KATIE NORMAN
KATIE.NORMAN@GRIMSBYTELEGRAPH.CO.UK

12:30 - 29 August 2005

A Mobile phone mast will be erected despite a petition against it signed by more than 500 people.

The decision to allow the 9.5-metre Vodafone mast on the corner of North Sea Lane and Carrington Drive, Humberston, was passed after a majority of six to five North East Lincolnshire Council planning committee members voted to accept the plan. Planning officers advised councillors not to take any rumoured health issues relating to the masts into account and assured them other considered sites were unsuitable.

Humberston Parish Council had opposed the mast because of the residential location and had suggested alternative locations which were apparently inadequate.

Its chairman, Coun Cedric Skelton, who lives on Carrington Drive, said: "I think it is completely wrong. The planning committee just do not take into account what people think of these things.

"There is no consideration given. Why do they want people's opinions if they are going to ignore them?

"No matter what we do we seem to get overruled every time."

But NELC's Coun Colin Eastwell (Lib Dem, Croft Baker), who voted in favour of the plans, pointed out that a mast already exists within the grounds of Lindsey School.

He said: "I have a mobile phone in my pocket the same as the majority of the people in this room.

"I do accept there may be hazards, but I do not think they come from antennaes, I think they come from the phones themselves if at all they do.

"Nobody seems to object when they are using mobile phones. I think there is a bit of hypocrisy with these things, quite frankly."

And Coun Doug Pickett (Lib Dem, South) suggested people should accept the masts if they wished to benefit from new technology.

He said: "I think a lot of people are objecting because they do not understand whether there is a problem.

"Nobody has proved anything either way."

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

Support for the residents was voiced by Coun Stewart Swinburn (Con, Immingham), but he was ultimately overruled.

He said: "How would you like having it outside your front windows?

"I am not in favour of having these things in such residential areas.

"Before we know it, they will be outside everybody's houses."

In agreement, Coun John Colebrook (Con, Humberston and New Waltham) added: "I am not convinced there is not a risk to health that might emerge in future years."

Nobody from Vodafone was available for comment.

Express and Echo Devon

12:00 - 29 August 2005

Campaigners against a mobile phone mast on a 'gateway' route into Exeter have seen what they had believed to be a planning victory being turned into a defeat on appeal. Last March, telecommunications giant Vodafone applied for planning permission under the 'prior approval' procedure to erect a 10-metre high mast on a green space close to the junction of Sweetbrier Lane and Honiton Road in Heavitree.

But 37 nearby householders objected, many citing health fears.

Councillors on the city's development control committee voted six to three to block the bid, on the grounds the mast would be an eyesore on one of Exeter's busiest 'gateway' roads.

But Vodafone has now overturned the original decision with a successful appeal to Whitehall planning inspectors.

The city council, as the local planning authority, and the objectors can take the battle to the High Court, but both feel more expensive legal wrangling would be unlikely to succeed.

Retired Church of England vicar the Reverend Vincent Gillett, who lives on Honiton Road, organised opposition to the mast in his capacity as Secretary of the Heavitree Bridge Association.

He said: "We don't seem to have any mechanism for democracy any more for local communities to express themselves.

"We weren't allowed to make representations to the inspectors or be present at his site inspection. I don't see how we can take it any further. We simply don't have the money for a High Court action."

He said the question of whether such masts caused health risks was unresolved, and residents felt the mast and equipment would clutter up the first green space on the approach to the city.

A city council spokeswoman said the authority could now only challenge the decision on technical grounds.

Vodafone said all its masts emitted at a level many times lower than advised in currently recognised international guidelines. It said the mast design was in keeping with the area's character.

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

For all those with Orange problems, here is a slogan from an advice line caller for you to use.

Sandi

Hi again Sandi,

Further Good news. Orange have voluntary withdrawn their planning proposal under the guidance of the planning officer. This means they won't be appealling the refusal as it was never turned dwon.

They are to re-apply to a site recommended by the planning Dept. This is some 1.5miles away on an industrial estate where there is already another mast.

I have spoken to Orange and they are at pains to point out that this is all part of the consultation process and not due to the residents protest!

Yea, whatever.

Thanks again for all your help.

Fell free to use the slogan we adopted- "If the future is Orange than the future is Black!"

The Bath Chronicle interview someone on a topical subject each week and did Mast Sanity this week. With thanks to Andy for helping me this is the result. It has been edited down twice from the original 2200 words I submitted - I cut out 600 words and they did a further edit but I think they have done a good edit and left in most of the salient points.

SIan


MY SAFETY FEARS OVER PHONE MAST SITES

11:00 - 29 August 2005

This week's Question and Answer is with Sian Meredith, Bath campaigner for anti-mobile phone pressure group Mast Sanity

1. Why is Mast Sanity opposed to mobile phone masts and mobile phones? Mast Sanity is opposed to the siting of phone masts close to homes, schools, hospitals, old people's homes and other sensitive locations. The system emits pulsed microwave radiation and there is a long and substantial research history indicating that chronic exposure to low-level microwave radiation leads to cumulative damage. Some people appear to be more vulnerable than others, and the best precautionary advice is to limit exposure as far as possible. Siting masts in residential areas presents no choice to people, and is indiscriminate.

Mast Sanity is against the use of mobile phones by children. Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, advised in his updated report that children of eight and under shouldn't use mobiles and those under-16 should only use them in emergencies.

2. The vast majority of people now own and use mobile phones and they have become a key part of the communications network. Do not masts now have to be accepted as a necessary consequence?

Mast Sanity is calling for development of a safe alternative system. The present system is biologically and environmentally incompatible and until the Government is forced to recognise the ill health the present system is causing, Mast Sanity is demanding that masts be located away from residential areas, schools and hospitals.

3. Despite an ongoing debate about the potential risks posed by mobile phone masts, so long as recognised health and safety regulations are adhered to, concerns about health are not a valid reason in planning law to oppose permission for them to be set up. If the health and safety guidance is right, why shouldn't masts be put near people's homes?

This country has adopted the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines on emissions which are the second highest in the world. Only the USA allows higher emissions. Most other countries set much lower emission levels and wouldn't tolerate the levels this country permits. ICNIRP guidelines deal only with thermal heating effects from the radiation, and not with the biological effects that occur and so do not protect us. Interference with medical and electrical equipment is also occurring and this is of great concern especially to people with cochlear implants, pacemakers, metal joints and implants, and other medical devices. Health fears and perceptions are a material planning consideration, as is interference with electrical and medical equipment.

4. The big mobile phone operators grouped together and produced a voluntary code called the Ten Commitments to involve communities in decisions about masts being sited near them. Does it work?

No. Mast Sanity receives about 200 calls a month to its advice line plus many email inquiries, so we are very aware of what is happening at the grassroots level nationally. The operators are ignoring the codes and riding roughshod over the planning system. Residents are not being consulted despite one of the commitments being that communities will be involved in the siting of phone masts.

5. Why single out mobile phone operators and their masts for criticism? What about television and radio transmitters and equipment, military installations, power lines, electricity sub-stations and other common sources of electromagnetic radiation?

Mast Sanity campaigns for the sensible siting of mobile phone and TETRA masts. TETRA is the system the police use to communicate with. Mast Sanity is also concerned about digital cordless phones (DECT) and wireless computers because they also operate on pulsed microwave radiation and cause the same ill health effects. Other campaign groups such as Powerwatch raise awareness to the health issues around powerlines and TV and radio transmitters.

6. What led to you personally taking up the cause?

I have never had a mobile phone because I have doubts about the safety of this technology. So when Hutchinson (3G) wanted to erect a mast 15 metres from my house I was horrified because they were imposing something on us which emits radiation 24 hours a day. Having read a huge amount of research on the effects, I think there is a serious public health problem.

7. What needs to be done to reassure you and other campaigners that the health and safety questions about mobile phones and masts have been properly addressed? Is there evidence which would satisfy you they are safe?

No study has ever proven that mobile phones are safe, despite the claims made by the operators. There is a huge amount of worldwide evidence to prove that the system on which they operate makes some people ill.

Eminent scientists around the world are coming out with more and more evidence. Add that to the huge amount of evidence of cancer clusters and ill health emerging around phone and TETRA masts and you have a serious problem. The scale of the problem is of the magnitude of illnesses caused by smoking and asbestos.

8. What are the health problems which you believe are associated with mobile phone masts? What problems do you think can be caused by mobile phone handsets?

Health effects noted by some doctors in Germany, Finland, Austria, Ireland and the UK include headaches, migraines, exhaustion, agitation, sleeplessness, tinnitus, nose bleeds, susceptibility to infection, nervous and connective tissue pains. learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders, extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, heart rhythm disorders, heart attacks and strokes, thyroid disorders, brain-degenerative diseases, motor neurone disease and epilepsy and cancers, leukaemia and brain tumours.

Mobile phones are particularly statistically related to brain tumours, notably acoustic neuroma, as well as to glaucoma and cataracts, and an alarming new trend is the rise in unusual eye cancers, and mouth cancers among children. Mobile phones have also been connected with loss of fertility from wearing phones in pockets or at the waist.

9. Who should be responsible for taking action to make sure masts are safe and the proper planning and health and safety processes are followed when companies want to put them up?

All masts should go through the full planning process. Much more stringent emission level guidelines should be implemented.

The police should use Tetrapol instead of TETRA because Tetrapol is a safer system requiring fewer masts used in Europe and by the military in Baghdad (via satellite). This is all the responsibility of the Government which received billions in revenue from the 3G licence auction, and receives billions in taxes from the industry.

Department of Health leaflets on mobile phones and health should be given out with every mobile phone sale, but they are not.

Above all, the Government has always insisted on multiple infrastructures so we have five mobile phone operators, plus O2 Airwave (TETRA). All five of our 3G networks require masts every 1.5km to 5km, a much smaller range than the older GSM. Not least, this creates a substantial energy demand at a time of energy crisis and climate change. Even when masts are not in demand they emit microwaves, and with a prospective additional 130,000 masts to the 45,000 plus already in place, to serve the new 3G networks, the environment is being filled many times over, just so that every user has a choice of five networks to connect to for the same services.

10. Do you think that the dispute between people opposed to and people who support mobile phones and mobile phone masts will ever be settled? How?

Most people don't want to live by a mast but will use a mobile. Every time anyone uses a mobile phone to send a text or make a call, someone living by a mast gets a dose of radiation.

Masts and mobiles cause the same ill health effects. There are also issues like the accumulation of emissions inside train carriages so when several people are on their phones at the same time other people are getting exposed to a lot of radiation.

People who are electro-sensitive will be unable to travel on public transport or go to some cities because of the emission levels. Mobiles are becoming a social problem.

Phones are used for pornography and internet gambling and this craze of happy slapping, whereby gangs attack other children and film the attack on phones and then email the pictures among friends, or even place them on internet sites. Phone-bullying and theft of phones is widespread, and is a serious and growing problem that isn't being dealt with.

http://tinyurl.com/aduv6

Kirkintilloc Today

PHONE company T-Mobile has done a u-turn after residents unanimously rejected plans to install a mast in their street. People in Moodiesburn reacted furiously when they heard that the company was seeking permission to erect a phone mast at the corner of Penzance Way and Stoneyetts Road. However, after discussions with North Lanarkshire Council and representations from MP Tom Clarke and councillor Joe Shaw, the company has withdrawn its application. One relieved resident in Penzance Way said: "This result is a perfect example of how a community can force these large companies to rethink their plans. "Not one person in the area was happy with the proposal and we all voiced our disapproval. "No-one is completely sure about the health issues surrounding these masts, or whether they are responsible for causing ill health among those who live near them. "For once it seems like the voice of the local people has been heard. A spokesperson for T-Mobile said: "Following lengthy discussions, and taking into account the views of the local residents, we feel the proposed site is not the ideal location for a mobile phone mast. "We have withdrawn our application and will be looking for an alternative site."

27 August 2005

The cambridge Evening news 26.08 .05

Inigo Wilson, a spokesman on health and safety for phone giant Orange, says there is no strong evidence masts are harmful.

"The most important point to make is every single phone call made on a mobile phone is relayed via a mast.

"Unless the mast is close to the person making the call they don't work. There isn't a halfway house or an alternative means of making mobile phones work, that is how a phone call is connected to the network and people have to understand that if they want mobile phones then they have to have these masts.

"There is no convincing evidence phone masts cause any harm to human health - that is the consensus among scientists. People have written books and done academic studies on this subject.

"This story has a lot in common with a number of modern health issues. It is a subject that affects so many people and the media tends to flag up research into it before that research has been finished and reached any concrete conclusions. But they don't go back later and look at the actual results of the research.

"This is a relatively unfamiliar type of technology. I imagine public concerns will abate when this technology has been around for a while and people have found it is not dangerous."

--------

Very telling that Orange does not say, "there is no evidence that masts harm health". It seems like a veiled admission that there is evidence against masts - BUT in their limited opinion "no strong evidence" - interesting turn of phrase - very "spin".

In the Orange mast fight here in Otterton, over a period of at least 4 years, I have sent Orange shed loads of evidence including the Wolfe report and I will be writing again sending the Naila Report when I get time later this week. Obviously, I have never had a sensible response to my letters or any communication that shows they have read any of the information sent them. Orange are still "parroting" what they said 5 years ago which shows just how -out-of-date and out-of-touch they are!

Regards

Jane

Aug 26 2005

By Charles Watts Maidenhead Reporter

FURIOUS residents are fighting to stop a 14.7 metre high mobile phone mast being put up outside their houses.

The application was submitted to the Royal Borough by T Mobile who want to put up the mast, which will have three antennae, in Shoppenhangers Road.

This has caused uproar from people living close by who were informed of the application when a letter dropped through their letter boxes on Friday, August 12.

June Haines of Worcester Close, is one of these residents and she was so disturbed by the application that she decided to draw up a petition to fight against the plan.

She managed to get 39 signatures and has now sent copies of the petition to various people including Maidenhead's MP Theresa May and the head of planning at the royal borough, David Trigwell.

Speaking to the Express, she said: "We are all absolutely fuming, these things are very unsightly and of course there are rumours that they cause cancer.

"My neighbour is a child minder and so has a lot of young children at her house and they are supposed to be more vulnerable to these things I believe."

Another concern of Mrs Haines, who has lived at her house with her husband Ernest for 20 years, is the effect it will have on the view from her gardens.

She said: "As our house sits sideways to Shoppenhangers it will overlook not just our back garden but our front as well.

"It just seems ridiculous that they are going to put it up by a lot of houses when there are three huge fields behind us where it could be put without bothering anybody."

Kobus Bensch of Mast Free Maidenhead, a group set up to fight phone masts going up in the town, has backed Mrs Haines's fight.

He said: "We'll hopefully be able to help her and give her some advice gained from our experiences.

"I just find this whole thing completely unacceptable. These companies are putting applications in when people are away on holiday so they can't make objections.

"They're just like a bunch of snakes."

A spokesman for T-Mobile, Sophia Parviez, said: "Based on over 40 years of research, we are confident that its base stations, operating within strict national and international guidelines, do not present a health risk to any member of the public.

Omega this is not true. 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

"When a new mast is needed, we try to reduce the impact on the local environment with sensitive siting, innovative design and where appropriate landscaping.

"We are always conscious of local wildlife and conservation."

Kent and Sussex Courier

15:00 - 26 August 2005

Residents in North Tonbridge are distraught after losing a battle over the erection of a phone mast in their road.

Contractors working for T-Mobile have been given the final go-ahead to continue work at the junction between Hunt Road and Constable Road, after a legal investigation showed the land owners had no powers to prevent it.

The triangle of land is owned by housing association Russet Homes, which acquired it in 1991.

When work started at the site two weeks ago Russet Homes requested T-Mobile stop as it had not been granted permission.

As previously reported in the Kent and Sussex Courier, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council originally refused planning permission for the 11.7m high mast in June last year but permission was granted on appeal in March.

However, Russet Homes still refused to give the permission needed before work could begin.

On August 8 work was suspended while both sides approached their solicitors for legal advice.

However, head of housing management at Russet Homes Anthony Cross revealed on Monday that although the association owned the land, it had been adopted by Kent County Council which maintained it as part of the highway.

He said: "Having sought legal advice, unfortunately Russet Homes has no powers to prevent erection of the mast on the land that forms part of the highway."

Mr Cross was disappointed with the decision and said Russet Homes shared the residents' concern of placing the mast in the heart of a residential area.

Residents were concerned over the health and visual impact of the slim-line monopole that will support three antennas and a microwave dish.

They were also angry it has been allowed in a residential area that lies between Woodland Infant and Junior Schools and the playgroup, at the Methodist Church.

Chairman of Higham Road Residents Association Peter Reed who led the campaign against the mast said: "This legal loophole apparently allows T-Mobile to go ahead with the mast as a utility."

He added: "T-Mobile is saying it has to have all these masts but we feel there is no necessity for it as the reception for 3G mobile telephones here is adequate."

Hunt Road resident Betty O'Loughlin said: "I am devastated. Surely they could have found somewhere without people and babies walking past to get to the school?"

A spokesman for T-Mobile said the operator had similar rights of access to such land as other utilities, of which there was ample evidence on this site.

It has already put the foundations in place and is currently finalising the details of when work will start.

Melton Today (Leic)

CONCERNED residents are fighting plans to put up a phone mast on the edge of their village.

Orange PCS Ltd wants to install a 11-metre-high mast, designed as a telegraph pole, and equipment cabinet at a site off Main Street, Burrough-on-the-Hill.

Somerby Parish Council vice-chairman Mike Roberts said residents had originally fought plans for a mast there. They had hoped Orange would find another location after investigating other sites. But now it has set its sights on a grass verge by the side of the road leading down into the village.

Somerby Parish Council has objected to the plans and Melton Council has received 16 letters of objection. Mr Roberts said two main objections were highways safety and building in a conservation area. He said: "It's absolutely outrageous and the whole village is totally against it. "It's a very dangerous stretch of road. There have been a number of deaths over the years and people have gone off into the hedge in the winter. "It's also an area of outstanding beauty and people are still concerned about radio waves from masts. It's just so wrong and we feel Orange hasn't sufficiently investigated other land in the area."

Mark Barnes, Melton borough councillor for the Somerby Ward, was also concerned about highways safety, though he added the county council's highways department had raised no objections. "There have been a number of accidents and it would be totally wrong to put another obstacle there," he said.

Orange spokesman Sue Hammett said it had looked at a number of alternative sites in the area, including the village centre and land owned by Severn Trent. She said: "We looked at the Severn Trent option but unfortunately it's a no-goer. There aren't any other options available to us now. "To get the coverage we require we need a fairly high spot and we think this site is the best option. "It's not a huge installation and scientific evidence indicates there's no risk to the public."

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: "It's no different to having lamp posts on the side of a road and it's like any other street furniture. "It's not put there to block drivers' views or to be a road hazard."

Jim Worley, head of physical development at Melton Council, said it could only refuse the application on the grounds of siting and design. And if the council hadn't made a decision on the application by September 13 it would go ahead by default.

christian.march@meltontimes.co.uk

25 August 2005

25 August 2005 | 10:37 Affron Walden Reporter (Essex)

PROTESTORS turned out in force to oppose plans to build a new mobile phone mast near a primary school.

Two hundred teachers and parents of children at Manuden Primary School braved heavy rain to take part in a demonstration and wave placards outside the school, in The Street, on Monday.

The campaigners are concerned about the health implications of mobile phone company Orange's plans to install the mast at Bentfield Bury Farm, just 350 metres away from the school.

One mother, who did not wish to be named, has a child starting at the pre-school, which is on the same site, in September.

She feared the signal emitting from the mast increased the risk of anyone living or working near it getting cancer, and could not understand why Orange wanted to site the pole there when there was plenty of countryside nearby where it could be placed away from residential areas.

An application for an alternative site in a more rural area had been turned down because some rare plants needed protecting, but she did not think environmental concerns should come before the potential health risks to the schoolchildren.

She said: "There are fields for miles around that village with nobody near. There is absolutely no reason to put the mast near the school."

Linda Talbot, the school's headteacher, quoted the Stewart Report conducted by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, which was set up by the government to assess the possible health effects from mobile phones, base stations and transmitters.

This concluded that it was not possible to say that exposure to radiation from the Radio Frequency emissions from the masts was totally without potentially adverse health effects.

It recommended that if a mast was sited within or near school grounds then the strongest signal should not fall on any part of the school.

The headteacher also believed the company had deliberately timed the submission of the application for approval by Uttlesford District Council to coincide with the summer holidays so there would be less opposition as parents would be away.

She said: "If this is approved, it will be a disaster for the school and the village."

Orange is planning to build the mast, which will stand 20 metres high and have six antennae, four dishes and six pack equipment cabinets.

The company needs to boost the signal in the area around Manuden and can not place it in a more rural location because the signal would not reach the homes.

An Orange spokeswoman said the mast had to be placed on higher ground in order to cover the village because it was in a valley and the Bentfield Bury Farm site was one of two sites being considered in Manuden.

But the company chose the former because it was further away from residential homes and screened from view by trees.

"Many people view mobile technology as a new invention and believe that we should be cautious until we know what the effects may be.

"However, mobile phones are just a new way of using old technology. RF has been around for over 40 years and there are many other forms of RF in our environment whether we are at home, in a classroom or outside.

Omega mobile phones are no new way of using old technology. One cannot compare the dangerous, pulsed microwave radiation with RF.

"The mobile phone handsets themselves emit a signal 24/7 whether they are in use or not as they are constantly searching for the nearest mast to communicate with," the spokeswoman said.

Orange's plans will be considered for approval by the district council's development control commmittee in September.