Archive navigationWelcomeHeadlinesSearch
.
CategoriesArchives
SettingsLog InCredits |
31/10/2008 at 23:40:10  FIRE FIGHTERS REFUSE MAST The International Association of Fire Fighters position on locating cell towers commercial wireless infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its membership in August 2004 is that the IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members. Why is it so difficult to take similar approach for schools and public areas ? read the full story here 21/10/2008 at 20:30:56  Cancer risk in mobile phones: Official By EMMA MORTON Health and Science Editor Published: Today
|
By LUCY VICKERS - Autocar | Thursday, 09 October 2008 |
Worried about property value
From :Stuff.co.nz Auckland
Denis Donovan is complaining his water views have been obstructed by what he calls a "whopping great cellphone tower".
The Hauraki resident got an unexpected and unwanted surprise when the 14.6 metre high structure was put in last week.
It was installed for New Zealand Communications Ltd.
He says he wasn’t consulted about it and when he called the North Shore City Council he was told there was nothing that could be done because it was a non-notified resource consent application and approval had been given.
New Zealand Communications senior town planner Fiona Lilley says the company has gone through the correct process.
"The council deemed it non-notified and that there didn’t need to be a consultation process because the effects would be no more than minor.
"We lodged our application and from there it’s in the council’s hands."
Ms Lilley says the tower is on the roadside which is council land. She also says it is non-intrusive.
Mr Donovan says he has called the council and the company and had little response about why he wasn’t consulted.
The best he could get was someone from the council offering to inform him about cellphone tower safety issues, he says.
"I have had no input or say, no chance for objection."
All he received was a letter in the post two weeks ago.
"It has devalued our property immensely. No one wants to buy a house with that on the property. I owe more on the mortgage than what the house is worth."
Mr Donovan bought the house for $390,000 nine years ago and a recent valuation put it at $800,000.
Ms Lilley says she "begs to differ" that it would affect the house price.
"We used an existing street light. It wasn’t like we put up a new pole or anything."
Denis Donovan is complaining his water views have been obstructed by what he calls a "whopping great cellphone tower". The Hauraki resident got an unexpected and unwanted surprise when the 14.6 metre high structure was put in last week.
It was installed for New Zealand Communications Ltd.
He says he wasn’t consulted about it and when he called the North Shore City Council he was told there was nothing that could be done because it was a non-notified resource consent application and approval had been given.
New Zealand Communications senior town planner Fiona Lilley says the company has gone through the correct process.
"The council deemed it non-notified and that there didn’t need to be a consultation process because the effects would be no more than minor.
"We lodged our application and from there it’s in the council’s hands."
Ms Lilley says the tower is on the roadside which is council land. She also says it is non-intrusive.
Mr Donovan says he has called the council and the company and had little response about why he wasn’t consulted.
The best he could get was someone from the council offering to inform him about cellphone tower safety issues, he says.
"I have had no input or say, no chance for objection."
All he received was a letter in the post two weeks ago.
"It has devalued our property immensely. No one wants to buy a house with that on the property. I owe more on the mortgage than what the house is worth."
Mr Donovan bought the house for $390,000 nine years ago and a recent valuation put it at $800,000.
Ms Lilley says she "begs to differ" that it would affect the house price.
"We used an existing street light. It wasn’t like we put up a new pole or anything."
15/10/2008 at 22:26:04
TELECOM DELAYS CELL ’ANTENNAE’
From OneHunga,co.nz
Thanks Mike !
Protests from residents living near the corner of Trafalgar Street and Onehunga Mall have seen Telecom put a hold on the installation of a cell phone ’repeater’ station above the Tin Tacks Dairy. The site would have consisted of up to six cell phone receiver antennae and a GPS station. At a meeting between representatives of Telecom’s Chorus Division and the residents group React on Tuesday, Melanie Marshall of Chorus said that all work on the installation had been put on hold while the company reviewed its options. Ms. Marshall also apologised to residents for the company’s failure to consult with the community before commencing the work.
Avan Polo and Mike Silich of React (Residents Against the Cell Tower) said they were not opposed to cell phone technology, in fact both pointed out they were heavy technology users, rather they were concerned about the location of the antennae so close to homes and the failure of Chorus to consult with them before commencing the installation. M.r Silich said they only found out on Wednesday the 24th of September by accident, when Mr. Silich’s tenant at 162 Trafalgar Street received an incorrect resource consent notice. The notice said the antennae would be installed above 162 Trafalgar Street, when they were actually being installed at 164; Tin Tack’s address. By that time preparatory work on the roof of the dairy had already commenced without any of the surrounding residents knowing about it.
Mr. Silich was also outraged when the very next day Telecom representatives appeared before a Parliamentary Select Committee and claimed that the company was consulting fully with communities before installing any new cell sites. Ms. Marshall said that the company had sent out notifications of the new cell site, but errors on Auckland City Council maps meant the company did not have the correct addresses. However the letters were supposedly hand delivered and Mr. Polo, who lives directly behind the dairy, said regardless of whether the actual address was correct, if the letters were supposed to be hand delivered he should have received one. Mr. Silich who lives next door to Mr. Polo also did not receive any notification.
Along with the failure of Chorus to properly consult with residents, React were angry about the choice of the dairy for the antennae, especially when there is a council owned building (The Parks Department building) only a few hundred metres further down Trafalgar Street. They argued that with a sizable car park and other commercial buildings around it, the Parks Department building would have been a far more suitable location, especially has there are no homes in close proximity to the building; unlike the Tin Tacks Dairy site. Mr. Polo said the antennae would be about 15 metres from his bedroom and his children’s rooms would only be a few metres further away. He said that he would have to move if the antennae were installed, because the long term effects of such close exposure were still largely unknown and as a responsible parent with four young children he would be negligent in continuing to raise them in such a situation.
Ms. Marshall was unable to immediately comment on why the council structure was not being used, as the choice of the site was made by a technical group she was not part of, but she assured the members of React she would look into the matter. With Ms. Marshall’s assurance the work had been halted, React have said they will wait until Chorus have reviewed the situation before considering their next move. The antennae would have risen to a maximum of 12 metres above the ground and were being installed to cope with continuing growth in cell phone use, much of it driven by the increase in people accessing the internet via cell phones. They were also intended to fix a ’dead zone’ in cell coverage around Athens Road, to the north of Mt. Smart Road
12/10/2008 at 01:17:55
Question for Oral Answer: Telecommunications - National Environmental Standards
7. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Environment: Is he concerned that the proposed national environmental standards for telecommunications facilities would allow masts and antennas for wireless telecommunications networks to be stationed on road reserve all over New Zealand without needing resource consent?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister for Environment): No, I am not concerned. The installation of low-impact masts and small antennas is already permitted, without the need for resource consent, in the majority of district plans. The proposed national environmental standards will ensure consistency and allowable thresholds across districts.
Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that if the new standards go ahead, in future people will have absolutely no say as to whether that will happen right outside their front gate or school?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that large structures, like traditional cellphone towers, are not covered by the standard but that smaller antennas that sometimes sit on power poles are. I can also confirm that this Government, unlike National, will not gut the Resource Management Act but will advance sensible measures to ensure consistency across the country and to lower compliance costs.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is it not the case that the proposed national environmental standards for telecommunications facilities were largely written by the telecommunications industries, which got everything they wanted in it; and will he now be asking Federated Farmers and the coal industry to write the national environmental standards for fresh water?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I am sure the Ministry for the Environment took into account more than industry submissions in the drafting of the draft national environmental standards, and I am sure it will take appropriate note of all of the public submissions that have been made upon the draft.
Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that under the new standards there will be no restrictions on how many antennas and other equipment can be added to telephone poles on road reserves all around New Zealand; no requirement to consult, or even inform people, when new equipment is installed outside their homes and schools; no restrictions on the uses that telecommunications companies could make of these new technologies; and no requirement to take into account the health effects of the new technologies; and why would his Government support these unreasonable requirements?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm all of those matters. I can confirm that one of the concerns that have been raised in submissions is that without restriction there could be a proliferation of these things, so that some telephone poles start looking like hedgehogs. I agree that is an appropriate concern, and I am sure that will be one of the matters that are taken into account in the drafting of the final standards.
Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table two documents from the United Kingdom pointing out the health concerns of increased radiation exposure.
Leave granted.
11/10/2008 at 21:40:50
HUM and FRY and a POKE in the EYE
ACTION GROUPS AGAINST CELL PHONE SITES NZ NEWSLETTER
Week Ending Friday Sep 26
Saturday 20
- Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004 - 2010 presented to the European Parliament Plans listed the following points:
- Jim Turnbull, Group Manager, National Radiation Laboratory, Ministry of Health invites Sue Grey of Atawhai (Nelson) Action Group to the National Radiation Laboratory to discuss EMR because ?her interest in the subject is obvious?
Sunday 21
- Minutes obtained under the Official Information Act suggest our Government may have never seen the above mentioned Bio-Initiative international report
- ?The Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields noted that Bioinitiative Report and that it differed from WHO advice but the Committee accepts WHO advice as most appropriate to base policy on
- The Interagency Committee provides advice to our Government, thus acting as a filter.
- Comments in the minutes of the Interagency Committee:
- Bioinitaitive Working Group report: the conclusions are at odds with WHO and argue for more restrictive ELF and RF limits. The report appears to emphasis papers that found effects and takes less cognisance of papers that found no effects. Some statements made in the report would appear hard to defend
- ?The Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields noted that Bioinitiative Report and that it differed from WHO advice but the Committee accepts WHO advice as most appropriate to base policy on
Monday 22
- Auckland City Council advise resource consents aren’t available on line but they are available for viewing at Council Offices
- Doesn’t make it easy to find out if new applications have been filed
Wednesday 24
- Presentation to Waiheke Community Board asking for the 12m tower application on Marama Ave to be made notifiable due to the height
- Went well, two resolutions passed
- BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
- The link to the report, all 610 pages of it!
- http://www.bioinitiative.org/
report/docs/report.pdf (sorry if this link doesn’t open for you, it did for me)
- The link to the report, all 610 pages of it!
Thursday 25
- Second submission by Atawhai (Nelson) Action Group to Parliament Local Government and Environment Select Committee
- Stuff.co.nz reports on Telecom’s response
- ?Telecom admits mistakes over cell phone towers?
- http://www.stuff.co.nz/
4705634a11.html
- Stuff.co.nz reports on Telecom’s response
- Waiheke local paper runs humourous cartoon
- One picture is worth a thousand words!
- http://www.banthetower.co.nz/
blogs/index.php/item/132
- One picture is worth a thousand words!
Friday 26
- Telecom’s plans for a site in Onehunga are discovered
- Another to add to the growing list
02/10/2008 at 22:49:29
TOWERING RAGE
Auckland residents are angry over phone antennae springing up. from :The AucklanderJoseph Barratt reports:
It’s not good at all. I can’t believe they put it there,’ says Maria Madill as her two children run excitedly across the front lawn, seemingly oblivious to the new antenna on the building across the road.
``It’s not so much the visual impact as what the dangers could be,’ says Mrs Madill. ``We’ve done some research and there is all sorts of information that points to it not being good for people’s health.’
The transmitters are hard to spot from Maskell St in St Heliers where the family lives. But they are clearly visible from Riddell Rd which runs behind it.
``I’m surprised they allowed them to go there. There are young families all around us. There’s a primary school directly across the road and a kindergarten a little further down.’ says Mrs Madill.
``Why do we even need another phone tower? We already get mobile coverage.
``We didn’t even know it was going up until we got back from holiday.’
Auckland City Council’s chief environmental health officer wrote in the resource consent that the ``level of potential exposure to electromagnetic radiation is within the bylaw exposure limit, the environmental effects will be less than minor’.
Notification was not compulsory. However, there was a chance to appeal within 14 days of the antennae being built.
This is slim comfort to John Elton, whose house is the closest to the transmitters. He was oversease for two weeks and the appeal period had lapsed by the time he came home to see the antennae towering over his back yard.
He’s also concerned there does not appear to be any consideration given to the fact that there is already adequate mobile phone coverage.
``Given the general public’s concern over electromagnetic fields and all that, I believe it should have been notified.’
Mr Elton says residents are left with little choice but to accept the situation. ``If we want to contest it we have to take it to the Environment Court which is about $3000 a day. We cannot afford that sort of thing.’
The antennae were built by a newcomer on the telecommunications scene, NZ Communications. For the company, Fiona Lilley says it was not a requirement to consult neighbours but it would have been polite to do so.
``We will ensure to do so in the future. We are not trying to hide anything. I can tell you that the radio emissions are well under national standards and I can safely say it’s not harmful to humans.’
Mrs Lilley says the company would prefer to attach its antennae to existing towers built by Telecom or Vodafone, but those companies won’t allow it. ``We strongly believe in co-location. However, they won’t let us.
``It’s not so much the visual impact as what the dangers could be,’ says Mrs Madill. ``We’ve done some research and there is all sorts of information that points to it not being good for people’s health.’
The transmitters are hard to spot from Maskell St in St Heliers where the family lives. But they are clearly visible from Riddell Rd which runs behind it.
``I’m surprised they allowed them to go there. There are young families all around us. There’s a primary school directly across the road and a kindergarten a little further down.’ says Mrs Madill.
``Why do we even need another phone tower? We already get mobile coverage.
``We didn’t even know it was going up until we got back from holiday.’
Auckland City Council’s chief environmental health officer wrote in the resource consent that the ``level of potential exposure to electromagnetic radiation is within the bylaw exposure limit, the environmental effects will be less than minor’.
Notification was not compulsory. However, there was a chance to appeal within 14 days of the antennae being built.
This is slim comfort to John Elton, whose house is the closest to the transmitters. He was oversease for two weeks and the appeal period had lapsed by the time he came home to see the antennae towering over his back yard.
He’s also concerned there does not appear to be any consideration given to the fact that there is already adequate mobile phone coverage.
``Given the general public’s concern over electromagnetic fields and all that, I believe it should have been notified.’
Mr Elton says residents are left with little choice but to accept the situation. ``If we want to contest it we have to take it to the Environment Court which is about $3000 a day. We cannot afford that sort of thing.’
The antennae were built by a newcomer on the telecommunications scene, NZ Communications. For the company, Fiona Lilley says it was not a requirement to consult neighbours but it would have been polite to do so.
``We will ensure to do so in the future. We are not trying to hide anything. I can tell you that the radio emissions are well under national standards and I can safely say it’s not harmful to humans.’
Mrs Lilley says the company would prefer to attach its antennae to existing towers built by Telecom or Vodafone, but those companies won’t allow it. ``We strongly believe in co-location. However, they won’t let us.
``In many countries co-location is enforced, but our government has not made it a priority.
``We have made an effort to make them as nondescript as possible.’
SITE SEEING
NZ Communications plans about 1200 more antenna sites around the country, 280 in the Auckland region. The sites will be on fields, roofs and at roadsides.
NZ Communications says it is necessary to bring calling costs down.
``New Zealand currently pays some of the highest mobile calling rates in the developed world. We believe this is because of a lack of competition
01/10/2008 at 21:33:37
Call to fight antenna
By HEATHER MCCRACKEN - Central Leader | Wednesday, 01 October 2008Neighbours are angry a mobile phone antenna being built next to their homes was approved without their knowledge.
Mike Silich and Avan Polo are vowing to fight Telecom’s use of an Onehunga shop roof for the new antenna.
The rooftop site has been leased from the property owner, but neighbours weren’t told until a letter was sent to one resident last week.
"There’s been no consultation and if you talk to anyone in the community, they don’t know about it," Mr Polo says.
"And the scary part is, they’ve done nothing wrong."
Neighbours don’t have to be informed about new antennas, a permitted activity under Auckland City Council’s district plan.
Mr Polo, who has four young children, says he’s read conflicting reports on potential health risks from radio frequency fields.
"You’ve got a lot of research saying one thing, and others saying something else," Mr Polo says.
"Shouldn’t we have a cautious approach until research is substantiated?"
Mr Silich says he’d consider shifting away if the antenna goes ahead.
"I don’t know if I could live with myself if my young daughter was affected by it," he says.
The Trafalgar St site is across the road from a Plunket clinic and within 1km of several schools and preschools.
The neighbours were galled at Telecom’s statement to a parliamentary select committee last week that communities were consulted over cell tower sites.
The committee was considering a 3000-signature petition calling for no towers within 1km of schools and preschools.
Telecom spokeswoman Melanie Marshall says neighbours are notified after consent processes have been completed.
"Our policy is to send out notification letters so they’re aware of the build, although we’re not required to," she says.
A letter should have been hand-delivered to Mr Polo, as an adjoining property-owner, and it’s not known why he didn’t receive it.
The policy regarding which neighbours are contacted is also under review.
Ms Marshall says Telecom complies with the relevant district plan when choosing sites.
Locations near schools are avoided, but not because of safety concerns.
"Our mobile phone sites operate within the standard and we believe them to be safe. It’s because of public perception that we’ve taken up that policy."
Ms Marshall says there are about 1000 sites throughout the country. New ones are needed regularly to meet increasing demand for mobile phone services.
The owner of the Trafalgar St site, who lives on the property, is overseas for three weeks.
A family member told the Central Leader he was unable to be contacted.
The neighbours have formed a group called Residents Against Cell Towers to oppose the antenna in Onehunga.
Mike Silich and Avan Polo are vowing to fight Telecom’s use of an Onehunga shop roof for the new antenna.
The rooftop site has been leased from the property owner, but neighbours weren’t told until a letter was sent to one resident last week.
"There’s been no consultation and if you talk to anyone in the community, they don’t know about it," Mr Polo says.
"And the scary part is, they’ve done nothing wrong."
Neighbours don’t have to be informed about new antennas, a permitted activity under Auckland City Council’s district plan.
Mr Polo, who has four young children, says he’s read conflicting reports on potential health risks from radio frequency fields.
"You’ve got a lot of research saying one thing, and others saying something else," Mr Polo says.
"Shouldn’t we have a cautious approach until research is substantiated?"
Mr Silich says he’d consider shifting away if the antenna goes ahead.
"I don’t know if I could live with myself if my young daughter was affected by it," he says.
The Trafalgar St site is across the road from a Plunket clinic and within 1km of several schools and preschools.
The neighbours were galled at Telecom’s statement to a parliamentary select committee last week that communities were consulted over cell tower sites.
The committee was considering a 3000-signature petition calling for no towers within 1km of schools and preschools.
Telecom spokeswoman Melanie Marshall says neighbours are notified after consent processes have been completed.
"Our policy is to send out notification letters so they’re aware of the build, although we’re not required to," she says.
A letter should have been hand-delivered to Mr Polo, as an adjoining property-owner, and it’s not known why he didn’t receive it.
The policy regarding which neighbours are contacted is also under review.
Ms Marshall says Telecom complies with the relevant district plan when choosing sites.
Locations near schools are avoided, but not because of safety concerns.
"Our mobile phone sites operate within the standard and we believe them to be safe. It’s because of public perception that we’ve taken up that policy."
Ms Marshall says there are about 1000 sites throughout the country. New ones are needed regularly to meet increasing demand for mobile phone services.
The owner of the Trafalgar St site, who lives on the property, is overseas for three weeks.
A family member told the Central Leader he was unable to be contacted.
The neighbours have formed a group called Residents Against Cell Towers to oppose the antenna in Onehunga.
This website is a single issue community site dedicated to reflecting the current concerns of the people in the area of Corder Park, Nelson. The content is under constant review and is changed and updated regularly by volunteers. Thank you for visiting and please check back soon for the latest reports.
