Opinion
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
I bet the signal she gets from her tin foil hat is immense.
ReplyThe writer is obviously better informed than you. It’s a serious issue that deserves attention rather than immature snipes.
ReplyAgreed, Owain.
ReplyNo, it isn’t. You mistake dismissing the claims for not understanding them. Later on your reveal your true motives by referring to those who dismiss these claims as “closed minded”. For many people fringe theories like this are a means to try and assert a claim to be more open minded, better informed, etc. They like feeling like they are in a minority who truly get what the slavish masses do not understand. This is the only real substance to these baseless claims. The claims are dismissed because they are absurd. They are ridiculed because they are ridicolous. Simple.
ReplyWhat an idiotic message, responding to a well researched, scientific article. You really do sound like a half wit
ReplyI sincerely hope that our journey towards independence isn't hijacked by every crackpot theory out there. Will we also be anti-vaxxers? Are the Flat Earth Society also going to get a chance to publish on this website? Any articles on how The Illuminati are running everything? If this blog becomes a vehicle to publish any and everything, without some sort of editorial sense, then it falls far from it's objective of being any sort of "voice for Wales" and will just become yet another in a long line of noble free publishing intentions that was scuppered by an inability to generate any trust in its readership. Anyway, if anyone wants some truly independent research summaries on the "damage" of EMF then the WHO is a good place to start - http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html The main summary is: "Conclusions from scientific research In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research." I'm all for further research - science always finds it impossible to prove a negative, but the hysterical reaching in this article is not "research", it is selective and driven by an already assumed outcome.
ReplyGood of you to try and soil the debate with totally unrelated issues, it helps to understand where you're coming from. (You can always tell the people who cannot bear to look at information objectively -- they come out with hostile ad hominems, straw men and every other kind of fallacy under the sun). If you truly believe that the WHO is an agency worth looking at, then what do you think of the official view of their cancer arm - the IARC - which considers RF/wireless radiation as a Class 2B cancer risk (as contrast to the document you've found and cited). Class 2B is a long way from it being classed as "safe". The WHO officially has different view points on the matter, and it's also fair to say that many IARC panelists believe that the listing should be Class 1 -- a confirmed, known carcinogen, based on a variety of robust scientific metrics. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf Here's an up to date study from Nature -- peer-reviewed journals don't get much better than that: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8 There are plenty more where they came from. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.22104/abstract http://microwavenews.com/news-center/more-coincidence It might be time to re-evaluate how much of the wireless (world's most lucrative industry) PR spin you've bought and what damage they've actually caused in their quest to fill everyone's home with RF-polluting gadgets.
ReplyI see exactly where you’re coming from. This belief matters to you. It is irrational. It has no scientific basis but it is a belief you have and I have attacked it so with religious you just attack back less a fundamental part of who you are, a core belief, be reappraised. I understand it is painful to address these parts of yourself but there is help out here if you are willing to listen. Good luck.
ReplyQuoting the WHO is a bit flawed. Their guidance is 20 years out of date and the research referred to in this article is much more relevant to the technology that has emerged since the WHO last looked at this. Any ‘journey towards independence’, as you call it, needs discussion from all involved. It needs to be an inclusive process in which all views and concerns are aired. Everyone needs to listen to the concerns of others. Maybe this is a journey that you, brighty, with your closed mindset, are not ready for? Maybe you’re not able to see the astute editorial sense in publishing this. EMFs are an increasingly serious issue of which you’re obviously unaware. And yes, it is an issue that concerns the future well-being of Wales.
ReplyThe quote you pasted from the WHO website is not the opinion of the WHO as an organization, but instead the writing of the one person (yes: 1 person) who sits in the office tasked with electromagnetic fields. That person is an electronics engineer with no (like in: zero) competencies in biology, medicine or other health related field. Keep that in mind.
ReplyYes, everyone should be aware that the head of the WHO’s EMF project, Dr Emilie van Deventer (who, by the way, has no medical credentials whatsoever, is an electrical engineer and used to do research on the development of wireless telecommunications technologies), has admitted that scientists are divided on the health impacts of RFR: “The data is gray. It’s not black and white.” […] “There is no consensus, it’s true. There’s a big group and a little group, but it’s still two groups. I can’t tell you that there’s one group that is completely correct.” Source: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2015/03/u-office-removes-statement-about-safety-of-wi-fi-radiation-following-activist-pressure/ In a video posted by Professor Dariusz Lesczynski's on his blog, she also avoids stating that ICNIRP and the WHO have got it right: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/blunder-by-icnirps-and-who-emf-projects-bosses/
ReplyIn reply to Annelie
When a large aircraft and a small aircraft nearly collide its described in the media as a 'near miss' . Well that's the same as a collision. This is standard lexicon for challenge and debate, but not childish, shouty comments of a juvenile nature. In the meantime it's proper to air these differences and note those who seek to interpret the evidence as an opposite opinion or an unsure one, need to declare who they are and allegiances. I see a re run of the climate change sceptics, most health issues where concerns are raised contrary to vested interests of a commercial issue, and those who sit in judgement where the proposal might in some way might affect their way of life and interests. I fear this will not be easy.
ReplyI remember all the nonsense was being talked about the carcinogenic effects of smoking. It was 30 years and more before eventually defeating the tobacco giants and countless painful deaths world wide. I'm mindful of the expression that 'pioneers are always shot at' . Circle the wagons.
ReplyExcept, of course, it was actual scientists that researched and published studies into the health effects of smoking in legitimate peer-reviewed journals and charlatans in the pay of the tobacco industry that refuted these claims. It was never scientific orthodoxy to deny the harm that smoking does. Your parallel is invalid.
ReplyAn invalid parallel and also common refrain for those who have baseless arguments, phrases like "Pioneers are always shot at" is an amusing little rhetorical device but it is no use in a rational discussion based on evidence and... oh, you don't want one of those. I see.
ReplyIn reply to brighty
You're the one using rhetorical fallacies, Brighty - "crackpots, anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, illuminati" are straw men and ad hominems that have no basis in honest debate. Seems you know the theory of intellectual arguments but only get involved in them when it suits you, and hope nobody notices your own baseless arguments.
ReplyThis is what happens when we start to listen to the kind of anti-scientific crackpots that have Neil McEvoy's ear. Suddenly you find yourself on a slippery slope towards publishing all sorts of flat-earthisms. Get a grip.
ReplyCan anyone here actually draw a relevant complaint with the author's points without resorting to playground name-calling?
ReplyI don't advise a haircut, man. All hairdressers are in the employment of the government. Hair are your aerials. They pick up signals from the cosmos and transmit them directly into the brain. This is the reason bald-headed men are uptight
ReplyHaving worked in the Health sector and in particular health promotion the scepticism you show now was prevalent in much greater numbers over denials about the risks of smoking. Often trotted out was the person who smoked tirelessly all throughout life and was unaffected by the tobacco smoke. The constant clever advertising of fags targeted at the young. Your chances of a healthy life, and therefore immunity from illnesses. The older movies where there was the popular actor forever smoking a cigarette. A role model for the tobacco industry. What is this if blatant denial of the extreme affects on the vulnerable. If you really think that there was a charlatan culture that made things up then what does that say about the tobacco industry. If the evidence of cancer inducing by products of smoking was evident well before the prevention of smoking policies , and there are numerous, then why knowingly was smoking tobacco still not curtailed. I'm thinking of particularly concentrating on young people who if hooked then, would remain a customer for life. All the points you make were those said at the first sign of tobacco inhalation as possible carcinogenic. That secondary smoking was as toxic as main. That there are 50 different toxins in smoke including monoxide. The case to make smoking a serous health risk took far greater by the sort of comments made by others at that time. Is not Annelie making an early indication of a possible fall out of health problems hurting particularly the young. The need to know of potential issues from this new mode of communicating. Not to do so is unforgiving, as there those who already who see it as premature. I, like many would prefer such a notice of possible difficulties and solutions. Much more than ridicule.
ReplyWhereas I, like most, would prefer reasoned science than the agenda led dribble that leads this article. There is NO equivalence between the smoking/tobacco issue and this one. You cannot make the false projection that a past suppression of the dangers of smoking means that because EMF damage is being dismissed then it is only a matter of time before it too follows smoking and becomes a widely accepted viewpoint. That isn't science. I can't make something up and then say "hey, they laughed at Galileo as well!" as any sort of scientific justification to my theories and definitely not as a support to get them acted on by a government. Read the science. The reason the EMF damage is being ridiculed is because there is, like anti-vaccination, a real and possible danger from accepting and promoting these half baked theories based on selective and non-expert understanding of the science involved. By limiting our use of this technology, based on this idea that "while we're not sure, we should stop/reduce", we limit our ability to benefit from them. For wifi/mobile it is primarily an economic benefit (so not as immediately dangerous as anti-vaccination) but in the long term a lower economy has significant health impacts for all of us. All of us. I just have to say this again -- science cannot prove a negative. Article's like Annelie's are doing far more than "making an early indication of a possible fall out of health problems", they are trading off the fact that we can never, ever prove they don't, while selectively ignoring the evidence (see the WHO article) that we have found no evidence of a positive connection. Lots of anecdote. Lots of pseudo scientific guff. But no positive connection. So there is no notice of possible difficulties to need to give to people and, as I said above, dangers from always accepting any suggestion that there may be a risk. You may as well ask us to warn people that in 30 years we might find out eating fruit causes bowel cancer. Because, you know, we might. Are people perhaps just suppressing that now? I was ill after an orange once, it must be at least considered as a possible option and the sale of oranges restricted until we know for sure. I for one would just like us to consider the possibility that eating oranges might be dangerous, we don't know for sure it isn't. We have not got 100% proof. Oh my word, won't someone think of the children?
ReplyThe economy will be able to cope with a realisation that current EMF pollution is harmful and a resultant call for the industry to engineer solutions to make it safe/safer/as safe as possible. The economy will not be able to cope with continued rises in chronic diseases, cancer, infertility and drops in life expectancy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pensioners-uk-life-expectancy-falling-institute-and-faculty-of-actuaries-a7661571.html
ReplyIn reply to Simon
Current EMF pollution is not harmful. The rest of the world will not come around to your irrational belief as the rest of the world is using science.
ReplyIn reply to brighty
If it's not harmful, why are you calling it "pollution"?
ReplyIn reply to Simon
Exactly - it is pollution.
ReplyIn reply to Simon
I have learnt much from your web references Simon, and thank you. I am planning to write to the Chief Medical Officer for Wales and these will be most useful evidence to refer too. By way of causal life style choices, there are specific responsibilities on the appropriate Health Authorities to seek to inform and protect for the very reason that costs of health care can run into countless billions of pounds. It's in their interest to do so. Let alone human suffering. Eg The cost of treating smoke related diseases and chronic lifestyle choices is astronomical. Much could have been avoided, with huge benefit to society, our industries, and family life. I think the vitriol comes from lack of appreciation may be, the nanny state syndrome again. Or perhaps just ignorance.
ReplyAt least you have been astute enough to identify my deeply held concern about the possible affects life styles and modernity can have on the vulnerable and particularly children. I subscribe to the notion 'that it takes a community to raise a child'. Whereas adults can with enough knowledge make informed choices, what to eat, drink, all lifestyle choices that children are mostly unable to do. I make no apology for this reference. Importantly let's focus on the future issues to do with this very well written and carefully sentenced article. It references to ' there is a significant body of scientific evidence that exposure to man made RF-EMFs ......is detrimental to health. In 2015 over 200 scientists from 41 Nations all specialists in the biological effects of EMFs signed the international EMF scientist appeal. It suggests damage is already being done. Wales is lagging behind others. With devolution we can make moves now, through Public Health Wales, to at least request a statement whether your analysis, the parts that are mentionable, and others, who have contributed in the same way, are right, or the growing body of scientists who differ. I'm writing to ask. With copies to the First Minister of our Senedd. There is every chance that with enough concern from our own health specialists, and if there is designated funding perhaps from Europe , that we can create In our excellent Universities the potential rewards from designing new bio friendly telecommunications technologies. I commend this approach to now gather public support for a careful look at what is needed to make us safer in the future, and what , if damage is alreafy done what remedial health issues need consideration. To do nothing, as suggested by a few, is the anti position now created through the new Well -Being of Future Generations Act.
ReplyWell said, Graham. I think the saying is 'History doesn't repeat but it rhymes'. There almost certainly could be ways for the telecoms industry to create safer alternatives, but until the pressure mounts for them to do so, they will ignore it. There is also a mountain of mythology to break through in the public's mind that man-made EMFs are "safe" -- even though the industry is on record as saying "let me be clear, the industry has not said once that cell phones are safe" apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940431. Swisscom, the Swiss version of Vodafone, applied for a patent to make WiFi safer a few years ago but the system was never brought into production http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/major-phone-firm-patent-admits-non-thermal-exposures-to-wireless-radiation-is-genotoxic-causes-clear-damage-to-hereditary-material/ And not even the UK government will go on record and claim it's 'safe' -- they will only give a wet hangout and say there is no "convincing" evidence of harm -- an unscientific cop-out, since what one is convinced of is highly subjective. There is a reliance on people remaining ignorant. Seems to be working here so far.
ReplyWow, what a load of gullible fools there are in the world. I’ve got a bridge I want to see you and if I don’t you’re all going to be ill. Now form an orderly queue.
ReplyIn reply to brighty
Brighty, what is the safe level of microwave radiation for a pregnant woman?
ReplyDue to MWR, here in Finland it is recommended to keep mobiles away from pre-schools and the unborn. Wasn't there something about this in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure ?
ReplyIt really annoys me when someone says 'read the science' in support of this microwave technology. All that proves is that the writer certainly hasn't 'read the science' and if he has, then he hasn't understood it.
ReplyIt really annoys me when enthusiastic amateurs think that reading science on the internet makes them well placed to make judgements on things they do not really understand. I have a bachelors degree, 1st class honours, and a PhD in this subject. I’ve studied the science and passed tough assessments in it. So I assume you will now tell me what makes you qualified to pass comment on it now?
Reply"It really annoys me when enthusiastic amateurs think that reading science on the internet makes them well placed to make judgements on things they do not really understand." You said it yourself Blighty. You have no idea what you're talking about. What a wasted education. I suggest you start learning about electromagnetic frequencies from an expert, type Barrie Trower into Youtube and start learning from someone who knows what they're talking about.
ReplyThat sounds reasonable. So, being an expert, would you not recommend, say for a village, a feeder running fibre optic cable to each dwelling? Also, what would be your assessment of the effects of MWR exposure leading to a degeneration of the protective sheath surrounding brain neurons in the unborn and children, given their thin skulls more absorbant brain tissue?
Reply@brighty please tell me then, whats the dominant mode of interaction between radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and living cells? (hint: "dominant" means that there are more than one).
ReplyAn excellent article. It agrees with leading experts in this field, such as Dr Paul Héroux, Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism, McGill University, Canada: "Increasing the dependency on wireless is going in the wrong direction. We should leapfrog to higher techniques such as optical fibre. All EM radiation is probably carcinogenic. Clean up your EM environment; there are alternatives.”
ReplyI was in Norway sailing last summer and spent an afternoon with another fellow from Oslo. He was a researcher into the effects of wifi and mobile phones. He was not preachy on the subject but quite convincing in a matter-of-fact way. Consequently I exchanged my wifi broadcaster for a cable-only router when I got home. Never been one for using mobile phones as a phone as I had been reading research some 15 years ago into their possible detrimental effects due to their use - especially the type that was then being introduced to police forces. I think it's smart to take a precautionary approach to these broadcasting technologies. I also think that provided these finding satisfy scientific rigour then a public education campaign should be conducted. I would not however be supportive of legislation restricting use of this dodgy technology. I know it may sound harsh, but I believe people should be allowed to harm themselves if they so wish (But they should know that they are doing it.) With regards grasping an economic opportunity through creating and promoting alternative communication technologies, that's something anyone or any group of people could do anywhere in the world. Could be a Welsh-led team. That would be great. Outside of procurement biases, I'm not sure if it's something that should directly involve government however, if that is what the author is implying.
ReplyAgree, glasiad. If one uses a mobile, best to keep it in a bag or back pack, at 20cm distance. Also, check your children do not put them under their pillows at night. I know I would have done as a child. We all remember reading under the bedclothes, torch aglow, of Dan Dare's or other's adventures!
ReplyGlasiad, you’re right that one of the issues at stake here is informed consent, and I am strongly in favour of an informed population being able to make their own decisions. The problem is that at the moment people are not being given the information they need in order to be able to make such decisions; instead, they are being given the impression that exposure to wireless carries no risks. But there is also the huge issue of involuntary exposure: children do not give their consent to be exposed to RFR (a 2B carcinogen) from WiFi networks at school; most people are now exposed at work whether they like it or not; you may decide to remove wireless technology from your home but still be exposed to RFR from neighbouring properties or nearby phone masts. Overall, we need public awareness campaigns and to be more ‘sober’ in our use of this technology in its current form. The Welsh Government and Public Health Wales need to start taking serious action on this issue in accordance with the WFG Act and as recommended in Resolution 1815 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The website wiserwireleswales.org has more information on this issue.
ReplyElectrophobia is not a new phenomena. Its microwave variant started in the 70's when a New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur, wrote The Zapping of America and then Currents of Death about HT powerlines. The US Airforce took this very seriously. In a continuous range of studies over 50 years now, they have sought to discover how non-ionizing radiation might effect their capability and impact on very expensive pilots and air crew. They certainly found that there would be an increase in cataracts as result of medium intensity exposure over time,however epidemiological evidence on cataract instances does not seem to indicate that there has been any increase in cataracts over the period of time that populations have been exposed to man-made non-ionizing radiation. In fact the USAF studies (which continue to this day) have not found any evidence of any hazard from man-made non-ionizing radiation that might be found at levels much higher than might be found inside aircraft, let alone the intensity in the open air. Cranks try to sound scientific- but have rarely been in a laboratory that does continuous and repeated studies. Society's use of this technology is known to have saved many many lives.
ReplyMartin, I'm afraid we're not talking about electrophobia but about physiological impacts, the existence of which has been objectively proven. Interestingly, the US Navy has research, dating from 1971, which shows divergent effects from those you refer to: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf You can read an account of how Professor Magda Havas acquired it here: http://www.magdahavas.com/introduction-to-from-zorys-archive/ For those who are interested, Dr Don Maisch's PhD dissertation provides a detailed account of how and why RF exposure guidelines were set at current unprotective levels, a process in which the influence of the “military-industrial complex” (Eisenhower) was decisive. Maisch has made it freely available to download: https://www.emfacts.com/the-procrustean-approach/
ReplySadly the evidence once read leads me to firm opinion that more investigation is needed and tentative warnings made public. Not to do so is irresponsible. I have written to : Dr Frank Atherton Chief Medical Officer for Wales and Vaughan Gethin Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Cynulliad Cenedlaethiol Cymru, asking firstly, for a statement on whether there is cause for concern, secondly, whether public bodies in Wales are carrying out sustainable development effective to achieving the 7 well- being goals the recent legislation (WBFG (Wales) Act 2015, outlined as key areas to focus, thirdly to be explicit in actions needed to protect those regarded most vulnerable (children) on the basis of better to be 'safe than sorry' and until there is clear evidence that EMFs are regarded as completely harmless. I do hope others will too.
ReplyWell done Graham, but I'm afraid I can almost guarantee that you will get the standard fudge of an answer from Public Health Wales, the Chief Medical Officer and the Health Minister, i.e., there is "no consistent evidence to date that exposure to radio signals from wi-fi and WLANs adversely affects the health of the general population." (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wireless-networks-wi-fi-radio-waves-and-health/wi-fi-radio-waves-and-health) The Welsh Government, councils and public bodies in Wales all quote this in response to any concerns being raised about WiFi or any other source of man-made RFR. Again, one question is, what about babies, children and other vulnerable people? Furthermore, Professor Martin Pall, one of the world’s leading researchers on the effects of RF-EMF on health has pointed out that the quest for “consistent evidence” is an erroneous one when the research being reviewed has been carried out on different cells: “in measurements using identical methodologies, the properties of the cells being studied are critical in determining the biological response found.” Source: Martin L. Pall, “Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action” (2015). You can download the paper for free here: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2015.30.issue-2/reveh-2015-0001/reveh-2015-0001.xml See also: http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/08/dr-martin-pall-opposes-sb649/ In the UK neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey has written a similar peer-reviewed critique of AGNIR’s 2012 review of the science on EMF health effects. Her conclusion was that “the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest. Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.” Source: Sarah J. Starkey, “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation” (2016). You can download the paper for free here: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.pdf
ReplyAnnelie, I welcome your call for temperance and patience, on cut and paste responses. It's a professional way of directing you to the revoving door. Sadly, Wales as part of a Union, then the main policies, despite the fact that The Assembly has oversight of the NHS in Wales, is led by the London based Ministries. It's the Department of Health England will determine the policy in this matter, and most others, and will endure conformity of practice and responses. I suspect, as you do, that the draft has already been prepared with stock answers and fudge. I find it deplorable, and sleazy. Thankfully I see other countries more responsive, and this brings some comfort, but not the fact that Wales lags behind others on these fundamental issues of child protection. I have a store of good material from your excellent blogs, enough to provide a bed to lie on for a while. Until woken up should matters spiral, as I think they will. Then I will be prepared. Lots of good wishes.
ReplyNot a great deal of pleasure to confirm your considered views without regard for reciprocity but of standard cautious text replies to searching answers needed to be in front of game changing health issues. The letter by electronic mail, no hard text from Vaughan Gethin's sent from admin staff was perfunctory, and anticipatedly so. Quote ' The Welsh Government is advised by Public Health England (PHE) Centre for radiation chemicals and Environmemtal Hazards'. 'PHE's position is there is still no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to electro magnetic and other radio technologies at levels below international agreed levels affect human health' . https//www.gov.uk/government/collections/electromagnetic-fields. Not worked out the web reference above can be clicked active. But that's the reference referred too. Hey Ho, Ho hey. But what say you to the dangers to children. Left to chance maybe. Thanks again for your post.
ReplyI have responded to Vaughan Gethin about the standardised and antiseptic response. We agree with little thought, that this was position neutral. 3 Brass monkeys I suppose. Well then. I shall await the response from the Chief Medical Officer, before any further thoughts. But it is likely to echo the sentiments already struck. That said I've not had an acknowledgement from Dr Frank Atherton, so I'm not hopeful. Whichever way. But is the issue falling around 'consistent' evidence to which you referred too, and ' no convincing evidence', to which Vaughan referred too. There is a difference. Ah, but both may be interrelated. And mean the same. I wonder Annelie, if I should start a petition up. I don't know or remember how many you need to have a discussion at the Senedd, but at least it will test the waters. Cold, luke or hot. At this rate nothing is going to happen. Of it falls then I tried. I need to tap into mums net sites and the like. I'm sure there's fertile ground there.
ReplyGraham, if you would like to get in touch with me on this issue, you can send an email using the contact address on the Wiser Wireless Wales website and it can then be forwarded to me.
ReplyReplying to Graham John Hathaway Cancel
I have learnt much from your web references Simon, and thank you. I am planning to write to the Chief Medical Officer for Wales and these will be most useful evidence to refer too. By way of causal life style choices, there are specific res...
Comments are reviewed before they appear.