OldhamAdvertiser

RESIDENTS of a street were caught unawares as they woke to find a 50ft mobile phone mast had been installed metres away from their bedroom windows.

People living on Berkerley Street, whose houses back onto the Sandy Mill, say they were not informed that the mast would be erected.

One resident, Michelle Shaw, said: “There was digging and I thought work had started to demolish the mill but we got up on Tuesday morning and the mast was there.

“We haven’t received any letters and no-one’s told us anything. What really concerns us is the health issues, we are worried at what it’s going to do. It’s right in our faces, only about 10 metres away from the back door. We have had no chance to object or protest against it. We are all very upset and disgusted that we were given no warning.”

Royton South councillor Jill Read said: “If they had the courtesy to contact and reassure the residents about the health issues and that it is only temporary, they wouldn’t be so upset. It’s just bad public relations.”

The Orange mast has been put up as a temporary measure to replace the masts on top of Sandy Mill which is set for demolition later in the year.

A spokesman for Orange said: “I would like to apologise on behalf of Orange for any inconvenience caused and would like to stress that this is only a temporary measure for six months.”

First published by the Oldham Advertiser

THE location of hundreds of mobile phone masts in the borough can be revealed for the first time.

A POST investigation reveals that there are 176 masts located near schools, homes and offices.

Our research also reveals that several council accommodation blocks still have mobile phone masts on roofs.

The POST understands that the council is tied to lengthy contracts with the mobile phone giants which it can not break.

Many families are furious by our revelations but said they had no choice when it came to being allocated council housing.

Tory Chadwell Heath councillor Terry Justice has called for greater transparency when it comes to the siting of masts.

Mr Justice said: "Just because they rent doesn't mean that they don't have any say in terms of what's above them."

Old people's home Kilsby Walk in Lodge Avenue, Dagenham, has more than nine antennae on the roof.

In Dagenham alone, there are masts on Highview House, Laburnum House, Millard Terrace, Cadiz Court and Bassett House.

Our research also reveals that Sydney Russell School in Parsloes Avenue, Dagenham, has a mast just metres from the school gates.

Barking and Dagenham Council has refused to reveal how much it is being paid by the mobile phone giants to have masts on their properties. But a spokeswoman for pressure group Mast Sanity said that it could command upwards of £20,000 per year for each site.

The investigation also reveals how St Albans Church in Dagenham even has a mobile phone mast hidden in its bell tower.

Team Rector Ann Clarke said all the money received was ploughed back into the church.

Staff working at Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust's HQ will also be surprised to learn that there are more than 12 antennae on the roof.

Crown House, in Linton Road, Barking, Golds Gym in Rainham Road South, Dagenham, and Crown House in Linton Road, Barking, are other mast hotspots.

The rise in the number of masts in built-up area comes despite protests from campaigners and families living nearby.

Many are concerned about the possible health risks from the masts and the fact that masts have been linked to cases of leukaemia in children.

Only last week parents scored a rare victory against Vodafone's plans to put a mast just yards away from William Bellamy School.

A comprehensive study led by Sir William Stewart on behalf of the Government in 2002 looked into the possible health risks.

Although the study concluded that there were no proved general risks associated with living next to a mast, it called for a more "precautionary approach" to the siting of base stations.

We obtained a copy of the borough's telecommuncations register, which lists the location of every mast, under the recently introduced Freedom of Information Act.

The Act allows previously confidential documents to be made public.

I was incensed to read more pernicious rubbish in todays (25th Aug) edition of The Argus (Sussex wide) by long term Vice Chair of Brighton & Hove City Council Planning Committee Roy Pennington (not sure if he still is) who whilst in that responsible position always waved mast applications through whenever he had a casting vote. He also recommended to me that I read Adam Burgess when I challenged him about his stance several months ago.

Below are choice gems from the article. I think as many of us as possible should write to their letters page which is letters@theargus.co.uk . Remember The Argus is pretty strict about not publishing anything over 250 words. Full name & address must be given.

Regards
Gary
Brighton


Councillor seeks inquiry into mobile fears

Let's put an end to mast hysteria

A COUNCILLOR wants taxpayers money to be spent telling a sceptical public mobile phone masts are safe.

Labour Councillor Roy Pennington, who has outed himself as one of a small band of mast sympathisers on Brighton and Hove City Council, accused his colleagues of "low-level hypocrisy" for peddling hysteria about the unproven dangers of mobile phone masts to win votes. ...

..Coun Pennington said "We should look at why people have these concerns. Scientists have said there is no significant risk but people still feel there is and we should do something to allay fears"

"There is too much hysteria about mobile phone masts"

"Mobile phone masts are as safe as safe can be".

(etc)

--------

I sympathise Gary. My local counciller told me that at one of their council meetings a counciller got up at a meeting of planning and said 'I love my mobile 'phone and I want lots more masts'. Planning permission was given!!!!!!!!!!!!

sue g

--------

If anyone could please send a letter as suggested it would be a huge relief to me as I have spent years writing letters to The Argus about phone masts and still nobody appears to be taking much notice. I've sent one today - if others do the same it'll increase the chances of publication enormously.

BW
Gary
Brighton

--------

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:54:12 +0100 (BST) From: fergusson sue Subject: Cllr. Pennington To: letters@theargus.co.uk

Dear Letters,

I am shocked at Cllr. Pennington's comments. Public outcry is based on the research of many independant scientists around the world, not the biased government funded scientists who advise this government. As he is convinced masts are safe, I wonder if he would pay the considerable medical bills for those affected by masts, like myself, and the huge compensation payments which will inevitably result from the governments' refusal to regulate the Mobile Phone Companies and protect the public from the now proven health effects?

susan fergusson, Hazel Grove, Cheshire SK7 4ER

--------

Quite a marathon of mails today over Cllr P!

So OK, I gave in and sent this letter, FYI:

Dear Sir

So Cllr Roy Pennington is sure that "masts are as safe as can be" [Letters, 25 August]? For someone who sounds so sure, this a rather vague assertion. Certainly, those like him who feel that the chief task is to allay people's fears should engage a little more, not necessarily with campaigners, but with some of the specific scientific concerns. A lot of "allaying" went on over lead water pipes, tobacco, asbestos and BSE, and we should remember that. It is no good blaming the quality of observational epidemiological studies whilst not putting in the money and research effort to doing them better. A number of substantial studies, albeit imperfect, give real cause for concern, whilst there have been no comparable epidemiological studies to indicate that there is no cause for concern. When we are talking about cancer and motor neurone disease after ten years exposure, this is a matter for far greater precaution than simply assuming the early effects are a psychological response.

Masts are not so ugly they make people feel ill! But it is material that if a mobile phone gives you headaches you can avoid using one, whilst with masts you have no choice. And even if the mere worry is stressful, there are few circumstances where such harassment is legitimate. Where people experience side-effects from prescription medicines we don't allay their fears and tell them to keep taking the pills.

The most telling observations lie with people who exhibit a commonality of symptoms of microwave sickness, whilst being unaware of the status of mobile masts around them. Psychosomatic accusations in these circumstances, as with similar effects on animals are quite misplaced. But what is more interesting by far, and surely a wake-up call, is that there are clear research results that point towards the reasons why masts have this effect.

Laboratory studies have shown that low level microwave radiation with the characteristics of mobile phone transmissions can affect the enzymes that maintain nitric oxide levels in the body, for example. The cumulative effects of chronic exposure to masts in this regard, are not part of the protection afforded by current safety certificates, and indeed much of this research postdates the setting of those guidelines. But since the effects involve neurotransmission and the control of free radicals, they cannot be taken lightly. A small initial biological effect rapidly cascades into a chain reaction health effect. And what is particularly intriguing is that disturbance of this simple molecule, nitric oxide, unites all the symptoms we see, all the way to the long-latency diseases appearing in the 10-year epidemiological studies.

What does "masts are as safe as they can be" now mean? Under what circumstances? Those of ignorance, or those of informed investigation? I don't think what I have outlined above is at all "hysterical". It is worthy of very calm consideration, because the implications of our growing electromagnetic pollution are truly immense.

yours faithfully

Andy Davidson

--------

Dear Andy

There are very few emails over Councillor Pennington - the title bar contains his name but the emails are on a different strand.

If only this was the end of Pennington - he's a very dangerous man.

Andy it's a great letter but I have sent many letters to The Argus and they NEVER publish anything over about 300 words. You may want to leave it as it is and risk it but if you have the time and patience I think it would be prudent to chop it down to 300 words max and resend it.

So far that's you, myself and Sue G. Could be in The Argus letters page any day next week.

BW Gary

--------

Dear Gary,

sorry for the delay – but here's one more to add to the list. Would like to know if it gets printed! Good luck and lots of best wishes!

Jenny


To the Editor of the Argus,

Sir,

Is Cllr Pennington a spokesperson for the mobile phone giants? His views that the technology is 'as safe as safe can be', are certainly not shared by eminent independent scientists worldwide, whose peer reviewed research shows that there are very grave risks, and we ignore them at our peril.

Phone users may accept the necessity for masts, but they should be in no doubt as to the potential risks involved with the technology (see the Mast Sanity website). Safety has never been proven, and Cllr Pennington’s remarks should reflect that fact, not cover it up. His personal view is irrelevant. The Government's own Chief Scientist, Sir William Stewart advises that children should not use mobiles at all, and no masts should be built near schools. If the country’s leading expert admits there are potential dangers, Cllr Pennington is failing in his public duty not to acknowledge that fact.

Despite this, Cllr Penninton seems to be doing the Operators' job for them. One assumes he is not being paid for doing so - but he is being paid to act responsibly on behalf of Brighton citizens. If he has a problem with that, perhaps he should consider his position.


Yours,
Jennifer Godschall Johnson

--------

Frans!

You don't know about the Russian findings in the 1930s? Their bombarding the office of the Ambassador, Walter J Stoessel in the American Embassy with radar in Tchaikovsky Street, Moscow for years ('60s - '70s) causing blood anomalies in children of staff, 40% raised white bloodcell count amongst many staff and the death of Stoessel and another member of staff of a 'leukaemia-like disease' after years of exposure to EMR

You haven't heard of the suffering of people in Schwarzenburg, Switzerland for years caused by the transmitter there form the 1930s until scientific tests proved that when the mast was ON, the levels of night time hormone melatonin was too low in both three herds of cows and the residents of Schwarzenburg and when it was OFF the levels were normal.

Melatonin takes over from the daytime ruling hormone serotonin which keeps us awake, whilst without melatonin we cannot go to sleep - this explains the usual symptom of chronic insomnia. Secondly, melatonin is responsible for triggering T-cells to kill off any cells which have mutated during the night - common sense says that if this does not happen, those who have a genetic tendecy to get cancer or benign tumours may possible suffer from this, and also some people without the genetic tendency.

Several pets near the mast in my village (14 - 140 metresdeveloped small growths on their paws (all dogs), one had this, and also growths on his neck - he died about a year after the mast was activated and also suffered vomiting and appetite loss (30m away). A dog 100 metres away has the growths removed regularly, I don't know if he has any other symptoms; another has the growths. A cat developed a tumour in its throat, vomiting, appetite loss; had the tumour removed; was never able to eat normally again and died last year.

Needless to say all the residents in the houses up to 100 metres from the mast have had symptoms e.g. chronic insomnia and headaches; vertigo and nausea; bloodshot sore eyes ( Walter Stoessel had 'bleeding' eyes); earache tinnnitus and hearing loss; those within 40m from the mast also suffered ulcerated mouths and throats with extreme thirst. 100 metres from the mast there are two cases of raised white bloodcell count (a symptom of Leukaemia) for which doctors can find no cause. I have asked residents here to have there blood checked, but only one has tried. She has been so ill that the hospital said she was not fit enough to have a bloodtest!

Yours
Gill Lyden

--------

Dear Gary,

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the Argus when I saw your first request - I hope it helps.

Very sincerely,
Gill Lyden


Cllr Pennington is wrong

Datum: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:17:40 EDT
An: letters@theargus.co.uk

Dear Sirs,

This councillor is wrong. There is incontrovertible proof from the 1930s, 50s to 70s and the 1990s that ElectroMagnetic Radiofrequency (EMR) emissions and microwaves do cause damage to health.

The Soviets found damage to health amongst workers in the industry in the 30s from both microwaves and EMR. They also bombarded the office of the Ambassador in the Moscow American Embassy with low level emissions (1 to 4 microtesla, the American 'safe' level being 10 microtesla!) from 1960s to 70s, causing blood anomalies amongst the children of embassy staff; 40% raised white bloodcell count amongst many embassy staff including the Ambassador, Walter J.Stoessel who eventually died of a 'leukaemia-like' disease (he also suffered from bleeding eyes). See book: 'The Zapping of America@ by Paul Brodeur, Published in New York by W.W. Norton and co.

Yes, we are exposed to similar emissions from radio, TV, computer s etc, but these emissions are not pulsed and those from masts are pulsed at a rate close to our brain-waves and this is the problem.

Wherever masts have effects, these are the main symptoms found; chronic insomnia and headaches; earache, tinnitus and hearing loss; sore bloodshot eyes. Residents in my village, Kensworth, Beds. have suffered insomnia for almost 4 years since an Orange mast was erected 14 metres from their homes. Until recently Orange had the worst reputation, but 3G is now taking over. Tetra is also being devastating causing health problems amongst police officers using handsets in conjunction with the mast an also amongst residents livinf.near police stations.

No one will investigate in the homes where this is happening. Money is thrown away on tests in the laboratory when it is impossible to replicate the effects there due to the capricious nature of emissions with changes in wind direction, the differing terrain and the difference amongst positioning of homes to masts; bedooms to masts; differences in individuals (we all have different weaknesses) etc.

I attach a small quantity of the information I have found since being asked to represent people in Kensworth:

EMR Reduces Melatonin in Animals and People
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619547/

Open letter to Edmund Stoiber, Prime Minister, Germany
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/838705/


Yours sincerely,

Parish Cllr. Mrs. G. Lyden.
172 Common Road, Kensworth, Dunstable, Beds LU6 2PH



Dear Sirs,

I forgot to say that I regard moblie phone technologe as a wonderful means of communication and enjoyment. I have used one since the 1980s and found it very reassuring to have a phone with me when on long journeys alone in my car (in case I became stranded if my car breaks down).

Since I have found out about the dangers, I never keep my phone turned on and only use it in emergencies. I used to get pains in my ear and neck when I spoke for hours to my friends and never hold long conversations now. I am reduced to short messages e.g. saying where I am and what the problem is (puncture or locked keys in car and where I am - 'Please help!).

I want to be able to use my phone in safety, but the government and Phone companies will not do anything about the health problems except talk about our 'concerns' and to concentrate on making as much money as possible before everyone realises the truth - that some people are being slowly killed by emissions from masts and that our childrens' health is in dire danger of being ruined.

Best regards

Clllr. Mrs. G. Lyden

--------

Dear Gill

Another excellent letter - that makes five. I never expected so many! However as I say The Argus is pretty crap re supporting peoples campaigns. Nothing today but it usually takes 3 - 5 working days for letters to go in. Do remember though that they usually won't publish over 250 words.

Councillor Pennington is dangerous - he should not be in the position he is saying the things he does.

BW
Gary

--------

If The Argus don't publish at least one of these I intend to do a piece including Councillor Penningtons remarks and extracts from everyones responses for a local radical newsletter with a comment that the Argus didn't publish any of them.

BW Gary

-------

You might remember that a few months ago T Mobile planned to roll out the first 16 of some estimated 90 3G masts in Brighton & Hove. As a result I went into overdrive copying my own leaflets and posting them through hundreds of letterboxes and found that several others had already started petitionning in the areas concerned. A few weeks later I read that several anti mast petitions had been submitted to B & H Council. The last few weeks appear to have gone quiet but I was pleased to learn that one of the masts near me had been rejected due to a petition. I don't know about the others but would guess at least some have also been rejected on the same grounds.

So that's good news. However as a Green Councillor on the planning committee told me recently, whenever the Council rejects a mast it risks an Inspector overturning the decision and fining the Council £17,000 and the Council is already bankrupt...

BW Gary

-------

I think we need to be very sure about this.

Firstly, a council can suffer a reduction in central government funding allocation as a result of 'losing' an excessive number of planning appeals. This reduction applies to all allowed appeals within a specified period and not merely those dealing with masts (which in fact will generally constitute only a small proportion of the total).

Secondly, the powers for an Inspector to levy a fine on a council simply do not exist. In the event of a refusal going to appeal and the appeal being dealt with via Public Inquiry (rather than Written Representation or Informal Hearing), either side, council or appellant, are at liberty to apply for a cost order to be made against the other on the grounds of 'unreasonable behaviour'. The operator will almost invariably submit such an application at the end of an Inquiry. If the Inspector finds that the council has behaved unreasonably (one example being that councillors refused an application against the professional advice of their planning officers) a cost order might well be awarded against the council. The operator then forwards a detailed account - if the council disputes the amount, the matter goes to independent arbitration for resolution. Cost orders of circa £100,000 are not uncommon.

I hope this explains things.

David Baron

--------

Hi All

Many thanks to everyone who sent letters to The Argus. I have reproduced the letters as published below (only mine, Andys and Sue F's unfortunately though occasionally The Argus publishes letters on the same theme 2 or 3 days later).

I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing that the letters editors would cease their unnecessary meddling with our letters. Not only has the Argus editor cut out most of Andys excellent letter (and a lot of Sues and a little bit of mine), but also taken the liberty of changing the wording and grammar - in my view in most cases unnecessarily and incorrectly. This it seems to me has resulted in all three letters losing a lot of their potential impact.

Anyway, as they appear..

BW Gary Brighton


Where is the proof that phone masts are safe?

Councillor Roy Penningtons assertions that mobile phone masts are safe (The Argus August 25) are extremely irresponsible.

There are now thousands of independent studies showing huge cumulative damage to health.

The recent four year Reflex study, conducted in seven EU countries, found irrefutable and widespread double strand DNA damage of the sort which causes cancer.

The long term Freiburger (40,000 signatories), IDEA, Lichtenfelser, Hofer, Bamberger, Santini, Helsinki, and Californian studies all detail widespread DNA damage, cancers, tumours, epilepsy, sleep disorders, increased cholesterol and blood pressure, blood clots and strokes from intensive exposure to masts and cell and DECT cordless phones.

They are pleading for the health effects of this technology to be taken very seriously.

Government and industry constantly quote ICNIRP compliance as assurance of safety for any mast, yet these International guidelines were formulated in 1998 solely by observing the immediate thermal effects on rats brains from twenty minutes of exposure.

They completely ignore the longer term pulsed microwaves, which independent researchers agree cause the damage. Eminent researcher Dr Neil Cherry said the safe level for microwave exposure was nil.

The currently unfurling 3G system is according to researcher Glynn Hughes, 30 times more powerful than the conventional network which is itself responsible for massive health damage.

Then you have microwave burglar alarms, baby monitors, and wireless laptop and local computer networks.

I have measured emissions throughout central Brighton and am extremely concerned.

As long term Vice Chair of Brighton & Hove City Council's planning committee, Councillor Pennington should be recommending a Committee to investigate the health effects of this technology.

(Me)


Research has shown there is a risk (feature letter)

Councillor Roy Pennington is sure that "masts are as safe as can be" [Letters, 25 August].

For someone who sounds so sure, this a rather vague assertion.

Those like him who feel that the chief task is to allay people's fears should engage a little more with some of the specific scientific concerns.

A lot of "allaying" went on over lead water pipes, tobacco, asbestos and BSE, and we should remember that. It is no good blaming the quality of observational epidemiological studies whilst not investing the money and effort to carry them out better.

A number of substantial studies, albeit imperfect, give real cause for concern, whilst there have been no comparable epidemiological studies to indicate that there is no cause for concern.

What does "masts are as safe as they can be" now mean? Under what circumstances? Those of ignorance, or those of informed investigation?

Andy Davidson


Big price to pay

I am shocked at Cllr. Pennington's comments. Public outcry is based on the research of many independant scientists around the world, not government funded ones.

As he is convinced masts are safe, I wonder if he would pay the considerable medical bills for those affected by masts, including myself, and the huge compensation payments which will inevitably result from the governments' refusal to regulate the mobile phone companies?

Susan Fergusson

--------

Hello Gary,

Just to let you know that the Argus contacted me and I think my letter will be printed - perhaps next week. Do let me know if it is. I thought mine might not have been used for the obvious reason that it puts Pennington personally and directly in a very in a bad light. I think it's important to do this, because when councillors come out with these things they cause a lot of damage and they must take personal responsibility for their actions. If this was the case there would be far fewer of them coming out with these appalling statements.

By the way, Les and I went down to Brighton yesterday (I was born and brought up there). What a fabulous place it is - if only it wasn't so terribly polluted with electrosmog. Almost everyone we saw was umbilically connected to their mobile. Even small children. I could have wept. As for me - I had a headache all day and couldn't eat. Couldn't wait to leave, which was so sad. Anyway, lots of best wishes - you're doing a great job down there.

Jenny

PS: As they seem to be printing most of our letters, do you think the Argus might be a having a change of heart? Nice thought!

--------

Hi Jenny

You bet I'll let you (and Gill) know if your letter gets published - I read the letters page every day.

They also cut my call for Pennington to lose his position. They always cut statements attacking Councillors & MPs whilst publicising their support for community projects etrc - nauseating.

The Argus just quotes news from the dailies. I think the editor is scared to make a firm stance on anything however obvious.

Interesting you felt ill all day - I never get this even in the most central areas of Brighton although I avoid them as much as possible nowadays because of the EMF pollution. I'm like an exile to the outskirts.

All the best

Gary

--------

http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

Blythe and Wanstead Today (Northumberland)

25.08.05

BOROUGH councillors are powerless to stop a phone mast being put up near a school in Cramlington. Vodafone will site its telecommunications tower and equipment in Northumbrian Road after Blyth Valley Council’s development control panel granted approval. Members were told the works were considered ‘low key’, no other suitable locations are available and that they could only consider the siting and design of the mast. A report to the panel said: “The proposed works are ‘permitted development’, however, the council is able to approve the siting and design of the apparatus”. The 15-metre high monopole phone mast will be placed near the subway on Northumbrian Road, providing the Cramlington area with Third Generation Mobile (3G) services. But the plans have outraged eight local residents in letters of objection to the council, including one from Coun Bob Nixon. The concerning issues include the health implications of phone masts on the local community, the intrusive and visual impact it would have on the Cramlington Village Conservation Area and its close proximity to Hillcrest School. They also feel that other sites in the area would be more suitable. Coun Alisdair Gibbs-Barton and Coun Bob Cole also expressed unrest over the application due to its position close to the school and busy main road. But the report said: “The mast is required to provide coverage for the new 3G system. “The cells or areas served by these masts cover a smaller area than with other phone systems and therefore the search area for any new proposed mast is restricted.” It added: “As demonstrated in the additional information submitted by Vodafone, there are no suitable alternative locations to enable 3G radio coverage to the surrounding areas.” Planning officers say the mast, antenna, dish and two equipment cabinets are not considered to look obtrusive as their designs are minimalist and the pole similar to that of a lamppost. Members were also reminded of the government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. But Coun Gareth Davies hit out at the government’s restrictions on local authorities when determining these types of planning applications. He said: “As soon as I see these applications I am filled with dread. “Whatever we do or we do not do, these masts will go ahead. “I feel that the government has reduced cases like these to a charade of planning. “It is unfair of central government to expect us to consider these when we can’t do anything about them.” The siting and design of the mast was granted approval after members took a split vote, with chairman Coun James Clough taking the decision. Vodafone aims to meet demand for 3G services, which provide mobile phones with full Internet capacity and helps to deliver high resolution video and multimedia services. It will also provide enhanced radio coverage as well as 3G services to the area.

25 August 2005

Harborough Today (Leic)

A SECOND phone company has applied to put up a 15-metre high mast near an historic Kibworth landmark.

Villagers campaigned in March against an application from Orange for an 18-metre mast 250 metres away from 17th century Grade II listed Kibworth Windmill at Windmill Field, Langton Road, Kibworth Harcourt. Now, Hutchison 3G has submitted an application to Harborough District Council for a 15-metre mast 90 metres away from the village landmark. Protester Beverley Burdett, of Marsh Drive, Kibworth, said: "We will definitely round up the troops for another protest. We will not let them try and get permission without a fight. "If they can put a man on the moon why can't they find a better place to put these phone masts?" The wooden tower proposed has three antennae and three transmission dishes connected to it. Hutchison 3G says the mast is needed to provide mobile phone coverage for its customers. It is believed the windmill was built in the early 1600s although its main post has a carving dated 1711. In the application Hutchison 3G said: "We have carefully designed a solution to blend in with the farm setting and maximise the use of natural screening." It says the mast will not affect the view of the windmill as it will be screened by conifer trees. The Orange application 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.

24 August 2005

http://www.edinburghsucks.com

It seems that lies have been told to the planning department the therefore to the planning committee of the City of Edinburgh Council. The main difference is that the lies were documented and proof is now posted here in the form of the photograph to the left.

The photograph shows the erection of a vodaphone mast on top of Jewel & Esk Valley College. Local residents had asked that the mast that now sits ready to fry the brains of the children attending Brunstane Primary and Nursery schools as the 14.7 meter mast sits only 190 meters from that school. T-Mobile and their agents Marconi had told the planning department in their statement that the college would not withstand any more masts. Whoops….. porkie-pie!

What actually happened was that t-mobile didn’t like the rent charged by the college so our helpful council happily stepped in to help this multi-national company and provided the land at cut price. News coming in to EdinburghSucks!com put the rental cost for the Vodafone mast in the photograph at £6000 per year for this rental.

The story continues, although the mast got planning permission, t-Mobile and their agents Marconi didn’t like where they got planning permission so decided to move the mast closer to the primary and nursery school. Council planning official Mr. Moonie visited the site and has reported to the planning committee that the mast should stay where it is, and not move it to where it actually has planning permission.

Is T-Mobile so poor nowadays that they are unable to pay market rent for their masts then when they don’t put them in the right place they can’t afford to move them away from the primary and nursery school? If indeed they are in financial trouble - why is the council helping them and not the school pupils who are the children of the people who vote for them.

Councillors from the planning committee are visiting the site on Thursday 25th August before making a decision on the mast moving. Let’s hope they work for their constituents ans not a huge multi-national company. PLEASE.

Derbyshire Evening Telegraph

09:30 - 23 August 2005

Chellaston Residents' Association member Philip Ingall may well be raising a whole host of unfounded objections to plans for a new mobile phone mast in his suburb (Opinion, Page 4).

Or he could be highlighting a potentially deadly danger to his family, his neighbours and future generations.

The point is, we haven't a clue what the situation is.

The months and years go by, and every application for a phone mast, be it in city, village or countryside, is met with concern, anger and general opposition from people in the neighbourhood.

And this totally unsatisfactory state of affairs will remain the case until we get an assurance from an unbiased and credible scientific source that no health risk is posed by the radio waves which these things emit.

The Government's Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation carried out three years of research into possible harmful effects.

Its report came out 19 months ago. It stated it could find no evidence to justify health fears - but then clambered back on to the fence by announcing more research was needed before any final conclusions could be reached.

And in that state of limbo we remain.

So, regardless of whether these phone masts are 12, 15 or 30 metres high, or if they are disguised as a petrol station sign or a Christmas tree, the objections will continue.

Resolve the health-risk debate, and then the siting of these masts can become a straightforward planning issue.



http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

Here: http://www.telenor.com/csr/radiation/antennas/ I read this:

"Telenor has decided that the maximum signal strength indoors in residential areas should not exceed 1 per cent of the WHO's limit value."

Question:

Why?

I will ask them and tell you if I get an answer.

Frans



But still WHO reigns supreme:

"The WHO has nevertheless chosen to introduce very high safety margins before fixing a maximum exposure effect on people. This is done to take into account any possible biological effects that so far, in spite of extensive research, have failed to materialise. The WHO's limit values were subject to revision in the latter part of the 1990s but no cause for stricter limit values could be found. In the EU, and in most other countries, the WHO's recommended limit values will be adopted as national guidelines."

The health effects have failed to materialise?? In what sense? In the laboratory.

Andy

Leicester Mercury
BY GARY MITCHELL

10:30 - 22 August 2005

Campaigners were warned today they have little chance of stopping phone masts being built on their doorsteps.

City leaders and phone companies say mobile phone antennae will continue to go up across Leicester.

Once a planning application has been submitted, residents are virtually powerless to do anything about it.

The news will come as a blow to the hundreds of people who petition the council asking them to reject planning permission for phone masts near their homes.

Roman Scuplak, deputy leader of Leicester City Council, said: "Our hands are tied.

"If the council had the choice, we would not allow companies to put up these masts, because it's clearly something that people are not happy with.

"Even if we turn down the company, they will appeal to the Government."

He said phone companies would almost always succeed in an appeal because the Government does not accept objections to planning applications based on health risks from radiation.

Mr Scuplak said: "It's extremely difficult for us to do anything.

"If we fight every case against phone companies, it costs council tax payers considerable sums of money in legal costs."

John Mugglestone, the council cabinet leader for regeneration and culture, said: "The chances are you can't stop phone companies.

"The only thing you can do is try delaying tactics. The public's feelings are not being taken into consideration by the Government."

Masts under 15m in height do not require full planning permission and can be erected without residents being informed.

Last year, the Leicester Mercury revealed the locations of 50 masts across the city which had been put up without people needing to know.

However, masts over 15m in height do need planning permission and critics say they are being installed without consideration for the public's concerns.

Keith Vaz, MP for Leicester East, said: "All the cards are in the hands of phone companies, who use their power to put pressure on local authorities.

"It's important that the Government looks at our planning laws. We urgently need new legislation so that people have their voices heard."

The comments come after mobile phone company 3 installed a 33ft mast in Nether Hall Road early on Saturday morning, despite furious protests from residents.

Barbara Potter, chairwoman of Netherhall Tenants' and Residents' Association, led the campaign against the mast and had previously managed to stop it being put up by tying herself to the work site.

She said: "The local authority should stand up to them.

"If it continues, phone masts are going to overrun the city."

Mike Dobson, community affairs manager for phone company 3, said: "We are confident that people's views are being taken into account. With 60 million phone subscribers in the UK, it's clear that people throughout the country are demanding this service.

"The more people use mobiles, the more masts are necessary."

Wells Journal, Somerset

18:00 - 19 August 2005

Campaigners have won their battle against plans to put a mobile telephone mast in a residential area near Wells city centre. On Tuesday Mendip planners announced that they were refusing permission for telecommunications company Hutchison 3G to put a 12 metre high mast on Bath Road.

When the plans were announced, hundreds of outraged residents joined together to oppose the plans, forming a pressure group, collecting signatures and writing letters to the council.

As a result, planning officers at Mendip District Council received a petition of 575 signatures and addresses and 284 letters protesting against the proposal.

County Councillor for Wells John Osman said: "This decision is a triumph for the people of Wells and a tribute to all those who worked so hard to fight against it, collecting signatures and writing letters.

"However, we must not think that the fight is over. We can be sure that Hutchison 3G will not stop here and we must keep working to ensure that any mobile phone masts are sited safely away from schools and residential areas." Planning officer Ken Taylor gave three reasons for refusal.

The proposed site was next to the former service station which currently has planning permission both for the replacement of the garage and for nine houses to be built on the site.

In his report Mr Taylor said: "It is a material consideration that the housing development on the garage site could be implemented. It is considered that were this to be constructed the area would be of a predominantly residential nature and the appearance of the proposed mast would have a harmful impact on the character of the a rea." He also said that if houses were built onthe site then the mast would be directly in front of the entrance which could cause problems for vehicles entering and leaving.

The third reason for refusal was the anxiety caused to neighbouring residents by the possible adverse health effects caused by the mobile telephone mast.

Mr Taylor said: "The anxiety that would be caused by the possible adverse health effects of the technology associated with the proposed installation would significantly diminish the living conditions for people occupying residential properties in close proximity to the site.

"This harm outweighs the need for the proposed installation, particularly as it has not been demonstrated why the proposed installation is only required to provide coverage for a particular part ofWells and why other sites with a lesser impact upon people's living conditions cannot be utilised to accommodate the applicant's network coverage requirements."

wells@midsomnews.co.uk