World-News

The laws of physics are immutable

"Are mobile phones cancerous?" is the headline on one of todays letters (March 29).

Any electro-magnetic radiation radiation is potentially harmful.

As a CB-radio user in the Eighties, it was not unknown to get an occasional burn from holding the aerial while transmitting at 4 watts.

But, then, you don't hold mobile phone aerials. So, how far away from them is safe?

A typical phone mast broadcasts in the tens of watts, so let's say it is transmitting at 100 watts as a worst case, which is measured at one metre from the mast.

The inverse square law applies here, so, at ten times the distance, you'll only get a hundredth of the power.

So, roughly speaking, at the bottom of the 20m pole on which the aerial stands, you'll receive about half a watt of power, or, roughly speaking, about the same power as you receive from a mobile phone held to the side of your head.

Compare this with standing at the bottom of a mast transmitting TV signals. The Whitehawk transmitter broadcasts at 2000 watts. Assumming it is also about 20m high, at the bottom you would receive about five watts.

So, 20m from the worst phone mast transmitter should give you the same power through you as yoiur own mobile phone.

Another 20m away and the power received from the pole is only a four-hundredth of what you receive from your mobile phone.

You get more EM radiation from watching your TV.

Rod Main

--------

Dear Editor

Here is my response to a letter in todays Argus Letters for your letters page.

Yours Sincerely

Gary K.


Rod Main (Argus March 31) applies almost totally irrelevant criteria to assess the safety of phone masts and mobile phones - and omits to include the now huge range of microwave wireless devices on the market.

The ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection) Guidelines which are supposed to ensure phone mast safety ONLY cover the thermal (heating) effects of phone mast emissions. Hence all that an ICNIRP certificate means is that the mast won’t cook you!

When the guidelines were made in 1998 it was generally thought that the only effects of mobile phone mast emissions would be thermal, hence the ICNIRP Guidelines as they currently stand.

However, it is now widely accepted that NON-Thermal effects do occur but these guidelines have NOT been updated to include NON-Thermal effects.

The Thermal effects are accepted to be negligible - however, NON-Thermal effects are now known to affect the make-up of our bodies and how our bodies work, posing real risks to our health and to our lives.

Hence ICNIRP Guidelines are not protecting people at all. The Regional Government in Salzburg, Austria have set the acceptable limit for emissions in homes, under advice from Independent scientists, to just under 0.1 V/m – also referred to as “the suggested 0.1 V/m precautionary maximum”, or P.Max.

"GRAM" (Goldsworth Residents Against Masts) state in their very well researched and comprehensive leaflet on microwave communications that "20 to 40 times P.Max - ‘Medium and ‘High’ may ‘have serious health consequences for those exposed". These levels are those absorbed by people using any current microwave devices such as cell and DECT phones, baby monitors, WiFi, WiMax, cordless computers, interactive whiteboards in schools, bluetooth headsets as well as masts at close range.

The ICNIRP Guidelines also ignore long-term low-level exposure to microwaves. There are now thousands of formal and informal studies worldwide by independent scientists which conclude that there are many and serious adverse health effects from such exposure.

Gary K.
BHFOE Mast Campaigner

--------

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

"MOBILE TELEPHONE CAN CAUSE CANCER"
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/586356/

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



http://tinyurl.com/lk2re

by Malcolm Prior
BBC News, Bournemouth

Independent legal advisers have told a council embroiled in a row over unwanted mobile phone masts that it did make mistakes, the BBC can reveal.

Confidential barrister reports written for Bournemouth Borough Council have been leaked to the BBC News website.

They warn the council - which failed to meet a vital planning deadline - that action to have the masts removed could leave it facing compensation claims.

The council confirmed it had been given advice and was considering it.

I consider that the matter is clear and that the 56 days had expired Legal report

Campaigner Charmaine Despres met the news with anger, saying: "I reiterate what I have said before that Bournemouth borough planners are a law unto themselves.

"Our only hope is that Vodafone will consider relocating the mast to council land and in the future to hope that mast sharing will be made obligatory."

Earlier this week, a BBC Freedom of Information Act investigation revealed that such council blunders have allowed dozens of masts to be given planning permission across southern England.

If a phone operator wishing to put up a mast under 15m does not hear from a council within 56 days it can assume it has "deemed consent" - even if the council had wanted to refuse approval.

Advice considered

It has now come to light that a barrister with planning expertise was asked to look at two cases - both the focus of public anger - where Bournemouth Borough Council has been accused of not meeting that deadline.

The reports looked at the dispute surrounding an O2 mast at Queen's Park and a Vodafone mast in Fisherman's Avenue.

In a statement, the council confirmed it had obtained counsel's opinion but said: "The legal advice obtained is confidential but we can confirm that we are now considering this advice to establish what further action may be appropriate.

"In relation to the O2 phone mast we are of the opinion that we notified the operator within the specified time period.

"We have sought counsel's advice on this matter and are now looking into the advice to see what options there are."

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/4861920.stm

Published: 2006/03/31 06:09:59 GMT

© BBC MMVI

By Kevin Young

WE are often told there is no scientific evidence to prove that mobile phone masts are a health hazard and increase the risk of cancer.

But there are plenty of people who believe that it's positively harmful to spend a lot of time near them.

And that means any attempt to erect such masts in residential areas near homes or schools is likely to be not just controversial but strongly opposed.

Amazingly, there are already 35,000 masts around the country and the companies who provide the various networks argue with some force that they are struggling to meet our demand for clear mobile phone reception wherever we go.

But community concerns must be heeded and firms like Hutchinson 3G were mistaken if they thought they could just erect a 28-metre-high mast close to a housing estate like Park Farm at Feniscowles without provoking an immediate hostile reaction.

Masts more than 15 metres high require planning permission but apparently this one has been put up because operators are allowed to have a 28 day test period which was wanted in this case.

But until they can convince us there are no health risks companies should not be surprised that no one wants a phone mast in their own backyard.

7:00pm Wednesday 29th March 2006

© Copyright 2001-2006 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.lancashireeveningtelegraph.co.uk/columnists/latestcolumns/display.var.717694.0.prove_theres_no_danger.php

A DROMORE man has flagged up concerns over a planned addition to a mobile phone mast at Barban Hill. The man, who did not want to be named, lives in the Millturn View area. But his concerns were not so much for himself, he said, as for the "hundreds" of youngsters regularly making use of the Dromore Rugby Club facilities. "I don't know whether it's been established for certain that these masts are dangerous," he said. "But I would be one of those people who think that if there's any doubt at all then it's better not to pose even a possible danger to youngsters. "I'd imagine anyone with youngsters would want the same thing. The youngsters are the future and it's not the best idea to start putting up things that may harm them. "I would far rather have the mast that is up come down rather than have another added." The man said he had been alerted by the Divisional Planning Office at Marlborough House, Craigavon, to plans for the erection of O2 equipment at the existing Orange radio base station on lands at Dromore Rugby Club. "Some of the people living in the area might be older, like me," he said, "so the concern mightn't come to mind as much as with a younger population coming up. "But I wonder if all the people around who have children going up there to play rugby know about it. "I know that when I go out and look around I can't imagine that there would be problems getting high ground for these things where they definitely wouldn't pose any potential danger." The concerned resident said he planned to object in writing to the proposal and had contacted the local DUP office on the matter. Mr. Paul Stewart, assistant to Lagan Valley MP and MLA Jeffrey Donaldson and Dromore Councillor and Lagan Valley MLA Norah Beare, confirmed the office had written to the divisional planning officer requesting full details of the mast proposal. "We will be working with residents of the area to keep them informed of this application," he said.

30 March 2006

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing.

http://www.dromoreleader.com/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=3402&ArticleID=1412342

http://www.omega-news.info/relay_antennas_for_mobile_telephones.htm

Pour information à Monsieur Xavier BERTRAND, Ministre de la Santé et des Solidarités de la France et Monsieur Monieur le Dr Jong-Wook LEE, Directeur Général de l'Administration Centrale de l'OMS (WHO).

Eileen

Version FRANCAISE et/and ENGLISH http://www.next-up.org/film_3.php
Version DEUTSCH und/and ENGLISH http://www.next-up.org/film_3_de.php

Residents celebrate the decision to remove the phone masts

RESIDENTS have won their campaign to get mobile phone masts removed from their block of flats.

For three years Vanburgh Park Estate Residents' Association campaigned against six masts being on the roof of Westcombe Court, Westcombe Park Road, Blackheath.

Now the equipment will be taken down on June 30 after cabinet committee members at Greenwich Council refused to renew the lease for telecommunications firm Orange, on March 14.

The council refused to renew its 10-year lease on the basis the company had breached health and safety guidelines as the equipment was overhanging some walkways and was just 6m from residents' properties.

The residents' group campaigned against the 3G masts being so close to their houses.

Despite Orange producing documents to defend its case, the council said its evidence was inadequate.

Association member Colin Fancy said: "We've been fighting a long time. We've earned it after all our petitions, which was signed by 180 people, and going to meetings.

"The council now needs a policy to make sure mobile phone masts are sited away from homes and schools."

An Orange spokesman said: "In respect of Westcombe Court, Orange will now have to replace the coverage lost to maintain acceptable levels of coverage in the area."

It would not say what its arguments to the council were.

9:49am today

© Copyright 2001-2006 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/lewgreennews/display.var.718162.0.mast_victory_for_campaigners.php

DUBLIN

15 residents are up in arms over new plans to erect a mast in the vicinity of Hartstown National School. Fingal County Council has been informed of the proposal to erect the mast at a local petrol station. The plan has enraged locals who last year campaigned against another mast which was erected close to Huntstown National School. Speaking on behalf of residents, Cllr Ruth Coppinger (SP) expressed anger over the new mast. “This is a scandal,” she declared. “Microwave radiation from masts is known to be especially dangerous to children.” While telecommunications companies say there's no evidence to link masts with health issues, opponents point out there isn't any conclusive proof that they don't. Cllr Coppinger said Government guidelines on masts have left councils effectively powerless to regulate and reject plans for mobile phone antenna. Last year elected members of Fingal County Council unanimously agreed that an area of 200 metres radius of schools should be kept free from the erection of any masts.

However, Department of Environment guidelines state that masts may be erected beside schools and in residential areas as a last resort. Cllr Coppinger said telecommunication companies are taking advantage of this exception. “This law has led to the proliferation of mobile phone masts with companies not even having to attempt to share sites with competitor companies,” she said. “If these masts had to go through the normal planning process they would fail but because the antennae are part of the Government's 'exempted development' legislation, the normal rules don't apply. “Until the health effects are fully clear, no masts should be near schools, crèches, community or sports centres.” A local Hartstown resident echoed Cllr Copppinger's concerns. Jacinta Nolan fears for the elderly in the vicinity and school children in Hartstown's St Ciaran's National School. “I'm very much opposed to the mast,” she said. “It will only be within yards of the school and the little children. “People aren't even allowed to smoke in petrol stations or use a mobile, yet they are allowed to put this mast on the top of the building. It's crazy. “Hartstown residents will not be prepared to put up with these masts and we will do anything in our power to stop it going ahead.” Meanwhile, Councillor Felix Gallagher (SF) described the decision to allow mobile phone antennae at Huntstown shops as an attack on local democracy and the health of the local community. “Earlier this month I got confirmation that An Bord Pleanála had upheld my objection to an O2 mast at this site,” he said. “This decision was greeted with great relief by local residents and parents of local school children. “However, it has now been decided to place these antennae on the side wall of the building rather than the roof.” It's understood the Huntstown antennae is now covered by 'exempted development' rules. Department of Environment and Heritage guidelines for suitable antennae locations state: “Only as a last resort and if all alternatives are either unavailable or unsuitable should free-standing masts be located in a residential area or beside schools.” The guidelines also specify the type of structure that should be erected. “It should be kept at a minimum height consistent with effective operation and should be monopole (or poles) rather than a tripod.” A spokesperson for Fingal County Council's planning department responded to our query regarding masts in the county. “The council will only take enforcement against unauthorised development in regards planning,” she said. The spokesperson confirmed that most mobile masts fall outside the council's control as they do not need planning permission. “Although we do have a development plan, this only applies to masts that need planning.”

http://www.dublinpeople.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=948&Itemid=49

By Jemma Dobson

MAST PROTEST: Neighbours are furious about the siting of a phone mast near their homes

A COMMUNITY has been left "outraged" after a mobile phone mast was erected without planning permission.

Blackburn with Darwen Council has launched an investigation into the sudden appearance of the 28-metre- high mast in Eclipse Mill, off Park Farm Road, Feniscowles.

Today a spokesman for Hutchinson 3G said engineers had installed the mast as a temporary measure for 28 days in a bid to see how best reception could be improved in the area.

Masts over 15 metres need planning permission, but residents claim there was no such application or consultation.

But the spokesman for Hutchinson 3G indicated that the 28-day test meant planning laws could be by-passed for a limited period.

Hutchinson 3G has rented the land on which the mast stands from packaging firm Premier Cases.

Robin Green, managing director of Premier Cases, said his company did not want a permanent mast there.

The mast was installed last Friday and within hours council officers visited the site after receiving scores of complaints.

Adam Scott, director of regeneration at the council, said: "Council staff are investigating but I have yet to see the findings."

Coun Derek Hardman, who represents Feniscowles, claimed the mast was also in breach of guidelines which state they should not be erected close to schools.

He added: "The mast is within a few hundred metres of St Paul's RC Primary School. New regulations mean this should not be done. I certainly don't recall any planning permission being applied for and certainly not granted. The people of Feniscowles are outraged."

Resident Mike Britnell, 58, of St Martins Drive, which backs onto the site said: "It's an eyesore. It's a monstrosity. We were not consulted because we would have said no."

Mr Green, of Premier Cases, said: "We have rented the land to Hutchinson 3G for six months for the temporary mast.

"Under our agreement it was their responsibility to seek the relevant permission. We would not have agreed to a permanent mast and have refused such requests in the past."

The Hutchinson 3G spokesman added: "We had been receiving complaints from our mobile phone customers that they were getting a bad reception in the area.

"We are allowed to have the structure up for 28 days before seeking planning permission under telecommunication planning regulations."

7:00pm today

© Copyright 2001-2006 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.lancashireeveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.717681.0.fury_as_phone_mast_appears.php

By Andy Lenderman
The New Mexican - March 29, 2006

The Rio Arriba County Commission will consider a temporary ban on cellphone towers at its Thursday meeting, Commissioner Elias Coriz said Tuesday . A recent cell-phone tower erected on private land in Chimayó has prompted Coriz and Chimayó residents to address the issue. “What I want to put in place is that any tower that comes into Rio Arriba County, I would like for the community to have some input, some say about what comes into the community,” Coriz said by telephone.

continued >>> http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/41517.html


Informant: James River Martin

Schools are still making thousands of pounds from mobile phone masts on their premises seven years after Oxfordshire County Council banned the practice.

Figures obtained by the Oxford Mail under the Freedom of Information Act revealed five secondary schools which signed contracts before the ban was introduced are making almost £35,000 a year in total from seven mobile masts.

They are Matthew Arnold School in Oxford, Oxford Community School, Larkmead School in Abingdon, Burford School and Banbury School.

The county council banned new masts being built on its sites within 200m of a school in 1999, but there is nothing to stop schools renewing contracts.

It has refused to discuss the issue with the Oxford Mail but in a statement said it would consult schools before deciding whether the contracts should be renewed.

Matthew Arnold School, Oxford, has three mobile masts, boosting its budget by £15,000 a year. The others have one mast each worth between £2,273 and £6,428 a year.

Governors at Matthew Arnold will decide whether to renew one of its contracts in December this year. The other two are due to expire in July and October 2008.

School business manager Ian Carr said: "The radiation levels from the three masts here are well below recommended levels so that has put a lot of fears to rest among parents.

"No new masts can be built within 200m of school premises but that doesn't prevent individuals whose garden backs on to a school from putting one up."

Burford School headteacher Patrick Sanders said he planned to renew the school's 10-year contract with O2, worth £4,000 a year.

He said: "There's no reason why we shouldn't renew it. It's far enough away from the school on an old farm site several hundred metres away and it's not particularly big. Nobody will know for many years to come about the safety of them."

Oxford Community School renewed its mast contract in 2001 and is now signed up until 2016. Projects director Pat Norman said the revenue from its mast had been invested in new toilets.

She said: "It's preferable to have the mast on our own buildings because we know how much is coming out of it and where it's distributed."

Larkmead School head Christopher Harris said: "The contract was entered into before I joined the school. We will review the situation when the contract comes up for renewal."

Scientific opinion on the safety of masts near schools is divided.

Dr Gerard Hyland, of the department of physics at the University of Warwick, has claimed the frequency of pulses in transmitter emissions could affect the brains of young children so masts should not be sited near schools.

But former Oxford scientist Prof Colin Blakemore, a member of the Government's Stewart Committee which looked into the effects of mobiles, has argued that schools are the best places to put masts because exposure directly beneath them is the lowest.

Green county councillor Craig Simmons believes that masts should not be installed on schools until there is evidence to prove it is safe to do so.

He said: "My view is that we need to take a precautionary approach and not put masts on highly-populated areas or close to schools."

The Oxford Mail was initially told no-one at the council was available to comment. After offering to wait, the council admitted it was not prepared to discuss the issue, saying: "We don't always put people up for interview".

In a statement, health and safety officer Colin Shipton said: "It is correct that OCC banned installing any new mobile telephone masts on school premises and restricted installation on any of its sites within 200 metres of school premises.

"The 200 metres was not based on any scientific evidence nor guidance from our radiological expert and is not enforceable for non-OCC premises.

"The levels of exposure were checked and it was revealed that they were well below those recommended by Government and the National Radiological Protection Board."

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

9:18am today

© Copyright 2001-2006 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.thisisoxford.co.uk/display.var.717009.0.schools_net_mast_profits.php