«Latest  ‹Forward   News item: 3554  Back›  Oldest» 

Residents unite against proposed phone mast (w. comments)
United Kingdom Created: 24 Oct 2008
KEMSING residents have come out in force to oppose plans to install a phone mast in the village (and even Ben "Bad Science" Goldacre comes out to rubbish their health concerns).

Telefónica UK, on behalf of mobile phone giant O2, is on the verge of submitting a planning application for a 3G mast on a grass area on the corner of West End and Childsbridge Lane.

But Rod Wakefield, who runs the newsagents in Dynes Road, said many residents are opposed to the plans.

"I have lots of people coming in telling me about it and how much they don't want it," he said.

"People don't want a telephone mast right outside their front door."

Letters dated October 6 from O2 have been dropped through residents' doors giving them 14 days to make comments on the proposal before a planning application is made.

The company said it has two choices: to increase an existing 12.5m mast in the village by five metres, or to apply for a new mast in a different location.

Mr Wakefield has compiled a petition of residents who oppose the mast and says his list has more than 150 signatures on it.

"People just don't want it, it is right on a dangerous junction," he said.

He said that many residents were also worried about the health risks of mobile phone masts.

A study by scientists at the University of Essex last year concluded that the average person does not suffer adverse consequences from being exposed to mobile phone radiation bases.

---> (Our comment: This article fails to identify that the Essex study was in fact a replication of the Dutch TNO study with regard to 3G signal exposure leading to decreased well-being. At the Radiation Research Trust conference in London, Professor Michael Kundi showed that sensitive subjects in the Essex study had significantly increased symptoms when subjected to a 3G signal compared to "sham" exposure. Also, the exposure timespan in the Essex study was very short compared to the 24 hour exposure you get from living near a operational mobile-phone mast. <---

Science journalist for The Guardian, Ben Goldacre, told the Chronicle that while there is no evidence to support claims that masts do harm people the perceived threat can still have an effect.

He said: "If masts are ugly, or simply make people anxious, or reduce the value of their houses because of perceived health risks, then those are all still perfectly fair reasons for local residents to campaign on the issue.

"I can very much see why people worry about them."

Mr Goldacre added that people are more exposed to signals by using a phone than by being near a mast.

--> (Our comment: this is a caveat because the intermittent head & hand exposure situation from mobile-phone usage is not comparable to full-body around-the-clock exposure from a mobile-phone mast. You simply can't assume that the difference in power-level from phone & mast is the only factor. <--

Spokesman for O2 James Stevenson said the company was left with little choice but to make the application.

He said: "This is required due to the amount of traffic we are getting down there at the moment.

"There are a lot more customers for us in that area and there is a need for it."

He added the company was hoping to put in a planning application by the end of the week.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: thisiskent.co.uk, James Daly, 24 Oc 2008, w.comments by H. Eiriksson / mast-victims

«Latest  ‹Forward   News item: 3554  Back›  Oldest»