Extra bill for taxpayers?
If I calculate the damage already done to me, my employer and society, and the damage that will be, it outreaches the 120.000 pounds. It is time the councillors open their eyes and understand the damage is huge (small consequences for almost everybody; dramatic consequences for the people who develop radiation sickness).
Extra bill for taxpayers?
07 September 2005 BARKING and Dagenham Council could be forced to stump up £120,000 of taxpayers' money to break two mobile phone mast contracts, the POST can reveal.
T-Mobile and O2 both have masts on Cadiz Court, which is set to be knocked down in the next few years.
As a result, the council now has to decide whether to refund cash to the mobile phone companies for cutting the contracts short, or find new homes for the masts.
But both organisations have refused to reveal how much the local authority could be made to pay if the contracts are cancelled early.
However, according to campaign group Mast Sanity, the council could be forced to fork out £60,000 compensation to both T-Mobile and 02 if their masts are not relocated elsewhere in the borough.
And in another twist, as public space is running out to site the masts, the councily could also decide to break its current policy of not locating them on council-owned properties in order to find them new homes.
A council spokesman said: "In these cases, the council will re-examine the contractual arrangements with the individual companies. If both parties agree, the option remains to terminate the affected contracts."
T-Mobile has posted a letter on the walls of neighbouring Thaxted House, informing families of its intention to site a mast there.
Planning chiefs may justify such a decision because the mobile mast contracts were drawn up before the so-called 'mast moratorium' was imposed in 2000.
The mobile phone operator is hoping to install three antennae and an equipment cabin on the roof of Thaxted House.
The POST reported last week how families had been left confused by the situation and had demanded explanations.
Many wanted an assurance from the council that the tower block was not going to be a 'dumping ground' for the mast.
Village councillor Lee Waker has told families that the matter is far from decided.
He has also urged them to oppose the plans if they are formally submitted.
But the POST has also revealed that the council is powerless to take down mobile masts installed on local authority land before 2000.
We also reported how mobile phone operators are unwilling to terminate contracts drawn up with local authorities.
The council refuses to accept there is any health risk associated with masts, and a comprehensive study led by Sir William Stewart on behalf of the Government in 2002 concluded that there were no proved general risks associated with living next to a mast.
Omega there is much health risk associated with masts. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html
But he called for a more 'precautionary approach' to the siting of base stations.
http://tinyurl.com/azna9
Extra bill for taxpayers?
07 September 2005 BARKING and Dagenham Council could be forced to stump up £120,000 of taxpayers' money to break two mobile phone mast contracts, the POST can reveal.
T-Mobile and O2 both have masts on Cadiz Court, which is set to be knocked down in the next few years.
As a result, the council now has to decide whether to refund cash to the mobile phone companies for cutting the contracts short, or find new homes for the masts.
But both organisations have refused to reveal how much the local authority could be made to pay if the contracts are cancelled early.
However, according to campaign group Mast Sanity, the council could be forced to fork out £60,000 compensation to both T-Mobile and 02 if their masts are not relocated elsewhere in the borough.
And in another twist, as public space is running out to site the masts, the councily could also decide to break its current policy of not locating them on council-owned properties in order to find them new homes.
A council spokesman said: "In these cases, the council will re-examine the contractual arrangements with the individual companies. If both parties agree, the option remains to terminate the affected contracts."
T-Mobile has posted a letter on the walls of neighbouring Thaxted House, informing families of its intention to site a mast there.
Planning chiefs may justify such a decision because the mobile mast contracts were drawn up before the so-called 'mast moratorium' was imposed in 2000.
The mobile phone operator is hoping to install three antennae and an equipment cabin on the roof of Thaxted House.
The POST reported last week how families had been left confused by the situation and had demanded explanations.
Many wanted an assurance from the council that the tower block was not going to be a 'dumping ground' for the mast.
Village councillor Lee Waker has told families that the matter is far from decided.
He has also urged them to oppose the plans if they are formally submitted.
But the POST has also revealed that the council is powerless to take down mobile masts installed on local authority land before 2000.
We also reported how mobile phone operators are unwilling to terminate contracts drawn up with local authorities.
The council refuses to accept there is any health risk associated with masts, and a comprehensive study led by Sir William Stewart on behalf of the Government in 2002 concluded that there were no proved general risks associated with living next to a mast.
Omega there is much health risk associated with masts. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html
But he called for a more 'precautionary approach' to the siting of base stations.
http://tinyurl.com/azna9
Starmail - 8. Sep, 11:22
