World-News

.. though as below..spoiled somewhat by the extremely heavy editing (they even rewrote the bloody quotes!!!!). Still, they included a map of existing 3G locations in Brighton & Hove...

Gary


Councillor Ted Kemble (Letters, Feb 15th) remarked that 3G phone masts are liable to "protracted planning battles".

Unfortunately current planning guidelines do not recognise adverse health effects of masts.

If Planning Committees vote against masts, they risk having their decision overturned by Government inspectors then paying thousands in costs.

The Governments £21 billion licence fee from the telecoms industry - which included the obligation for 80% coverage of the UK by 2007 - has locked the country into sustained electromagnetic exposure to people living near these high strength masts.

Out of thousands of serious illnesses, http://www.mastsanity.org has details of 18 clusters such as cancer, tumours, epilepsy and strokes, within several hundred metres of existing 2G masts.

The new 3G network requires up to 16 times more masts than the 2G system - one every 50 metres, according to some researchers. It will also need to be 10 - 30 times more powerful and, unlike 2G, will transmit continuously.

Renowned Physicist Dr John Walker recently said the "International Committee on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection made the biggest mistake in scientific history and unconsciously misled many...by choosing guidelines 4.5 million times as high as those chosen by Salzburg (yet) phones still work in Salzburg."

Dr David Aldridge, a scientist who developed microwave technology for the US Government, has said: "External (mast) signals swamp the body's natural internal signals. This can lead to cancers and a whole range of other serious medical disorders, particularly among children."

"Expose a cell to microwaves from a mast or phone and it interferes with its cell repair process. In the case of young children, the rate of cells dividing to form new ones is so fast, you end up with a vast number of mis-repairs."

--------

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

Wirral News 15.02.06

PHONE giant T-Mobile has bowed to public pressure and agreed to remove a contro-versial mast from a site in Greasby.

The mast, on land at Greenhouse Farm in Arrowe Road, will be removed later this week following six years of campaigning by Wirral West MP Stephen Hesford, residents' group Greasby Against Mobile Masts Association (GAMMA) and pressure group MastAvengers.

It brings to a close a battle which began in 1999, when householders living in nearby Rigby Drive saw bulldozing equipment rip through protected greenbelt land on a field to the south of the farm. The residents formed the action group GAMMA and have fought for the mast's removal ever since.

Mr Hesford has lobbied on behalf of the public who were against the erection of the mast from the beginning. Wirral councillors finally voted to serve a 'Discontinuance Notice' to get the mast taken down.

Mr Hesford said: "I am delighted that the phone company has finally decided to listen to the public and remove it. I would like to thank the public who have played a massive part in this success by doing all they can to help the cause.

"This is a win for the people of Greasby who have worked so very tirelessly with myself to remove this mast from Green House Farm. This mast should have never been set up in a greenbelt area and I will be very happy to see the area restored to the way it should be."

T-Mobile was given planning permission to build the phone mast in 1999 due to a technicality, when the company was not notified in time that it had been refused planning consent to build under develop-ment regulations.

GAMMA presented the council with a 1,740-signature petition and more than 200 letters urging them to remove the mast.

A row has broken out after a legal loophole allowed a mobile phone mast to be erected despite local protest.

BBC News website

It has been revealed that a Bournemouth Borough Council letter to Vodafone did not state clearly enough that permission for the mast was refused. That allowed the firm to claim it had not been told of any refusal in the given 56-day period laid down by law. The council is furious with the company for "exploiting" the loophole. Vodafone says it has "deemed consent". Proposals for the mast on the corner of Wentworth Avenue and Fishermans Avenue saw heated protest from local residents, who were delighted when the council backed them. But because the council's letter of refusal - which detailed all the objections - did not actually state permission had been refused, the company was technically allowed to put up the mast. Its officers are now calling for the company to make a fresh application, moving the mast to a less prominent site. Mike Holmes, head of planning and transport, said: "Whilst technically we omitted to tell Vodafone that their application had been rejected, in our view it is clear that from the numerous points made in the letter that the actual outcome was obvious. "We were concerned to learn of this loophole and would like to ensure residents that internal changes have been carried out to see that this does not happen again." Deemed consent Jane Frapwell, a spokeswoman for Vodafone, told the BBC News website the company was happy to talk to the council. But she added: "Planning legislation states that if you do not get a refusal within 56 days you have deemed consent. "We do understand the council's point of view but if, for the sake of argument, we reapplied and they refused it we would go to a planning inspector to appeal the decision. "The inspector would say we already have deemed consent. That's the position we are in."

Feb 17 2006

icSolihull

HUNDREDS of protesters are expected to turn out when a Government inspector visits Solihull to view the site of a planned mobile phone mast.

T-Mobile's application for a mast nearly 15 metres high, on the corner of Streetsbrook Road and Woodlea Drive, was turned down on environmental grounds by Solihull Council last October, but the company appealed against the decision.

Residents have been fighting the plan since it was announced last July and more than 1,000 of them have either sent letters of objection or signed a petition opposing the 3G mast.

Greg Shakeshaft, of Streetsbrook Road, who is leading the residents' campaign, said: "We don't need the mast and we don't want it. The mast would be totally out of character with the area.

"The nearest house is less than 30 yards away and we think Oak Cottage Primary School in Greswolde Road would be within the radiation field of the mast.

"If the mast is erected it will be a blight on our neighbourhood."

Mr Shakeshaft, two of whose three children attend Oak Cottage School, added that the Streetsbrook Road proposal was only one of more than 200 new mobile phone masts planned for Solihull by 2007.

Feb 16 2006

By Lyndsay Young,
Formby Times

PLANS have been mooted to site a mobile phone mast on a historical Formby church.

The proposal is for a Vodafone base station at Holy Trinity Church in Rosemary Lane.

Residents received letters from QS4 Limited, which installs of masts on Church of England churches for phone companies.

Holy Trinity Parochial Church Council voted in favour of the proposal and wants residents' views before deciding whether to seek permission from the Diocese.

Sheila Grey, secretary of Holy Trinity PCC, said: "It was passed by a majority. As far as I know it would be hidden and would be in the little bell tower."

The church, built in 1889, is situated in the heart of Formby Village and next to residents' homes..

Formby Civic Society has confirmed its opposition to the proposed mast which could be installed by April 2007.

Ray Derricott, amenities secretary of Formby Civic Society, said: "We shall write a letter objecting to the proposal.

"It is in a residential area and we do not want them near children or where people congregate."

The process is at the consultation stage and planning permission would first be sought from the Diocese.

John Swain, head of sales at QS4, said: "The church actually called us. Generally churches are chosen because they are the right height, they are in the centre of the general population and it's a prime location to give maximum coverage.

"If they don't get the right height, they may have to put several lower level small masts in its place."

In its letter, QS4 stated the equipment will not affect the appearance of the building and the church will benefit from the rent.

It gave assurances it would issue a license forcing mobile phone companies to measure emissions routinely.

Bolton Evening News Saturday

18 February 2006

MOBILE-PHONE masts are being banned from land owned by Bolton Council amid fears they pose a health risk. Councillors backed a resolution preventing companies from using council-owned property to erect masts - except in extreme cases where the site is on open land and is the most suitable location available. The move will also see existing masts taken down when their current contracts expire. Cllr Barbara Ronson, the council leader, will personally consider all bids to erect masts on council property on a case-by-case basis. Tory councillor Andy Morgan, who was behind the resolution, said not enough was known about the health risks posed by masts. He told a meeting of the council: "This is a genuine attempt to address the safety fears around phone masts. "We have a chance to say "stop" and to demand more information." But in some cases, where council land was further away from homes and buildings than other available sites, companies could be permitted to erect masts. Under planning law, councillors on the planning committee are unable to refuse applications for mobile phone masts on health and safety grounds on land it does not own. But Cllr Morgan says the councilís new rule will give it more control over the erection of masts. Fears over the safety of mobile phone masts have existed since they were first introduced 15 years ago. The microwaves they generate have been linked to a number of health problems, from headaches to nosebleeds. Five of the current 129 phone masts in the borough are on council-owned land, earning the local authority around £30,000 per year. They are at Stapleton Avenue, Heaton; Duddon Avenue, Breightmet; Rainford House, Haydock Street on the School Estate; Brandwood Street School, Daubhill; and Horwich Leisure Centre. Cllr David Wilkinson, the Liberal Democrat executive member for regeneration and development at Bolton Council, supported the resolution. But he said: "You can’t just say mobile phones are terrible, because the public are voting with their feet and buying these things from shops. "Unfortunately, no government will ever allow a report that says mobile phones are harmful." Labour councillor Laurie Williamson said: "There are some good examples of council land that is ideal for phone masts, such as the golf course in Regent Road. "Masts could be moved on to council land to get them off the public highway."

I thought people might feel encouraged by the publication of my letter in Februarys edition of a local Brighton newsletter.

Regards

Gary
Brighton


PHONE MASTS SET TO INCREASE WHILE HEALTH FEARS GROW

Those of you who have heard that a phone mast is planned for the bottom of Davey Drive will be interested to read the following from a fellow resident.

Communities having recently prevented phone masts in Portland Road, New Church Road, The Drive and Fiveways would do well to observe the secrecy and repeated applications employed by Vodafone (Argus December 13) in installing a phone mast on Intergen House in Hove - tactics used by telecom companies nationwide.

On its website Mast Sanity ( http://www.mastsanity.org ) lists eighteen of what it estimates to be thousands of ill health clusters - mostly cancer, epilepsy, strokes and tumours - up to 500 metres radius from phone masts, whilst the proliferation of microwave technology - cell phones, 3G, wireless computers,WLANs, bluetooth, burglar alarms, baby monitors, TETRA etc - runs rampant.

Chairman of the Russian National Committee for defense from nonionizing radiation Professor Yuri Grigoriev, recently attributed the sevenfold increase in the deaths of Russian teenagers since 1993 to mouth, brain and ear cancers almost entirely to cell phone use.

The Freiburger, Nalia, Bamberger, Salford and Californian studies all detail serious adverse health effects from microwave exposure and appeal for new safety legislation to protect people. Dr Salford of Lund University, Sweden, recently stated brain damage from intensive mobile use and domestic DECT phones in homes was "a probability rather than a possibility".

In 2001, the European Parliament Research Group recommended that all EU states ban children under 16 from using cell phones. This is recommended by the UK Department of Health, though not widely publicised despite advice from the Governments ex official adviser Sir William Stewart that under 16s only use cell phones in emergencies.and who described current marketing of cell phones to eight year olds as "grotesque".

The currently unfurling 3G system will require 16 times more masts than the current (GSM) one and be 30 times more powerful. But with telecom companies paying the Government £23 billion for 3G frequencies and their requirement for 80% UK mast coverage by 2007, are either likely to raise the alarm?

On March 10th, Brighton and Hove Council passed a Motion calling on the Government to suspend further mast installations, decommission existing ones in sensitive locations (within 500 metres of hospitals, schools, retirement homes and residential areas) pending further research, and to fully democratise the planning process for all masts - all requested by Sir William Stewart long ago.

That every mast refusal by the Council carries a risk of £17,000 costs being awarded against it by Government planning inspectors could conceivably explain Planning Committee Vice Chair Roy Pennington and Chair Bob Carden always passing mast applications when holding the casting votes, but not their voting against the abovementioned Council Motion.

Nor can it explain Pennington's intention (Argus August 25) to set up a Committee to alleviate peoples fears about phone masts and who has previously accused mast campaigners of "scaremongering" (The Argus, Jan 2005).

To enquire about the planned mast contact sue.paskins@brighton-hove.gov.uk (Sue is on the planning committee)

ENDS

http://tinyurl.com/7qj5e

The ICNIRP International guidelines, which tragically purport to protect us, are set 9,000 times too high. They make absolutely no recognition of the information (vibrational) content of electromagnetic radiation.

Even ICNIRP's Standing Committee on Epidemiology agree the guidelines are inadequate as follows: "Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukaemia."

And the final paragraph:

"Another gap in the research is children. No study population to date has included children, with the exception of studies of people living near radio and TV antennas. Children are increasingly heavy users of mobile phones. They may be particularly susceptible to harmful effects (although there is no evidence of this), and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives."

ICNIRP as 'protection' is equivalent to a fireguard in front of a defective gas fire that is giving out carbon monoxide - it might stop you getting burned but you might not be alive to care".

Of course if anybody else wants to respond, the link is as follows:

http://www.thisisbath.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163492&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163173&contentPK=13968146&folderPk=89161


John Elliott
(excerpt from his message)

--------

One of the most damning points covers the ICNIRP guidelines themselves. It states, below the limits, given that "these guidelines are for short term
exposure only. For longer term exposure, including an increased risk of
cancer, we have insufficient data to allow us to set exposure limits".

Dennis Cannon

--------

John,

The first point has to be, as I think has already been mentioned, the fact that there ARE NO GUIDELINES FOR LONG TERM EXPOSURE!! And just what is the definition of short term? How long is short, exactly? Quote from Grahame B: "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.

Yes, I too would like to see these hundreds of studies, what the results really said, and who paid for them.!!

Is this in relation to St Mary the Virgin? If so, I put the Archdeacon of Bath on notice this week, pointing out that we had already written to draw to the attention of Rev P the evidence indicating long term effects and evidence etc. Here are some extracts from it that relate to the matter and a quote I included which I took from the Archbishop ao Canterbury's website:

As we explained in our previous letter, there are guidelines to control the emissions from mobile phone masts, but these only deal with thermal effects, that is, tissue heating. As long as masts produce emissions below a set level they are deemed to be ‘safe’. You will constantly hear the argument that the masts ‘comply with ICNIRP guidelines’ – this means nothing in terms of long-term biological effects which cause cell changes and DNA damage, especially (although not exclusively) over long periods of time. This effect on our bodies is not considered a problem by the Government bodies, who continue to claim that the technology is safe! Biological effects and long-term exposure are NOT regulated in this country, so there is no measure and no control and NO research - except on the population of Great Britain.

We have also drawn your attention to worldwide research linking the pulsing of masts such as the one proposed to the disruption of sleep patterns, causing the breakdown of the melatonin process and subsequent immune problems leading to the inability to fight pre-cancer cells, and advised you that Mast Sanity is currently collecting evidence from several sites across the United Kingdom where cancer clusters have become obvious around masts that have been up between 4 and 6 years.

Moreover, we advised you that despite repeated requests from the Operators to provide a letter stating categorically that there is no danger from emissions from mobile phone masts, accepting full liability for any future claims, such a written assurance that there is no danger has never been provided.

This disregard for the health and well being of local residents is not only in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our neighbour, protect the weak and vulnerable, and place a higher value on human life and well-being than on material possessions, it is as illustrated in the following statement by Dr Rowan Williams:

“When God tells Adam in the first chapter of Genesis that he is to subdue and have dominion over the earth, many would say that this is the beginning of a tragic and disgraceful story – the story of how human beings ravaged and exploited the earth for their own purposes, exhausting its resources and ruining it for future generations. Those who are now most deeply concerned about our environment often accuse the Jewish-Christian tradition of being responsible for a history of greed and abuse directed at the natural world. If we are at last to take our proper responsibility for the earth, we must leave behind this particular religious legacy and find another way of understanding our place on the earth, a way that is more sensitive to the sacredness of our environment.”

Have no doubt that you will be judged for your actions in the next life, even if you believe that you are unaccountable in this.

Hope this info is useful,

Amanda

--------

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

Mobile phones and child protection
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1533960/

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

THE LINE

North Wales Pioneer 09.02.06

PEOPLE power has forced Vodafone to shelve controversial mobile phone mast proposals.

The mobile phone giant is set to abandon plans to erect a three-metre antenna on top of the North Wales Badminton Centre, in a heavily-populated residential area of Deganwy.

Householders feared the mast would have an impact on their health and would cause house prices to plummet.

But now, they have forced Vodafone into a rethink. And after conducting further tests, the communications company are pursuing an alternative site in the town.

Delighted campaigners, however, have greeted the news with ‘cautious optimism’.

They are insisting that any alternative venue for the 3G mast should be set away from residental areas.

Yesterday, Cllr Mike Priestly, who along with fellow Cllr Barry Owen has opposed the mast from the onset, described it as a victory for democracy, but wanted the switch confirmed in writing.

“Public pressure has swayed them away from it,” said Cllr Priestly. “I am ecstatic, absolutely over the moon. I still want it in writing, so I am still a little cautious welcoming it. If they are listening to democracy, then it is just great news all round.

“But they will still be looking for another site in that area and it has to be away from the residents.

John Hurn, whose property overlooks the badminton centre,spearheaded the opposition to the project. He said that he was glad that sense had prevailed. “I don’t really care the reason why they have decided against it,” he said. “I am just glad they have decided against it and that sense has prevailed. It is not a sensible place to have a mast right in the middle of a built up area.”

Jane Frapwell, of Vodafone, said that the move reflected the company’s community-minded approach: “We took on board what the local community thought, so we decided to do another sweep of the immediate area to see if we could find another site.

“It is still in the early stages, but it is looking promising. We always try to take on board the views of the community, because they are our customers, too.