Chris, who has just joined us, gave me permission to post this so that others can identify, or look out for tetra, in view of the current haste to roll out more tetra and 3G masts across the UK.
I was looking at the excellent TETRAWATCH site again today and came across the following:
(O2) Employ agents to find mast sites around the country where landowners are dysfunctional, anti-social, selfish, bull-headed and influenced by money, drink or the need for solitude and remote from social contact. These are the best option because they will not be influenced by local opinion.
This EXACTLY describes the situation in Kentmere, Cumbria. The landowner, or rather barn owner since 'our' TETRA antenna is on a grade II listed barn, is a farmer, living on the 'edge' who is a loner and has little or nothing to do with local residents. Airwave mmO2 told him the installation would be safe and, presumably, paid him the money. He and his partner have an eight month old baby girl - the TETRA antenna is some 15 metres from their house.
They claim they have taken "a business decision". They claim to have no concerns at all about the 'health' aspects because Airwave told them it was safe. They say that local residents are in "a stew' about nothing because Airwave says it is safe. They refuse to talk to locals about the TETRA installation, they refuse to come to local meetings, and they tell local residents who stop on the public footpath that runs past the 'mast' to "move on". They carry on as if everything is fine. Meanwhile residents are suffering 'health' problems, are writing to their MP, are compiling a 'complaint' to the local planning authority, are concerned about their holiday businesses, the values of their properties, and their long term health.
What can you do in a situation like this - it seems so unfair that we can't use half our house (we can easily detect microwave hotspots in our sitting room and bedroom, and feel nauseous after about 30 minutes in these rooms) when the landowner next door is totally unconcerned about all the stress and concern he is causing us and the local community. Indeed HE has made the decision regarding 'health' for the rest of us.
Have there been any situations where TETRA sufferers around the UK have written to identified landowners explaining about TETRA in their own way and expressing their concerns, etc. I know that if I were asked then I certainly would!?
Incidentally, I can add to the list of Airwave mmO2's misleading practices, e.g.
Have a PR meeting, including a police spokesman, about a submitted planning application for a 'collinear antenna', never mention TETRA or 'health' or alternative sites then claim it was a pre-application meeting in which alternative sites were fully discussed.
Have you told the landowner you hope he has insurance to the tune of £56000000. I believe that is what barry trower said landowners will need for future claims against devaluement of houses near to masts and health problems if it is proved masts cause health problems.
p.s. On 'look east' news this morning a piece about masts going up near houses in Felixstowe, Suffolk and I believe they are saying compensation will have to be paid if it goes up in this particular place for houses that are devalued. Unfortunatley my husband sneezed at a crucial moment in the broadcast so missed a bit of it.
I am asking a couple of business / psychologist friends of mine to help on this. Masties can do psychological profiling too! I think the answer below is the right way forward but in case we are missing a trick lets see what the "professionals" would say about a nasty landowner (Type 2 Retentive Sociopath???). No point masties wasting time trying to appeal to better nature. But interesting that telling "normal landowners2 about the health and business risks does work and makes them refuse permission - hence O2 seeking out nasty landowners who will not listen to reason.
I wouldn't mind putting a few of them through an EPQ (make 'em listen to Hans Eysenck while they're at it, that should finish them off!). According to some social psychologists (Brown, Allport and that lot), when you know that something is bad, like fags or mobiles, but you still 'have to' have them, the arising internal conflict causes cognitive dissonance, which affects subsequent attitudes and values etc.
To achieve consonance and avoid going completely mad, you have to either give up smoking or the convenience of your mobile, or convince yourself completely that what you know is wrong, ie, there are no harmful effects!
So you see, as the greedy, grabbing ignorant landlords and operators will not relinquish the revenue from masts, they refute the facts more vehemently than ever, to the point where they begin to actually believe themselves, even when they are presented with concrete evidence.
And that, my friends, is how they sleep at night!
Informant: Mast Network
CAMPAIGN URGES LOCAL COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY TELECOMMUNICATION MASTS TO IMPLEMENT THEIR RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION