aus
Mr Michael Bangay, Australian Radiation Laboratory, Aus
Mr Jonathan Parker, Optus Communications, Aus
Mr Vitas Anderson, Telstra Corp Ltd, Aus
Dr David Wardlaw, Wireless Institute of Australia, Aus
Mr Mike Flood, Institution of Engineers, Aus
Mr Robert Johnston, Australian Communications Authority, Aus
Mr Bernie O'Shannassay, Australasian Electrical a& Electronic
Manufacturers Assn, Aus
Dr Ken Joyner, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Assn, Aus
Mr Dan Dwyer, Communications, Electrical Plumbing Union, Aus
Dr John Hunter, CSIRO - Division of Telecommunications and
Industrial Physics, Aus
Mr Keith Malcolm, Department of Communications and the Arts, Aus
Mr John Pring, Department of Defence, Aus
Mr Ken Tory, Electricity Supply Assn of Australia, Aus
You have to ask yourself how many of these
people actually represented the public in setting a public safety standard?
How many derived their income from
industry or relied on industry for their income, (subtle difference).
You may be aware of making the
differentiation between Dr's, Doctors of what, but many in the public are less
quick to spot the difference.
You may be aware of Self appointed, self
governing and self made organisations that are called one thing to guise their
actual affiliations. You are advised to look at their qualifications
carefully, for instance would the Dr of Occupational & Environmental
Medicine, have been a part time study for 2 years or the 6 years full time
study that GP's do?
DR Bruce Hocking qualified as a GP and was
invited to a genuine and prestigious Faculty due to his peer reviewed and
published work in the field of electromagnetic radiation. He had been a
leading researcher in cancer, because of which he was employed by Telstra
Australia to study the possible effects on health from cellsites in the
1990's. As cellsites were a new technology and few and far between and also
due to the fact that many cancers have a latency period of at least 20 years,
and due to the fact that it is easier to get information like hospital
admissions and databases on cancer, and an epidemiological study of a million
or more people in the population base is needed to form a robust study, a
similar technology was used being the TV and Radio broadcasting transmitters
on top of a Sydney hill surrounded by a large population base with a
demographic covering all socio-economic levels, (there were very rich
properties with great harbour views and very poor housing).
To his surprise he found a statistically
significant increase in the number of cases of Leukaemia in the exposed
population to that in the non-exposed control group. This study "Cancer
incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers" was peer reviewed and
published in the Medical Journal of Australian 1996 166:601, before his
employers could stop it, he was then supposed to study the mortality rate but
the contract was cancelled and the money spent on pulling apart the study and
the usual discrediting reasons given, methodology, findings, numbers and even
the journal is discredited by many "as not worth the paper it's printed on."
Dr Hocking did go on to examine the mortality rate and found it was twice as
high in the exposed group, than the non-exposed.
The above committee failed to reach
consensus and for some reason the New Zealand contingent,
Mr Ian Hutchings, (Chairman), Ministry of Commerce, voted yes
Mr Roger Matthews, Local Government, voted yes
Dr Ivan Beale, Public representative, voted no
Dr Andrew McEwan, National Radiation Laboratory, voted yes
Dr David Black, NZ Institute of Occupational & Environmental
Medicine, voted yes
Mr Trevor Woods, Broadcast Communications Ltd, voted yes
Mr Andrew Corney, NZ Assn. of Radio Transmitters, voted yes
Mr Simon Cooke-Willis, Telecom NZ Ltd, voted yes
By this time much smaller than the
original committee, broke off and only needing a 70-80% vote set the current
standard. We believe this happened because of a court case in the
Environment Court Shirley Primary School vs. Telecom Mobile Communications
Limited and Christchurch City Council May-June 1998, where Telecom were trying
to hinge the emission limit on the New Zealand Safety Standard (that never
properly existed at that time) rather than a 2 microwatts per square
centimetre limit set in the Environment court with the McIntyre and others vs.
the Christchurch City Council decision 15/96 dated 5/3/96.
In our view there was never any scientific
evidence produced that showed that increasing the limit from 200 to 450
microwatts per square centimetre was setting a safer limit than what we had
with the previous 200 microwatts per square centimetre limit, and in fact
believe the opposite could be said. Especially when many countries are setting
lower limits around 10 and 12 microwatts per square centimetre.
In Wellington speaking to the retired
Standards New Zealand Committee member, Mr Cedric Gorman, to find out what had
happened with the standard, he said that Mr Simon Cooke-Willis, Telecom NZ
Ltd, had mentioned that cellphones were perfectly safe and Mr Cooke-Willis
would let his grandchildren use them, implying that if cellphones were
dangerous then he would never let his grandchildren use them. I heard the same
sort of thing being said by Dr Black on TV when he said that he wouldn’t be
concerned if his grandchild was living beneath HVTL, High Voltage Transmission
Lines, that there were many other more worrying causes of illness, or words to
that effect. This is the kind of ideology that the Safety Standard is being
set on, totally without scientific foundation and without looking for bias in
statements or appropriate qualifications or knowledge., what does an
electrical engineer know about health effects?
In the discussion document put out by the
Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health, it states
(Representatives of Standards NZ and Standards Australia do not vote.) you
would think this also applied to the break away group but this is obviously
not the case, as the vote shows.
You would wonder too if they had the
appropriate quorum and authority to break away and set the current standard.
The one person we believe to be truly representing the public abstained from
voting, as his vote was never able to sway the decision anyway, he also
objected to the process, he's since left the country to find work and Dr Neil
Cherry took his place on the committee.
You will be aware that Dr Cherry died May
2003 and we have yet to hear who replaced him on the committee and who
replaced Dr McEwan as we believe he moved into private consultation in
Auckland and Martin Gledhill took his place in the National Radiation
Laboratory. We have yet to hear when applications for the committee will be
dealt with. We have been told that the committee is in recess.
We are very concerned that Dr Black (also
an ICNIRP member) and National Radiation laboratory staff have travelled
the country defending the current safety standard, appearing on behalf of
industry, in council and court hearings. While they will state they would give
the same advice irrespective of who is paying the bill, we believe the public
are failing to get a fair hearing or representation in these circumstances and
in the NZ Safety standard setting committee.
We made submissions and objected to many
statements made in the Standard, the discussion document "Towards
National Guidelines for Managing the Effects of Radiofrequency Facilities"
(submissions)
and the final document "National
Guidelines for Managing the Effects of Radiofrequency Facilities" yet our
concerns go without answer or debate and we feel powerless to change the
current situation..
The standard is adhered to on a voluntary
basis. A
Review of the New Zealand Radiation Protection legislation was a house
keeping exercise which pointed out the inadequacies of the Radiation
Protection Act 1965 to cope with advances in technology and nuclear issues,
but failed to produce any movement on the Standard.
ICNIRP
guidelines
ICNIRP guidelines are flawed 1.... & 2.....
ICNIRP Critique, by Don Maisch
see also comments made by Prof Whale
Wireless Devices, Standards, and Microwave
Radiation in the Education Environment