by B. Trower
With respect to my fellow scientists I shall be writing this report
in non-scientific speak for all of those readers who have not had
the benefit of a scientific education.
WHAT IS ALL
THIS REALLY ABOUT?
Imagine the field around a magnet and imagine ordinary everyday
If you put the force field from the magnet with
the force field from the static electricity you make a wave. This
wave is called an electromagnetic wave. There are lots of different
types of electromagnetic waves but they are all made of the same two
things - magnetic and static. The only difference between the waves
is their wavelength or the length of the wave and the number of
waves that can be produced a second, i.e. the frequency. All of
these waves are put into a table called the electromagnetic
At one end of this electromagnetic spectrum you have the very short
waves, namely gamma rays and x-rays and at the other end of the
spectrum you have the very long waves, namely radio, TV and waves
from overhead power cables. All of these waves have the same
properties; that is to say they all behave the same.
They can all be reflected, refracted,
and they all travel at the same speed, which is the speed of light.
For interest, if you were one wave of light you would be able to
travel around the world nearly seven times every second; that is the
speed of light.
The electromagnetic spectrum is ordered so that at
the short wave end you have the
The ultra-violet and above are known as
ionizing waves and there is no argument as to the damage they can
cause when entering the body. Below ultraviolet is said to be
non-ionizing and this is where arguments occur between scientists as
to whether damage can occur inside the human body through exposure
to these waves.
The microwaves used in the TETRA
(TErrestrial Trunked RAdio) system
are in the non-ionizing section of the electromagnetic spectrum and
I will be discussing the arguments concerning microwaves and health
in this report.
TErrestrial Trunked RAdio (TETRA) (formerly known
as Trans European Trunked RAdio) is a
The TETRA logo
Mobile Radio and walkie talkie standard used by
police departments, fire departments,
ambulance services and the military.
TETRA is an ETSI standard, first version published 1995.
TETRA is endorsed by the European Radio Communications
TETRA terminals can act as cell phones, with a direct
connection to the PSTN. It is common also for them to
operate in a group calling mode in which a single button
push will connect the user to a dispatcher and all the
other users in a group. Also possible is for the
terminal to act as a one to one walkie talkie but
without the normal range limitation since the call still
uses the network. Emergency buttons, provided on the
terminals, enable the users to transmit emergency
signals, to the dispatcher, overriding any other
activity taking place at the same time.
TETRA uses Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) with
four user channels on one radio carrier and 25 kHz
spacing between carriers. Both point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint transfer can be used. Digital data
transmission is also included in the standard though at
a low data rate.
TETRA Mobile Stations (MS) can communicate Direct Mode
or using Trunked infrastructure (Switching and
Management Infrastructure or SwMI) made of TETRA Base
Stations (TBS). As well as allowing direct
communications in situations where network coverage has
been lost, Direct Mode or DMO also includes the
possibility of using one (or a chain) of TETRA terminals
as relays for a signal. This functionality is called DMO
gateway (from DMO to TMO) or DMO Repeater (DMO to DMO).
In rescue situations this feature could allow direct
communications underground or in areas of bad coverage.
In addition to voice and dispatch services, the TETRA
system supports several types of data communication.
Status messages and short data services (SDS) are
provided over the system's main control channel, while
Packet Data or Circuit switched data communication uses
specifically assigned traffic channels.
All traffic is normally encrypted. TETRA provides both
over the air encryption and end-to-end encryption.
The main advantages of TETRA over other technologies
(such as GSM) are:
the much lower
frequency used, which permits very high levels of
geographic coverage with a smaller number of
transmitters, cutting infrastructure cost.
fast call set-up - a
one to many group call is generally set-up within
0.5 seconds (typical less than 250 msec for a single
node call) compared with the many seconds that are
required for a GSM network.
the fact that its
infrastructure can be separated from that of the
public cellphone network, and made substantially
more diverse and resilient by the fact that base
stations can be some distance from the area served.
unlike most cellular
technologies, TETRA networks typically provide a
number of fall-back modes such as the ability for a
base station to process local calls in the absence
of the rest of the network, and for 'direct mode'
where mobiles can continue to share channels
directly if the infrastructure fails or is
gateway mode - where a
single mobile with connection to the network can act
as a relay for other nearby mobiles that are out of
contact with the infrastructure.
TETRA also provides a
point-to-point function that traditional analogue
emergency services radio systems didn't provide.
This enables users to have a one-to-one trunked
'radio' link between sets without the need for the
direct involvement of a control room
unlike the cellular
technologies, which connect one subscriber to one
other subscriber (one-to-one) then TETRA is built to
do one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many. These
operational modes are directly relevant to the
public safety and professional users.
Its main disadvantages are:
it can only support a
much lower teledensity in a given area, compared to
GSM and similar technologies (which is not a problem
in the applications for which it is used, but mostly
limits it to these applications).
handsets are more
expensive (about 750 EUR in 2003, about 600 EUR in
2006), due to the reduced economies of scale,
different business model when compared to
mass-market cellphones, need for security
evaluation, and robustness.
data transfer is slow
at 7.2 kbit/s per timeslot (3.5 kbit/s net packet
data throughput), although up to 4 timeslots can be
combined into a single data channel to achieve
higher rates, due to need to fit into 25kHz
bandwidth channel plans.
due to the pulsed
nature of TDMA employed by the protocol, handsets
can interfere with sensitive electronic devices such
as heart pacemakers and defibrillators, as can other
RF transmitting equipment when used in close
proximity (e.g. < 1 meter distance.)
In Europe, TETRA uses frequencies:Emergency Systems
Frequency Pair (MHz)
Frequency Pair (MHz)
In Britain the public
sector TETRA system operates under the name 'Airwave'.
In Belgium, the 'A.S.T.R.I.D' system uses TETRA. In the
Netherlands, the TETRA system is called 'C2000'. In
Sweden the RAKEL system uses TETRA. In Finland the VIRVE
(short for VIRanomaisVErkko, loosely translated:
"official network") network uses TETRA. VIRVE and C2000
are currently the only TETRA networks that covers an
TETRA uses a digital modulation scheme known as π/4
DQPSK which is a form of phase shift keying. TETRA uses
TDMA (see above). The symbol rate is 18,000 symbols per
second, and each symbol maps to 2 bits. A single slot
consists of 255 symbols, a single frame consist of 4
slots, and a multi-frame (whose duration is
approximately 1 second) consists of 18 frames. As a form
of phase shift keying the downlink power is constant.
The downlink (i.e. the output of the base-station) is a
continuous transmission consisting of either specific
communications with mobiles, synchronization or other
general broadcasts. Although the system uses 18 frames
per second only 17 of these are used for traffic
channel, with the 18th frame reserved for signaling or
synchronization. TETRA does not employ amplitude
modulation. However, TETRA has 17.65 frames per second
(18000 symbols/sec / 255 symbols/slot / 4 slots/frame),
which is the cause of the PERCEIVED "amplitude
modulation" at 17Hz.
In this country, when somebody asks about whether a certain level of
electromagnetic radiation is safe they are usually quoted a safety
This safety limit is laid down by the NRPB (National
Radiological Protection Board). Usually when you ask about a
dose of radiation you find that the amount that you were asking
about is thousands of times below the safety limit and thereby
A safety limit is really a personal
opinion. This personal opinion may be based on many factors by an
individual or individuals from whatever data they have in their
possession. To give you an example of some safety limits around the
world, for one particular type of microwave transmitter, these read
Toronto Health Board: 6
Italy: 10 units
Russia: 10 units
Poland: 100 units
US Research Base: 100 units
The NRPB for Britain: 3,300
There are other values for other
transmitters but there is no need to list those in this document.
To look at this another way, supposing you took your car to a garage
and one mechanic estimated a price of £6 and another mechanic
estimated a price of £3,300 for the same job, you would feel
justified about questioning the decisions. The reason that our
safety limit is much higher than the rest of the world is that in
other countries they base their safety limits on possible effects
from the electric field, the magnetic field and the heat produced in
Our NRPB will only base the safety limit
for this country on the heat produced in the body. I will comment on
heat further in this report (Appendix 1, Reference 1).
BELIEVED TO HAPPEN AS THESE WAVES ENTER OUR BODIES?
I will try to summarize the thousand or so research papers written
over the last 20 or so years and explain or summarize what happens
when the electric and magnetic part of the wave goes into our
We being water based animals act like aerials to these waves. As the
waves go into our bodies an electric current is generated inside our
bodies which is how aerials work; waves come in and electricity is
generated. The electricity generated in our bodies like all electric
currents goes to ground through our bodies and like all electric
currents it takes the path of least resistance.
Unfortunately the path of least
resistance through our bodies, although only representing 10% of our
pathways, carries 90% of our traffic rather like the M1 motorway.
The traffic in our bodies, namely hormones, antibodies,
neurotransmitters know where they are going because they also carry
an electric charge.
The hormones, antibodies and
neurotransmitters know where to "get off" because there is a
corresponding opposite charge at the site of delivery rather like
the positive and negative ends of a battery. The problem is if you
have an electric current passing through the body it can change this
charge, either on the hormones, antibodies or neurotransmitters or
the site of delivery.
An analogy to that would be - if you were in Paris on the
Underground system and you could not speak a word of French, but you
had a map with the station name of where to get off and somebody
tippexed out one or two of the letters, you may get off or you may
not, and this can happen in the body.
The hormones, antibodies or
neurotransmitters may get off where they are meant to get off or
they may carry on and miss their target. As a one-off this probably
would not be very important but continuous interference over many
years it is argued can lead to many illnesses.
A similar effect is that the destination for some of these hormones,
neurotransmitters, antibodies is a surface of a cell where chemicals
will pass through a membrane into a cell. If you think of a cell in
our body, be it a brain cell, bone cell etc, as having a positive
and negative charge on the outside and the inside similar to a
battery the difference in these charges will draw the chemical into
the cell or draw poisonous substances out of the cell.
If the charge is changed on the outside
of the cell, then necessary chemicals may not go in or poisonous
chemicals may not go out. An analogy to that would be - think of
your house as a cell in your body. Essential things like food, water
and fuel come into the house and poisonous things like waste and
gases leave the house. In fact a house is very similar in many ways
to a cell in our body.
Now, if we had a blockage and waste
could not leave the house or sometimes food or electricity did not
come into the house, over a short period of time we would survive
this, but continual disruption over many years will probably have a
knock-on effect on the health of the inhabitants particularly if
they are young or frail. This is my explanation of how
electromagnetic waves affect our cells.
A final description is possibly the accumulative effect of all the
particles going through the body each second. Each particle and for
TETRA we are talking about 400,000,000 particles a second carries a
small amount of momentum with it. As an analogy, imagine you are
driving down the M1 in the largest lorry you could possibly imagine
and you are hit by the smallest dust particle you could ever
Obviously the dust particle will not
effect the speed or momentum of your lorry but if you have
400,000,000 dust particles a second for many years they could if
something else was going wrong with your lorry exacerbate the effect
and slow your lorry, and that is the crucial point. All of these
effects I have described are believed to have one final conclusion.
They all in their own way suppress the immune system.
When you suppress the immune system as I
will show in research papers, you tend to have:
I will summarize just four of what I consider to be extremely well
written research papers by arguably the worlds leading scientists in
this field. There are other leading scientists of course but I
cannot list them all in this report. I am using these as specimen
When I refer to research papers I am not referring to something that
somebody has sat down one Sunday afternoon and just written. These
research papers have sometimes hundreds of references in the back
and each reference on its own is usually 5-10 years work by a group
of scientists where their work would have been peer reviewed, and in
a lot of cases published. So for arguments sake, if a paper has say
100 references in the back that could well constitute 500-1,000
years accumulative work.
The first paper (Appendix 2, Reference 2) by Dr Neil Cherry was
presented in May 2000 to the New Zealand Parliament, to Italy,
Austria, Ireland and the European Parliament in Brussels. This paper
has 122 references. I have photocopied the references to show that
as well as being peer reviewed, many are published. I will do this
with the other three papers (Appendix 3).
From this research paper some illnesses caused by long-term low
level electromagnetic radiation are:
It is believed that during the daytime
light going through our eyes passes a message to the pineal glands
in the brain which slows down the production of melatonin. At night
when no light goes through our eyes the production of melatonin is
speeded up. Melatonin is believed to scavenge cancer cells and
impurities in our bodies and boost the immune system.
If an officer is sleeping in quarters
within range of the TETRA transmitter, the microwave radiation is
believed to act on the pineal gland and suppress the night-time
melatonin to daytime levels; hence the good work of the melatonin at
night will be restricted leading to suppression of the immune
A very recent discovery shows that
microwave radiation changes the permeability of the blood brain
Our brain has its own immune system as does our body. The
blood brain barrier keeps everything that is designed to be kept
within the brain inside it and protects the brain from any unwanted
diseases or chemicals which could harm it.
Similarly it allows out of the brain
anything dangerous to the brain. The blood brain barrier is rather
like a sieve where only particles of a certain size may go through.
Professor Salford at Lund University in Sweden has shown that
such pulsing as from mobile phones can alter the permeability of the
blood brain barrier (Appendix 4, Reference 3).
I will argue as TETRA pulses, which is
arguably more powerful than the average mobile phone, this situation
could be worse with TETRA.
Also, it is shown that the electromagnetic radiation going into the
body can change the size of the particles moving around the body
(Reference 4). This is rather like an ice skater spinning on her
skates. With her arms out she spins slowly, but if she pulls her
arms in she spins faster. Microwaves can affect the particles in our
body by changing their spin; hence their size. They can be made
smaller or larger.
With the changing of the permeability of
the blood brain barrier and the changing in size of particles
unwanted particles may enter the brain or necessary particles may
leave the brain.
The connection here with mental conditions is that
Dr Hyland of Warwick University has written that the uptake of
drugs; in particular neurological drugs is inhibited because of
changes in the blood brain barrier.
I have listed all of the references on
this particular research paper because all of these researches
correspond to the above list.
The second paper I would like to comment on (Appendix 5, Reference
5) has 80 references and as well as a lot of the illnesses written
in Dr Cherry's paper goes on to mention that with regard to mobile
phone handsets you should avoid keeping the handset when switched on
adjacent to the body, in particular in the vicinity of the waist or
There have been deaths due to colon
cancer from the Royal Ulster Constabulary who wore radio or
microwave transmitters in the small of their backs for extended
periods of time.
Dr Hyland recommends keeping the
duration of calls to an absolute minimum and on his back page
relating to pulse mobile phone radiation on alive humans and
animals, the following may occur:
Effects on human EEG
Effects on blood pressure
Depression of immune systems
Increased permeability of
the blood brain barrier
Effects on brain
DNA damage in rodent brain
Cancers in mice
Synergistic effects with
Dr Hyland, in my opinion, is one of the
world's leading authorities in this area and his advice is not to be
dismissed lightly. Similarly, another very highly respected
scientist is Dr Coghill. I would add that both Dr Hyland
and Dr Coghill are members of the
Dr Coghill's paper which has 218 references (Appendix 6, Reference
6) agrees largely with the work by Dr Hyland and Dr Cherry.
In this paper, Section 1.16, Dr Coghill
"the ultimate question must be
whether chronic exposure to say 1 V/m electric fields at the
envisaged frequencies is likely to produce adverse health
effects in the long term.
At present the NRPB guidelines
recommend an investigation level of 192 V/m while ICNIRP now
offers much lower levels.
However these are based on thermal
effects: if non thermal evidence is accepted than 1 V/m is
demonstrably able to induce biological effects, some of which
may be adverse".
I will show in a later paper that TETRA
delivers a lot more than the 1 V/m recommended as a maximum by Dr
Dr Coghill also, in his summary in the back, lists symptoms caused
by mobile phone use. Again, I will argue that as TETRA is pulsed and
pulsed radiation is arguably more aggressive than the continuous
analogue wave and TETRA uses more power than the ordinary mobile the
symptoms will be enhanced rather than be reduced for TETRA.
The symptoms listed by Dr Coghill are:
Warmth behind the ear
Warmth on the ear
My final paper by a very highly
respected New Zealand doctor, Dr Eklund (Appendix 7,
Reference 7) which has 37 references shows leukemia clusters in and
around ordinary radio and TV transmitters around the world.
on page 13 that adult leukemia within 2 kilometers of a transmitter
is 83% above expected and significantly declines within increasing
distance from the transmitter.
Similarly skin and bladder cancers
follow a similar pattern. As a scientist I could argue that if
leukemia and cancer are known to exist from ordinary radio and TV
transmitters which take many years to form and radio and TV waves
are at the long end of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it is known
that exposure to gamma rays or x-rays can cause death within a
matter of weeks, a hypothetical line could be drawn from the long
waves to the short waves to determine the length of time or exposure
doses needed to cause such illnesses.
Fitting into this pattern would be
several years exposure to sunlight causing skin cancer. There are
obvious anomalies with this; namely personal health, hygiene and all
sorts of other factors, but as a crude estimate I would argue that
the further up the electromagnetic spectrum you go, the shorter the
time for the serious illnesses to occur. The microwaves used by
TETRA are above radio and television waves.
Being water-based animals we are
particularly sensitive to microwaves; this is why microwave ovens
work. Microwave ovens resonate the water molecules in food and when
molecules resonate they re-emit the energy they absorb as heat. This
is why the food warms up and the plate does not, because it does not
The warmth on and behind the ear felt by users of mobile phones is
one type of heat. Another type of heat unknown to the user,
therefore not reported are hotspots within the body from microwaves.
These hotspots are tiny areas in the body which warm up considerably
when exposed to microwave radiation.
The problem with warming up areas inside
the body is that a very recent research paper has shown that heat
shock proteins are produced to protect the cells in the body from
damage. Heat shock proteins act rather like scaffolding around a
building; they go around the cell and protect the DNA from damage
from the heat. Heat shock proteins have been known to work when the
temperature rises by just 2 degrees.
Now the problem with heat shock proteins
is as well as protecting the good cells they can also protect and
save from destruction cancer cells. So, if you have a cell in your
body which is turning cancerous and would normally be destroyed by
the body's immune system, the heat shock proteins will protect it
and it will continue to grow. This work was carried out by Dr
David de Pomerai, of Nottingham University (Appendix 8,
A report on mobile telephones and their transmitters by the French
Health General Directorate, dated January 2001, states in its
conclusion of the group of experts that "a variety of biological
effects occur at energy levels that do not cause any rise in local
temperature". The group ask "is it possible to state that there are
no health risks?" and they reply "No".
They go on to say,
"minimize the use of
mobile telephones when reception is poor, use an earpiece kit and
avoid carrying mobile phones close to potentially sensitive tissue,
i.e. a pregnant woman's abdomen or adolescent gonads".
recommend hospitals, day-care centers and schools should not be
directly in the path of the transmission beam. Also and very
important, they say "the cumulative exposure over their lifetime
will be higher ".
The word cumulative is also mentioned by
Professor Sosskind and Dr Prausnitz in their paper
(Reference 9) where they say,
"an accumulated cellular level damage
mechanism is not necessarily related to the intensity but can relate
to total dose. Hence the averaging of weekly exposure is a meaningful
adverse effect related level".
This accumulative factor puts a very different slant on doses of
microwave radiation. In particular an accumulative level of
radiation can build up very quickly when you receive 400,000,000
waves every single second. This is why scientists are concerned and
warnings have been issued for people with pacemakers, hearing aids,
insulin pumps in relation to interference of their apparatus from
electromagnetic waves. Warnings are also given to persons with metal
implants in their bodies.
These implants can:
a) warm up
absorb the microwave radiation and re-emit it at a different
I have been around the world talking to scientists and
we agree, although it cannot be proved, that the recent incidents in
breast cancers in ladies could be due to the metal under-wiring in
bras absorbing microwave radiation and re-emitting it at a different
wavelength into the mammary glands of the breast.
The mammary glands
are known to be particularly sensitive to radiation and they are
known to be easily changed into cancer cells.
Following this line of thought, I would argue scientifically that
using a TETRA handset, remembering that if you are using a TETRA
handset you must also be receiving radiation from the main
transmitter, i.e. you do not just have the radiation from the phone
you would have the radiation from the transmitter as well, or the
phone would not work, could enhance breast cancer in the lady police
TETRA military antenna
A similar argument follows with the
argument that the eyes receive 29% extra radiation because of their
Metal-rimmed spectacles will absorb the microwave
radiation and re-emit it onto the surface of the eye. Again,
unproven, but I can follow the arguments that support the two recent
research papers which have found increases in eye cancers in two
separate areas of the eye.
One cancer has been found in the side of
the eye, one cancer has been found in the front of the eye (Appendix
9, Reference 10) (Appendix 10, Reference 11).
As a result of using pulsed mobile phones, again I will argue that
as TETRA is more powerful than the average mobile there could be
long-term damage to the eyes of the officers using TETRA.
A union document (Reference 12) printed 4 December 1979 for
microwave transmitters up to 100,000 MHz warns its members of the
following illnesses which may occur from accumulative exposure:
They say "a false sense of safety may
exist and non-thermal effects are much lower than have been
The TETRA system of 380-400 MHz is within this range of
this union paper. I emphasize that these effects are not new; they
were being reported on as far back as 1979 and further on in this
paper I will show documents that relate to exposure effects going
way back to the early 1960s.
A very important sentence in this
research paper states "non-ionizing radiation increases molecular
vibration and rotational energies". I will refer to this further on
in this document.
Two of the worlds largest insurance companies, Lloyds and Swiss Re,
have recommended to other insurance companies on the advice of Dr
Theodore Litivitz, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Catholic
University of America, to write in exclusion clauses against paying
compensation for illnesses caused by continuous long-term low level
My concern for the police force,
although adequately insured, is that if in future years officers
start claiming for spine or brain tumors the insurance company will
terminate its contract with the police force and leave it uninsured.
Two recent surveys printed in Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 1998,
Volume 9 and 2000, Volume 11; the first of a study of 11,000 mobile
phone users, the second a study of 17,000 mobile users showed the
symptoms already mentioned of fatigue, headache, warmth behind the
ear, warmth on the ear and burning skin in various degrees,
depending on the use and type of person.
From the 17,000 persons
studied, these symptoms varied from 31% to 78% of the users.
If I take the lowest number of 31% as a
purely hypothetical exercise which is easily dismissed as rubbish,
but does give us a look at some of the numbers that could be
involved; if we take 100,000 police officers then 31,000 of these
officers could experience one symptom.
Playing the numbers game, if these
31,000 that experienced one symptom were to progress to a more
complicated level, let's argue 10% of them may develop a migraine or
a headache or require one day's sick we would have 3,100 officers
taking a day's sick. If 10% of those developed something more
serious that required further sickness we would have 310 officers
If we take 10% of those and suggest that something more
serious may occur then we could be looking at 31 officers, or I
would argue 31 families, per hundred thousand involved in something
which may develop into a serious medical condition.
I stress that this is hypothetical
because it is very difficult to predict the future for a device that
has not been tested and there are no long-term studies available.
As an aside it was noted last year that the Public & Commercial
Services Union recommended to its 266,000 Civil Service members that
they should not be forced to carry mobile phones.
A very little understood phenomena and reported by Dr D. Dahlberg
(Reference 13) is ground currents from living in the proximity of
transmitters on animals.
I mention this with a view to the police
dogs and the police horses in their kennels or stables at a
constabulary base which is bound to have a transmitter. All
transmitters pass an electric current to the ground beneath them.
If the ground is particularly wet this
has an adverse static effect on the animals concerned and in farm
animals can effect milk productions or food production. Huge static
charges are built up in the animals and every time they come across
a metal object the charge is discharged through the head; the nose
being wet. It has been shown that if animals are taken away from
this environment they recover very quickly, yet in the environment
of ground currents they also become very sick very quickly. I am
particularly concerned for the acutely sensitive brains and organs
of the highly trained police dogs.
Three years ago when a lot of research papers individually were
being dismissed I decided to look at several of the main papers and
show that there was a knock-on effect in the body. I drew two flow
diagrams showing the knock-on effects from approximately 25 research
papers to show that even if one symptom is dismissed there can be an
accumulative effect throughout the body.
The two flow charts -
Appendix 11 relates to the body and Appendix 12 relates to the
brain, show clearly that our body systems are very closely
Taking TETRA's lowest operating power level of 2W I wrote a
hypothetical equation, and being hypothetical it is very easily
dismissed, which shows that at the 2W cell activity may be
accelerated by a factor of 6 or slows down by a factor of 7.5.
There are experimental papers which do in fact show that mobile
phones may speed up thought processes or may slow down cellular
activity. I have tried to explain this using theoretical physics. I
based my paper on the already previously mentioned accumulative
doses and increased molecular vibration (please see previous
I am fully prepared to be told that I am
wrong or mistaken but I believe I can explain the process by which
energy once inside the body affects the cell potential (charge on
the outside of the cell), the signal transduction (movement from the
outside to the inside of the cell) and the cell cycle timing (the
process by which our cells operate). I have placed this calculation
in Appendix 13.
Often overlooked are the electromagnetic waves from the cables and
transformers of all electrical transmitters. These are usually in
cabinets near the transmitters, hence near offices or sleeping
quarters on constabulary bases or near kennels or stables. A
research paper published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in
1998 (Reference 14) describes the 50 cycles a second waves emitted
by transformers and power cables, and how they may induce leukemia.
Although the NRPB and the National Grid
have denied that these waves are dangerous both this paper and an
article in the New Scientist dated 10 March 2001, page 7 which reads
"Guilty as Charged. Powerful fields from pylons and cables are
linked to childhood cancer", demonstrates to me scientifically that
these transformers and power cables should not be overlooked.
The Government's scientists will often ask for conclusive proof when
they are challenged.
It is a word often used when you wish to win
your side of the argument. Scientifically conclusive proof is
impossible to obtain - let me explain.
I was at a legal hearing in Torquay representing a community and the
barrister representing the communications industry said "there is no
conclusive proof that these microwaves will cause damage".
if somebody stood up and shot me in this courtroom there would be
three levels of proof. You would have everybody as a witness and
that would be accepted in a Court of Law. A pathologist could
perform a post mortem, decide that the bullet killed me and that
would be a second level of proof.
If, however you wanted conclusive proof
that the bullet killed me, you would have to argue that at the split
second the bullet went into my body every system in my body was
working perfectly because there are thousands of reasons why I could
drop dead on the spot before the bullet went in and you would have
to prove conclusively that all of these systems were working
perfectly before the bullet went in.
Clearly, this is scientifically
impossible; there is no such thing as conclusive proof, yet it is
what is demanded by government scientists when challenging their
Conclusive proof has been demanded by scientists defending their
decisions after they have said the following are safe:
Gulf War Syndrome
With the above list it will be
recognized that evidence of damage from these comes only from
counting the people who are injured.
I am arguing scientifically that there
is a blanket denial by some scientists and the only way to show them
wrong is to present them with a certain number of bodies. When
commercial interests are at stake there seems to be a denial of
relevant scientific data.
The problem with the microwave
communications industry is that they do not have to prove it is
safe; you have to prove it is not, and that is an entirely different
As a scientist, if I develop a new pill
I have to run a 5 or 10 year clinical trial and convince a Board of
my peers that it is safe before I have permission to release the
pill onto the market. With the telecommunications industry the
tables are completely turned around.
They do not have to show these
instruments are safe; you have to show they are not.
RADIATION (MICROWAVE AS IN TETRA)
There are unknown phenomena concerning low level radiation that is
not generally understood by the users of communication instruments.
Following the Chernobyl incident it was found that long-term
continuous low level radiation of all types was as dangerous as high
level doses of radiation.
With high level doses of radiation the
anti-oxidants in the body (Vitamins A, C, E etc) rush to defend and
repair the area of the body being damaged. However with low level
radiation the anti-oxidants are not activated and because the dose
is accumulative the problems can build up and are usually present
before the body realizes that there is trouble. So, low level does
not necessarily mean safer.
Also the smaller you are the more you
tend to absorb. Wavelengths for TETRA and mobile phones are
relatively short and the nearer the part of the body or the infant
to the wavelength the more similarity they have to an aerial and the
more they absorb.
With ordinary mobiles the wavelength is around the
size of a fetus and with TETRA you are looking at a 3-6 year old
child. I mention this because TETRA may be used in areas where
children are running around and there are very well known and
documented cases of pulse radiation affecting epileptic children.
Pulse radiation from TETRA at 17.6 Hz (waves per second) is known to
interfere with our natural brains rhythm. Our brains generate their
own waves within our head. One of these waves, called beta waves is
on a very similar frequency to the TETRA handsets.
What happens is:
If you could imagine
yourself jumping on a trampoline and somebody larger and heavier
jumps on and dances at a slightly different speed you will bounce at
their pace rather than yours. When they jump off you will still
bounce at their speed.
The jumping on of the person onto the
trampoline is known as entrainment and this occurs when the TETRA is
used in close proximity to an officer's brain.
Because TETRA affects the beta rhythm of
the brain it will affect what the beta rhythm is responsible for;
namely sounds judgment in emergency situations. Entrainment is
always followed by a phenomena called long-term potentiation. This
is an analogous to the person getting off the trampoline leaving you
Long-term potentiation has been known to
last several weeks after the initial source has died down. The
implications for this are that the officers' brain waves would
continue to suffer entrainment even after the sets have been
switched off, which would be reinforced every time the sets are
switched on again.
The first paper written on this subject was by a scientist called
Ptolemy who was a Greek living in Egypt in 64BC. Ptolemy found
that when he spun a wheel with holes in up against the sun at
different rotational speeds he could induce different effects on the
brains of his subjects.
To get an idea of the complexity of the
brain, if you imagine every single person in every single city in
the world picking up their telephone and dialing everybody in their
phonebooks, that is roughly how many connections we have in the
brain. I will show later that even the
Stewart Committee advised
against using any communication instruments that pulsed above 16
waves per second.
TETRA is of course 17.6 waves per second.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE NRPB
From a court case towards the end of 1998 Dr McKinlay was
questioned in court about the use of mobile phones.
Dr McKinlay is a
senior scientist in the NRPB. It is known that roughly half of the
NRPB's funding comes from the industries it represents, the other
half of its funding comes from the Government.
In court Dr McKinlay explained that data
on tissue conductivity was supplied to the NRPB by Dr Camelia
Gabriel of Microwave Consultants Limited. It transpired that
virtually none of the NRPB documents on non-ionizing radiation are
peer reviewed and that Dr McKinlay himself had not authored any
Dr McKinlay admitted he had no
biological expertise. Dr Camelia Gabriel is Director of Microwave
Consultants Limited and she reports to the Home Office and the
Health & Safety Executive. She is also Chairman of the European
To summarize, the NRPB subcontract research on microwave radiation
to Microwave Consultants Limited; namely Dr Camelia Gabriel. Dr
Camelia Gabriel is also a senior consultant for Orange plc and has
authored jointly with others the Orange Base Stations Health &
Safety Manual (please see Appendices 14 and 15).
Dr Gabriel's son, also of Microwave
Consultants Limited, confirms the safety of transmitters for Orange
plc in school playgrounds (Appendix 16).
This dual interest between
Dr Camelia Gabriel as representing the NRPB and Orange plc
was picked up and reported on, on 19 April 1999, by The Observer
where Sarah Ryle writes,
"concerns are increasing about
industry's involvement in research. Some of the NRPB's
conclusions have been based on research by Dr Camelia Gabriel, a
technical advisor to network operator Orange and Head of Private
Consultancy, Microwave (Appendix 17)."
The problem as I see it is that when it
comes to asking about safety concerning TETRA or any other
communication instrument there is not one single independent person
to give an answer.
Every single person who has a word to say about
the safety of police officers is somehow in the "food chain" going
back to the communications industry.
The communications industry fund the
NRPB and the Government who fund Microwave Consultants Limited so
every single person has a financial interest in recommending the
Since the early 1960s this country, America and Russia have had what
is called the non-lethal weapons program or synthetic telepathy
It is very well documented now that in the early 1960s in
Moscow the Russians beamed continuous low level radiation
(microwaves) down onto the American Embassy causing miscarriages,
leukemia's and other illnesses to the Embassy staff.
Since then the non-lethal weapons
programme has become very sophisticated indeed.
It is used,
a) as a
long-term low level radiation weapon to cause populations illness
b) at higher intensities to cause blindness, heart attacks or
Details of all of the intensities are unknown to me but
knowing that microwave radiation is accumulative, any effect can
only be a matter of time. In quoting this research I refer to
documents listed under Reference 15.
So sophisticated is this research, and I
They are able to define specific pulse
frequencies to cause specific brain malfunctions or illnesses.
Blindness if aimed at the head/Heart attack
if aimed at the chest
Other consequences of frequencies used
but not listed here are hysteria, trauma, lust, murder and cancer,
and may all be induced.
The TETRA frequency is 17.6 Hz (waves per second) so as a scientist
looking at this data which is well publicized I ask myself, if the
illnesses moving up the frequency range are progressive and TETRA is
between the frequency of 11 and 25 on this table, what will be the
effect of TETRA's 17.6 waves per second on the brains of the police
This phenomena cannot be denied by the
NRPB; it is listed in their own document which I will refer to later
in this paper, where on page 26 they have described how at 8 waves
per second animals can be made to fall asleep and at different
frequencies behave differently in various parts of their brains.
As this phenomena is written about by the NRPB for 8 waves per
second I would like to know what other research they have for other
frequencies in and around the TETRA range.
HAARP, which is being researched by a nun, Dr Rosalie
Bertell, who is concerned about what it represents along with
other scientists knows that HAARP is capable of bouncing low level
continuous microwave radiation pulsed off the ionosphere to any
community in the world and may cause cataracts, leukemia, changes in
blood brain chemistry, changes in blood sugar levels, blood pressure
and heart rates.
The paradox of course is how can one system of pulsed microwaved
radiation be used as a weapon to cause illness or death and at the
same frequency and unless close range, a similar low intensity be
used as a safe communications instrument.
Following this research I
fail to see how TETRA can possibly be safe for the officers which
This argument is further reinforced by a Channel Four document
(Reference 16) and I quote:
"The telecoms industry has known
about American research suggesting there may be brain effects
from TETRA for at least a year".
"The research suggests that TETRA
radios may have a direct effect on the brain's bio chemistry".
"The researchers found that balance
changed when brain cells were exposed to pulsed radio signals".
On page 4 it is quoted,
"the Government was warned about the
issue last year. The Stewart Report into mobile phones
recommended research into pulsed signals and suggested the
technology be avoided. As a precautionary measure amplitude
modulation (pulses) around 16 Hz should be avoided if possible".
"what the frequency of 17.6 Hz is
doing is duplicating microwave weapons which you buy at arms
fairs. So by holding one of these devices to their heads they
are putting a small microwave weapon to their head everytime
they use it".
"but there is enough to warrant
asking why the system is being rolled out before the proper
research has been conducted into an effect which not only falls
outside all the existing regulations but which the Government
advises on mobile phones believes it important enough they
recommend the technology not to be used and which the military
authorities apparently believe is so powerful that they can
design non-lethal weapons to disrupt the minds of their
In Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy
2001, Volume 11, Numbers 2-4, Page 9, Simon Best says when writing
about microwave crowd control weapons,
"after 20 years of rumors and
speculation the Pentagon has finally confirmed that it has
developed a device as part of its joint non-lethal weapons
He continues "in the UK many of the
women protestors at Greenham Common in the 1980s experienced
symptoms that they attributed to being zapped by microwave
weapons from the US base".
Reported in The Guardian, Tuesday 8 May
2001 (Appendix 18) Stuart Millar and Stuart MacWilliam write,
"two independent experts on the
biological effects of electromagnetic radiation have accused
Ministers of using the police as guinea pigs by pressing on with
the launch of the BT Airwave System in the absence of detailed
research into potential health risks".
They continue, "last year Sir
William Stewart's report on mobile phone safety concluded that
systems modulating at frequencies around 16 Hz should be avoided
if possible in future developments of signal coding".
They conclude "low frequency
electromagnetic radiation was identified as far back as the
1960s as a potential anti-personnel weapon when the superpowers
began conducting experiments into non-lethal mind control
Low level pulsed signals have even been
tried in the oceans.
It was reported (Reference 17) by Gibby Zobel
that the whales and dolphins beached themselves because their
delicate navigation systems were damaged by the low level pulses.
This is not surprising as like us they are mammals. The comment from
the Minister at the time was "it's their fault for being in that
part of the ocean when they could have moved away".
Reporting in The Sunday Express, 4 February 2001, Nick Fleming
"BT advise officers to turn off the
handsets when they are near sensitive hospital, breath-analyzer
and speed camera equipment Officers are also being advised to
mount speed traps or breath tests only if the equipment is 35 ft
from their handsets or 11 ft from radio sets in their cars".
"someone using a TETRA handset will
be receiving between 2 and 4 times as much power or energy as if
they were using a mobile phone. The low frequency also means
about double the penetration into the head".
Another document (Reference 18), Mr Stevens quoting from a US Defense document writes,
"if the more advanced nations of the
West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure
standards there could be unfavorable effects on industrial
output and military functions".
Listed in this document are all of the
symptoms we now come to expect with long-term low level microwave
radiation; for example,
"personnel exposed to microwave
radiation below thermal levels experience more neurological
cardio-vascular and haemodynamic disturbances than do their
Further down the document other symptoms
include hypertension, changes in blood, headache, fatigue, menstrual
ADDING UP ALL
OF THE WAVES THAT YOU ARE EXPOSED TO
An officer on duty may be exposed to his or her own handset, plus
the handsets of officers around, plus the transmitter, plus anything
else that happens to be on around them, i.e. vehicles.
It may seem
fairly easy for people to think that all you have to do is add up
the radiation from each source, but in fact it can be very
complicated and I would argue so complicated that scientists have
yet to agree on a standard formula.
For example, when measuring the magnetic part of the wave in Norwich
it is known by some scientists that the maximum dose would be 0.4
units. When the arithmetic average was taken it came out at 0.46
above the danger level for the child. When the interested parties
came and did their measurements they got the reading to be 0.26
units below the safety level; they calculated the geometric average.
Clearly there is a difference between
0.26 and 0.46. When measurements are taken and quoted to you, you
should always ask how the answer has been calculated and check the
Other ways of measuring waves may be time weighed average,
constructive or destructive interference, the polarization, the
near-field, the far-field, the root mean square, the peak to peak,
the electric or the magnetic vectors; all of these are legitimate
calculations and in my opinion could be used to make a reading look
more acceptable if it was desired.
In Appendix 19 I enclose an e-mail conversation by three eminent
scientists who are trying to agree on the best way to calculate
multiple waves. The multiple wave phenomena is of concern to me with
regards the health of the police officers, simply because I have yet
to find anybody who can say for sure the dose that each officer will
be receiving. Arguably if the dose cannot be calculated therefore
the health of the patients cannot be calculated.
Reporting in Engineering, February 2001 Matt Youson writes
about the case where a man had a heart attack and in his journey to
the hospital in an ambulance the ambulance crew using their TETRA
sets, affected his heart monitoring devices which sadly resulted in
the man's death.
In an exclusive report in the Manchester
News 11 May 2001, Dianne Bourne quoting the Head of Brain Surgery at
"the Head of Brain Surgery at NASA
has even said he would not consider holding one of these to his
head (with regards to TETRA). He said the net result is that the
police are guinea pigs".
Writing in Issue 51 of Caduceus
magazine, in an article entitled 'Mobile Phones: The Pressure &
Evidence Continues to Mount' by Simon Best, he writes,
"certainly if mobile phones had been
a new drug they would never have got out of the laboratory".
He continues commenting on TETRA,
"a 420 MHz signal producing a
waveform that maximizes radiation absorption for 3-6 year olds
but also a pulse at 17 Hz right in the brains' beta rhythm -
17Hz is close to the peak frequency that triggers calcium e-flux
in the brain which in turn affects apoptosis (programmed cell
death) which can initiate cancer development.
Despite this there is a complete
lack of research on TETRA's possible health effects". He
concludes "consider that you are talking about cumulative pulsed
microwave radiation into your head, eyes and other organs
possibly everyday for the rest of your life".
A Powerwatch comment dated 2 June
2001 reports in the first paragraph,
"as far as we can find out virtually
no meaningful biological research on the effects of TETRA
signals has been carried out. None of this is on humans nor is
any on brain functions".
In a late study published this month by
The Independent entitled 'Mobile Phone Use Can Treble Risk of Brain Tumour',
Charles Arthur writes that a research paper studying 1,600
people by a cancer specialist at the University of Sweden will be
publishing his research paper on this data when it is finished.
In 1997 the Health Council of The Netherlands Radio Frequency
Radiation Committee published their paper entitled 'Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz)' (this is
within the TETRA range).
They warn of interference to embryo
development, hotspots inside the body, damage to eyes specifically
infants, elderly and the sick. They also comment on interference to
metallic implants and pacemakers.
In Section 261 they write,
of electromagnetic fields occur at lower powered entities when the
object is exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields".
I write this
because TETRA is pulsed and most of the research which has been done
has been done on continuous waves. The inference from these new
research papers can only suggest that the symptoms will become more
serious as pulsed radiation is arguably more aggressive.
In a recent paper (Reference 19) Dr Hyland who is also a member of
the Stewart Committee and of the International Institute of
Biophysics in Germany writes in Section 3,
"the introduction of TETRA on the
other hand gives rise to an increased level of both thermal and
On page 14 Dr Hyland comments on the
expression of calcium ions from brain cells and on page 15 writes a
chapter on the magnetic field associated with current surges from
the battery of the phone.
Many people do not appreciate that
batteries can produce magnetic fields that go into the body.
DOCUMENT ON TETRA (Appendix 20)
The Governments' NRPB (National
Radiological Protection Board) produced their own document (Reference 20)
which is a report of an advisory group on non-ionizing radiation and
Each page I quote from I will photocopy and place in the
Appendix so that the reader may read the NRPB's research and the
reader may compare my answer to that research.
On page 3 (Appendix 21) the picture
shows the microwave signals labeled radio signals as a continuous
not-pulsed signal. I would argue that this has been measured by the
Cambridge researcher Alisdair Philips and has been shown to
be pulsed leaving the transmitter going to the officer.
Page 4 (Appendix 22), Section 21 states "some radiation is also
emitted from the case". It does not say which type of radiation -
electric or magnetic or when the radiation is emitted, or the
strength of the radiation or what part of the body will receive most
of the exposure. In Section 22 "the main exposure to the body should
be from the antenna and case of the hand portable".
The question arises where is the rest of
the exposure coming from and how much will there be?
refers to the earphone. If an earpiece is used and the smallest
possible imaginable crack occurs in the earpiece radiation will have
a direct path straight through the auditory canal to the brain. The
officer will not even have the protection of the skull. In the rough
and tumble world of a police officer where earpieces may be
frequently knocked, what protection is there for the officer in
checking that the earpieces do not leak?
I would recommend that earpieces should be checked with very
accurate equipment for leaks at least on a weekly basis. The
earpieces should be of the highest quality possible and definitely
Page 5, Section 25 (Appendix 23),
"the terminal is mounted inside the
vehicle and connected to an antenna mounted on the outside".
My concern is what sort of insulation is
there inside the vehicle to protect the officers from the terminal
inside the vehicle.
If the terminal inside the vehicle is not
sufficiently insulated from the officers they are effectively
sitting inside a microwave oven, except for the windows.
Page 6, Section 26 (Appendix 24) shows that the useful range of a
mobile terminal (car) to a transmitter is 56 km. 56 km is a fairly
powerful transmitter and again I question if an officer is standing
outside the vehicle or inside the vehicle, how much research has
been done on the radiation levels being received by this officer?
Page 7, Section 28 (Appendix 25); this diagram shows a vehicle being
used as a transmitting station to relay a message 56 km from a
transmitter to 56 km to an officer. Again, I question how much
insulation there is to protect the officers from the radiation if
they are to be used as mobile transmitting stations?
Page 8, Section 37 (Appendix 26); this confirms that the pulses are
17.6 Hz and 35.2 Hz or waves per second. I emphasize that the
Stewart Committee warned about using frequencies close to the brain
above 16 Hz.
Page 9, Sections 39/40 (Appendix 27) refer to a top output in the
table of 30 W and for hand terminals 3 W or 10 W for a vehicle
mounted transmitter. My concern is that with ordinary mobile phone
transmitters no sooner are they up when an engineer comes along and
adds another section, then another section and within a few years
the original transmitter is unrecognizable because of additional
With TETRA when it expands to cover all
of the emergency services; possibly traffic wardens, the new reserve
police force, maybe even park keepers and security officers, I am
wondering whether these outputs may be exceeded. In my own mind I
find 3 W and 10 W outputs particularly high when in proximity to a
If we look at Professor Cherry's table (Appendix 27),
it can be seen that in millionths of watts, the long-term exposure
can lead to various ailments.
On this graph I have drawn a line below
which the TETRA power level applies. This is obviously an estimate
because when the handset is switched on, there is a surge of power.
If you are a long distance from a transmitter the power increases,
or on standby the power drops down.
Due to the lack of research in measuring
TETRA in and around vehicles it is very difficult to place an
accurate estimate on this graph at present. Suffice to say that the
power on this table is in millionths of watts and Sections 39 and 40
are in watts. For the reader I have enclosed a three page guide of
reported biological effects from low level radiation.
Page 10, Section 44 (Appendix 28); the table shows that the TETRA
handsets are slightly more powerful than the ordinary GSM mobile
This is the basis of one of my arguments that if
TETRA is pulsed, which is arguably more aggressive and powerful than
the ordinary mobile phone, the medical symptoms could arguably be
Page 14, Section 61 (Appendix 29) reads,
"hence with TETRA the energy is
absorbed in a larger volume of tissue and so is less
Scientifically I cannot decide whether
it is better to have the energy spread over a larger area or
concentrated on a smaller area; I will have to discuss this with
Also in Section 61 the NRPB write "however, since the
radiation from TETRA penetrates further into the head ", that I am
particularly concerned about because the most delicate parts of our
brain are in its centre for maximum protection and if this is where
TETRA is going to reach then I have grave concerns.
Page 15, Section 63 (Appendix 30) reads
"VERY LITTLE INFORMATION EXISTS ON
THE SAR'S PRODUCED BY TETRA AND PORTABLES. NO NUMERICAL MODELING
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT".
SAR means Specific Absorption Rate and
refers to the heat generated inside that part of the body exposed to
I mentioned heat earlier with regard to heat
shock proteins protecting cancer cells and to prevent damage to the
DNA. I find it absolutely beyond belief that the NRPB can admit they
have very little information on a system that is already being used
and to say that no numerical modeling appears to have been carried
out suggests to me as a scientist that no measurements have been
taken to assess any medical damage which may occur to the officers.
What experimentation has been done
(Gabriel 2000), appears to have been carried out by Mr Gabriel of
Microwave Consultants Limited.
As this research could possibly
affect what may turn out to be brain tumors or spine cancers for the
lady or gentlemen officers I would feel justified as a Police
Federation in asking which totally independent scientists not
connected in any way to the Government or communications industry
peer reviewed this research paper and what were there comments?
Page 15, Section 65 (Appendix 30); this section explains that SARs
could be up to 4 times larger than those in table 6 above. If the
reader looks at the unit at the top of the table after SAR (Wkg-1),
the reader can go to Appendix 27 'Reported Biological Effects', and
the reader will observe one of the pages lists the medical symptoms
expected from SAR doses.
The reader will notice that for an SAR
of 2 or 3 W/kg, cancer acceleration in the skin and breast tumors
may be found. Coming back to the table it shows for the left ear an
SAR of 2.88 but in the document below it explains that the SAR could
be 4 times larger than this, i.e. you could be receiving an SAR
Page 11, Section 51 (Appendix 31) (NB: the NRPB bound document has
pages 11-13 out of order and I cannot change this, and I apologize
to the reader).
This table shows that the power output may reach 40
W from a TETRA transmitter. My concern is that the officer will be
receiving the radiation from the transmitter as well as the
radiation from the handset.
Page 16, Section 66 (Appendix 32);
"the main exposure to the body is
expected to be at waist level from the antenna and base of the
My concern with this is the reported
cases of cancer of the spine from officers who have carried their
hand portables on their belts.
To my knowledge 4 deaths have
occurred because of this.
"Although there could be some
exposure from the earphone if RF current is induced in the cable
When the signal goes from the handset to
the earpiece, electromagnetic waves are emitted from the cable, i.e.
the cable actually becomes its own transmitter.
These waves would
obviously go through the neck and my concern is that they could
affect the sensitive glands within the neck.
Another concern, but unproven, came from
a dentist who was concerned about the metal in peoples' fillings
absorbing radiation and re-emitting it up into the centre of the
brain where there is no protection from the skull.
This is obviously
a very complex research area to go into but nevertheless I feel that
this dentist has a justifiable argument and one which should not be
dismissed without thought.
Page 16, Section 67;
"the situation is complicated by the
metal body of the vehicle. It is not evident that this could be
relied upon to provide shielding, since the non-conducting
parts, e.g. windows of the vehicle are comparable to the
wavelength of the radiation".
Scientifically what this means to me is
that there could be a considerable risk of electromagnetic radiation
for the persons either inside or just outside of the vehicle.
this incredible in so far as the risk is obviously appreciated by
the NRPB and yet, as they stated earlier, no numerical modeling has
been carried out. To me it appears that the risk in and around
vehicles has been overlooked.
Page 16, Section 68;
"the data in table 6 suggest that
for both 3 W and 10 W vehicle mounted terminals the ICNIRP basic
restrictions for the general public could be exceeded if a
persons' head were within a few centimeters of a vehicle mounted
transmission antenna for several minutes".
The question I ask is what if the call
is some big disaster emergency and the call may last longer than
several minutes, or once the system is upgraded you are waiting for
pictures to come through? Have calculations been done for say an
accumulative 10 minute call?
NB: The Police Federation may wish to ask whether the dose
levels in these tables are calculated as a geometric average or
Page 16, Section 69;
"at these power levels there will be
regions in the immediate vicinity of the base station antenna
where guidelines could be exceeded".
My argument here is similar to the
What if an officer has to remain through duty in the
vicinity of a base station or transmitter where even the NRPB's high
guidelines are exceeded or the International Commission's guidelines
are exceeded? These guidelines, as shown in Appendix 1, are way
above what the rest of the world recommends.
Page 18, Section 76 (Appendix 33);
"no measurements appear to have been
made of the exposures received inside or outside vehicles with
externally mounted antennas".
My simple question is, if officers are
using what could be potentially dangerous instruments, why have no
measurements been taken to assess their risk? I find this beyond
Page 26, Section 111 and 112 (Appendix 34). Here the NRPB agree that
the phenomena of non-lethal weapons exists because they say that
with a frequency of 8 waves per second into the brain, animals can
be made to go to sleep, or be stimulated at higher frequencies. To
me this simple statement by the NRPB verifies the non-lethal weapons
program as sound.
Page 29, Section 128 (Appendix 35);
"HOWEVER THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO
THE REASSURANCE THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE.
IN PARTICULAR THEY DO NOT
EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT RF (radio frequency) RADIATION FROM
CELLULAR PHONES MIGHT CARRY A RISK OF CANCER THAT BECOMES
MANIFEST MANY YEARS AFTER FIRST EXPOSURE OR THAT RELATES TO
INTENSE EXPOSURE OVER MANY YEARS.
NOR DO THEY RULE OUT A HAZARD
FROM RF RADIATION MODULATED SPECIFICALLY AT AROUND 16 Hz".
Here, the NRPB are not ruling out that
there may be a risk of cancer to the officers in several years time.
Also there could be a risk because of TETRA's unique pulsing to the
Page 29, Section 129;
"further research is needed using
modern molecular and cellular biology techniques to assess the
reliability of the positive findings and to determine the extent
and significance of any effects that do occur".
Scientifically to me, what the NRPB are
saying is that they need to do research to find out what effects
TETRA will have on the officers.
Page 30, Section 133 (Appendix 36);
"HOWEVER THEY DO NOT EXCLUDE THE
POSSIBILITY OF A RISK OF CANCER THAT APPEARS ONLY AFTER MANY
YEARS OF EXPOSURE, NOR OF A HAZARD FROM RF RADIATION MODULATED
SPECIFICALLY AT AROUND 16 Hz".
This suggests that cancer and brain
damage has not been ruled out as a possibility of using TETRA.
analogy, this seems to me like a situation where I could go to my GP
and ask for some tablets and the GP can say, you can take these but
there may be a risk of cancer in several years time, I don't know,
or a risk of brain damage.
Page 31, Section 135 (Appendix 37);
"A number of recommendations for
further research are suggested by the Advisory Group".
My observation is why wasn't this
research was done before the system was introduced? This puts
officers' health at risk unnecessarily.
"Proposals for experimental
investigations of the possible biological effects of specific
TETRA signals modulated at about 16Hz".
Again, I suggest this should have been
carried out before it was used on police officers.
"Further studies need to be carried
out on effects of amplitude modulation or pulsing on neuronal
activity and on signaling within and between nerve cells The
likelihood of epileptic seizures could be investigated ".
If the NRPB are suggesting this now, my
question stands, why wasn't this research carried out before the
officers began their trials with TETRA?
* Page 31, Section 135 - Section 5;
"HUMAN VOLUNTEER STUDIES SHOULD BE
CARRIED OUT TO MEASURE CHANGES IN COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE ARISING
FROM EXPOSURE TO TETRA HANDSETS. THESE SHOULD INCLUDE
EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF VARYING PARAMETERS SUCH AS THE
DURATION OF CALLS, THE EXTENT OF EXPOSURE, AS WELL AS SIGNAL
* Page 31, Section 135 - Section 6;
"THE TETRA SYSTEM IS EXPECTED TO BE
DEPLOYED WIDELY FOR USE BY STAFF IN EMERGENCY SERVICES.
A RELATIVELY STABLE WORKFORCE WITH DEFINED PATTERNS OF WORK. IT
WOULD BE WORTH CARRYING OUT STUDIES TO EXAMINE WORKING PRACTICES
AND CONDITIONS OF EXPOSURE TO RF RADIATION FROM TETRA SYSTEMS.
RECORDS OF USE SHOULD BE KEPT WHICH COULD BE OF VALUE IN ANY
FUTURE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES".
Clearly this means that the police,
although to my knowledge not volunteers, as a regular and stable
workforce are absolutely ideal for a scientific study into the
long-term effects of electromagnetic radiation from TETRA.
will use all of this data as an epidemiological study, as recorded
in their own document.
* Page 31, Section 135 - Section 8;
"ONLY LIMITED INFORMATION IS
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE ON EXPOSURES FROM TETRA HAND PORTABLES.
FURTHER WORK IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON EXPOSURES
FROM HAND PORTABLES AND FROM ANY OTHER TRANSMITTING EQUIPMENT
DEPLOYED FOR USE".
My simple observation to this statement
is why? Why is only limited information presently available on
exposures if the system is up and running?
There has got to be a
risk to the officers from unknown exposures.
If you take a complete overview of this entire document, I would
suggest that there is a lot of information which could suggest
long-term low level exposure to microwave radiation is harmful.
However, science is always about argument. I find it a very
dangerous time when a scientist insists that he or she is right.
Scientists that have insisted they are
right (sometimes publicly) and have later to have been shown to be
incorrect are those concerning thalidomide, asbestos, BSE, smoking,
sheep dip, Gulf War Syndrome, GM foods, Vitamin B6, to mention just
a few. So, let us assume that I am wrong and let us assume that
every single scientist I have quoted in this report, which may
involve thousands of years of work accumulatively, is also wrong,
just for arguments sake.
My argument is unchanged and my argument
is simple. All I am suggesting is that the ladies and gentlemen of
the police force have the opportunity to read both sides of this
scientific debate with all of the literature at their disposal and
they, be allowed to decide whether or not they would like to use the
TETRA system. If every officer decides that they love the TETRA
system so much they want to take it home to bed with them, I do not
have a problem with that.
All I ask is that the officers have the
choice where their long-term future health could be at risk.
I would like to see a totally
independent group of scientists, not connected with the
communications industry or the NRPB, be able to represent the
police force at their request.
Should TETRA become widespread, a
long-term full indemnity insurance policy should be guaranteed
for the officers for any possible future long-term risks.
That all major documents relating to
TETRA safety be made available to the officers of the police
force along with how the figures were calculated, i.e. which
average was taken, which totally independent scientists peer
reviewed the papers, the comments of those scientists and if
necessary, the relative expertise of the scientist who carried
out the experiments and wrote the paper.
I recommend this because when I applied to teach
Physics at College, all of my degrees are personally checked and
when we go camping with College students, our mountain
leadership certificates, life-saving certificates, updates to
those certificates are all scrutinized by the parents.
And I totally agree with this. I
believe that if you are making decisions pertaining to persons'
safety or health, your qualifications, background, experience
should all be available for scrutiny. Also, anything that you
write should be checked by totally independent persons, and
their comments made available.
My final recommendation with all of
the information I have to hand is that the TETRA system be
halted until further research on safety has been carried out.
This research be made available to the ladies and gentlemen of
the police force and not until they are satisfied with the
safety of the system, should it be implemented. In other words,
I am suggesting that the police have the final say in whether
TETRA is introduced or not to their force.
I believe the ladies and gentlemen
of the police force should be credited with the intelligence
they have to make decisions regarding their own safety. Further,
any scientific document written for them to read should have
full explanatory notes so that they can understand any
complicated scientific terms.
NB: Before my lectures to the Police
Federation and writing this report, I submitted my full CV for their
With all of the research written
here showing dangers from electric, magnetic, pulsed microwave
electromagnetic fields, why with the officers' safety at risk
are we still sticking to our ridiculous safety limit, which only
Can more information be given to the
officers on our Government's non-lethal weapons programme
concerning pulses into the brain around 17.6 Hz, or stored
information from other research papers?
Can the signals from the transmitter
to the officer be rechecked as they are listed in the manual as
continuous waves, whereas they have been measured independently
to be shown to be pulsed? This is important because pulsed
radiation is arguably more aggressive than continuous.
NB: the following questions arise from the NRPB document on
TETRA, Volume 12, Number 2, 2001, appendixed at the back of this
Section 21 - How much radiation, and
of which type is emitted from the case?
Section 24 - What safeguards are in
place to guarantee that the earphones are absolutely leak-proof
and with the rough and tumble world of the police officer, how
often are the earphones going to be checked for leaks? Who will
do this, and which type of apparatus will be used?
Section 25 - What experiments have
been done to measure how the officers inside the vehicle are
insulated from the transmitting device?
Section 28 - If a police car is to
be used as a relay transmitter, again, what measurements have
been taken to ensure the officers are insulated from the
Section 37 - Why is a pulsed
frequency of 17.6 Hz being used when it is known to interfere
with the brains' beta rhythm and it was warned against by the
Section 39/40 - If TETRA becomes
widespread to all of the emergency services, reserve officers,
traffic wardens, security officers, what is the expected output
to be from handsets and the main transmitters? Transmitters
generally increase their power to cope with additional calls.
Will this be the case for TETRA?
Section 61 - Has a neurosurgeon been
consulted to comment on the effect of TETRA penetrating deep
into the head?
Section 63 - Why does very little
information exist on the SAR produced by TETRA hand portables,
why has no numerical modeling been carried out? Can this be done
before TETRA is used nationally?
Section 63 - Can all of the
information relating to the experiments of measuring radiation
inside the head (Gabriel 2000) be made available to the Police
Federation for scrutiny, along with an independent peer review
assessment from scientists, totally unconnected with the NRPB or
Section 65 - If the SAR's could be
up to 4 times larger than those in table 6, what risk assessment
has been carried out for officers receiving radiation with an
SAR of over 8 W/kg? Can this information be made available to
the Police Federation?
Section 66 - With the main exposure
expected to be at waist level, what research has been carried
out relating this to the known deaths of officers from spine
cancer from carrying transmitters on their belts? Could this
research be made available to the Police Federation?
Section 66 - Has an ear, nose and
throat specialist been contacted for an opinion concerning
radiation from the cable being transmitted into the glands of
the neck? If not, could this be done?
Section 67 - As vehicles cannot be
relied upon to provide shielding for the officers, can further
improvements to insulate the officers be recommended, then
scientific studies carried out to test this insulation and all
data be made available to the Police Federation?
Section 68 - If international
guidelines could be exceeded, what risk assessment has been
carried out for the officers and passers by who may be using
pacemakers, insulin pumps, have metal plates in their bodies, or
be epileptic? Could this risk assessment be made available to
the Police Federation?
Similarly, for Section 69, concerning base station transmitters
which will also exceed guidelines.
Section 76 - Why have no
measurements of exposures been made inside or outside vehicles?
Could these be done and the data made available to the Police
Federation along with how averages are calculated?
Section 128 - As the possibility is
not excluded that TETRA might carry a risk of cancer that
becomes manifest many years after first exposure, or there may
be a hazard from the pulses around 16 Hz, would it be a good
idea to allow the ladies and gentlemen of the police force an
opinion in the decision making processes which may concern their
long-term health? Should these long-term health risks be
published for the police force so that, like members of the
armed forces, they may volunteer to expose themselves to
Section 129 - As further research is
needed, should this not be done before TETRA becomes national,
and can the results be made available to the Police Federation
for their scrutiny?
Section 133 - Again, the possibility
of a risk of cancer after many years of exposure is commented on
along with the hazard of pulsed radiation at 16 Hz. I repeat my
observation that this risk assessment ought to be made available
with full consultation with the officers concerned who will be
using the system and that they should have the final decision
concerning their future health risks. Is this a possibility?
Section 135, Section 2 - Has a
neurosurgeon been contacted to assess the risk of pulsing and
its effect on the signaling mechanisms between nerve cells?
Could this report please be made available to the Police
Section 135, Section 5 - Shouldn't
the human volunteers study on TETRA be carried out before its
use becomes widespread?
Section 135, Section 6 - As an
epidemiological study is recommended to be carried out on the
use of TETRA and its effects on "a relatively stable workforce
with defined patterns of work", shouldn't the police officers be
asked their permission if they are going to take part in what is
a long-term medical study which may result in a number of brain
tumors, spine tumors, eye cancers, heart disorders and many
Section 135, Section 8 - Why is
TETRA being used by officers if "only limited information is
presently available on exposures from TETRA hand portables and
further work is needed to provide more information on exposures
from hand portables and from any other transmitting equipment"?
Although I have legal documents in my possession I do not have the
knowledge or confidence to even begin to try and explain legal
I would recommend the Federation's solicitor contact Mr. Alan
Meyer who is in my opinion this country's leading authority on
matters electromagnetic and all of its relevant implications.
I would add I do not have shares in his
firm nor do I receive "backhanders", in fact I have never met the
gentleman. Mr. Meyer will be able to advise on Government
responsibilities, the human rights, civil rights and European Law.
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at:
Halsey Meyer Higgins Solicitors
56 Buckingham Gate
Tel: 020 7828 8772
Fax: 020 7828 8774
Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy
2000, Volume 10, Numbers 3 & 4
Evidence that Electromagnetic
Radiation is Genotoxic: The implications for the
epidemiology of cancer and cardiac, neurological and
reproductive effects. Dr Neil Cherry, June 2000
Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy
2000, Volume 10, Numbers 3 & 4
Extremely Low Frequencies and
living matter - a new biophysics by Dr Gilles Picard. Living
matter and electronic devices
Potential Adverse Health Impacts
of Mobile Telephony Memorandum, Dr Hyland, February 2000
Are Mobile Telephony Base
Stations a Potential Health Hazard? A review of the present
scientific literature, Roger Coghill MA (Cantab.) C. Biol.
MI Biol. MA (Environ. Mgt.), August 1998
New Medical Evidence on
Electromagnetic Fields and Health is Alarming: Do no Expose
Local People to Mobile Phone Base Stations, Dr D A Eklund,
BSc MBCHB MFPHM
Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy
1999, Volume 10, Numbers 1 & 2
Effects of chronic microwave
irradiation on mice, S Prausnitz & C Susskind, 1962
Scientists link eye cancer to
mobile phones, Sunday Times, 14 January 2001
Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy
2001, Volume 11, Numbers 2 to 4
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.
80-107, 4 December 1979
Understanding Ground Currents:
An important factor in electromagnetic exposure, Dr D
Dahlberg, Consultant, The Electromagnetics Research
Foundation, Moorhead, MN56560/2118
Stimulation of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase, Journal of
Biological Chemistry, Volume 273, Number 20, 2 February
Stimulation of Src Family
Protein-tyrosine Kinases as a Proximal and Mandatory Step
for SYK Kinase-dependent Phospholipase Cy2 Activation in
Lymphoma B Cells Exposed to Low Energy Electromagnetic
Files, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Volume 273, Number
7, 13 February 1998
Nexus: Military Use of Mind
Control Weapons, Judy Wall, Volume 5, Number 6, November
The Encyclopaedia of Mind
Control, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1997
Secret & Suppressed, Jim Keith,
Feral Press, 1993
Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon
of War, Dr Rosalie Bertell (Women's Press)
Mind Control & the UK (Remote
Viewing), Tim Rifat, ISBN 0712679081
Neurophysiologic Effects of RF
and MW Radiation, Ross Adey, Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, Volume 55, Number 11, December 1979
The Influences of Impressed
Electrical Fields at EEG Frequencies on Brain and Behaviour,
Burch & Altshuler, Plenum Press, 1975
Effects of modulated very high
frequency fields on specific brain rhythms in cats, Brain
Research, Volume 58, 1973 (Also Volume 23, 1967) on low
frequency re-brain (Hippocampus)
Non-Lethality: John B Alexander,
the Pentagon's Penguin, by Armen Victorian, Lobster June
Channel Four News, Radio System
Safety Fears, 5 February 2001, Julian Rush
The Big Issue Environment
Correspondent Gibby Zobel, New Navy Death Risk to Dolphins &
Whales, page 5, 12 March 2001
Extracts from US Defence
Intelligence Agency documents from 1972 to 1983, Donald
Stevens, November 2000
The Physiological &
Environmental Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic
Radiation, Dr G J Hyland, February 2001
NRPB Possible Health Affects
from Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA), Volume 12, Number 2,
Erratum - Page 13 Hyland and Coghill
(they sent evidence to IEGMP but were not actual members: JVM