Re: Radio frequency radiation and the “governing body”
When it comes to this there are certain facts that come into play other than the will of the people.
Firstly and primarily, revenue. Once upon a time, a satellite had to get a licence to transmit (they still do); when I investigated the costs of such a thing, it was quite a bit (15 years or more ago) — at a guess $65,000 a year. Now, who knows? At any rate, at that time commercial land-based transmitters were expensive as well (sorry no figures). Now using this as an example and using the increased amount of land-based transmitters, revenue for the government has to have gone up.
As stated in other letters, using the fact that people who lived near high power transmitters have odd health problems, they have (government) allowed lower power transmitters to avoid such publicity, and to fain concern, but the result is more people get subjected to an even level, perhaps higher levels than the large high power transmitters, due to/because of, their distance from such places.
They call a certain part of Victoria Intermod. alley and if you live there good luck; you are stuck between three points of a triangle (surrounded) by transmitters.
I’m glad I am not there now. Stop the RF from messing with our cells and our lives. Wireless communications are not useful in emergencies, it has been proven.
The addiction to electronic apparatus I find amazing; I do not use a cell. Feeding the companies that add the transmitters is insane (sorry).
Keep the low power units out of your area if you can. Who says other companies can’t put transmitters there as well? And of course exposure would add up, sorry again, but I am biased.
Good luck, or move farther away from the city and its pollution.