Just received a letter from a Vodafone contractor that they propose to erect a mast at the end of our street.
Any idea what is the most effective way to object to this apart from a letter to the company and our local councillor? All our neighbours intend to do the same, but I somehow have a feeling that we will not be taken seriously...
TIA.
The councils planning department?
Out of interest why do you object, you do realise that as a mobile phone user you are at more risk with less signal, and also that a mast is not dangerous?
Is it ugly - if so why not ask for one that looks like a tree \ lampost
personally I would welcome a mast nearby on t-mobile at least. Sam
sounds like NIMBY
In message , JoeJoe writes
I wish Orange would put one at the end of my street! Why do you wish to object?
Have you seen the plans yet and does it look unattractive, a lot of masts are quite inconspicuous these days and therefore don't really pose a problem. If you don't like the idea of the RF at the end of your street then please try and find some factual evidence rather than the vast amount of hearsay and hysterical comment to back up your worries. If you do find some please post a reference to it here as I have seen very little that would stand up to any technical scrutiny.
True.
In message , Garlic writes
I could think of other descriptions but NIMBY will suffice in a public group!
My advice would be for you & your neighbours to form a protest commitee. Top of your agenda should be to cancel all your mobile contracts, then contact BT and ask them to install a public telephone box at th other end of your street.
Give it a year & then compare which has created more problems, the telephone mast or the telephone box!
Don.
Have no sympathy for mast objectors and their scare tactics. They should only be allowed to complain if they throw away their own mobile phones first, which produce signals which are magnitudes more powerful in the human head than those from the masts.
Having a mast close by is actually better for phone users, as it reduces the output power from their handsets in that vicinity!
Why do you want to object? Do you own a mobile? Do other members of your family own them? Do you expect them to work in resedential areas?
They've been promising a main Voda / T Mobile BTS around the corner from me on the Water company building for the last 3 years, but NIMBYs like you keep scotching it, can I have yours?
You do realise that you receive more non ionised radiation in 30 seconds from the sun, than you would in a life time from that BTS
Steve Terry
| Just received a letter from a Vodafone contractor that they propose to erect | a mast at the end of our street. | | Any idea what is the most effective way to object to this apart from a | letter to the company and our local councillor? All our neighbours intend | to do the same, but I somehow have a feeling that we will not be taken | seriously...
Get everyone in your area to stop using mobile phones. If there are no phones in the area there will be no need for masts.
In article , JoeJoe writes
What sort of mast is it?.
Why do you want to object?.
Do you or yours use mobile phones?.
How far is it from human habitation?.
Basically, there are not many grounds on which you can object. Health concerns will be immediately dismissed from consideration as that is the word from the govt... Should a mast conform to IC levels, health may NOT be considered my the planning officer/committee. In fact, with a mobile phone mast, planning permission is almost an assumed thing. The planning dept. only have 54 days to respond to an application of "prior notoification". If the dept. do not respond in that time the erector may go ahead regardless of any subsequent objections from the planning dept. They also don't need to apply for planning permission as such. As I said above, they apply under "prior notification". This application may result in a full planning application being required, but this is rare. The only ground I remember for this being the outcome round here were where they wanted to put a mast outside a university's chemistry department and the university were concerned of the effects on sensitive equipment housed in the department. The second one was on the grounds that insufficient screening of the base station had been provided.
Obviously, however, each application would be determined on its own merits. Your best bet is to speak to the planning officer involved in the application and see what they say and what their opinion on any grounds to object would be. Remember, these people should be highly trained in this sort of thing and so can offer the best advice.
If only.. At best they usually come from some surveying company, or even are ex estate agents and know didly squat about RF and engineering;((
What makes me laugh the most is that people don't object to TV and radio masts, some of which have a power of 1,000,000Watts!
BTS stations are a MINISCULE % of that, I dunno the exact amount of power, but I'm presuming 5-10W?
So, if you're going to object to a mobile mast, firstly throw out all your mobiles from your house, object to the mast, then while you're at it, form a pressure group to have the TV and radio masts in your area cut down also for good measure.
It's whingers like you that stop progress. If you don't like it, move to Cambodia!
Simon
In article , Simon Ough writes
The are very few transmitters with outputs of that magnitude most are considerably less that that. RF power of that level whether broadcast radio or TV transmission will have aerial arrays arranged so that the absolute minimum of power is sent into the ground locally, the aim is exactly that, towards the distant horizon and thats why the aerial stack will be several hundred feet above the ground. TV stations also operate at frequencies below those used by mobile bast stations as well.
With very rare exception they are also mounted on hilltop sites in remote areas. So no real comparison really. I would be far more concerned about a poorly located mobile base where this is one of the newer variety masquerading as a phone pole or similar placed at the same level as someone's bedroom nearby.
I'm unsure of the exact levels but sitefinder gives some as 25 odd dBw some 300 odd watts with maximum licensed values more than that..
Thats really a luddite attitude to take. Mobile base stations are something we're going to have to live with, but they do need careful siting, but sometimes its cheaper to put them in "that" back yard rather than the "other" back yard hence the concerns......
I think you'll find most all eastern countries welcome mobile phone tech with open arms.....
GSM coverage in Cambodia is growing rapidly. He'd have to move to a rural area to avoid coverage.
I don't believe your suggestion is a reasonable one. Too much upheaval just to avoid radio waves. Aluminium foil hats are a cheap and effective way of shielding one's brain, and allow the user to lead a normal life while being fully protected.
Phone them up (preferably using your own mobile phone) and tell them that you don't want a mast in your back yard, that should do the trick.
NIMBY...
Don't laugh, complaints like that *have* happened !
They are trained in the art of town planning. Their background isn't all that relevant in some ways. And they don't need to know about RF to do their job. If they see the bit of paper that tells them the mast conforms to regulations in terms of its output, there is no need to consider that aspect further.
Essentailly, they know the planning guidance and policy regulations and appropriate documentation such as local plans and then make a decision based on compliance with those documents. In depth knowledge of RF and engineering are not really vital.
It would appear they do:
FWIW, I have some concerns about Tetra masts, but that's a different matter - they are being erected despite inadequate research into their safety.
Al
Even the UK-NRPB are now recommending a "cautionary approach", according to the following article in one of the phone industries leading magazines:
"Swedish warn of mobile tumours The UK's National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) said that Swedish research indicating an increased risk of ear tumours from mobile phone use justifies a "cautionary approach".
Researchers at The Karolinska Institute in Stockholm said that 10 years or more use of mobiles doubles the chance of acoustic neuroma, a benign growth.
Dr Michael Clarke of the NRPB said: "This is an excellent Institute with top epidemiologists so it [the research] is definitely of note. But as the authors themselves say, the result is suggestive rather than conclusive."
"It does justify the maintenance of a cautionary approach to the use of mobile phones, particularly by children, as we cannot tell what we might learn tomorrow."
Acoustic neuroma is relatively rare and slow growing, affecting perhaps one in 100,000 adults.
The research results were based on 150 acoustic neuroma patients and
600 healthy controls. However, the Karolinska study was confined to analogue phones, and the group cannot determine the long term effects of digital handsets.Karolinska's research is part of the World Health Organisation's Interphone study, and was funded by the EU's Fifth Framework Programme, the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum and the GSM Association.
Further research is underway, said the GSM Association. "We have an ongoing commitment to research in this area," said a spokesman. "No single study is definitive and this research contributes to the total body of evidence."
The GSM Association has contributed ?1.75m to the Interphone study."
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.