Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Mobile Phone mast in school - Alan Sawyer (25th Jul 2006 - 16:57:09) Opinions sought on the rights and wrongs of mobile phone masts being placed in school grounds... Bohunt has one that they lease the land for. The lease is up for renewal. Should they or shouldn't they extend the lease ?

Re: Mobile Phone mast in school - jane (25th Jul 2006 - 23:17:33) Why not? Evidence? And where on the school grounds? Might it not be nearer the children if the school wasn't in control? If the mast is a problem, why are we as parents letting them hold microwave receivers within millimetres of their brains? Jane

Re: Mobile Phone mast in school - Frank (27th Jul 2006 - 13:38:21) Good answer Jane. "If the mast is a problem, why are we as parents letting them hold microwave receivers within millimetres of their brains?" Possibly because masts are large and ugly and phones are small and cute and couldn't possibly harm anyone, could they? ;) Modern mobile phones also have an internal antenna which makes them look even cuddlier. Base station antennas are designed to provide coverage over a large area as economically as possible which means that very little energy is wasted by illuminating the ground/school playground directly beneath the mast. The RF energy absorbed by a mobile phone users head far far exceeds that from a nearby basestation because although the mast is several orders of magnitude bigger than a mobile phone, the power transmitted isn't. People see a mast and think kilowatts of radio frequency power but in fact basestations typically transmit 25 watts or less compared with 2 watts from a mobile. Go figure. IMO, the only way this debate is ever going to move forward is if more Councils follow the initiative of South Staffs and purchase equipment to perform field strength measurement themselves rather than rely on "independent" experts who will never be trusted by the general public. See http://www.linkmicrotek.com/pdfs/Press/LM%20228%20NSTS%20Application%20story.pdf?ID=97

Re: Mobile Phone mast in school - purplecurly (1st Jan 2007 - 16:07:21) Firstly I have never had it brought to my attention prior to this that there was a phone mast on school grounds. I am absolutely horrified at this news and feel that ALL prospective parents should be informed that you have been happy to earn money from such a venture for all this time. Secondly there are a number of misleading comparisons and statements within your text which I choose to challenge you upon: You compare the microwave radiation emission to beams of light projected from a lighthouse! This needs to be condemned in its entirety. Comparing a lifesaving structure with one that has the ability to damage life is an abomination. Further light and radiation are not comparable. Although mobile phone microwave radiation emission is highly concerning, it bears no relevance to your argument that it is somehow safe to have microwave radiation being emitted from a mast on school grounds. This comparison will not make those suffering long-term exposure to this low intensity radiation at your hand feel any better either! Further, the two are not comparable as mobile phone users have a choice whether to subject themselves to this risk - whereas you have taken this choice away from us for over 10 years and offer it now only under duress. The presence of a worse offender does not reduce damage or make it any more acceptable. This applies also to the presence of another mast in the vicinity. Two wrongs don’t make a right – they make a bigger wrong. Thanks to the outgoing governors’ letter published in the Liphook Herald; we are all painfully aware at your ‘reticence’ in communicating with parents about this issue. This man should be held up as a bastion of school governorship – he should not have had to resign his post in order for this matter to be brought to our attention. You should be ashamed. Governing bodies are elected to be aware of what is going on, to draw our attention to it and to protect their pupils when uncertainties exist. Vigilant prevention should certainly triumph over financial gain. It is established that when the mobile phone industry is searching for sites, cheap acquisition has been a more prominent driver than our children’s health. I would not have expected the governing body to be thinking about the money involved over and above residents’ health and parental input - thus making decisions in the phone industry’s best interests. I would expect you to act in the best interests of pupils and the wider population of Liphook that you are willingly subjecting to an ever constant emission of low intensity microwave radiation. Your mention of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines does not make clear that these tests and guidelines do not take biological effects into account whatsoever. The study was based on the issue of the overheating alone. In the light of recent scientific information which DO take biological effects into account the ICNIRP guidelines are invalid and no reliance should be placed on them. [See: The World Health website for over 400 pieces of research showing biological effects at the frequency used by mobile phone masts.] Thirdly, you refer to the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. This is a specific legal term that you have failed to expand upon despite seemingly to agree to follow it. This legal concept has been constantly misunderstood and misapplied in the UK due to decision makers not fully understanding the principle. It has been particularly inadequately applied regarding radio and microwave frequency bands. So, I shall endeavour to put it in a nutshell. In general, it involves acting to avoid irreversible POTENTIAL harm. It comes into play expressly when scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain. When recourse to the precautionary principle is required there is a presupposition that potentially dangerous effects ARE present and cannot be ruled out with any certainty as being safe. When making such decisions, not only the present (short or medium term) danger must be considered, but the principle demands that the decision makers must also consider the long and very long term wellbeing of future citizens, animals and plant life. Under precautionary principle the burden of proof shifts. It would normally be for claimants to prove it is unsafe - in these instances the creator of the danger must demonstrate otherwise. Its scope is ever evolving and is co-dependent on newly decided case law and evolving social values and awareness. The creator, in this instance is Bohunt school board of governors. Fourthly, you cite the STEWART REPORT. This Report considers only the heating of skin tissue (thermal effects) and nothing else regarding health such as the biological effects i.e.: cancer. (A non thermal effect) and was primarily concerned with the application procedure for companies applying for new mast sites. This is clearly not relevant in your case. However, since you have mentioned it – I would like to bring to your attention some of its findings which you have chosen not to mention. Sir William Stewart gave oral evidence to The House of Commons on this matter (This can be found at www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk). From his evidence it seems that there is at least a possibility of non-thermal biological effects of radio frequency radiation, which cannot be addressed by the guidelines on thermal effects. The report specifically addresses masts on/near school grounds; it takes this proximity into account (paragraph 4.37) stating that children are especially vulnerable to adverse effects of microwave radiation. It affirms that there is evidence that children will absorb more energy per kilogram of body weight from their external environment than adults. A one year old could absorb around double and a five year old around 60%, more than an adult. Children have more time to accumulate exposure in their lives, and a longer time for delayed effects of exposure to develop. At paragraph 1.33, it states that "There can be indirect adverse effects on well-being in some cases". It also states at paragraph 6.44 that there may be indirect impacts on health due to anxiety and fear”. In its summing up it concludes “the possibility of harm from exposures insufficient to cause overheating of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence.” The report makes it clear that people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental hazards and emphasises the need to protect the well-being of the public from such possible dangers. I would point out that you seem to be justifying your decision to keep the mast by the stating that the main beam of low intensity microwave radiation falls outside the grounds of Bohunt. This does not mean that people are not being harmed. They are simply being harmed off your premises. Have you completely forgotten that you are sited next to the INFANT and JUNIOR schools that are within the main beam? Children are particularly at risk in this regard and should be taken into account when re-evaluating your decision. [For further information see the 2002 Freiburg Appeal - signed by more than 3000 scientists within the EU]. You can now consider yourselves to have been put ‘on notice’ of the potential dangers. In this knowledge I would draw to your attention the possible legal consequences of renewing the contract for this lease despite being on such notice. In the case of Jodie Phillips, it was established that the correct legal question you should be asking yourselves due to your position of responsibility is “not is this an acceptable location but is this the best location?". [For further information see: Jodie Phillips v First Secretary of State/Havant Borough Council (October 2003)]. It is perfectly acceptable for you to refuse lease renewal on health grounds. This is demonstrated by the successful appeal mounted against Orange. Originally the decision maker in that case felt that because their mast conformed to ICNIRP guidelines, there was no need to consider health concerns. They were wrong! European jurisprudence puts forward in strong terms that “Requirements linked to the protection of public health should undoubtedly be given greater weight that economic considerations.” (See EU Case T-70/99 for further information). This matter remains an uncertain litigious area. But it can be seen that as long as network providers continue to target institutions such as schools because it costs them less, and as long as schools such as Bohunt continue to take their cash despite of the knowledge of potential harm they are causing innocent residents, the schools and their insurers place themselves at risk of future personal injury claims of epic proportions. Although it may take years for concrete scientific evidence in the affirmative, it will come without a doubt just like it has for the tobacco industry and other cases such as the BSE crisis. In light of the legal and the health risks, other more responsible regions have truly adopted the precautionary principle. The Scottish Parliament adopted Precautionary Policies as a direct result of what they perceive to be inadequate official advice from Government Departments. Masts can no longer be situated near schools or residential areas. The same in Ireland; where Belfast City Council stated that `no Transmitter Masts should be permitted on any Council Property' due to the unknown risks. I urge you to fully consider your duties under the precautionary principle which you appear to stand by. Do what is right. There is risk. Please don’t subject us to it just so that you can continue to receive what you refer to as your ‘modest rent’. No price is high enough to pay for our health.

Re: Mobile Phone mast in school - Mike Grimes (2nd Jan 2007 - 01:10:59) I admire the amount of research that went into this previous post but it misses one obvious point. Either phone masts are safe or they are not and if they are not safe for children then children should not be exposed to them - full stop. If they are not safe for children then they are not that safe for all adults either. Children may exist in high concentrations in schools but they go to other places too. So this argument is not about where masts should be sited but whether they should exist at all. Of course, when the government sells off the bandwidth that these masts use for £15 Billion it would be too embarrassed to take it away, nor can it deprive millions of mobile phone users of their service without substantial political backlash. If these things are unsafe then demonstrate it, but don't blackmail us with some unspecified threat to our children's health (but not our's).

Re: Mobile Phone mast in school - Niall Greenwood (2nd Jan 2007 - 09:52:52) 'Either phone masts are safe or they are not...' Mike, There is another possibility that overlaps both options you outline - and that is that we don't know what the long term health hazards presented by mobile phone masts are/may be. We (human beings!) haven't been too smart at dealing with similar probelms in the past. I remember well returnees from the Guld War suffering an awful range of debiltating illnesses, and the MOD taking the view 'that you either put (the evidence) or shut up'. And I was also struck but the advertising in the recent film 'Good Night and Good Luck' (previously discussed on this site?) that recommended the virtues of 'a good smoke', and the period in question was in living memory for some people. So I just observe that we should be careful in assuming that we have got the answers we need to all of the questions we face.

Re: Mobile Phone mast in school - Chris (3rd Jan 2007 - 06:30:36) Let's face it, if there is a slight doubt about safety then don't site them near a school. I mean, of all the daft places to put one when there are hundreds of acres elsewhere...e.g. all along the A3.

Re: Mobile Phone mast in school - purplecurly (3rd Jan 2007 - 13:58:39) I beg to differ with regard the question we face at this present moment. The Bohunt school governors are at this moment (or have already!) deciding on whether to renew the lease to allow the mast on school grounds – so the question is really one of positioning rather than long term answers to questions and proof re: safety. Should they be relying on a report to defend their initial acceptance of this INCOME source – which has been condemned by all and sundry as not dealing with the relevant points – such as human health!! The Stewart Inquiry looked only into the heating properties of microwaves and how they could heat up our bodies and did not address the medical issues that surround radiation whatsoever. I would urge the governors to refuse the renewal of the lease.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home