Our group is currently fighting a major telco that wants to place 6 mobile phone towers next door to a primary school and within 500m of 7 others. According to Australian Federal Law, Telcos are excempt from town-planning and local government laws and moreover, do not have to consult with the community before installing these towers. While C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R (TM) IS NOT AGAINST MOBILE PHONE USE, the unhindered proliferation of microwave EMF is a major concern due to its unknown long-term biological effects, including cancer.
The following article may be of interest to some of you. Please help us by pbutting on this information. It may buttist us in changing the law in this country and bringing sanity back to the industry everywhere!
Thank you
C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R. Concerned Resident's United Stand Against Detrimental Electromagnetic Radiation
Sydney, Australia
===============================
Insurers Baulk at Mobile Risk An April edition of the Observer reported a leading Lloyds underwriter as having refused to offer product liability cover to mobile manufacturers for damage to user's health. The firm cited the striking resemblance between the development of the asbestos and tobacco health issues and the current mobile phone problem, both of which will end up costing insurers a fortune. Recently the giant Insurance group Swiss Re stated in their publication Electro-Smog A Phantom Risk, that on the basis of today's present knowledge alone it must be expected that a EMF claim would succeed. This view has been supported by the recent exit from the re-insurance market of Scandinavia's biggest insurance group, Skandia. They cite reducing exposure (sic.) to potential EMF claims as being one of the reasons. In this regard, corporate providers should guard against complacency in relying on present day government advice to protect themselves against any future potential liabilities. The experiences of the asbestos industry is a sobering reminder of this. Although a manufacturer will always be ultimately liable for it's product, it is inconceivable that an employer insistent upon it's work force using mobiles, would be totally exempt from involvement in any actions for damages by employees.
