Buncrana Residents deliver petition opposing leasing the Garda mast to private Mobile Network Operator

June 22, 2019

Buncrana Garda Mast Action Group, a local residential group opposed to the Garda mast being leased to a private Mobile Network Operator (MNO), have undertaken a petition and delivered it to An Garda Síochana on June 22.

Buncrana Garda Mast Action Group was formed by residents living beside or near Buncrana Garda Station in response to the OPW granting a license to a private Mobile Network Operator for the installation of 3G and 4G EMF equipment on the existing mast at Buncrana Garda Station.

The BGMAG Petition has to date gathered approx 589 signatures in support of our objections to the license and development. The signatures have been collected mainly through door to door canvassing in the Buncrana area. This demonstrates the level of opposition and support our group has from residents. We ask you to take cognisance of the fact that there is a lot of opposition in the town that object to any private company installing 3G and 4G or any EMF equipment on the Garda mast. We also object to not being consulted or having input into the planning process especially since the plan could have adverse effects on residents’ health.

A copy of the petition, along with our objections will be sent to An Garda Síochana, Office of Public Works and Donegal Planning Authority. We will also inform our public representatives as well as local media about the BGMAG Petition.

In any normal planning process this level of oppostion would have a significant bearing on any planning decision. However, it seems that in this case, the development has been exempted by Ministerial orders from having to follow normal planning process. Residents have not been given the opportunity to present their case. This seems to be very much undemocratic and unfair. In fact residents have been ignored entirely and not even consulted or informed.

BGMAG has lodged a Section 5 Exempted Development form with Donegal Planning Authority querying the exemption. We believe that a private company should not be exempted from the planning process even if it uses a OPW property. It is like the State running roughshod over the rights of residents and favoring the Telecommunications companies. In this case the private company has nothing to do with Garda public security but it has everything to do with private commercial interests. We see the use of OPW property by private companies as a way to circumvent normal planning processes. The association with Government and public bodies i.e. Garda Síochana adds undue support to the development. This would give the impression that there is a conflict of interest. In fact the Government is charging these Mobile Network Operators rent for use of the mast.

As well as the issue around the exempted development, in general, we have major concerns with the planning process in relation to the roll-out of EMF Telecommunication infrastructure including masts and antennas. The 1992 Telecommunications Antennae and Support Structure Guidelines, which are still in relevant, emphasises the unsightliness of the structures and says that masts should be situated in industrial zones, away from residents, schools and hospital. However the Government have since amended these Guidelines and tweaked them in favor of the industry. We believe that denying us the right to object and exempting the industry could be classified as unconstitutional. Residents should have fundamental rights and allowed due process when it comes to the planning process especially when the process will affect their health and the enjoyment and value of their property.

If this development is allowed to go ahead it will set a precedent allowing other companies use of the Garda mast. The mast will end up like the one at the West End, covered in EMR equipment and an utter eyesore. Buncrana will have two masts at either end of town which will at least double the amount of electromagnetic waves and radiation in their vicinity. These EMF mobile antennas can send microwaves up to 40 miles and exposure will be more concentrated near base stations in the town. Residents between the two masts will be affected most. Anyone living close to or in direct line of the emissions will be bombarded 24/7. They will not be able to turn it off or be able to physically or financially erect any form of barrier or protection.

Despite assurances from Government and regulatory bodies that EMF technology is safe and that the MNOs are operating within ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) standards, we are far from convinced and are very worried about the effects on our health. Officially Governments, regulatory bodies and planning authorities are covered by these ICNIRP standards.

The following extract is a critical exposé of ICNIRP from Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html . It is written by a team of investigative journalists from the European Union who have to date published sixteen articles in major newspapers and magazines in seven EU countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Portugal.

″Investigate Europe alleges the existence of an “ICNIRP cartel.” The journalists identified a group of fourteen scientists who either helped create, or defend, the EMF exposure guidelines disseminated by ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Germany. ICNIRP’s self-selected members and advisors believe that EMF safety guidelines need to protect humans only from heating (or thermal) effects due to acute EMF exposure. ICNIRP scientists argue that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found harmful biologic or health effects from chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF are insufficient to warrant stronger safety guidelines. The journalists argue that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from EMF exposure. These reviews have been conducted for the World Health Organization (WHO) and other government agencies. By preserving the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund health effects research. Besides these fourteen scientists, perhaps several dozen EMF scientists in the EU and other countries actively defend the ICNIRP exposure guidelines.

In contrast to the dozens of EMF scientists who support the ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines, more than 240 EMF scientists from 42 nations who published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health totaling over 2,000 papers have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Appeal calls on the WHO, the United Nations and all member nations to adopt much stronger EMF exposure guidelines that protect humans and other species from sub-thermal levels of EMF exposure and to issue health warnings about the risks of EMF exposure.″

5G protesters forced to stop protest at Buncrana polling station by Garda

May 25, 2019

by James Quigley - a member of 5G Awareness Inishowen and it’s sub group Buncrana Garda Mast Action Group

Buncrana Garda Mast Action Group at Scoil Íosagán polling station May 24, 2109

Two members of 5G Awareness Inishowen were forced to stop protesting by Gardaí near Scoil Íasagán polling station around 7.30 pm Friday May 24. Protesters were distributing leaflets and collecting signatures on a petition against Government plans to license a US private company, Shared Access Ltd, to install 3G and 4G, Electric Magnetic Frequency (EMF) equipment on the existing Garda mast in Buncrana, Co Donegal.

I was informed by Gardaí that they received a complaint from a member of the public and that under Section 147 of the Electoral Act 1992 they told us to remove our posters and leave. Despite not knowing the legislation, I informed the Gardaí that I thought they were wrong since we were not canvassing or soliciting for any candidate, had nothing to do with the election and were standing in a private churchyard car park well away from the polling station entrance.

Earlier that morning when we first arrived at the polling station I informed the station manager about what we intended to do. He told us to stand well away from the polling station. Later he informed me that a member of the public complained to him about us.

I know it is innuendo and speculation about who complained but to me the complaint and indeed the reaction seem petty even vindictive. It is ironical that they complain about us interfering with their democratic right to vote while the community is being denied access to what I would call a more fundamental right - to object against something that will damage our health. The Garda mast is exempted from the planning process and if allowed to continue will affect the whole area.

I’m not sure what is meant by interfering or the curtilage but in my opinion we were not stopping anyone voting or putting pressure on anyone. In fact we were being very polite, quiet just two people distributing leaflets and asking people to sign our petition. It was a very friendly affair. But clearly it was too much for someone. Most people were happy to sign and mostly supportive. However, occasionally, there was an odd dour look or sour comment.

I have since looked up the relevant section 147 and it seems to me that the Gardaí interpretation is very narrow or downright wrong and that the overall emphasis is on canvassing, promoting candidates or influencing voters. I don’t think we were interfering, obstructing or impeding anyone voting.

Electoral Act 1992

147.—(1) A person shall not interfere with or obstruct or impede an elector going to or coming from or in the vicinity of or in a polling station.

(2) During the period commencing 30 minutes before the time appointed for the taking of a poll at an election, including a poll which has been adjourned under section 107 , and ending 30 minutes after the close of the said poll, a person shall not, in or in the curtilage of a polling station or in any place within 100 metres of such station, for the purpose of promoting the interest of a political party or furthering the candidature of a candidate or candidates or soliciting votes for a candidate or candidates or for any contrary purpose, do any or all of the following things:

(a) loiter or congregate with other persons;

(b) attempt to induce, by any means whatsoever, an elector to vote for a candidate or candidates or vote in a particular way or refrain from voting;

(c) display or distribute any notice, sign or poster (other than a notice, sign or poster displayed by the returning officer) or card, circular or other document relating to the election; or

(d) use or cause to be used any loud-speaker or other public address mechanism to broadcast matter relating to the election.

(3) For the purpose of this section, a polling station shall be deemed to include all parts of the building and any land within the curtilage of the building in which the polling station is situate and the distance referred to in subsection (2) shall be measured from any entrance to the polling station or to the curtilage thereof.

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence.

Why are Some Countries Removing Wi-Fi in Schools and Others Not?

May 19, 2019

This article is from https://www.wirelesseducation.org written by Mikko Ahonen, PHD.

France [1] and Russia [2] have current laws to minimise Wi-Fi exposure to children in schools. These two countries have the world’s longest research history on health effect of microwaves, both over 100 years.

1. Too many devices for long periods of time = chronic exposure

Much of the research has focused on the effects of mobile phones, but there is already some research on chronic exposure to 2450 MHz frequency microwaves, including Wi-Fi devices. The problem in Wi-Fi routers lies in children’s chronic (24/7) exposure to pulsed microwave radiation. Isn’t that reason enough to minimise children’s risks in classrooms?

2. It can have damaging effects on our bodies

Wi-Fi and cell phone data is transmitted by pulsed microwave radiation. This creates a continuous electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure in which we are engulfed. When you browse the world’s largest EMF research database [3], it reveals the effect of Wi-Fi in two areas:

Fertility[4]
Oxidative stress [5]

Fertility damage is seen in animal and cell studies showing reduced motility of sperm and testes malfunction. Oxidative stress is seen both in animal and cell (in vitro) studies, indicating a risk of inflammation also to Wi-Fi users [6]. Chronic inflammation leads to diseases to which children and pregnant women are especially susceptible because child and fetal cells are still growing, their bones are softer, and they absorb more radiation. Women’s immune systems are suppressed during pregnancy so they are more vulnerable to radiation too.

3. Wireless transmitters are becoming more powerful

The Council of Europe warns about installing routers in schools and recommends a 100 µW/m² precautionary level in classrooms [7]. When a Wi-Fi router is installed in a classroom these levels can reach 30.000 µW/m² (peak value). In many schools, Wi-Fi routers are attached to the ceiling of the classroom. This may be particularly risky, because the router uses microwave radiation to transmit its device ID continuously, even when there is not a single wireless device connected to it. Often the router is rather close to children’s and teachers’ heads [8] and these signals enter one’s body as they travel through walls, ceilings and floors.

4. Wi-Fi routers don’t have to be on all the time

Today the default is to have Wi-Fi on all the time, which adds up to a very heavy cumulative dose of radiation. The mobile industry has a patent [9] to change Wi-Fi routers and the continuous 10 times per second (10 Hz) beacon signal for health reasons. 10 Hz pulse itself is problematic, since in human brainwaves this 10 Hz ‘hits’ the alpha band and can interfere with cognitive abilities and sleep.

The patent is to automatically shut down this continuous device ID sending [SSID]–functionality in the Wi-Fi router when not in use. This would bring a radical decrease in pulsed microwave radiation exposure especially when there is no traffic (no devices connected to the Wi-Fi router). This will create an environment where the Wi-Fi only turns on when it is needed, almost like “Eco-mode” on the cordless DECT phones available in some countries. The patent application mentions DNA damage, which has been found in multiple-studies [10]. Until this new technology is brought to market however, we would be wise to turn off the Wi-Fi when not absolutely needed.

So why do we still have Wi-Fi and BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies in schools? Often Wi-Fi risk is down-played by saying “the exposure is only a fragment of the public exposure guidelines.” Current radiation guidelines are 20 years old and do not take into consideration biological effects or the pulsed-nature of the signal, where there is a great difference between average and peak values [11]. When Wi-Fi devices produce pulsed microwave radiation, its peak values will exceed several precautionary recommendation levels of what is considered safe for exposure.

Additionally, current guidelines only account for radiation from one device. With dozens of devices emitting radiation at once in a typical classroom, children and staff are exposed to very high amounts of microwave radiation not accounted for in outdated guidelines. It is no wonder the EUROPAEM environmental health group listed Wi-Fi as one of the riskiest RF-technologies [12]. They point to the exceptionally fast rise time and fall time of Wi-Fi signals, which may have an effect on calcium channels in human cells and the unnatural opening of these channels [13] which can lead to disease.

5. What can be done to reduce the risk?

Generally, schools should be hard-wired, so that in every classroom the Internet is accessible through Ethernet-cable connections. It is feasible to have wired schools, with no Wi-Fi at all. Even tablets can be attached to the Internet by Ethernet cables and adapters. For laptops and tablets, the Wi-Fi and other antennas (Bluetooth, data, locator) should be turned off (at least most of the time). As a half-measure, Wi-Fi could be used by the adults in the building during the hours in which children are not present. Data uploads and system updates could be done before and after school, or overnight. If Wi-Fi routers are installed, they should be placed away from classrooms and there should be a switch to turn each Wi-Fi router off immediately after use.

Maryland, USA, recently set a positive example and a precedent for healthier schools. Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council has provided excellent recommendations for safer use of Wi-Fi and other technologies in schools [14]. These recommendations echo our suggestions to use hard-wired connections with the wi-fi turned off.

See our courses for additional safety measures [15].

We urgently need accessible and healthier classrooms. We at Wireless Education are pleased to develop these together with learning-focused schools and parents, and look forward to doing so with the support of responsible companies.

References: