27 May 2008
Dear Nick

As you may be aware, Telecom New Zealand has decided to reprioritise the roll out of its new WCDMA mobile network which means that the proposed mobile site installation at Atawhai will not take place until 2009. Telecom has committed to using the time available to work with the Nelson community to address their concerns.

Telecom attended a public meeting on Tuesday, May 20th and also hosted an Open Day at the Atawhai Exchange immediately after the meeting. Telecom spoke at the meeting to reiterate our belief that mobile phone sites pose no risks to human health.

However, given the community's opposition to the proposed site, and in the spirit of being a responsible company in their community, we are keen to work with the community and council to find an alternate site that would be acceptable to us both. If such a site can be found, we won't build at the Atawhai Exchange.

The Open Day saw around 100 people come through the exchange where they could speak with representatives from Telecom and an independent expert on radio frequency emissions and health effects from Auckland University, Dr David Black.

The public events were followed by a meeting with Nelson City Council the next day, where we discussed the formation of a representative group from council and the community to work with us on finding an alternate site. We expect to meet with that group in the next month or so.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.

Dean Schmidt
Head of Government and Community Relations - Telecom

9 June 2008
Dear Heather
Thanks for your letter regarding the issues over Telecoms proposed new cell phone tower at Atawhai. My congratulations on your very successful public meeting that I was most disappointed not to be able to attend.

I have had further contact with Telecom to try and get them to see some sense. My latest letter from them indicates they are starting to realise that they need to work with the community (copy enclosed).

I remain of the view that the right way forward is in finding a less offensive site - prehaps on council owned land a good distance from the Playcentre. If there is any way i can help facilitate this, I am happy to be further involved.

Nick Smith

Telecom, its celltowers, and the community

Sue Grey
I’ve learnt a lot about celltowers recently. I’ve also learned a lot about the balance of power between big business and the community. From the community’s perspective, it’s not pretty.

I joined the Atawhai community’s challenge to Telecom’s proposed celltower because the location just didn’t seem right. Surely with a bit of encouragement Telecom would apologise for its errors and move its proposed 22m tower away from the playcentre and preschool. But as I listened and learned, I came to realise that the lack of consultation was just the start.

Why did Telecom ignore its own commitments to the community? How did its superficial assessment of the effects of its proposed tower and the resulting electromagnetic smog suffice, when most of us must spend thousands to get consent for relatively minor projects? With all its resources, how could Telecom have got it so wrong?

Why do our planning laws let profitdriven multinationals override the interests of local communities? Is our local plan really as toothless against the might of Telecom as our council assumed?

Why do the New Zealand Standards for electromagnetic radiation emissions (NZS1999:2772) allow a factor of only 50 between levels proven to cause acute harm and what is assumed to be totally safe? Where is the data to support this? Why is the safety margin so small when international experts repeatedly report clusters of serious health effects near celltowers. Why are our standards 4500 times more lax than Austria’s? Why do we deserve less protection even than the Russians and Chinese?

An industry-proposed national environment standard would, if adopted, allow Telecom and its cronies to install any number of transmitters absolutely anywhere, as of right. Why should council and communities be totally excluded from the process? How does that reflect sustainable management of our environment?

Are cellphones that can download movies really so important to our future that they trump all other considerations ? even kids’ health? Why do we assume that all technology is good? Do we even want this technology? What alternatives do we have? What are the costs and benefits of these options for our community? Why should the demands of the market override the rights of communities to evaluate options and make choices?

I’ve learnt there is a parallel universe to the one most of us live in. While we value our place, the market values only money. While we bear the consequences of our actions, corporates walk away from their vandalism. While we labour over computers into the dead of night and through the weekend after finishing our day jobs, they just engage more consultants.

Current ideology is that competition is good and more is better. Yet, maybe we would be better served by a single telecommunications supplier whose prime objective is to act in the best interests of our community and environment, rather than a multitude of same, same and only slightly different multinationals each beating their shareholders’ drum ? and each out to maximise their share of the market and profits irrespective of the cost to our community.

How can we stand up to the might of Telecom to make these choices unless we are given the information and a forum for these discussions? If our current systems don’t deliver the outcomes that our communities want, then maybe it’s time to review those systems and change the balance of power so we do get just and sustainable outcomes. Why shouldn’t we, the community, choose what type of place we want?

I went to Stage Challenge last week. With this awesome array of talent, enthusiasm and awareness from our youth, we should have no fears about the future. New Zealand will be in safe hands.

But as the present guardians we must stand tall and accept responsibility for our place. We must realign the balance of power and win back rights for our community to protect the things we hold dear, the things that make us who we are. Let’s ensure that our Kiwi values, culture and very special part of planet Earth remain worthy of protection.

Nelson Mail 31 May 2008

Cell phone Tower Protest

I want to congratulate you on the amazing work you have done in your community to build opposition to Telecom’s decision to build a 22m tower right next to a local playcentre and an early childhood centre.

I hope your activism will inspire other communities to take similar action, because I am sure we are about to see a proliferation of intrusive telecommunications masts and other equipment rolled out around New Zealand, including right next to educational facilities and early childhood centres, as the telecommunications industry undergoes massive expansion and moves into new technologies such as 3G.

A few months ago a woman wrote to me in despair. She had awoken one morning to discover that a 22m telecommunications mast base was being built right next to her house.

There had been no community consultation about this, and so she literally, woke up one morning and found there was a 22m mast outside her kitchen window. ?I feel empty and powerless? she wrote. The value of their house had plummeted and she was worried about the health effects.

There are numerous other examples. A few months ago the local community in Timaru was outraged when Vodafone erected a 10m pole and equipment cabinet next to several schools, once again without any consultation.

So what we are discussing today is the tip of the iceberg, the first of what will no doubt be many battles.

How did this happen, people are asking? When we need to get a Resource Consent to alter the veranda on our house, how can it be that telecommunications companies don’t need a resource consent to build 22m cell towers wherever they want?

So, first a bit of background. In 1980 our radio frequency standard was developed, based on guidelines developed by an international NGO called the International Commission for Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNRP). The Ministry says the ICNRP is an independent scientific organisation responsible for providing international advice on health hazards?but it is in fact a private organisation.

For reasons that I have yet to establish, we set our standards at levels that are far more permissive than Russia, East European and many other standards ?100 and in some cases thousands of times more permissive. And having set this very permissive standard we then declared that any activity which is within the standard is acceptable.

Then in 1991 the government devolved all decision making power for telecommunications infrastructure to local authorities when the Resource Management Act came into effect. This means its up to local authorities to decide whether a 22m high cell mast is built next to your play centre or not.

Most Councils have responded to lobbying by telecommunications industries and agreed to allow the installation of telecommunications facilities --- even 22m cell masts ? as a permitted activity under their district plans ? meaning they can be built as of right, without having to consult first with a local community.

Then last year, under pressure from Telecommunications companies who wanted to roll out their new technologies more rapidly, without interference from annoying community groups, the government announced a new Telecommunications National Environmental Standard. Cabinet papers show that the standard was drawn up by the telecommunications companies themselves, and then rubber stamped by government.

The new so-called environmental standard will allow any antenna, masts, or cellular and wireless phone equipment to be installed as of right, without consultation, on virtually any telephone pole any that is sited on road reserve all around New Zealand, even if it is right next to someone’s house, or playcentre, or school.

There will be no need for the telecommunications companies to obtain planning permission or Resource Consent to do this, or even bother to let people know what new equipment they have installed on a pole near their house.

If local residents are concerned there might be too much radiation coming from equipment, they will have to prove it in court, at their own expense. There will be no monitoring system to ensure that the standard is not breached.

There are no restrictions either on how many antennae or masts can be added to a single pole so each company could add their own equipment. Nor is there any obligation of companies to remove outdated and rusting equipment from power poles, even if they are no longer using it.

There is growing international concern about the long term effects of some new technologies coming onto the market ?such as Wi Fi technology?but there is no requirement for telecommunications companies to take health effects into account when they install any new technology near to where you live or work. Actually there is no requirement to have a new technology safety tested before it enters the market.

The Green Party launched a major campaign against this new standard, and encouraged the community to put in submissions against it. But the government ignored the submissions and campaign against it, railroaded the new standard through, and the new regulations are about to be released.

We can see the same thing happening overseas, as telecommunications companies seek to roll out their new technologies. Mobile phone and masts are springing up all over Europe and so are groups like yourselves. Mast Sanity in the UK, for example, supports communities like yours who are opposing local installation.

Parents of children at a school in Coulsdon near Croydon, recently blockaded contractors from phone operator T mobile who were trying to erect a mobile mast just yards from the Chipstead Valley primary school. The parents formed the Radio Action group, and used their cars to stop a crane reaching the proposed site. They discovered there were already 15 masts within a single mile of their school, as well as clear scientific evidence that mobile phone radiation can have a damaging effect on the health of young children.

In New Zealand the Ministry of Health claims ?there are no clearly established adverse health effects arising from the emissions of radio waves from cell sites.’ Yet even while confidently dismissing community health concerns, it uses careful language to qualify its assertion. ?Some studies have been interpreted as suggesting the possibility of health effects at levels below those sited in the guidelines, it acknowledges.? And because of the ?residual scientific uncertainty,? it recommends alternative low cost solutions in order to avoid or reduce these exposures. ?If there are different options available when siting a radio transmitter those resulting in the lowest incidental exposure around a site should be chosen, all other things being equal,? it says.

The Ministry of Health also has a whole section in its advice to local government on how to deal with the concerned residents who don’t accept the party line that all radiofrequency exposures are safe.

?Risk communication is an important element of risk management and should form part of their strategies to address radio frequency issues,? it says. They then go on to advise industry to nominate one contact person who is honest, trustworthy and who will treat community members with respect. ?While not conceding there are health effects below international standards, the industry contact will still recognise that it is legitimate for communities to express concern.?

What this means is that consultation with the community (should it occur) will be a meaningless public relations exercise rather than genuine consultation.

The Green Party will be releasing policy on these issues in the coming months. But it is imperative, in our view, that residents have a say over their local environment, including where intrusive telecommunications equipments are installed. In our view, our local environment ?the commons if you like?should not be able to be unilaterally appropriated by corporations for corporate gain.

Corporations should be required to consult and negotiate with their community over where they site intrusive installations like telecommunications masts, and to minimise the impact of any installations on the local community, and no telecommunications facilities should be permitted within 100m of an educational facility.

We also believe it is imperative that we put the interests of children ahead of corporate profits. We hear a lot about ?children first’ policies in election year, and political parties are eager to talk about their child-friendly policies. Yet when it comes to protecting our children from new and unproven communications technologies with potentially significant risks, they are silent and refuse to take a precautionary approach.

But this is no gambling matter. It is the health of our children that is at risk.