Page 2469 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
brain patterns. Studies have found that adverse effects from very low levels of phone tower emissions include changes to cell proliferation, chemical mutation in the blood and breaches of the blood brain barrier, which can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer’s and changes of brain patterns. We have heard of the clusters of cancers in an RMIT office just under towers similarly emitting EMR. This is not reassuring to ACT residents who discover that they live within 300 metres of a 3G tower.
3G towers operate at a much higher frequency than the old networks—that is, they create faster vibrations, which may increase the potential health risks. The towers radiate power at similar levels to radio and television transmitters—that is, three watts. Incidentally, the national allowable exposure limit for electromagnetic radiation was increased by five times in 2003 to allow 1,000 microwatts per square centimetre, just in time for the introduction of 3G technology in Australia. Whether this change was based on science or on commercial interests is unclear.
We know that the EMR levels do not decrease until between 100 and 300 metres from a tower, yet in many cases they are being or have been built close to places frequented by vulnerable sections of the population—for instance, close to Campbell primary school and the Australian Catholic University. For every piece of research saying that this radiation will not harm a person there is at least one other saying that it will cause significant health concerns. The fact is that we have not got enough evidence to prove that phone towers are safe or not, and 3G towers are of particular concern because of their density, their proximity to residents and residences and the frequency level at which they operate.
I am sure that Mr Corbell and others will stand here and tell me that mobile phone towers are not a significant threat to the health of the community but none of us can get around the fact that we have not had this technology long enough for the results to well and truly be in. I am afraid that we will have to watch people over a lifetime to know how this technology will impact upon us.
We know that the towers are only suitable for urban areas because they must be closely networked. I heard on radio this morning a misleading report in relation to the Telstra sale that the technology would be available to rural areas. If it is available we will have more phone towers than there are currently trees.
I have been urging and will continue to urge the ACT government to act responsibly in this matter by applying the precautionary principle. We do not know if this technology is safe so we need to take all reasonable steps to protect residents from any possible negative health effects. It is within the interests of Telstra and Hutchison to disregard potentially deleterious health risks but it is the role of the government to look out for the interests of the people of the ACT. I am not quite sure who will be the plaintiff in cases that are rolled out by insurance companies and affected individuals in the future but I suspect that Telstra will know how to step sideways. However, it will be harder for the ACT government to do that.
In this matter people have been fobbed off, treated to statutory consultation, with all its limitations, and told not to worry. The government’s general line—and this is the answer I got to a question on notice—is that the ACT cannot put in place any guidelines outside of the federal government’s laws. This is not necessarily the case because we have seen
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .