Booster Boxes on Lampposts
To: Nigel Davies, Assisitant Director (Street Services) LB Bromley.
Dear Nigel Davies
I have had sight of your Report ELS 05289 regarding dual use lamp columns.
I have some serious queries and comments to raise on the contents of this document.
(a) you repeatedly cite Hutchinson, 3 and T-Mobile as examples.
- who are Hutchinson? If this is a repeated typo for Hutchison, then:
- "3" is the business name of Hutchison Telecom (i.e. same company) This confusion needs clarifying. Are there just two companies?
(b) You write "There would be concerns to any operatives carrying out maintenance on the lamp column working directly against the transmitter however the transmitters can be powered down during a designated period and therefore causing no additional health and safety concerns to our designated street lighting contractor."
This can not be correct. Even if the Mobile Phone Operator claimed to have remotely powered down a particular transmitter for a particular time period, this would need to be verified on site by the lamp-post by the person needing access. To meet HSE requirements for workers that might be exposed to RF sources that could exceed ICNIRP public exposure guidelines, their operatives will require pocket microwave safety monitors/alarms (cost over 1000GBP each and require regular charging and/or battery changes), training in how to use them, and ideally downloading of data-logged exposure dtae from the monitors to check that their operatives were not exposed to levels above ICNIRP. There is also a whole complex debate about whether such workers would fall under the occupational or general public ICNIRP exposure guidelines. To meet the occupational requirements they would require extra
(and formal) RF/microwave training and understanding that would need to be regularly checked and updated/refreshed.
So, I would say that the Contractor would require a significant extra payment from the Council in order to cover the extra costs and responsibilities. Their workers would also have to be insured against damage caused (e.g. to eyes) by possible over-exposure to microwave radiation.
(c) I am also very concerned about interactive/moving/lit advertising boards by roadsides. There is one at Catford at a busy junction on the one-way system at Plassey Road, Brownhill Rd, Rushey Green. It is on the North side of Bromley Road opposite where Plassey Road joins and on a dark wet night I find it extremely distracting to my driving. What official studies have been carried out regarding Road Traffic Accidents near such signs? I would be grateful if you could send me details as to where and how I can obtain copies.
Finally, I would be grateful if you could bring the contents of this email to the attention of the members of the Environment Policy Development & Scrutiny, the Environment Portfolio Holder and the Direct of Environment and Leisure Services.
Regards
Alasdair Philips
Technical Director of Powerwatch
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
Dear Nigel Davies
I have had sight of your Report ELS 05289 regarding dual use lamp columns.
I have some serious queries and comments to raise on the contents of this document.
(a) you repeatedly cite Hutchinson, 3 and T-Mobile as examples.
- who are Hutchinson? If this is a repeated typo for Hutchison, then:
- "3" is the business name of Hutchison Telecom (i.e. same company) This confusion needs clarifying. Are there just two companies?
(b) You write "There would be concerns to any operatives carrying out maintenance on the lamp column working directly against the transmitter however the transmitters can be powered down during a designated period and therefore causing no additional health and safety concerns to our designated street lighting contractor."
This can not be correct. Even if the Mobile Phone Operator claimed to have remotely powered down a particular transmitter for a particular time period, this would need to be verified on site by the lamp-post by the person needing access. To meet HSE requirements for workers that might be exposed to RF sources that could exceed ICNIRP public exposure guidelines, their operatives will require pocket microwave safety monitors/alarms (cost over 1000GBP each and require regular charging and/or battery changes), training in how to use them, and ideally downloading of data-logged exposure dtae from the monitors to check that their operatives were not exposed to levels above ICNIRP. There is also a whole complex debate about whether such workers would fall under the occupational or general public ICNIRP exposure guidelines. To meet the occupational requirements they would require extra
(and formal) RF/microwave training and understanding that would need to be regularly checked and updated/refreshed.
So, I would say that the Contractor would require a significant extra payment from the Council in order to cover the extra costs and responsibilities. Their workers would also have to be insured against damage caused (e.g. to eyes) by possible over-exposure to microwave radiation.
(c) I am also very concerned about interactive/moving/lit advertising boards by roadsides. There is one at Catford at a busy junction on the one-way system at Plassey Road, Brownhill Rd, Rushey Green. It is on the North side of Bromley Road opposite where Plassey Road joins and on a dark wet night I find it extremely distracting to my driving. What official studies have been carried out regarding Road Traffic Accidents near such signs? I would be grateful if you could send me details as to where and how I can obtain copies.
Finally, I would be grateful if you could bring the contents of this email to the attention of the members of the Environment Policy Development & Scrutiny, the Environment Portfolio Holder and the Direct of Environment and Leisure Services.
Regards
Alasdair Philips
Technical Director of Powerwatch
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
Starmail - 14. Okt, 13:47
