Register as an affected and interested party for proposed telecommunication tower Corner George and Hampton Road

comments

1.Notice No  with Full  description and heading on the Notice
Reference No: ATGA1130. Cell mast 389: To obtain permission to erect a cellphone tower and base station ​on Portion 1 of Holding 389 Glen Austin Agricultural Holdings, Extension 1 

2. Full Plot No.
Portion 1 of Holding 389 Glen Austin Agricultural Holdings, Extension 1 
​

3. Street address, location,
Corner of George & Hampton roads

4. What is being proposed for this property
It is proposed to build a telecommunication tower plus base station, on the corner of George Road and Hampton Road.

5. Picture and/or official notice of the Development

6. Suggestions what people can write:

The city of Johannesburg as asked GARA to put together petitions for proposals. So you can just register as an affected or interested party by putting your name down,and/or you can add a personal comment. 
It is important that we need to stand together if we want to ensure that our suburb is not to be flooded with masts. More masts, doesn't guarantee a better signal.
So please read the information below the submit button.
We will also send the petition to the agent.

7. Closing date for voicing your objections / concerns / suggestions
13 May 2019
You can voice your  concerns / suggestions / objections by entering your information below or
you can send comments as an email and send it through to [email protected]  and  ​[email protected]

Suggestions for comments and objections

• In this location, at an intersection, it will be an eyesore to anyone travelling along the roads and detracts from the visual appearance of the neighbourhood.
• It must also be proven beyond all doubt by the applicant that a Cell Tower does NOT affect the health of humans and other living organisms. The very fact that there are studies worldwide for and against regarding safety should indicate to any independent Assessor that they should rather side on the principle of “safety first till proven wrong”.
• There is much concern from residents regarding these masts and there is a ground swell from communities opposing these towers in residential areas
• Has the owner been informed of the health risks and the resultant drop in property values that will arise from such a development?
• Would the Planning Tribunal team assessing this application, subject their families to living right next to a cell mast that could detrimentally affect their health?
• The Notice information does not mention the glaring fact that this monstrosity is literally within a few meters from numerous homes?
• How am I as an affected party supposed to make an informed decision if the Agent/Owner have not provided information regarding the need and desirability for the mast, at a minimum
  • a full list of service provider/s currently making use of the nearest towers
  • a detailed report of complaints of dropped calls including a list of the affected service provider/s?
  • Can you provide us with the clear need and desirability shown for the tower?  How is this needs analysis conducted and over what period has it been conducted?
  • Why can the already excessive infrastructure not already support all services?
  • Have technology alternatives or co-location on already existing infrastructure as alternatives been considered?
  • How many providers will be using the tower, now and in the future?
  • Can you indicate the current signal strength for each service provider now and in the future?
• Who does the Service Provider think this high throughput mast will provide a service to? Most of the heavy bandwidth users are being serviced by a recent Fibre rollout.
• Considering the location of the property concerned and the land use on the surrounding erven, namely Agricultural Holding, the cellular base station is not considered compatible with the solely residential uses within the surrounding area.
• How did the Agent/Owner arrive at regarding the location of yet another cellular base station in Glen Austin, as compatible with the solely agricultural uses within the surrounding area?
• How did the base station come to be regarded as appropriate in this agricultural locality due to the fact that the properties concerned form part of an agricultural neighborhood where a positive environmental quality currently exists?
• The justification advanced by the Service providers is that they are doing some form of communal service. How do they arrive as such a conclusion? What specific studies and or surveys have been conducted with this community.
• Is the property to be zoned as Commercial due to the nature of the economic transactions being proposed?
• Is the proposed installation in compliance with National Fire Protection Regulations SANS 10400 T: 2011
• Another additional mast must surely go against the policy of the City of Johannesburg to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of these masts in the area – there are already other masts close by, with more being planned. (see lists).
• An immediate city-wide plan to rationalize telecommunications masts is required, and we request that no further masts be approved until such is carried out and finalized.
• The Department of the Environment, the Department of Health, the Department of Communications and GDARD do not appear to have a grid referencing all masts or antennae in South Africa as is required in other countries. It is thus suggested to implement such a grid for all legal and illegal instalments, to perhaps enable better planning and so avoid areas being swamped with unnecessary levels of non-ionizing radiation.
• What are the standards/guidelines used to evaluate the necessity of such a massive mast in such an underpopulated agricultural area?
• What is the probability that the mast will be extended in future?
• What is the probability that additional antennae will be added and when? 
• How will the additional risks of the previous two points be handled?
• How will this subvert the legal processes required for justifying such a mast?
• Can you provide information on which service providers and types of service [such as 3G/4G/5G] are planned for the proposed tower over the next ten years, with full justification for same? Will a new EIA be triggered for highly invasive 5G?


• DEFINITE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
  • Biological impact of EMR applies to environment too. “The dangers facing our species will demand ‘urgent collective action at both local and global levels” - The Lancet.
  • Here are collections of studies demonstrating how electromagnetic fields from cell towers, Wi-Fi etc. is clearly impacting on insects, birds, animals & all wildlife.: [EH Trust, EMRSA]. Note also this letter from the US Dept. of the Interior which underscores that ICNIRP’s thermal limits are not addressing this.
  • There are now many studies showing the impacts of EMF on birds, bees, trees and fish life that wanton disregard of these studies borders on intentional cruelty.[1]
  • What studies have been conducted regarding the influence of EMF/R on Agricultural fauna and flora?
  • Has the impact on insects been investigated? For instance, the agricultural production of honey through bee-keeping in this Agricultural zone?[2]
  • What studies or guidelines are to be implemented to reduce the risk to livestock in this Agricultural zone?
  • What will the effect be on the stabling and keeping of horses and such?
  • Has the effect on groundwater and underground water contamination been considered? A stream is flowing within 10m of this tower? Consequently, has the impact on boreholes in the estate been considered?
  • Recent mass bird and fish deaths across the world recently have been attributed to electromagnetic radiation such as 4G and HAARP. Investigation and reports are still being assessed.
  • There are many examples in South Africa where trees have been shown to be affected around masts.[3]
  • Plant deterioration in homes and gardens next to masts have been noted and recorded too. Who is going to compensate the surrounding agricultural community for such deterioration?
  • There have been preliminary research studies into the disappearance of insects in Johannesburg and a study in Natal showed the memory loss in rats subjected to electromagnetic fields.[4]
  • It was estimated in 2009 that the carbon dioxide emissions produced globally by the telecoms industry released 110.7 million tons of Co2 into the atmosphere That is equivalent to emissions from 29 million cars. ( Bennett 2009 ).
• FLAWED MAST POLICY
  • Our local mast policy is fundamentally flawed as it relies on ICNIRP guidelines which are based only on thermal (heating) and not biological effects. The EUROPAEM guidelines should be noted & highlight an ICNIRP statement that their recommendations should not be taken as “mandatory prescriptions for safety”. They are “not the’ ‘last word’ on the issue” or “defensive walls for industry or others”. Many countries haven’t adopted these ICNIRP guidelines.
• NO VISUAL IMPACT AWARENESS (VIA) STUDY
  • Has this assessment been done?  If not, will it be done and what will it entail?
  • If it has been done why has it not been submitted for consideration to the affected parties?
  • Based on the current location it will tower over all the surrounding trees. It will be like an unwanted ballistic rocket site spewing unwanted rays into the surrounding buildings and raising the temperature of all living things it can reach. 24hrs a day. 365 days a year.
  • Has a 15m slim line monopole design been considered as this would have the least impact, and should be considered by the Municipality
  • What steps are going to be taken to mitigate the resulting eyesore and degradation of the neighborhood?


• CONFIRMED PROPERTY DEVALUATION
  • What studies are going to be used to determine this crucial aspect? Is it from an independent source? It is a fact that public perception that these masts are cancer inducing towers predominates throughout the populace and this results in devaluation.
  • It is well known that people do not want homes near cell masts and this has been noted by Estate Agents. Independent assessment by active Estate Agent currently selling and having sold properties close to this location indicate that the loss of value of a home near such a mast is estimated to be between 35% and 50%.[5] International studies has shown similar results[6]
  • Who must be held responsible for the loss of the value of a home following the placement of a mast? I suspect this will be answered soon in the courts of the land.
  • A Money Week article highlighted the concern of many that if a risks were better established the economic implications could be devastating unless we curb wireless use. More on property values here.
• MOUNTING EVIDENCE OF HEALTH RISKS
  • As per Section 24 of the Constitution: “Everyone has the right to an environment, that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and to have the environment protected through reasonable legislative measures”
  • A Council of Europe report says “One must respect the precautionary principle and revise the current threshold values; waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case in the past with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.”
  • “2013 Late Lessons from Early Warnings” is a report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) which illustrates how damaging and costly the misuse or neglect of the precautionary principle can be. It also notes that it was the ordinary and non-scientific person who first drew the authorities attention to environmental dangers before the scientific community gave any form of notice.
  • So it is with extreme concern that we note that the Department of Health’s radiation department (non-ionizing) still uses 18 year old ICNIRP guidelines regarding the detrimental health exposure to Electro Magnetic Fields/Radiation (EMF/R) that arise from cellular masts.
    • The ICNIRP recommendations were adopted by the EU in its Council Recommendation of 1999, without considering long-term non-thermal effects. However, it should be stressed that at an international EMF conference in London (2008), Professor Paolo Vecchia, ICNIRP Chairman from 2004 to 2012, said about the exposure guidelines “What they are not”: “They are not mandatory prescriptions for safety”, “They are not the’ ‘last word’ on the issue”, and “They are not defensive walls for industry or others”
    • In May 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe (PACE) recommended that its member states “reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)” and “put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age”. In the same report they urged town planners to introduce town planning measures to keep relay antenna base stations “at a safe distance from  dwellings” and requested that member states “pay heed to and protect ‘early warning’ scientists”
    • The current practice of quoting ICNIRP guidelines which only refers to thermal heating and not biological effects is defective. It also appears that the guidelines have not been read  fully either. Herewith a passage directly from ICNIRP General Approach Guidelines: page 546 :
      • People being protected
        • Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate a particular NIR exposure. For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population.
        • Under such circumstances, it may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population, but it may be more effective to adjust the guidelines for the general population to include such groups.
        • Some guidelines may still not provide adequate protection for certain sensitive individuals nor for normal individuals exposed concomitantly to other agents, which may exacerbate the effect of the NIR exposure, an example being individuals with photosensitivity.
        • Where such situations have been identified, appropriate specific advice should be developed-within the context of scientific knowledge.
      • Approaches to risk management
        • The ICNIRP approach to providing advice on limiting exposure to NIR necessarily requires well-based scientific data related to established health effects.
        • When, in the absence of sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of a suspected adverse health effect, there are calls for protective measures, a number of approaches to risk management have been applied. These approaches generally center on reducing needless exposure to the suspected agent.
        • However, ICNIRP emphasizes the need to ensure that the practical manner in which such approaches are applied should not undermine or be to the detriment of science based exposure guidelines.
        • ICNIRP notes the clarification afforded by the European Commission (CEC 2000; Foster et al. 2000) on the practical application of one such approach, the Precautionary Principle. For example, this includes the degree to which the Principle is based on the science (requiring an evaluation of risk research), and the provisional nature of measures pending further acquisition of scientific data.
    • It appears that the “Precautionary Principle” is not being applied in protecting the citizens of South Africa and hence it is imperative that the EIA be fully implemented with in fact more stringent measures with pre-assessment of existing masts, radiation levels and sensitive areas. The Precautionary Principle was signed by South Africa at the Rio Summit in 2002 and we appeal for it to be applied with a sense of urgency.
    • Cited in the ICNIRP 2009 guidance document were more recent research articles. It is speculated that adverse events may be caused by prolonged exposure to low levels of radiation, including genotoxicity, carcinogenicity (increased risk for cancer). According to the guidance document, epidemiological data on possible health effects of chronic, low-level, whole-body exposure in the far-field of Radio Frequency (RF) transmitters is poor because of the lack of satisfactory individual exposure assessments. Significant uncertainties exist regarding possible health effects of chronic radiation exposure
    • In addition to the biological impacts not being considered in the current guidelines, the pulse rate or modulation is not factored in either.  It is not just the frequency or power density either, but the pulsing ( modulations) that can cause harm.
      • Dr Blackman, past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, published a paper in Pathophysiology - “Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment”. Section 1.2. states: “Modulation signals are one important component in the delivery of EMF signals to which cells, tissues, organs and individuals can respond biologically.” He also mentions that “more recent studies of modulated RF signals report changes in human cognition, reaction time, brainwave activity, sleep disruption and immune function.” Dr Blackman includes the following sentence within the conclusion of his paper: “Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony). The collective papers on modulation appear to be omitted from consideration in the recent WHO and IEEE science reviews. This body of research has been ignored by current standard setting bodies that rely only on traditional energy-based (thermal) concepts.”
      • A letter by Barrie Trower, a retired military scientist covers the concerns of pulsing and the effects. [7]
    • As to the levels of safety for children there are no levels that are guaranteed as safe for children. None are prescribed by WHO either. The WHO told the EU it had only started observing effects on children in 2009, due to comment in approx. 2024.
    • WHO (World Health Organization ) has on their database ( 2006) a pie chart where 80% of the epidemiological studies published showed a significant increase in the adverse health symptoms being analyzed from base stations which included cancers and microwave syndrome.[8]
  • The current policy of Council is deficient in that it does not take into account science not provided by vested interests, nor does it speak to the actual impacts, whether thermal or non-thermal.
  • The reasons cited in the policy of the City, with regards to health, are inadequate and unspecific to serve as a definitive indication that cell towers in residential areas are acceptable and do not pose a threat to the health and wellbeing of the residents, especially as the ICNIRP “guidelines” are problematic Consequently, we ask that application of the Precautionary Principle be required here.
  • The Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution guarantees citizens the right "not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent” [9]. As we stand now, the technology we are being subjected to has not been proven safe and therefore we ask that measures be taken to protect us, the citizens of South Africa.
  • An independent committee is required to assess the numerous health reports around masts and for each new technology and frequency to be pre-tested by independent health officials that are qualified before the roll-out of that technology.
    • Other health and environmental ministries world-wide are taking action in order to protect their citizens:
      • Taiwan removed all masts from schools (1500 ) in 2007.[10]
      • Switzerland has installed optic fibre in their schools instead of wifi to eliminate children being exposed to microwaves.[11]
      • France has also rolled out a network of optic fibre to homes and schools.[12]
      • San Francisco has decided not to wifi their city following a stringent review on current scientific literature. Towns in France have removed it and wifi has also been removed from the public libraries.
      • Nigeria has taken notice of EMF and the dangers of indiscriminate siting of masts.[13]
      • Israel has prevented the rollout of 4G until the full health impacts can be assessed.[14]
        • The Health and Environmental Protection ministries of Israel told the Communications Ministry on Sunday that they will oppose the expansion of cellular phone infrastructure to accommodate “fourth-generation” (4G) devices, at least until any health effects from the radiation are examined in depth.
        • The directors-general of the two ministries, Dr. Ronni Gamzu and Alona Schefer Caro, called on Communications Ministry Director-General Eden Bar-Tal to co-ordinate with them on the issue. They wrote in an urgent letter that upgrading infrastructure to introduce fourth-generation cellular phones is liable to increase the use of such technologies and increase the public’s exposure to cellular electromagnetic radiation.
        • Its effects on health “have not yet been adequately proven,” Gamzu and Schefer Caro concluded, “thus the cautionary principle must be observed.”
      • Israel bans antennae’s on residences:[15]
      • And the list goes on and on and on[16]
    • Independent doctors, scientists and researchers continue to sound the warnings:
      • The “International EMF Scientist Appeal 2015” was submitted to the United Nations and WHO by scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields.
• Dr Pall has said that oxidative stress, single and double strand DNA breaks, cancer, infertility, breakdown of the blood brain barrier, loss of melatonin and sleep disruption can all be explained by the activation of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels (VGCCs) in cells. EMF exposure increases nitric oxide levels which has been shown to interfere with memory, learning & immune dysfunction.
• Dr Goldsworthy proposed that leakage of calcium ions from electromagnetic fields opens the various tight junction barriers in our bodies that normally protect us - eg. the blood-brain barrier, the barrier in our respiratory epithelia, the blood-liver barrier & the gut barrier, linked to autoimmune disorder.
• Barnes & Greenebaum: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates
• Professor Olle Johanssen of the Department of Neuroscience and Dermatology Unit , Karolinska Institute, Sweden explains in one of his many research papers how EM fields attack the immune system, leading to disease and impairment. ( Pathophysiology 16 ( 2009) 157 -177.) With the effect on the immune system, one needs to also consider what impact that this is having on those that are HIV positive in South Africa.[17]
• Dr Magda Havas’s groundbreaking research has shown a link between EMR and diabetes in addition to Multiple Sclerosis.[18]
• Other research is showing links to ADHD (ADD), CFS, Alzheimer’s, Fibromyalgia, autism, loss of fertility, allergies, asthma, heart disease, depression, suicides, miscarriages, obesity and electro sensitivity.
• Dr George Carlo was commissioned by the mobile industry in the US to conduct research on its products. His study involved 200 research doctors and 15 studies at a cost of 28.5 million US Dollars. “Our data showed increased risk to children, concerning tumours, genetic damage and other problems. My results were suppressed by the telecommunications industry “ he has said.
• Members of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) in April 2010 addressed an urgent appeal to European environment and health ministers, - Commission, -Parliament and other organizations. Greatly concerned about the increasing prevalence of a group of chronic multisystem illnesses (environmentally related illnesses including chemical, biological and EMF-agents, with similar pathological mechanisms) they urged these groups to takes these findings serious and financially invest more in prevention, precaution and best early detection etc. Electromagnetic fields are being noted as a trigger.[19]
• Long term studies around cell masts have shown health effects and increased cancers.
• Firstenberg (Firstenberg, A 2001 ) compiled a list of studies showing biological effects at levels far below most guidelines for radio frequency radiation. A study in January 2009 by the municipality of the Bavarian town of Selbitz found a correlation of symptoms found near a mast at 1.2 v/m and another German study where a mean value of 0.07 v/m was used.[20]
• People, have reported the following symptoms near masts , in wifi areas or being exposed to other forms of electromagnetic fields : headaches, nausea, blurred vision, memory loss or unable to concentrate, rashes, heart palpitations, increased blood pressure, eye pain and struggling to focus, extreme fatigue. Itching, burning and dehydrated skin, tinnitus, hoarse or loss of voice, suppressed immune system, always feeling cold, shooting muscle pains, insomnia and erratic sleeping patterns, gastric disturbances, sore kidneys, liver sensitivity, sore ovaries, thyroid disruption, (sudden weight gain or weight loss) irritability, and depression. People have become EHS (Electrosensitive) with continued exposure to EMF’s, a condition that makes normal life very hard for the sufferer who will feel ill at the slightest exposure to EMFs, RFs and electrical fields.
  • Santini et al (2002) showed many of these effects in a study of residents within 300 meters of a cell mast.[21]
  • The well known Freiburger Appeal signed by over 40,000 in Germany, including over 3000 doctors listed many of these disorders and noted “ Our therapeutic efforts to restore health are becoming increasingly less effective: the unimpeded and continuous penetration of radiation into living and working areas, particularly bedrooms, an essential place for relaxation , regeneration and healing , causes uninterrupted stress and prevents the patient’s thorough recovery.”[22]
  • 2005 Ireland IDEA Irish doctors concern over EMR health effects and electro sensitivity.[23]
  • Switzerland: Dr. Rau Paracelsus Health Clinic treats 10,000 people annually. They assess health in light of EMF exposure. Although health issues are multi factorial, his assessment is EMFs are a hidden factor in many illnesses:[24]
  • Prof Frans Adlkofer, who was at the SABS/STUK conference and repeated the findings of the EU's Reflex study of severe genetic damage and micronuclei formation from low-level cellphone radiation, has also put out a stringent warning about 3G technology/ broadband/umts and health, saying there is no doubt that it is "ten times more genotoxic" than ordinary cellphone radiation and raises the risk of cancer: “The DNA strand breaks occur at only 1/40th of the guideline limits. Hence, UMTS signals are almost ten times as active as GSM signals.”[25]
• Cancer is a significant risk of EMFs. Cancers around masts have been studied worldwide as have cancers with cell phone usage.
  • A German study by a team of local medical doctors in Naila with data from over 10 years, discovered a threefold increase in new malignancies in people living up to 400m from a mast after five years exposure when compared to people living further away in the same town.[26]
  • Barrie Trower by 2006 had logged over 200 leukemia clusters around cellphone masts, each cluster consisting of more than ten children under the age of 11, in the UK, Spain and France. Most of these children died.
  • A study by GP’s at the Kaplan Medical Centre, Israel, discovered a fourfold increase in cancer within 350m after long term exposure to a phone mast and a TENFOLD increase specifically in women. In addition, Roland Stabenow, the head of cancer registry in Berlin, informed the residents of Steinbach-Hallenberg that there was a 7 fold increase in breast cancer amongst people in their area living near the cellular antennas.[27]
  • A study ( Hallberg 2002) looked at “before “ and “ after” the introduction of frequency modulated transmitters across Estonia. He identified a steep increase in cancer mortality after transmitters were allowed across this country.[28]
  • A 2004 study Eger,H.et al. also reconfirmed the effect of distance versus the incidence of cancer from a mast at specific power levels.[29]
• 1
  [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/21559103/So-Much-Research-Yet-So-Little-Notice-Taken
  http://mcs-america.org/march2011pg67891011.pdf
  http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/issues/nature.php?id=trees
  http://www.emrrfsa.org/natures-corner/
  http://ipublishing.co.in/jesvol1no12010/EIJES2044.pdf
  http://www.emrrfsa.org/natures-corner/2010/07/16/glastonbury-symposium-lecture-by-barrie-trower/  http://www.emrrfsa.org/natures-corner/2011/03/07/bees-birds-and-mankind-destroying-nature-by-electrosmog/
  
  [2] http://inthesenewtimes.com/2010/05/29/riz-gets-bee-buzz-right-experiment-shows-fallout-of-mobile-radiation/
  
  [3] http://www.emrrfsa.org/natures-corner/2011/03/08/the-effect-on-trees-from-nearby-masts/
  
  [4] http://www.emrrfsa.org/medical-and-scientific-research/south-african-studies/
  
  [5] http://media.withtank.com/bc445f907e.pdf
  
  [6] http://media.withtank.com/292239f53c.pdf
  
  [7] http://media.withtank.com/20a1337be5.pdf
  
  [8] http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/who_and_pubmed_epidemiological_studies_on_base_stations_2006.pdf
  
  [9] http://www.doj.gov.za/legislation/constitution/20081210_cn_2.pdf
  
  [10] http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2007/11/06/129715/1500-cellphone.htm
  
  [11] http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/10/20/free-internet-access-in-swiss-schools-no-wifi/
  
  [12] http://media.withtank.com/52e1c9c420.pdf
  
  [13] http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/features/7142-indiscriminate-siting-of-telecoms-masts-base-stations-any-end-in-sight
  
  [14] http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=210138
  
  [15] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916666.html
  
  [16] http://www.emrrfsa.org/world-concerns-summary/
  
  [17] http://www.scribd.com/doc/22173694/EMF-Immune-Compromise-and-Disease
  
  [18] http://www.magdahavas.com
  
  [19] http://www.csn-deutschland.de/blog/en/environmental-medicine-international-appeal-from-wurzburg/:
  
  [20] http://www.emrrfsa.org/newsletters/2010/07/08/specific-symptoms-and-radiation-from-mobile-basis-stations-in-selbitz-bavaria-germany/
  
  [21] http://apps.who.int/peh-emf/research/database/emfstudies/viewstudy.cfm?ID=772
  
  [22] http://www.laleva.cc/environment/freiburger_appeal.html
  
  [23] http://www.ideaireland.org/emririshresearch.htm
  
  [24] http://www.paracelsus.ch/welcome
  
  [25] http://www.next-up.org/pdf/PressReleaseConcernPrFranzAdelkoferVerumFoundation06102007.pdf
  
  [26] http://www.scribd.com/doc/3856847/Nail-A#full
  
  [27] http://www.vws.org/documents/Wolf-Israelstudy.pdf
  
  [28] http://heldref-publications.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,12;journal,29,58;linkingpublicationresults,1:119954,1
  
  [29] http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041118_naila.pdf

​​