New Zealand: Cell tower petitions

Skip to first unread message

Oct 15, 2009, 4:16:34 AM10/15/09
----- Original Message -----
From:* D Ward <>
*Cc:* Wyatt Creech <> ; Wayne Mapp
<> ; Tony Ryall
<> ; Tim Barnet and others
<> ;
<> ; Sue Kedgley
<> ; Sue Bradford
<> ; Simon Power
<> ; Sandra Goudie
<> ; Sally Buck
<> ; Ruth Dyson Labour MP
<> ; Rodney Hide
<> ; Rick Barker
<> ; Phil Heatley
<> ; Peter Dunne
<> ; Paul Hutchison
<> ; Pansy Wong
<> ; Paddy Austin
<> ; Nick Smith
<> ; Nanaia Mahuta
<> ; Mita Ririnui
<> ; Martin
<> ; Lockwood Smith
<> ; Lianne Dalziel Labour MP
<> ; Keith Locke
<> ; Judith Collins
<> ; John Key
<> ; Jim Anderton and others
<> ; Jeanette Fitzsimons
<> ; Hon David Carter
<> ; George Hawkins
<> ;
<> ; Clayton Cosgrove Labour MP
<> ; Bill English and others
<> ; Barry Corbett
<> ; Ashraf Choudhary
<> ; Annette King Labour MP
<> ; Auckland City Harbour News
<> ; Business to Business
<> ; Central Canterbury News
<> ; Darfield
<> ; Frances Anderson
<> ; Guardian Newspaper
<> ; Kaiapoi Borough
<> ; Neill Birss <>
; New Zealand Herald <> ; New Zealand Woman's
Weekly <> ; Northern Advocate
<> ; Northland Age
<> ; Opunake & Coastal News
<> ; Otago Daily Times
<> ; Ruapehu Bulletin
<> ; Star Times
<> ; Sunday News
<> ; Taieri Herald
<> ; The Ensign <> ; The
Mail <> ; Westport News
<> ; Whakatane Beacon
<> ; Nicky Wagner
Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:06 PM
*Subject:* Re: Select Committee consideration of cellphone tower petitions

Please acknowledge receipt of my submission as I am absent but wish to

Cellphone Towers around the world can operate at 10 microwatts per
square centimetre, yet New Zealand moved our limit from 200 to 450
microwatts per square centimetre without any scientific evidence showing
that 450 units of radiation was safer than 10.

If government is going to completely remove peoples rights to request
safer cellsites in communities, then the government should ensure that
the safety limits protect the people of New Zealand.

The Environmental Protection for Children trust has continually asked
for a review of the safety standard NZ Public Exposure Safety Standard
for Fadiofrequency Fields Maximum Exposure 3 kHZ to 300 GHz NZS2772:(99
year made) and to review the standard setting committee. We have asked
that health proffessionals set the standard rather than electrical
engineers, industry spokespeople and people with a vested interest in
the outcome. We were advised that the standard should be reviewed every
10 years, which meant the standard was due for review this year and yet
recent correspondence has indicated that the standard will proberly not
be reviewed in the near future, if at all, because the review needs
industry funding, amoung other funding. What kind of standard do we have?

An indepth concern on the New Zealand standard is on the Safety
Standards page at

The main problem is that the government are continually advised by the
same people in MoH, NRL electrical engineers, industry spokes people and
those with a vested interst in the outcome, when will people who know
about the health effects from radiation be consulted and when will the
people of New Zealand be heard?

Denise Ward,
240 Prestons Road,
New Zealand
Check out

>>> "D Ward" < <>>
17.08.09 11:43 a.m. >>>
Dear John

Last time we spoke, and I sent a covering email/letters I enquired when
the NZ Public Exposure Safety Standard for Fadiofrequency Fields
Maximum Exposure 3 kHZ to 300 GHz NZS2772:99 was to be reviewed and you
mentioned about every 10 years. I also asked who would be on the review
committee as the Public Representative Dr Neil Cherry was deceased. We
were also requesting that we would like to see a Chemist, Biologist,
Medical Physicist, Biological Physicist, Statistical Analyser,
Neurobiologist, specialist Cancer Epidemiologist and Radiobiologist
involved. and to acknowledge receipt of the letter and keep us posted as
to the progress of the committee.

To date we have heard nothing. It is my understanding that you need to
call for funding and that industry usually provide this, and that
funding has yet to be called for. How much funding is required?

When will the call for funding go out?

When will the standard be reviewed?

Who will be invited onto the standard setting committee?

It seems to me that the industry are happy with the standard and
therefore not require a review and thus not pay for the review, thus
nothing changes, but we the public are not happy with the current
standard and might be able to help fund a review, especially since the
European Parliament has acted on the Bio-initiative report.

I look forward to your response in the near future.

I look forward to your reply in the near future.

Denise Ward, Christchurch, New Zealand
Check out

Informant: Iris Atzmon

[ ]

Omega Group

Oct 19, 2009, 12:00:01 AM10/19/09
to Mobilfunk-Newsletter - EMF-Omega-News
News from New Zealand

From: Sue Grey []
Sent: Friday, 16 October 2009 11:53 a.m.
To: ''Subject: Local Government and Environment
Select Committee Presentation by TCF yesterday

Dear Richard

I was in attendance at the LG&E Select Committee hearing yesterday
morning where you presented on behalf of the Telecommunication
Carriers Forum (with Paul Leslie from Telecom and Andrew Cushin from

During your presentation I understood that you said that your members
(which include Telecom, Vodafone, Kordia and Whoosh) are not qualified
to write the law or rules but their role is to follow the various
rules and regulations including the RMA, the NES and District Plans
and the standards and guidelines which set the minimum standards for
emissions etc.

I think you referred to the NZStandard 2772:1 1999 as an example of
standards that your members were not qualified to write, but which
they were obliged to adopt.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that your members
were represented on the Standards Committee which developed NZS2772:1

The standard was originally to be a joint Australia and NZ standard
but the NZ group separated from the Australian group part way through
the process (as the Australians and the single NZ community
representative Dr Ivan Beale) wanted more stringent emission
standards. This is explained in part in the preface to NZS2772:1

After the NZ group was re-formed its membership was as follows:

Mr Ian Hutchings, (Chairman), Ministry of Commerce, voted yes

Mr Roger Matthews, Local Government, voted yes

Dr Andrew McEwan, National Radiation Laboratory, voted yes

Dr David Black, NZ Institute of Occupational & Environmental Medicine,
voted yes

Mr Trevor Woods, Broadcast Communications Ltd, voted yes

Mr Andrew Corney, NZ Assn. of Radio Transmitters, voted yes

Mr Simon Cooke-Willis, Telecom NZ Ltd, voted yes

Dr Ivan Beale, Public representative, voted no

All the industry representatives (Mr Simon Cooke-Willis for Telecom,
Mr Trevor Woods (BCL which I understand is now Kordia), Mr Corney and
Dr Black (whose primary EMR related income seems to be from
representing Telecom, Vodafone, Transpower, the Australian Telco
Hutchison 3G in various forums) and the others with economic interests
all voted “Yes” to NZS2772:1.

The sole community representative (Dr Beale) voted “no”. This gave the
Standards committee the necessary 80% majority to approve the

I do not believe that you submission accurately represented the role
that your clients had in developing NZS2772:1 or their more recent
role in promoting and drafting the NES which adopted NZS2772:1 as a
mandatory standard. This is particularly concerning because the
NZS2772:1 uses the wrong standard of proof for assessments of effects
under the RMA.

The RMA requires consideration and the avoidance, remedying and/or
mitigation of all effects including temporary effects, cumulative
effects, potential effects of high probability and potential effects
of low probability which have a high potential impact (see RMA section
3). The NZS2772:1 adopts a very much stricter definition before it
recognises an effect – as it recognises only effects which are
scientifically certain. It therefore protects only against thermal
effects –ie immediate burns.

NZS2772:1 1999 ignores all effects that are possible but serious,
probably and/or highly probable (but not certain), including the
potential RF has alone or in combination with others factors for
causing brain tumours, mental heath effects, effects on pregnant
women, possible effects on people with pacemakers and other electrical
body parts, and effects on the estimated 4% of the population who are
electromagnetic sensitive or hypersensitive. These are all “effects”
under section 3 of the RMA which should be considered when assessing
whether a proposal represents sustainable management that achieves the
purposes of the RMA – which requires the enabling of people and
communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural
wellbeing and their health and safety.

Even more concerning is that since the NES became law there is often
no forum to consider public views about proposed new cell sites. This
is despite the recommendation in the NZS2772:1 that “it is therefore
sensible in achieving service or [process requirements to minimise
unnecessary or incidental RF exposure”.

The assumption that the public should bear all the risk and cost of
the unknown science, the lack of consultation with communities and the
repeated attempts to locate RF transmitters in inappropriate locations
such as near schools, preschools and residential homes are some of the
reasons why informed community members are so opposed to the current
EMR management regime.

In order to avoid confusion, I would be very grateful if you would
inform the Select Committee of the role that Telecom and other
industry representatives had in the Standards Committee which
developed NZS2772:1 1999 and their active role in developing and
promoting the NES.

If you think I have misunderstood anything or you wish to discuss this
further, please feel free to ring me on 03 5450878 or email me.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSC, RSHDipPHI and concerned mother for three

Ban the Tower Inc




From: Sue Grey
Sent: Sunday, 18 October 2009 3:35 p.m.

Dear Ministers of Health, Environment and Infrastructure
You may be interested in the following news from Maine, USA that
legislators there (both Democrats and Republicans) have voted
unanimously for emergency legislation to require warnings on
cellphones for pregnant women and children. This follows the interim
results of the international Interphone Study which shows a
significant increase in certain types of brain tumours (on the side of
the head where the cellphone is used) 10 or more years after even
modest cellphone use.
All countries use the same international research. Why do our NZ
“experts” continue to deny the biological effects and risks of radio
frequency and microwave radiation that European and Asian states (and
increasingly also American states) protect against?
Your problems funding Accident Compensation will inevitably get
considerably worse when the latent effects of occupational use of
cellphones start appearing in large numbers unless NZ urgently reviews
its approach. This is particularly worrying bearing in mind that most
insurers already reject cover for health effects cased by EMR and the
Limitation Bill may well prevent “product liability” claims where the
causation and harm takes time to develop and prove- thereby putting
the whole cost on the public health system.
Thank you for your roles in letting the LG&E Select Committee re-
commence its inquiry into matters raised in petitions from communities
in Nelson, Auckland and Manukau. This is a big step forward.
It would be excellent if as a result of that inquiry (and/or of your
own initiative) you could:
a) open up membership of the government’s Interagency Committee on
the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation to remove members who
have no relevant qualifications and who represent vested interests and
replace them with members who have expertise in this area;
b) review the NES to ensure it achieves the sustainable management
purposes of the Resource Management Act and the WHO recommendations
for consultation with affected communities;
c) ensure an urgent review of the New Zealand Standard for
Radiofrequencies emissions NZS2772:1 to ensure NZ adopts best
international practice. In the absence of sufficient funding and /or
expertise for review by the NZ Standards Association, you may consider
adopting the Swiss standard for EMR emissions, which represents best
international practice, is based on all the latest research and
enables a country with similar typography to New Zealand to offer the
very highest standards of technology to its residents.
As always I’m happy to discuss this issue.

Kind regards
Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI
Ph 03 5450878

Informant: Martin Weatherall
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages