Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's a big mast, but there's a wide streak of hypocrisy running through the opposition since I'm assuming virtually all of the objectors have 4G mobile phones and wi-fi routers that are used in close proximity to themselves and their kids. The irony is that the closer to a mast a phone is the less power it has to use to maintain a signal, so being further from a mast can increase local exposure levels!


The health concerns are so much bunk, anyway. We are bombarded with non-ionizing EM waves from multiple technologies at all times. If one is REALLY worried about kids and radiation then best to keep them inside a darkened room at all times, since UV from the Sun can cause RNA damage in skin cells. We call it sunburn.

Aesthetic complaints about telephone masts are legitimate (but clearly subjective) - but, despite 'warnings' by bodies who have no understanding of physics or risk but are driven by the 'precautionary principle' - (if you never do anything, nobody can blame you) there is little evidence of any actual danger from masts (especially tall ones). We live in a district of hills and valleys - mobile phone signals are to some extent at least governed by line-of-site, so the taller the mast, the better the signal for those served by it (less likelihood of signal loss and attenuation associated with topology). The greatest risk from tall masts (as from any structure) would be storm damage - i.e. nothing to do with microwave radiation at all. As masts are built to resist high winds, (and are the sorts of structure that naturally do resist such problems) there is really nothing to worry about health wise.


People working very close (within perhaps no more than a meter, and probably much less) of the transmitters when active themselves might need to be careful (and they are) - a 25 meter tower by definition excludes all 'passers-by' from any risk at all - much greater risks come from e.g. solar radiation, or indeed the natural radioactivity of granite - if you have granite in your house. As noted by Chick and Healey - the phone (for mobile users) is the risky area (if there is any risk, and longitudinal studies suggest not) - better signal from the masts will reduce this for users. In fact, having a mast near schools is evidentially beneficial for children, whose phone will be emitting that much less radiation than if they are struggling to pick up a signal.

Hi P68,

There is plenty of evidence they can do harm. Which is why their is a maximum level of phone signals allowed.

It has been an important consideratino when I was planning a mobile network eons ago.


But yes healey we need to ensure suitable localions. But outside schools isn't one of them. These poles are 50cm diameter with 6 large street cabinets. we're not talking aobut something that can be disguised as a lamp post.


Hi Villager,

Then you should respond to the application saying this. Even better if you can suggest an alternative location not outside a school.

James


There are still disputes about this, but one of the most recent reports (and full, being longitudinal) studies http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/02/11-year-mthr-study-finds-danger-wireless-mobile-phone-radiation.html does not confirm your views - which were clearly based on evidence 'eons ago' in your own words.


Two years previously http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/26/mobile-phone-radiation-health and http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/cancercontroversies/mobilephones/mobile-phones-and-cancer picked up on the initiating research and also poured doubt on a risk link with mobile phones.


Arguments about children's use of mobiles (a different issue) are not yet fully resolved, although there are no contrary indications as yet.


So I would suggest that you do not rely on your memory on this one - look at recent, full (large sample, preferably longitudinal) studies to inform you.

James thank you for your support. The 73 people who have lodged objections since this was bought to the local schools and communities attention on Monday are worried about a range of issues not just the health issues. These issues are:


1.There has not been adequate consultation with the local community, no information has been posted to local residents and have not seen any evidence of pre-planning consultation.

As part of the Mobile Operators Association's 10 commitments, they are supposed to consult the community before the planning application is lodged and when the proposed mast is in or near a school, undertake extra public consultation and contact the school's governing body.


2. This is the type of transmitter appropriate for rural locations with low population densities not for heavily populated urban environments with a high density of young children. The local area has 8 schools within 1km including: Judith Kerr, Half Moon Montessori nursery, Dulwich Hamlets, Dulwich Infants, Japs, JAGs, Charter, Herne Hill School, and Alleyns.


3. This junction is in constant use by young children on bikes, scooters and on foot as they move to and from schools and nursery. The proposed cabinets at street level will restrict a very busy pavement area (which was widened for safety reasons) and is very unhelpful in a residential area that is committed to working towards improving safe routes to school.


4. This mast would tower over the local mature trees and the proposed cabinets will have a significant negative impact on the aesthetics of the local area.

Penguin68

"In fact, having a mast near schools is evidentially beneficial for children, whose phone will be emitting that much less radiation than if they are struggling to pick up a signal."


I am not sure how many 2 to 4 year old children at Half Moon Montessori nursery opposite the site carry mobile phones or indeed how many 4 to 8 year olds at the Judith Kerr school next to the site have have mobile phones so I do not think this will be beneficial to these children'


The proposed site in next to a school and opposite a nursery so I don't think it is unreasonable to use the precautionary principle and choose to site the mast elsewhere.

Penguin68

The reports you highlight mostly cover mobile phone usage rather than masks so I don't know how relevant James would find them.


The recent report you highlight concludes by recommending further studies to look at the behavioural/neurological outcomes of mobile phone usage on children, as well as to examine other areas like its potential impact upon sleep and brain function among other things.


The two older reports from 2012 do not cover 4G technology but 3G and state:


"Scientists found no convincing proof that radio waves from mobile phones cause brain tumours or any other type of cancer, but cautioned that they had too little information to assess the risk beyond 15 years of usage."


"Some research reviewed by the group found that mobile phone radiation might cause subtle changes to low frequency brain waves that could be picked up by electroencephalograms (EEGs), but it was unclear whether the effects were consistent and had any health implications."


"In making recommendations for future research, the report emphasised a need to focus on new and emerging devices that emit radiofrequency radiation, and to gather more data on cancer risk among those who have used phones for more than 15 years."


The Cancer Research Uk site states:

"Mobile phones are a relatively recent invention. So far, studies have indicated that using these phones for about 10 years is unlikely to cause cancer. But we cannot be completely sure about their long-term effects. And there have not been enough studies looking at how mobile phone use could affect the health of children."


"Research is underway to fill both of these gaps in our knowledge. Until we get a conclusive answer, the Government recommends some precautions for people who have concerns."


" And children under the age of 16 should only use mobile phones for essential calls."

My main objection is that the proposed mast is 25m high - in the elevation plans it towers over the trees next to it. It will be a real blot on the skyline and street landscape. Surely there are more discrete sites where it could be located?

James Barber - you may be interested in a supporting letter by Councillor Anne Kirby which is included in part of the planning application:


Dear Lauren

Thank you for your information. I have no objection and one of the gripes of people living in this area is the lack of

speed when using the internet. I hope this will also help.

Regards

Anne

Councillor Anne Kirby

Labour Councillor for Village Ward

2. This is the type of transmitter appropriate for rural locations with low population densities not for heavily populated urban environments with a high density of young children.


I believe the choice of transmitter will have been driven by the topology, not the population density. Generally in dense urban areas you will put in a lot of relatively low range masts which assume very small cell sizes and a lot of hand-over - this was to take account of mobiles being, well, mobile. But now mobiles are used for a lot of fixed activity (particularly broadband) and there is a lot of local urban wireless access - so the issues of ED hills and valleys (like you have in rural locations) becomes a bigger design determinant. We need the tall mast so that we have fewer masts, but with better reach. The (much more expensive) alternative is lots of smaller masts with lower reach, and more complaints about poor or no signal - particularly important when you are talking about high bandwidth applications, as you are with 4G.


The issue of children (being effected by a 25m mast) is frankly irrelevant - there were (probably unfounded) concerns when some small masts were situated on the top of school buildings (with transmitters perhaps less than 3 meters from classrooms on the top floor) - but a 25m mast? It could be used as a maypole for school celebrations quite safely (structural integrity notwithstanding)

Let's be clear - there is no evidence that mobile phones or radiation from masts is damaging to health for adults or children. The most that can be said is that more research could be done, but that can be said about any technology or other phenomenon that is comparatively new. There similarly is no evidence that 4G is different from 3G in this respect. There are lots of reports out there, but this is the most recent one produced by the body specifically tasked in the UK to report on the issue:


http://www.mthr.org.uk/documents/MTHRreport2012.pdf


Any objections to the planning application based on purported health risks should be ignored - to do otherwise would expose the planning authority to a legal challenge based on irrationality/unreasonableness.


Edited to add - and James Barber (usually a voice of something approximating reason) should disqualify himself from any involvement on this one.

We all want mobile pones with good signals so these masts have to go somewhere in our local neighbourhood. I'm inclined to agree regarding the lack of evidence of danger given that billions of people use mobiles phones accross the globe and billions of people are not suffering health wise for it. People always object when these things go up in their back yard yet want the benefits these things bring. Can't have it both ways folks.

"DaveR


Objections are based on a range of issues and I see you have choosen not to address this."


Correct. I don't have a view on the other grounds for objection. I see that you did not choose to address them in your original post either, and then only did so when you got called out for your scientific illiteracy and/or deceptive scaremongering tactics.


If you want to encourage people to oppose on those other grounds, go ahead.

DaveR

I find it very offensive that you should label a widely held concern about the need for further research and the fact the Council of Europe has called for 3G/4G masts to be banned within the vicinity of schools and densely populated residential areas because of concerns about the potential effects of radiation and electromagnetic fields "scientific illiteracy and/or deceptive scaremongering tactics"

And the Council of Europe has been opposed by the World Health Organisation. Who do we believe?


There is NO conclusive evidence to prove any of the claims made about masts, electromagnetic fields and health, which is why a professional world health body, much more qualified than a bunch of politicians in europe, has looked at the evidence and concluded there is low or no risk.


By all means push the Council of Europe view if you like, but I'll push the World Health Organisation view back at you.


As you can see from the map posted above, masts are everywhere anyway. To be honest there are many other more immediate forms of pollution that are more likely to cause or help the cause of illness down the line.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...