Next week I am meeting my MP, Lynne Featherstone LibDem and her researcher to talk about masts etc.

She is very keen to understand the issue and raise questions in parliament.

Is there anything specifically that anyone thinks I should ask her to do or say?

What is the current official Mast Sanity line on planning and exclusion zones around schools? Does Mast Sanity have an official line on WLAN specifically in schools apart from that it shouldn't be there!?

Thanks

sarah

--------

Dear Sarah,

I think the most important is recognising and helping the victims, queer against the coming instructions of the World Health Organisation (I just sent an article about these instructions). It is an absolute shame that society leaves the victims, without any health care, without any compensation, they need radiation free zones and support to be able to live and work urgently. For some reason the whole thing is seen as kind of sideline debate, a discussion about opinions. Sickness is not an opinion. A-specific complaints throughout a whole population is not a debate (I think changing focus of the lense and decreasing blood cholinesterase is specific, if diabetes and overexposure to pesticides is excluded).

Second is epidemiology (not only mapping the relatively few seriously radiation sick people, but also all the unwell-being consequences like headache, sleep disturbance etc. for lots of people) and assess risks (the risks are high, because risk is chance times consequences. Small chance times huge consequences for individuals; high chance times small consequences for all citizens, society; so, the risks are really high).

Frans

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

Bath Chronicle

11:00 - 06 September 2005

A Planning inquiry will now decide the fate of a controversial phone mast scheme in Bath. Earlier this year, Bath and North East Somerset Council delayed a decision on the mobile phone base station and antennae planned for a site at Wellsway.

Now operator Hutchinson 3G has appealed against the authority's failure to reach a verdict over the mast earmarked for the roof of the Smile store.

The Planning Inspectorate will now appoint an inspector to look at the case for and against the mast and recommend whether permission should be given.

Councillors had argued that inadequate research had been done into whether the mast could be located elsewhere, and said more time should be spent examining whether Hutchinson could share the same site as a rival phone company.

Campaigners opposed to the scheme have recently set up a new action group claiming the mast would be too close to homes.

They had celebrated when an application in the same area by phone company O2 was withdrawn and the company agreed to work on a plan for a mast site in nearby Alexandra Park.

But within months, Hutchinson 3G had submitted its application for the site at Wellsway.

The inspector will look at written submissions from each side and visit the site before making a recommendation for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Any comments sent by residents to B &NES will be forwarded to the inspectorate.

Anyone wanting to comment is asked to write to The Planning Inspectorate, 3/25 Hawk Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN, sending three copies of their letter.

They should quote the reference number APP/F0114/A/05/1187757.

http://www.sirc.org/articles/birds_on_the_wire.shtml

From Karen Barratt

FYI Re: Bird on a Wire James Harkin - an Adam Burgess clone ! Maybe there is a mad scientist (in the pay of the telecoms) somewhere creating these "replicants."

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://www.sirc.org/about/james.shtml

--------

Hear hear! Just sent him this:

Dear Mr Harkin,

It comes as no surprise to me that the aforementioned article does not mention the effect of masts on homing pigeons, who lose their sense of direction and fly to the wrong places, often going missing never to be seen again. Perhaps you have evidence that these pigeons are acting this way because they merely perceive masts to be dangerous?

What does surprise me is that Demos, (erroneously, obviously) referred to by some as a 'left wing think tank', should publish a misinformed article that serves the interests of the industry over the general population, when there is more than enough scientific evidence already available to anyone with a knowledge of scientific studies and research. The MOA use terms like 'review after review' when they are citing their 'reasssurances' about the safety of masts. Anyone with a Bsc knows that a review is exactly what it says, it is NOT based on new research. Someone looks at the research, picks out the bits that support their argument, compiles them into a group of studies, and viola! -they have a review of the literature! Someone else with the same interests comes along and does the same, and then there are two reviews, of the SAME literature, saying the same as the previous one. And so it goes.

Meanwhile, genuine research by independent scientists is starved of funding, and the studies identifying effects that the Industry and Government do not want us to know about are brushed aside. The usual strategy is to claim that science finding adverse effects is 'inconclusive' or unreplicated. Well, guess what! So is the 'science' the government use!

Do you not find it strange that the Government's 'science' is accepted without question, despite its flaws? Or that Professors of Sociology, such as Adam Burgess, are encouraged to put forward erroneous views on the subject as though he were an actual scientist with more knowledge than eminent scientists around the world? Or that the late Richard Doll, extolled by the Government and Industry as one of the scientists to be relied upon for information, was the same man who deemed x-rays safe for pregnant women?

Amanda Wesley (Bsc)

--------

Omega see "Pulsed microwave radiation and wildlife" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/926007/

Birmingham Council’s brave stand to refuse masts near schools is probably doomed to failure if it has to go up against Prescott. He could be reminded of his infamous legal challenge, but as we all know, he never had any intention of winning that battle – and he will certainly not support B’ham council in this – he will hide behind the law he made!

My (purely personal) view is that there is really only one way to fight this and win. People Power. If Birmingham parents took their children out of those schools which were near masts, and refused to let them go back until the masts were removed – the government would HAVE to take notice, especially if the publicity triggered mass action further afield ie nationwide. This direct action by parents would be a huge embarrassment to the Government, and could have the potential to force a change of policy. It’s the scale of the action that would determine its success. If it was big enough, what government would want to be seen as going up against parents, city / nationwide, whose only crime is to put their childrens’ health before the profits of global big business? It’s not a vote winner! And they have Stewart’s recommendation as a weapon to further embarrass Prescott and Blair.

As a charity I realise we can no longer suggest or even hint at direct action, let alone do it. A great shame, I think. Dr Ian Gibson MP seems to support direct action and expressed amazement that it wasn’t happening. Frankly, with 3G going up like there was no tomorrow, I think our efforts of gentle persuasion and convincing scientific arguments, laudable though they undoubtedly are, mean very little to the powers that be. They may not be laughing at us any more, in fact I’m sure they now take us very seriously, but so what, if all they do is propose limited action in some distant future, when they know it will be too late. That’s the Government/Industry tactic we face - and we are unlikely to overcome it in time to save ourselves and our children. That is the reality.

I do not write this as a member of Mast Sanity, but as someone who is angry and frustrated by the complete lack of morality of this government. As a private individual therefore, I desperately hope that campaigns across the country will ask themselves what tactics they can employ to achieve their goal. Perhaps removing their children from schools near masts might triumph where prayers and reasoned argument have failed.

Jenny

--------

This is the link to the full Birmingham Post report

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to:
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/tm_objectid=15936910%26method=full%26siteid=50002%26headline=city%2dmay%2dlift%2dphone%2dmast%2dban%2d-name_page.html

--------

Jen, I've just been talking to Lynne Insley (SCRAM) about this, because I wasn't aware that BCC had taken this decision, and I wanted to check that I hadn't missed anything while I was away. It turns out that Lynne and the rest of the SCRAM committee aren't aware of this policy either - so none of us campaigners have been consulted or informed about this policy, which seems very strange, as the Scrutiny Committee which was responsible for lifting the ban on masts on Council Land have all of our contact details, and usually fall over themselves to be 'seen' to act even when they've no intention of representing the public. Certainly, the fiasco I witnessed on the day the ban was lifted was a disgrace, and we were sold out completely. So, in a nutshell, I smell a rat with regards to this policy, and suspect that it is a publicity stunt by BCC to offset their atrocious performance when they lifted the ban....BUT....if it turns out to be a genuine move on the part of the City Council, rest assured that there will be a very high profile campaign, and Two Jags Prezzer will find that he has bitten off more than he can chew, as his colleagues in the education department could well be cursing him - there are already parents in nearby North Warwickshire keeping their children off school because of the masts at Coleshill (their MP is Solicitor General Mike O'brien). If Bham City Council are acting honestly, (for a change) then I forsee a lot of action!

Take care,

Amanda

--------

The plot thickens then! Thanks a lot for the info Amanda - so good to hear from you and to know that it's all happening down there, and the b....'s aren't going to be allowed to get away with anything. Massive direct action could win the day. Whatever BCC's motives, in the end it's going to be down to the parents. They need to band together and act in force. You know the old saying 'United we stand, divided we fall ...' You take care, too! Jenny

--------

City may lift phone mast ban

Sep 6 2005

Birmingham Post

By Paul Dale, Chief Reporter

An attempt by Birmingham City Council to stop mobile phone masts being sited close to schools and hospitals could be declared illegal.

The Government Office for the West Midlands has lodged an objection to the council's telecommunications policy, which it says is out of step with national planning guidelines.

There should be no no-go areas for masts, according to the Government.

GOWM's decision could lead to formal intervention by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, forcing the council to backtrack.

A report to the council cabinet sets out GOWM's view that the introduction of sensitive areas where masts would not normally be permitted could inhibit the growth of telecommunications systems.

Local authorities should not seek to exclude masts from certain areas, according to GOWM.

Council planners say their policy is justified given the concerns expressed in the 2004 Stewart Report, which raised the possibility that radiation from masts could be harmful, particularly to children.

In its response to GOWM, the council said: "The main objective of the policy is to ensure that there is full consideration of alternatives and that telecommunications equipment is sited in optimal locations which take account of technical considerations, visual obtrusiveness and other amenity issues.

"There is no blanket ban or cordon sanitaire, nor does the policy define a minimum distance between telecommunications equipment and existing development.

"The policy does not state that all applications within sensitive areas should be refused, but that they should be avoided in such areas, where possible."

Mick Wilkes, chairman of the council's main scrutiny committee, who championed the sensitive sites policy, said it was significant that none of the mobile phone companies had objected to the stance on schools and hospitals.

Coun Wilkes (Lib Dem Hall Green) added: "The intervention by the Government Office seems unhelpful and out of kilter with what most people would regard as a desirable policy.

"We should not yield ground on this issue because we are absolutely right."

Operators are seeking about 200 new sites in Birmingham to help to roll out the third generation of mobile phones.

Earlier this year the council lifted a ban on siting new masts on local authority property.

The masts row is one of several issues raised by people and organisations objecting to modifications to the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan - setting out development rules over the next decade.

Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency, is opposing the council's wishes to promote only high-technology employment in the A38 Central Technology Belt, which includes the MG Rover site at Longbridge.

AWM believes the policy is inflexible and that other uses should be allowed.

Supermarket giants Sainsbury's is also objecting on the grounds that all large sites have been allocated for hightech employment.

Other retail operators are objecting to the council's " restrictive" policy making it difficult to obtain planning permission for superstores on sites close to the outer ring road.

Companies including Tesco and Morrison want the council to undertake a study to discover the extent of consumer demand for supermarkets.

Is the council right to ban mobile phone masts near schools and hospitals?

--------

Councillor Wilkes is the very same man who stood in the Council Chamber and told Councillors that they could not vote against lifting the ban if they used a Mobile! As he's the head of the scrutiny committee responsible for the lifting of the ban, it's ironic that he's referred to in the article as the instigator of a ban which the City Council must know that the ODPM are going to block, they were given enough evidence. I could, of course, be mistaken, and there is always the possibility that BCC might just put their money where their mouth is. I've sent the following email hedging bets:

The City Council should certainly stand their ground on this issue and act in accordance with the Precautionary Principle. However, if the ban on masts on Council Properties/land had not been lifted, the Council would have at least been able to keep the power to refuse masts on their land near to schools.

If the arrogance and doublespeak of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to date is anything to go by, the City Council will be steamrollered into submission.

We have a number of examples of he ODPM's failure to intervene effectively in cases where they could and should have, Winchester and Harrogate among them. It will be interesting to see how much effort they put into this intervention.

It is up to parents and residents to support a ban on masts near schools and nurseries by making their views known to the City Council and to the ODPM.

Any parents who are concerned and want to contact the relevant departments should contact the Scrutiny Committee to support the ban, and also their MPs and the ODPM if possible.

Any parents or residents requiring further information concerning masts near to schools etc can email amanda.wesley@mastsanity.org or visit
http://www.mastsanity.org or http://www.scram.uk.com

Advantage West Midlands are also one of the sponsors of a project to provide young people with Mobiles that we complained about a while ago, I remember being incensed and asking John Hemming, who was then deputy leader of Bham CC and is now MP for Yardley South, where their funding came from. He told me that they get their funding from the Government, not the Local Authority, so there can be no mistake about whose interests are being represented by 'Advantge' West Midlands!

I'll pass some information on to one of our local journos and see if they pick it up, but there is so much corruption in this nest of vipers that I believe that our local rag are also wary about who they upset, as has been the case in the past.

Amanda

6/9/2005

Farnborough News and Mail

CAMPAIGNERS are battling yet again to stop another mobile phone mast being built just ten metres from their back gardens.

Plans have been submitted by the mobile phone company Vodafone to build a ten foot-high mast at the junction of Farnborough Road and Ship Alley, but residents are picking up their pens in protest against the proposals.

They plan to bombard Rushmoor Borough Council with letters objecting to the mast.

Last May the Mail reported Farnborough residents’ fight to stop a T-Mobile mast being built outside the Ship Inn, in Ship Lane, Farnborough, 20 metres away from the latest proposed site.

But despite the 200-strong petition from angry residents the mobile phone giant was given permission to build the 32 foot-high mast.

Now people are even more determined that they do not want two mobile phone masts so close together.

Donovan Baines, who lives just ten metres away from the proposed site, said that another mast would be a case of “overkill” and is rallying neighbours into a protest group.

He said: “I just want to stir it up and make a little bit of a scene to make everybody else aware.

“It’s far too close to the houses.”

Mr Baines wants as many people as possible to write to the council objecting to the plans.

He said: “In the next few years companies are going to put these masts everywhere.

“It’s not just happening on my doorstep, it will happen everywhere.”

And Mr Baines has the full backing of ward councillor Steve Masterson.

Cllr Masterson has already registered his objections to the council and said that he will support anyone else who wants to make their views known about the unwanted plans.

He said: “I’m totally opposed to the mast being situated in residential areas.

“They should keep them away from residential areas until the health risk is proven to be negative and the debate is no longer open.

“It’s in reasonably close proximity to schools and I’m not happy with that.

“There’s also the risk of the devaluation of people’s properties.”

But a Vodafone spokeswoman hit back at the claims and said that a report released by the Health Protection Agency in January claimed there was no scientific basis for citing minimal distances between masts and areas of public occupancy.

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/ and
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

She added: “There are no guidelines to where masts are located as they are very low powered and in order for the hand sets to work the masts must be located locally.

Omega see "Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

“Therefore, it’s essential that they are located in residential areas for the handsets to work.”

The spokeswoman said that the mast is designed to look like a telegraph pole so that it does not look out of place.

But she added: “They’re very much accepted parts of our urban environment.”

Residents have until the middle of September to register their objections with Rushmoor Borough Council.

Keith Holland, head of the council’s planning department, said that public objections will be taken into account.

He said: “The issue of phone masts is very emotive and as a result if we were going to approve any phone mast it’s likely it would go to committee first.

“It’s in the council hands to make decisions at this stage but we have to take into account the issues that the inspector looked at with the other one.”

The council refused permission for the T-Mobile mast in Ship Lane, but a planning inspector overturned the decision.

http://www.edinburghsucks.com

Covered in the Evening News today is the story of how the mast must move. T-Mobile had erected one of their telephone masts in the wrong position. Local residents hope to be even more pleased than they were when the Council voted to take enforcement action against t-Moble because the rumour is that there is a gas main just below where the mast got planning permission to be erected.

Locals remember when there used to be a house on the site and have fairly good information that when t-Mobile were erecting the mast they watched the erectors trying in the right place then moving further south, towards the school and sticking the mast where they could.

A T-Mobile spokesman admitted the whole saga had been “embarrassing”. He said: “We are aware we will be presented with formal notice to move the mast.

“If that’s the decision I think we can promise it will be moved. “There’s no doubt at all this was a mistake. It’s unfortunate and slightly embarrassing. “But the need for a base station to serve mobile traffic in that area has not altered.”

It may be a bit more embarrasing for the company if they try to move the mast and hit on the suspected gas main!

Believe it or not, the the Councillors did an amazing job against the opposition of their Enforcement Officer who recommended keeping the mast where it was - 4 meters closer to the Brunstane Primary and Nursery School. Special mentions must go to Alnwickhill’s Councillor Ian Murray who spoke out furiously aginst the mast, Councillor Longstaff who said “it’s not like we are asking them to move a house” and even local councillor Maureen Child played a blinder on the day.

A thank you to all the planning committee who really saw sense on this matter and took the appropriate action. I hope we are not getting too soft!

Edinburgh Evening News 05.09.05

RESIDENTS who took on phone giant T-Mobile after a mast was built three metres closer to their homes than agreed have won their fight.

Neighbours in the area around Brunstane Road South, who embarked on the David and Goliath battle, took their case to city planners.

A council development committee has now agreed to order T-Mobile to move the mast. The move marked what residents hope will be the end of a six-month campaign which began when the controversial mast was erected in the wrong spot.

Sandra Yeaman, of Milton Road East, said: "It's excellent news. This is massive to me because it is currently standing just 21 metres from my kitchen window and it is 15 metres high."

Unless T-Mobile appeals the decision, the mast will be moved to Milton Road East where residents claim it will be further away from homes, and a nursery and primary school.

A T-Mobile spokesman admitted the whole saga had been "embarrassing".

He said: "We are aware we will be presented with formal notice to move the mast.

"If that's the decision I think we can promise it will be moved.

"There's no doubt at all this was a mistake. It's unfortunate and slightly embarrassing.

"But the need for a base station to serve mobile traffic in that area has not altered."

A council spokeswoman said that if T-Mobile was good to its word the local authority would not issue a formal notice.

Evening Post S Wales

10:00 - 05 September 2005

Almost 400 people are fighting plans to site a mobile phone mast in Sketty. And they look like being successful as the plans are set to be turned down by councillors tomorrow.

The mast is planned for the footway alongside Gower Road, opposite the junction with Eversley Road, Sketty. Several investigations are underway into the possible health hazards associated with such masts.

In a report to tomorrow's planning committee, council officers refer to the Stewart report on Mobile Phones and base stations.

It states: "Science can never provide a guarantee of zero risk."

The mast, put forward by Vodaphone, would be 12 metres high, with three antennae and a ground-based cabinet.

Council planning officers are recommending that the plan is turned down.

But the recommendation is due to the fact it would loom over the rear garden of a house in Masefield Way. A spokesman for the 381 objectors said: "The proposal poses unknown risks. The council will have to balance the likelihood of harm against the severity of injury that could be caused by the proposal.

"In the short term, the risk may be low but in the long term the risk could be very high, causing serious harm."

Harborough Today 05.09.05

CONCERNED residents have organised a public meeting to discuss controversial plans for a 15m high phone mast in Kibworth – just weeks after successfully challenging a similar scheme.

Last month Hutchison 3G submitted a planning application for a mast 90m away from the 17th century Kibworth Windmill, off Langton Road, Kibworth Harcourt.

Campaigners have arranged a meeting for tomorrow at the Methodist Church in School Road from 6.30pm.

Hundreds of pamphlets raising awareness of the plan have also been distributed to residents.

Protester Beverley Burdett said: "If they can put a man on the moon why can't they find a better place to put these phone masts. "We are not just going to lie down and die. If we are unsuccessful, we will go down fighting."

Villagers successfully campaigned in March against an application from Orange for an 18m high mast 250m away from the Grade II listed windmill. It was thrown out by councillors in May because they felt the siting and appearance would adversely affect the character and appearance of the rural landscape. It is believed the windmill was built in the early 1600s although the main post has a carving dated 1711.

Hutchison 3G say the mast is needed to provide mobile phone coverage for customers. In the application documents Hutchison said: "We have carefully designed a solution to blend in with the farm setting and maximise the use of natural screening." They say the mast will not affect the view from the windmill as it will be screened by conifers.

05 September 2005