Anyway, the experiments have already been conducted, that’s why ICASA has such strict guidelines on emissions for devices. ICASA’s guidelines are based on over 20 years of cumulative research by several countries including our own, and follow the international best practises.

So in short, it has already been proved that is has no effect. If you are claiming Craigavon residents are an outlier to the rest of the research, then yes, the burden of proof is on the residents.

(As a minor correction, a “control” is the part of the experiment where all variables are kept the same except the condition you are testing, I didn’t mean it as “a protection”)

Thanks,
Dominic

How about the burden of proof being on the operators, to PROVE that what they are doing is safe? Who is instigating this whole situation in the first place?

I have asked the operators often in public meetings if they can PROVE there is no possibility of long-term harm from what they are doing. They have no choice but to shake their heads and say, “We can’t prove that.”

So let’s conduct a long-term experiment with no controls: we’ll radiate communities wholesale across the country at close range, and let’s see how many of them get ill, shall we. Let’s make it more interesting, we’ll go out of our way NOT to collect the results, sweep any possible health problems under the carpet, and tell the people who get ill (including children under two years of age, in Craigavon) that they are just “hysterical”.

Again: the Bill of Rights of the SA Constitution gives us the absolute right NOT to be used in experiments without our informed consent.

All these clever industry people can see *just* how to conduct these experiments on human beings. What is totally beyond them, is to grasp the fact that some people are not willing to be used as guinea pigs in their little games.

There is a serious problem of a lack of simple humanity on the part of the operators in this regard. I do not believe this can be cured. This is why the law must be invoked. It’s essential that people’s basic constitutional rights be respected — difficult as this last part may be to grasp — ***even by telecoms operators***.

Given our exposure during the day to long-term low levels of EM, and shorter high-bursts (e.g. using a cellphone) I don’t see why a tower would suddenly push them so far over the limit as to lead to nausea/rashes etc. Additionally, there are documented cases of mass hysteria leading to actual medial symptoms, with specific reference to alleged “EM sensitivity”. I’ll see if I can find the papers.

On the flip side, given the trouble Craigavon has had in the past with Telkom adsl lines, due to poor town planning, an iBurst tower near-by will provide some with relief.

I have pointed out repeatedly that ***ALL*** the peer-reviewed scientific studies on masts in the literature unanimously show a consistent pattern of health problems, including significantly raised cancer rates. The problems reported from around the world are absolutely consistent with what people in Craigavon are experiencing — including headaches, nausea, burning sensations on the skin, sleep disorders and fatigue.

The research is far clearer with masts than is the case with handsets. Everything is pointing to long-term, low-level irradiation as being more harmful than short-term, intermittent exposure.

There are, in fact, several studies which show that certain biological and health effects occur at *lower* radiation levels, which effects are not apparent at higher levels. One reason put forward to explain this is that at higher levels, the body produces heat shock proteins and invokes other protective mechanisms. Low-level pulsed microwave radiation comes in “under the radar” of the body’s defences.

People who just want to live in their own houses in peace are, through no fault of their own, being precipitated into a vast and terribly complex scientific, legal, commercial, social and political debate. The simple fact is that ALL the scientific evidence on masts is showing that they are absolutely correct to be concerned, quite apart from the genuine health problems they are experiencing.

I have repeatedly challenged the operators to come up with ONE peer-reviewed scientific study conducted around a base station which did NOT find health problems. They have failed to respond; yet the CEO of iBurst talks about working in a “scientific” way, while steadfastly ignoring the scientific evidence.

One thing I know for certain: if these particular residents had been properly informed of the possibility of a mast going up, they would have objected. What happened with that whole process is going to have to be sorted out in court, it seems — again, at great cost the residents, who simply want to live in peace in their own homes.

@Peter
I would like to congratulate you on your super smart reasoning. Go to your doctor tomorrow and tell him… “I think I’m sick, but how about you pay for my consultancy fee just to make sure, K THX?”, then in a pleasing manner take your dog, (bitch/wife) whatever you prefer, to the veterinarian, I bet you she gave you some form of viral ‘shit comes out of my mouth’ disease that operates on a 10 Zillion Megayogurts poweranger popcorn-ready microwave range, that fried your matter so bad that you’re incapable of writing out your own name even if it gets written & spelled out for you. So please post your residential address so that we can throw you with a stone. Since I’m clearly sure if you were to be thrown with anything else apart from a stone the characteristics of that object first have to be explained to you.

@halicon , please post your evidence where iBurst broke the law. Mr Inspector Gadget.

If Iburst really want to erect a tower, then they can always buy out all the property at prevailing market value within the 100 meter radius they say that they consulted.
That is only fair.
Even one objection should be enough to stop the development of a structure like this. Remember, this is an area that is zoned for residential use.
If iburst want to get rid of the objection then they are free to buy out the property before the tower is built.

As for iburst requiring medical proof about the claims of health problems, what would be fair was if iburst were to pay for all medical examinations and treatment at a medical practitioner of the residents choice, including any veterinary costs for the animals . That will hopefully satisfy the “proper scientific level” of proof required by iburst.

Maybe Jannie van Zyl should publish his residential address so that some of these residents can reciprocate with “experiments”. Then again, if iburst were to buy out the properties then he could go stay there, seeing as he feels it is safe.

The reson for this lack of scientific proof is simple – it does not exist, anywhere in the world. There exists no proven evidence that a tower such as this causes health issues because of electromagnetic radiation. I’m sure the radio equipment used in this installation complies with ICASA regulations and therefore is limited to levels which are internationally accepted as safe for residential areas.

If the residents dropped their hidden agenda and came forward with the real reasons for their objection (of which the could be many) then maybe we could make some progress.

The objections to installations such as this on the basis that “the electromagnetic radiation causes health problems” are totally unfounded and therefore the arguements are fatally flawed.

“Regarding the claim of “Up to 1.8 Megabits per second, the respondent submitted a letter from Mr Jannie van Zyl of Omnisolutions, and argued that Mr van Zyl qualifies as an expert in the field to which the claims relate. The contents of Mr van Zyl’s submissions will be discussed more fully below …”

i won’t even touch on the legal implications of such a ruse!