[permaculture-oceania] News excerpts - mobile phones safe, carbon tax not

[Russ Grayson]

ABC Online...
The World Health Organisation recently announced it found no evidence - in
15 years of scientific studies - that exposure to radio frequencies from
transmitters (such as mobile phone towers) increased a person's cancer risk.
It has also said "present scientific information does not indicate the need
for any special precautions for use of mobile phones".

This is encouraging. The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association
(www.amta.org.au) considers all mobile phones equally safe if they are under
the independently tested Australian safety limit of two watts a kilogram
(averaged over 10 grams), yet working on the premise that less is best, I
prefer to choose one that's lower in emissions.

What do these emissions mean? Randal Markey, the association's
communications manager, says "comparing SAR values is not like comparing,
for example, energy efficiency stars on electrical appliances. A phone's
maximum SAR is always below safety standards, but varies widely during
everyday use, whereas the energy efficiency of electrical appliances is
largely stable.

"Mobile phones automatically adjust to the minimum power level needed to
successfully connect and maintain a quality call. This allows them to
operate more efficiently to preserve battery life, increase talk time and
reduce network interference. Generally, the closer you are to a base
station, the lower the output of the phone and studies have shown this is
the most significant factor in real-life SAR levels."

Kelly Parkinson, a SAR expert within AMTA, says a study in Paris showed the
mobile was mostly operating at only 1 per cent of full power - in which case
"you can be sure that the SAR will be very low".

He says SAR is not the best measurement for safety, noting that the World
Health Organisation recommends the hands-free kit as the best way to reduce
emission exposure.

"For every unit of distance [the aerial is] away from your head the emission
level drops off twice as much," he says. "So distance is a very critical
factor."

For most people, this would be enough to make them comfortable with buying
whichever phone takes their fancy. If, however, you're still paranoid like
me and want that lower SAR rating, you'll need to do a bit of legwork.

Once you've selected your mobile provider - or have decided you don't want
to change - make a short list of phones that best suit your needs and
budget. With any luck, there won't be more than two or three different
makers involved.

Websites such as SAR Shield (www.sarshield.com), which sells radiation
shields for mobile phones, and the Mobile Manufacturer's Forum
(www.mmfai.org) detail the level of emissions from a wide range of phones.
However, our newer mobiles take a little while to get listed on these
overseas sites.

Don't waste time on mobile phone company websites looking for SAR
information. It's usually there somewhere, but it's faster to phone the
companies direct. Nokia, for example, has a separate web address devoted to
SAR results (www.sar.nokia.com/sar/index.jsp) - you select the model number
and are given the details immediately. Motorola, Samsung and Sony Ericsson
are also able to produce information.

For further information, see the Mobile Telephones and Health Effects page
of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
(www.arpansa.gov.au/is_phone.htm).
..............................................................

SMH...
 Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
July 18, 2006

THERE IS little chance the world would agree to a uniform carbon tax to
stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere but without it the cost of
addressing climate change would be sharply higher, according to the nation's
top forecaster.

If all countries agreed to cut their forecasted 2050 emissions by 40 per
cent and to impose a carbon tax, the consequences would include an estimated
reduction in global economic output of up to 3.4 per cent below what it
would otherwise have been, said the executive director of the Australian
Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Dr Brian Fisher.

"However, the political feasibility of all countries agreeing to a
harmonised carbon tax to achieve this outcome is highly questionable," he
said.

A bureau report looked at how the world economy would have to change to make
major cuts in greenhouse emissions. If Australia reduced its emissions 50
per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, gross domestic product was projected to
be 10.7 per cent lower.

"Output from key energy-intensive industries is projected to fall between 50
and 75 per cent and the agricultural sector would also experience a 44 per
cent decline in output relative to what would otherwise have occurred at
2050," Dr Fisher said.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday referred to the report to back up
his rejection of a carbon tax as a way of addressing rising greenhouse
gases. However, green groups criticised the report for failing to take
account of the economic costs of not addressing climate change.

"ABARE's report is yet another piece of government scaremongering on why
Australia cannot afford significant cuts in greenhouse pollution," said a
Greenpeace energy campaigner, Catherine Fitzpatrick.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RUSS GRAYSON
journalism, online content production, photojournalism, instructional
manuals, media services for overseas aid

PO Box 1045, Manly, NSW 1655 AUSTRALIA
info at pacific-edge.info
P: 0414 065 203
www.pacific-edge.info

TerraCircle international development team, Oceania
www.terracircle.org.au

Australian City Farms & Community Gardens Network
www.communitygarden.org.au
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^