Re: Mobile Phone EMF, Insurance and Safety Risk

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

Our group is currently fighting a major telco that wants to place 6
mobile
phone towers next door to a primary school and within 500m of 7 others
on Norton St leichhardt (Sydney).
According to Australian Federal Law, Telcos are excempt from
town-planning
and local government laws and moreover, do not have to consult with the
community before installing these towers. While C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R (TM) IS
NOT
AGAINST MOBILE PHONE USE, the unhindered proliferation of microwave EMF
is a
major concern due to its unknown long-term biological effects,
including cancer.

The following article may be of interest to some of you. Please help us
by
passing on this information. It may assist us in changing the law in
this
country and bringing sanity back to the industry everywhere!

Thank you

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)
Concerned Resident's United Stand Against Detrimental Electromagnetic
Radiation

Sydney, Australia

===============================

Insurers Baulk at Mobile Risk
An April edition of the Observer reported a leading Lloyds underwriter
as
having refused to offer product liability cover to mobile manufacturers
for
damage to user's health. The firm cited the striking resemblance
between the
development of the asbestos and tobacco health issues and the current
mobile
phone problem, both of which will end up costing insurers a fortune.
Recently the giant Insurance group Swiss Re stated in their publication
Electro-Smog A Phantom Risk, that on the basis of today's present
knowledge
alone it must be expected that a EMF claim would succeed. This view has
been
supported by the recent exit from the re-insurance market of
Scandinavia's
biggest insurance group, Skandia. They cite reducing exposure (sic.) to
potential EMF claims as being one of the reasons.
In this regard, corporate providers should guard against complacency in
relying on present day government advice to protect themselves against
any
future potential liabilities. The experiences of the asbestos industry
is a
sobering reminder of this. Although a manufacturer will always be
ultimately
liable for it's product, it is inconceivable that an employer
insistent upon
it's work force using mobiles, would be
totally exempt from involvement in any actions for damages by
employees.

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/report.htm

[Rod Speed]

Wota packa wankers....

"C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)" <notowers@lobbyist.com> wrote in message
news:1115136650.298491.76470@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> Our group is currently fighting a major telco that wants to place 6
> mobile
> phone towers next door to a primary school and within 500m of 7 others
> on Norton St leichhardt (Sydney).
> According to Australian Federal Law, Telcos are excempt from
> town-planning
> and local government laws and moreover, do not have to consult with the
> community before installing these towers. While C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R (TM) IS
> NOT
> AGAINST MOBILE PHONE USE, the unhindered proliferation of microwave EMF
> is a
> major concern due to its unknown long-term biological effects,
> including cancer.
>
> The following article may be of interest to some of you. Please help us
> by
> passing on this information. It may assist us in changing the law in
> this
> country and bringing sanity back to the industry everywhere!
>
> Thank you
>
> C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)
> Concerned Resident's United Stand Against Detrimental Electromagnetic
> Radiation
>
> Sydney, Australia
>
> ===============================
>
> Insurers Baulk at Mobile Risk
> An April edition of the Observer reported a leading Lloyds underwriter
> as
> having refused to offer product liability cover to mobile manufacturers
> for
> damage to user's health. The firm cited the striking resemblance
> between the
> development of the asbestos and tobacco health issues and the current
> mobile
> phone problem, both of which will end up costing insurers a fortune.
> Recently the giant Insurance group Swiss Re stated in their publication
> Electro-Smog A Phantom Risk, that on the basis of today's present
> knowledge
> alone it must be expected that a EMF claim would succeed. This view has
> been
> supported by the recent exit from the re-insurance market of
> Scandinavia's
> biggest insurance group, Skandia. They cite reducing exposure (sic.) to
> potential EMF claims as being one of the reasons.
> In this regard, corporate providers should guard against complacency in
> relying on present day government advice to protect themselves against
> any
> future potential liabilities. The experiences of the asbestos industry
> is a
> sobering reminder of this. Although a manufacturer will always be
> ultimately
> liable for it's product, it is inconceivable that an employer
> insistent upon
> it's work force using mobiles, would be
> totally exempt from involvement in any actions for damages by
> employees.
>
> http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/report.htm
>

[A User]

On 3 May 2005 09:10:50 -0700, "C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)"
<notowers@lobbyist.com> wrote:

>Our group is currently fighting a major telco that wants to place 6
>mobile
>phone towers next door to a primary school and within 500m of 7 others
>on Norton St leichhardt (Sydney).
>According to Australian Federal Law, Telcos are excempt from
>town-planning
>and local government laws and moreover, do not have to consult with the
>community before installing these towers. While C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R (TM) IS
>NOT
>AGAINST MOBILE PHONE USE, the unhindered proliferation of microwave EMF
>is a
>major concern due to its unknown long-term biological effects,
>including cancer.
>
>The following article may be of interest to some of you. Please help us
>by
>passing on this information. It may assist us in changing the law in
>this
>country and bringing sanity back to the industry everywhere!
>
>Thank you
>
>C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)
>Concerned Resident's United Stand Against Detrimental Electromagnetic
>Radiation
>
>Sydney, Australia
>
>===============================
>
>Insurers Baulk at Mobile Risk
>An April edition of the Observer reported a leading Lloyds underwriter
>as
>having refused to offer product liability cover to mobile manufacturers
>for
>damage to user's health. The firm cited the striking resemblance
>between the
>development of the asbestos and tobacco health issues and the current
>mobile
>phone problem, both of which will end up costing insurers a fortune.
>Recently the giant Insurance group Swiss Re stated in their publication
>Electro-Smog A Phantom Risk, that on the basis of today's present
>knowledge
>alone it must be expected that a EMF claim would succeed. This view has
>been
>supported by the recent exit from the re-insurance market of
>Scandinavia's
>biggest insurance group, Skandia. They cite reducing exposure (sic.) to
>potential EMF claims as being one of the reasons.
>In this regard, corporate providers should guard against complacency in
>relying on present day government advice to protect themselves against
>any
>future potential liabilities. The experiences of the asbestos industry
>is a
>sobering reminder of this. Although a manufacturer will always be
>ultimately
>liable for it's product, it is inconceivable that an employer
>insistent upon
>it's work force using mobiles, would be
>totally exempt from involvement in any actions for damages by
>employees.
>
>http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/report.htm


Hey Crusader, why don't you get a field strength meter and spectrum
analyzer and go and stand outside to see what you are exposed to now.

The phone towers will be the least of your problems.

[ctr001@hotmail.com]

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) wrote:
> Our group is currently fighting a major telco that wants to place 6
> mobile
> phone towers next door to a primary school and within 500m of 7
others
> on Norton St leichhardt (Sydney).
> According to Australian Federal Law, Telcos are excempt from
> town-planning
> and local government laws and moreover, do not have to consult with
the
> community before installing these towers. While C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R (TM)
IS
> NOT
> AGAINST MOBILE PHONE USE, the unhindered proliferation of microwave
EMF
> is a
> major concern due to its unknown long-term biological effects,
> including cancer.
>
> The following article may be of interest to some of you. Please help
us
> by
> passing on this information. It may assist us in changing the law in
> this
> country and bringing sanity back to the industry everywhere!
>
> Thank you
>
> C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)
> Concerned Resident's United Stand Against Detrimental Electromagnetic
> Radiation
>
> Sydney, Australia
>
> ===============================
>
> Insurers Baulk at Mobile Risk
> An April edition of the Observer reported a leading Lloyds
underwriter
> as
> having refused to offer product liability cover to mobile
manufacturers
> for
> damage to user's health. The firm cited the striking resemblance
> between the
> development of the asbestos and tobacco health issues and the current
> mobile
> phone problem, both of which will end up costing insurers a fortune.
> Recently the giant Insurance group Swiss Re stated in their
publication
> Electro-Smog A Phantom Risk, that on the basis of today's present
> knowledge
> alone it must be expected that a EMF claim would succeed. This view
has
> been
> supported by the recent exit from the re-insurance market of
> Scandinavia's
> biggest insurance group, Skandia. They cite reducing exposure (sic.)
to
> potential EMF claims as being one of the reasons.
> In this regard, corporate providers should guard against complacency
in
> relying on present day government advice to protect themselves
against
> any
> future potential liabilities. The experiences of the asbestos
industry
> is a
> sobering reminder of this. Although a manufacturer will always be
> ultimately
> liable for it's product, it is inconceivable that an employer
> insistent upon
> it's work force using mobiles, would be
> totally exempt from involvement in any actions for damages by
> employees.
>
> http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/report.htm


Just put an aluminium foil hat on - that will protect you. Problem
solved.

[ctr001@hotmail.com]

And just to put some numbers around it.

-80dBm, which is quite a strong signal strength and one typicaly
experienced in a good cocvergae area, equates to
0.00000000001000000000 watts of power, or 0.01 pico watts. A mouse
farting generates more power.

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

Each of us is cordially permitted our own opinion, however, whilst
pulsed Microwaves interact with the water dipole and impart momentum,
the EMF from Radio and TV do not.Therefore, the former are more
damaging, causing amongst other things, a lowering of the body's
Superoxide dismutase (SOD) defence system - which is a cellular
scavenger for free radicals. I won't burden you with the technical
details, but, that's not good. Furthermore, after almost a century of
TV and Radio use, *local research has confirmed the higher incidence of

leukemia in children living withing a 7km range of transmitters, which
we have never doubted. Nevertheless, having a second wrong doesn't
justify the former.

Cordially
C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

Already have the tin foil hat, it matches my silver grey Armani outfit.

Still concerned about long-term whoile body exposure.

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

In relation to mouse effluent, if you concentrate enough of the CH4
you can literally choke on it. Similarly, we're concerned about the
long-term effects of exposure to low EMFoutput from mobile phone masts
on future generations, including my/our children.

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)

------------------------------------------------------
ctr...@hotmail.com * May 3, 6:15*pm * *wrote
Newsgroups: aus.comms.mobile
From: ctr...@hotmail.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 May 2005 15:15:18 -0700
Local: Tues,May 3 2005 6:15*pm
Subject: Re: Mobile Phone EMF, Insurance and Safety Risk
Reply |Reply to Author| Forward| Print| Individual Message| Show
original| Report Abuse


And just to put some numbers around it.

-80dBm, which is quite a strong signal strength and one typicaly
experienced in a good cocvergae area, equates to
0.00000000001000000000 *watts of power, or 0.01 pico watts. *A mouse
farting generates more power.

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

Dear Rod Speed,

What you do in your spare time is of no concern here.
Also, our group includes concerned mothers and women generally, to whom
the technical term "wanker" cannot, by definition, apply.

Nevertheless, we are committed to communicating our position and point
of view on this issue and understand and welcome the fact that each of
us is entitled to his or her own opinion.

Cordially

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)

[ctr001@hotmail.com]

Fine. Go find me 1000 billion mice and we can see if I will choke on it
(.01 pico watt is one 1000 billionth of a watt)

There is no long term harm from general exposure to EMF from mobile
phone towers. We are exposed to much much higher levels of EMF from
background black body radiation than from these towers, Plus there have
ben countless long term studies into this of which none have shown any
corelation to mobile phone RF exposure and ill health.

[Rod Speed]

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) <notowers@lobbyist.com>

Soorree, you cant trademark a name, wanker.

wrote in message
news:1115174117.891803.147650@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

> Also, our group includes concerned mothers and women generally,
> to whom the technical term "wanker" cannot, by definition, apply.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have
a fucking clue about anything at all, let alone mobile phone bases.

[Rod Speed]

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) <notowers@lobbyist.com> wrote in message
news:1115173439.465204.99830@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...

> whilst pulsed Microwaves interact with the water dipole
> and impart momentum, the EMF from Radio and TV do not.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
never had a fucking clue about anything at all, wanker.

And microwave ovens arent 'pulsed microwaves' anyway, wanker.

Reams of even more pig ignorant silly shit flushed where it belongs.

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

While blackbody radiation is present, not all radiation is detrimental.
Life requires radiation in order to survive (photosynthesis). This
issue is only about the long term effects of the pulsed microwave
radiation emitted from mobile towers and mobile phones in general.

By the way, I was speaking generically about the mice - no personal
attack intended. However, while admittedly larger, a billion cows are
actually provoking changes to the atmosphere. Since mice are wonderful
breeders I would imagine that their population is 2 or 3 orders of
magnitude greater than the bovine populace and, statistically speaking,
you probably already are chocking on them.

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

Who mentioned microwave ovens?

Mobile phones and towers use pulsed microwaves.
Thank you kindly for your superlative, at least we got your attention.
Nevertheless,I would have liked to have kept this discussion mature.
Unfortunately, wankers and fools alike may be affected by detrimental
EMF.

By the way, C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. is an acronym, not a name and can be TM.

[Rod Speed]

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) <notowers@lobbyist.com> wrote in message
news:1115186525.324965.97830@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...

> While blackbody radiation is present, not all radiation is detrimental.

Duh. And there aint a shred of evidence that
mobile phone base 'radiation' is detrimental.

> Life requires radiation in order to survive (photosynthesis).

Only plant life, fool.

> This issue is only about the long term effects of the pulsed microwave
> radiation emitted from mobile towers and mobile phones in general.

Wrong again, its only mobile towers that you fools
are mindlessly pig ignorantly chucking tantrums about.

> By the way, I was speaking generically about the mice - no
> personal attack intended. However, while admittedly larger,
> a billion cows are actually provoking changes to the atmosphere.

So does billions of people, fuckwit.

> Since mice are wonderful breeders I would imagine that their population
> is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude greater than the bovine populace and,
> statistically speaking, you probably already are chocking on them.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
of what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.

> C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia (TM)

You cant trademark a name just by claiming its trademarked, fuckwit.

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

Actually, you can, though irrelevant to discussion Though, thank you
kindly for your concern.

[C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM)]

By the way, next time you eat your meat and veggies, don't forget about
the photosynthesis that put them on your plate.

Regards

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Australia

[will kemp]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:35:17 -0700, C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) wrote:

> Also, our group includes concerned mothers and women generally, to whom
> the technical term "wanker" cannot, by definition, apply.

that depends who they're wanking!

[Rod Speed]

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) <notowers@lobbyist.com> wrote in message
news:1115187016.872601.83090@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote
>> C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) <notowers@lobbyist.com> wrote

>>> whilst pulsed Microwaves interact with the water dipole
>>> and impart momentum, the EMF from Radio and TV do not.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
>> never had a fucking clue about anything at all, wanker.

>> And microwave ovens arent 'pulsed microwaves' anyway, wanker.

> Who mentioned microwave ovens?

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that they are
designed to 'interact with the water dipole and impart momentum'
if you actually had a clue. Thats how they work, fuckwit.

> Mobile phones and towers use pulsed microwaves.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
never had a fucking clue about anything at all, wanker.

Reams of even more pig ignorant silly shit flushed where it belongs.

> By the way, C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. is an acronym, not a name and can be TM.

Pity yours aint just by claiming it is, wanker.

[Rod Speed]

C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia (TM) <notowers@lobbyist.com> wrote in message
news:1115187519.267396.99230@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

> By the way, next time you eat your meat and veggies, don't
> forget about the photosynthesis that put them on your plate.

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim, fuckwit.