Re: London Bridge Mobile Mast Appeal
Interesting interpretation of the WHO's findings on Electromagnetic Field Radiation by o2 in the article. Read the WHO's actual Press Release and decide for yourself. EMF radiation is now classified in the same category as DDT and Lead:
Health concerns aside, why is a mobile phone mast servicing London bridge station sited on a listed building in a conservation area? Surely with all the new building around London Bridge there is a better location, closer to the station.
If the events are anything close to those reported in the article it is a gross failure of the planning authorities and the planning inspectorate.
If local residents are concerned about a perceived health risk it should be a large part of the decision process as they have to live next to it daily.
Read article while visiting from South Texas in the USA. It looks like the corrupt politics and unwillingness of regulatory agencies to do their jobs and informing thei own regulations. Seems to be another case of blindly accepting what ever big business gives them as true and complete without any verification.
Are your elected officials and regulatory agencies in the back pockets of big business?
I have a dilemma here....I am as yet unconvinced by the medical "evidence" about the harm from mobile phone usage and their associated masts but am willing to be persuaded in either direction when more information becomes avaialable...but at the same time I am an avid user of my smartphone for all sorts of services as well as the traditional phone calls and texts. So on the one hand I have an open mind on the issue of mast siting but on the other I would find things very challenging without being able to use my phone on a constant basis. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels these draws in possible different directions and whilst I appreciate there isn't a simple solution we have now become very dependent and do need to have them somewhere.
The article link by the OP seems to relate to mobile phone usage rather than masts. In any event, the O2 quote is correct. The WHO found no conclusive evidence of health risk - "insufficient"/"inadequate" are the words that the report uses.
Besides, since it relates to the phones then anyone complaining about the health effects of the mast is surely barking up the wrong tree - unless those complaining don't go near cell phones.
Mr Grenside's complaint about the planning process raises a more serious issue - if a poor postal service can enable an application to side-step public consultation then that needs to be addressed.
I think what people are complaining about here is not the value of informatics in the 21 th century, but rather waking up one day and finding a picture taken by a neighbour documenting that a new mast has been placed three feet above their heads without notice. In case of Long lane...This I believe is illegal. And the link between electromagnetic fields exposure and children brains is quite established. No matter whether I am using a fancy iPhone to post this message