Residents are wise to voice phone mast fears
editorial@islingtonexpress.co.uk
13 January 2006
Matt Eley's article (Orange mobile mast bid leaves a bitter taste, H&H January 6) was aptly named, as there is not yet any real evidence to confirm that these masts are safe. There is only a mountain of conflicting research which suggests the possibility that they may not be.
Sir William Stewart in his two reports on mobile phone masts, and TETRA have repeatedly recommended a precautionary approach and further research, but in over five years nothing has changed.
What is 'precautionary' about this proposed Orange mast to be sited in a densely populated area only 10 metres away from bedrooms?
The same can be said for masts near schools, on roofs, in church towers, and anywhere within communities and places of work. Yet still the mobile phone operators insist upon putting in applications in these places, or adding to other mast sites to cause clusters of masts.
The range of 3G masts is far less than the range for 2G, so the operators use this to justify the need to place masts within communities. Of course they may perhaps be able to develop 3G masts with a far greater range, but perhaps that would eat into their very significant profits.
If the 3G masts are truly safe, why are there clusters of ill health around phone masts all over the UK which are conveniently labelled 'anecdotal evidence'?
Why did 40 doctors in Crosby sign a petition to object to a phone mast, saying: "On the basis of currently available information, the long-term biological effects of mast emissions are unknown" while referring to the presence in the vicinity of "biologically vulnerable young children in nearby houses and schools".
Why did German doctors write an open letter to their Prime Minister, Dr Edmund Stoiber, in July 2005 to put forward their observations on adverse health risks from pulsed high-frequency EMFs (to include mobile phone masts, DECT (cordless) phones, mobile phones, or anything using microwave radiation)?
Can we take the word of government and mobile phone operators whose only incentive is for profit when the health of our children and their future is at stake?
You can research further on http://www.mastsanity.org, and also http://www.tetrawatch.net and
http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk
Compare the findings here, and on other websites, to what is now being said in the public domain, and reach your own conclusions.
Sandi Lawrence
Mast Sanity - advising and supporting communities across the UK
Copyright © 2006 Archant Regional. All rights reserved.
http://tinyurl.com/dmqh5
13 January 2006
Matt Eley's article (Orange mobile mast bid leaves a bitter taste, H&H January 6) was aptly named, as there is not yet any real evidence to confirm that these masts are safe. There is only a mountain of conflicting research which suggests the possibility that they may not be.
Sir William Stewart in his two reports on mobile phone masts, and TETRA have repeatedly recommended a precautionary approach and further research, but in over five years nothing has changed.
What is 'precautionary' about this proposed Orange mast to be sited in a densely populated area only 10 metres away from bedrooms?
The same can be said for masts near schools, on roofs, in church towers, and anywhere within communities and places of work. Yet still the mobile phone operators insist upon putting in applications in these places, or adding to other mast sites to cause clusters of masts.
The range of 3G masts is far less than the range for 2G, so the operators use this to justify the need to place masts within communities. Of course they may perhaps be able to develop 3G masts with a far greater range, but perhaps that would eat into their very significant profits.
If the 3G masts are truly safe, why are there clusters of ill health around phone masts all over the UK which are conveniently labelled 'anecdotal evidence'?
Why did 40 doctors in Crosby sign a petition to object to a phone mast, saying: "On the basis of currently available information, the long-term biological effects of mast emissions are unknown" while referring to the presence in the vicinity of "biologically vulnerable young children in nearby houses and schools".
Why did German doctors write an open letter to their Prime Minister, Dr Edmund Stoiber, in July 2005 to put forward their observations on adverse health risks from pulsed high-frequency EMFs (to include mobile phone masts, DECT (cordless) phones, mobile phones, or anything using microwave radiation)?
Can we take the word of government and mobile phone operators whose only incentive is for profit when the health of our children and their future is at stake?
You can research further on http://www.mastsanity.org, and also http://www.tetrawatch.net and
http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk
Compare the findings here, and on other websites, to what is now being said in the public domain, and reach your own conclusions.
Sandi Lawrence
Mast Sanity - advising and supporting communities across the UK
Copyright © 2006 Archant Regional. All rights reserved.
http://tinyurl.com/dmqh5
Starmail - 13. Jan, 10:15
