HEALTH CAN BE A KEY MAST ISSUE
11:00 - 18 April 2005
I Refer to The Bath Chronicle's articles of April 14 about mobile phone masts. Geoff Webber, B &NES' planning control manager quoted the Government's planning policy guidance on telecommunication (PPG8) paragraph 30 saying that health concerns cannot to be considered when determining mobile phone mast planning applications. However, Mr Webber failed to mention that Government guidance (paragraph 29) also states: "Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission... It is for the decision maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case."
So the guidance is at best ambiguous but does allow for health considerations to be taken into account. However, when local council tax payers object to being bombarded with harmful electro magnetic radiation from masts sited on their doorstep, planning authorities conveniently ignore paragraph 29 of the Government guidance and side with the mobile phone operators.
I should point out that independent research is constantly highlighting the damaging effects of the low level electro magnetic radiation emissions pulsing from these masts. Unsurprisingly, it is only the vested interest of Government and mobile phone operator funded research that appears to try and prove low risk to health. Some research suggests that the current (ICNIRP) Government guidelines for mast emissions are 9,000 times too high. The guidelines were adopted by government 13 years ago in the technology's infancy.
They were approved following testing on animals subjected to 20 minutes of this electro magnetic radiation. People living in the vicinity of mobile phone masts are currently subjected to this radiation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Unsurprisingly, ill health clusters are appearing around these masts.
JOHN ELLIOTT
Badminton Road Mast Action Group
http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163492&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163173&contentPK=12246223
Informant: Sylvie
I Refer to The Bath Chronicle's articles of April 14 about mobile phone masts. Geoff Webber, B &NES' planning control manager quoted the Government's planning policy guidance on telecommunication (PPG8) paragraph 30 saying that health concerns cannot to be considered when determining mobile phone mast planning applications. However, Mr Webber failed to mention that Government guidance (paragraph 29) also states: "Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission... It is for the decision maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case."
So the guidance is at best ambiguous but does allow for health considerations to be taken into account. However, when local council tax payers object to being bombarded with harmful electro magnetic radiation from masts sited on their doorstep, planning authorities conveniently ignore paragraph 29 of the Government guidance and side with the mobile phone operators.
I should point out that independent research is constantly highlighting the damaging effects of the low level electro magnetic radiation emissions pulsing from these masts. Unsurprisingly, it is only the vested interest of Government and mobile phone operator funded research that appears to try and prove low risk to health. Some research suggests that the current (ICNIRP) Government guidelines for mast emissions are 9,000 times too high. The guidelines were adopted by government 13 years ago in the technology's infancy.
They were approved following testing on animals subjected to 20 minutes of this electro magnetic radiation. People living in the vicinity of mobile phone masts are currently subjected to this radiation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Unsurprisingly, ill health clusters are appearing around these masts.
JOHN ELLIOTT
Badminton Road Mast Action Group
http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163492&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163173&contentPK=12246223
Informant: Sylvie
Starmail - 19. Apr, 11:45
