It has been a busy week this week. I am trying to set up a new not for profit business in the education field and currently have a heavy workload to get it off the ground. Had a busy campaigning week. We have been tackling parts of Norbiton this week and some canvassing in Berrylands.
There are continuing problems concerning a telephone mast in Raeburn Avenue that I have been helping the residents on. In fact the resident have set up a website about it on www.berrylands.net
My wife is away in Geneva at the moment so I am having to hold the fort.
10 comments:
As a local resident and a well informed one on the health risks these masts pose, I find it odd that this is worthy of such a high profile campaign. I could be led to thinking that backing this is to do with getting involved and friendly with locals prior to the upcoming election.
I am astounded that local residents are being misled on this issue and that people are seeking to scare residents into believing this represents a health issue. By all means I am in favour of a campaign if this mast is going to disrupt the view from your property or you feel the value of your property is affected but how many people who signed up to the petition actually knew why they signed it.
I know I'm not the only resident who shares this view and no I do not work for Orange or any other carrier. Please ensure that if you support this campaign that you do your homework on the health issue in particular. Thank you for listening.
Thanks for this
With regard to your views on the health issues I think the problem is that the various reports (Stewart etc) have never been really conclusive. As a resident said to me asbestos was apparently a wonder material and very safe and thalidomide was a fantastic drug for pregnant women, but look where they both led. I think the jury is out on the real safety aspects of these masts. For me the real issue is that residents really have no say in whether this mast should go up or not. Even the Council has limited control over this, unlike a building application. It is Conservative policy that we would give powers to residents and local authorities, especially when these masts are planned to go near schools or hosiptals. Full planning apllications would be required.
As it happens I have supported the residents in this campaign because I live very close to where this mast will be. I have not however taken a high profile role. If you check my website www.kevindavis.org.uk you will find that I put a press release out against this last year when Orange held a pre application consultation. Incidentally they only bothered contacting 30 or so residents.
The real outrage of the residents is against one of the local Lib Dem Councillors who sat in a meeting and used her casting vote to push this mast through and then the next day started a petition against it. I can well understand and sympathise with residents who believe that action to be cynical and opportunistic.
Thank you for your reply.
Of course it is right we do assess the risks these technologies pose and there is a huge amount of research going on but I think the thing that possibly I find hard to understand is that;
1) It IS proven that Cellphones used close to the head are potentially far more damaging but we like using them and buy them for our kids.
2) The Radio transmitter (Radio Jackie) masts on the tower use similar technology and have far greater output but are 'considered' safer by the public because they can't see them.
(I'm not suggesting there's a campaign against them :-) )
3) There are at least 4 transmitters on the flats at the end of Elmbridge avenue which have been there years, are closer to the local school and have higher output.
4) The technology has been used for over 40 years so we've all been subjected to it for a long time - some of us all our lives.
I understand residents wanting to know what is going on in their area but I don't think it's wise to let uninformed residents throw their weight around and block everything they don't understand or in most cases are unwilling to understand. There has been too much of that in this area in the past 25 years and I think Tolworth and Berrylands has suffered for it. I do believe Orange themselves could have done more on the education front though and that local committees need to work harder to understand which changes are important, which are minor and which should be opposed.
As another local resident, I am pleased that local residents are drawing attention to the health issues and obejcting to the planned mast in Berrylands and to the unsightly change to our local environment.
IN reply to points 1 to 4 mentioned above:
1. Cell phones used close to the head are expected by law to be within current safety guidleines, so are masts. Cell phones are not the particular issue here. Current safety guidelines address only clear issues of safety, e.g. preventing microwave heating effects on the body.
2. The radio transmitters on Tolworth Tower are not the issue. Again current safety guidelines address only clear issues of safety.
3. Surprisingly, the transmitters on the flats at Elmbridge Avenue are not the issue. Again current safety guidelines address only clear issues of safety.
4. The technology conerned is new, different technology, otherwise the existing transmitters would be OK anyway, and as you have pointed out work over longer distancces than 3G. Most of the research done so far has not studied the 3G case; and could therefore be inapplicable to this mast which is planned of Raeburn Avenue. Therefore I object.
One would have thought that anyone purporting to be 'well informed' of the health risks posed by radio transmitter masts would have a better grasp of the physics than does the local resident who posted this specious argument.
The truth is that no-one, either pro or against the siting of mobile phone masts, knows that the technology is safe. This is why research is ongoing, and why the Stewart report commissioned by the Government advises caution.
The fact is that transmitters such as those used to broadcast radio programmes, Radio Jackie et al, are transmitting an analogue signal at a much longer wavelength, than the proposed mast and others like it which boadcast digital signals at 'micro' wavelengths. The distinction is crucial.
There is evidence that pulsed microwave emissions, such as these emitted by mobile phone masts, have a physiological affect on the brain. Exactly what these changes mean, or what the harvest of a prolonged proximate exposure will be is unclear.
So then, phone masts are new technology. 3G masts, are even newer, and carry greater potential risk, due to their higher powers, and even shorter wavelengths.
As a resident who is sentenced to reside within 15 metres of this mast if it is to be errected, and as the concerned parent of two small children, I support your involvement in the campaign Kevin.
To me the whole argument boils down to this: given that the Stewart report advises caution with regard to the siting of mobile phone masts, implying a potential risk. How does the siting of a mast at the heart of a residential area, and close to the homes of small children and the elderly, mitigate against this risk?
Where is the justice in there being no course for redress by local residents?
Why is it that were the application to have been refused by the local council (had Councillor Franks had the courage of her convictions to abstain her casting vote) the applicants would have been able to appeal, whereas there is no mechanism for residents to appeal the grating of permission?
Residents in Chiltern Drive have recently received consultative letters relating to a new proposal by Hutchinson to erect a 3G mobile phone mast in their neighbourhood. Left unchecked, these masts are set to appear everywhere.
www.berrylands.net
One would have thought that anyone purporting to be 'well informed' of the health risks posed by radio transmitter masts would have a better grasp of the physics than does the local resident who posted this specious argument.
The truth is that no-one, either pro or against the siting of mobile phone masts, knows that the technology is safe. This is why research is ongoing, and why the Stewart report commissioned by the Government advises caution.
The fact is that transmitters such as those used to broadcast radio programmes, Radio Jackie et al, are transmitting an analogue signal at a much longer wavelength, than the proposed mast and others like it which boadcast digital signals at 'micro' wavelengths. The distinction is crucial.
There is evidence that pulsed microwave emissions, such as these emitted by mobile phone masts, have a physiological affect on the brain. Exactly what these changes mean, or what the harvest of a prolonged proximate exposure will be is unclear.
So then, phone masts are new technology. 3G masts, are even newer, and carry greater potential risk, due to their higher powers, and even shorter wavelengths.
As a resident who is sentenced to reside within 15 metres of this mast if it is to be errected, and as the concerned parent of two small children, I support your involvement in the campaign Kevin.
To me the whole argument boils down to this: given that the Stewart report advises caution with regard to the siting of mobile phone masts, implying a potential risk. How does the siting of a mast at the heart of a residential area, and close to the homes of small children and the elderly, mitigate against this risk?
Where is the justice in there being no course for redress by local residents?
Why is it that were the application to have been refused by the local council (had Councillor Franks had the courage of her convictions to abstain her casting vote) the applicants would have been able to appeal, whereas there is no mechanism for residents to appeal the grating of permission?
Residents in Chiltern Drive have recently received consultative letters relating to a new proposal by Hutchinson to erect a 3G mobile phone mast in their neighbourhood. Left unchecked, these masts are set to appear everywhere.
www.berrylands.net
One would have thought that anyone purporting to be 'well informed' of the health risks posed by radio transmitter masts would have a better grasp of the physics than does the local resident who posted this specious argument.
The truth is that no-one, either pro or against the siting of mobile phone masts, knows that the technology is safe. This is why research is ongoing, and why the Stewart report commissioned by the Government advises caution.
The fact is that transmitters such as those used to broadcast radio programmes, Radio Jackie et al, are transmitting an analogue signal at a much longer wavelength, than the proposed mast and others like it which boadcast digital signals at 'micro' wavelengths. The distinction is crucial.
There is evidence that pulsed microwave emissions, such as these emitted by mobile phone masts, have a physiological affect on the brain. Exactly what these changes mean, or what the harvest of a prolonged proximate exposure will be is unclear.
So then, phone masts are new technology. 3G masts, are even newer, and carry greater potential risk, due to their higher powers, and even shorter wavelengths.
As a resident who is sentenced to reside within 15 metres of this mast if it is to be errected, and as the concerned parent of two small children, I support your involvement in the campaign Kevin.
To me the whole argument boils down to this: given that the Stewart report advises caution with regard to the siting of mobile phone masts, implying a potential risk. How does the siting of a mast at the heart of a residential area, and close to the homes of small children and the elderly, mitigate against this risk?
Where is the justice in there being no course for redress by local residents?
Why is it that were the application to have been refused by the local council (had Councillor Franks had the courage of her convictions to abstain her casting vote) the applicants would have been able to appeal, whereas there is no mechanism for residents to appeal the grating of permission?
Residents in Chiltern Drive have recently received consultative letters relating to a new proposal by Hutchinson to erect a 3G mobile phone mast in their neighbourhood. Left unchecked, these masts are set to appear everywhere.
www.berrylands.net
One would have thought that anyone purporting to be 'well informed' of the health risks posed by radio transmitter masts would have a better grasp of the physics than does the local resident who posted this specious argument.
The truth is that no-one, either pro or against the siting of mobile phone masts, knows that the technology is safe. This is why research is ongoing, and why the Stewart report commissioned by the Government advises caution.
The fact is that transmitters such as those used to broadcast radio programmes, Radio Jackie et al, are transmitting an analogue signal at a much longer wavelength, than the proposed mast and others like it which boadcast digital signals at 'micro' wavelengths. The distinction is crucial.
There is evidence that pulsed microwave emissions, such as these emitted by mobile phone masts, have a physiological affect on the brain. Exactly what these changes mean, or what the harvest of a prolonged proximate exposure will be is unclear.
So then, phone masts are new technology. 3G masts, are even newer, and carry greater potential risk, due to their higher powers, and even shorter wavelengths.
As a resident who is sentenced to reside within 15 metres of this mast if it is to be errected, and as the concerned parent of two small children, I support your involvement in the campaign Kevin.
To me the whole argument boils down to this: given that the Stewart report advises caution with regard to the siting of mobile phone masts, implying a potential risk. How does the siting of a mast at the heart of a residential area, and close to the homes of small children and the elderly, mitigate against this risk?
Where is the justice in there being no course for redress by local residents?
Why is it that were the application to have been refused by the local council (had Councillor Franks had the courage of her convictions to abstain her casting vote) the applicants would have been able to appeal, whereas there is no mechanism for residents to appeal the grating of permission?
Residents in Chiltern Drive have recently received consultative letters relating to a new proposal by Hutchinson to erect a 3G mobile phone mast in their neighbourhood. Left unchecked, these masts are set to appear everywhere.
www.berrylands.net
One would have thought that anyone purporting to be 'well informed' of the health risks posed by radio transmitter masts would have a better grasp of the physics than does the local resident who posted this specious argument.
The truth is that no-one, either pro or against the siting of mobile phone masts, knows that the technology is safe. This is why research is ongoing, and why the Stewart report commissioned by the Government advises caution.
The fact is that transmitters such as those used to broadcast radio programmes, Radio Jackie et al, are transmitting an analogue signal at a much longer wavelength, than the proposed mast and others like it which boadcast digital signals at 'micro' wavelengths. The distinction is crucial.
There is evidence that pulsed microwave emissions, such as these emitted by mobile phone masts, have a physiological affect on the brain. Exactly what these changes mean, or what the harvest of a prolonged proximate exposure will be is unclear.
So then, phone masts are new technology. 3G masts, are even newer, and carry greater potential risk, due to their higher powers, and even shorter wavelengths.
As a resident who is sentenced to reside within 15 metres of this mast if it is to be errected, and as the concerned parent of two small children, I support your involvement in the campaign Kevin.
To me the whole argument boils down to this: given that the Stewart report advises caution with regard to the siting of mobile phone masts, implying a potential risk. How does the siting of a mast at the heart of a residential area, and close to the homes of small children and the elderly, mitigate against this risk?
Where is the justice in there being no course for redress by local residents?
Why is it that were the application to have been refused by the local council (had Councillor Franks had the courage of her convictions to abstain her casting vote) the applicants would have been able to appeal, whereas there is no mechanism for residents to appeal the grating of permission?
Residents in Chiltern Drive have recently received consultative letters relating to a new proposal by Hutchinson to erect a 3G mobile phone mast in their neighbourhood. Left unchecked, these masts are set to appear everywhere.
www.berrylands.net
One would have thought that anyone purporting to be 'well informed' of the health risks posed by radio transmitter masts would have a better grasp of the physics than does the local resident who posted this specious argument.
The truth is that no-one, either pro or against the siting of mobile phone masts, knows that the technology is safe. This is why research is ongoing, and why the Stewart report commissioned by the Government advises caution.
The fact is that transmitters such as those used to broadcast radio programmes, Radio Jackie et al, are transmitting an analogue signal at a much longer wavelength, than the proposed mast and others like it which boadcast digital signals at 'micro' wavelengths. The distinction is crucial.
There is evidence that pulsed microwave emissions, such as these emitted by mobile phone masts, have a physiological affect on the brain. Exactly what these changes mean, or what the harvest of a prolonged proximate exposure will be is unclear.
So then, phone masts are new technology. 3G masts, are even newer, and carry greater potential risk, due to their higher powers, and even shorter wavelengths.
As a resident who is sentenced to reside within 15 metres of this mast if it is to be errected, and as the concerned parent of two small children, I support your involvement in the campaign Kevin.
To me the whole argument boils down to this: given that the Stewart report advises caution with regard to the siting of mobile phone masts, implying a potential risk. How does the siting of a mast at the heart of a residential area, and close to the homes of small children and the elderly, mitigate against this risk?
Where is the justice in there being no course for redress by local residents?
Why is it that were the application to have been refused by the local council (had Councillor Franks had the courage of her convictions to abstain her casting vote) the applicants would have been able to appeal, whereas there is no mechanism for residents to appeal the grating of permission?
Residents in Chiltern Drive have recently received consultative letters relating to a new proposal by Hutchinson to erect a 3G mobile phone mast in their neighbourhood. Left unchecked, these masts are set to appear everywhere.
www.berrylands.net
Post a Comment