May 15 2005

EXCLUSIVE Residents' fear over radio masts on roof

By Chris Tate

A BLOCK of flats bristling with mobile phone and radio masts has been branded the Tower of Terror after a grim series of cancer deaths.

Seven residents have died from the disease in the last 18 months alone, with four receiving treatment for related illnesses. Four others have suffered strokes.

Now panic-stricken neighbours are desperate to have the masts removed amid fears the emissions are death rays.

Residents' Association chairman Bill Marrow, 65, who was recently fitted with a pacemaker, said: "Every time I get a headache these days I'm worried I could be the next person to be struck down.

"The whole block is extremely concerned. We're all asking who is going to be next."

Vodaphone and Orange have base stations on top of Liscard House - the block housing 86 flats in Wallasey, Merseyside - and there is also a radio mast for the emergency services.

Health chiefs have launched an investigation and offered residents urgent medical checks. Reg Blackmore, 77, is currently nursing his wife Monica back to health after she too fell victim to the cancer curse. He said: "We love it here. It's been a fantastic place to retire to, but we're so worried that our health is suffering with each passing day."

Campaigner Bill accepts there is no scientific proof linking radio masts to cancer, but said: "I fear that one day someone will come along and tell us we were right about this.

Omega: There is scientific proof linking radio masts to cancer. See under:

Clusters in England
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/clusterold.doc

Inquiry into cancer cluster fears at 'tower of doom'
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/689608/

Cancer Clusters in Vicinity to Cell-Phone Transmitter Stations
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/580224/

http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

"Until then it's better to be safe than sorry. We're determined to get these masts removed."We know there is no concrete proof these masts are causing the cancers but it is not fair to have the worry over our heads."

The seven dead are Norman McMahon, 64, Jean McCabe, 71, Betty Olney, 72, Ray Clynch, 70, Pat Doughty, 65, Alan Benson, 85, and Anastasia Redington, 72.

Birkenhead and Wallasey Primary Care Trust confirmed health checks were on offer and they would meet residents' requests for data on cancer rates which they can cross-reference with those in their building.

Orange said it had agreed to co-operate during the probe. A spokesman added: "Radiation coming from our mast is well below the guidelines. But we will do everything possible to allay the residents' concerns."

No-one from Vodafone was available for comment.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK. WRITE TO:

THE PEOPLE, 1 CANADA SQUARE, LONDON E14 5AP OR SEND AN EMAIL TO: people_letters@hotmail.com

--------

Constant Use of Mobiles for sometimes trivial Purposes is pushing up the Demand for more and more Base Stations http://omega.twoday.net/stories/692981/

--------

Those of us who live with it, know the truth about TETRA and how it affects us, which is always denied by Government, NHS, and phone companies.

I lost my composure and all else over this very issue on Friday and Saturday, and thought I was behaving unreasonably to want to push TETRA and health risks right up in the spotlight!
These two articles tell me I am right and I intend to try to do something about it, at whatever cost to myself.

Please note that TETRA is also on the tower block where 7 people have died.

I have written to the People and also sent the Comrie article to them. If any other groups want to join with me to get this issue aired as much as possible, please email The People (see below) or contact Mast Sanity

Sandi


Campaigners’ alarm at health survey results

by Dave Lord

The Courier Tayside and Fife 15th May 2005

CAMPAIGNERS AGAINST a controversial mobile communication system claim dozens of residents of a Perthshire town are suffering acute health problems due to their prox- imity to a telecommunications mast.

The vast majority of respondents to a survey organised by the Comrie Action on TETRA (CAT) group reported illness including rashes, itchy skin, disturbed sleep and headaches.

CAT is now calling for a ban on the system, which is used by the emergency services.

The Comrie mast is located close to the local primary school and campaigners claim to have found persuasive evidence that the technology is unsafe.

“TETRA is affecting the health of the community in Comrie,” a CAT spokesman told The Courier yesterday.

“Comrie has a population of around 1800 and Comrie Action on Tetra has carried out a health survey of 1000 households. The results appear to show that many people are already suffering negative health effects.”

The spokesman said it was “particularly alarming” to note that people within a mile radius of the mast were more likely to be affected.

“Surveys were handed out and col-lected by local volunteers and in total 167 households responded,” he said. “Of these, 118 people said they thought they were being affected in some way or other by the mast.”

Most common health-related problems reported were disturbed sleep (91) followed by headaches (61), rashes and itchy skin (35) and dizziness (25). Other people noted unusual nosebleeds and other symptoms.

Of 69 respondents living within a mile of the TETRA mast, 47 reported negative health effects compared to 22 reporting no noticeable effects. “Of 80 households over a mile away, only 21 reported negative effects while 59 said they were not affected,” the spokesman said.

“If TETRA was not responsible for the health problems reported, it would have been assumed there would be no obvious difference based on distance from the mast.”

In the light of the results, the proximity of the mast to Comrie primary school is causing renewed anxiety.

“It is hard not to conclude that TETRA is having a negative effect on the quality of life of many in this community,” the spokesman said.

“Of particular concern is the proximity of the mast to the primary school where children who live in the village spend their days.

“We also believe that many people who are being affected have not filled in the survey forms and that there is still more to uncover. There is a sense that people try to manage problems like headaches and disturbed sleep and just make the best of it.”

CAT called for more to be done in a bid to stop the roll-out of TETRA.

“We would urge the Scottish Executive, health boards, and any relevant regulatory bodies to take a serious look at this now,” the spokesman said. “How many other communities throughout the UK are affected, and why are most politicians and media so quiet and complacent about this?

“It should not just be left to individuals and families to cope and manage these problems into their daily lives. They should not be expec-ted do so quietly and compliantly.”

The Comrie survey was carried out over the first few months of the year, around six months from the time that the TETRA mast was switched on.

Last night O2 Airwave, the company behind the mast, poured scorn on the survey’s findings.

“I wonder if this was a scientific study,” said communication manager Ray Weldon. “If you ask questions like this you are bound to get a certain amount of ticked boxes.”

Mr Weldon denied that the health problems described had anything to do with proximity to a TETRA mast.

“People who make surveys like this can get the answers they want by the way they ask the questions,” he continued. “TETRA is a safe technology—that is why it has been adopted by police forces across the UK .”

Mr Weldon added that “numerous” scientific studies had been carried out and that TETRA had not been found to pose any particular health risks.

--------

MAJOR STUDY SHOWS PHONE MASTS CAN LEAD TO CANCER

11:00 - 12 May 2005

So Mike Dolan would have us believe that international guidelines support the claim that the mobile phone industry, which he represents, is squeaky-clean as to health effects (Letters, May 5). Rather than bandy words, let's look at what those International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines actually say. I quote: "These guidelines are based on short-term immediate effects such as . . . shocks and burns . . . elevated tissue temperatures . . . In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient for setting exposure restrictions".

Note that the guidelines don't say 'no evidence of long-term non-thermal health effects', but 'insufficient data on which to base a safety threshold for such effects - so these guidelines don't cover them'. Exactly what the phone and mast health lobby keeps saying, and the Government keeps ignoring.

Of the six studies to date on phone masts, every one has shown significant ill-health effects. A recent four-year EU-backed study by 12 partners in seven countries repeatedly showed irrefutable evidence of phone emissions, at levels within ICNIRP guidelines, causing double-strand DNA breaks of the sort that lead to cancer.

Details of these studies, and many more, can be seen on my website http://www.starweave.com .

Mr Dolan would also have us believe that the NRPB, advisers to Government that he claims support his view, are independent.

We've heard from Government advisers before - on asbestos, BSE and the like. Anyone who dares to publicly advise the Government that this particular multi-billion pound cash cow is a health hazard may well find their services no longer required.

DR GRAHAME BLACKWELL

Uphill

Lustleigh, Newton Abbot

http://tinyurl.com/9whex

--------

17 May 2005 11:40

Norwich Evening News

A Norwich MP today welcomed new research which suggested people in rural areas could be at a heightened risk of health problems because of mobile phone masts — and said it should be used to back up calls to stop more masts springing up.

The latest Swedish research shows that rural mobile phone users could face eight times the risk of developing brain cancer than those living in urban areas — because of the use of boosters to make masts more powerful.

The research findings echoed warnings made by a foremost radiation expert that users in areas with poor reception, such as parts of rural East Anglia, are more vulnerable because signals have to be boosted to make a connection.

"The phone companies will argue that we need more phone masts to reduce these risks," said Dr Ian Gibson, MP for Norwich North.

"This research is only one piece of research and needs to be duplicated. But it still keeps the issue of health problems on the agenda. If the phone companies had their way they would have one on every street corner."

The Evening News has campaigned against the installation of mobile phone masts near homes and schools until it is proved they are safe.

Dr Gibson, who has been a long-time supporter of out Put Masts on Hold campaign, said the latest research means we will have to think more about people living in rural areas.

"Where they are in rural areas people are at greater risk than those at the same distance from them in urban areas," he said.

Mike Dolan, executive director Mobile Operators Association, said: "All mobile handsets in the UK comply with international health and safety guidelines which apply whether the phones are used in rural or urban areas.

"Individual studies must be seen in the light of the total research effort into mobile phone safety.

"Conclusions cannot be drawn from individual studies until they have been confirmed and reviewed by the scientific community.

"The MOA and mobile phone operators will carefully consider this latest statistical study from Sweden.

"However the authors themselves highlight that they used a small sample size and their findings should be treated with caution."

Although the application of the Swedish study to British mobile phone use has been questioned, Dr Gibson backed it up — insisting it was equally relevant to those living in rural East Anglia. He said similar research was currently being conducted in Essex.

More than three years ago, Dr Alasdair Philips, a foremost expert on electromagnetic radiation and director of Powerwatch, told the British Association science festival that potentially dangerous radiation levels from handsets were higher in poor reception areas.

Other experts in the UK have said there is no proven health risk to using mobile phones. But they have acknowledged the possibility of a problem emerging after prolonged use as mobile technology was still a relatively new phenomenon.

Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), has called on parents to ban under-eights from using mobile phones and wants teenagers to restrict their use and rely more on sending text messages.

-------

My response to Dolan's letter of 16th May

I begin to wonder if Mr Michael Dolan, and other government officials, or advisors, read an entirely different version of the 2004 Stewart report for the National Radiological Protection Board to that which is available from the NRPB website. They seem to read from a different hymn sheet, somehow.

On pages 47 and 48 of this report, under the heading 'Main Conclusions On the Possible Effects of Mobile Phone Technology On Human Health' 1.16 to 1.21 reads as follows:

1.16 Despite public concern about the safety of mobile phones and base stations, rather little research specifically relevant to these emissions has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This presumably reflects the fact that it is only recently that mobile phones have been widely used by the public (paragraphs 2.1-2.12) and as yet there has been little opportunity for any health effects to become manifest. There is, however, some peer-reviewed literature from human and animal studies, and an extensive non-peer reviewed information base, relating to potential health effects caused by exposure to RF radiation from mobile phone technology.

1.17 The balance of evidence to date SUGGESTS that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.33-6.42)

1.18 There is now scientific evidence, however, which SUGGESTS that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines. (paragraphs 5.176-5.194. 6.38). This does not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury, but it is potentially important information and we consider the implications below.

1.19 There are additional factors that need to be taken into account in assessing any possible health effects. Populations as a whole are not genetically homogeneous and people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental hazards. There are some well-established examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some groups, which could influence sensitivity to disease. There could also be dependence on age.

We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in the knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach. (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.35-6.42)

1.20 In the light of the above conclusions we recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.35-6.42)

1.21 We note the precautionary approach, in itself, is not without cost (paragraph 6.16) but we consider it to be an essential approach at this early stage in our understanding of mobile phone technology and its potential to impact on biological systems and on human health.

I find it very hard to reconcile Mr Dolan's, the mobile phone companies,' and Government's stance of "No evidence of adverse health effects from mobile phones and base stations operating within international guidelines" with Sir William Stewart's "Balance of evidence SUGGESTS that exposure etc" (1.17); the reference at 1.18, 'which SUGGESTS that there may be biological effects….."; the reference at 1.19 " it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects….."

I wonder if Mr Dolan can answer the question on most people's lips? "What happened to the precautionary approach?"

I also wonder how Mr Dolan would answer those many people I speak to on the Mast Sanity advice line, who tell me they are unwell with what we now recognise as 'classic mast symptoms', or how many people in their area feel unwell around masts. Also they wonder why their doctors keep telling them this technology is safe, rather than exploring the possibility that their ill-health might be attributed to this technology using microwave radiation.

I guess the absolute proof either way lies in the future, for there is no conclusive evidence at this moment in time which seems to be acceptable either to officials, or those who suffer around this technology. There will come a time, and if any deceit is exposed, names will be remembered by the people of the UK .

Sandra Lawrence

--------

Well done, Sandi - Mike Dolan is obviously paid a lot of money to say the things he does (and being a lawyer knows exactly how to say it!).

We are hearing now that epidemiological studies are going to be difficult as time goes by as it will be difficult to find a control group who have not been exposed!!! The continued "head in the sand" tactics have certainly worked in the favour of the Government and phone companies.

Sylvia

--------

Interests created around as lucrative Businesses
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/715926/


http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+cluster

The Sentinel, Newcastle

DAVID ALCOCK

12:00 - 10 May 2005

No Disciplinary action will be taken against council officials despite a blunder which meant a phone mast was put up without planning permission. Newcastle Borough Council launched an investigation into plans by mobile phone firm Orange to build a mast at the junction of Clayton Lane and Clayton Road, in Clayton.

The probe was ordered because planning officers failed to inform Orange's agent, Marconi, that the mast plan had been refused by councillors after a 350-name petition against the development was handed in by residents in March. Orange say the mast will now be installed.

But the council has ruled no disciplinary action should be taken, although a review of procedures will now take place.

Families living near the site say the decision is unacceptable. Ray Rees, a father-of-four from Warwick Avenue, Clayton, said: "The council seem to be unable to acknowledge what happened and give the full details."

Mr Rees, aged 53, has submitted a formal complaint to the council but says his questions about what happened have not been fully answered.

He said: "Planning officer Neale Clifton apologised for the error but there was no response relating to the reasons why it happened in the first place."

Planning legislation says that if a certain period of time passes without the planning authority notifying the applicant about the decision - 56 days - then the development can proceed.

Marconi said the deadline to notify it of a decision was March 17. It claimed they did not receive the notice until March 18.

An officers' report to councillors says post from Orange requesting details of a council decision was received by the council on January 21, but not marked as received until January 24. So officers used January 24 instead of January 21 to start the countdown for a notification.

The report states: "In this case the decision notice was sent, by fax, to the agents on March 18, one day late. At the time of the sending of the fax, officers were acting in the belief that they had until March 21 to ensure the agent had received the decision."

The gaffe has forced the council to admit procedural changes are needed.

The report adds: "The investigation has been unable to identify a specific individual who made an error. Accordingly no disciplinary proceeding has been taken in this matter. Nevertheless the investigation has highlighted procedural weaknesses that must, be addressed to minimise the likelihood of this kind of event arising in the future."

A spokesman for Orange confirmed the company had contacted Newcastle Borough Council and announced it intends to proceed and build the mast.

The spokesman could not confirm when the work will start, but said Orange was keen to proceed, because the site has deemed planning consent for a mast.

Bath Chronicle

11:00 - 11 May 2005

Representing the Mobile Phone Operators, Michael Dolan's letter (Letters, May 5) selectively quotes from both the Stewart and National Radiological Protection Board reports attempting to mask the health concerns regarding the electro magnetic radiation emissions from phone masts. Far from being reassured by the vested interest government and phone industry, making huge profits at the risk to public health, the following quotes from these same reports confirm this technology is far from safe:

6.38. "There is now scientific evidence which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these (NRPB and ICNIRP) guidelines" (Stewart Report).

And from the NRPB's Mobile Phones and Health 2004.

"6. We conclude that it is not possible to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is without adverse health effects . . . 7. The board notes that a central recommendation in the Stewart Report was that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted . . .

18. There remain particular concerns in the UK about the impact of base stations on health."

So is this meant to reassure us Mr Dolan? You deliberately site your harmful masts next to housing and schools. Do you call this a "precautionary approach"?

While government/phone operator funded research attempts to gloss over the health concerns, independent research is regularly confirming the dangers to health, and proving the current guidelines, set 9,000 times too high, are meaningless. Only last week research from Germany again showed how the pulsed microwave signals from phone masts permanently damages living cells. The phone operators' blatant disregard for our health is outrageous.

JOHN ELLIOTT
Badminton Road Mast Action Group


Emersons Green

Bristol

MICHAEL Dolan has every incentive to back this perspective, but what does Sir William Stewart say in his recent report of December 2004 for the NRPB?

If you take the time to read the recent Stewart Report for the NRPB you will find this statement: the Stewart Report states at Para 1.19: "We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."

SANDI LAWRENCE
Mast Sanity committee member Advice line co-ordinator
Oakwood Court
Aldwick
Bognor Regis

COUNCILLORS were expected to refuse permission for a trio of telecom masts at yesterday's development committee meeting (Tuesday).

Three separate applications for mobile 'phone monopoles in Glenrothes were being considered as The Gazette went to press. Planners were recommending prior refusal on all of them. All three were deemed to set an "undesirable precedent" for similar developments if they were approved. And the signs seem to indicate a hardline approach by Fife Council on future masts in the town.

Vodafone applied to erect a 12-metre mast on Flemington Road - a few yards away from the Aldi supermarket car park. The council received an objection from the store, which said company Head Office had not been notified. Aldi also stated the information it had received had been poor.

Elsewhere, Vodafone wanted to put up a 10-metre mast in Minto Place, but council planners concluded this would be "out of scale and out of character" with the area. Three objections for the Minto mast were received from members of the public.

Thirdly, a controversial device planned for Leslie Road - also submitted by Vodafone - was similarly expected to be blocked yesterday. Eight letters of objection were lodged with the council on a number of issues, including health risks, visual impact on the area and road safety.

The company had hoped to construct the 13.4 metre mast between Leslie and Leslie Roundabout, on the same side of road as the Fettykil Fox inn.

However, council planners advised that any device should be no larger than the existing street furniture, which stands at 10 metres tall.

11 May 2005

Bath Chronicle

BY BEN MURCH

11:00 - 10 May 2005

A Mobile phone giant has revived plans to install a mast in the heart of a Bath community fighting off a scheme by a rival company. Bear Flat residents were given cause for hope earlier this year when phone operator O2 agreed to examine a fresh site in its hunt for a mast location.

But rival firm Hutchinson 3G has now applied for planning permission to put a mast on top of the building where the Smiles store is situated at the junction of Wellsway and Wells Road.

Two years ago, a Government planning inspector upheld Bath and North East Somerset Council's decision to refuse the application on the grounds that it would spoil the skyline.

Objections to the new application have been even more fierce than first time around, attracting 182 letters of protest compared to 60.

Issues raised range from concerns about potential health risks, the effect on the skyline, possible interference with electronic equipment and the 7ft mast's impact on property prices.

Some residents also question whether more masts are needed, and want to know why Hutchinson 3G cannot share facilities with O2.

The latest application has been recommended for approval by council planning officers, who believe changes to the design mean that it will not clutter the skyline.

Originally, Hutchinson 3G had wanted to put up three antennae, two dishes and an equipment shed disguised as chimney pots and flues.

The latest proposals are for the antennae to be disguised as a flagpole, as well as one dish and an equipment shed painted the same colour as the flat-roofed Bath stone building, which has two floors of flats above its ground floor shops.

But Sian Meredith, local spokeswoman for campaign group Mast Sanity, said: "It's too near to homes and schools and it's been refused before. There is nothing that is different about this new application. It's visually unacceptable."

O2 has won a long-running battle for the right to put up a mast between Wellsway and Bloomfield Road, but is now considering an alternative site in Alexandra Park.

Mik Phelps, who has been helping to co-ordinate opposition to the Hutchinson 3G application, added: "The company is not looking at sharing with O2 on its new site, which clearly would be okay for it if it's okay for O2.

"This is yet again a mobile phone operator trying to muscle its way through.

"It obviously hasn't taken no for an answer, but the level of local objection is even greater than before."

A spokesman for Hutchinson 3G said Bear Flat offered the best site available, and mast-sharing with O2 could not yet be considered.

He stressed that the equipment would meet international health and safety guidelines, and would not interfere with legitimate electronic equipment.

Residents were invited to an information day on the application last June.

National planning policy states that phone companies should share masts where possible but that local planners have no authority to refuse decisions based on feared health risks.

The application will be decided at a council committee meeting at Southdown Junior School, Mount Road, at 6pm on Monday, May 16.

The Derbyshire Times

A publican has vowed to give up his business and move his family from Wessington if plans to site a 17-metre mobile phone mast in the village go ahead.

Scott Brown, landlord of the Three Horseshoes, says he and his family will pack up and leave if Orange and the farmers on whose land the mast would be erected do not listen to him and other campaigners and resite the mast.

A meeting was due to be held between the farmers – the Easom family – Orange and the protesters last night.

"Safety guidelines state that a mast should not be erected within 200 metres of a school and they say this one will be 300 metres from our school," said Mr Brown.

"But the children use the village green and I have measured the distance from the pole and that takes them well within the 200-metre safety zone.

"They have a choice of where to site this pole, but the children at the school will have no choice if they put it up. I cannot put my children in that sort of danger."

Mr Brown has erected a sign outside his pub urging villagers to join his petition and flyers stating "The future's bleak, the future's Orange," are going up around the village.

NE Derbyshire District Council granted planning permission for the mast at Nether Green Farm, Moorwood Moor Lane.

Villagers are angry because the permission was delegated to head of planning and development Keith Hill rather than going before the planning committee.

A district council spokesman said: "All local planning authorities have 56 days in which to process this type of telecommunications application. If they do not make a decision within 56 days the applicant automatically gets consent.

"In the case at Wessington, there was not a planning committee due to meet within 56 days of the application. Under the council's scheme of delegated powers it was allowed to decide on the matter without it going to the planning committee."

Villagers say they did not know about the application until a month before it was decided, despite the application having been made a year ago.

Orange spokeswoman Sue Hammett said the company had written to the school, parish council and the nearest residents, informing them of the planning application.

She said they received a letter from the parish council voicing concerns about the siting of the mast and wrote back asking if the council could suggest an alternative site.

"We expected the parish council to put this information out to the community so if the villagers did not know about the application, they need to look to them."

06 May 2005

Hendon and Fichley Times

T Mobile is hoping to erect a mobile phone mast for third generation mobile phones in Argyle Road, North Finchley.

There is a lot of opposition to this from those living nearby. A questionnaire sent to parents at the Moss Hall Nursery and Junior schools revealed that the vast majority of parents who responded were against it.

The main concern is the health issue, and yet such a vital concern is disallowed during planning application procedures as a reason for banning the mast.

Need I ask why Barnet Council is even considering allowing such masts to be erected in residential areas when research into the possible adverse effects of beams from mobile phone masts particularly on children, the elderly and frail remains incomplete?

I am glad that Barnet Council will not allow masts to be erected in school grounds, but what about safety for the rest of us?

T Mobile's consultation process was a joke. They have sent in their application ignoring the results of the schools' questionnaire.

As I live in Courthouse Road, at the very least I would have expected to have a letter from T Mobile informing us of their intentions, and about the surgery to answer questions at the school. I received nothing at all.

As far as the surgery is concerned, I am told only 20-30 people attended. Some parents of children at Moss Hall with whom I spoke realised too late that the surgery was to be held the day after they were sent a letter.

We should remember that these masts could be up for generations. Once the precedent has been set for allowing the erection of masts in residential areas, what's to stop more of them being installed?

LISA PARRY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPORTER
LISA.PARRY@GRIMSBYTELEGRAPH.CO.UK

12:30 - 05 May 2005

A New mobile phone mast could be built in Immingham, 250 metres from homes.

In my view mobile phones have not been around long enough to prove they are not harmful. North East Lincolnshire Council's planning committee will decide tomorrow whether to approve the 25m high mast, with six antennas and four dishes.

Should it do so the mast, to serve Orange customers, would be built at the rear of the Phoenix House site, on Manby Road, and the existing mast, at the ATS site, would be removed.

Resident of Woodlands Avenue, off Manby Road, Des Berry (79) said: "I would strongly object. It is the same as overhead powerlines. We have enough kelter in the atmosphere around here."

Neighbour Dean Smith (35), whose house is for sale, said: "It is not very good when you are trying to sell a property and having a mast built nearby.

"We have not had any letters about it and we should have a right to have our say."

He added: "In my view mobile phones have not been around long enough to prove they are not harmful."

According to a report, that will be seen by the committee when it meets at 9.30am in Grimsby Town Hall, Immingham Town Council has expressed reservations about the proposal, partly on health and safety grounds.

The town council also believes that it will be "detrimental to the environment", although Orange has agreed to carry out landscaping work.

The report states: "The proposed mast would be further from residential properties than the existing one. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of visual impact.

"The Government guidelines state that, provided a base section meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for the local planning authority to consider the health effects and concerns about them.

"It is considered that the proposal is acceptable on health and safety grounds and a refusal on this issue could not be justified".

Officers suggested the scheme be approved, subject to a number of conditions, including the removal of the existing mast.

An Orange spokesman said the proposal was simply to replace "like with like".

GARETH ROSE

A CONTROVERSIAL phone mast faces being torn down after it was erected in the wrong place.

Plans by T-Mobile to build a 15-metre high tower were opposed by residents in Brunstane, who are now further enraged because the mast has been built closer to their homes than was originally proposed.

The mobile phone giant’s tower in Milton Road East has been built about 20ft from the nearest home and about 9ft from where it was supposed to be, apparently to avoid a gas main.

The council has completed an investigation and found that the mast is in the wrong place after complaints from residents.

T-Mobile will now have to apply for new planning permission, and if that bid is unsuccessful it will be told to take the mast down.

Letters seeking objections to the plans were only sent out to five nearby households by the city council, which residents claim left many people in the dark about T-Mobile’s plans.

They say even after they complained to the council about the location of the mast, T-Mobile has continued wiring it up ready for use.

Zahid Ali, 41, of Milton Road East, said: "It is an eyesore. Every time I look out of my front room, dining room, or two bedrooms, I see this thing in front of me.

"It will affect the resale value of our houses. No-one will want to buy a property so close to a mast."

Pensioner Alastair Hare, 72, who also lives on Milton Road East, added: "We live in some of the oldest properties in the Portobello area.

"But we would not have bought houses here if that thing was sitting outside the front door.

"There was no discussion about it - only [five] houses received letters about the bid for planning permission.

"They’ve got to go somewhere, but why straight in front of people’s houses?"

Sandra Yeaman, who has lived in Milton Road East for 23 years, said: "I do not think the council should grant T-Mobile new planning permission.

"How can they be trusted after they failed to notify the people most affected?"

A council spokeswoman said: "It’s in the wrong place so T-Mobile will have to put in a new application. It could be an enforcement issue."

A T-Mobile spokesman said: "There’s no way it’s been built in the wrong place. But we will speak to the council and completely corroborate with officers seeing as they think it is."

Residents had hoped that the nearby Jewel and Esk Valley College would come to the rescue and house the mast, but to no avail.

The T-Mobile spokesman said: "We were told by officials that the the college was not prepared to have the mast on their land."

But Howard McKenzie, principal at Jewel & Esk Valley College, said: "Following discussions, and after providing access to the college site, T-Mobile informed us that our site was not in fact suitable for their requirements."

http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163061&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163044&contentPK=12385354&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=Michael%20Dolan&formname=sidebarsearch


Grahame Blackwell's contribution.

David

----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell
To: david baron
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Michael Dolan at his best ?? Poor best then!

David

See below my reply to Bath Chronicle, sent this morning

Grahame


So Mike Dolan would have us believe that international guidelines support the claim that the mobile phone industry, which he represents, is squeaky-clean as to health effects (Letters, 5th May). Rather than bandy words, let's look at what those ICNIRP Guidelines actually say. I quote:

"these guidelines are based on short-term immediate effects such as ... shocks and burns ... elevated tissue temperatures ... In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient for setting exposure restrictions"

Note that the guidelines don't say 'No evidence of long-term non-thermal health effects', but 'Insufficient data on which to base a safety threshold for such effects - so these guidelines don't cover them'. Exactly what the phone & mast health lobby keeps saying, and the Government keeps ignoring.

Of the six studies to date on phone masts, EVERY ONE has shown significant ill-health effects. A recent 4-year EU-backed study by twelve partners in seven countries repeatedly showed irrefutable evidence of phone emissions, at levels within ICNIRP guidelines, causing double-strand DNA breaks of the sort that lead to cancer. Details of these studies, and many more, can be seen on my website http://www.starweave.com.

Mr Dolan would also have us believe that the NRPB, advisers to Government that he claims support his view, are independent. We've heard from Government advisers before - on asbestos, BSE and the like. Anyone who dares to publicly advise the Government that this particular multi-billion pound cash cow is a health hazard may well find their services no longer required.

Mr Dolan is either singularly ill-informed on this subject, central to the industry he serves, or out to mislead the public. Either way his fitness to represent that industry to the public must surely be questioned.


Dr Grahame Blackwell

--------

There is a fundamental flaw in thinking here, pervasive throughout the whole of WHO, NRPB/HPA, ICNIRP, AGNIR, etc. It is that the only ELF bio-effect is in the magnetic field. Hence they all separate out the bioeffects into magnetic fields at ELF, and electric fields at RF.

What they fail consistently to recognise is that RF modulated at ELF can have multiple effects. They also ignore anything except energetic effects, so they only account for the electric and magnetic field vectors. The vector potentials or scalar components are not treated as having any impact on living systems at all, yet this may be the one area where most is happening. Scalar waves are extremely difficult to detect by their nature, but their presence may be part of the reason why the creation of standing waves may be particularly crucial as well.

ICNIRP guidelines separate the magnetic and electric ELF / RF components out, so when ICNIRP was adopted early in 2004 it was for the magnetic field ELF levels in relation to power lines, and not in any way in (overt) response to RF at all. But RF levels came as a bundle.

Anyone else care to add to this? The argument is not that ICNIRP is too low, but that there is too little research into these aspects of EMR, so ICNIRP was unable to include any guidance on them.

Andy

--------

ICNIRP Guideline Critique
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/619583/