World-News

The same paper says a Tipperary farmer and his wife who claimed they suffered ill-health due to radio frequency radiation from a mobile phone mast on their lands say they are prepared to go to jail rather than allow Vodafone on to their property to repair the broken mast. John Ryan, from Golden, claims symptoms he and his wife suffered due to the operation of the mast have ceased since the mast stopped working in November last year.

Source: http://www.enn.ie/news.html?code=9676318 (excerpt)



Here is the article that appeared in yesterday's THE IRISH TIMES.

Imelda


THE IRISH TIMES, MARCH 24, 2006

Tipperary couple determined to block phone mast repair

Peter Gleeson

A Co Tipperary farmer and his wife who claimed they suffered ill-health due to radio frequency radiation from a mobile phone mast on their lands say they are prepared to go to jail rather than allow Vodafone on to their property to repair the broken mast.

John Ryan, from Golden, claims symptoms he and his wife, Rosie, suffered due to the operation of the mast have ceased since the mast stopped working in November last year.

Insp Paschal Feeney, of Tipperary town Garda station, confirmed they are investigating an incident of criminal damage to a mast in the Golden area.

He would not confirm a claim by the Ryans that a statement was taken from Ms Ryan on Monday and that gardaí seized a gun from their house.

The Ryans say they are puzzled as to why the gun was seized.

"We have said we will take whatever steps are necessary, even going to jail to stop Vodafone coming on the land, but using a gun was the last thing on my mind," Ms Ryan said. "We have no intention of harming anyone."

Mr Ryan said he had forgotten he even had a gun. "We never mentioned anything about a gun to anyone."

Vodafone, the company which operates the mast, said it was disappointed to learn that extensive damage was discovered to its base station in Golden. The company said the cause of the damage is being investigated.

--------

John Ryan: Phone mast wrecks my life
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/232655/

Action on John Ryan case would benefit Vodafone
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/554599/

Mobile phone mast recommendation being ignored
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1893116/

Please find enclosed an article from 2000 about a man who spent over 4 hours on a mobile phone which was believed to make his face blow up. Many people have been requesting this news article since I mentioned it in a recent e-mail.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/beware.pdf


Kind Regards

Eileen O’Connor

--------

Ex-Government Military Scientist Barrie Trower specialised in microwave radiation. Barrie Trower told me about a story in which appeared in the Sunday Mirror News paper May 7th 2000, the article reported about a man who spent four hours on a mobile phone which made his face blow up so much doctors had to take his eyes out of his sockets to relieve the pressure. Barrie has the original news article and is willing to talk to any news paper, scientist or investigator about the hospital radiation hot spots.

Please find enclosed details for Barrie...

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1712269/

editorial@hamhigh.co.uk
24 March 2006
Katie Davies

HAMPSTEAD Garden Suburb parents have declared war on a church for allowing three mobile phone masts to be built on its grounds.

The group began its campaign outside Holy Trinity Church, East End Road, on Saturday handing out leaflets and holding up placards.

Avril Hollings, who has three children at Brookland School, Hill Top, said: "There is a feeling in the local community that the vicar isn't interested in what we think.

"The Stewart Report [into mobile mast radiation] said children were more vulnerable to radiation and we don't want to take the risk over health issues."

The church's vicar Rev Lawrence Hill wrote to residents in April 2005 about the masts.

An application was rejected by Barnet Council last year but a new plan has just been submitted, with the applicant claiming no other sites are as good as the church.

Bob Owens, who lives nearby, said: "He wrote to us originally seeking our views on the mast. He obviously took our views and didn't take a blind bit of notice.

"We have spoken to him about it and we have all written to him but he doesn't answer a single one of us.

"I can't see how it is ethical for a church to take the slightest risk over people's health.

"The church has a tiny congregation and it is rather dwindling. When we were protesting there were 28 of us and only 18 members of the congregation going in.

"The whole plan has been inspired by the vicar himself - he has decided it is an easy way to generate money for the church."

Residents and parents have also written to the Bishop of Edmonton to complain.

The Diocese was unable to comment.

Earlier in the week another group of parents from the same school defeated a Vodaphone mast application.

Led by Nicole and Jonathan Gerber from Morris Walk, the group convinced councillors to throw out plans for a mast on nearby East End Road on Thursday.

The application for a 9.4m antenna and an adjoining cabinet was dismissed by the council's planning committee after they heard parents' views.

Speaking at the meeting, father-of-three Mr Gerber said to councillors: "You can't simply ignore mass opposition to this application. There will be a loss of enjoyment for parents sending children to these schools. The cabinet would be an invitation for graffiti. It will be detrimental to the amenity of the local area."

katie.davies@hamhigh.co.uk

Copyright © 2006 Archant Regional. All rights reserved.

http://tinyurl.com/symxh

--------

I note from today's press that the vicar of All Saints Church in St Paul's Walden, Hertfordshire, has been 'interviewed' by his bishop and has, subsequently, apologised to his congregation for allowing scenes of the appalling programme 'Footballers' Wives' to be filmed in his church for the princely sum of £2000.

The word 'hypocrisy' immediately springs to mind. So elements of the Church abhor any association with a 'tacky' television series in which serial adultery and the most appalling behaviour is 'de rigueur', yet endorse on Church land and buildings UMTS installations providing pornography to children.

My case rests.

David


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

PETER WALSH
22 March 2006 12:15

A telecommunications giant has created a stir by looking to install a mobile phone mast in one of three possible sites along a busy city street.

City councillors in Norwich's Wensum ward have received letters from 3, formerly Hutchinson 3G, about plans to install a new mast near to the Dereham Road and Ring Road junction.

The communications company has stated that it is currently a trio of sites before submitting a formal planning application.

The sites under consideration are:

Kwik Fit Tyres, 372 Dereham Road.

Gatehouse pub, Dereham Road.

Dereham Road / Hellesdon Road junction.

The news will come as a blow to families living in the area many of whom feel that Norwich has more than enough masts as it is.

Ken Hollingsworth, 67, who lives opposite the Gatehouse pub in Dereham Road, said he did not want a mobile phone mast installed so near his home.

“It's perhaps an eyesore for people who want to look over the meadow,” said Mr Hollingsworth.

The former Hellesdon Hospital worker also said although he did not know much about the possible health effects, it would be a concern if a mast was put there. “I would be against it definitely,” he said.

The Evening News has campaigned against the installation of mobile phone masts near homes until it is proved they are safe for years through our Put Masts on Hold campaign.

But it is not just people who live in the area that should be concerned about the mast, but also people that work there too according to one city councillor.

“The sites in question are all close to people's work places,” said Rupert Read, city councillor for Wensum ward.

“We often think of sites near to homes or schools but sites near work places are of concern. People spend eight or nine hours a day in a work place which could end up to a cumulative effect.”

Mr Read said network coverage in Norwich was “adequate” as it was and did not feel another site.

“We believe that the additional health risks are not worth it and Norwich doesn't need any more phone masts,” he said.

“We've got this policy of saying there should be a moratorium on new mobile phone masts.”

In February 2003 the Evening News reported how people living near a park on Dereham Road rallied against plans 3 had for a 12.5metre mast.

The mobile phone giant had asked the city council for permission to put up the mast next to Bowthorpe Park which is home for Norwich Powerleague where youngsters and adults play five-a-side football.

Families argued there was already a mast yards away from the proposed new one and another on the roof of the nearby Wagon and Horses pub.

And in November 2001 we reported how a controversial mobile phone mast had finally gone up near to the Earl of Leicester pub on Dereham Road despite a fight to stop it.

Phone firm One2One started building the 10 metre mast in the grounds of the pub after council officials failed to inform the firm its application had been rejected within the 42 day deadline.

Anyone who has any comments for 3 on its plans for the sites above can contact them on 0845 604 3000 or via http://www.three.co.uk .

Are you fighting plans for a mobile phone mast in your neighbourhood? Call Evening News reporter Peter Walsh on (01603) 772439 or email peter.walsh@archant.co.uk.

The Norfolk Jumbo Copyright © 2006 Archant Regional. All rights reserved.

http://tinyurl.com/nhpzh

Published: 23rd March 2006

RESIDENTS of Rhodes say they are upset and disillusioned after proposals to build a mobile phone mast on Manchester Old Road were given planning permission on appeal.

T-Mobile applied to build a ‘telecommunications monopole’ and equipment cabinet on ground in front of the West Croft Industrial Estate last year, and were knocked back by Middleton’s councillors in September.

But the company appealed against the decision and has since been given permission to go ahead by the planning inspectorate.

Inspector Paul Taylor, who allowed the appeal, says in his report: "that the mast would not be ‘particularly incongruous in the street scene’ and harm caused to the local environment would 'not be very great’".

He also says that ‘exposure levels for people living near to mobile phone base stations are not likely to be dangerous’ and ‘concerns of local residents about health are not sufficient to justify withholding approval for the proposed development’.

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

This comes after local people fought long and hard to get planning permission refused. A group of approximately 15 objectors attended September’s planning meeting to convince the committee that such a mast was not wanted in Rhodes, due to fears that it may affect the health of locals, the local environment and house prices.

With a heartfelt presentation to the meeting they won the day, and the plans were rejected. But then, in December, residents heard that T-Mobile was appealing against the decision.

Many wrote to the planning inspectorate to object once again and are now angry and upset that their feelings apparently didn’t count.

Councillor Peter Williams has been against the mast from the start. He said he was especially frustrated at the decision because there is already a mobile phone mast there, and he was worried this could set a dangerous precedent for mobile phone companies building new masts rather than sharing other companies' equipment.

He said: "I’m very disappointed, and very annoyed on behalf of the residents who got together and tried to fight this."

Mum-of-two Alison Webster, 39, led the residents’ protest last year. She said she was disillusioned upon hearing that the plans had gone through, and felt that locals’ views had been ignored.

She said: "We felt that we did it democratically and we did it the right way. We got the support of the committee, bar one member, so we were very sad to hear this.

"The government say that people don't vote anymore, but you can see why. The big companies have won the day again.

"All the neighbours can't believe it. It means now, when anything else happens, people will get the opinion they don't matter. People aren't going to fight any more. It's as if we're just the little people that have to live with this on our doorsteps."

Submit your comments
http://www.middletonguardian.co.uk/news/comments/form.html?story_id=210856

First published by the Middleton Guardian

© Copyright 2006 Guardian Media Group

http://www.middletonguardian.co.uk/news/s/210/210856_residents_suffer_mast_appeal_defeat.html

Die Gemeinden wollen hart bleiben

lp/bob/kle/rbl. Fast alle Gemeinden, die keine neuen Mobilfunkantennen mehr bewilligen, pfeifen auf den Brief des Kantons Bern.

«Für die Stadt Bern ändert sich nichts», erklärte der Berner Stadtpräsident Alexander Tschäppät gestern kurz und bündig. Der Gemeinderat hatte im Februar entschieden, keine Baugesuche für Antennen mehr zu bewilligen. Von diesem Moratorium sind 25 Gesuche betroffen. «Wir haben jedes einzelne sistiert», so Tschäppät. Dagegen seien bis anhin drei Beschwerden eingetroffen, die sechs Baugesuche beträfen. Auch wenn der Kanton in Einzelfällen zum Schluss komme, die Sistierung sei nicht rechtens, werde die Stadt hart bleiben. «Dann lehnen wir die Baugesuche vermutlich ab.» «Gemäss einem bereits bestehenden Bundesgerichtsurteil haben Anwohner einen Anspruch auf eine objektiv überprüfbare Einhaltung der Grenzwerte», so Tschäppät. Das von den Kantonen entwickelte Qualitätssicherungssystem erfülle diese Anforderungen nicht, da es nur alle 24 Stunden die Strahlung messe. «Es muss rund um die Uhr gemessen werden», so Tschäppät.

Auch Burgdorf will hart bleiben: «Wir werden wohl weiterhin am Moratorium festhalten», so Gemeinderat Markus Grimm. «Mit dem Schreiben des Kantons hat sich an der Situation nichts geändert.» Allerdings werde der Gemeinderat an seiner nächsten Sitzung nochmals darüber diskutieren. Die Bevölkerung sei verunsichert und habe Angst. «Wir wollen weiter auf die Resultate einer ETH-Studie warten.»

Das Parlament von Ostermundigen hat im September - gegen den Willen des Gemeinderats - eine Volksmotion «Gegen den Wildwuchs von Antennen» gutgeheißen. Man habe dem Volk keine Illusionen gemacht, so Gemeinderätin Florence Martinoia (SP): «Die Gemeinden sind zwar Bewilligungsbehörden, doch der Bund bestimmt, was zulässig ist.» Konsequent wäre ihrer Meinung nach, wenn der Bund Baugesuche selber behandeln würde. «Für mich stimmt der Weg des Kantons», sagt Langenthals Stadtpräsident Hans-Jürg Käser (FDP). Er verstehe, dass die Elemente Gesundheitsschutz und Anspruch auf eine Baubewilligung auf einen Nenner gebracht werden sollen.

Ob Langenthal, das in dieser Frage eine Pionierrolle übernommen hatte, das UMTS-Moratorium aufhebt, ist aber noch nicht sicher.

http://www.bielertagblatt.ch/article.cfm?id=211372&startrow=14&ressort=Schweiz-BE&kap=bta&job= 7921310 (Auszug)

--------

Nachhilfeunterricht für die Justiz-, Gemeinde- und Kirchendirektion des Kantons Bern

Amtsvorsteher Werner Luginbühl (SVP) scheint offensichtlich vergessen zu haben, dass im Kanton Bern am 9. April Regierungsrats- und Grossratswahlen sind und dass die Zeit der gnädigen Herrn zu Bern längstens Geschichte ist. Ansonsten er wohl nicht einen Drohbrief an die 25 Berner Gemeinden verschickt hätte, die ihre in der Kantonsverfassung verankerte Pflicht, die Gesundheit ihrer Bürger/Innen nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen zu schützen (so wahr ihnen Gott helfe), ernst nehmen und keine Mobilfunkantennen mehr bewilligen. Gigaherz empfiehlt den Berner Wählerinnen und Wählern, Herr Luginbühl am 9. April nicht mehr zu wählen.

Ein Aktivmitglied von Gigaherz hat der Justiz-, Gemeinde- und Kirchendirektion des Kantons Bern nun eine erste Lektion Fernunterricht erteilt, die wir hier gerne wiedergeben.

21.3.06

Sehr geehrte, Damen und Herren,

Bezugnehmend auf die Medienmitteilung "Baubewilligungsverfahren für Mobilfunkantennen, Moratorien von Gemeinden" möchte ich Sie auf das Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichts Zürich vom 8. Februar 2006 (VB.2006.00001) hinweisen. Baugesuche für Mobilfunkanlagen können sicherlich bis Ende 2006 nicht bewilligt werden. Dies hat nichts mit der Replikation der TNO-Studie durch die ETH oder mit Gesundheitsfragen im engeren Sinn zu tun.

Das BAFU hat in einem Rundschreiben vom 16.01.2006 ein Qualitätssicherungssystem (QS-System) vorgestellt, um der bundesgerichtlichen Forderung (BGE 1A.160/2004 vom 10. März 2005) nach einer Überprüfung der effektiv abgegebenen Strahlung im Betrieb durch objektive und überprüfbare bauliche Vorkehrungen nachzukommen. Das Bundesgericht hierzu: "Die Anwohner von Mobilfunkanlagen haben jedoch ein schutzwürdiges Interesse daran, dass die Einhaltung der NIS-Grenzwerte durch objektive und überprüfbare bauliche Vorkehrungen gewährleistet wird."

"Selbstkontrollen" jeglicher Art sind somit unzulässig. Genau dies verkörpert jedoch das QS-System, da die Mobilfunkbetreiber faktisch Grenzwertüberschreitungen "selber" melden müssen. Dies ist weder objektiv noch überprüfbar im Sinne der bundesgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung.

Das vom BAFU gewählte Vorgehen während der einjährigen Übergangsphase ohne QS-System wurde vom Verwaltungsgericht Zürich u.a. im Lichte des Bundesgerichtsurteils 1A.160/2004 als offensichtlich untauglich qualifiziert. Dies lässt im übrigen auch Rückschlüsse auf das (rechtswidrige) QS-System selbst zu, obwohl das Verwaltungsgericht Zürich zu einem anderen Ergebnis kam: "Ein Qualitätssicherungssystem dieser Art erscheint als grundsätzlich geeignetes Mittel, um die Einhaltung der ERP mit zumutbarem Aufwand zu gewährleisten." Per se mag die betreffende Aussage des Verwaltungsgerichts Zürich zutreffen, doch bleibt die Vereinbarkeit des QS-Systems mit dem Vorsorgeprinzip nach wie vor unbeantwortet. Faktisch bedeutet dies ein Baubewilligungsstopp für Mobilfunkanlagen bis Ende 2006.

Das Urteil ist unter http://www.vgrzh.ch (unter Rechtsprechung, dann Geschäftsnummer VB.2006.00001 eingeben) abrufbar.

Das Verwaltungsgericht Zürich hat unter Berufung auf die Bundesgerichtsurteile 1A.160/2004 vom 10. März 2005 und 128 II 378 E. 4S. 379 ff. und das Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichts Luzern vom 18. August 2005, V 04 374, E.9, mit äusserst viel Sachkompetenz Folgendes richtigerweise erwogen:

E. 3.1.: "Das Bundesgericht hat wiederholt festgehalten, dass die im Standortdatenblatt deklarierte äquivalente Strahlungsleistung (ERP) überprüfbar sein muss; massgeblich ist dabei grundsätzlich die aufgrund der Hardwarekonfiguration der Anlage mögliche maximale ERP, das heisst die Sendeleistung bei Maximalleistung der vorgesehenen Senderendstufen und nicht ein tieferer, durch Fernsteuerung einstellbarer Wert (BGE 128 II 378 E.4 S.379 ff.; BGr, 10. März 2005, 1A.160/2004, E.3.3, www.bger.ch). Entsprechendes muss gelten für die ferngesteuert oder manuell einstellbare Senderichtung der Antennen (vgl. VGr LU, 18. August 2005, V 04 374, E. 9, http://www.lu.ch/gerichte/rechtsprechung )."

E. 3.3.: "Das System wurde jedoch noch von keinem Netzbetreiber realisiert, und das während der Übergangsphase vorgesehene Vorgehen bietet nicht dieselben Sicherheiten wie das betriebsfertige System. Zwar sollen bereits in der Übergangsphase die Daten der neuen Anlagen detailliert dokumentiert werden, doch bestehen offenbar noch keine automatisierten Überprüfungsroutinen, und eine Auditierung durch unabhängige, externe Prüfstellen ist noch nicht vorgesehen. Damit ist noch nicht deutlich, welche Sicherheiten die Netzbetreiber für das Einhalten der Sendeleistung während der Übergangsphase bieten."

Ob das QS-System letztendlich den Bundesgerichtsurteilen 1A.160/2004 und 128 II 378 entspricht, haben weder das Verwaltungsgericht Zürich, das BAFU noch der Kanton Bern, sondern hat das Bundesgericht selber zu entscheiden. Das BAFU ist keinesfalls weisungsbefugt. Die Gemeinden müssen folglich keinesfalls das (rechtswidrige) QS-System des BAFU befolgen bzw. beachten, solange das Bundesgericht noch nicht entschieden hat.

Das QS-System ist rechtswidrig, weil es Grenzwertüberschreitungen von 24 Stunden oder gar länger zulässt. Dies verstösst erstens gegen die NISV und zweitens gegen das Vorsorgeprinzip, das Verfassungsrang (Art. 74 BV) hat. Die in der NISV statuierten Anlagegrenzwerte verkörpern das Vorsorgeprinzip. Nur schon eine Grenzwertüberschreitung von einer Minute ist erstens rechtswidrig (NISV) und verstösst zweitens gegen das Vorsorgeprinzip. Daher ist das QS-System wohl offensichtlich rechtswidrig. Wie kann ein BAFU Grenzwertüberschreitungen - auch während "nur" 24 Stunden - zulassen?

Es ist unerfindlich, wieso z.B. eine Gemeinde Bern im Lichte der vorgenannten Rechtsprechung Baugesuche für Mobilfunkanlagen nicht weiterhin sistieren oder gar ablehnen darf (im Entscheid VGr. ZH vom 8. Februar 2006, VB.2006.00001, wurde die Baubewilligung aufgehoben). M.E. müsste man pendente/sistierte Baugesuche so oder anders ablehnen, weil man derartige Baugesuche noch einmal öffentlich - diesmal mit den Details bezüglich QS-System - auflegen muss. Die (technischen) Details betreffend QS-System sind ja bei allen pendenten/sistierten Baugesuchen nicht vorhanden bzw. wurden nicht/nie öffentlich aufgelegt. Darüber hinaus kann man mit einem QS-System, das noch gar nicht existiert, "nichts" bewilligen.

Mit etwas Inexistentem kann man Mobilfunkantennen-Baugesuche nicht bewilligen - auch nicht während der einjährigen Übergangsphase. Das ist die Ausgangslage. Daher das entsprechende sachlich richtige Urteil des Verwaltungsgerichts Zürich. Will man das Ganze "sauber" lösen, muss man solche Baugesuche neu öffentlich mit den Details betreffend QS-System auflegen, um das rechtliche Gehör zu wahren. Solch eine Rechtsauffassung ist nicht einfach tel quel "falsch", man darf sie durchaus vertreten.

Es besteht entgegen der Medienmitteilung keinesfalls ein "Rechtsanspruch" auf Bewilligung von Mobilfunkanlagen, solange der bundesgerichtlichen Forderung, die nichts weiter als das Vorsorgeprinzip konkretisiert, nachgekommen worden ist (BGE 1A.160/2004 vom 10. März 2005). Das (rechtswidrige) QS-System ist nicht einfach "die" Lösung, die man unbedingt befolgen muss, weil das BAFU eben nicht weisungsbefugt ist und somit nur unverbindliche Empfehlungen abgeben kann.

Die Zeiten, wo man einfach in mobilfunkfreundlicher Manier von "Rechtsanspruch" und "solange die NIS-Grenzwerte eingehalten sind, müssen wir bewilligen. Wir haben keinen Ermessensspielraum" sprechen kann, sind wohl endgültig vorbei.

Sind heute - ohne QS-System - Grenzwertüberschreitungen an der Tagesordnung, wenn doch schon künftig mit einem QS-System Grenzwertüberschreitungen von "nur" 24 Stunden oder gar länger möglich sein werden...? Diese Frage stellen sich viele besorgte BürgerInnen, die das QS-System durchschaut haben. Vielleicht sind die zahlreichen gesundheitlichen Beschwerden eben gerade auf die Grenzwertüberschreitungen zurückzuführen...auch in Zukunft während "nur" 24 Stunden...

Ich bitte um Kenntnisnahme.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

J. S.

Adresse ist der Redaktion Gigaherz bekannt


Übrigens: Die zahlreichen Berner Gemeinden, die keine Mobilfunkantennen mehr bewilligen, vorab die Stadt Bern, pfeifen auf Luginbühls Drohbrief. Im Gegenteil. Sie wollen sich jetzt zusammenschließen und ein gemeinsames Vorgehen festlegen. Bravo!

Das Ganze - mit etwas weniger juristischen Zutaten - finden sie auch unter:

Stadt Bern bewilligt weiterhin keine Mobilfunkantennen mehr!
http://www.gigaherz.ch/998 (unter Historisches) Beachten Sie bitte die weiteren in diesem Beitrag aufgeführen internen Links.

Quelle: http://www.gigaherz.ch/1011

We helped scupper plans for green-belt phone pole

Mar 22 2006

By Andrew Heath

PROTESTERS who campaigned against plans for a mobile phone mast in Leamington's green belt are celebrating a victory for people power.

Councillors last week turned down the application to erect a 15-metre pole on a grass verge in St Alban's Close, Milverton, submitted by mobile phone giant O2.

Protesters gathered 1,500 signatures, wrote 150 letters and sent numerous e-mails to Warwick District Council's planning committee, complaining about the plans.

Locally, only opposition to Coventry Airport's expansion plans has been bigger.

Campaigners were worried about the proximity of the site to a children's playground, to Trinity and Brookhurst schools, and a popular local footpath.

Mother-of-two Laura Fitzpatrick, of Old Milverton said: "Everyone is very relieved and pleased.

"There was an overwhelming response and although they don't say it was down to public opinion and have to give planning reasons for the refusal, it can't have harmed our cause."

The application was turned down on highways safety grounds and because it was judged to be an inappropriate development harmful to the green belt.

Terry Molloy, of St Alban's Close, who helped run the campaign, has now posted hundreds of leaflets to let neighbours know of the result.

He welcomed the planning veto on the phone mast but said residents would remain vigilant.

He said: "Now, hopefully, O2 will leave us alone.

"There was five years between this and a previous application for a mast here. But it feels like we are a little under siege.

"We need to be vigilant and keep our eyes and ears open to make sure we don't miss any other applications in future."

A spokeswoman for O2 said the company was bitterly disappointed at the decision and would continue to look for another site in the same area.

She added: "We need extra capacity in that area and this type of monopole has to fit in with our existing network, so it can't go anywhere.

"We are in a difficult situation. People want to use their mobile phones but then campaign against us when we try to build new masts."

Copyright and Trade Mark Notice © owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006

http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0150swarksnews/tm_objectid=16849135&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=we-helped-scupper-plans-for-green-belt-phone-pole-name_page.html

RESIDENTS are fighting a mobile phone giant's plans for a mast next to their homes - saying their houses were ignored in the planning application. The occupants of three properties in Ashover are urging planners to visit the site and make an informed decision before siting a 15-metre mast and base on farmland off Hilltop Road.

A petition against the development, which is 400 metres from Ashover Primary School, has already attracted 170 signatures.

Dan Hadfield, whose home is just 70 metres from the proposed site is concerned about possible health problems associated with phone masts.

He said: "I have a four-week-old daughter, another aged three years and we may all live here for another 20 years. Big business seems to take precedence over people's feelings."

Despite his proximity to the site Mr Hadfield said that his home and those of two of his neighbours are not mentioned in T-Mobile's application to North East Derbyshire District Council.

He added: "I don't think the site has been assessed properly. They need to know that we are here.

"An alternative site for the mast was ruled out by T-Mobile because it was too near a residential development, but I have measured this and the distances in that case and in ours are identical."

A spokesperson for T-Mobile said: "The local planning office is well aware of all the relevant issues including the location of the nearest properties and the fact that the proposed site is relatively well screened by trees.

"On the issue of alleged health concerns, the worldwide scientific consensus is that there is no risk to anyone's health from mobile phone base stations operating to international guidelines."

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

Because of the proposed council strikes on March 28, a decision date for the application is not known.

By Richard Woolley

22 March 2006

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing.

http://www.matlocktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=749&ArticleID=1395033

Um die finanzielle Unterstützung der Tierversuchs-Universität Oxford durch Vodafone zu stoppen, wurde am 15. März in England ein teurer Sendemast des Mobil-Anbieters zerstört.

Anonyme Aktivisten der Animal Liberation Front (ALF) berichten in einem online abrufbaren Bekennerschreiben von ihrer Aktion, bei der sie Kabel zerschnitten und eine Kontrolleinheit zerstört hatten.

Es war bereits die wohl dritte, derartige Aktion.

Die Aktionen richteten sich nach Angaben der Aktivisten gegen die 200.000 Pfund-Unterstützung durch Vodafone an die Oxforder Universität.


Von Kilian

http://www.umwelt.cc/contents/news-alf,zerstoert,sendemast,von,vodafone-tiere-000387.html

A Shrewsbury headteacher today spoke out against plans by mobile phone giant Vodafone to build a 12-metre high mast less than 100 yards from his primary school.

The company wants to put its 3G antenna at a site next to the Inn on the Green pub, on Bank Farm Road — near Radbrook Primary School.

Vodafone’s plans have also sparked fury from residents and borough council leader Peter Nutting, who claims the science behind phone masts is not safe.

But the phone company says there is no scientific basis for having a “buffer zone” around homes or schools.

Acting head of Radbrook Primary Ian Nurser said he was worried that just a handful of parents at the school and nursery had been informed by Vodafone of its plans.

“My concern is the safety implications because unless we can get categorical reassurance that there is no risk to the children then I will oppose it,” he said.

The full version of this article appears in some editions of tonight’s Shropshire Star.

© 2003-06 Shropshire Newspapers Ltd

http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=43611