# Mobile phone mast- Planning objection



## Marconi2012 (13 Aug 2013)

Our Mum has health concerns regarding a local planning application to erect a mast near her home. I note that COMREG monitor such facilities http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/mobile_masts_info.554.html

Also, aim of providers is to co-locate, etc

Any suggestions for grounds to lodge a planning submission/ objection?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Aug 2013)

It's probably best to check out the science and research.

There is a lot of scaremongering about mobile phone masts and I don't think it's based on any facts or science. 

I don't think an objection based on health concerns would succeed. 

Brendan


----------



## jhegarty (13 Aug 2013)

If you own a mobile phone and make calls then you are getting many times the radiation of a mast.


----------



## rayn (13 Aug 2013)

Brendan is right. The planning authority is not allowed to consider health aspects of masts. We have been through this locally and I have made submissions to the local council and also to An Bord Pleanala.
We were lucky that the site was on a possible route of a new road and the bord turned it down.
Councils are asked to facilitate where possible the improvement of these services and it is very difficult to find acceptable grounds for refusal.
From a health point of view this radiation is 24 hours long and affects preschool children all day. There is a lot of evidence now that it can affect young children. A mast beside a school was recently taken down on the council's instruction near a school in Spain. There is plenty of information on the net.
I do not think we would have been successful except for the new road route. 
If you pm me your email address I will send you my submission which may be of use.


----------



## dereko1969 (13 Aug 2013)

rayn said:


> Brendan is right. The planning authority is not allowed to consider health aspects of masts. We have been through this locally and I have made submissions to the local council and also to An Bord Pleanala.
> We were lucky that the site was on a possible route of a new road and the bord turned it down.
> Councils are asked to facilitate where possible the improvement of these services and it is very difficult to find acceptable grounds for refusal.
> From a health point of view this radiation is 24 hours long and affects preschool children all day. *There is a lot of evidence now that it can affect young children. A mast beside a school was recently taken down on the council's instruction near a school in Spain. There is plenty of information on the net.*
> ...


 
Evidence as in peer-reviewed independent studies? Or just scare-mongering from the tin-hat brigade?

Sorry OP but I find it a bit odd that someone with the user name Marconi is posting this!

http://www.badscience.net/category/electrosensitivity/


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Aug 2013)

dereko1969 said:


> Sorry OP but I find it a bit odd that someone with the user name Marconi is posting this!



Good one!


----------



## Leo (13 Aug 2013)

rayn said:


> There is a lot of evidence now that it can affect young children. ...There is plenty of information on the net.



There is even more misinformation on the net!

Do you have a mobile phone in the house? Portable telephones? WiFi? RF AV equipment remotes? Baby monitors? If so you are generating significantly more electromagnetic energy than a cellular mast.


----------



## rayn (13 Aug 2013)

Would the World Health Organisation suffice?

"while an increased risk of brain tumours is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phones over time periods greater than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone and brain cancer risk.
In particular,with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group.
Several studies investigating potential health effects on children and adolescents are underway"

As a firm believer in the EU Precautionary Principle I think extreme caution should be exercised in the location of these masts.

www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/


----------



## newirishman (13 Aug 2013)

The issue with potential very long-term effects is if course that it is  very difficult indeed to pin-point it to one single contributor.

On the topic at hand: I'll recommend having a look at the wiki article on the topic as it provides quite an extensive list to all sorts of studies undertaken.


----------



## Padraigb (13 Aug 2013)

rayn said:


> Would the World Health Organisation suffice?
> 
> "while an increased risk of brain tumours is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phones over time periods greater than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone and brain cancer risk.
> In particular,with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group.
> ...


That piece refers to the use of handsets, and one thing that is emphasised is the importance of proximity.

Can you point to anything about masts?


----------



## rayn (13 Aug 2013)

As "newirishman" says -- checkout out wikipedia on "mobile phone radiation and health"  This covers phones and masts and the "Lawsuits" section is interesting.
There is a lot of information on the internet and a lot of it is from other countries official government sites and most of them in layman's term says "be careful" Some countries prohibit masts within 100 ms of schools for example. 
There is also a lot from "tin-hat brigade" and you have to pick what you chose to be responsible.
However The Precautionary Principle as enshrined in EU legislation would seem to be changing slowly some EU countries thinking.

There is a link on the WHO site that I noted to Masts and substations.


----------



## Marconi2012 (13 Aug 2013)

*Feedback on masts*

Appreciate comments on feedback and note pro/ con.

Regrettably, a lot of concerns in local community and these could have been easily addressed by some advance public information from the proposed operator of the mast. Alas- none!

Also, can anyone clarify what is situation once granted permission- can many other operators place apparatus on the mast- without planning? 

Suggestions for planning submission welcome


----------



## Padraigb (13 Aug 2013)

rayn said:


> As "newirishman" says -- checkout out wikipedia on "mobile phone radiation and health"  This covers phones and masts and the "Lawsuits" section is interesting.
> There is a lot of information on the internet and a lot of it is from other countries official government sites and most of them in layman's term says "be careful" Some countries prohibit masts within 100 ms of schools for example.
> There is also a lot from "tin-hat brigade" and you have to pick what you chose to be responsible.
> However The Precautionary Principle as enshrined in EU legislation would seem to be changing slowly some EU countries thinking.
> ...


So I read it. And guess what? I don't see anything that persuades me that a mobile phone mast is hazardous (unless, perhaps, you spend a long time in very close proximity to the transmitter - very close being something fewer than 10 metres).


----------



## dereko1969 (14 Aug 2013)

rayn said:


> Would the World Health Organisation suffice?
> 
> "while an increased risk of brain tumours *is not established*, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phones over time periods greater than 15 years *warrant further research* of mobile phone and brain cancer risk.
> In particular,with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has *promoted further research* on this group.
> ...


 
Sorry but are you reading something different to me, how does that answer the question I asked, all it states is that further studies are warranted?


----------



## Padraigb (14 Aug 2013)

dereko1969 said:


> Sorry but are you reading something different to me, how does that answer the question I asked, all it states is that further studies are warranted?


And the piece quoted relates to handsets, not to masts.

We are perilously close to tinfoil hat territory.


----------



## bullbars (14 Aug 2013)

We all use mobile phones - we all want them to operate and are quick to chastice a company that doesn't gives us adequate signal in every corner we visit - yet we don't want masts erected. Nimbyism at its finest.


----------



## Leo (14 Aug 2013)

bullbars said:


> We all use mobile phones - we all want them to operate and are quick to chastice a company that doesn't gives us adequate signal in every corner we visit - yet we don't want masts erected. Nimbyism at its finest.



Ads to that the levels of radiation people experience from handsets is many times more than that from masts, but all these people complaining about masts are perfectly happy to carry a handset around all day, and even give them to their young children.


----------



## dereko1969 (14 Aug 2013)

Well the tin-foil hat brigade will eventually lead to cases like that dealt with in this Ch4 documentary last night
[broken link removed]

I found it particularly odd that the mother used a mobile phone the whole time (but of course held it a foot from her ear).


----------



## Mrs Vimes (15 Aug 2013)

Don't knock the tinfoil hat brigade - turns out the hats actually do have an effect - they amplify radio waves allocated to the US government, who presumably spread the opposite rumour to trick people into wearing them.

Live in a cave, it's safer (just not in Bora Bora - risk of drone strikes makes life assurance too expensive).


----------



## MarySmyth (21 Aug 2013)

*Comreg Mobile Masts*

Very useful info. at Comreg's site http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/mobile_masts_info.554.html

Particularly re. survey reports for non-ionising radiation emissions from such structures...
http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/nir.554.444.html

As far as I can see, over 1000 reports to date- I phoned Comreg's Consumer Line and asked about any breaches of the thresholds for emissions- surprised that not one of the 1000 ever in breach! The agent later clarified and said if their was a breach it was a matter for the operator to correct. When I asked who told him that their was 'no breach ever', agent said 'not obliged to tell'. When I saw this posting some weeks ago, I actually emailed my questions and received no reply 

Think the residents considering a planning submission would be well advised to progress, as even Comreg have difficulties... 

Before anyone asks, my name/ contact telephone number/ email was given to Comreg before they would progress call- also ALL calls are recorded!

Next time I see a planning application for a mobile mast in my own local area- I will double check the details...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2013)

Hi Mary

I followed your link as I got the impression that you found something to worry about. 

ComReg surveys the masts and posts the results on their website for all to read. 

I just read one and it says 


> Overall Conclusions of Survey
> Total Exposure Quotient:  Compliant



I presume that this is what the Consumer Line is telling you. They have surveyed 1,000 masts and have not yet found one operating above the guidelines. 

I am not sure what would satisfy you? Do you want an independent 24-7 monitor watching every mast in the country? 

Brendan


----------



## MarySmyth (21 Aug 2013)

*Mast surveys*

Brendan- appreciate your feedback.

Not looking for special advice to make me happy! Just surprised that out of over 1000 surveys that all was perfect- this is a large sample and one would might expect that a mast might have had technical problems that required correction after survey- at least that would show that the system works!

You will have noted that a lot less surveys are undertaken these days for increased numbers of masts- so yes- it is surprising that nothing resulted from all Comreg's research...

Nothing more- nothing less! - Just strange...

I am not aware of another statutory agency that records 100% compliance all all times over such an extended period with its registrants...

Finally, when I asked who I might quote as stating that there was 100% compliance they said 'we will get back to you!'...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2013)

Hi Mary

Is it that surprising that there is 100% compliance? 



> one would might expect that a mast might have had technical problems that required correction after survey



I am not familiar with the technology, but I suspect that it's not as subject to human intervention and therefore human error as say an incinerator. 

The phone companies probably monitor it themselves and self-correct quickly. 

The bottom line though is that people can rest assured that they are not being subjected to continuous high levels of radiation from phone masts. They might object to them on other planning grounds, but this should not be a reason.

Brendan


----------



## jdwex (21 Aug 2013)

What I find funny is that without the new mast mobile phones in the area would have to emit MORE emr to contact a more distant mast..


----------



## newirishman (21 Aug 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Mary
> 
> Is it that surprising that there is 100% compliance?
> 
> ...



I am familiar with the technology and you are pretty much spot on. There's a few fail safes in the radio base stations, and the operators would very quickly see if there is a hike in energy usage.
The telco's itself don't have interested in putting out too much wattage, as it simply costs money. The radio grids are also planned in a way that the coverage can be maintained without going over any allowed limits.
Doesn't mean that things cannot go wrong, but they tend to be rectified quickly.


----------



## MarySmyth (21 Aug 2013)

*Masts*

Many thanks for feedback- agree with comments- but wouldn;t expect operators to publicly advise regarding issues...


----------

