View case history...
|It happened in Worcester. England||United Kingdom|
|Contamination level: Severe illness! Forced to abandon a home.|
|Author: Eirikur Mar Petursson||Created: 4 Jun 2005||Updated: 11 Oct 2006||Viewed: 9053 time(s)|
|Comments on events leading up to Petursson & Ingvarsdottir versus Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. and what happens after Hutchison´s victory.||This case file has 2 entries and has been commented by 4 people|
|An open letter to Worcerster City Councillor Robert Rowden @ "Making Worcester a Great Place to Live, Work and Visit" ??????||Created: 11 Oct 2006|
|Councillor Robert Rowden
108 Battenhall Road
Worcester WR5 2BT
Thank you for your confirmation of 090806.
I am fully aware that you know my views on Mobile Telecommunications masts.
I had a chance to air them during our personal meeting in the Mayors office in 2003.
However, I feel that you deserve to know what human tragedy you unleashed on at least one family in Worcester, when you did your scandalous U-turn on the refusal of the 3G mast at 55 London Road (“The Little Sauce Factory”) in January 2003.
No, I did not misunderstand anything.
I observed Stuart McNidder franticly tugging your sleeve when you cast your vote for refusal, which later became “Minded to refuse”;
Personally I think that the mast had to be kept away from the Niall Grinnall development at all cost, for reasons unknown to me.
Councillor Allah Ditta lied, Planner Paul O´Connor gave false information and Chief Planner Peter Yates took charge to bully this through.
The result was, that when the mast at 55 London Road became operational the 7th of August 2003 the family in 57 London Road became violently ill.
The business that was run from there, nearly collapsed.
The pretext and argument of Mr. Yates was that a refusal would spawn an appeal from the applicant which in return would cost taxpayer’s money.
That of course is a sacred thing for you councilors, the fear of loosing a few hundred pounds, outweighs sacrificing a family.
As you are aware, then my interest was stirred when a mast was proposed at South Hayes Nursing Home, (P06D0311) situated in the same conservation area as 57 London Road and having the same grade II listing as 57 London Road.
Consequently I wrote to Worcester Counsil to get the reasons for refusal of P06D0311 to compare with acceptance of the case of consequence to me.
And, surprise, surprise, All the reasons that were of No consequence in 2003 further down London Road, are good reason to refuse further up London Road.
(The lateness of that reply is the reason for the lateness of my response to you).
I do actually think that a big St. George flag, on top of the mast on “The Little Sauce Factory” with the inscription “Come on England” to urge on England’s soccer “Heroes” is a harmful setting of the Grade II listed building of 57 London Road, when viewed from Fort Royal Hill Park.
But enough of that!
This is not my mission!
In 2003 you asked your colleagues: Are we liable? (If Mr. Petursson is right in his views of health hazard of a mast adjacent to dwellings).
Answering, you used your casting vote to refuse the application.
Why you later let yourself be corrupted, I do not know, but although you are not liable for harm inflicted to the citizens you are elected to serve, then you will have to live with the shame of the knowledge, that your doings and choices did inflict harm and very nearly destroyed a family, when you should have been cautious.
Beaming unknown amounts of radiation into anyone’s house at short distance is inexcusable.
I will end this letter by telling you what happened next to the family at 57 London Road, whereof I am one.
Circulate the letter between your colleagues and be ashamed.
You cannot keep on pretending that you do not know that Mobile Telecommunications antennae harm people!
When you read this you DO know!
28 meters from antenna to dwelling is one of the shortest distances recorded distance for a straight 3G beam.
When the 3G antenna commenced transmitting on the 070803 my wife was instantly ill, with bad headaches (which still prevail 3 years later) vomiting and dizziness, as well as acute skin rashes.
Myself, I got absentees, dizziness and ringing in my ears.
Our son who works for us became ill during working hours but regained mormal health when he returned to his home in the evenings.
Shortly after the commencement I went on a business trip and my bad symptoms disappeared.
In the meantime my wife and son became increasingly ill.
I saw no other alternative than to move my business out of the house.
It is not easy to get commercial premises at a short notice, consequently what we managed to get was of a very low quality, in stark contrast to the rather stylish surroundings of our 57 London Road office and home.
Having moved our business out, my wife and I still had to go back to London Road, and become sick, every night.
We took the long road home.
We spent all week-ends, Christmas eve and day, boxing day etc, sitting in our cold unheated office on a run down industrial estate, while owning a un-usable polluted property worth £. 300000.- inside which we got violently sick from Radiation Pollution transmitted from next door!
Some months later we managed to find a small, empty semi-derelict cottage in Malvern, where we could move straight in, and that is where we live now.
From being well off, healthy people we are now poor and sick.
Radiation Sickness does not disappear, it stays and magnifies when an affected person comes near radiation sources.
My wife has suffered several blood clots in her legs, damaged bowels, relentless headaches, thanks to the 3G pollution endured.
Myself, I have a Tinnitus like whining in my ears.
Not the best thing for a Professional Engineer who has to concentrate on his job.
And the change from having only a couple of sick-days during the last 20 years we are now having to accept to be regular visitors at the Doctors surgery.
We cannot venture into areas where masts are prominent, like Worcester, without getting headaches, dizzy spells and whining.
If people use their mobile phones near us we get sick.
It did not use to be that way.
Before the event of 070803 we had a relaxed attitude towards mobiles, we used them in our business, and felt no adverse effects.
We knew that radiation from antennas was harmful, otherwise there would be no need for limitations and threshold limits imposed etc.
But because of your choices, we are now sick, and so are a large number of other people, for which, your actions are responsible for their reclining health.
I am sure you know this.
If you and your colleagues are interested to learn more in greater detail visit the webpage: www.mast-victim.org where our case from 57 London Road is prominent between testimonies from all over the world, concerning Radiation Sickness caused by Radiation Pollution.
This letter needs no response.
Just know and be ashamed.
Eirikur M. Petursson.
P.S. A message from my wife: Somehow she finds the new Worcester City Logo “Making Worcester a Great place to Live, Work and Visit” hilarious,
but quite misleading, knowing, by experience, that Worcester City sees no problem with polluting their citizens and driving them away.
But then, she knows many more Worcester City citizens who have had similar problems where they live, and who have contacted her, in order to
compare experiences of illness after you have allowed masts in densely populated areas.
|This entry has 1 comment. Click here to view comments. Click here to write a comment.|
|Erik´s opinion||Created: 4 Jun 2005|
|I was exposed to a 3G radiation source from 07-08-03 until 05-02-04 on a daily basis.
I fell sick, had loss of concentration, nausea and ringing in my ears when inside my house.
In the end I had to move.
I think it is accepted that being near to a 3G base station makes some people sick.
I am also quite sure in my mind that the mobile telecommunications industry is fully aware that exposure to their equipment harms all of us and our environment.
They know this, but will go to any length to deny the existence of harmful components in their emissions.
I got sick, my wife lost her health, and we had to abandon our house.
I did not think this should happen to us, and therefore took Hutchison 3G UK Ltd., the owner of the harm generating equipment, to court.
We lost, and today my wife and I have a High Court ruling that harm never happened to us.
That we did not get sick and abandoning our house was just some kind of folly, as our sickness was all in our minds, psychosomatic hysteria.
It goes against any kind of logic, that anybody would subject themselves to such misery as we experienced for no reason whatsoever.
Nevertheless, in Birmingham there is a Judge who actually had the nerve to put such preposterous nonsense onto paper.
Why have Judges and Government abandoned any form for common sense when dealing with Mobile Communications matters?
What have the mobile telecommunications industry done in order to achieve control of government and law?
As is testified on this website, then unrelated people in unrelated countries experience the same symptoms and ill health when exposed to the same equipment in differing locations.
There are two common factors:
1). The equipment and
2). The symptoms
Still in my case it never happened according to the Birmingham High Court Judge.
My wife calls her journal “Our 3G mast from Hell” but there were some unexpected bonuses.
1). The constant bombardment of our house by low frequent waves from the antennas vibrated
the walls and caused the temperature inside to increase by 2 degrees Celsius, thus cutting our
2). We had roses blooming in our garden in December through to February.
Unfortunately our state was such, that we did not notice these plusses much.
What we did notice though was that all birdsong ceased as birds disappeared from the neighborhood.
Why is it, that when causes of global warming are summarized, then nobody dares to mention that the hundred of thousands of base stations that are littering our country heat the environment?
I just remembered that the old Holly tree in our former garden is now dead and has been removed.
Being 26 meters from the base station and constantly radiated since August 2003 has probably done it in.
This corresponds with our Dutch friend’s (This is the story of a victim of man-made radio frequent radiation) observation of dying trees in Holland, subjected to radiation.
But I am straying, so I better get started on my report.
My wife and I were living a rather pleasant and prosperous life at 57 London Road, Worcester.
(Which is a 200 years old Grade 2. listed building in a conservation area, right next to the Fort Royal Park.) when a letter from the council planning authorities dropped through the letterbox, the Ninth of December 2002, announcing that planning permission was sought for a Mobile Telecommunications mast and base station to be erected next door at 55 London Road, at a public house known as ”The Little Sauce Factory” by a company called Hutchison 3G Ltd.
I did not know it then, but our life would never be the same again.
Priding myself of being a well informed man, I had an instant feeling that this was wrong, erecting a radiation microwave device in a densely populated area and with the pollutant further downhill from most of the houses, and my house only a few meters away (28 meters as it turned out) from the emitting antennae.
I also learned that the antennae would be lower than my house, emitting straight into our living and sleeping quarters.
I went down to see the Chief Planning Officer of Worcester City, Mr. Peter Yates, a pleasant man who spends many hours working for Amnesty International, seeking to persuade totalitarian governments to release political prisoners, but does not appear much bothered about subjecting Worcester Citizens to emission from telecommunications masts.
His quotes in the local “Worcester Evening News” suggest that he views people who protest against these structures and their emissions, as merely hysterical hypocondriacs, who should know better than to doubt the accepted gospel, that GSM and 3G basestations are harmless to humans.
Or rather, not proven to be harmful to humans.
“YOU GET THAT AMOUNT OF RADIATION FROM A STEAM IRON”
Worcester Evening News (11 Mars 2005) is one of Mr. Yates´ better quips.
I learned that the project had already been turned down at two locations, in Diglis, near the old porcelain factory, and on Bath Road, on “The Albion” public house.
Common for these two locations is that they are very close to two new housing development sites aquired by Messr. Niall Grinall Developments.
Mr. Grinall is a young developer who has risen with meteoric speed, to become one of the most important housing developers in Worcester.
So, last stop was “The Little Sauce Factory” public house at 55 London Road, my neighbour.
No other location was available and this was the best suited location, it was claimed.
“A really good solution” according to Councilor Paul Denham at planning commission meeting 300103.
At least one family lost their home due to that ”Really Good Solution”
Now, it is time to make a detour!
The Mobile Telecommunications industry claim that they choose their mast locations very carefully, taking a number of factors into account, such as obstructing buildings, surrounding environment, etc.
This is not true.
The only factor for choosing a location is whether there is a landlord or tenant willing to play host to a mast-base station against an annual payment.
It was established the 22 of February 2005 in Birmingham High Court during cross examination of Mr. Frederick Alfred Wilby, Regional site acquisition manager at Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. that sites are acquired by “Paid Per Site” independent agents who locate a friendly site.
And they only get paid if planning permission is obtained for the actual site.
Basically these agents are mere “Bounty Hunters” not siting experts, and their only goal is to net a payment.
Consequently alternatives are not considered once a site is secured with a landlords or tenants signature.
These are the people that the planning officers are dealing with, “paid per site” agents, not experts in telecommunication density.
Mr. Wilby confessed that he had not seen the site before my wife and I took out a court claim against Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. and he had not been involved with planning procedure at any point before our claim.
He left that to the “Bounty Hunters”.
So much for expertise!
So one of these Bounty Hunters Louise Cook of AAP Consult tempted my always hard up neighbor David Thatcher with a rent sum if he would accept Hutchison 3G´s equipment on the roof of “The Little Sauce Factory” public house, which he happily accepted.
David Thatcher has successfully claimed in the Worcester press that the mobile telecommunications antenna on his roof had nothing to do with him.
And he claimed that protesters, had turned his life into hell.
He even performed mock telephone routines pretending to protest the installation in front of his patrons.
But I am sorry David, your name, and your name only is on the letters submitted as evidence in my court case by Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. as the beneficiary.
AAP Consult praises you as “Extremely Helpful”, “Very Interested”, “Keen”, etc.
The exhibits have no: 000157 and no: 000159, and the court case no: 4 BM 50028
Show those to your fans, and watch your life turn into hell.
I am drifting again.
Where is this taking us? you might ask.
The object of this exercise is to expose the army of helpful “Innocents” without whom the Mobile Telecommunications firms would not be able to tyrannize and pollute a whole nation (or nations).
It is clear to the Bounty Hunters that they are are an unwanted plague.
They know that their customers devastate environments and make homes unlivable in, or in the best cases cuts tens of thousands off house selling prices.
As Louise Cook, AAP Consult wrote to Peter Yates, Head of Planning in Worcester: Quote: “Any minor environmental impact that may be percieved is
outweighed by the need for the development as part of Hutchison 3G´s network in the city”
This huge advance can be:
1). Being able to watch premiership goals.
2). Watch Soft Porn from the Playboy channel.
3). Record “Happy Slapping” and circulate to friends.
All on your handy mobile phone.
I did not know all this then, in 2002 and 2003, but I did know that Hutchison 3G had been thrown out of Australia, and had huge problems in Italy where the first reports about illness started appearing.
I applied to speak against the mast proposal at the Worcester City Planning Committee meeting, where the “Little Sauce Factory” proposal was to be presented. (090103)
My neighbour Mr. Watkin at 70 Fort Royal Hill who was in a similar position as 57 London Road had also applied to speak against the mast appearance, but he thought that our Democratic 5 minutes speaking time was best spent with only one speaker.
Democracy in Worcester means: Speaking time for residents, for or against a planned project: 5 minutes TOTAL.
That means: 1 speaker: 5 minutes
2 speakers: 2.5 minutes/each
3 speakers: 1.6667 minutes/each
That is Democracy for you in Worcester.
After listening to citizens concerns for afternoon garden shadows from proposed building extensions and such horrible threats, appeared a Planning Officer, Mr. Paul O´Connor, a clownish figure in a long coat, and thick soled shoes.
But there was no reason to laugh.
When Mr. O´Connor started his presentation, he lounged straight into a sales pitch for Hutchison 3G.
There was no doubt, the Worcester Planners wanted the mast there, on the “Little Sauce Factory” pub roof, right in front of my house, beaming straight into my living quarters. Come hell or high water!
I am a pretty experienced salesman and I know a sales pitch when I hear one.
As far as Paul O´Connor was concerned, the Fort Royal Hill did not slope, it was flat, and he had moved the radiation figure decimal a couple of seats to the left in order to get the fractions of ICNIRP compliance even more minute than the Mobile Telecommunications operators themselves.
So when my turn came I entered into a radiation scenario speech that even frightened me, but as things turned out, I was far off the mark.
You do not contract 3G cancer painlessly.
You can bloody well feel it! You get sick! Sick as a dog!
Again, I was ignorant at the time.
I complained that the project had not been duly advertised in public places.
Committee member Councilor Allah Ditta (later a popular Mayor of Worcester) swore that he had seen public displays on lampposts in the London Road area.
Why did he feel compelled to do that?
Nobody else I have spoken to saw any displays, and Councilor Ditta does not live on London Road or near the “Little Sauce Factory” pub.
I doubt he ever gets out of his monster 4x4 “Town-about” vehicle to admire lampposts.
Another Councilor, Aubrey Tarbuck (the present Mayor of Worcester, and probably popular too!) asked me if I had new information, newer than the
Which I had.
But the “Stewart report”!
What untold damage that report has done!
Since it was first published in 2000.
As far as Councilors, Planners and Mobile Telecommunications operators are concerned, that report consists of only one paragraph.
And possibly its repeat in paragraph 1.33.
“THE BALANCE OF EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO GENERAL RISK TO THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE LIVING NEAR BASE STATIONS ON
THE BASES THAT EXPOSURES ARE EXPECTED TO BE SMALL FRACTIONS OF GUIDELINES”
It is repeated again and again in isolation.
All the “However” paragraphs: 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21 do not exist.
Just have a look at the journal on this page: “James Story”
And John O´Hanlon writes: We moved into our house 2000.
Professor Stewart had just released his report which assured us that there would be no ill effects living near a Mobile Mast!
What a disaster this was for the young couple.
Believing Professor Stewart!
You will recall that Baby James, just as baby Kind (Journal Christine Kind aus Dresden), did not put on weight when exposed to UMTS radiation.
Only when removed from UMTS did they gain weight normally. THAT IS SCARY!
And nothing has changed!
Paragraph 1.17 (1.33) are still the whole report.
Quoted again and again. In isolation! By Planners, By Oprators, By Prime Ministers and their Deputies
In my High Court case, Hutchison expert witness, Dr. Philip Chadwick, quoted it 3 times in Bold Letters in his witness statement.
The rest of his report which the High Court Judge “Ate Raw”, was black talk gibberish. (I will give you a sample later, when I get to the court case).
But these 3 Bold Letter quotes stood out like a Neon sign.
That is the tried and tested propaganda method: Repeat lies often enough and the lie will turn into the accepted truth.
Well, I am getting hot and angry, and I better cool off a bit.
And this wretched report travels well!
Last year the 5 Nordic Countrie´s Radiation Prevention Boards made a joint statement. About the potential health implications of Mobile Antenna upon
Their conclusion, yeah you guessed it!
Paragraph §1.17 of the Stewart report!
So the Stewart report is the weapon used by authority, against populations.
I know that Professor Stewart (beginning of 2005) published a comment to his own report, where he urges precaution when siting base stations
(he did that in the original report as well) but nobody paid attention.
And nobody is paying attention now.
The damage has been done.
Let us return to the Worcester Planning Committee meeting 090103.
I had noticed a man sitting next to the committee chairman (the then Mayor Rowden) leaning over to Mr. Rowden and tugging his sleeve while I was talking.
I found out that this was Stuart McNidder, Director of Development in Worcester, who together with Peter Yates are probably the real power in Worcester.
3 days before the meeting McNidder had PASSED THE PLANNING PERMISSION in the local paper and at the same time quoted the other
(other than §1.17) favorite: From the PPG8: § 6.1: Planning permission refusal on health and safety issues cannot be sustained on appeal!
Of course it can, especially now where NRPB accepts that 3G radiation contains harmful elements to humans, and it could then.
So what was happening?
McNidder had not performed memorably in the 2 refusals sited next to the new housing developments (Diglis and “The Albion”, see above)
but here he was, all frantic, when the committee was being swayed towards a refusal.
You will have to bear with my longwindedness, but what happened next is very significant and I will be grateful if others, who might have observed
similar behavior, come forward and contact me.
When the committee voted on the planning permission application there was an equal number of committee members for and against.
Chairman Rowden then said: I will use my casting vote against (the planning permission).
If Mr. Petursson is right, are we liable?
(This as far as I know, has been erased from the minutes of the meeting).
As I thought I had done a really good job, I left the meeting and spoke to Committee Administrator Ms. Ann Perry on my way out.
She informed me that the planning application refusal was final, and the mast would have to be re-applied if the applicant did not agree.
Next day in the Worcester Evening News I saw the report from the meeting that the committee “Was Minded To Refuse” the application.
NOT that it HAD been refused as I had been informed, but “Minded to Refuse”.
I contacted Ms. Ann Perry and queried the report.
She repeated that the REFUSAL was FINAL and the mast had to be re-applied.
I believed her which was to prove fatal, because I did not start my petition against the mast there and then!
I relaxed waiting for the re-application.
What an Idiot I was.
On a meeting the 300103 the mast was alive and kicking.
Peter Yates had taken over the reins, suggested some design alterations to the applicant, who happily asked for those same design ideas to be
considered, whereby the re-application was not necessary because it was not the same mast!
After a lecture from Peter Yates, that an appeal would “Cost Taxpayer Money” and Health Implications were not permissible and pointing out to the
meeting that I was in the audience, Councillor Allah Ditta moved that the mast be permitted as there had been no protests other than mine.
Gosh, what an idiot I was.
And what an idiot I felt!
Again I did not know it then, but my life altered irrevocably that day.
Why did Ann Perry misinform me?
To pacify me?
Truth is, I do not think that Ms. Perry lied to me.
I actually think she was the only truthful person in the whole sorry mess.
I forgot to mention that the applicant, via Ms. Louise Cook, of AAP Consult spoke to the committee and declared that there were no alternative
sites for a mast in our part in Worcester.
I have already been through this chapter with Mr. Wilby of Hutchison, so we know why there were no alternatives.
Ms. Louise Cook is (or was) a Bounty Hunter paid a flat fee for persuading Mr. Thatcher the landlord of “The Little Sauce Factory” pub,
to host a mast and a base station.
More to follow.
|This entry has 3 comments. Click here to view comments. Click here to write a comment.|