- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Discuss the Jersey (JMMCG) situation here / Discuss the Jersey (JMMCG) situation here
<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . >>
Author Message
# Posted: 9 Mar 2007 11:38

A new Airtel lumpy pole sprang up yesterday at the Greve d'Azzette tennis courts, as if the JT one (hidden in a flagpole) on the Squash Club (50yds away?) wasn't bad enough for residents along there! What ugly things these Airtel ones are, quite apart from the health issue.

# Posted: 10 Mar 2007 01:04

Ref the comment below, apparently ther was some representation from the telcos at Dr Carlo's meeting, glad they managed to attended. Not sure anyone from Health Dept of Education Dept did though, anyone know?

Posted: 27 Feb 2007 22:37:54

Dear Helpful, were you there last night? Dr Carlo was excellent. I don't think we are going to change things over night, but if we all work together there is a real glimmer of hope we will get Jersey on the right track.

Appalled were you there??

Dr Carlo did some great work and has offered to come back and help us.

I think there is fresh hope.

Shame the telcos or health did not make an appearance.

# Posted: 10 Mar 2007 04:06

Hi Helpful.
I am so sorry, I actually thought they had been linked weeks ago, as the Jersey mast resistence is one case I have really worked all out on, like getting my worldwide contacts to write to Jersey State and Scrutiny and to get Dr. Carlo to visit Jersey and speak to Scrutiny, both of which were successful, but could not have been done without the great help from Eileen O´Connor and Sarah Dacre.
And asking Dr. Gerald Hyland to read the Scrutiny papers and comment.

My request to my webmaster to link Jersey mastconcern must have been lost somewhere in superspace, I do not know,
But keep an eye, the link will be there ASAP now you have brought it to my attention.
But I am still sorry it is so late.
Best regards.

# Posted: 10 Mar 2007 04:18

Hi Anonymous.
One thing I have learned since our "mast-case" in 2003.
The TELCOS are ALWAYS there!
If asked they will not admit to!
What is more, they eagerly read and follow this debate, and sometimes we have believed we have some "Chipping in" as well.
We are still not convinced we don´t have that.
But if they contribute some info worth while, I do not mind.
Its their SPIN I do mind.

Did any of you see "Dispatches" "The Great Global Warming- Swindle" on Channel 4 this week? I think Wednesday.

If you did, swop the "Global Warming" with "Microwave Radiation" and what do you have?
A Carbon Copy, only with a different Headline!

Let me know if you watched it, and compare.
Best regards.

# Posted: 12 Mar 2007 05:06

Hi all.
There was an advert on ITV 1 tonight about a Drama named "Mobile"
All I know is they say "I´TS COMING SOON"
Its not in this weeks schedule

So please everyone. Keep a lookout!
We Need to see this
Best regards.

# Posted: 12 Mar 2007 19:36

4 new Airtel applications, 09/03/2007

lane NE of St.O pond
Application Reference S/2007/0515
Address Field 1328, Le Chemin du Moulin, St. Ouen
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Jersey Airtel Limited, 2nd Floor, La Rue Le Masurier JE2 4YA
Agent Capita Symonds, Prospect House, Cheadle Hume SK8 5AU
Description Installation of 1 No. telegraph pole, 1 No. dish, 3 No. antennae, 1 No. power plant and 2 No. BTS units.

lanes south from Jersey Bowl
Application Reference S/2007/0516
Address Field 931, La Rue des Landes, St. Peter
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Jersey Airtel Limited, 2nd Floor, La Rue Le Masurier JE2 4YA
Agent Mr T Holmes, Prospect House, Cheadle Hulme SK8 5AU
Description Installation of 1 No. telegraph pole, 2 No. dishes, 3 No. antenna, 1 No. power plant and 2 No. BTS units.

lane NW of Wheatlands golf
Application Reference S/2007/0518
Address Field 739, La Rue De La Fontaine, St. Peter
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Jersey Airtel Limited, 2nd Floor, La Rue Le Masurier JE2 4YA
Agent Mr T Holmes, Prospect House, Cheadle Hulme SK8 5AU
Description Installation of 1 No. telegraph pole, 1 No. dish, 3 No. antenna, 1 No. power plant and 2 No. BTS units.

one lane east of Victoria Village
Application Reference S/2007/0552
Address Field 958, La Rue de la Guilleaumerie, Trinity
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Mr S. Jolly, 2nd Floor Le Masurier House, St. Helier JE2 4YA
Agent Mr Terry Holmes SK8 5AU
Description Installation of 1 no. telegraph pole, 1 no. dish, 3 no. antenna, 1 no. power plant and 2 no. BTS units.

# Posted: 13 Mar 2007 15:33

I think the one at St.Ouens will be a horrible eyesore in the relatively unspoilt area near the pond.


103 news today :
"A Clarendon Road resident has organised a public meeting about phone masts being put up in the area.
Martin Gallery lives near the Washington Hotel and says several masts and antennae have been put up in the last week.
He objected to Planning before they were put up but says many other residents didn't know about it.
Mr Gallery has written to the island's politicians and invited them to the meeting - which is at six this evening outside the hotel."

# Posted: 15 Mar 2007 13:06

Anger over phone masts By Carly Lockhart
( http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/news8.html for a limited time )

THE Planning department have been branded 'sneaky and underhand' by residents around Clarendon Road following the erection of three Air Tel phone masts on the roof of the Washington Hotel.
More than 50 residents met last night to voice their disgust at Planning's conduct, claiming that they had no idea the masts were going up.

Resident Martin Gallery headed the meeting and is drawing up a petition to have the masts removed.

'Hardly any residents were aware of what was going on, and their lives have been put at risk,' he said. 'There may be no evidence that they pose a health risk, but there's no evidence against it either. UK studies say that they can't be put up in schools, so why put them in residential areas?'

Published 14/03/07

# Posted: 18 Mar 2007 00:58

I've found a new Airtel mast lying on its side, waiting to go up. It's just inside a field, by the entrance, so you can easily nip in and see how huge the thing is. The thick chunky bit at the top is about 12 feet tall, and you can't get your arms around it! The whole thing is massive, way thicker than any 'telegraph pole' it's pretending to be.

It's in Rue du Douet de Rue, 2006 phone book map 3 A3, west side of the s-bend. I believe this is the one the young lady was getting so upset about at the scrutiny meetings - but it looks to be closer to the new houses than any older ones - and I suspect that it won't be close enough to cause any huge problems. Strong signal, yes, but not as strong as the kind of Right Next-Door masts that caused so much grief to Agnes and others. I've got one about as close, and I'm trying not to worry about it too much ( difficult, but we're not ill yet.. what can you do? *shrug* ).

As for the "St.Ouens will be a horrible eyesore in the relatively unspoilt area near the pond" - I got that a bit wrong. I didn't notice that the road went north of the lanes junction. Having found the field number, I can report it's in a field behind Jersey Pearl, towards the house that burnt down last year. There's actually a planning notice on a stick there, on the main road. Still not a great place (visually) to stick one.

I've looked up all the field numbers of the current Airtel applications (approved and pending) and can post a full list (nearly 50 of them!) soon if anyone wants. Some of these ones are going to be real eyesores that will make the C&W poles seem tame in comparison!!

# Posted: 19 Mar 2007 19:24

I didn't realise Airtel were setting up in Guernsey as well!


Phone company begins groundwork

Guernsey's latest mobile phone company says it is working towards being up and running before the end of the year.
Airtel, owned by Bharti, was awarded a licence last year. It has made an application to set up the centre of its operation on Les Caches Road.

Chief operating officer Stuart Le Maitre said the groundwork should be finished by the end of the summer.

"The infrastructure is now starting to build and that will gain momentum over the next few months," he said.

# Posted: 20 Mar 2007 18:16

Dr Carlo in Jersey :
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/scrutiny/documents/pubhearings/43672- 35082-1232007.htm

"The good news (about that) is that because that is an environmentally induced genetic change, it is an epigenetic change that caused the problem, it also is reversible. So that if you have electro-sensitive patients or people who are electro-sensitive and you are able to take away the information-carrying radio wave exposure and then put them through detox and then other series of therapeutics, you can fix their cell membranes and get them back to normal, and that is good news"

# Posted: 23 Mar 2007 15:33

I just can't find any transcripts of Mike Repacholi's meeting with Jersey Scrutiny board ... has anyone else succeeded in finding any?

There are numerous references to statements by Repacholi but apparently no full transcript...


# Posted: 23 Mar 2007 17:00

Do you mean this one? You have to click "More" for the whole list!

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/scrutiny/documents/evidence/33600-262 36-2212007.htm

# Posted: 23 Mar 2007 18:15

Oh look, a new website about masts in Jersey
showing where the Airtel ones are going to be, and what an eyesore they are.

Someone (JMMCG?) should pass that on to the JEP, they could publish the pictures - permission is given. I think this will be quite an issue among the general public when they see where these new ugly masts are going to be.

# Posted: 27 Mar 2007 14:37

Jersey Airtel's parent investigated by the UK Serious Fraud Office

Detectives from the UK’s Serious Fraud Office are in Nairobi to probe the shareholding structure of Kenya’s largest and most profitable company, Safaricom.

The visit comes four months after it emerged that the mobile phone operator has a mysterious shareholder, Mobitelea Ventures Ltd, with a five per cent stake in one of Safaricom’s parent companies, Vodafone Kenya.

The circumstances surrounding this shareholding have raised questions, and triggered a parliamentary enquiry into the ownership changes.

The Public Investments Committee (PIC) has been leading an effort to establish whether there was any fraud in Mobitelea’s acquisition of the shares.

The arrival of the UK Serious Fraud Officers in Nairobi marks a move by the British authorities to investigate the probity of Vodafone itself in the arrangement.

Vodafone UK has declined to answer queries as to who the principals of Mobitelea Ltd are or how the company came to own its million (Sh1.4 billion) stake, citing confidentiality.

Vodafone owns a 10% share of Jersey Airtel's parent company Bharti Global.

(from http://politics.progressjersey.com/news.php )

# Posted: 27 Mar 2007 15:05

Hi info,

Thanks for the reply.
I had found the Repacholi "briefing" but I'm looking for the actual transcript of his meeting with the scrutiny board. I'd really like to read what he said - word by word.


# Posted: 28 Mar 2007 00:19

Hi Henrik, I suggest you email scrutiny@gov.je
and ask for the message FTAO Carol Le Quesne, asking why it has not been put on the website. It should have been published. Anyone who has given evidence is requested to sign off their transcript, so maybe this has not happened.


# Posted: 2 Apr 2007 12:26

07 Mar 2007 : "The scrutiny panel will not accept any more submissions now, and their report may take up to 4 weeks to complete."
Will something be published by Wednesday then?


New Airtel application for the lane north from Green Island between the coast and inner roads. (there's a recent JT application for a nearby lane too)

Application Reference S/2007/0729
Address Field 85, La Rue des Samares, St. Clement
Application Date 30/03/2007
Application Type Satellite Dishes/Comms Antenna
Status Pending Decision
Constraints Countryside Zone
Applicant Mr Raman Mahajan, 2nd Floor Le Masurier House, St Helier JE2 4YA
Agent Mr Raman Mahajan, 2nd Floor Le Masurier House, St Helier JE2 4YA
Officer Responsible KJ
Description Installation of 1 No. wooden clad replica teegraph pole, 3 No. antennae, 2 No. dishes & 3 No. equipment cabinets.


Airtel masts actually up now include the one in the Seymour Inn inland area, the top of Grouville Hill (hugely ugly!), the Mont Felard one (visible along the avenue standing proud of the trees), La Rue du Douet de Rue St.L, and panels on the Five Oaks mast. From what I've seen only the aerials have been installed, not the radio equipment - so no transmissions yet.

# Posted: 4 Apr 2007 17:33

I wonder if the report will be released so that it's buried on a bad news day, or just in time for Easter when people are too busy to pay attention?

# Posted: 6 Apr 2007 00:53

Hi There appears to be a new scrutiny website. All transcripts are on there.



# Posted: 6 Apr 2007 13:40

Hi Rosie,

I checked out the link you provided (thank you) but there is still no actual transcript of Mike Repacholi's scrutiny board meeting.
All the available transcripts are listed and linked here:

I've emailed Carol Le Quesne as you kindly suggested but no answer yet.

Hmm.. strange.

# Posted: 9 Apr 2007 00:49

Hi all.
We have just received "The Rephacoli Transcript" from the Jersey Anti mast fighter group. Thank you JMMCG JERSEY this is very nmuch appreciated.
So, Here goes: Quote:

Health, Social Services and Housing Panel
Telephone Mast Review


Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour (Chairman)
Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter
Senator B.E. Shenton
Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade

Mr. M. Repacholi

Deputy A. Breckon:
It is 11.00 a.m. and we are back in session. Welcome, Mr. Repacholi.
I will just run through the procedure, who we are and why we are here. My name is Alan Breckon, I am Chairman of the Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel and under that panel we have set up a sub-panel. The other members are Deputy Collin Egré, Constable Mike Jackson and Senator Ben Shenton. The terms of reference, I understand you are aware of them but they are that it is a Scrutiny review into telephone mast and the terms of reference are: “The sub-panel will consider the concerns of the public relating to perceived health implications as a result of the increase in applications for mobile phone mast installations following the recent expansion of the mobile telephony market. In undertaking this review the sub-panel will have regard to the advice provided by the Health Protection Department, International Standards and Best Practice in respect of health precautions, health concerns raised by the public and reporting its findings and recommendations to the States.” I would just ask Collin, as Deputy Chairman, to advise you of the procedure regarding witness evidence.
The Deputy of St. Peter:
Please bear with me at the formality of this stage but for legal reasons I have to read this out verbatim. “It is important that you understand the conditions under which you are appearing at this hearing. You will find a printed copy of the statement I am about to read to you on the table in front of you. The proceedings of the panel are covered by parliamentary privilege through Article 34 of the States of Jersey Law 2005 and the States of Jersey (Powers Privileges and Immunities) (Scrutiny Panels, PAC and PCC) (Jersey) Regulations 2006 and witnesses are protected from being sued or prosecuted for anything said during hearings unless they say something that they know to be untrue. This protection is given to witnesses to ensure that they can speak freely and openly to the panel when giving evidence without fear of legal action although the immunity should obviously not be abused by making unsubstantiated statements about third parties who have no right of reply. The panel would like you to bear this in mind when answering the questions. The proceedings are being recorded and transcriptions will be made available on the Scrutiny website.” I do not know whether you heard earlier on when you were up in the public gallery but we do ask you to speak up through these mics, you can see the slight problem we have, so we can make a reasonable recording. Thank you.

Deputy A. Breckon:
Thank you for that, Collin. What I will do in a moment is ask you to introduce yourself and perhaps give us the benefit of some of your experiences as your opening statement, as it were. I understand you should have been supplied with some questions. The idea of that is to give us an aide memoir of where we may go but they are not cast in stone. At the end there will be an opportunity for you to say anything you think is relevant that we may have omitted or something you might like to expand on. Also this is part of a process not the end of the process so there might be something that comes out in conversation that we might want to view or you might want to give us further information on. So, as I say, it is part of the process and not the end of it. Just to mention the transcript. The transcript should be done within 48 hours and then will be given to you as a courtesy, a copy of. If there is anything you believe you said is factually incorrect, if you said a number, say, 30 when it is 50 then you will be given the opportunity to correct that and a few days after that it will become a matter of public record. Can I just say in welcoming you, thank you again for taking the time and trouble to come and see us, it is appreciated. Perhaps now if I could hand over to you and you proceed. As I say, you are not on trial for anything. We are here to have an exchange of view and questioning and we appreciate that and please relax and proceed in your own time.

# Posted: 9 Apr 2007 00:53

The Deputy of St. Peter:
One of the difficulties that we do have in all issues it has happened on other occasions on other issues is that although we sometimes look directly at health risks associated specifically with things like mobile phones, as a result of possibly poor media, poor scientific expression, the general public suffer from health due to their risk assessment of the problem that they have. How we go about resolving that problem? Perceived risk is real and does affect health.

Mr. M. Repacholi:
I totally agree. In fact, we came out in the EMF project with a dialogue on EMF and it is on the website in about 14 different languages because it became so popular that each different country wanted it in its own language. It was on how to communicate risk, how to understand why people perceive risks differently from scientists, how you can better understand why they are feeling this. I know the previous witness mentioned that whether an exposure is voluntary or involuntary will have an impact. People will happily use their mobile phone, but they do not want to be exposed to something involuntarily, which is 1,000 to 10,000 times less. To a scientist, that does not make any sense, because here is the source, and why would you use that? It is voluntary. It is like bungee jumping or jumping off a cliff with a parachute. People will take risks that are age, gender, culture related, and it is all in this book. We spent putting a nice, clear booklet together on how to understand people. Now, the media is part of this, and in every democratic society you want a media that is free and able to say anything, but they are also there to sell newspapers and sell their content. This is a problem, because if a scientist spends tens of millions of dollars and gets a null result that the exposure to these fields did not cause anything you will not see it in the media. If someone spends a couple of dollars and they find, through a poor experiment, that they got some positive result, that will be splashed all over the front page and it biases people’s thinking. This is why we recommend that government authorities should provide information to their constituents about electromagnetic fields. There should be a government website which gives all this solid information: what is WHO, what is the HPA (Health Protection Agency), what are the blue ribbon panels saying about this issue give them the good information that they can go to and bombard them with good information. Then they will be hardened to this.

The Deputy of St. Peter:
One of the problems that I perceive, and it certainly comes to a head, is that the general public is very concerned about information is put across to them, very much along the style of: “Well, they would say that, would they not?” On the basis that we are talking about a multibillion pound industry which is worldwide. So there is a feeling that as a result of this multibillion industry, that perhaps some of the true perceptions are being suppressed. What are your views on that?

Mr. M. Repacholi:
I understand. I mean, if you look at the tobacco industry, it has almost destroyed public confidence in science because they withheld science and they are still under a lot of pressure to release all the information. Just as an aside, as an interesting thing you know this polonium case that was in the UK where the former Russian spy was poisoned with polonium. Do you know that very time you smoke a cigarette you are smoking radioactive polonium? If you smoke a pack a day of cigarettes, it is equal to 300 chest x-rays every year. That is how much radiation you are getting from smoking cigarettes. But you will not hear that unless someone comes out and says it; and what form are they going to say it in? When you come back to people’s perceptions, it is also influenced by a risk benefit. People will see and have mobile phones because there is a huge benefit. They are able to communicate, it is good for business because they can communicate with business; it is good for their children because then they know where their children are and if children get into difficulties they can contact the parents. Huge benefits from that. Now, is there a detriment? This is what science is trying to look for, so that in the end you weigh the benefits and the detriments. We make those decisions every day. For example, if people are worried about their health, they will go along and have a screening examination. It may be a chest x ray or it may be a CT examination. In Japan, the number of CTs for general screening to see if there is anything wrong within the body is now so high it is causing 3 per cent all cancers in Japan, and yet people still go along, knowing that they are subjected to a carcinogen. X rays are carcinogenic. Without doubt, they will produce cancer at some stage if you have enough dose, but people go along and have an x ray and don’t even worry about it. Now, scientists wonder why people do that and it is mostly that people do not have all of the information available for them to make a rationale decision of whether there is a benefit and what the risks are that they are taking. A lot of people know about dental x rays. A dentist loves to go along and do a full scan of everyone’s teeth because he does not want to pick away to find out if there is any cavities. He will do a full examination and yet the person is getting a lot of x rays and people say that’s okay. I tell my dentist: “I would rather have you just check it all out manually and if there is doubt, then just x ray that part.”

Senator B. E. Shenton:
But if your dentist insisted on doing an x ray, you would probably be a little bit upset.

Mr. M. Repacholi:
He still has to get my approval to do it.

Senator B. E. Shenton:
Well you see and people have a choice. People may choose to live away from mobile phone masts and then suddenly have one inserted on the edge of their garden, and so on. Do you think government should have facilities in place so that these people do have a choice?

Mr. M. Repacholi:
Yes, I do. It is not just government, it is the operators. I think the operators have to be a little bit sympathetic to pubic concern about the location of masts. When I was at WHO, I used to get photos all the time of an operator who had just put a mast on a building next door to an apartment that the person did not know anything about and then, all of a sudden, this beam is going to be coming into their living room. Now, it is understandable that the people might be upset. I would be upset if I at least was not informed and given the information on which to make some decision. Governments through our Irish report, for example, we have looked at this issue in great detail, and things like co location of masts is something that the Irish government has promoted for some time, and we agree. It seems so appropriate in Jersey. You have a beautiful Island and you want to minimise the number of masts. I do not know what the government authority is and who is responsible, but for me I would say: “Co locate those masts” so that one spot is going to be for telecommunications, maybe where telecommunications already exist and people around that environment have already accepted it. There are a number of things that can be done to minimise the impact on people: education, co location and giving them some forum for saying. Look, we know mobile telecommunications is here. If Jersey doesn’t have mobile communications then it will be in the last century and that is where it will stay and so will its children and subsequent generations because we are in a technology revolution and you get on the boat or you miss out. So, accepting the huge benefits that technology and mobile communications is providing, you try and get some agreement on where these can be located. Obviously, sensitive areas of natural beauty is one area that you don’t. If you have commercial centres that are not that great anyway, then putting masts on top of buildings is quite okay. People should also understand that if you locate a mast on top of a building, the people underneath are getting the lowest exposure, because the beam doesn’t point down, it points out. So, sensitivity, I think, is one of the hallmarks of good policy for development of mobile phone networks.

The Connétable of St. Brelade:
Can I take you back to a bit of science. You will be aware, no doubt, of the Freiburger appeal in 2002 and the Helsinki one in 2005. What would be your comments on those, because clearly the Freiburger one picked out health problems and the Helsinki one was trying to advise governments towards lower limits? What are your observations on those?

Mr. M. Repacholi:
Sure, and there is a Salzburg one as well. All of these, are people who are highly concerned about mobile phones. I have been involved with a number of these groups, and I say that, those groups are not really looking at the sites. They’re crusading, saying they do not want this, and they want lower and lower and lower values, but there is no scientific basis for the lower values. This is the problem. WHO, for a long time, has recommended international standards, and we say: “Don’t reduce internationally standards in some arbitrary way, because all the hundreds of millions of dollars of science research that has gone in will be for nothing, because it’s all guesswork once you start reducing in an arbitrary way. Unfortunately, those agreements or protocols or pacts are arbitrary; they are not science based. This is why, For example, the government in Greece has reduced RF levels to 80 per cent of ICNIRP. I say: “Well, why not 8 per cent? What was the basis of reducing that?” It is just political agreement. Science is out of the question. Once you have science out of the question, you do not know what your level of health protection is. You can reduce levels in another way and that is through various construction protocols. You can construct them in such a way that you still get good coverage, but you do not have them in heavily populated areas. You need beams to come in

# Posted: 9 Apr 2007 01:11

The Deputy of St. Peter:
Just a final view. Again, some of the emotive information that is imparted we have been given a suggestion that in certain cases with exposure to electromagnetic fields, there can be foetal distress and also low sperm count. These are very emotive issues. Have you seen any evidence in your studies that this is the case?

Mr. M. Repacholi:
What we do know is that at the frequencies of mobile communications, the depth of penetration into tissue is the order of about one centimetre or so and it would never reach the foetus. So if there is any foetal distress, it is not due to the microwaves, because the radiation never reaches there. There were a number of experiments done of pregnant mice and they had to raise the temperature of the mother by 3 to 4 degrees before any effect was found in the foetus. Mobile communications does not do that. The strongest radiating source is the mobile phone itself and it has been measured: the temperature rise maximum in the head is about 0.1 of a degree.

Senator B. E. Shenton:
The Times on Saturday ran an article that there are health risks with mobile phones. I think it was Professor Challis.

Mr. M. Repacholi:
Laurie Challis, yes.

Senator B. E. Shenton:
Yes. He said that there may be risks with long term use. Would you like to just comment on that?

Mr. M. Repacholi:
Yes. A study has just come out it is a combined Scandinavian study I think in the Journal of Cancer. I cannot remember which journal it has just come out in, but it is only online on the web at the moment. What it said was that they did not find any effect of exposure on acoustic neurinomas in people, except for people who had been using the mobile phones for more than 10 years. There seemed to be a slight increase. The authors themselves said all this indicates is that we need to do further study. These are some of the studies that have come out within the interphone study the WHO’s multinational study on determining whether there is any head and neck cancers associated with mobile phone use. That is the primary hypothesis. The individual studies are coming out, some of them groups of studies, but we really will not get a good answer until all of the studies are combined by IARC into a publication that indicates, with much greater precision, what the effects are. I think Laurie Challis was just saying that we do need some more research and WHO has already identified the research agenda that we need. The problem is that we need research for effects from mobile phones greater than 10 years. We have to wait longer because if they are affecting the population it is a similar thing to new drugs coming out. if people get effects from new drugs they have to report it and then it is accumulated by the Food and Drug Administration and then they eventually say: “Look, this drug seems to be causing something that all of the other studies did not find.” In a similar way, we will need more studies to look at long term effects. My fear is that by the time we look at long term effects, the technology will be long gone and we will probably be having implants in the ear and communicating that way.

Deputy A. Breckon:
Would you like to comment on public access to information about data about where masts are, and also about independent monitoring and putting that into understandable information for public consumption so they can translate the scientific element of what may be? Perhaps you can relate it to your experience elsewhere.

Mr. M. Repacholi:
On both the Stewart committee and the Irish committee, we do recommend that the public authority responsible for the masts should have a website which identifies the location of all the websites. People need to know, and that is fundamental. They should not have to run around their neighbourhood to see where the things are. They should be able to go to a website and say: “Here it is.” Independent monitoring I feel is reasonable. My feeling and knowledge of this area is that you will not find any masts giving fields in excess of the international units, because if they did they would cause interference with other cells and you would get interference from your phone. Mobile phone networks only work because they have to work within fairly tight emission levels. If it is too much, they will interfere with an adjoining cell maybe a few kilometres away. If it is too little, you will get a void in the reception at that point, so they have to work in a fairly tight limit of exposure. I think it is almost self regulating in that way, but people’s confidence is made more if they do know there is someone independent and going to monitor the thing. I think that is not unreasonable at all to have someone come in and monitor. The telephone companies will have equipment that will allow them to measure it, but given the general lack of trust, I think it is nice to have something independent to engender more confidence in people.

Deputy A. Breckon:
Finally, could you give an opinion on how that could be translated into something that is generally understood by the population who are not scientifically minded?

Mr. M. Repacholi:
Yes, because they do not want to know about the milliwatts per square centimetre, they just want to know

Deputy A. Breckon:
what shape and what issues and what it could be.

Mr. M. Repacholi:
First of all, the website should be explanatory in that it has explanations of all the terms and units used, what is going on, what monitoring is being done, who is doing the monitoring, what are the results, where is the location. All of that information should be there alongside a neat little summary of the health effects that have been substantiated and why international standards have been developed and that the levels could be termed in terms of say 100 or 1,000 times below the standards. That is something most people will not realise. It should also be recognised that the European Commission has adopted international standards for its member states. I know Jersey is not part of the European Commission.

Deputy A. Breckon:
Thank you. I did say at the outset that if there was anything else that you would like to say to us that is relevant that we have missed -- and this is part of a process, not the end of one, so if there is something you think of in the next few days, then please feel free. We have received your submission, but we would be pleased to receive anything else. I will now give you the opportunity to say anything you so wish; you do not have to, but the opportunity is there.

Mr. M. Repacholi:
I guess there are a couple of things I would say. The WHO fact sheet on base stations and wireless networks is probably one of the neatest summaries of the fields about masts and wireless networks that has been produced. It answers all the questions. I should say that at some stage, even in Jersey, you will get someone saying there is a cancer cluster and it must be related to a mast. You expect cancer clusters because there is not a uniform distribution of cancers within the population. There will be some here and none there, and this sort of thing. The fact that you have masts everywhere, then if you get a cancer cluster, sure enough there will be a mast, but it does not mean to say a mast is doing it. But you will get that question at some stage, and these are all addressed. I think one of the most assuring things to a population is the fact that we communicate, entertain, have emergency services which need electromagnetic fields and that it is just part of life. Everyone emits electromagnetic fields. We all emit microwaves because we are warm bodies, and so about 0.3 of a microwatt per square centimetre is coming from everybody. The sun emits microwaves. Now, it is a natural thing, and people like natural things, but whether it is natural or unnatural or manmade does not make any difference to a person. They are still going to be exposed to that level and it will still produce, whether natural or unnatural, an effect or no effect. So the difference between the sun, bodies and the masts are not different when you are looking at heath effects. I would refer you to the WHO fact sheet; it is a very neat little package. The dialogue on EMF is on the website and I have quoted it in there. The other thing is that the report produced by the States of Jersey, the Public Health Services, is a very nice little report. I thought, in reading through it, that it covered everything and it provides very sound advice. I would say that you do not need to go much further than that. I was also provided with a report entitled: “Jersey mobile phone base station masts.” I went through this thing and I did not find a paragraph which I found was true. There was not one thing in here except there were originally 50 masts and they are expecting to increase to 220; I do not know about that. But every other paragraph, for example: “Safety guidelines have not been updated in the UK since 1998.” That is not true. I have a book from 2004 where they update their guidelines, and it was a result of the Stewart report that caused them to update from the NRPB guidelines to the precautionary ICNIRP guidelines. That was done after the Stewart report in 2000 and summarised in this volume in 2004. Similarly, all the way through, I find errors in all of this. Electromagnetic fields emitted from masts are not a serious health concern at all, and that is repeated throughout. I find it strange that a report would come out with no author. It comes out as an anonymous report, and also there are no references to a lot of what is stated. If this is evidence, then certainly, when you are making decisions, I would not make it based on a report like that.

Deputy A. Breckon:
Mr. Repacholi, thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to come and see us today and for the effort you have put into your presentation and also the information that you sent to us which is in our bundle. I now adjourn until 1.30 p.m.

# Posted: 9 Apr 2007 02:48

Dear All.

PLEASE read through the posting JMMCG JERSEY sent us!

This was, maybe still is, one of the most powerful men working for the Mobile Phone Industry, when he was still on "Our Payroll" as a WHO representative.
(Some say he was on both Our´s and the industry´s payroll while at the WHO) I do not know for sure, but the fact is he was immencely quick ( took only a tick) to get a steady, well paid job for the industry as soon as he left the WHO, leaves you puzzled doesnt it?, as if he just declared in public what he had been doing all the time, like a second Dr. Doll!, getting "paid for protecting Our interests," getting double paid, on the sly, for doing the industry´s durty work against our interests.)

Dr. Carlo talked for yours, ours, and his life, lets hope he made a difference.
If not, we need to make "Them" (Scrutiny and State Politicians) Personally accountable for the harm that will be proved happened in 20-30 years (sorry I wont be here then, even if I would love to)!

I will leave you with a couple of quotes I have just received from:
Joanne C. Mueller
Guinea Pigs R Us
731 - 123rd Avenue N.W.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55448-2127 USA
Phone: 763-755-6114
Email: jcmpelican@aol.com (4-7-07)

All truth goes through three stages: first it is ridiculed:
then it is violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer

"No substance is a poison by itself. It is the dose that makes a substance a poison..." Paracelsus (1493-1541)
Best regards.

# Posted: 13 Apr 2007 18:16

Another one - they'll be frying the squirrels with this :

Application Reference S/2007/0854
Address Field 218A, Pont Marquet Country Park, La Petite Route de Mielles, St. Brelade
Application Date 13/04/2007
Application Type Satellite Dishes/Comms Antenna
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Jersey Airtel Limited, 2nd Floor Le Masurier House, St Helier JE2 4YA
Description Installation of 1 No. wooden clad replica telegraph pole, 1 No. dish, 3 No. antennae and 3 No. equipment cabinets.

# Posted: 16 Apr 2007 15:25

According to the paper, the Scrutiny Report is due Friday

# Posted: 19 Apr 2007 01:35

Hi all, congratulations!
You have got a breathing space.
The minister is not convinced!

Minister halts mast permissions
Permission to build phone masts in Jersey has been temporarily halted by the States planning minister.
Senator Freddie Cohen is concerned certain conditions attached to planning consents are not always being followed.
He said some companies have not had time to plant trees or landscape to hide masts and he wants to visit existing sites in the countryside.
The minister said it could be several weeks before he is ready to consider new applications.

http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=ne wsitem&id=1587

# Posted: 22 Apr 2007 14:22

CLARENDON Road residents

Next Meeting

Place: Town Hall, St Helier
Date: Monday 23rd April

All welcome

For further information on the concerns over masts being errected near Clarendon Road contact Martyn Gallery email martyngallery@hotmail.com.

# Posted: 22 Apr 2007 14:23

Mast Review Report Jersey

The full report can be viewed at www.scrutiny.gov.je/documents/reports/S-13658-27470-2042007.htm#_Toc16 4845836

The below provides the Charimans forward.


Having been elected Chairman of the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel it was rather a surprise to be agreeing within hours to undertake a Scrutiny Review of Mobile Telephone Masts, subject to a number of provisos.

Initially there were no other Panel Members, no Officers, no budget, so I believe it is timely to thank all those most sincerely who have helped to make it all happen and for the Review to proceed with a thorough investigation taking place and a detailed and comprehensive report produced in an efficient and timely manner.

Panel and Scrutiny

Thanks to all concerned: fellow Panel members - Deputy Collin Egré, Constable Mike Jackson and Senator Ben Shenton; Scrutiny Officers - Mike Haden for doing detailed background research in December/January, Malcolm Orbell, whose introduction was a baptism of fire to the Scrutiny process, Carol Le Quesne for her due diligence, care and attention to detail, who made it all happen and steered this Review to its final conclusions, and to all other Scrutiny staff who contributed.

Submissions and Evidence

To the public and professional witnesses, to the public for their submissions (from 2 line e-mails to 100+ pages - all are valued and all appreciated.) Also to the many references to United Kingdom Local Authorities, Government Agencies, Independent organisations as well as reports and authorities from all over the world. Submissions were not limited to paper and e-mail; references were made to television programmes, newspaper articles, dvds produced by others, video recordings and website examples - responses were truly international.

Applying Minds

Set against this background the Panel had to apply its individual and collective minds to draw logical conclusions from the mass of technical, and on occasions, emotive material and apply this to seek an interpretation of how best this could be utilised for Jersey's situation.

Billions of Mobiles

Mobile phone technology moves at a pace - it was said to us in the evidence that it took 20 years to sell the first billion mobile phones and it then took 18 months to sell the second billion world-wide - this demonstrates the rapid consumer-led growth.

Tensions were found

It is against this background of relatively new and advanced technology that some tension was found to exist between engineering standards and benchmarks and medical opinion, some of which is emerging with the passage of time.

Words often found are "a precautionary approach", the debate continues as to what exactly this should be. Different authorities and organisations are continually reviewing and debating the issues surrounding emerging international learned views and opinions. Suspicions abound when industry sponsorship emerges to be balanced with the industry wishing to actively participate in informed debate and discussion.

Young People and Mobile Phones

Our investigations have raised questions about considering possible harm reduction to younger children from the use of mobile phones - while not under our Terms of Reference it would be remiss not to mention this - parents should seek more information from reliable sources and "a precautionary approach" should be adopted. This should also apply to adults as without exception informed evidence says that mobile phone use has greater possible health related problems than mobile telephone masts.

Wi-Fi in schools

Questions were raised about the installation of systems in schools and whether this was monitored and how health effects (if any) could be monitored - again "a precautionary approach" is required.

Siting of Masts

The Panel viewed the general Planning process; however, what did emerge was that significant sums of money are changing hands for leasing of land and vantage points for masts. Other issues flowed from this about public liability insurance and in future what the rateable value should be - matters that need to be addressed by others.


This Scrutiny Review started on the back-foot: as I have described earlier and some tension existed between politicians and the public about whether there was anyone listening - whether some public concern was shared politically. I hope this Review will allay those fears - calm the tension that existed and convince all concerned that this issue was well worth the time and effort and that the public voice - collectively and individually - was heard and politically the recommendations will be positively acted upon in future for public information, benefit and confidence.

The Sub-Panel would like to take the opportunity to extend special thanks to the Jersey Mast Concern Group for its efforts.

Deputy Alan Breckon

<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . >>
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.

These forums are running on web forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2023