Why We Shouldn’t Oppose TETRA (So We’re Told)

Much disinformation is put out about why we shouldn’t oppose TETRA, and why those who do oppose it are foolish or positively mischievous. Below are all the misleading half-truths and non-truths encountered so far. Certain high-ranking police officials, as well as mmo2 themselves, will try these on you, or on others around you. Below each one is a reasoned response.

1. No one will state that any system is totally safe

As it stands, this statement is totally true - and totally unhelpful & irrelevant.  There are two criteria that could be applied.  One is 'The balance of probabilities' criterion: On balance, it is more likely to be safe than unsafe, or vice versa.  The other is 'Beyond reasonable doubt'.  To my mind this latter is the only criterion that counts when you’re dealing with potential major risks to people’s health. My reading of the mmo2 (and NRPB) case is that they are applying the former criterion (though of course they would claim not), and using evidence which they have chosen to interpret in favour of their preferred result. I can point to elements in the NRPB documents that support my analysis – I consider their approach to be lacking in scientific objectivity.

2. Devon & Cornwall Police radio system is old and ineffective.  Large areas affected by Blackspots.  Radio signals being obliterated by spanish fishing boats turning up VHF to speak to each other.  System is insecure and continually being scanned.

The term ‘ineffective’ is highly emotive. It’s clearly not ineffective – they use it effectively a lot of the time. I have not seen a cost-benefit analysis done on this: how many lives are being lost (or crimes unsolved) that would not be lost/unsolved with TETRA, against degradation of quality of life, and possible health risks. This is not a red herring, it is normal business practice.

Anyway, this is not your problem and should not be put on your plate. There are a number of ways of dealing with the police communications issue – most of which do not involve public health risks. One reason we are faced with this problem is government greed – auctioning off the previously-used frequencies to private companies for astronomical amounts. It is not beyond the power of government to rectify this.

As I say, not your problem. The issue stands or falls on the health question.

3. Airwave TETRA system DOES NOT PULSE.  Information that it does pulse is still being used by protesters despite proof to the contrary.

Alisdair Phillips of Powerwatch has recorded the output of at least two TETRA masts – by invitation. His results showed clear pulsing. NRPB representatives then tested the same mast (in at least one of these cases) and claimed their instruments showed no pulsing. From the scientific view, knowing a fair bit about the technology involved, the assertion of ‘no pulsing’ makes no sense to me. (However, I think it might be possible to fake a no-pulsing situation on a specific TETRA mast for a short while – watch out for this).

At the Tiverton Conference of Mid-Devon Councils on 5th July, Dr. Gerard Hyland of Warwick University put up a display of a TETRA signal trace and counted the pulses – seventeen and a half per second – in front of everybody.

The final sentence in the NRPB’s own section on TETRA in the Stewart Report states:

“So the transmission is pulsed at 17.6 Hz” (times per second).

4. System is no more dangerous than any mobile phone system

Without any scientific support, this assertion is worthless. It typifies the off-the-cuff opinions that are given in support of TETRA, with the implication that they should be believed because they are stated authoritatively.

5. Advice that frequencies of 16Hz should be avoided was published in the Stewart Report following tests on dead brain tissue in the 1970s.  No one has ever been able to reproduce these results and the author Colin Blakemore regrets EVER PUBLISHING it.

I love this one! This refers to the 11 experiments I refer to in my ‘skeleton’ piece (none of these 11 was published by Blakemore!) of which 7 show significant effects of pulsing around 16 cycles/sec. The later NRPB Report on TETRA bends over backwards in a most ungainly (and quite unscientific) manner to discredit this result – which they themselves published only a short while before. For example, in the same section they question the findings of the Stewart Report – then cite it as an authoritative source for things they do agree with!! You can’t have it both ways! As to repeatability, the reason there were 11 experiments is that later scientists were testing the results of earlier ones – and in several cases the results were repeated. All of modern medical practice is based on study of ‘dead tissue’ – and that seems to be generally acceptable. If TETRA affects dead brain tissue in this way, is it not appropriate to check on live brain effects before rolling it out????

I’m not surprised Blakemore wishes the Stewart bit had never happened – it’s upset the applecart big time!

6. So-called scientists who say that TETRA is unsafe have no standing in the scientific community.

This is untrue. There is a great deal of peer-reviewed research on this subject published by internationally respected scientists – much of this is referenced in Barry Trower’s Report. It is true, however, that it is difficult to get research published in mainstream journals if it diverges from accepted thinking on the subject. This is because a journal article must first be considered by established scientists in the field – peer reviewed – and established scientists do not readily accept findings that challenge their established position, or seem to. This is something of a Catch-22: How do you get published if you’re not established, and you can’t get established without being fairly extensively published. The ‘answer’, of course, is to only submit work that is in line with current thinking!

This touches on another can of worms, that of ‘Research Assessment’ (also called ‘Research Selectivity’) in universities. Departments are checked for ‘quality’ & ‘relevance’ of research under a government-based process, and future funding is based on the score they get – guess what happens to research groups whose studies aren’t in line with ‘current thinking’ on a particular topic. There’s a great deal of unease about this in academic circles.

7. Guidelines are laid down by the NRPB following advice from reputable independent scientists and experts who are not in the pocket of manufacturers.

The NRPB is funded by government and radiation-associated industries – are they going to have time or money for researchers or consultants who produce findings they don’t want? ‘How to keep your job’, it’s called! (A bit like the Research Assessment above). See also Barry Trower on Camelia Gabriel, and report in the Observer (detailed in Barry’s report). There is also evidence that the NRPB is selective about which research they choose to look at – see another Observer article: ‘Risk from mobile masts was hidden’, on this site.

8. Guidelines say that masts should not be within 50 meters of houses.  Engineers are safe to work up to 3 meters from the antenna.  These minimum figures give safety levels 100s if not 1000s of times greater than required.  TETRA complies with international guidelines.

Engineers working on radar in the war used to warm themselves in front of the scanners. Some years later many of them were dead with cancer & leukaemia. Similar comments apply to workers dealing with asbestos. Etc, etc. International guidelines are only related to heating effect – does it cook you. And they don’t address long-term low-level exposure risks (don’t even recognize them) - Dr. Hyland has written some excellent research on that topic (see Hyland paper on this site). Even the NRPB Report on TETRA states that:

“… published epidemiological studies . . . do not exclude the possibility of a risk of cancer that appears only after many years of exposure, nor of a hazard from RF (radio frequency) radiation modulated specifically at around 16 Hz.”

9. The Police Federation are being advised by a man called Barry Trower, who is a science teacher at a Devon School.  His qualifications do not warrant his expert status.

You do not discredit an authentic message by attempting to discredit the messenger. Barry is in demand all over the world. This isn’t because the people that pay for him to be flown out to address them are stupid, it’s because he faithfully and impartially presents the research findings of many eminent scientists with world-class reputations. This criticism is ‘clutching at straws’.

10. Tests carried out in Lancashire Police Force.  3000 officers were given questionnaires, only 240 replied.  Of these 173 complaints were classed as positive.  70% of these complaints were resolved as being due to acoustic shock induced by faulty earpieces.  This has been rectified. The remainder of complaints are of such effects as headaches and unable to sleep.  It is suspect that at least some of these are due to Officers worrying about the system due to adverse publicity.  NO ONE REPORTED SICK as a result.

I’ve heard the ‘acoustic noise’ thing called ‘spiking’. If it were this, the officers in question would know it was this – it’s very evident, and it’s not new (last I heard, it was due to ‘software errors’ – they need to agree on their storyline!). If police officers are reporting unexplained symptoms (as read out by a police officer on the TV programme detailed on this site) it aint spiking. I don’t know about the ‘not off sick’, could well be true – if officers are beginning to go off sick things will have reached a serious stage. The symptoms reported are totally consistent with those predicted by researchers such as Gerard Hyland.

11. WHERE PLANNING IS REFUSED 02 WILL APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  OPINION IS THAT THE PLANNING AUTHORITY WILL BE OVERRULED.  LOCAL COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO PAY COSTS OF APPEAL.

This one pretty much says it all. ‘If you don’t go along with it, we’ll make you wish you had’. So how’s that for democratic process? ‘Do as we want, or the gloves come off’. Great.

12. Several Police Forces are using system including N.Yorks, Lancashire; Sussex and Leicester about to commence.

Yes. The Police Federation’s own website expresses concern that they are being used as guinea pigs (see link on this site). We have heard about Lancs & Yorks (and the reports of unexplained symptoms) already. The fact that two other forces are about to be subjected is a matter of concern – but hardly an argument in its favour!