- 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: 2 Aug 2007 13:39

The replacement site at Les Marais (was on flats, is now on pumping station) is now operating.

# Posted: 2 Aug 2007 20:58

The Washington Mast has now been approved.

# Posted: 3 Aug 2007 12:09


The following have also been approved :
Fields 1341 & 1341A, Le Mont de la Trinite, St. Helier
Green Street Car Park, Green Street, St. Helier
Hotel Savoy, Rouge Bouillon, St. Helier
Field 390, La Rue des Sillons, St. Peter
Rozel Harbour WC, Rozel Pier, Le Mont de Rozel, Trinity

but not (yet?) :
Field 197, La Rue De La Houguette
Field 697, Le Rue des Alleurs
Sun Bowls Club, La Rue es Nouaux, St. Helier
Field 103, La Grande Route de Rozel, St. Martin
Field 375, La Rue de la Forge, St. Martin
Jersey Hockey Club, La Rue des Sauvalleries, St. Peter

The Airtel landscaping applications "Remove/Vary Condition Application" ("Vary condition ... from "30 days from substantial completion" to "27th October 2007") have been approved too, except:
Field 195, La Route Orange, St. Brelade

# Posted: 3 Aug 2007 19:41

I want to know why the Health Department have ignored Airtel's statement at the Scrutiny hearing that to be close to these masts is dangerous.

Fred Cohen keeps washing his hands and saying"I can do nothing if Health don't object". There must be a legal way to force them to take notice of the Airtel comment and then order the removal of all masts close to housing?

Maybe we could get the UK media involved because our own Health Department are wilfully failing to protect the population, that's gotta be a big story?

# Posted: 4 Aug 2007 17:36

Greetings to everybody! I've found www.mast-victims.org in Yahoo and I like this forum!
I'm new here but hope we'll have great conversations in future!
You can call me Martirosso :)

James Osterburg
# Posted: 5 Aug 2007 17:47 - Edited by: James Osterburg

I emailed Cohen to contest his most recent decision of approval of the Washington Hotel mast.

Firstly I pointed out the reason given for the decision, "short term need" was completely unjustifiable. The mast was not an active part of the Airtel network prior to approval. Therefore were the application denied and the mast to remain inactive, the situation would not impinge upon Airtel's current capabilities. Infact, were non-activation to be detrimental to Airtel, that would be Airtel's own fault for assuming that the mast would automatically be approved. The onus was on them to create contingency plans to cover such an event. Thus I doubt very highly that "short term need" is any justifiable reason for approval.

Secondly, and more importantly, I raised the case of Airtel's own representative at the January Scrutiny Commitee hearing making an admission of dangers from close proximity to masts. Everyone I've so far contacted in government regarding the dangers of emissions has been more than happy to quote figures about ICNIRP guidelines. Yet whenever I mention the simple comment made by Airtel's man, they either ignore that aspect of my query or stop responding to my email. Which seems to be very revealing, especially as that comment would place the Washington mast in the catagory of 'dangerous to human health'.

Thirdly, I pointed out the obvious regarding the Washington mast compromise. Multi million pound businesses don't offer compromise when they know they can win a battle.

They only offer compromise when there's a good chance they can't win, but when they've managed to convince those fighting them that the case for protest is weak. Which is exactly the card they played with Martyn Gallery. He was completely sucker punched, and Airtel got exactly what they wanted.

In his reponse to my email Cohen failed to address all of these points, or to deny that Mr Gallery had been had over a barrel. He simply informed me I could lodge a third party appeal with the Royal Court.

I firmly believe such an appeal could be successful. Cohen's given reason for allowing the mast is clearly questionable, and the Airtel admission of danger should be enough to kill the mast stone dead, as the mast is located in exactly the position which Airtel's representative stated is a danger to human health.

The only drawback is that an appeal needs to be lodged within the next 9 days, and will cost £650 uncontested, and £950 contested. It seems pretty clear to me that Airtel scraped this mast through by the skin of their teeth, so I would assumed uncontested would be the most likely scenario should this make the Royal Court.

The appeal process itself is incredibly simple, and an appeal can even be lodged in writing, without a court appearance.

So, it's a very long shot at very short notice, but if anyone knows where funds could be raised to cover those costs within the next few days, I believe we could achieve the removal of the Washington hotel mast.

Subsequently the issues raised by such an appeal (if successful) would certainly lead to a number of other masts needing to be immediately removed or relocated. It would set a precedent which would completely shake up the issue of masts in Jersey.

# Posted: 6 Aug 2007 11:55

Good Luck - surely it must be possible for concerned residents there to raise that between them, for the sake of their health worries?


New Airtel mast spotted near Victoria Village at the weekend.

James Osterburg
# Posted: 6 Aug 2007 18:24 - Edited by: James Osterburg

Any appeal has just been killed stone dead by Martyn Gallery's "victory" speech in todays's J.E.P.

Pictured shaking hands with an Airtel bigwig he cheerily claims all of Clarendon Road's residents are ecstatic with the one-mast compromise. Simon Crowcroft is even promising a street party in celebration.

The Airtel execs will be laughing themselves to sleep tonight.

This is a huge defeat for anyone in the island who at a future date needs to launch a similar protest. Now Clarendon Road can be used by Planning and the mast companies as an example of how phone masts can be accepted by a community. And if a community can accept a mast for 18 months, surely that proves the health risks are negligible....

Thanks for that Martyn. Maybe Airtel will give you a free subscription for your efforts.

JEP tonight
# Posted: 7 Aug 2007 00:56

In the JEP tonight

Phone masts victory
By Carly Lockhart

CLARENDON Road residents are celebrating victory as Airtel-Vodafone have agreed to take their two phone masts down from the Washington Hotel.
One mast will be removed straight away, and the remaining mast with three antennae will remain in place until 31 January 2009 at the latest, giving Airtel-Vodafone enough time to resite it.

Campaigner Martyn Gallery heard about the proposal direct from Airtel chief executive David Watson recently. 'Airtel were kind enough to approach me,' said Mr Gallery. 'It was they who came up with the idea to remove one mast now and the next 18 months on, not us or Planning, so we owe a big thank-you to them. It's a very good and very acceptable compromise. I knew we'd get there in the end. I'm over the moon.'


yes, I'm sure if you're close enough to one you can become electrosensitive in less than 18 months. I don't know if the mast is further away than it was though, but even so!

# Posted: 7 Aug 2007 02:26

Gallery says of the 18 months "we can live with that". I didn't realise there was a safe time limit for one to be exposed to close-range 3G emissions!

There are residents living less than 40 feet from that mast, and the hotel staff quarters on the upper floor is roughly 15 feet away. And now those unfortunates can expect 18 months worth of emissions beaming into their homes. 18 months is almost 2 years. That mast will be pumping out EMF until 2009. At those extremely close ranges what are the chances people WON'T suffer in some form or another?!

# Posted: 7 Aug 2007 12:28

I'd be sorely tempted to go and stay somewhere else in the meantime, seriously. It's bad enough where I am, 100m from one, but that's 100 times worse!

As for "they beam outwards, you're safe underneath" that's not as clear cut as they say - typically you get only a 10 to 20dB reduction right underneath or even behind a panel. They're not THAT directional, not like a spotlight is. With a car headlight you really can focus the light forwards and see almost nothing from behind, but it's ***much*** harder to make radio waves focus in one direction that it is to do it for light with mirrors. With cellphone frequencies the field spreads out all around the antenna, but with a **bit** more going in the required direction with a 'directional' antenna.

I've walked around the lanes around the C&W Fauvic mast with a calibrated level meter tuned to specific sectors and the signal strength of each sector was only about 20dB less BEHIND its main direction compared to its intended direction. Even if you go half a mile away from a site and compare all 3 sectors (pointing in different directions) from one of these fake telegraph poles you will still get a good signal from the other sectors pointing away from you, about 20db or so lower. 20db is 100 times less power but remember these things work over a typical range of at least -20dBm down to -110dBm which is a 90dB difference (1,000,000,000 times).

# Posted: 7 Aug 2007 16:54

Were it to be true, the "safe underneath" reasoning doesn't apply to many of the neighbouring properties in Clarendon Road anyway. A number of the residents on upper floors are directly opposite the mast, at the same level.

The issue is even more serious for the hotel staff. The staff quarters on on the same level as the mast, about 15 feet away - much like having a mast outside your front door at ground level.

Obviously the Washington Mast couldn't be positioned at a 'safe' height because local residents would then have had cause to complain on aesthetic grounds. So it's been kept at same level as the roofs of nearby houses - many of which have their accomodation designed into their loft areas. Stroll along the road and see how many windows you can see in the rooftops.

I for one cannot believe the wanton and disgraceful level of ignorance exhibited by the Health Department regarding this situation.

# Posted: 12 Aug 2007 16:05

I understand the telcos keep having to turn up power on their masts to compete for signal strength for those who have their phones switched to automatic. Is this true?

tech head
# Posted: 13 Aug 2007 12:17

Regarding maximum power : at one meeting a JT spokesman said they run close to full legal power at their main sites (panel aerials on big masts), so the power shouldn't go even higher than that. It probably can't anyway, because I doubt that the equipment is capable of it - why would they make it capable of putting out more power than the standard legal limit?

Smaller sites (covering smaller areas to fill-in gaps in coverage) have less powerful transmitters, and are probably running at a constant power level too, close to the maximum they're capable of.

That applies to the BCCH (broadcast channel) which is constantly transmitting 24/7 at full power, transmitting signals that control the network in the area, contacting mobiles to set up calls and keep track of which site they're connected to, handing mobiles over from one mast to another as they move around, passing on txt messages etc.

The BCCH radio channel can also handle the voice traffic of a few calls, but more usually the GSM site will also use one or more extra radio 'traffic' channels for the voice calls (one call may even be passed around each traffic radio channel in turn in a "frequency hopping" way to help avoid interference and reception black spots that vary per frequency), and these channels will use Adaptive Power Control.

Adaptive Power Control means that both the base station AND the mobile phone can reduce their power when they're close enough to each other that higher power isn't needed. There is even a feature called Discontinuous Transmission which allows the mobile phone to save battery power even further by not even transmitting at all when the user isn't saying anything. In the early hours of the morning when hardly anyone is making any calls, the traffic channels may be unused and only the Broadcast channel is in use (still a pulsing signal though). At these times, with only one radio frequency in use, that one signal will easily show up on a frequency counter (a small piece of cheap test equipment that gives a digital reading of the radio frequency such as 935.200MHz) - this won't be possible when more than one frequency is in use due to calls being in progress. Counters cannot cope easily with more than one signal at once at the same strength.

So in a nutshell, the typical GSM site ( or "mast" as it's simplified to -although the mast itself is just a support structure to which aerials are attached at the top) is probably varying its total power output as a normal part of its operation, as it was designed.

Or maybe you've heard that the masts have been upgraded to higher power capabilities recently as the 3 players compete for best coverage? I'm not aware of that as far as JT is concerned - their coverage was already very good before competition arrived, and the 2 new players are obviously still tweaking their networks as they identify coverage problems and sort them out.

# Posted: 13 Aug 2007 13:47

New Airtel-V application

Application Reference : S/2007/1915
Address : Jersey Waterfront Hotel, La Route de la Liberation, St. Helier
Date Last Advertised : 10/08/2007
Applicant : Mr R. Mahajan, 2nd Floor, Le Masurier House, St Helier JE2 4YE
Description : Installation of 3 No. antennae, 1 No. dish, 3 No. equipment cabinets.

# Posted: 16 Aug 2007 03:14

This blog has some very interesting posts about Jersey's masts.


# Posted: 16 Aug 2007 12:42

excellent blog, thanks for the link

# Posted: 17 Aug 2007 12:37

And a further update...

"Take one senior politician, one senior level public employee, one government report containing lies about the impact of phone mast emissions upon public health, and wrap tightly in a wall of silence. A wonderful recipe for a major scandal. Stay tuned, all will soon be revealed."

sounds juicy :-)

# Posted: 17 Aug 2007 17:42

New Airtel-V application

Application Reference S/2007/1959
Address La Praririe Farm, La Route de Beaumont, St. Peter
Date Last Advertised 17/08/2007
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Mr R. Mahajan, 2nd Floor Le Masurier House, St Helier JE2 4YQ
Description Installation of 1 No. wooden clad replica telegraph pole, 3 No. antenne, 1 No. dish, 3 No. equipment cabinets.

that's a helpful address, could be anywhere from the Beaumont filter all the way up to St. P village!

# Posted: 22 Aug 2007 12:07

From a quick look at an Almanac in the shop, La Praririe Farm seems to be at the top somewhere near the country apartments and Mt Fallu area, on the other side (west) of the road.

# Posted: 24 Aug 2007 17:02

Praririe should be Prairie, of course :-)

new application, although only a dish, not a mast as such:
Application Reference S/2007/1994
Address J.E.C. Terminal Station, Archirondel, La Route de la Cote, St. Martin
Date Last Advertised 24/08/2007
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Mr G. Hughes, Richmond House, St Helier JE2 4TD
Description Installation of 1 No. dish and 1 No. equipment cabinet.
- this being C&W unless they've moved from R House and there's another Greg Hughes!

Britney Pocked
# Posted: 25 Aug 2007 13:33

Wonderful and informative web site.
bye, bye ;-)

# Posted: 2 Sep 2007 13:00

As I type this an engineer is on the roof of The Washington Hotel playing around with the mast powerlines.

I'm guessing it will be activated either today or tomorrow.

Thanks Martyn.

# Posted: 3 Sep 2007 12:09

The mast at the phone box near St.Catherine's cafe has now been replaced by the new site at the end of the breakwater. Better for cafe patrons, not so good for anglers!

# Posted: 4 Sep 2007 16:52

Some JT changes :

Application Reference S/2007/2019
Address Ville au Veslet Farm, Mont Isaac, St. Lawrence
Date Last Advertised 31/08/2007
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Mr T. Knights, PO Box 53, 2nd Floor, St Helier JE4 8PB
Description Remove existing installation. Install 1 No. wooden clad replica telegraph pole, 4 No. antennae and 2 No. equipment cabinets.

Application Reference S/2007/2042
Address Waterfront Car Park, Marina Gardens, St. Helier
Date Last Advertised 31/08/2007
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Mr T. Knights, PO Box 53, 2nd Floor, St Helier JE4 8PB
Description Remove existing installation. Install 1 No. replica flagpole and 1 No. antennae

Application Reference S/2007/2043
Address WEB Portacabin, The Waterfront, St. Helier
Date Last Advertised 31/08/2007
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Mr T. Knights, PO Box 53,2nd Floor, St Helier JE4 8PB
Description RETROSPECTIVE: Relocate antennae and cabinets.

RETROSPECTIVE? They've already done it without asking?!

One Airtel change, I believe this one isn't present yet :
Application Reference RC/2007/2039
Address Beau Rivage Hotel, La Route de la Baie, St. Brelade
Date Last Advertised 31/08/2007
Status Pending Decision
Applicant Jersey Airtel, 2nd Floor, Le Masurier House, St Helier JE2 4YA
Description Vary condition 2 from 1st September 2007 to 31st November 2007.

# Posted: 5 Sep 2007 16:58

Washington masts are sending out microwaves at 9:30 last night up-n-down clarendon road

# Posted: 5 Sep 2007 19:04

The replaced mast at the Waterfront (a pole with a chunky white top section) is delivering a particularly strong signal along the road to the cinema area! From a few tens of metres away it's as strong as standing right next to a phone box transmitter.

# Posted: 6 Sep 2007 11:25

Washington masts are sending out microwaves at 9:30 last night up-n-down clarendon road

What were your exact readings, and at what points were they taken?

# Posted: 6 Sep 2007 11:46

I too confirm that the mast is operating, and was getting readings of around -40dBm in the car while driving past the W Hotel (without even a good line of sight view of the antenna). This is around -20dBm (0.01mW) per square metre. Nearby neighbours higher above street level with a view of the mast can expect a hundred, maybe several thousand times more signal.

This is somewhere around the ECOLOG institute's recommended precautionary standard of 10mW/m2 which is 27dB (475 times) less than ICNIRP's +37dBm/m2 safety level. But personally I'd screen my home with foil wallpaper for the few months this mast is allowed for operate!

Meanwhile the waterfront mast (3 sectors from a new pole) is one of the strongest I've ever seen for the distance - crossing the road from the carpark gardens towards the new hotel and bronze tree was -23dBm (some 100 times more than in Clarendon Road) and that's the maximum reading on my meter! It would have been off the scale down the first part of the prom, dropping near the mast due to the sectors arrangements.

# Posted: 7 Sep 2007 11:31

I have a friend living in one of the flats above street level in Clarendon Road. Their bedroom is in direct view of the mast. Since the mast has been switched on they've had a dull ache in the back of their head and feelings of, for want of a better description, 'seasickness'. It could be coincidental and they could just have a virus or something, or it could be the mast, time will tell I guess. It would be interesting to find out if anyone else in the immediate vicinity has similar symptoms that only began once they mast started operating.

After reading Measurer's comments about Clarendon Road I emailed Simon Crowcroft and asked if it would be possible for States experts to take a measurement in the road. He has so far failed to respond.

<< . 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 online community software miniBB™ © 2001-2022