This is Somerset

18:00 - 30 June 2005

A 12-metre communications mast could be put up in one of Wells' busiest residential areas. Telecommunications company 3 are in the process of getting their hands on a site on or near St Thomas Street and at the moment the disused petrol station on Bath Road is top of their list of potential locations.

The telecommunications equipment that they wish to install comprises a 12-metre high slimline monopole, painted to match the streetlamps in the area, incorporating three antennae and a 20cm transmission dish.

The plans have not yet been formally submitted to Mendip District Council, but a consultation document has been given to Wells City Council asking for their comments on the proposal.

The company 3 say that this site has been chosen because "it provides the required level of coverage for this mainly residential area" and "the siting and design maximises the distances from as many residential properties as possible and also maintains the space between existing street lamps".

They claim that the design of the mast will minimise the visual and environmental impact on the surrounding area, but at 12-metres high it will be considerably taller than the neighbouring streetlamps.

Seven alternative sites in the vicinity have been considered and discounted.

St Thomas 's Church was deemed unsuitable because it would require development in a conservation area, and two locations on the former hospital site were also dismissed for the same reason.

Consideration was given to sites on either side of the entrance to Hawkers Lane but the tall trees on one side would have interfered with the coverage and the on the other side it would be too close to a house.

A site on the open grassed land on Woodbury Avenue was discounted because the installation would be too prominent and a location on the western side of the entrance to the former garage site could not be used because the bus stop and street lamp meant that there was not enough space for the equipment.

Last week Wells City Council's planning committee decided that they needed more information before commenting on the proposal and questioned the necessity for it to be situated in the St Thomas area at all.

Mayor of Wells Norman Kennedy said: "The document they gave us was a waste of time.

"It left too many questions unanswered." Health risks relating to mobile telephones have been hitting the headlines recently.

Wells county councillor John Osman expressed his concerns about the potential dangers.

He said: "I am deeply concerned about this application going forward.

"It is too close to homes and I remain to be convinced that an installation such as this will pose no danger." But 3 say that emissions from this type of installation meet the guidelines for public exposure set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and as such will pose no danger to neighbouring residents.

Omega the guidelines are obsolete and pose danger to neighbouring residents. Read under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

What do you think of this proposal? Write to the Wells Journal at Southover, Wells, BA5 1UH or e-mail editor@midsomnews.co.ik .

This is Somerset

18:00 - 30 June 2005

I applaud the Norton-Radstock town councillors who have rejected plans for a mobile phone mast in First Avenue, Westfield. However, it is a shame that Cllrs Flyff McLaren and Rob Appleyard supported the plans and fail to understand the health risks associated with the electromagnetic radiation emitted from these masts.

They are wrong to suggest there is no evidence of health risks.

Independent research regularly proves this technology is unsafe. Look at the Mast Sanity website for all the evidence.

Cllr Appleyard also fails to understand that the harm from these masts does not come from the power or the heating effect of these emissions.

The concern is the biological effect on the body, the ability to alter human cells.

Brainwave patterns pulse on a similar frequency to the low-level radiation emitted by these masts.

Independent research shows that it is this pulsing frequency of the radiation emitted that causes headaches, sleep disturbance, rashes and fatigue.

More worryingly, it also reduces melatonin, the cancer fighting hormone, being released from the pineal gland. This is why there are ill-health clusters around these masts.

Comparing mast emissions to those from satellite dishes and television aerials is preposterous because their emissions are not pulsed.

Current International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines were adopted by government in 1992, in the technology's infancy, after subjecting animals to 20 minutes of mast electromagnetic radiation and then pronouncing it safe to humans.

These guidelines are set 9,000 times too high - human cells start to be affected at 9,000 times below the current limit.


JOHN ELLIOTT



Westons Brake, Bristol

I am disgusted to report that the BBC has tricked Ingrid Dickenson, Scientific Director of Mast Sanity into giving an interview that was later used in a comedy programme.

Mast Sanity and Ingrid were given assurances that the interview was going to be used seriously. Instead the interview and Acousticom demonstration was edited and the subject of side effects from mobile phone use was mocked.

Mast Sanity will make an official complaint to the BBC. The programme was the Late Edition broadcast BBC2 at 11:50pm last night.

Yesterday Mast Sanity representatives met with the Dept. of Trade and Industry, and there was a debate in the House of Commons this week. Yet the BBC chooses to treat the whole subject as a joke. They would not do this with smoking or a train crash.

If you saw this disgusting programme or wish to make the BBC know that there is real suffering of people because of living near masts or mobile phone use please e-mail:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

or write to

BBC Information
PO Box 1922
Glasgow G2 3WT.

Best wishes,

Yasmin Skelt

--------

Complaint:

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/807945/

We, victims of mobile phone radiation, are appalled and puffed up with which ignorance you handle our essential health problems by making look silly one of our representatives, Mrs. Ingrid Dickenson, Scientific Director of Mast Sanity. This is scandalous! We expect an immediate public apology to Mrs. Dickenson and us mast victims and a counterstatement in your programme.

Klaus and Gabi

--------

Yasmin,

I didn't see it but have just emailed my complaint to the BBC.

John Elliott

--------

So did I, with an insistent request for a public appology for Ingrid, Mast Sanity, and the people of the UK who suffer around masts. Also sent them the 'Voice of the People of the UK' letter.

Omega 'Voice of the People of the UK' letter see under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/545013/


Sandi

--------

Hi

I saw it too thought it was appalling. Made a long telephone complaint and strongly sugg that they should aplogise publicly to Ingrid.

cn

--------


Ingrid has asked me to out the original email request she received for this interview and the emails she has sent following the programme. So read from the bottom up.

Sian



Dear Alasdair

As discussed, I did not get the whole interview on tape. But I discussed mainly the radiation levels from masts and their health implications for the best of three hours including the German research and Freiburger Appeal.

I specifically talked about mobile phone signals in the context of the com meter only because I don't register any mast emissions on my ground floor where the interview was filmed. So when I talked about signals from mobiles I only referred to the readings at the time. My further comments about me wishing to be wrong where regarding the research about health effects NOT the meter readings. Although I explained the safety levels, this was not shown. I just was shown saying that the meter would indicate the levels in the home. Although I referred to mast emissions, at the time of the reading I obviously talked about phone emissions because this was all I could measure. The editing was done in a way which made people think that the meter would only measure the presence of mobiles in the near vacinity - obvious material for a joke! None of the serious discussions between me and their `Scientist' were shown. After my demonstration of the meters the clip finished and the Interviewer asked Robin Inz, the producer of the programme:

"Well I think she propably was wrong (that's referring to my out of context shown remark about wishing to be wrong about the health effects). So that's a mercy anyway. ( hysterical laughter on the show!)

What Robin in god's name was that box?

Robin: It was basically science in a box. That's how it works (hysterical laughter again) - using electromagnetic force and transistors.

Interwiewer: " And you can buy one of those in Wollies or something like that?

Robin: Well there are two different way in detecting where mobile phones are. You can use that box or you can go (pointing and making a funny face) "He's using one!" It's quite..( whilst waving his arms in the air and making a funny face followed by hysterical laughter again)

Interviewer: Ya, a more old fashioned system but nonetheless a reliable means of knowing where they are. Well Robin while you're still able to be with us and not taken by some dreadful disease, thank you very much for your fascinating insight - Robin Inz! (laughter and clapping)



Subject: Re: BBC interview request

I have seen the `edited' version of my interview on tonight's `The Late Edition' and I am disgusted about the way the BBC used me. You have edited the interview in a way which made me look rediculous and made a mockery of the whole subject. A lot of people who suffer the `real effects' of pulsed microwave radiation will be outraged about the way you made fun of their suffering. What does that say for the BBC?

I had `absolute repeated assurances' prior to the interview that this subject would be treated seriously and I feel utterly betrayed by the BBC. I did NOT agree to take part in a comedy!

I have asked MastSanity to make an official complaint as this interview was conducted under false pretences. I must insist that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should this `edited' version of my interview be repeated. I never thought that the BBC could sink that low as to make false promises!

Ingrid Dickenson

--------

If you receive this I just want to add that I too am completely outraged by this extremely unethical and abusive behaviour by the BBC.

Best Wishes
Gary Kemp

--------

Same here!

Don't the Press Complaints Authority deal with this type of thing? The fact that there was deception on a grand scale involved here must surely be grounds for action by a regulator.

The fact that OFCOM are regulators of the BBC now says is all - they're as unaccountable as the operators!

Mobile phone mast/tetra debate

19th July from 11am – 2pm in the Boothroyd Room.

It has been confirmed that I will be on the panel debating phone masts along with Dr Gerd Oberfeld from Salzburg on the 19th of July

The Forum will begin at 11am (we are advising everyone to arrive at 10.30 as it will take some time to clear security) and will finish at 2pm.

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!

90 places are available for the public to attend, I would like to encourage as many people as possible to support us on the day, come for a day out in London. Please contact John Staples in order to book a free pass.

John Staples
Parliamentary Researcher
Office of Lembit Öpik MP
Tel: 020 7219 1144, 020 7219 0032
Fax: 020 7219 2210
E-Mail: staplesj@parliament.uk


Kind Regards

Eileen O’Connor

by Michelle Hunt

Jun 29, 2005, 08:08

Protesters have declared war on a mobile phone giant after city councillors backed their campaign against erecting a towering mast near their Lichfield homes.

Members of Stowe Concerned Residents Against Masts (SCRAM) have vowed to fight until the bitter end to see T Mobile's plans for a 15-metre telecommunications pole in Eastern Avenue scrapped.

The group is one step closer to winning its battle after Lichfield City Council supported its concerns.

Members fear the mast could spark health problems among residents and pupils attending Charnwood County Primary School, Purcell Avenue, and would be an eyesore.

Campaigners have launched a high profile protest in a bid to have the controversial scheme thrown out.

They have taken to the streets to drum up support for their campaign and have now mounted a petition.

The group has also visited 170 houses surrounding the site to encourage people to send letters of objection to Lichfield District Council.

The authority will make a final decision on the scheme next month.

SCRAM Chairman David Brain said he was delighted the group had won the battle and said members would fight until it had also won the war.

"We are very pleased the council has supported our campaign and would have been very shocked if there had been any other decision.

"The site is clearly inappropriate as it is too close to houses and the school. We are determined to fight these plans and will protest until the end."

Mr Brain added: "I would urge people to write to the council highlighting their concerns over this application. We need to leave no doubt of the strength of feeling in the community - we do not want this mast."

Yorkshire Post

Joanne Finley

A DOCTOR from Yorkshire who says a mobile telephone mast near her home threatens her and her children's health is considering whether to take her case to the European courts.

Earlier this week Law Lords refused permission for Christine Nunn to appeal to the House of Lords against an Appeal Court ruling in February .

For two years Dr Nunn has been trying to have removed a T-Mobile UK phone mast 120 metres from her home in the village of Bardsey, near Leeds.

Mother-of-three Dr Nunn, believes the T-Mobile mast near The Old Vicarage could trigger the migraines she and her family suffer and will have an adverse affect on property values.

She claims the refusal of a planning inspector to consider her case – because Leeds City Council was a day late in lodging its objections to the mast and planning permission was therefore deemed to have been given by default – has robbed her of her right to a fair hearing.

Last night she said she was considering whether to take the case to Europe and pledged to continue her fight to challenge the legislation.

29 June 2005

Western Daily Express

09:41 - 29 June 2005

All new phone masts should need full planning permission to allow local residents to object to them, West MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, right, insisted yesterday. The Cotswold Conservative told a special Commons debate the Government was not listening to people's concerns over the health and environment implications of telecoms masts.

Masts less than 40ft tall do not need full planning permission.

Fife Today

AN OUTRIGHT ban on mobile 'phone masts being sited on council land has been lifted.

But Fife authority's decision has come too late for anti-mast campaigners in north Glenrothes.

They were angered when a 15-metre-high monopole was erected in Formonthills Road last year.

Irate residents living in the mast's shadow fought a long-running battle with mobile company O2 over the device's position - even trying to block engineers from replacing the mast after it had been taken away for repairs in May.

However, despite the council's vow to remove its moratorium, it appears the Formonthills "eyesore" - as many locals have dubbed it - is here to stay.

Ron Page, chairman of the North Glenrothes Community Council, said he hoped the authority's U-turn would spare other communities the grief north Glenrothes folk had gone through.

"We did ask O2 if they could review the situation and perhaps even put the mast across the road," he told The Gazette.

"They said it had been too expensive to move it and in any case, Fife Council had agreed to where it was sited.

"Hopefully, in the future, the options will increase."

Mr Page added: "These masts do not have to be exactly adjacent to anybody's house.

"It's clear that all the mobile companies and Fife Council's planning department have had their fingers burned by what's happened up at Formonthills Road.

"It's a beacon to future development."

Councillor John Cameron, spokesman for development and planning, admitted there had to be a balance between economic benefits to Fife and the need of the industry to put equipment in appropriate locations.

"We appreciate that many communities across Fife have concerns about the location of telecoms equipment, but with the moratorium lifted, we may now be able to avoid masts being located by roadsides or near houses and put these on more suitable sites at council property instead," he commented.

"If a council site is the best location for equipment to be placed, then officers and councillors will work with the current guidance and policies to make that determination."

The council will receive money from operators whose masts were located on council premises.

Indeed, before the moratorium came into place in 1999, the council received £35,504 in fees each year.

But Councillor Cameron added that this should not be a "determining factor" in any policy or decision made.

A detailed policy will now be developed to help councillors deal with future mast applications concerning council property.

It will aim to avoid issues of equipment being put on schools or other buildings involving residents, members of the public or council staff.

Christine May MSP has welcomed the news of the change of heart by Fife Council.

She said: "This decision has been badly needed, especially in Glenrothes, where the installation of masts has been very contentious.

"In many instances, council-owned land might have been a better location for masts, but, because of the ban these could not be considered.

"Now, all possible sites will be up for assessment, and it may be possible to find locations which are further from homes and less obtrusive but still effective."

29 June 2005

Droitwich Star Advertiser

PLANNING bosses have given the green light to a controversial mobile phone mast despite strong opposition in Droitwich Spa.

An application by Hutchison 3G for permission to erect the mast on the Yew Tree Hill water tower had originally been refused by Wychavon District Council because of its visual impact.

But now planners have said the scheme can go ahead after the company appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, based in Bristol.

Inspectors decided the site satisfies the Government guidelines, and although they were aware of a number of concerns regarding the health effects of the masts, it is the view of the Government that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards.

Senior planning officer for Wychavon District Council, Robert Peel said: "Planning officers originally recommended permission be granted because it complied with planning laws but councillors on the planning committee chose to refuse the application, as is their right."

Droitwich Spa Town Council, which is not the planning authority but makes recommendations to the district council, has a policy of recommending refusal of 3G phone masts until more is known about health implications.

The tower is already used as a site for several companies' mobile phone masts but this scheme will be its first 3G mast.

Mayor Richard Morris said: "I feel our planning laws are very outdated if they do not allow us to consider the health and wellbeing of the people in our town as well as the volume of mobile communications on one site.

"I urge people to write to the Deputy Prime Minister and ask for a significant change in the planning laws so they more effectively consider people and not big business."

A spokesman for Hutchison 3G said all their base stations had been shown to work well within the radiation protection guidelines and overall evidence suggested they were unlikely to pose a risk to health.

Omega base stations pose a risk to health. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/ and
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster

Jun 29 2005

By Neil Elkes, Evening Mail

BIRMINGHAM schools which lease their rooftops for mobile phone masts could face future legal action from sick pupils, it was claimed today.

The city's leading mast activist has slammed the city council for "washing its hands" of the problem by giving school governors the final say on whether masts should be put on their buildings.

Eileen O'Connor, spokeswoman for Seriously Concerned Residents Against Masts, said council chiefs were also throwing temptation at governors who would be allowed to keep at least £5,000-ayear per mast.

Mrs O'Connor said: "This is a cop-out. The councillors are putting themselves in the clear by passing responsibility to the schools.

"When masts are proved unsafe, as I have no doubt they will be, it is the school governors who could face the consequences," she added.

An independent survey of residents found that two-thirds were opposed to masts on or near schools but threequarters said they were an acceptable development to allow the use of phones.

Eileen said: "What we need are limits on all masts." Chairman of a council inquiry into masts, Coun Michael Wilkes, said some schools may prefer to have masts on their own site rather than scattered on private sites around the school.

He argued that by lifting a ban on masts on council-owned buildings, the city was taking control of the issue.

Coun Wilkes said that if the ban continued an equivalent or possibly greater number of masts would be displaced to private land under less stringent conditions.

He said: "We will ensure that governors are provided with an impartial package of information so they can make an informed choice."