The post EMFSA MAY 2020 NEWSLETTER appeared first on EMFSA.

What are “minor freestanding cell masts” ?

Read as: 4G, 5G and Wi-Fi small cells

‘minor freestanding masts and minor rooftop masts can be installed at or on these sites WITHOUT prior land use APPROVAL from the City or adjacent LAND OWNERS’

Provisions to allow for the installation of minor freestanding cell masts: properties zoned as Community Use such as churches, schools, clinics and hospitals; Utilities; Transport 1 and Transport 2; Public Open Space; and Agriculture to be allowed to install minor freestanding cell masts (of less than 12 m in height) or minor rooftop masts (of less than 1,5 m in height) as of right. This means that these minor freestanding masts and minor rooftop masts can be installed at or on these sites without prior land use approval from the City or adjacent land owners. Building plan approvals MAY still be required.

“WITHOUT prior land use approval  from the City or ADJACENT LAND OWNERS “

Keep in mind that the City only approves the STRUCTURE. What happens next is up to the industry.

Who will keep track of the amount of antenna on the structure, the total radiation output and the combination of the frequencies and modulation types used? The City washes its hands (they are not mandated they say). The DoH? (an awful amount of small cells will have to be monitored).

-Will the monitoring be passed on to an “independent” (read industry affiliated) company?

-Will the industry provide regular reports on the radiation output of each small cell/ or combinations thereof?

-Who will keep track of radiation hot spots created by (for instance) reflection? What will be the distances allowed between  the minor freestanding cell masts ?

-Believe it or not, but although almost impossible, even ICNIRP’s levels can be exceeded.

-Who will be held liable for injuries, damages, deaths due to these facilities? Commercial General Liability does not specifically cover nor include harm from radio frequency radiation exposures.

-Bottom line – if you are living next to a church, school, clinic or a hospital a structure can be installed, 4 and 5G , Wi-Fi  enabled antenna or antennas added without you having a say in the matter. Or with you even being aware.

Transport 1 and 2

Transport Zone 1: Transport Use (TR1) Purpose The TR1 zone provides for transportation systems, excluding public roads and public streets, but including all other transport undertakings which serve the public such as airports, harbours, railway lines, bus, railway and other depots associated with public transport uses, public transport terminuses, ranks or holding areas, and cable car stations.

Transport Zone 2: Public Road and Public Parking (TR2) Purpose The TR2 Zone provides for public streets and roads, whether constructed or still to be constructed, as well as premises for the public parking of operable motor vehicles.

Pavements – pole antenna

Antenna can potentially be added to any of the following: lampposts, poles with security cameras.  “Minor freestanding cell masts” can be added to your pavement right in front of your house.

Schools and Daycare facilities

In our opinion, The City of Cape Town continues to ignore the Precautionary Principle and the ALARA Principle (as they do with macro towers). South Africa’s most precious and vulnerable, our children, are put at risk.

Other cities are at least interacting with their citizens in a pro active manner. To give one small example, there are others): The City Council of Encinitas voted unanimously to amend their Small Wireless Facilities Policy to restrict small wireless facilities within 500 feet (152,4 meters) from any residential unit, a daycare center or a primary school. Why is the City of Cape Town ignoring the fact that citizens would like to have a voice and a choice? It brings us back to “Illusion of Inclusion” – the same that happens with the so called “public participation” process for macro cell towers. It seems to be a farce to create an illusion that objectors are actually heard. In a  detailed document by EMFSA to the City we pointed out that other cities are taking action and requested that we at least discuss this topic, but so far we have had no response. We will address this in future posts.

Passing the buck-not interested, not the City’s problem

“the City is not mandated to regulate health related matters where telecommunication is concerned. However, all network providers must comply with the requirements of the National Department of Health and the ICNIRP standards on non –  ionising radiation protection with respect to safety standards” 

Please call a spade a spade

“One of the main purposes of these provisions is to ensure the infrastructure is less unsightly and to minimise the impact on the local character of an area where the infrastructure is installed”

In our opinion, this has nothing to do with aesthetics, it has to do with the placement of 4G and 5G small cells. Please call a spade a spade. To suddenly be concerned about aesthetics is not credible. The Cape Flats and impoverished communities are littered with unsightly cell towers (as is the sad case of an autistic child from Mitchells Plain who has to live in the shadow of a nearby massive tower.)

As EMFSA warned in April 2019:

Cape Town By-Law Amendments: the installation of minor freestanding cell masts

Below is the statement by Alderman Nieuwoudt on behalf of the City:

Published by:
City of Cape Town, Media Office

http://www.capetown.gov.za/Media-and-news/Council%20approves%20amendments%20to%20Municipal%20Planning%20By-law

The post City of Cape Town By-Law Amendments approves minor freestanding cell masts without prior land use approval from the City or adjacent land owners appeared first on EMFSA.

This case is about a community – all of us – standing together to fight injustice:

Image: Heathfield,  4th Avenue, where families reported that their children regularly become ill.

-D Rowland assisted the community with her usual tenacity and pursued the matter relentlessly.

-Kay Wentzel, spokesperson for her Heathfield community.

-The late Muna Lakhani* , Justine Hansen from EMRSA and Olga Sheean. 

17 May 2017 – Mrs Kay Wentzel’s letter to the City of Cape Town ( CoCT) :

In 2016 during the month of March, Telkom erected an illegal freestanding mast at house no 47, 4th road, Heathfield. No due process was followed. To this day, the mast still stands and is operational. This is a violation of the city’s telecommunications infrastructure policy. The city has acknowledged the mast to be illegal (emails archived since 2016- 2017 for your request).

Ms XXX ( details removed)  – I am sure you have been informed of this matter along with so many others. Our communities have been impacted negatively and we need the city’s support in having the masts removed.

After my husband passed in 2013 I was given the opportunity to invest in the suburb Heathfield after twenty five years of renting. I purchased a ruined home in 2014, did eight months of renovation and finally felt content,safe and home. The feeling of owning a home, a space that is yours to enjoy and embrace with your family. The content feeling was short lived due to the illegal mast being erected in close proximity to my home. I would not purchase a property if towers were visible, so clearly this has an impact on our investment.

How do we move forward in a positive manner to ensure our community has peace of mind knowing their health and investment won’t be compromised. Our answer would be to have the masts removed and alternative options to be explored and considered.

I trust this letter is read with compassion for people and a healthy Cape.

I thank you in advance and appreciate your assistance in this regard.

On behalf of our community.  K Wentzel

Note: For over two years the community was subjected to the radiation output from this illegal tower. (The mast was only deactivated after the last high court ruling in May 2018).

Despite strong objections from the community and countless letters to city officials (including the Mayor Patricia de Lille) the tower remained operational. Only after its erection and the uproar of the community was the community notified of the objection application process. Many further emails to Mayor Patricia de Lille were ignored. Requests for a  meeting with the communities of Heathfield, Mitchell’s Plain, Forest Glade and Manenberg to discuss cell tower placements were denied because the mayor’s calendar was ‘booked up’.

 Ms Rowland appealed to MEC Minister Anton Bredell with her correspondence being forwarded to Ms Bettie Leedo – Head of Environmental Affairs. Councillor  Kevin Southgate became involved and supported investigation of the process involved in placement of this tower.

This case was featured in a document written at Ms Rowlands’ request, by Canadian Olga Sheean ‘Challenging the towers that be’ – an appeal to Cape Town Councillors – emailed during December 2016 and copied to ALL in authority within this city to implement change (including Mayor Patricia de Lille). NO confirmations of receipt were ever received by Ms Sheean.

Finally, 27th of September 2019, OVER THREE YEARS after the mast was erected:

Ms Wentzel comments about  the Supreme Court judgement:

“Today is a day of absolute gratitude to all those involved in creating a voice of rejection for the erection of a cell mast in our neighborhood. This has been fought relentlessly and Denise Rowland has shown no signs of backing down. An absolute honor meeting you on this journey and it exemplifies through unity we can achieve a desired result.

My community namely Heathfield whom I became an activist for during these invasive cell tower erections appreciates the efforts and support of all involved.

We trust the ruling would set precedent for more illegal masts to fall.

Communities should voice their dissatisfaction and support each other through the process, it’s tedious but don’t give up.”

In June 2019  EMFSA commented:

How many more similarly unlawfully erected cell towers are there across South Africa?

Municipalities should, as standard practice, prevent illegal towers from being erected in the first place – it should not be necessary for communities to play the role of the watchdog. To cite lack of manpower to monitor these events is unacceptable.

Who is paying for all these court cases? How much is it costing the taxpayer?

EMFSA requests an urgent public investigation into this matter by the authorities.

*The 22nd 0f September was Muna Lakhani’s birthday. We are sorry that Muna is no longer with us to share the good news of the Supreme Court Judgement.

References:

Four cell towers metres from where children live and play – South Africa

Unlawful cell towers South Africa – legal precedent set by court and future implications.

Telkom vs City of Cape Town:Telkom heads for the Supreme Court!

Telkom loses court appeal over location of cellphone masts in Western Cape

The post Cape Town, South Africa: Illegal Heathfield Mast – Activists Fought Injustice appeared first on EMFSA.

Source: https://www.concourt.org.za/index.php/judgement/315-spilhaus-property-holdings-pty-limited-and-others-v-mtn-mobile-telephone-networks-pty-limited-and-another-cct82-18

Case CCT82/18
[2019] ZACC 16

Hearing Date: 07 February 2019
Judgement Date:24 April 2019

Post Judgment Media Summary  

The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.

On 24 April 2019 the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) which overturned a judgment of the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town (High Court).

The 19 applicants (applicants) and second respondent (Alphen) are sectional title unit owners of a property which is divided into two sections: the historic and residential precincts.  The historic precinct comprises a hotel and commercial units.  Obviously, the residential precinct comprises residential units.  The rooftop in the Mill Range Building (rooftop) is part of the common property managed by the body corporate.  The Mill Range Building is in the historic precinct.  The first respondent is MTN Mobile Telephone Networks (MTN).

In 1998 Alphen entered into a lease agreement with Vodacom (Pty) Limited and MTN to install a 2G network antenna (cell phone mast) on the rooftop.  The cell phone mast was indeed installed.  A few years later, the consent of the trustees of the residential precinct was sought and obtained for the upgrade of the network to 3G.  On 1 November 2013 a new cell phone mast was installed on the rooftop inside a five metre high fake chimney that was made to conceal the cell phone mast.  As part of the upgrade, MTN improved the base station equipment.  These improvements were effected without the authorisation of the City of Cape Town (City).  Having noticed the illegal structure the City issued notification that called upon Alphen to apply for approval, failing which Alphen would face prosecution.  Before Alphen and MTN could lodge the application for approval, the residential precinct trustees withdrew their consent to the upgrade

The applicants who are individual owners of units in the residential precinct applied to the High Court to have MTN ordered to remove the new cell phone mast on the basis that it had been installed in breach of the City’s Zoning Scheme Regulations (regulations) and certain restrictive conditions on the title deed.  MTN challenged the legal standing of the applicants, contending that only the body corporate had the requisite standing to institute proceedings in relation to the common property in terms of section 41 of the Sectional Titles Act (Act).

The High Court held that while the Act makes provision for the body corporate to institute proceedings, this did not preclude sectional title unit holders from doing so.  Dissatisfied with the outcome, MTN and Alphen appealed to the SCA.  The SCA found that section 41 of the Act applied to the matter and that the applicants had no standing.  The SCA reasoned that under section 41 the only remedy available to owners was the appointment of a curator, provided the conditions imposed by the section were met.

Before the Constitutional Court, the applicants sought leave to appeal against the order of the SCA.  In a unanimous judgment, penned by Jafta J, the Constitutional Court found that the Constitution obliges one to construe section 41 in a manner that promotes access to the courts.  Section 41(1) requires that the contemplated proceedings must be in respect of matters mentioned in section 36(6) of the Act.  The Court further found that the object of the section is not to determine the legal standing of individual owners.  It held that the claim pursued by the applicants does not arise from section 36(6) of the Act. It held that the applicants instead seek to enforce a regulation that was passed in their interests – in an area where the scheme is situated.

The Constitutional Court reasoned that the SCA’s interpretation leads to absurd results and creates unequal “protection and benefit of the law” because, on the SCA’s construction of section 41, the applicants are deprived of the legal standing to institute proceedings to enforce compliance with regulations while the applicants’ neighbours outside the sectional title scheme would be entitled to institute proceedings to enforce compliance with the very same regulation.  Furthermore, even those who are members of a neighbouring sectional title scheme would have no impediment against the exercise of the right to enforce compliance.

The Court held that the applicants’ standing flows from the fact that the conduct complained of is prohibited in their interests.  The Court found that the High Court was thus correct in holding that the applicants have standing.  The appeal was upheld.

Full judgement https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/36567

My Broadband article:

Cape Town residents force MTN to remove cellphone tower

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/304466-cape-town-residents-force-mtn-to-remove-cellphone-tower.html

Excerpts:

-The case was only related to the “legality of the mast” and had nothing to do with the potential health issues of cellphone towers

-MTN told MyBroadband it will comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court.

-The erection of cellphone towers in residential areas has been a point of contention for many residents in South Africa.

The post Constitutional Court Judgement : MTN Rooftop Cell Mast Antenna appeared first on EMFSA.

 (See the “Objections’ pdf * by EMFSA towards the bottom of the page)

The COCT is well aware that the cell tower issue is a very problematic one for many communities and individuals. We fail to understand why it was lumped together with other proposed bylaw amendments and not discussed on its own. The time period given for comments is far too little and an extension should be granted.

• The Municipal Planning By-law (MPBL) regulates developments and land use in Cape Town. The City is proposing a number of amendments to the by-law as part of its annual review process; and to give effect to the policies and strategies that have been adopted by the City Council over the past few years.
• The intention of the proposed amendment is to allow for less bulky and less tall cell masts or towers to be constructed by cellular network and telecommunication providers. This type of infrastructure is intended to be usually attached to existing infrastructure, such as a lamp post or rooftop, and is less intrusive than conventional telecommunication masts.
• Amendments are proposed to allow for the installation of minor freestanding cell masts: properties zoned as Community Use such as churches, schools, clinics and hospitals; Utilities; Transport 1 and Transport 2; Public Open Space; as well as Agriculture be allowed to install minor freestanding cell masts (of less than 12 m in height) or minor rooftop masts (of less than 1,5 m in height) as of right. This means that these minor freestanding masts and minor rooftop masts can be installed at or on these sites without prior land use approval from the City or adjacent land owners. Building plan approvals may still be required.
• A minor rooftop cell mast of less than 1,5 m in height is allowed as a consent use for properties zoned as Single Residential 1 and Single Residential 2; as well as for properties zoned as General Residential 1 – 6. This means that the owner of the property must still apply to the City for permission to install this structure.

These new by-laws could have far-reaching consequences.

It is therefore important that as many interested parties as possible, from residents to rate payers’ associations and body corporates, submit their comments on the City’s proposed amendments by 1 April 2019, the City said.

The full set of proposed amendments and the guideline document with more information are available at the 24 subcouncil offices and on the City’s website at www.capetown.gov.za/haveyoursay.

The City is proposing an additional level to measure height. Height is a contentious issue on sites and in areas with steep slopes and most complaints relate to the impact of height on neighbouring views, privacy, and sunlight.

Alderman Nieuwoudt: “I want to remind residents who own property in Cape Town that some of the proposed amendments may have an impact on property rights, as well as on future developments and land uses. To put it simply, the amendments will have an impact on what our cities and suburbs will look like a few years on. Thus, all of us who live and work in Cape Town have an interest in the outcome of this process, regardless of whether you’re a property owner or not“.

Comments, input or recommendations in respect of the proposed amendments can be submitted by:

• Email to lums@capetown.gov.za
• By visiting www.capetown.gov.za/haveyoursay

Presenting your comments:

If you would like to present your comments, you will need to register by emailing Zandile Mahlasela at zandile.mahlasela@capetown.gov.za.

A copy of the presentation must be provided to Zandile Mahlasela or delivered to the Council Chamber before 30 March 2019.

Residents who registered will be given a 10 minute period to present comments on the proposed amendments at the hearing. http://www.capetown.gov.za/City-Connect/Have-your-say/Issues-open-for-public-comment/draft-mpbl-amendments-2019?fbclid=IwAR1qOYCGk21mYT1lwN7qKCmE7J46IsO9KdubJ-1OvqqQ4Ml8-5jhANLWUGw

See details below:

Comments by EMFSA:

1. The mere idea of removing the rights of citizens to object to cell masts (regardless of size) is unconstitutional.
2. Cell tower radiation is a recognized environmental pollutant. Not only is the radiation from a cell tower classified as a Class 2 B Possible Human Carcinogen BUT it may act as a cancer promoter in combination with other pollutants. The City is blatantly ignoring the Precautionary Principle by encouraging the placement of towers at schools, hospitals, clinics and churches. Cancer is not our only concern. If this by-law is accepted the City is risking the health of already sick people, and most of all the most precious in our society, our children.
3. With the proposed roll-out of 5G the total environmental EMF exposure will increase, new modulation types will be deployed, the combination of which has not been tested. In other words, one giant experiment.
4. The City has no model in place to accompany the roll out of 5G with independent radiation and health monitoring but wants to add more masts with the possibility of citizens having no say? This is certainly not what a democratic society is about.
5. How many more law suits will have to be fought – already the taxpayer has had to fork out a small fortune on behalf of the COCT. Our advice to the DA: listen to your voters. Many low income  communities do NOT have the income to fight a tower in court.  Is this apartheid in reverse?
6.  As to  “Building plan approvals may still be required” – as in approving it as “minor building works” ?  To approve a cell tower application at a school under this pretense can be perceived as child abuse. Do we need a reminder of what our Constitution say about the Rights of a Child?
7. The COCT states:  “to give effect to the policies and strategies that have been adopted by the City Council over the past few years“. So in effect what the city is saying is that tower placements have already been approved without the necessary public participation and consent. The numerous ongoing law suits testify to that.
8. Re “This type of infrastructure is intended to be usually attached to existing infrastructure, such as a lamp post or rooftop”. (In other words ‘small cells’ attached to lampposts or ‘security poles).

*Objections – see pdf link below

Objections-converted

The Role of Cell tower Radiation as an Environmental Pollutant and the need to apply the Precautionary and ALARA Principles.

The_Role_of_Cell_tower_Radiation_as_an_Environment (1)

 City of Cape Town Municipal Planning Amendment By-Laws 2019 – Comments by EMFSA

CITY OF CAPE TOWN MUNICIPAL PLANNING AMENDMENT BY-converted

References

References-converted

https://obs.org.za/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MPBL-Amendments-Guideline-Document.pdf

The post Cape Town By-Law Amendments: the installation of minor freestanding cell masts appeared first on EMFSA.

Image credit: D. Rowland, EMFSA

The Vergesig case is only one of many examples illustrating the “Illusion of Inclusion” farce. This is in regards to public participation, communities and cell tower placements. Communities are simply ignored and/or overruled.

Backgound:

The council received a substantial amount of objections to this mast. In addition a petition was circulated in the immediate area against this mast and base station leading up to the Municipal Planning Tribunal hearing. In less than six days, 202 residents signed this petition. The application for the free standing base tower was rejected by the Municipal Planning Tribunal on Tuesday April 11, 2017.

Highwave Consultants then appealed the decision of the Municipal Planning Tribunal.

MAYCO disregarded all the objections and approved the cell-tower, with the (then) Mayor de Lille personally signing approval for the tower.

Vergesig-Aurora Residents’ Association chairwoman Verne Jankielsohn said they had written to various members of the DA and the City to help with their fight, but to no avail. They had approached the Cape Party, which agreed to take on the case pro-bono.

The Cape Party (on behalf of the Vergesig-Aurora Residents’ Association) filed court papers in the Western Cape High Court late last year. The City filed opposing papers in January.

Advocate Carlo Viljoen said the Cape Party promoted the principle of direct democracy, endorsing the idea that the people of an area should make decisions regarding their lives and not a politician, and therefore decided to take on this case.

“It’s clear in this instance that the will of the people was not to have a mast erected. In addition, it’s clear that there is no need for the mast, and that the erection of the mast is an illogical step by the DA, based on considerations outside the will of the people, legal considerations or need,” he said.

The case is to be heard in the Cape Town High Court in February.

First respondent: Patricia de Lille (she was the executive mayor when the tower was approved)

Second respondent: Highway Consultants (PTY) LTD

Objections included:

• Property values decreasing
• Ruining of the area’s rural image
• Health concerns
• A crèche is being operated from the church – in close proximity to the mast.
• Alternative proposed sites were ignored
• Residents also complained that they had not been properly consulted.
• No need for added telecommunication services

EMFSA is very concerned that a cell tower was placed in an area where the most vulnerable in our society might be at risk. The Precautionary Principle was clearly ignored by the then Mayor Patricia de Lille and MAYCO. We note that some residents in close proximity to the tower are complaining of disrupted sleep since the tower became active.

Images  credit: D.Rowland, EMFSA

References:

1. Verne Jankielsohn
2. Denise Rowland
3. EMFSA  notes on Cell Towers and the Precautionary Principle. www.emfsa.co.za
4. Panel approves Vergesig tower https://www.northernnews.co.za/news/panel-approves-vergesig-tower11379050?fbclid=IwAR1taivoemTwFbZmMleBiuN4JHjJfw4XMu6_kwFFVKv7rjoSL4PEpNsDRa4
5. Church cellphone mast soars towards heaven after planning rumpus https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-09-03-church-cellphone-mast-soars-towards-heaven-after-planning-rumpus/
   

The post “Illusion of Inclusion” – The Farce of Public Participation appeared first on EMFSA.

SuperDads – South African Judge orders Mast powered down on health reasons – Part 2 of 4

Continuing from part 1 in this 4 part segment, we discuss more into the health implications and explanation of the science, along with clarity into the biochemistry and biophysics.

This episode is interesting as I discuss how Clive taking supplements is actually a bad thing, along with him exercising in his current low REDOX state. That he should rather employ other solutions discussed, and once his leptin receptor is restored to being sensitive and his REDOX potential is up, can he perform exercising again.

We also cover how some of the intuitive actions Clive was taking and his sleep Apnea, were defence mechanisms to protecting his health.

This interview has been divided into four (4) parts. Each segment having a different theme. The purpose of the segments is to have everything discussed straight from the Clive’s experience, along with his advice to legal professionals and the lay public. So stay tuned, subscribe on Facebook Niche Radio, Superdads or my site jameslech.co.za

To receive the latest episodes as they are released. This episode covers Clive, his story and the onset of the legal process.

Disclaimer: the show has a compilation of technical scientific and legal wording, but there are layman summary explanations as well.

All contained within a zip file -Court papers filed, and court order

NOTE: We are still awaiting the Court transcript. Once they are received we will publish them in a new post. Be sure to subscribe in order to receive them.

The post SuperDads – South African Judge orders Mast powered down on health reasons – Part 2 of 4 appeared first on EMFSA.

SuperDads – South African Judge orders Mast powered down on health reason-Part 1 of 4

The positive and negative health effects from non-native electromagnetic field (nnEMF)effects are real. This includes cell towers. The data has been published, numerous Nobel Prize Awards to explain it, however, the understanding of nnEMF and health in medicine is a cross-pollinating exercise between disciplines in connecting the dots. Most allopathic medicine lacks training in dealing with mitochondrial-related diseases. nnEMF diseases for medical practitioners have several problems. Firstly, they don’t understand the linkage between their pathology and biochemistry books, to what is seen clinically in the world today. Secondly, if one tries to understand the nnEMF issue purely from a biological platform, doctors will be wholly unsuccessful. Physicians need to approach from a biophysics angle.Unfortunately, most allopathic doctors do not have a big physics background.

The problem in medical school and functional medicine training, no one teaches really how mitochondria operates and how it connects into the pathways. Therefore, nnEMF is a big “black box” for most practitioners because they don’t understand how different parts of the nnEMF spectrum affects different parts within the cell. Thereby, unable to explain the symptoms many patients have. Additionally, what really complicates matters further is the encounterance of 4G and 5G nnEMF technology. It is ever more complicated because of the way electrical engineers are now changing waveforms. It is no longer a strict power density issue anymore. Now, one has to know some of the interesting physics behind this to understand it.

Recently, this has been recognized by different domestic Organs of State. The reviews of the recent Govt. funded nnEMF study has seen this research, development and public health training in alignment with national strategies and priorities. Over the years to come, investment has been taken to start training doctors, and teach 1st and 2nd-year medical students in biophysics. The incidence of diseases resulting from exposure to nnEMF radiation has broad implications for public health, social accounting and the economy.

South African communities are not willing to wait years for training of South African doctors to play catch-up. Clive Granville, Johannesburg resident has felt and reviewed the dangers of unregulated and illegal cell towers. He has started taking action to have an illegal tower decommissioned. Already, representing himself, he has received a court order to have the mast turned off until the conclusion of the judicial review. In his seventies, Clive Granville is not against technology but requests a regulated platform with good governance, accountability, and transparency. A recent SA Govt. funded study demonstrated a nnEMF public interest override function of ‘substances released into the environment’ and ‘public safety or environmental risk’. The study also details a roadmap, model and framework that can be implemented by municipalities to quickly and effectively regulate nnEMF emissions, reduce health risk and burden on the State, while still enabling a stimulated economy.

The story of Clive is similar the the American legal drama TV series, Suits, created and written by Aaron Korsh. Even though Suits is set at a fictional law firm, Clive mimics the focal point of the show as being the talented Mike Ross. From a young age, Clive displayed the skills set of retaining memory as he read, he is a speed reader, and has exceptional analysis speed processing skills While Clive is not an attorney, his life lessons and experience give him a good background. Plus, he was able to speed through case law and textbooks getting a competent understanding of South African legislation.

In Clive Granville’s words: “I brought an urgent application. We were self-represented and I wrote the application and the argument. It was quite drawn out in verbal argument with Atlas tower and Telkom opposing. The City did not oppose or appear.

The High Court in Johannesburg was very unhappy with the Council and with the Atlas for not notifying residents and for not checking on the unsightly impact and the Judge ordered the tower turned off because of the health impact on me.

The Respondents and other parties have to show cause why it should not stay off until all litigation is complete.

I got a fair and knowledgeable judge (Justice Cassim). He kept telling me he had read my papers.

The fight will escalate, but it was a great victory because it was on the scientific basis of medical harm. When they cited ICNIRP and the WHO the judge asked them for their scientific evidence to support the lack of danger.

The Telkom counsel said they would provide masses of scientific data in trying to get it turned on again, but I said “Bring it on”.

Telkom suggested in their affidavit that “It does appear available for the

applicants to relocate as they have suggested in their papers. Whilst this is

of course not desirable, it appears in these unusual circumstances that the balance of convenience would suggest such a course of action.”

The “balance of convenience” being the profits that Telkom would lose. The Judge was quite unhappy that we should be driven from our home simply for material gain.”

This interview has been divided into four (4) parts. Each segment having a different theme. The purpose of the segments is to have everything discussed straight from the Clive’s experience, along with his advice to legal professionals and the lay public. So stay tuned, subscribe on Facebook Niche Radio, Superdads or my site jameslech.co.za

To receive the latest episodes as they are released. This episode covers Glive, his story and the onset of the legal process.

Disclaimer: the show has a compilation of technical scientific and legal wording, but there are layman summary explanations as well.

All contained within a zip file – Court papers filed, and court order

We are still awaiting the Court transcript. Once they are received we will publish them in a new post. Be sure to subscribe in order to receive them.

Local newspaper article of Clive and the mast

Video recording of Clive taking measurements on his property

The post SuperDads – South African Judge orders Mast powered down on health reason-Part 1 of 4 appeared first on EMFSA.

An organisation calling itself the Durban Anti-Cell Mast Alliance (Dacma) on Friday filed papers at the high court in Durban to stop MTN South Africa from rolling out new towers in the coastal city, it said.

Dacma, which was founded in 2017 to “protest the illegal roll-out of MTN cell masts across Durban”, said in a statement on Monday morning that it lodged papers with the court asking for “a review of the ‘secret deal’ that MTN concluded with the eThekwini municipality” in April 2016. TechCentral has seen the court papers.

The alliance alleged that eThekwini head of disaster management Vincent Ngubane “absolved MTN from any regulatory processes” when it erected new infrastructure in the city.

It has accused MTN and the municipality of “disregarding” by-laws and town planning schemes, and of contravening national legislation” and health and safety guidelines.

“Despite numerous newspaper reports, community activism, council questions, applications via the Promotion of Access to Information Act, legal correspondence and public meetings, neither eThekwini municipality nor MTN have done anything to explain how this situation came about, or whether they intend to rectify it.

“We have been forced to go to court because both MTN and the eThekwini municipality have consistently lied about this secret arrangement,” said Dacma spokeswoman Niki Moore in the statement.

“This infrastructure roll-out was completely unprocedural and secret, with the result that MTN put up cell masts, hundreds of them, next to creches, schools, old age homes, on people’s pavements, in play parks, and right outside their homes — with absolutely no consultation, no site planning, no permissions, no scoping and no public process. Anyone who complained was threatened and intimidated,” Moore alleged.

“The research we have done has shown that this roll-out was completely unnecessary, as none of these masts increased cellular connectivity in areas where it was actually required. MTN has done the cellular telephone industry no favours: by proceeding illegally and unprocedurally, they have raised huge concerns about their industry in the minds of the public. Now people are really talking about cell masts, and the effects they are having on property prices, the environment and people’s health.”

‘Better ways’

Dacma said in the statement that is “not against” the roll-out of communications technology but “believes there are better ways to go about it”. It also warned about the health impact of “long-term high-frequency microwaves”.

“The cell companies hide behind the fact that they abide by so-called ‘international limits’,” said Moore, “but they suppress the fact that these limits have been unchanged since 1998, are based on discredited science, and do not consider the massive changes in technology in the last 10 years.

“It is nonsense that municipalities, who make money out of cell mast rental, can dismiss any community concerns about the unverified effects of cell masts from the people who are forced to live right next to them. We are hoping that this court case will make both municipalities and mobile telephone companies stop and think about their reckless actions.”

In response to a query from TechCentral, MTN South Africa spokeswoman Jacqui O’Sullivan said that in February 2018, the eThekwini municipality defined the “ex post facto process” (retrospective action) that MTN and other mobile operators making use of “camera poles” would be required to follow related to 63 poles.

“We immediately began preparing to meet these requirements and have made significant progress since then,” she said.

“A total of 63 applications for environmental impact assessments on the sites were submitted in March (with 25 received to date); together with 63 applications for approval from the Civil Aviation Authority (six have been received to date). In addition, we submitted 40 land-use special consent applications on 3 August and are awaiting responses to these. We remain committed to this process.”

O’Sullivan said MTN entered a public/private partnership with the municipality through the Disaster Management and Emergency Control Unit ahead of the 2010 Fifa World Cup. Years later, this partnership was shown to be misaligned with another regulation of the department within the municipality (the Land Use Management Unit) in terms of the municipal approval processes. “All these sites must be compliant: compliance matters and our communities matter,” she said.

“It is clear that a lack of alignment must be resolved and MTN, along with all the mobile network operators that are currently using these camera poles for their masts must be held to the same standards. They, too, must follow due process.”

MTN, she added, will be “entirely guided” by the municipal process. “We want to do our best to continue offering the people of eThekwini the high-speed and wide-scale coverage we have been able to offer them. However, we will also not stand for anything other than compliance. We will do our best to try and meet both sets of expectations.”  — (c) 2018 NewsCentral Media

MTN faces court challenge over mast roll-out

The post MTN faces court challenge over mast roll-out appeared first on EMFSA.

With a relatively short survival rate, glioblastoma is the most common primary brain tumor. As it is unlikely that a single biomarker can effectively detect glioblastoma, scientists have tried to use a novel combination of multiple biomarkers (Popescu et al., 2014). Experiments performed for better understanding of cellular and molecular events involved in glioblastoma pathogenesis, show that the PI3K pathway can be a prime target for treatment of glioblastoma (Cruceru et al., 2013). Despite its strengths, this paper has at least one major shortcoming. Over the past decade, my colleagues and I have studied the health effects of cellular phones and their base stations. We have also shown that some of the papers claiming no link between mobile phone use and cancer have methodological errors and/or shortcomings (Mortazavi et al., 2017a,b, 2018; Mortazavi, 2018). For example, in one of the papers reviewed by our research group, a 400% difference in brain tumors was masked by poor statistical analysis! (Mortazavi, 2018).

The major shortcoming of the paper authored by Xu et al. comes from this point that the authors have not considered substantial evidence that shows a significant association between mobile phone use and brain cancer “Other potential risk factors like cell phone use, smoking, and environmental exposures have been studied, however, the conclusions were not definitive (Gomes et al., 2011).” For example, a significant association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumors was reported in a case-control study on brain tumors performed by Hardell et al. The authors claimed that the results of their study were in line with this hypothesis that exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) generated by wireless phones can play a significant role in the initiation and promotion of cancer (Hardell et al., 2013). Hardell and Carlberg in their recent report regarding Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) of CNS cancers stated “In summary this register based study showed increasing rates of tumors of unknown type in CNS (D43) with higher rate during 2007–2015. AAPS increased especially in the age group 20–39 years at diagnosis. This may be explained by higher risk for brain tumor in subjects with first use of a wireless phone before the age of 20 years taking a reasonable latency period” (Hardell and Carlberg, 2017). Moreover, a meta-analysis of 24 studies (26,846 cases, 50,013 controls) also supported this hypothesis that long-term use of mobile phones can be associated with increased risk of intracranial tumors (Bortkiewicz et al., 2017). The findings of this study revealed that mobile phone use > 10 years was linked to higher risk of all types of intracranial tumors. Wang and Guo also in their recent meta-analysis reported a significant association between mobile phone use for more than 5 years and the risk of glioma (Wang and Guo, 2016).

Moreover, the findings of a recent large-scale study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) revealed statistically significant increases in cancer in rodents that had been exposed to GSM or CDMA signals for 2-years. NTP study showed that when the intensity of the radiation increased, the incidence of cancer among the rats also increased (Wyde et al., in review). This 25,000,000 USD study that is the most complex study completed by the NTP, showed that the occurrence of malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart, can be linked to exposure to mobile phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) “The occurrences of two tumor types in male Harlan Sprague Dawley rats exposed to RFR, malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart, were considered of particular interest, and are the subject of this report.”

It should be noted that recently Momoli et al. (2017) have performed a re-analysis of the Canadian data from the 13-country INTERPHONE case-control study and when they applied a probabilistic multiple-bias model to address possible biases simultaneously, the odds ratio (OR) for glioma comparing highest quartile of use (>558 cumulative lifetime hours of use) to non-regular users was 2.0 (95% confidence interval: 1.2, 3.4). When adjusted for selection and recall biases, the OR was 2.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.3, 4.1).

The post Commentary: Geographic Variations in the Incidence of Glioblastoma and Prognostic Factors Predictive of Overall Survival in US Adults from 2004–2013 appeared first on EMFSA.