New cell tower fails to faze principal of nearby college

By TRACY NEAL - Nelson | Monday, 26 May 2008

New cell tower fails to faze principal of nearby college - Local News - The Nelson Mail
A cellphone tower was erected near Nayland College over the weekend, but it arrived without an objection from the school.

Nayland college

The tower was placed on private property near the college boundary in Seaview Rd, after resource consent was granted last year, city council planning and consents divisional manager Richard Johnson said on Monday. The tower’s appearance comes just days after Telecom said it would delay rolling out its new network programme in Nelson until next year. The company recently confirmed that nine new structures were planned for Nelson and Richmond. Telecom then said it was delaying the project as part of a national review of where to build the new network. Telecom had already secured all legal rights, including resource consents and landowner agreements, to build on four sites: at Atawhai Exchange, which sparked the initial controversy, Richmond Exchange, Saxton Field and another near Nelson Airport. The Seaview Rd tower was designated as the airport site, Telecom said on Monday. Spokesman Ian Bonnar said the reason it went ahead, after Telecom announced a delay in the roll-out, was because the tower was part of the present network, and not the new network that had been deferred. "It will have featured on the maps because at some point in the future it will be upgraded to the new network," he said. The appearance of the cellphone tower over the weekend has riled a member of the lobby group involved in the recent campaign to halt development of a similar structure in Atawhai, who did not feel the Seaview Rd consent process was entirely above board. Nelson resident and lawyer Sue Grey said the council notified only the Ministry of Education plus the nearest neighbour. Mr Johnson confirmed that consent was granted on limited notification, meaning only the landowner and affected parties were involved in the process. Helen Tremlett, who runs Catnip Cattery about 300m from the new tower, said she had no concerns about the structure, but she might do if she lived right next door. Principal Charles Newton said Nayland College was told about the planned tower, and did not object to its construction. He said the college took its lead from the Ministries of Education and Health plus the city council, which were the agencies charged with providing guidance. He added that the tower was a long way from the school. "I’m well aware of the controversy over cellphone towers, but in the end it’s difficult for us to make a judgment, and we had to be guided by the agencies charged with looking after us," said Mr Newton.

Telecom tower plan worries playcentre - Tasman/Marlborough - The Press

Telecom tower plan worries playcentre

The Press | Monday, 12 May 2008





A 22m Telecom cellphone tower is to be built next to Atawhai Playcentre in Nelson. The playcentre’s board, a neighbouring pre-school and Nelson City councillors all oppose the installation of the tower. However, the telco giant says the Atawhai site, at Nelson’s northern entrance, will provide the best coverage. It is one of eight to be built in Nelson for its new-generation 3G wideband network.

Playcentre president Sarah Allen said news of the Atawhai tower came as a shock. It would be built on the existing telecommunications-designated site next to the playcentre, and was not subject to resource consent. The non-notified proposal was approved by the Nelson council in January, she said. "This would have gone up without the community knowing," she said. The mother of three was concerned about the health impacts on the centre’s 70 children from electromagnetic radiation, and the future of the playcentre, which had been in operation for more than 20 years.




Allen, Nelson Mayor Kerry Marshall and councillor Ali Boswijk had met with Telecom representatives to discuss alternative sites for the tower, she said. "We were basically told the wider community supported the tower because customers wanted increased coverage." The playcentre has launched a petition and gathered more than 800 signatures in its first week, asking that the tower not go ahead. It will be handed to Parliament and Telecom at the end of the month.



Boswijk said the meeting with Telecom over the Atawhai site had been "frustrating". "We said we were not happy with their plans, despite the site’s designation, and they said they were not interested in looking at alternatives," she said. The owner of the Atawhai Bright Sparks Pre-School, Nick Duncan, said the safety of children should not be compromised. The pre-school is about 70m from the proposed tower and caters for about 35 families. "Being under that radiation field all the time is not desirable." He said the council’s "rubber-stamping of the tower’s approval had made it a ridiculously easy process for Telecom".



Telecom spokesman Ian Bonnar said a public open day would be held at the Atawhai site on May 20. Telecom was aware the proposal to build cell towers next to any educational facility was contentious, he said. "But it was the most appropriate site for maintaining coverage for the new network."

How about a guarantee, Telecom? - Columnists - Alan Clarke - Nelson Mail

(via New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz )

How about a guarantee, Telecom?

Well, you could pin a ponytail on me and call me Sally the Cynic, but Telecom turning corporate good guy and backing down from a scrap with a couple of preschools? Sounds like another contract for the Tui graphic artists to me. How about this for a more likely scenario: Telecom plays for time, pours more lobbyists than all the beef farmers in Texas into John Key’s ear and waits for the year-end change of government. Sometime in 2009, out comes a tweak to National’s communications strategy declaring mobile broadband technology to be in the national interest, meaning the development of cellphone facilities are not bound by the usual planning constraints. If Telecom really is prepared to give priority to the welfare of the little kiddies of Atawhai and the concerns of their parents and teachers, how about it does the following:

• Write a letter, personally signed by the chief executive and board chairman and delivered to everyone in the land, unequivocally guaranteeing the safety of the technology, confirming absolutely that there is no possibility of anyone, ever, being harmed by it;


• Promise to pay compensation of, say, $10 million to anyone proven to the satisfaction of a court to have had their health compromised, at either a cellular or sub-cellular level, by the radiation from a cellphone tower;


• Promise to compensate landowners if the presence of adjacent cellphone towers can be shown to have reduced the value of their properties, in the event of health problems surfacing in the future.

The same position ought to be demanded of the Government, whose first duty is surely to protect its citizens from harm. Like most people, I don’t know for sure if cellphone towers do threaten or compromise health (except of course for the stress and anxiety they obviously cause). I do know, as an editorial stated in the Nelson Mail last week, that there is a tremendous amount of information and misinformation on the subject available to almost everyone (courtesy, it might be said, of our telecommunications advances). I do know, after we had to carry a grandchild into Nelson Hospital, unconscious and in anaphylactic shock due to a severe peanut allergy, that some people are more susceptible to a wide range of things than others. And there appears to be no clear picture yet from the raft of tests that have attempted to determine the safety or otherwise of the towers’ radiation. In the face of such uncertainty, any attempt to place a tower between two preschools is surely unprincipled, unethical and inexcusable even if it were the only place on earth where one could be built. Which obviously it is not.



Why is our government not applying the precautionary principle and banning the towers anywhere near schools, preschools, hospitals and the like?



The issue brings to mind the smoking debate. When I started puffing away aged 8 in the early ’60s, flogging a packet a week from an ageing great-uncle, not only was it a cool, if slightly naughty thing for youngsters and teens to do, there was also considerable adult support for the view that fagging was good for us all. As well as being relaxing and calming (no one really talked of "stress" back then), "they" declared that nicotine actually kept us healthy by killing bugs and germs. Apologies to the tobacco diehards, but clearly, "they" were wrong. There have been too many other examples where corporate greed has triumphed and compliant governments have failed to protect and care for their citizens - thalidomide, asbestos, Agent Orange, the Pacific nuclear test guinea pigs, DDT, toxic timber treatments to reel off a few. Now, cellphones and the low intensity microwave signal-radiating towers that support them are being linked to potentially very serious health issues - or not, depending on whose report you read. The towers are the classic symbol of not-in-my-backyardism; the inconvenient ramification of the undoubted convenience the mobile phone brings. The pervasive march of the towers is to reduce "dead spots" - an interesting phrase, given the fears of some that their signals might be responsible for a range of health problems, from sleep issues and attention deficit disorders to leukaemia and brain tumours. Among the current battles in the United States are moves to locate the unwelcome facilities in church towers and even a graveyard, along with a range of neighbourhood disputes exactly like the one that was building in Atawhai, where Telecom seemed hellbent on placing its 22m cellphone tower right beside the playcentre and across the road from another early childhood centre, before last week’s reversal.



The company says it will spend more time seeking alternative sites. Well, good for it. It should never have tried to play the corporate heavy in the first place although that’s what multinationals, do, isn’t it. We can’t expect it to have a conscience or care about anything other than the narrow interests of shareholders, which is where we would hope that the Government might come in. I wouldn’t count on that happening among either of the main political parties, but have been enormously encouraged that Nelson Mayor Kerry Marshall and Cr Ali Boswijk, in particular, have fronted up on the issue. Hopefully the district’s two councils will use the Telecom moratorium to fast-track robust bylaws banning the towers or dishes from sensitive areas. I’m no Luddite and recognise the need for this country to get back on track technology-wise, after losing considerable ground due in no small part to the Telecom monopoly. However, I fail to see the importance of advancing already outdated 3G mobile broadband technology to the economy. It’s as much about gimmicks and profits than meeting the needs of businesses, which have had access to mobile Internet services for years: the Nelson Mail first transmitted a photo via a camera plugged into a cellphone around the start of the millennium and was far from the first to do so. By all means encourage network providers to accelerate the rollout of fibre-optic cable to bring broadband speeds up to speed. But don’t gamble with our health - particularly that of our children, whose low body mass could well make them especially vulnerable to radiation - by siting cellphone towers inappropriately.



Nelson Mail 20/05/2008



Alan Clarke

Atawhai locals and Telecom face off over tower plan

21-May 11:20

The Atawhai community turned out in force yesterday to voice their opposition to Telecom’s plans to build a 22-metre high cell phone tower next to a local play centre.

About 150 parents, grandparents and children turned out to the "Ban the Tower" group’s meeting at Corder Park ahead of a Telecom open day next door.



The group’s concerned health effects from the tower, the impact on property values and the lack of consultation from Telecom.



Telecom’s community relations manager Paul Leslie, who was questioned by the crowd, says it wants the community’s help to find an alternative site.



Auckland University lecturer Doctor David Black says scientific consensus shows there are no health effects from the towers.

Nelson Deputy Mayor Rachel Reese told the crowd Council’s below Telecom in the pecking order on this issue, but promised to take action anyway.

---

Page URL:http://www.tv3.co.nz/tabid/213/Default.aspx?&articleID=56558

Nelson residents oppose cellphone tower - Tasman/Marlborough - The Press

Nelson residents oppose cellphone tower

Nelson residents who are opposed to a new cellphone tower near a playcentre want a national debate on the construction of telecommunications equipment.
Telecom has non-notified approval from the Nelson City Council to build a 22m G3 cellphone tower next to the Atawhai playcentre. Parents and residents have formed the Ban the Tower Society after discovering the tower was one of 10 planned to service Telecom’s new technology G3 network in Nelson, and one of many proposed for New Zealand.

Group member Patrick Rose said he was concerned about a draft national environmental standard (NES) that proposed the construction of some telecommunications infrastructure as of right, without the opportunity for community or council review.
Rose said the group wanted Telecom to cancel its tower plans for the Atawhai site and review its policies so no cell towers were built within 1000m of educational facilities. ""We are keen to encourage national debate as to if the apparent benefits of G3 technology justify its costs, limitations and adverse effects,"" said Rose.

The community was effectively paying the price for Telecom’s competitive edge.

National Radiation Laboratory senior science adviser Martin Gledhill said the G3 transmission was not seen as being any different from any other.
It was governed by national exposure standards that were on a par with global limits.

Gledhill believes the draft NES to waive the public consent process for transmission infrastructure applies only to roadside and ancillary equipment, not cellphone towers.

Ban the Tower is holding an open discussion meeting at the site today ntsG(20)nte from noon.
That will be followed by a Telecom open day.

Telecom to roll out 14 new G3 transmitters around SI - Business news on Stuff.co.nz

Telecom to roll out 14 new G3 transmitters around SI

Fourteen new G3 transmitters will be built around the South Island by November as part of Telecom’s rollout of its new mobile-phone technology.



Seven of the new transmitters will be in Christchurch.



Telecom spokesman Ian Bonnar said some of the transmitters would be similar to the 22m tower proposed for the Nelson suburb of Atawhai, plans for which have drawn stiff opposition from parents at the neighbouring playcentre and surrounding residents.



Other new transmitters would be located on the top of light poles and buildings, said Bonnar.



Telecom representatives visited Nelson this week to talk to the Atawhai community.



The corporation has said that if it could find an appropriate alternative site it would not build next to the playcentre.



The meeting gave Telecom a clear indication of the community’s opposition, said Bonnar.



Atawhai Playcentre president Sarah Allen said the meeting was optimistic.



"They have committed to trying to find an alternative site and we felt they are starting to listen to our concerns," said Allen.



A petition organised by the umbrella Ban the Tower group, which calls for a ban on new cell towers within 1000m of educational facilities and improved community interaction by Telecom, had already attracted over 2000 signatures, she said.



It would be presented to Telecom and Parliament at the end of the month, said Allen.



"Communities need to have a voice and Telecom needs to listen harder," said Allen.



Telecom plans to roll out the required underlying G3 network nationally by November, focusing on the main centres first.



Eight more sites are planned for Nelson after the November rollout. Three have consent.

Residents urge tower review

The Nelson Mail - The Nelson Mail
(via New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz )

Residents who organised to block the proposed 22m cellphone mast in Atawhai have called for a review of national standards of telecommunications equipment, after grilling Telecom staff at a public meeting Tuesday.

They wanted Tuesday’s protest, which attracted about 100 people, to kick-start a national discussion on the safety, standards and placement of telecommunications equipment in New Zealand.

Atawhai parent and Nelson lawyer Sue Grey said while much of the rest of the world tightened emission standards and was increasingly concerned about "electronic smog", New Zealand was proposing to adopt "industry-led" national environmental standards which would enable transmitters which comply with "very lax standards" to be built anywhere in New Zealand.

Telecom last week revealed nine new cellphone structures were planned for Nelson and Richmond as the company sought to develop a new mobile phone network. The company then said in a surprise announcement it was delaying the project as part of a national re-prioritisation of where to build the new network. It said it would use the time to find an alternative site for the tower it had planned to build next to Atawhai Playcentre.

Telecom community relations manager Paul Leslie told the Nelson Mail Tuesday the company was now hoping for a rational debate, and the community’s involvement was needed in the search for an alternative site in Atawhai.

Green Party MP Sue Kedgley, who lent her support to the protest and came to Nelson especially for Tuesday’s public gathering, said afterwards she hoped the stance taken here would inspire other communities throughout the country to do the same.

Mr Leslie said Telecom planned to build up to 300 new structures around the country to support the new mobile phone network. He said despite the level of opposition shown in Nelson, the company often received more heated responses from people unable to get network coverage.

Ms Kedgley said she was thrilled that the Nelson community was fighting the cause, which she termed a "broader fight" for the need to put the health of children ahead of profit.

She said despite Telecom’s view that cellphone towers were harmless to people’s health, there was an "indisputable, significant body of research" that countered this, and advised people to take a "precautionary approach".

Mr Leslie said it was not new technology, and cellphone towers did not emit radiation, but radio frequency emissions that did not cause molecular changes in humans.

"It’s simply wrong to confuse this with nuclear energy."

He was now hoping the community and the city council would help to find a solution.

Nelson Deputy Mayor Rachel Reese reassured the Atawhai community it would be heard, and the council would advocate on its behalf.

Cr Ali Boswijk said the council was keen to work with Telecom, but it was difficult to convince parents that a 22m cellphone tower beside their playcentre would not harm their children.

Observe your own guidelines, Telecom

Nelson Mail 16 May 2008

Telecom’s backdown on siting a new cellphone tower in Atawhai and a series of others throughout Nelson and Richmond is proof that the telecommunications giant does listen - eventually, the Nelson Mail said in an editorial on Friday.



It can talk about reprioritisation but it is the public outcry that has forced it to put its plan on hold. Atawhai residents petitioning to stop the tower there might be wrong about the potential danger that it would pose to children at nearby playcentres - the scientific jury is still out - but there is no mistaking their commitment.



Pressing ahead now would undoubtedly buy a bigger fight, with the possibility of on-site confrontations and even illegal action to halt construction. Putting the plan on hold is a prudent move that will allow the temperature to return to normal and give Telecom the opportunity to engage in a proper dialogue with the Atawhai community and residents in proximity to all the other sites. But if it thinks it will win the argument to place new towers alongside any pre-school or school, it had better think again.



In today’s world of easy access to information and misinformation, particularly through authoritative-sounding Internet sites, it is easy to throw doubt on new forms of technology. In the case of cellphone towers, the concern relates to the effects of the radio frequency fields that are created by mobile phone networks. There is scant evidence so far to support claims of damage to health, and the networks operate under strict government controls - but there is sufficient doubt to suggest that caution is advisable.



Individuals can decide on whether or not the advantages of using cellphones are worth any possible hazards, the most frequently mentioned of which is a greater chance of brain cancers. When it comes to the networks that support the handy portable phones, though, it becomes a matter for communities and societies to reach collective agreement on. As the Atawhai example demonstrates, this is not always easy.



Leaving aside the issue of visual pollution, a measure of which must be accepted if communities want to enjoy the benefits of improved cellphone networks, the question of public safety demands that Telecom and other providers engage in full consultation with affected communities, and that they are prepared to compromise to allay concerns.



Parents, naturally, are intent on ensuring the wellbeing of their offspring. Though the Environment Ministry maintains that the New Zealand Standard for public exposure to radio frequency emissions is set 50 times lower than the level at which health effects may start to occur, this is no comfort to parents wondering why Telecom sees fit to put a tower right beside the Atawhai Playcentre and across the road from Brightsparks preschool.



They see any shadow of doubt about the safety of their children as sufficient grounds to put the tower somewhere else - and that view is backed up by Telecom’s own community information, which says that its first choice is to avoid locating mobile phone sites next to educational centres "in recognition of local communities’ preference".



Telecom knows that these towers aren’t welcome around children and that parents will not easily be persuaded that they are safe. Why doesn’t it just stick to its own guidelines?

A list of links

National environmental standards for telecommunications facilities
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/standards/telecommunication-standards.html

Panorama, BBC report on mobile phone tower radiation and Wi-Fi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675 .stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNaDj6VLHw

Phone cancer report ?buried- Times Online

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1655012.ece


Cancer clusters at phone masts- Times Online

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687491.ece

Phone masts blight house sales

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/may/25/houseprices .uknews




Two in three believe radiation from phones damaged their health
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbein g/health-news/two-in-three-believe-radiation-from-phones-damaged-their-health-456418.html

Are Mobile Phones wiping out our Bees?- The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile -phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html

Expert warns Irish mobile phone masts unsafe
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/02/09/story615930334.asp

CH4 http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=489

Comprehensive list of links to studies showing harmful effects of towers and EMF
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

detailed studies of note:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/arguments_in_favor_of_applying _the_precautionary_principle.pdf
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/proceedings_kos_2004.pdf
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/518760/
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/398279/

Electropollution.org
http://www.electropollution.org/

Health Protection Agency- Sir William Stewarts reports on mobiles and wi-fi
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/home

BioInitiative
http://www.bioinitiative.org/



Dr. George Carlo
http://www.safewireless.org/



interview on Campbell Live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GD_BKTWyTY



Mast Sanity
http://www.mastsanity.org/



Neil Cherry site
http://www.neilcherry.com/



Dr. Grahame Blackwell report
http://www.vws.org/documents/Summary-6studiesreMasts.pdf



EMR Australia
http://www.emraustralia.com.au/

Scoop: Community Opposition To Telecom 3G Masts Grows
(via Scoop - New Zealand News)

Community Opposition To Telecom 3G Masts Grows Monday, 19 May 2008, 8:55 am Press Release: Ban the Tower Inc

Communities vs. Big Business:

Telecom, Phone Towers and Profit-driven Agendas

Local residents in Nelson, who organized to block Telecom’s proposed 22 meter, 3G phone mast above a play-centre and pre-school, want to kick-start a national dialogue on the safety, standards, placements and even the need for the proliferation of telecommunications equipment in New Zealand.

In a David v Goliath face-off, a group of concerned parents have come together, working day and night, to highlight the utter lack of protection of communities from the profit-motivated agendas of big businesses, in this case, the most powerful corporation in New Zealand.

(Telecom is the largest company by value on the New Zealand Exchange (NZX) and movements in its share price have a great influence on the index of movements in the top 50 companies. Further, it is the 39th largest telecommunications company in the OECD, from Wikipedia)

Ban the Tower was incorporated to prevent the construction of a Telecom mast in a residential neighborhood of Atawhai on the northern side of Nelson. They discovered that this tower was the first of 10 or more proposed for the Nelson area and that dozens more towers are planned throughout New Zealand as Telecom rolls out its new 3G cellphone system. Their objections were based on the uncertain health effects of these masts, their reckless placement immediately adjacent to two early childhood centers, threats from concerned parents that they would withdraw their children from the centers, the disproportionate size of the 22 metre tower compared to the other mainly residential buildings in the area, and reports of an up to 20% drop in property prices in areas where similar towers have been built.

As the residents investigated the approval process for this tower, they found that Telecom had proceeded very quietly, without any community consultation, resulting in approval being sought and granted by the Nelson City Council over the summer holidays. It was only by chance that the group even discovered the plans to build the tower, a situation which they consider completely unacceptable.

Telecom’s application to the Nelson City Council is supported by a brief report from Alcatel-Lucent which says the tower will comply with the NZ standards. The residents now understand that Alcatel- Lucent has a contract for several hundred million dollars to install Telecom’s 3G system. Ban the Tower questions the impartiality of this report and demands more stringent standards in evaluating the impact of these towers.

The group’s ability to mobilize popular support from local residents, the Council, and the media, including a petition with over 2000 signatures, has already forced Telecom to delay the proposed construction of the tower at Atawhai. However to date, while Telecom has agreed to look for alternative sites, it has refused to make a commitment to cancel its plans for a cell tower in that location. This is not enough for the Ban the Tower group who want Telecom to cancel all plans for the tower at Atawhai due to the ’unknown health risks’ it may pose to the children, along with other considerations.

In addition to a definitive and unequivocal cancellation of the tower plans on that site, the group will ask Telecom to change its site analysis policies to avoid erecting any mobile phone tower within 1000m of any school or play-centre in the future. They will also ask that Telecom drastically changes its community interaction policy to ensuring an open process where the purpose of the technology, benefits and risk and other technology and site options are discussed before committing to any specific proposal or site. Consultation of this type is already promised by Telecom in its publicized community commitments, but clearly their promises are not currently rigorously adhered to.

The threat of the cell tower in this sensitive location has motivated the group to undertake a huge amount of research to understand all the possible effects of the tower, how other countries deal with this issue, and the legal checks and balances that are available for the community when faced with a threat of this type from big business. It has become clear that the proliferation of telecommunications towers, antennae and other equipment is a worldwide concern as corporations try to outdo their competitors and increase their market share. Even the conservative ICNIRP (The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) released a statement last month recognising concerns about the cumulative effects of this proliferation of different types of electromagnetic radiation from new technologies, and calling for more research to be undertaken.

The group is keen to encourage national debate about whether the apparently limited benefits of the 3G technology justify its costs, limitations and adverse effects on communities and the environment. One obvious shortcoming of this technology is the apparent need for towers or other transmitters to be located no more than 800 metres apart. In Nelson, this equates to a requirement for 10 or more sites. Presumably many more will be needed in our larger cities. The group understands that this technology will allow Telecom to offer some additional but non-essential cellphone services to help it match Vodafone competitively. The residents invite debate about whether this is in fact the best use of Telecom’s resources, and whether the community would be better served by investment in an affordable high speed fibre optic broadband service.

The group has also explored international literature on health effects of celltowers. All the literature agrees that far more research is required before the full extent of health effects can be known. The key to the different views is whether radiation emission standards should be calculated based on the lowest level where effects are known to be caused, or whether a precautionary approach should be taken in recognition of the current uncertainty. Government responses to this are mixed, with some states such as Australia and New Zealand adopting permissive standards, while others take a much more precautionary approach, with limits in some cases 1000 or more times lower than the New Zealand Standards allow.

With all these uncertainties, the community has in the past gained some protection through the public processes under the Resource Management Act. Public notification, where it has occurred, has allowed consideration of the effects of proposed towers in new locations, particularly where sites are particularly sensitive. In some cases public concern has caused proposals to be changed.

The group has learned however that the Minister for the Environment has recently announced an intention to promulgate National Environmental Standards for telecommunications infrastructure. A current proposal for these standards, prepared by a telecommunications industry working group, provides for most telecommunication infrastructure as of right, without any opportunity at all for public or even Council input on the proposal. The group would like the public to have the opportunity to review the appropriateness of standards of this type, using the conduct of Telecom with the Atawhai Celltower proposal as a case study.

The group has planned a community gathering on Tuesday the 20th between 12:00 and 1:00 at the proposed tower site on Atawhai Cresent, in response to an ’Open Day’ by Telecom between 1 and 7 pm. They have invited local politicians, MP’s and concerned parents to express their views. They will present their list of requests to Telecom at 1:00.

Given the ’closed-door’ approval process for this phone tower and the limited ability of Nelson City Council to protect the health, and address the concerns of it’s residents, the Ban the Tower group calls on the New Zealand national media to begin a rigorous and critical debate about the safety and placement of these towers. Numerous highly credible scientific reports have shown that there may be increased risks of cancer, leukemia and other major health problems after prolonged exposure to the radiation from the masts. (see links to reputable sources in the information pack below)

The seriousness of these reports has caused many countries around the world, like Austria, Sweden, Germany, Russia and Italy, to impose tighter restrictions on what radiation will be permitted. In Australia, a rash of litigation has challenged the rollout of 3G technology on health and visual grounds. Taiwan is reported to have decommissioned and removed many towers.

Citing what has been referred to as the ’precautionary principle’ by renowned scientists around the world, and even by Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency in the UK, and advisor to the British Government under both Blair and Thatcher, the group urge involvement on the national level in this vital area of community concern. The question of whether big business should be allowed to make decisions that potentially adversely affect the health, environment, outlook, and property values of a community, without their involvement or consultation, is an issue of human and democratic rights, and one that is being hotly contested all over the world as we speak.

The Ban the Tower group calls on the New Zealand government to legislate much more stringent controls on the placement of phone masts, and to protect the health of it’s citizens from the reckless, profit-driven motives of major corporations. This must include a policy of ’prudent avoidance’ of risk by placing the masts over 1000m away from schools.

Ban the Tower asks why our government is stepping out at exactly the moment they should be stepping into this arena of debate, and also why our radiation safety standards are relaxing as other countries around the world are tightening them up.

Ban the Tower calls for a critical evaluation of the National Environmental Standards of Telecommunication. Ban the Tower also intends to offer full support and advice to other groups nation-wide and build a national ’coalition of concern’ that will require the government and the multi-national corporations to take greater precaution with the placement of their radiation-emitting technology.

Atawhai site unacceptable

Nelson Mail 17 May 2008.

Sir, My two small daughters and I recently joined the Atawhai Playcentre. It is a thriving, beautiful playcentre, and we feel privileged to be part of it.
We were horrified to hear that Telecom intends building a 22m-high cellphone tower immediately beside the playcentre.
There is still considerable uncertainty about the long-term health effects of electromagnetic radiation from cellphone
transmitters, and the safety of our children should not be compromised in any way.
The site is completely inappropriate in such a beautiful area and in such close proximity to our playcentre and the Brightsparks preschool. The teachers and the caregivers at Atawhai Playceatre are an amazing and hard-working group. It is wrong that they have to spend time battling one of the country’s most powerful companies. I feel that Telecom is acting irresponsibly. It is not living up to its stated policy of avoiding siting cellphone transmitters near education centres, and it has failed to consult the community.

There is a public meeting with Telecom at the Atawhai Exchange from 1pm on Tuesday, May 20. Concerned parents and residents are urged to attend and to let Telecom know that its planned Atawhai site is unacceptable.

KATE MITCHELL

Nelson, May 15.

Deja vu ?

What can we say? we are not experts ...


A View Back In Time






From youtube.com <

International Standards for Cell Phone Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation

Exposure standards for public exposure to RF/MW radiation at cell phone frequencies in other countries is, in some cases, substantially lower than the US and Canadian limits (Table 1). The World Health Organization EMF Research Program is involved in a multi-year effort to review RF/MW health effects and make recommendations for exposure standards. In the interim, other countries around the world show considerable variation in what they consider safe exposure levels:

• Saltzberg (pulsed)................................ 0.1 microwatts per centimeter squared


• China...................................................6.6 microwatts per centimeter squared


• Russia..................................................10 microwatts per centimeter squared


• Italy.....................................................10 microwatts per centimeter squared


• Switzerland..........................................4.2 microwatts per centimeter squared


• Auckland, New Zealand......................50 microwatts per centimeter squared


• United States ..................................around 580 microwatts per centimeter squared


• Canada ............................................around 580 microwatts per centimeter squared

There is substantial controversy among regulatory agencies in the federal government over the RF/MW exposure standards now in effect. A growing body of scientific evidence has linked RF/MW exposure to biological effects and health effects at levels lower than current FCC RF/MW standards allow. With respect to pulsed RFR, amplitude-modulated RFR and chronic low-level exposure there is uncertainty about risk, and no presumptive assurance or

warranty of safety can be made (see FDA and US Government Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group comments above).


(via Orgone Biophysical Research Lab: Orgonomy & Wilhelm Reich)

Sarah Allen addresses the Nelson City Council regarding the 22m phone mast Telecom plans to put up over the Atawhai play-centre near Nelson NZ.

Nelson 14 May 2007

Youtube

Sue grey addresses the Nelson City Council about the proposed 22m phone mast above our play-centre and our pre-school.

Youtube

Telecom branded arrogant over tower

Nelson Mail 15/05/2008


Sir:
With its intention to erect a cellular antenna tower at its Atawhai facility, Telecom adds injury to the ongoing insult of exorbitant rates. Have No qualms, cellular radiation is harmful! Protest by local residents and the Atawhai Playcentre, where children will be playing just meters away from the mast, has prompted Telecom to fly in an expert on radiation to ease people’s trepidation. Does that imply that there IS indeed radiation? For every argument such an expert might provide, a counter argument exists. This is not a percentage game compromise, nor is it a gamble. It is the health and well being of an entire community, well into the future. Telecom argues that the public wants this service. In fact, a recent Telecom newsletter, which we all receive with our monthly bill, quoted a significant percentage of cellular phone users would rather lose a limb or a finger than to live without the contraption. This says a lot about the seriousness and validity of Telecom’s approach to the data fueling their decision making. Such arrogance is made possible by the omnipotence of a monopoly. Like a bull in a china shop, Telecom is thriving on outdated government mandates suitable for old fashioned switchboard and operators, not for radiation- inducing health hazard. If Wellington chooses to ignore this issue, local government should interfere. And if they rather bury their heads in the sand, residents need raise a voice. I for one, will regretfully pull my child out of Atawhai Playcentre should the antenna be installed. Cheap real-estate anyone?

Avner Nahmias
Todd Valley
15, May 2008

Telecom puts its network towers on hold

The Nelson Mail - The Nelson Mail
(via New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz )








Strong public opposition to a controversial cellphone tower proposed for Atawhai has partly led to Telecom putting its plans to build new cellphone towers in Nelson on hold until at least next year.



Telecom’s announcement late yesterday means the company will be taking more time to find an alternative site for the tower that it had planned to erect next to Atawhai Playcentre.

The decision has been welcomed by groups opposed to the scheme, who launched a petition over it, but has disappointed the head of Nelson’s business development agency, who said the technology was needed to help business development.

Telecom had confirmed earlier Wednesday that nine new structures were planned for Nelson and Richmond as the company sought to develop a new mobile phone network. However, later in the day it said it was delaying the project as part of a national re-prioritisation of where to build the new network.

Atawhai Playcentre president Sarah Allen, who is part of the group outraged at Telecom’s plan to put the cellphone tower next to the playcentre, said the decision was "great news" but it was too early to get too excited.

"I think if you have a loud enough voice, you will be heard, but this has brought this community together - it’s brought people together with great skills to fight this happening, but the battle is not over yet."

Telecom spokesman Ian Bonnar declined to say whether the delay was because Telecom was reluctant to wade into a bigger fight than it had envisaged, particularly when it came to resource consent applications on some of the Nelson sites. He did say there was no other area in the country that had been so "vociferous" in its opposition to the scheme.

"We are going to use the time for Atawhai, in particular, to find an alternative site.

"It doesn’t mean it’s off the table - it was a pragmatic decision that brought a whole lot of pieces together in the decision of what we need to roll out first."

He said the new mobile broadband technology, which supports development of the 3G network, will now be launched in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and rolled out progressively to other regions.

He said a good mobile broadband solution was available on Telecom’s current network, so customers would be able to use that for the time being.

Up until Wednesday, 22m high cellphone towers similar to that proposed for Atawhai, were also planned this year for Richmond, Nelson Airport and Saxton Field.

Telecom was also in negotiations for five further sites around Nelson, ranging from antennas on a pole on a rooftop in the city to lightpoles and smaller masts (15m).

Nelson Economic Development Agency chief executive Bill Findlater said the business community wanted the best technology it could get, and any delay would halt businesses moving forward, but he understood compromise was needed in this situation.

"It’s disappointing Telecom has delayed this project, but it was a business decision," Mr Findlater said.

Nelson Mayor Kerry Marshall said the decision was surprising, considering the opposition had "only barely started", but he was delighted.

"Telecom has listened to what people have said. The response from residents, the council and other agencies was worthwhile," he said.

Ms Allen said the Nelson lobby group, which had been gathering signatures for a petition opposed to the building of cellphone towers near educational facilities anywhere in the country, will still present the petition to Parliament.

Telecom said its planned open day at the Atawhai exchange next Tuesday, May 20, will still go ahead from 1pm.

Four sites for phone towers

The Nelson Mail - The Nelson Mail
(via New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz )






Cellphone towers similar to the one planned for Atawhai - which has sparked a petition from outraged residents - are also likely to be erected at other sites in Nelson, Stoke and Richmond, as Telecom seeks to develop a whole new mobile phone network.




Telecom spokesman Ian Bonnar said on Tuesday that it had secured all legal rights, including resource consents and landowner agreements, to build four sites including the Atawhai Exchange, Richmond Exchange, one at Nelson Airport and another at Saxton Field. Mr Bonnar said all sites would have towers that looked similar to Atawhai, at 22m high. The developments were for Telecom’s plans to extend its powerful, highspeed 3G network. Telecom was also "in negotiations for five further sites" ranging from antennas on a pole on a rooftop in the city, to lightpoles and smaller masts (15m).

"We prefer to work with existing structures so that the equipment blends into existing infrastructure," Mr Bonnar said.

City council planning and consents divisional manager Richard Johnson confirmed Telecom was investigating a range of upgrades to communications equipment at several sites throughout Nelson. Some were on undesignated land which meant the company would have to follow the resource consent process. The other sites being considered by Telecom are understood to include one at 47 Tahunanui Drive, two at Motueka Rd at the Grampians, one on Fringed Hill and another at the Maungatapu microwave station. Telecom does not need resource consent to develop the Atawhai site, which is located near two playcentres, because it is zoned for telecommunications equipment in the council plan. However, opponents of the proposed cellphone mast in Atawhai, who presented their concerns to the city council’s environment committee Tuesday, urged the council to initiate a plan change. Playcentre president Sarah Allen said there was concern about the viability of the playcentre if the tower went ahead, leaving parents with the next closest venue at Victory Square. Ms Allen said outside the meeting that the group’s petition opposing the tower could apply to Telecom’s wider plans, which they had been "shocked" to learn about.

"We see it as being of national importance. Several members of our group are very committed to it not happening across a wider area, but our focus right now is on the Atawhai site."

Environment committee chairwoman Rachel Reese said the council took the issue very seriously.

"We don’t underestimate the seriousness of this. We want to work with smart businesses which want to work with this community."

Nelson Mayor Kerry Marshall said the council had seen the map showing all the sites, which showed it was grappling with a bigger picture than just Atawhai.

"There’s an issue for us generally."

Mr Bonnar said Telecom had arranged to bring a specialist in radio frequencies from Auckland University to speak with Nelson residents and the council at next week’s public meeting in Atawhai.

"These towers are very low-powered, and represent some of the most tested technology in the world."

He said the specialist would be available to discuss public concerns about the risk factors. He also said Telecom remained open to discussing an alternative site at Atawhai, but the meeting on Tuesday would provide an opportunity for Telecom to "get its side across" also.



The meeting will be held at the Atawhai exchange near Dodson Valley, from 1pm.

Panorama - Wi-fi a warning signal part 1

See following parts 2 and 3 here.

We can all stop this now !

 

List of sites where the petitions can be signed

NES Petition