Item navigationWelcomeHeadlinesSearch
.
CategoriesArchives
SettingsLog InCredits |
22/02/2010
The government's response to the LG&E Report of 24 November 2009 is available from the link below. It is unbelievably arrogant and simply abysmal! Where on earth did "the government" get its advice? Where is the transparency and accountability? Who bears the costs of resulting harm- no doubt the communities who asked for more responsibly in the first place. Whatever happened to listening to the communities who are affected. The government's response completely ignores the serious uncertainties in the NZS2772:1 1999 and that many European states have adopted a far more a precautionary approach with standards up to 1000 times more stringent than New Zealand. It ignored the warnings that are now widespread about unnecessary EMR exposures especially for children. What influences have affected our government's assessment of the risk of EMR and made them so different from the far more considered assessment of the EU, and many individual European states? How did "Big Brother" come to know more than the Select Committee members who listened to the people? This is simply bizarre. Sue Please find attached for your information a link to the Government's response to the Local Government and Environment Committee's recommendations on the cellphone tower petitions: Add Comment
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. |
|
Atawhai
Ban the tower - Atawhai
One year of battle!
One year of battle!
A number of the justifications are quite misleading, I would really like to know who prepared the response.
Recommendation 1
ICNIRP is a private organisation made up of 14 privately selected committee members it is not an international scientific body. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has over 375,000 members in more than 160 countries and would be considered an international scientific body.
ICNIRP is recognised by WHO because the original chair of ICNIRP was a lead scientist at WHO when the standards were adopted by WHO. Since then several ex-ICNIRP committee members have worked for WHO. This is all obvioulsy a conflict of interest and should be of concern.
Recommendation 2
The point was missed entirely in that the Interagency Committee is industry dominated and once again we have a serious conflict of interest.
Recommendation 3
The safe guarding of community interests was not answered. The unreliability of our Electricity and the major outages with Telecoms XT network are good examples of what happens when you corporatise vital infastructure and rapidly deploy new technology.
Recommendation 4
Obviously they have not been in touch with the Commerce Commission and therefore do not understand the co-location debacle that 2 degrees put them through.
Regards Toa