By MATT BOWEN - Eastern Courier

City councillors could shave 15 percent off the value of two east Auckland properties tomorrow night

A working party set up to investigate alternative sites for telecommunications company 2degrees' proposed mobile base stations outside 145 Clovelly Rd and 25 Pigeon Mountain Rd has failed to find alternatives.

The proposal remains unchanged because of the telco's technical requirements.
And the loss of property value for Tina and Rowan Hegley at 145 Clovelly Rd would be very real.

The Hegleys stand to lose more than $100,000 in capital value.
Leigh Roy from Total Focus Property has been selling real estate in Howick for 15 years.

She says people's fear of health effects from cell sites, whether real or imagined, affect both the value and saleability of properties.
A prospective buyer was about to put an offer on a property recently but discovered a cell tower would potentially go up on the verge outside, Mrs Roy says.
"This purchaser has had health issues and was not prepared to take the risk.

"This was some months ago now and that particular property is still for sale."

She knows of another buyer who looked at a property also identified as a cell site option.
"Aside from the potential health issues it was more a fear of the unknown, including the impact of the look of the property, potential view loss and noise from the box."

A 2005 study co-authored by Dr Sandy Bond on cell site proximity affecting residential property prices in Christchurch reinforces her claims.
It concluded there's about a 15 percent drop in value after a tower is built.

They also found the effect generally reduces with distance from the site.
At 300 metres it's negligible.

Results did vary between neighbourhoods, with one site having a positive impact on price.
But the authors say that's possibly because of the site being built before any negative media publicity and better concealment of the site.
Dr Bond is a former university professor with a PhD in property valuation.
The working party of Manukau city councillors were all in agreement except Pakuranga councillor David Collings and Howick's Sharon Stewart.

They believe 2degrees should do more to loosen its technical requirements. That could require more investment but would provide a better outcome for the community.

"The council has bent over backwards to accommodate this on parks and reserves to keep them away from residential homes, schools and childcare facilities, but these have been rejected on points that they can't achieve their technical requirements," Mrs Stewart says.

Council officers are also due to report their findings about the valuation effects of cell sites directly outside residential properties.

Tomorrow's 5pm meeting is open to the public.

Spokeswoman for 2degrees Bryony Hilless says the company does not accept cell sites reduce property values.

"Property values are affected by many factors and it is impossible to quantify and attribute changes to one factor.

"Property owners are not assured their neighbourhood will remain unchanged. Changes such as new structures, houses and roads can always occur in accordance with the relevant planning rules," she says.

? Howick and Botany Times

Wednesday, 26 August 2009  

By MARIANNE KELLY

ABOUT 1500 people have signed a petition, which will soon be presented to Parliament, calling for changes to be made to legislation that allows cellphone masts and service cabinets to be installed in residential streets.

Sharon Stewart, Manukau city councillor for Howick, and Pakuranga's David Collings have formed an organisation of Howick, Pakuranga and Botany Ratepayers and Residents called Community Spirit 2009.

The two councillors have sent the petition to Green MP Sue Kedgley, who will be presenting it to the House of Representatives.

The petition asks the Government to prevent construction of cellphone cabinets and electromagnetic radiation (EMR) equipment immediately adjacent to residential homes, pre-schools, schools, retirement villages and health centres.

It asks for cellphone towers and similar transmission devices to be prohibited from being installed near educational facilities.

Legislation to require community consultation and notified consent is also asked for.

"We would like the House of Representatives to amend the NES (national environmental standards) for telecommunications so that telecommunications companies are required to consult with local communities on the location of cell towers, cellphone sites, cabinets and other EMR equipment in their area," the petition says.

It asks the Government to come up with sites that have the least impact on nearby people's homes and schools.

Because Manukau City has come under pressure to decline telco 2degree's latest licence applications, it is also calling for a review of the NES.

The council has asked the Government for improvements to the level of community consultation on cell-tower sites, as well as for consideration of prohibiting sites close to homes, schools and childcare centres.

Meanwhile, the council will receive a report at its meeting tomorrow from a working party set up to review three 2degrees site applications still not approved.

The sites are in the vicinity of 145 Clovelly Road, 25 Pigeon Mountain Road and Litten Road.

Members of the working party are Mayor Len Brown, Sharon Stewart and Jami-Lee Ross (Howick), David Collings and Dick Quax (Pakuranga), Maggie Burrill (Botany-Clevedon) and Anne Candy (Manurewa)

By Matt Hamblen | Thursday, 27 August, 2009

A group of international scientists today released a report that again raises concerns about cellphone usage and brain tumours, noting that one recent Swedish study saw a 400% increased risk for teenage cell phone users.

The 37-page report, from a group calling itself the International EMF (Electromagnetic Field) Collaborative, summarized what it said are the dangers of cell phone use, especially for children, and attempted to blunt an upcoming study being developed by the wireless industry in 13 countries, mainly in western Europe.

"Some countries are already banning cellphones over health concerns, with France saying children in elementary schools can only use them for texting," said the report's author, Lloyd Morgan, in an interview.

"Cellphones can be used appropriately and have a certain usefulness, but I fear we will see a tsunami of brain tumours, although it is too early to see that now since the tumours have a 30-year latency," he added. "I pray I m wrong, but brace yourself."

However, John Walls, vice president of public affairs for the CTIA, a group representing wireless carriers and handset makers in the US, issued a statement today saying "peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk." He noted that the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organisation and the US Food and Drug Administration have all concurred that wireless devices are not a public health risk.

Morgan, a retired electronics engineer based in Berkeley, California, and a member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, wrote the report, Cellphones and Brain Tumours: 15 Reasons for Concern , with the endorsement of 43 scientists and experts from the US, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Groups endorsing the findings include the EMR Policy Institute, the Peoples Initiative Foundation, ElectromagneticHealth.org, The Radiation Research Trust and Powerwatch. A copy of the report and a short video are available at RadiationReserarch.org . 

Morgan said the most damning research linking cellphone usage to brain tumours was noted in a study published in May 2009 in the International Journal of Oncology by a Swedish team of scientists led by Professor Lennart Hardell. It noted that digital cellphone and cordless phone use by users who started when they were teenagers or younger led to a 420% increased risk of brain cancer. Hardell had earlier found that analogue cellphones caused a 700% greater risk of cancer, although today's digital phones lessen the power requirements and reduce the risk.

The higher cancer risk comes from holding a cellphone close to the head over longer periods of time, the Collaborative study notes, and recommends eight steps for reducing exposure to cellphone radiation for adults and children. The steps include using a wired headset on a call, not a wireless headset, or sending messages by texting. Also, the study recommends keeping the cellphone away from your body, including in pockets, and avoiding use in a moving vehicle, since that tends to increase the power and the radiation required as the device moves farther from a cell tower.

The study also recommends using the cellphone like an answering machine, keeping it off until the user is ready to return calls. Avoiding use inside a building will reduce the power and radiation needed, the study said. It also urged using a corded, landline phone whenever possible. The study further recommended that children not be allowed to sleep with a cellphone under a pillow and cautioned parents not to allow a child under 18 to use a cellphone except in an emergency.

A significant point of the collaborative study details 11 flaws in the upcoming Interphone study, which is due out this fall from major carriers in 13 countries. The flaws of that Interphone study, based on components already published, include that it eliminates subjects who use portable phones, even though those devices also emit microwave radiation as cellphones do. The collaborative said the Interphone study also excluded many types of brain tumours from study and eliminated subjects who died or were too ill to be interviewed. The Interphone study also does not include children and young adults, who are more vulnerable, it said.

The Nelson Mail

A group of telecommunications providers is holding a public submission process on how it deals with members of the public concerned about new wireless towers.

The Telecommunications Forum, made up of Telecom, Vodafone, TelstraClear, Trustpower and Woosh, amongst other companies, is drafting a set of community engagement guidelines to standardise its approach to dealing with public concerns about new wireless sites.

Atawhai group Ban the Tower has been protesting Telecom's planned erection of the new-era 3G tower next to the Atawhai Playcentre since May 2008.

Group spokeswoman, environmental lawyer and scientist Sue Grey, said the consultation process was a good step in the right direction. "It is good that they are acknowledging that information should be provided to affected communities," she said. "But the World Health Organisation requires proper consultation with affected communities and what is being proposed falls far short of that."

Early last year Ban the Tower got construction of the tower near the Atawhai Playcentre delayed for community consultation and so new sites could be examined.

Then, with the help of a 3000-strong petition asking for a ban on towers near preschools and schools, it brought the issue before Parliament's local government and environment select committee.

The campaign became national after it was discovered that the Atawhai tower was one of 10 Telecom was proposing for Nelson.

Ms Grey said a different site should be found for the tower. "The crux is that there's increasing concern about long-term effects from cell towers and there should be a cautionary approach."

* To make a submission on the TCF's guidelines contact Susan Wells on 09 475 0203 or email info@tcf.org.nz.

Background

Community engagement on new wireless telecommunications sites is governed by the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the relevant district plans of local authorities.  However, there is an expectation from some communities and local authorities that additional engagement should be carried out, even when it is not required under the district plan e.g. when a new wireless telecommunications site is a permitted activity.  A gap was identified between what level of community engagement is prescribed through RMA processes and where the real expectations of communities and local authorities may lie. 

While some wireless network operators have established practices in relation to community engagement for new wireless telecommunications sites, there is no uniformity in how such engagement is undertaken, or clearly stated standards as to when it is required and what information should be made available. Developing a set of consistent standards will allow the industry to set clear expectations with communities, Councils and Central Government in setting out how wireless operators will approach these issues, notwithstanding any obligations and rights they currently have under the RMA and the relevant district plan rules.

A set of Community Engagement Guidelines have been drafted by the TCF working group to help wireless network operators standardise their approach to engaging with these communities, and assist with addressing these concerns through the timely provision of information regarding the location of wireless sites.

Community Engagement Guidelines

The purpose of these Guidelines are to:

1. Standardise and enhance the approach taken by wireless network operators when engaging with those members of the public that live in areas that are zoned and occupied for primarily residential purposes, and managers of public facilities, that are adjacent or near the location of new or upgraded wireless sites.
   
2. Ensure that the public are provided with accurate information regarding wireless sites.
   
3. Assist wireless network operators to communicate effectively with interested parties regarding the location of new or upgraded wireless sites.
   

Key Points about the Guidelines

These Guidelines cover:

1. Those circumstances in which wireless network operators should engage with members of the public;
   
2. The nature and form of that engagement; and
   
3. The timing of such engagement.
   

These Guidelines do not:

1. Replace or supersede any requirement for engagement that wireless network operators may have as a result of the provisions of any Council District Plan, the Resource Management Act, or the National Environmental Standards.
   
2. Require any changes to, or cessation of, the construction of any wireless site as a result of community engagement, though a wireless network operator may decide to do so, at their discretion.
   

Consultation

The draft Community Engagement Guidelines have now been issued for consultation on 9th July 2009. The closing date for submissions on the Guidelines is5pm, 20th August 2009. If you wish to make a submission on the draft Community Engagement Guidelines please contact the Forum Administrator.

Please note that unless stated otherwise, all submissions will be regarded as public and will be published on the TCF website.

Working Party Members

The working party members are:

• Kordia
  
• Telecom
  
• Vodafone
  
• Woosh
  

Susan Wells

TCF

Auckland

Dear Ms Wells

Please accept this email as my public response to your call for feedback on the TCF's community consultation guidelines.

First, I have been following the issue of celltower location quite closely and am very surprised to have been informed of the existence of your guidelines just this morning. It is not a good start for your guidelines that they are not readily accessible by the community, even those who are very interested in the subject. Perhaps your advertising

could have been a tad more focussed on reaching the community?

I wish to make a number of points:

1.    The telecommunications industry in general significantly under-discloses the health risks posed by electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Its focus is almost invariably on the acute, thermal effects of exposure and it ignores the long-term, chronic effects of exposure The current standards ignore the results of the international Interphone study which identified the increased incidence of tumours on the side of the head where the cellphone is normally used, as well long term effects such as mental health problems, effects on people who have electromagnetic sensitivity, the effects on pacemakers and other electronic body parts.

 2.    Typically, the latent period between exposure to EMR and the development of symptoms such as tumours is of the order of ten years or more. Widespread use of cellphones has been with us for less than ten years. In other words, it is highly likely that the consequences of EMR exposure is still in its incubation period. Nonetheless, the scientific evidence of chronic harm caused by EMR exposure is overwhelming. All that is required by the telecommunications industry is the recognition that their product is tracking along the same lines as tobacco, asbestos, dioxin and other contaminants. Profiteering at the expense of public health is not going to be a good look when it is widely exposed.

3.    NZ standards are thousands of times less stringent than those adopted by some other countries and are based on the junk science concept that you won't be able to find any negative effects if you don't look for them. EMR kills people. It was used during the Cold War as a weapon.

4.   Some insurance companies and re-insurers decline cover for the effects of EMR. Their prime motivation for being in business is to make money, so for them to refuse cover should, in itself, sound the alarm bells. Other grounds for which they won't provide cover are war, terrorism, act of God and genetic engineering. You are judged by the company you keep. The calculus of insurance companies when declining cover is that although the probability of a particular event happening may be low, the consequences are likely to be catastrophic and beyond their combined ability to pay.

5.    The telecommunications industry demands that any scientific test for the chronic effects for EMR is recognized only if it meets certain extremely stringent criteria set by the industry itself. This has the net effect of requiring that any study showing harm must offer 100% certainty. This is a much higher degree of certainty than is required for establishing guilt for murder (beyond reasonable doubt) or other crimes (on the balance of probabilities) and an unimaginably stricter test than that required for "effects" under the Resource Management Act.

6.    We do not want cellphone towers closer than 500 m from houses, schools or hospitals. If you don't get the density of cover that you want, then bad luck. As it turns out, we don't want to download movies on to our cellphones anyway. We want to use them to make phone calls.

7.    If you really want to do something that will be good for communications and healthy for society, forget about 3G and Next G and spend the money laying fibre optic cable to our houses.

8.  It is important that there be full and open-minded consultation with all affected communities before any home, school, pre-school or hospital is exposed to additional EMR. This consultation needs to be started well before any decision is made. Communities need to be given balanced information about the risks and unknowns and must be made aware of all the options, including (i) the option of co-location of new transmitters with existing facilities and (ii) the option of having a genuine choice as to whether they want additional EMR at all.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am a scientist and am fascinated by technology. But while wireless technology may be cheap and highly profitable for you, it is also nasty and unhealthy for the community. Cellphone technology, while undoubtedly clever, is also going to bring tears before bedtime. And you won't even be able to say you weren't warned.

Ian Ewen-Street BSc, MPhil (Hons1), TSTC, DipOS

Ian Ewen-Street

ian.ewen-street@tasman.net

EMS - Electromagnetic Sensitivity- and opportunities to improve its recognition

I am receiving information from around NZ and the rest of the world and am happy to distribute it (as time allows) to people who are interested. If you know anyone else who would like to be added to this list, please let me know.

If anyone has time to formalise a group to represent the interests of EMS to lobby the government for recognition of EMS and for law reform to reflect this, then I'm very happy to help.

I am preparing a response to the TCF (Telecommunication Carriers Forum) invitation for consultation on their draft guidelines for undertaking community engagement for wireless Telecommunication Sites.

See http://www.tcf.org.nz/content/6efda0e0-d74d-4a95-95d2-0769696c53d6.html

No doubt these guidelines will come to be held up as a shining example of responsible self management by the Telcos during future hearings and disputes. It is therefore very important that affected communities identify and clearly articulate any concerns.

At present the consultation required under the NES (effective nil!) and in the draft TCF guidelines, falls well below the standards communities expect from "consultation". The TCF proposal is more in the nature of the Telco's informing community what they are doing, rather than inviting and responding to community views.

Also useful is the WHO guidance on EMF risk communication which is available from:

www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/en/EMF_risk_Chapt2.pdf especially page 21:

"Environmental issues that involve uncertainty as to health risks require supportable decisions. To that end, scientists must communicate scientific evidence clearly; government agencies must inform people about safety regulations and policy measures; and concerned citizens must decide to what extent they are willing to accept such risk. In this process it is important that communication between stakeholders be done clearly and effectively."

The "NES" (the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2008 (SR 2008/299)-available form www.legislation.govt by searching "Regs") fails the WHO community consultation requirements at all levels.

There is nothing at all in the proposed guidelines (or in the NES or the New Zealand Standard for EMR (NZS2772:I 1999) to recognise or protect the interests of those who are EMS.

It would be great if as many as possible submit to the TCF raising this and any other concerns before the 20 August
2009 deadline.

I suggest cc'ing your submission to the Minister for the Environment at nick.smith@parliament.govt.nz and asking for his response as to what he proposes to do to bring NZ law into line with WHO expectations.

I will get as many "community" submissions onto our www.banthetower.co.nz website as I can arrange over the next couple of days to help give guidance on structure and possible content.

Below is a story that you may be interested in.

Thanks for your interest

Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI

Nelson

New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Weatherall [mailto:weather@golden.net]
Sent: Sunday, 16 August 2009 7:02 a.m.
To: W.E.E.P. Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News
Subject: EHS experiences / EMF-Omega-News 15. August 2009

I've just spent my fourth night in South Langley, 40 minutes from downtown

Vancouver. A friend of mine has gone to Europe with her family for a month,

and offered to allow me and another electrosensitive to stay here, which is

a wonderful house on acreage.

I returned from vacation near the East coast last Saturday - after a brief

stay in Montreal, I travelled to and stayed in East Massachusetts in a

rural, country like area known as Stockbridge. I felt much better there,

even though I was staying in a country condo with a few adjacent units that

had Wi-Fi and DECT phones.

Returning to Vancouver was like an assault - the EMR is so strong in the

city, I almost felt like I had the flu. Given that my 30 unit apartment

building is surrounded by cell antennae farms on adjacent buildings, and has

12 or so Wi-Fi networks in other apartment units, and almost every apartment

in the building has a DECT phone - I absolutely had to do something to

escape.

Coming to South Langley has been wonderful. I've been sleeping at least 1

to 2 hours more per night than I usally do. The quality of my sleep is

dramatically different - we turn off all but three circuit breakers on the

power panel before turning in. The biggest problem those with ES have is

the fact that we tend to become sensitive to the electric and magnetic fields

generated by the current in the walls - it's not as simple as finding a

place far from Wi-Fi, DECT and cell antennae. So turning off the power at

night often brings more restful sleep. Even my dreams are different. When

in a EMR polluted environment, my dreams are generally stressful and anxious.

Here they are the normal, and enjoyable. I have been looking for an

affordable place to live in a safe area for 15 months - no luck yet, but I

will not give up.

Another important discovery I'm made in all of this is how poorly I have

been functioning in my apartment in the Kerrisdale area, about 5 K from

downtown. It has taken spending some time in a safer environment to allow

me to realize how bad things are in my current accomodations. Besides the

usual sleep problems list of EHS symptoms, the brain fog is unbelievable and my

short term memory is horribly compromised. And I watch some folks in my

building in their '70s as sharp as can be and marvel at how some of us seem

to have a natural resistance to the level of EMR in my neighbourhood.

Counter this with the wake up call I had a few weeks ago watching the

documentary "Public Exposure" once again and hearing Per Segerback, an

electrosensitive who worked at Nokia as a manager in the design department

explained that 80 to 90 % of the staff who he managed became

electrosensitive within one year - they worked 30 or 40 meters from phone

masts (antennae). These people were a very diverse group - younger, older,

vegetarian, carnivores. This confirms that with enough exposure, the a huge

swath of the planet may very well become electrosensitive down the road.

The more I consider this problem - folks becoming electrosensitive - the

more I feel it is one definition of insanity. We are left to fend for

ourselves while we watch our ability to function in the world erode and

have to continually take extreme measures in order to survive. I am moderately

sensitive - my housemate here in Langley is extremely sensitive and has had

to figure out all kinds of ingenious ways to do things in order to reduce

their exposure and function.

Others before me have said it and it bears repeating - we who are ES are

sorely in need of compensation from the Government(s) who have known fully

about electrosensitivity for a long time, but have chosen to deny it in

order to manage their liability and exposure.

Carl

? Howick and Botany Times

PRESSURE is being put on the Government by Manukau City Council to review the standards for cellphone towers following community concerns about sites in residential areas.

The council is calling for a review of the National Environmental Standards (NES), which allow telecommunications companies to install "low-impact" antennae (masts) and service cabinets on public roadsides without applying for resource consent.

It is asking for improvements to the level of community consultation on cell-tower sites, and for consideration of prohibiting sites close to homes, schools and childcare centres.

The council last week approved five of the eight sites telco 2degrees wanted for cell towers, as reported by Times Online on Monday.

Two sites will be subject to approval of a resource consent, and the council declined approval for three site licences close to residential properties.

A working party of councillors has also been set up to consider the most appropriate location near to the three declined sites at 145 Clovelly Road, 25 Pigeon Mountain Road and Litten Road.

The working party will also develop new guidelines for siting of telecommunications infrastructure in Manukau.

Mayor Len Brown says the council acknowledges that people living in properties that have cell sites proposed outside them have concerns about the impact of the towers.

"We have worked hard to find locations that have the least possible impact on people in their homes," he says.

"This decision will upset some people but effectively the government standards allow the equipment to be put in road reserves almost as of right.

"The council has to follow the government legislation on this. We're not in a position to just ban cell towers from Manukau. We also have to balance the needs of the business community to be treated fairly through the process and come to a decision on sites.

"The NES and the World Health Organisation say there is no significant public health risk. If there was I would be at the front of the line saying no.

"But the council will be asking the Government to consider community concerns about cell towers and review its standards."

The council has already asked telcos to ensure they have a good level of community consultation when selecting cell sites.

It also eased restrictions on telecommunication equipment so it can be installed along main roads and outside reserves.

The network site licences approved were outside 7 Picton Street in Howick, outside 490 Porchester Road in Takanini East, outside 739 Chapel Road in Shamrock Park, on the corner of Dawson Road and Te Irirangi Drive, and outside 106 Botany Road

Masts debate takes to ring

Why cant we do something similar in NZ ?

1. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK;


2. WHETHER ANY SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT ARE AVAILABLE;


3. WHETHER THERE IS ANY REASONABLE POSSIBILITY FOR SHARING EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES;


4. IN THE CASE OF RADIO MASTS OR TOWERS, WHETHER THERE IS ANY REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF ERECTING ANTENNAE ON AN EXISTING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE;


5. WHETHER ALL REASONABLE STEPS WILL BE TAKEN TO MINIMISE THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON LOCAL AMENITY. WHERE PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR A BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE USED FOR TELECOMMUNICATION, AND WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED CAPABLE OF ANY SUBSEQUENT USE, ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE REMOVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED.

Man takes on council over tower

Manukau residents vent anger at cell towers

ONE News