«First  ‹Previous   Page 3 of 747   Next›  Last» 

Proposal for 4G mast in Local Hero village scrapped
Scotland Created: 15 Jun 2020
Plans to construct a 4G internet mast in Pennan have been thrown out - The village, which featured in the movie Local Hero, had been mooted as a location to build the structure.

However, the proposal for the eight-metre mast was refused by councillors last year and the Scottish Government has now removed it from its Scottish 4G Infill Programme.

The pole was planned to be built next to the village's community hall in a conservation area.

Councillor Glen Reynolds said: "I am delighted that thanks to the Scottish Government, the proposal to have a phone mast in Pennan is now off the table.

"This was always an issue about where such a sizeable structure was placed in a relatively small and enclosed space.

"However, our coastal villages do need regeneration – especially now – and I agree with those who want measures taken to ensure that our coastal communities are dynamic, sustainable villages with properties that are lived in and with access to digital and mobile connectivity, empowering more people to live, stay and work from places like Pennan.

"With all of those issues, ultimately and in a post Covid world, Pennan has to be a welcoming, inclusive place capable of raising bairns and promoting business activity from home, and sharing in the idyllic surroundings our coast has to offer.

"But this proposal meant having a mast in a conservation area and I always felt it would dominate the landscape and was too close to the community hall, so I was against it.

"Many in the village have access to mobile phone signals and other technology through Wi-Fi and superfast broadband.

"Visitors and tourists need good communication too, so I hope that a way will be found to address this but a mast as planned, would have been overbearing.

"The village already has its iconic phone box – we didn’t need a phone mast to be a blot on the beautiful landscape that is Pennan."

Related news:
May 2019, United Kingdom: Local Hero village of Pennan phone mast refused by councillors
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Grampian Online, Kyle Ritchie, 14 Jun 2020

State nets €10m from mobile phone operators’ use of masts on public buildings
Ireland Created: 5 Jun 2020
Garda stations providing most facilities with Fitzgibbon St station in Dublin alone generating €185k since 2018.

The State has earned almost €10 million in income from mobile phone operators for the use of masts on Garda stations and other public buildings.

Since 2018 the masts have generated €9,786,707 for State coffers from 162 Garda stations and 18 other buildings.

Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy said it is ironic that the biggest income from a single station is from Fitzgibbon Street station in Dublin’s north inner city “which apart from a very small section, isn’t functioning as a Garda station. While it’s closed it’s still earning an income because of the very large mast at the back of the station”.

Mobile phone mast income from the station is worth €185,000 since the start of 2018. Ms Murphy said that Stepaside station in south Dublin was closed for a number of years but continued to generate income, worth over €169,000 since 2018.

“The reason they don’t require planning permission is because they are Garda stations but if they’re functioning without that, that is an issue in its own right.”

The information on income for the State was supplied in response to a parliamentary question to Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Paschal Donohoe.

Mr Donohoe said the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland grant licences to mobile network operators to install telecommunications equipment on State property, primarily Garda telecommunication structures and the rooftops of other OPW buildings. A standard licence agreement sets out the terms and conditions under which mobile phone operators are permitted to locate on State property.

Stations in the Dublin area generated most income with Fitzgibbon Street and Stepaside followed by Mountjoy station in the north inner city where mast income was worth €167,576 since 2108. Balbriggan station earned €148,872 and Lucan Garda station mast income was valued at €164,000.
Smaller towns

Incomes decreased the more rural the station and a number of smaller towns and villages generated annual incomes of around €7,000.

Ms Murphy acknowledged that this was “good income coming into the State and I think that goes directly to the OPW rather than going into the Garda coffers – but it is income on foot of there being Garda stations”.

Ms Murphy said the bigger incomes in the Dublin area were accounted for because it is difficult to find locations to put masts.

Some rural areas “may well have the mast on a local GAA club or soccer pitch so it means that there isn’t the same pressure on the Garda station and it may well account for why the Dublin stations have a greater income”.

Mobile phone masts are also located at Dublin Castle, the Met Éireann building and the Phoenix Park among other OPW locations.
Source: Irish Times, Marie O'Halloran, 01 Jun 2020

New 20m Three 5G mast cannot be built on grassy land as planned, Bolton Council rules
United Kingdom Created: 5 Jun 2020
A NEW 5G mast would be a “wholly incongruous” and “dominant” feature in the neighbourhood, planners have ruled as an application for a 20-metre phone mast in Great Lever has been thrown out by the local authority.

Planning permission for a telecommunications monopole on the grassy land in Green Lane, known locally as “bus island”, has been refused by Bolton Council.

Mobile network operator Hutchinson 3G UK, commonly known as Three, is in the process of selecting sites for new phone masts in the Bolton area and has submitted a series of applications for different locations across the borough.

But planning officers ruled that this 20-metre mast and base cabinet would appear as a “wholly incongruous” and “dominant” feature that would be harmful to the residential setting and out of scale with its surroundings.

Speaking in April, Andy Brabin, who lives nearby described the proposed mast, which would be twice the height of adjacent properties, as a “visual intrusion”.

As a boy, the Boscobel Road resident used to sell copies of the Bolton Evening News from the selected spot in Green Lane which used to be a bus terminus.

Mr Brabin has now welcomed the “sensible” decision by Bolton Council to refuse planning permission for prior approval of the mast.

He said: “This mast would have been totally out of place and have a negative impact on the amenity of the area.

“I recognise that these masts are needed but to place it in such a prominent position in the heart of a residential area is not appropriate.”

Applications for 20-metre telecommunication monopoles have been submitted to Bolton Council for sites in Chorley New Road near a Texaco garage in Horwich and in Deane Church Lane, next to ASDA in Daubhill.

WHP Telecoms Ltd has also written to councillors in Kearsley on behalf of Three inviting them to enter discussions before it submits plans for a mast in front of Kearsley Mount Shopping Precinct in Manchester Road.

Planning consultant Damian Hosker, submitted the application for the mast in Green Lane, Great Lever to Bolton Council on behalf of Three on April 1.

In a letter to the local authority, he said: “The location has been identified as being necessary for H3G Ltd business development and meets its specific technical and operational requirements.

“The identification of this location follows pre-application discussion with your department and we now make a formal application to you as planning authority.”

The applicant has six months to appeal the decision by Bolton Council.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Bolton News, Joseph Timan, 30 May 2020

Three 5G mast rejected as council says plans would harm regeneration
United Kingdom Created: 5 Jun 2020
Plans for a 20 metre tall 5G mast in Merseyside have been rejected over fears it would harm a local regeneration effort.

The mast, which would have been built just off Conway Street in Birkenhead, Wirral, was said to be "unsightly" and "detrimental" to the character of the local area due to its scale by Wirral Council.

The local authority was also concerned the mast would harm huge plans to regenerate Birkenhead, due to its size and “prominent location” within the regeneration site.

5G has been a controversial topic of late, with campaigners who oppose the technology promoting conspiracy theories linking it to coronavirus without any evidence.

Earlier this week a 5G mast in Mossley Hill, Liverpool, was destroyed in a fire and a video showing another 5G mast on fire in the city was shared on social media last month. Plans for a 20 metre tall 5G mast in Merseyside have been rejected over fears it would harm a local regeneration effort.

The mast, which would have been built just off Conway Street in Birkenhead, Wirral, was said to be "unsightly" and "detrimental" to the character of the local area due to its scale by Wirral Council.

The local authority was also concerned the mast would harm huge plans to regenerate Birkenhead, due to its size and “prominent location” within the regeneration site.

5G has been a controversial topic of late, with campaigners who oppose the technology promoting conspiracy theories linking it to coronavirus without any evidence.

Earlier this week a 5G mast in Mossley Hill, Liverpool, was destroyed in a fire and a video showing another 5G mast on fire in the city was shared on social media last month.

Shortly before that incident, Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson blasted 5G conspiracy theories as “bizarre” and added: "How can anyone contemplate relating putting a 5G mast up in Liverpool causes coronavirus?

“The very idea that Covid-19 was created by 5G is patently nonsense.”

Scientists and other officials, including the World Health Organisation have debunked the 5G Covid-19 theory, stating it is not possible for the virus to be transmitted by electomagnetic radiation.

Three, the company behind this plan, said the new mast in Birkenhead was needed to deliver an “essential” improvement in 5G connectivity in the area.

Explaining the choice of location, Three’s planning documents stated: “Mobile phone base stations operate on a low power and accordingly base stations therefore need to be located in the areas they are required to serve.

“Increasingly, people are also using their mobiles in their homes and this means we need to position base stations in, or close to, residential areas.”

The document also stated that while the planned height of the mast was 20 metres, this has been “kept down to the absolute minimum capable of providing the required essential new 5G coverage”.

It was not possible to simply upgrade an existing mast site to accommodate the 5G mast, because higher radio frequencies used for 5G do not travel as far as those frequencies currently in use and sometimes existing sites do not have the capacity to be upgraded.

To deliver the higher frequency Three said there was an “acute need” for a new mast.

The proposal was rejected for reasons of appearance.

On this, Three’s document said: “The proposed works on this existing site would qualify as a visual change to the area, but are necessary to ensure improved delivery of service [and] would respect and continue to maintain the appearance of the area.”

Three insisted that the plan “would not result in demonstrable harm to the character of the immediate or wider area”.

But Wirral Council disagreed.

The local authority’s letter of rejection, read: “The proposed mast and associated equipment will appear as unsightly features in a prominent location and would therefore, by reason of its scale and siting, have a detrimental and adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.”

The plan’s potential impact on efforts to regenerate Birkenhead was also given as a reason for rejection by the council.

Wirral Council’s letter added: “The proposed mast would be an unsightly feature within an extremely prominent location at the heart of the Birkenhead Town Centre regeneration site, and this would undermine the significantly advanced regeneration plans for this area.”

A spokesperson for Three said: “ 5G rollout is vital for residents and business of Wirral. We want to offer the local area a great network experience and our planners determined that a new site was required to deliver it. We will work with the council to find a way forwards.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Liverpool Echo, George Morgan, 29 May 2020

Beware of “False Flag” anti-5G demonstrations
Australia Created: 5 Jun 2020
The term “False Flag” is defined as a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

After looking at a recent (May 10) demonstration against vaccinations/ COVID -19 restrictions/ and 5G conspiracies, etc., which took place in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart (see media reporting below), I’m wondering just who these supposed demonstrators were and who organised the coordinated events.

Rag tag hastily written signs with the usual mixture of radical looking protesters. A real win for the telco industry as it effectively gives the general public the impression that concerns over 5G are in the looney bin, not to be taken seriously.

Now, if I were working for whatever professional PR firm has been tasked by the federal government to spend that $ 9 million budget to convince the Australian public that 5G is safe, this is exactly what I would do:

Set up a “rent a crowd” ( https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/now-you-can-officially-rent-a-crowd/7534346) pay and dress them suitably with crappy signs and a script and then let them loose in front of a prominent parliament building and make sure the media is there in force, for a professional PR firm, working the media is a no brainer!

It is also absolutely vital to contact genuine protest groups and encourage them to join in the “protest” in order to pack out the crowd so that it looks like the real thing. The more radical the better….

Then sit back and enjoy the circus!

It is an unfortunate fact that some genuine protest groups are blind to tactics that can be used to discredit their cause. So, for people concerned about 5G BEWARE.

Essential reading here is my favourite: Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and The Public Relations Industry by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton


Here’s a spattering of some of the extensive media reporting on the May 10 demonstration:

1) From the Guardian: “Australian anti-vaxxers label Covid-19 a ‘scam’ and break distancing rules at anti-5G protests” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/30/australian-anti-vaxxers-label-covid-19-a-scam-and-break-distancing-rules-at-anti-5g-protests

2) From Perth Now: “Hundreds of anti-vaccination protesters have defied social-distancing measures at rallies across Australia.Protesters claiming the COVID-19 pandemic was a “scam” gathered at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Melbourne on Saturday, and carried signs declaring they were against vaccines and 5G technology.Their placards stated “5G — communism“, “COVID 1984” and “our ignorance is their strength”.

3) The ABC News: “coronavirus ‘changes the game’ for the anti-vaccination movement”

4) The Conversation: “Coronavirus anti-vaxxers aren’t a huge threat yet. How do we keep it that way?“

5) The Daily Mail: “COVID-19 is a scam, no mandatory vaccines and 5G equals communism: Inside Australia’s WEIRDEST protest ever where demonstrators flouted social distancing and even the horses had anti-virus protective gear”https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8371699/Bizarre-protests-against-vaccinations-5G-place-Australia.html

6) Again from the Daily Mail: “Protesters clash with cops during wild rally against tough lockdown laws – as frustrated residents are joined by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who blame 5G for COVID-19” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8304393/Hundreds-anti-vaxxers-clash-police-protest-Melbournes-CBD.html

7) The Sydney Morning Herald: “AMA urges health education to combat ‘growing’ anti-vaxxer movement” https://www.smh.com.au/national/act-now-ama-urges-health-education-to-combat-growing-anti-vaxxer-movement-20200525-p54w7b.html

8) The Australian: “Coronavirus: Our loony protesters are among the looniest”

9) The Daily Mercury: “We don’t consent’: Dramatic scenes at anti-lockdown protest: Anti-lockdown and anti-vax protesters have caused chaos in Melbourne today.” https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/we-dont-consent-dramatic-scenes-anti-lockdown-prot/4012592/
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EMFacts, Don Maisch PhD, 04 Jun 2020

URGENT: 5G Judicial Review 2020 - 15 days to reach £50,000 (£38,514 pledged already).
United Kingdom Created: 20 May 2020
I am a solicitor - I became involved in understanding the harmful health impact of 5G when a member of my community alerted me to an application to put a mast on the building opposite her apartment.

This page is against wireless 5G, radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”) and electromagnetic fields (“EMFs”) generally due to their impact on the health of humans, animals and plants.

Many people are sensitive to RFR and EMFs and suffer illness, distress and financial loss due to inability to work. The balance of scientific evidence is now clear that RFR/EMFs are harmful to humans.

The UK government insist on using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set limits of radiation for public health. ICNIRP’s guidelines are not fit for purpose as, among other things, they only recognise harm from heating of the body and are set for short term exposure – 6 minutes in fact. Many people suffer harm without any heating of their bodies.

5G is the fifth generation of RFR technology used in the mobile telecoms industry and follows 1G – 4G. It dwarfs RFR from 1G – 4G because millions more masts, antennae, small cells, picocells etc have to be placed at short distances apart all around the country in order to develop the infrastructure to deliver the data speed promised by 5G.

The current electrosmog from 1G – 4G will become significantly worse and it is likely to result in more harm to humans, animals, trees and pollinators.

Many people have tried to engage with the government and its agencies, including Public Health England, over the last few years in an attempt to persuade them that their existing policies are harmful to human, animal and plant health. The government rejects such approaches and insists on its adherence to ICNIRP’s guidelines. It has removed health concerns from the National Planning Policy Framework, thereby removing the ability of its citizens from raising such concerns at local council level. Its Electronic Communications Code has limited the rights of its citizens to object to equipment being put on their land. It has permitted the proliferation of RFR gadgets used by babies and children without constraint.

*SNIP* read the complete text at the source link below...

Click here to view the source article.
Source: CrowdJustice, Jessica Learmond-Criqui, 17 May 2020

Luxembourg Govt. to Debate 5G Deployment and Health Effects
Luxembourg Created: 13 May 2020
A Message from Citizens of Luxembourg who have been working to raise awareness of the health and environmental effects of 5G.

“Here is what we made happen:

– on Friday April, 24th our petition claiming to permanently stop the deployment of the 5G in Luxembourg was open for on-line signatures on the website of the Chambre des députés (our local Parliament). In only 4 days (!!!) we collected the necessary number of signatures to provoque a public debate in the Parliament between our citizen’s collective and the members of the Government about the 5G deployment. We will be detailing in front of the Parliament the arguments that lead us to ask the government to give up the 5G deployment and will debate with them about it. We will of course keep you posted on the outcome of that debate (at the earliest by mid-June).

– on Saturday April, 25th, rallying the 2nd global protest day, we published on our FB page the e-mail addresses of all our local MPs & of the members of the government and a letter detailing the risks involved in deploying the 5G tech, reminding them all that they are the representatives of the people, that their duty is to preserve the health of the population and that, in case of doubt, it is their specific duty to apply the precautionary principle and to stop the deployment of the 5G.

We then asked all our followers to mail the letter to all of the MP and, despite the fact that we don’t know exactly how many sent it, they must have been quite a lot as some MPs moaned on their FB profiles about people spamming their mailbox with anti-5G messages, treating them as ignorant fools

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EHTrust, 13 May 2020

Jersey City Council postpones 5G utility pole installation
USA Created: 10 May 2020
The Jersey City Council has unanimously tabled an ordinance to approve the upgrade and installation of 72 utility poles which the council says will include 5G technology after members of the public spoke against the ordinance.

The critics cited a lack of transparency, lack of notice, and lack of information as well as data expressing concerns on the possible health ramifications the technology could have on residents despite the Federal Communications Commission’s ruling that the technology is safe.

Resident and registered nurse Lucille Shah said she was against 5G utility pole installation.

“My children’s bedroom faces the street, and they can potentially be sleeping just a few feet away from a 5G tower,” she said, noting that the World Health Organization has yet to issue an opinion on the possible health impacts of the technology.

She said that several European countries have halted their installation until more studies have been concluded.

Resident and former councilman Chris Gadsden said that residents have not been notified that the utility poles would be coming to their neighborhoods.

“I just want to caution and hold up on the installation of these towers because just like how we notify the community of CCTV camera installations, and different construction projects, and street paving, I just think we need to afford the public the same courtesy,” he said, saying that the new towers will primarily be installed in Ward A and Ward F, possibly near senior citizen homes and apartment complexes, without residents being made aware of it.

Resident Esther Wintner also pushed for the council to hold off on the ordinance because people were preoccupied with the current the public health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nick Strasser of the city’s law department quoted federal law stating, “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate placement construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent such facilities comply with the commissions regulations concerning such emissions.”

“Simply put, the FCC has reviewed this and deemed the equipment in this ordinance to be safe to the public, and Congress has given the FCC exclusive jurisdiction to determine what is safe and is not and has prevented states and municipalities from individually deciding what is safe and is not from an emissions standpoint on this equipment,” he said.

Several council members voiced their frustration over seemingly having their hands tied. Council President Joyce Watterman asked Strasser whether the council could send a resolution or letter to the federal government to express their concerns.

“It’s always within the Council’s jurisdiction resolution to send a resolution to Congressmen Albio Sires and Donald Payne, and the U.S. Senators from New Jersey, to notify them of your frustration with the state of the federal law, you always have that ability,” Strasser said.

He also explained that the city still has the ability to restrict certain aspects of the installation itself.

“What you can’t do is say it is on the basis of the emissions coming from the equipment, because the FCC has already reviewed that from a safety standpoint and said that it is safe,” said Strasser. “But what the city does have the ability to do is to regulate the fees as it does in here or the engineering review of the individual towers… the city also has the ability to decide where they go from a public safety standpoint” if they are to close to fire hydrant or driveway, for example.

He added that the council can also have a say when it comes to the design of the poles, especially in historic neighborhoods, because they would have to comply with the historic requirements of any historic preservation district.

According to Business Administrator Brian Platt, the vendor will have to notify residents who are within 200 feet of a utility pole instillation site before they are installed.

That notification will include information regarding the technology’s safety.

“Council people spent the last month trying figure out what to do with this, and its bad to think the FCC is in control of what we do here in Jersey City,” said Councilman Jermaine Robinson. “I want to put people first and make sure they know exactly what’s going on here in our city.”

Council President Joyce Watterman urged members of the public to petition and write letters to their state and federal leaders expressing their concerns.

Ultimately, the council decided to table the ordinance to further explore their options after Platt noted that the council has 150 days to make a decision on the ordinance.

The ordinance will return before the council on final reading on May 20th.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Hudson Reporter, Marilyn Baer, 08 May 2020

UK Legal action against 5G
United Kingdom Created: 10 May 2020
We are groups of individuals nationwide, including doctors, scientists and engineers, supported by a strong team of lawyers headed by Michael Mansfield QC, who have joined forces to commence legal proceedings to challenge the UK government’s failure to take sufficient notice of clearly identified health and safety risks of wireless radiation and the increased exposure from the deployment of 5G.

The risks are foreseeable and preventable, current standards are not fit for purpose and obsolete. The case concerns defending our fundamental right to privacy and protection from experimentation.

*SNIP* Visit the website, here: https://actionagainst5g.org/
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Action Against 5G, 10 May 2020

If all roofs were developed as ‘green’ what would happen with the phone masts?
United Kingdom Created: 9 May 2020
I WRITE in support of the tenants and residents of Haddo House, who are currently living with the threat of having mobile phone masts placed on the roof of their Camden Council owned block.

In several similar cases, namely Chester Court, Lissenden Gardens, Winifred Paul House and Monmouth House, such plans were ditched after meeting very strong opposition.

In the case of Monmouth, the mobile phone masts that were planned for our roof eventually appeared on the roof of a commercial premises just past the main entrance to Regis Road industrial estate on a building that has the words Kentish Town written on its side in large graffiti.

If you took mobile phone mast law at face value, it would tell you that the mobile phone firms can choose to put their masts on any roof, whether the property owner likes it or not, unless the owner has the intention to develop their roof.

I still maintain Camden could end all threat of mobile phone masts being placed on its residential buildings by proving that its green credentials are more than just talk through implementing a programme of developing all its roofs as green roofs.

That said, if the opposition is strong enough, these firms will find an alternative site on a non-residential building.

I would urge any TRA that is under threat from having such masts placed on their roofs to read the many letters written by myself and others on this whole subject in recent months in the CNJ Letters section.

The dates and letters are as follows: in 2019 (Act now on mobile phone masts, May 2), (Are we living amid danger that we don’t understand? May 9), (New dangers with the roll-out of 5G, May 16) and (concerned), (Why the silence on mobile phone masts? May 30), (Waves are worrying, June 6), (Phone masts questions, July 4), (Stop these phone masts, July 11), (Signals safety first, please, August 1), (Danger signals for the 5G roll-out, August 8), (Scrap digital rooftops programme, September 19), (Scrap the 5G programme, October 10), (5G safety is not assured, October 31), and, on January 9 2020, Never mind phone masts, let’s green our rooftops.

Raglan Street, NW5
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Camden New Journal, LOUIS LOIZOU, 08 May 2020

«First  ‹Previous   Page 3 of 747   Next›  Last»