This is where your support and comments will appear:
Email them now to mail@nomastsinsouthwell.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------
LATEST COMMENTS FIRST
---------------------------------------------------------
26th September 2007
I,too, am in the process of changing my mobile phone company. Please quote me on the website. OneTalk offered to buy me out of my contract and have found an excellent comparable contract with orange. I had to phone O2 and ask for my pac number. In order for this to be given, I was forwarded to the "prevent leaving" office where I had a long monologue with a dazed o2 employee. In the end, he said that it was pointless emailing him with my complaint but as the conversation was being recorded, it would be used for training purposes and forwarded to head office.
OneTalk have said that they will let me know details of how they can help "pay as you go" people and other contractual issues.
Catherine Harriss
25th September 2007
Changing mobile phone provider from O2.
I have recently changed from O2 to Vodaphone - it may only have a small impact upon O2, but it made me feel much better knowing that such an insensitive organisation are no longer receiving my business. For those of you with O2 'pay as you go' mobiles wanting to switch but not sure what to do, this is how I did it.I called O2 customer services and asked for my PAC code. You will need this to keep your existing mobile number on transfer. They will ask the reason for your transfer.I then went to a Vodaphone store in Nottingham who let me use a free customer phone to call customer services. They took my details and arranged to send me a Vodaphone SIM card and a date for the transfer, which was in about 5 days time.The man in store checked if my phone was locked to other networks - it was and therefore my options were: 1. to request the unlock code from O2 at a cost of ?15, which could take up to 28 days; 2. to use a man in a little hut off Clumber Street in Nottingham who could do it in 3 days at a cost of ?15! or 3. find someone on ebay who could unlock it for ?5. I chose option 3 which worked brilliantly. You send them your phone's unique code and they send you the unlock code the next day.Do be prepared to have no phone for a day because on the day of transfer, O2 disconnected their service first thing in the morning and did not release my number to Vodaphone til much later in the day, but that was OK. Vodaphone were really helpful and send you the SIM card FREE with instructions. I hope that this encourages you to transfer. O2, in my opinion, do not deserve our business. J Bacon
12th July 2007 20:00
I think the work being done to oppose the mast being sited on the Ropewalk is fantastic and the response from local people is huge. Personally, I cannot see how putting a mast in the middle of a built up area, close to schools and houses can be morally justified, if there is even the slightest risk that it will be harmful. Surely there must be another possible location for a mast which would give the same coverage without putting all our health at risk. It seems that the decision has been purely financially motivated and no consideration has been given to local opinion or the possible risks. I would like to urge as many people as possible to download the letter templates and continue to support this superb campaign.
Alex Byrne
26th June 2007 09:06
I would express my serious concern regarding current and proposed mobile phone masts. There is clear potential for health risks due to exposure and this needs to be checked before going ahead with this type of installation.
I would make the following points. Firstly, whilst I believe major concern is relating to children exposure this should not be considered as the only concern as fully developed people might also be affected. Secondly, other masts need to be considered. Children will spend longer at home than at school, therefore it is also important to ensure they are not exposed at home. Clearly having it both at home and at school is potentially the greatest risk.
Kind regards
C and R Parkinson
24th June 2007 17:01
I object to the mast to be sited at the Ropewalk in Southwell. As an elderly resident in Southwell I oppose the mast for two reasons. These being the possibility of devaluation of my property and the potential health risk. Whilst there is any doubt don't do it.
DL
23rd June 2007 19:56
An inspirational event took place on the Burgage this afternoon, doing what Southwell does so well and capturing the essense of why so many of us choose to live in this beautiful town.
I think I speak for the majority of the 6,000 or so residents of Southwell when I say that we care about our town and those who live here, we take an active role wherever possible in ensuring that it remains the jewel in Nottinghamshire's crown and are proud to be part of a community which cares passionately about what happens within it.
Those who plan to blot our landscape and to take a chance with our health should perhaps have visited the Burgage this afternoon to gain an understanding of the sense of community here in Southwell and they should not under estimate the ability of this town to pull together to achieve something we feel so strongly about.
I am personally grateful to those who have done so much to raise the awareness of the campaign so far and urge us all to continually do what we can to keep this case in everyone's minds.
It is so important that we articulate the strength and sincerity of our feelings in this matter and let the developers know that they should not expect this community to give up this message easily. No mast in Southwell.
Cathy Lowe
21st June 2007 19:43
Personally I feel that we still do live in a democracy (believe it or not) and that the residents of Southwell and parents of those children attending the School including all that work in the area should decide.
I don’t think a mast should be there when it could be erected out of the town and work equally well. This is just a classic example of a large company saving money. If there is no harm from these things, that’s great, but if there is just a tiny chance, however small, then it shouldn’t be there.
As some experts say they cannot categorically tell you that there is no effect from this then only a fool would plant it next to a school. I also think we were told by experts that Thalidomide (Phalidamide) was a non harmful drug in the 60’s.
There really is no argument here.
Michael Lewin
20th June 2007 12:59
I am extremely concerned about the possible siting of a phone mast in close proximity to our house at Fern Close. I have two young children and also have recently had a meningioma brain tumour removed. I moved to Southwell 5 years ago and have been very happy here as have my family. I am now frightened that if this phone mast is erected against the wishes of the majority of people in Southwell then I may have to move to safeguard my families health. I cannot believe that a decision has been made that could affect my health and I have had no say in the matter.
Dawn Clements(Mrs)
20th June 2007 11:12
I'm quite astonished at the level of outrage over the proposed siting of a phone mast on the Ropewalk, once again it demonstrates the ability of 'people power' to influence what happens in our town.
However, I think in this instance your efforts are misguided and based on an emotional knee-jerk reaction - I cannot honestly believe that any parent would put improved phone reception above their children's health.
In the 'Facts' section of the website you mention extensive research into the effects of Electro Magnetic Fluctuations on human health and there is a growing body of evidence to support this. However, a National Grid transformer emits over a thousand times more EMF than a mobile phone transmitter.
Mobile phones work off microwave energy and this can be extremely harmful - look no further than the American who tried to dry damp her poodle in a microwave oven. However, we have lived with microwave ovens for over quarter of a century and there are no attempts to ban them. Using a mobile phone submits your body to more than 100x the microwave energy you would be exposed to even standing directly beneath a mobile phone transmitter - it actually raises the temperature of one side of your brain slightly. Perhaps you should launch a campaign to reduce mobile phone use.
Finally, wireless broadband transmitters subject children to more microwave energy than a phone mast yet most schools have them - including Lowes Wong I believe.
Believe it or not, I haven't got an axe to grind here. I'm an Orange subscriber and will still receive the same appalling phone coverage in Southwell even if they do erect the new mast.
Howard Clemmow
20th June 2007 08:00
I applaud everything you are doing. These mobile phone masts are inappropriate in the middle of an urban area, and downright unacceptable so close to schools. I have had a fight with council planners over the past 12 months, on an entirely different situation (being overlooked by 3 storey houses) and I involved local press, the Police architectural liaison officer, MP, and many others. I finally achieved an acceptable compromise of bungalows instead of 3 storey houses, but I had to fight hard for it. Along the way, a Planning Officer has moved to another job because he couldn’t take the flak, and many Labour councillors lost their seats because their decisions on housing in our little town have been heavily disapproved of by the local population. You must keep fighting hard, and it looks like you are making a good start. Stick with it like terriers, and don’t let go until you have won. Drum those mobile phone companies out of your town!
19th June 2007 11:30
Mr Blackburn makes a valid point about the risks that lack of exercise and poor diet present to children. That is why my children (in common with so many others in Southwell) walk to school and are taught the value of healthy eating. The Government have been particularly vocal about childhood obesity recently, urging parents to act to protect their children from a life of ill health.
How ironic therefore that the same Government is also responsible for fast tracking the installation of mobile phone masts (potentially a very unhealthy option for our children). It is sheer hypocrisy. A school should be a safe environment for children.
In this matter communities across England are being excluded from the decision making process and it is those who wish to vote NO who are finding that their right to choose and risk assess has been taken away from them.
(name withheld)
18th June 2007 18:10
I wish to object in the strongest terms to your proposed siting of this mast in the middle of our town, where it will be both a danger to health of all residents and a blight on our landscape. I believe you would be putting your clients commercial interest ahead of the health, safety and lifestyle wishes of the majority of people in the town. I experience myself the poor mobile reception on o2 and T-Mobile networks, but would never sanction putting lives in danger, especially children's, to solve this – especially as it can easily be remedied by a more appropriate out of town location. If your plan goes ahead, my wife and I will switch suppliers and encourage others to do so, in a small way mitigating your clients’ commercial gain.
Be bold – listen to the outcry and do something that people really will appreciate!
Yours faithfully
Colin Boulter
18th June 2007 18:00
I find it incredible, no scandalous, that after so many masts of a similar nature have been refused planning or taken down in densely populated areas that this situation is allowed to continue. Why should the companies erecting the mast be allowed to proceed. Surely a ‘perceived or suspected’ risk, whether proven or not, to residents and children is enough to dissuade them. Don’t they have any Corporate Social Responsibility? Have we learnt nothing from mistakes of the past?
Lead paint was once used on baby’s cots. Asbestos was used in hospitals and schools. Hindsight always gives 20/20 vision, and ignorance is no defence. Are we really still so foolish as to take chances with peoples health? Come on O2, you won’t be remembered as sponsors of sporting teams and events in 10 years time if your masts are proven to cause cancer and you put them right next to a school and a surgery, will you? Wake up, play it safe and site it well out of town.
Gordon Bacon
18th June 2007 12:30
I find it astounding that this mast is being installed in such a highly populated area of a town without full information of its possible long-term health effects being known. I realise that due to the relative newness of mobile phone masts, there is little statistical information available, but it is precisely this reason that we should hold back and not place a mast where it could cause devastating health problems to a large number of young children. Let's just look back 30 years or so when electricity pylons were put up just about anywhere.The government told us that they were perfectly safe. Subsequent research has proven that the magnetic fields ARE harmful and have a detronmental effect upon our health. Now pylons are not allowed to be erected within 300 yards of habited areas. The comment someone made about the parents not using 4-wheel drives and feeding their children unhealthy meals if they want their children to be healthy is just ridiculous. There's nothing like making wide sweeping statements when you know you're on the back foot! I walk my children to school, as do the majority of Lowes Wong parents, and most of us don't feed our children unhealthy food. That's WHY we care about the unknown health problems a mobile phone mast could reap. Wouldn't it be awful if we just accepted at face-value what we have been told by the mobile phone companies, only to discover in 20 years time that they were wrong? It would be too late by then. Let's learn from the electricity pylon situation and speak up now.
J Bacon
17th June 2007 16:23
I object strongly to the proposed siting of a mobile phone mast near Lowes wong school in southwell. It is absolutly ludicrouse to even consider this site in such a built up area......No matter what the mobile phone companies claim there is a strong possibility that there is a health risk especially to children.
We must put our children first and protect them from any potential risks posed by these electro magnetic fields.. So please reconsider the siting of this mast.
Viv Payne
17th June 2007 15:00
I think it's unbelievable that planning permission has been granted to erect a mobile phone mast within 400 metres of a Junior School.Surely there are safer sites away from vulnerable children and populated areas.There appears to be strong opposition agains it,doesn't the opinion of the inhabitants of the area mean anything or will they be totally disregarded as usual?
I don't live in Southwell but it doesn't stop me from objecting to this mast being erected on the grounds that my grandchildren go to Lowes Wong Junior School;do yours?I'm sure if they did this mast would not be erected on the designated site.
Linda Hall
17th June 2007 14:59
I fully support rob websters comments, an improvement to southwells mobile phone reception is greatly needed, if you want to save the children stop poluting their atomosphere by driving them to school in unnecessary 4x4 cars and stop feeding them unhealthy pre-prepared food
Pete Blackburn
17th June 2007 09:20
I oppose the sitting of the mobile phone mast on the Ropewalk Southwell.
I am a parent of children who attend Lowes Wong infant & junior schools. I also run a business locally and rely on the use of a mobile phone. However, I do not support the proposed site for a mast in central Southwell. Through research which has been undertaken, it does clearly link serious health issues to people particularly young who have been in close proximity to E.M.F.
Even if the government and local authorities do not accept this fact, why do they grant permission for masts to be sited in such highly populated ( and as it is proving - contentious ) areas ??. Why not place these masts in safer rural areas?
Using a mobile phone is down to personal choice. Siting a mobile phone mast is not.
No masts in Southwell, please support the campaign.
Jamie McNish
16th June 2007 09:00
We wish to voice our objection to the siting of a mobile phone mast next to the telephone exchange on the Ropewalk in Southwell by 02, and to T-Mobile adding their equipment to the mast, doubling the output.
There is evidence of increased risk of major adverse health effects for those living within 400 metres of a mobile phone mast. It is too close to the Lowe’s Wong Schools, and other community buildings.
The mast would be an eyesore.
Ken & Christine Wadsley
15th June 2007 09:10
We totally oppose the proposed siting of the mobile phone mast on theRopewalk. We are parents of five young children, three of whom attend LowesWong Infants and Junior Schools. We cannot comprehend,given the research which has been undertaken and theevidence found,(and noted on this website) that this location can beconsidered. Why is this site, given its close proximity to two schools anda busy residential area a potential site? Why is this mast not being sitedout of this built up area and away from residents, schools and localbusiness? If this mast is granted permission, how much longer until othernetworks "add on"? Please no masts in Southwell Town Centre.
Rebecca M
14th June 2007 20:22
As a concerned resident in Southwell, I fully endorse everything that this campaign is doing. There are plenty of safer rural locations well away from schools and built up residential areas to put a mast. I am disgusted that phone companies are willing to take risks with a community's health purely for commercial gain and have so far totally ignored the strength of feeling from concerned parents, residents and workers. Can I suggest that if they continue to ignore our concerns, those of us with O2 phones cancel their contracts and enclose a covering letter.
M Smith
14th June 2007 20:11
As a parent of two children at Lowe's Wong Junior school and as a parent governor, I fully endorse the campaign to oppose the proposed mast in Southwell.
Few people would deny that masts are needed for mobile use. The siting, however, is critical and it is irresponsible to compromise the potential health of so many children. There are many rural areas on the outskirts of Southwell which could provide a far safer base.
The evidence for potential damage in children in particular has already led to a ban of masts near schools elsewhere. As the evidence exists for potential risks especially for the young, siting it where proposed should be out of the question.
Awen Little
14th June 2007 20:00
I would like to express my strong objection to the proposal of a mobile phone mast in Southwell. The site is in close proximity to both the infants and the junior school and feel that by allowing the proposed mast to go ahead, is putting the health our of children and local residents at risk. Research has shown that radiation from mobile phone masts can cause damaging effects on people's health. Without concrete evidence to the contrary, i feel that i have no alternative but to strongly oppose the proposal and support the 'NO MASTS IN SOUTHWELL' campaign 100%.
Mr M and Mrs K Thomas
14th June 2007 17:30
Whilst doing my own reasearch I found this news report in the Manchester Evening News, its worth a read and I think we need to find George Baird !!!
"Fresh doubts about the safety of mobile phone masts near schools have been triggered by a government inspector.
George Baird from the planning inspectorate said concern about health risks was one reason for rejecting an appeal by a mobile giant Orange.
it wanted to put a 15 metre mast 100 metres from Clarendon Fields Community Primary School in Dukinfield, Tameside.
It is thought to be the first time health concerns have been cited by a government inspector blocking a phone mast.
In his report, Mr Baird wrote "The reason for refusal refers to concern about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the proposed equipment, given that the site adjoins the Clarendon Fields Community primary School, public open space and houses in Clarendon Street and Angel Close. I acknowledge that such fears are relevant to my decision."
Geoff Williams from Mast Sanity,which campaigns against phone masts in sensitive areas said: "I believe that is the first time that an inspector has used safety as a reason. The government advice remains confusing. In their guidelines they say in one paragraph health can be considered then, in the next, health doesn't need to be considered."
14th June 2007 15:00
As the Headteacher of Lowe’s Wong Infant School I strongly oppose the installation of a mobile phone mast near to the school. There are nearly 700 children attending the Infant and Junior Schools, for 6½ hours a day, 39 weeks a year. I have a duty of care towards these pupils and I would be negligent in my duty to keep them safe if I supported this technology as we simply do not know whether it is dangerous to health or not.
My feeling is that until mobile phone masts can be proved to be safe they should not be built near to schools or in built up areas. There are too many concerns about the safety of mobile phone masts for this project to go ahead. I realise that modern society needs mobile phones, but there has to be alternative, safer locations for the masts.
Since this all started, I have been astounded to learn that mobile phone masts below 15m do not need planning permission. The only grounds the Town Council and District Council have to turn down an application is on the siting and appearance of the mast. This means that the original application in December 2006 went through, despite objections from the Town Council and both schools. Our case is, therefore, more difficult as the recent application is only to put more antennae onto the already approved mast. We can only hope to stop the mast being put up by a groundswell of opposition from parents and residents.
Looking at the internet for more information on the safety of phone masts reveals 889.000 web sites! Surely this in itself is alarming. Many of them air concerns about health problems occurring in clusters around masts including cancer, high blood pressure, brain haemorrhage, leukaemia, lymphoma, epilepsy, headaches, general well being and cognitive function. In one study in Warwickshire a quarter of the staff at a school near a mast have developed tumours since 2000, another quarter have significant health problems. This particular mast was pulled down by the mobile phone operator 02, showing that public opposition does work.
We cannot put the children and staff at Lowe’s Wong under a similar risk. Until, or if ever, there is absolute proof of the safety of mobile phone masts we must not allow one to jeapardise the future health of the children of Southwell.
I urge all the parents and residents to support our campaign.
Vanessa Platt
Headteacher, Lowe’s Wong Infant School
14th June 20007 13:00
As Head Teacher of a very large junior school situated close to the site of the proposed mast, I have very serious concerns about the long-term health of almost 400 pupils and of course, nearly 40 staff.
There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence and emerging scientific evidence that suggests that these concerns are valid.
I share this site with a large infant school too, so that the combined numbers of children and adults who will work within 100 metres of this installation are not insignificant.
Clearly, all those who endorse the proposal can offer research evidence that supports their case and I am confident that their plans will conform to current legislation, But, how often have we discovered – only in practice – that current legislation has been insufficient to safeguard the welfare of the public?
In every course of action I take, I am required to assess the risk for my pupils and staff. In applying the same, rigorous process here I find that I do not have sufficient balanced information to enable me to do this appropriately.
Time MUST be allowed for those who have the children’s interest as a priority to explore, thoroughly, the breadth of evidence that exists. In this, we recognise that we are “laymen”, so will require recourse to the evidence base and the guidance of a suitably-qualified person to direct and represent us.
I fully endorse the action being undertaken by parents of pupils in my school. I would urge them to keep this issue high-profile.
Sheila Street,
Head Teacher, Lowes Wong Anglican Methodist Junior School
14th June 20007 09:15
Somebody should have done a bit of surfing before worrying us with claims about the dangers of WiFi. He would have found that the accusations made in the recent Panorama program had no credence whatsoever and that WiFi radiation is no where near the level of that of mobile phones or masts. Just google 'wifi radiation' and read for yourself.
Also, we are all fed up of people saying we all want better reception when we all don't.
Okay, if you are all in the chemist or the Rodney you can't get 3 bars (anymore!!) is that really a bad thing?
We should all be discouraging the use of mobile phones not encouraging them. We all think they are a blight on modern society. Aside from the possible dangers of radiation we are all reckless drivers meandering all over the road whilst not using hands free. Not to mention all our teenagers texting whilst driving, which we all witnessed the other day.
Anyway rant over. Just say 'No to masts in Southwell'
Andy Beecroft
14th June 20007 09:10
After reading much information regarding Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phone Masts and the various potential health hazards (especially to pre-adolescent children), we are under no hesitation to voice our total objection to the siting of a mobile phone mast at the Telephone Exchange, The Ropewalk, Southwell. This area is not only within 100 metres of 2 schools, but also in close proximity of a well populated residential housing area, busy shopping store and car park, medical centre, dentist, sports injury clinic. It was our belief that the Government were opposed to siting Mobile Phone Masts near any school!
One wonders whether the person/s receiving finance from this particular potential siting would contemplate having their children educated in either of these schools for the next 7 years??
M Barnes
14th June 2007 09:00
I am in full support of the no mast group, who on earth could think of such an idea so close to schools and residents. Are we to have to wait 10 years to find out what a grave mistake was made ,when there will be a large increase in radiation linked illnesses. We all must act now not wait until it is too late.
Karon Burdett
13 June 2007 20:30
I am writing to give my full support to the No Masts In Southwell Campaign and to lodge my objection to the proposed installation of a 15m pole and mobile telephone mast at the Telephone Exchange on the Ropewalk in Southwell.
I objected to this proposal in November 2006 when Lowe's Wong Infant School invited parents to comment and to register their views about the mast, given its close proximity to two schools and to residential housing. Inspite of the fact that many parents and staff at both Lowe's Wong Infant and Junior Schools objected to this proposal, it is appalling that the mast has been granted prior approval by Newark and Sherwood District Council. Many local authorities have found it difficult to object to similar planning applications because of the Government's fast track scheme to allow mobile phone operators to put mobile phone masts pretty much wherever they want to - as long as they pay huge sums of money to the Government.
The concerns I raised in November 2006 remain the same, and indeed have been reinforced by a recent mobile phone mast study (18 April 2007) commissioned by mobile phone company TMobile. The study - run by The Ecolog Institute in Germany - found that there is a direct link between the radiation from mobile phone transmitter masts and an increased risk of developing cancer. Because of its unpalatable findings, the research was then covered up by mobile phone operator T-mobile, claims Dr Peter Neitzke, a scientist from The Ecolog Institute which carried out the research. The study found that "electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer and this is particularly notable for tumours of the central nervous system."
It is clear to me from numerous studies that there is mounting evidence to show that there are damaging effects from radiation on human health, especially the health of children. There is now consistent empirical evidence from many countries which shows that exposure to the type of radiation emitted from mobile phone masts - exactly like the mobile phone mast planned for Southwell - can cause seizures in those with epilepsy, and that long-term exposure to microwave radiation between a mobile phone and a base station causes serious illnesses including leukaemia and lymphoma.
Until (and if) there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, it is at the very least irresponsible to site a mobile phone mast adjacent to schools. As a parent of a child at Lowe's Wong Infant School, I am particularly concerned about the proximity of this mast to my child's school. However, I am equally concerned that this mast is sited in a built-up, residential area, where the effects of radiation will be felt by a huge number of the residents of Southwell - not just school children. Although we would all like a better signal for our mobile phones, I do not want this at the expense of human health. As far as I am aware there has been no community consultation on this issue. Given that there is a large number of people who are opposed to the position of this mobile phone mast - across the whole population of Southwell as well as those nationally who have been campaigning against the siting of mobile phone masts adjacent to schools and houses - I sincerely hope that the No Masts in Southwell Campaign is successful. Please count on my support.
Note:The Ecolog Institute in Germany has been examining the effects ofmobile phones since 1992 and was commissioned by TMobile in 2000 to investigate the possible health risks of mobile
Rachel Thackray
13 June 2007 20:01
I strongly object to the proposed siting of the mobile phone mast at the telephone exchange on the Ropewalk. My garden backs on to the telephone exchange so we are in very close proximity to the site. I have three children and do not wish them to be exposed to any potential harm when it is completely unnecessary. There is also a school located near the area with children walking past the mast twice a day. There are many other residents close by with children as well. There is also a major car park next door which is used by locals and visitors to the area,so there are is a fairly constant stream of people walking past the site on a regular basis. I do not see why these masts cannot be sited outside built up areas if we have to have them.
Alison Mowbray
13 June 2007 13:00
I felt truly disheartened reading Rob Webster's comments on this website. We are a democracy and therefore entitled to hold different opinions, but in 2007 have we really become a society where we place an improved mobile phone signal above the wellbeing of children?
I actually think, based on the support this campaign is receiving that most residents don't place technology above humanity. Each time a resident, parent or worker in Southwell signs the petition they are actually saying I do not want the mobile phone reception improved in Southwell if it is at the expense of our community's health. Mobile phones are a remarkable and useful technology, but whilst health concerns remain a possibility, then the use of that technology has to be tempered with commonsense and precautionary measures ie. not being sited in the heart of a community. We did all manage to lead successful & happy lives before mobile phones, I think the community of Southwell and it's future is more than the sum of improved mobile phone reception.
A Jacobson
13 June 2007 10:00
In response to Rob Websters comments I would like to hear how he feels it is justifiable to put children's health at risk for the sake of being able to use a mobile phone in 2 streets of Southwell? These are children's lives we are talking about!
Surely (in reference to his comment "There are potentially some sketchy and unproven dangers from mobile phone masts - the damage potentially caused is totally unknown, but a simple risk like any other in our 21st century society") ANY chance whatsoever of a damaging effect to our children's health is too much of a gamble to take, especially when the only benefit is better phone reception.
I am all for balanced arguments but, and I quote Mr Webster again "I am a concerned resident, wishing to see the best for the town" - well can I politely inform you sir, that these children ARE the future of Southwell and putting their best interests first IS what is best for the town.
And no, our priorities are not in the wrong place - I am well aware that there are many other risks to our children ; adding to this list however does not justify its existence.
I don't know if Mr Webster has children at Lowes Wong but surely he can't be happy with such a frivolous, irresponsible gamble???
Garry Barker
12 June 2007 20:01
No masts in Southwell!!!
A. Boyd
12 June 2007 19:57
I object to the siting of a mobile 'phone mast so close to a school and residential homes, because the full effects on health are not yet known, and probably will not be known until the generation currently in school are fully grown. You can chose whether or not you use a mobile 'phone, but the children attending school or living within close vicinity to the mast will not have choice BUT they will be the ones to suffer if there are any future health consequences as a result of the mobile telephone mast.
E.Collins
12 June 2007 19.23
I would like to express my concerns against your campaign. At current there is a large gap in Southwell's mobile phone reception - along King Street and Market Place, signal for the mobile phone networks concerned is non-existant, and is patchy in many other areas of the town. This is a major issue for a town of the size and importance of Southwell.
There are potentially some sketchy and unproven dangers from mobile phone masts - the damage potentially caused is totally unknown, but a simple risk like any other in our 21st century society - I'm sure the parents happy to drive their children to Lowes Wong School are putting them in as much danger, if not more danger than the mast might be doing.
Recent publicity has also highlighted the danger of wifi internet, used throughout the schools, and throughout many other locations in Southwell. Potentially (though of course, still completely unproven) this emits 10x more radiation than a phone mast - surely your priorities are in the wrong place?
I am in no way associated with Lowes Wong School, the mobile phone companies, or the planning authorities. I am a concerned resident, wishing to see the best for the town. I urge that you show this comment on your website, proving yourself a just campaign, showing the other side of the argument.
Rob Webster
12 June 2007 16:08
I am new to the area and have two children at Lowes Wong Infant and Junior Schools. I was horrified to hear about the proposed errection of a mobile telephone mast so close to the schools. I have found the coverage of our mobile telephones in and around Southwell to be more than adequate and can not understand why the mast has to be sited within the town. Why can it not be placed on the outskirts of the town. The coverage would be no different by moving the mast 1 mile away.
When the Governement comissioned report recommends an exclusion zone of 500m from the vulnerable (Stewart Report), why is this being ignored in this case.
I can see parents deciding it's better to take their children to different schools to avoid the radiation caused by this mast. Thus increasing traffic polution. The towns popularity is effected greatly by the schools, increasing house prices for the catchment area. This will undoubtably effect house prices, as parents consider the health effects of the mast on their children. If the mast does go ahead I will consider moving my children to different schools.
My concern is also for the people who live close to the mast they are going to be effected 24/7 and what about the food supplied by the Co-op. Is that going to be effected by the radiation as well.
Please, please stop this mast being errected in the middle of Southwell.
Yours
(asked to withhold name)
11 June 2007 23:49
We are worried parents, concerned about the risks to the health of our children and we strongly object to the siting of a mobile phone mast in Southwell, at the telephone exchange or anywhere else for that matter. I have a t-mobile phone and find the reception perfectly adequate already.
Having read the letter that we and hopefully hundreds of other concerned parents sent to ian hewitt associates. if the following text is true, i find it incomprehensible that permission has been granted.
"It is interesting to note that US and other European countries stipulate a minimum
exclusion zone of 500m from mast sites to the vulnerable. The Stewart Report also recommends
such exclusion zones Paras 1.44-1.48 Stewart Report."
The info about the 1989 childrens act was also interesting and could be worth following up.
Sarah Hooper & Andy Beecroft
11 June 2007 22:57
We like many people in Southwell have young children who go to Lowes Wong school.
We really cannot understand why anyone could even consider putting a phone mast so close to a school, when as far as we are aware the evidence is out there listing all the damage that can be done to children living so close to one.
These children spend over six hours a day at school, five days a week for 36 plus weeks a year. Who knows what damage this could cause. Is it really worth putting our children's health at such great risk?
How on earth could this proposed position for the phone mast even be considered?
As far as we are concerned the risk to all our children is far too great.
S and T Shevlin
11 June 2007 21:52
I am compelled to write regarding the proposed siting of a Mobile Phone Mast that will be, if agreed, within 100 metres of 2 of our local schools. I write not only on behalf of my family, but also for the schools and other families concerned about this very important issue in our community.
I have major concerns about this application. There is an abundance of evidence available that suggests there are clear health risks to people when siting mobile phone masts too close to a populated area. This is more prevalent in children. Childhood Leukaemia and other Cancers are highlighted as being much more common in such areas. The risks to human health far outweigh the need to erect a Mobile Phone Mast right in the centre of a residential area. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to site such a mast at this location and it seems totally short sighted and negligent to consider putting children’s health at great risk for the sake of a phone signal ! I understand that there is a government policy to site such masts out of towns and built up areas and away from schools. If this is the case, why has this not been done? I feel that the correct procedures concerning these applications have not been followed in order to get the desired outcome for the companies involved. Consequently the whole matter needs to be investigated.
We have two children, a six year old and an eight year old. Both children attend either the Junior or Infant school. We live within 200 Metres of the proposed mast. Who would be happy for their children to live and go to school within that radius of a mobile Phone Mast knowing the health implications?
Oliver and Julie Bostock
11 June 2007 20:47
Considering the mobile phone reception in Southwell is as poor as it is, it's a given that the companies are going to want to expand this dense area, thus fit a new mast in or about the town.
Reconsidering, however, is it really necessary to place the thing near an infant school AND a surgery?
The marketing genious behind this move is pretty incredible, and I cannot comprehend why this is the case. If anyone responsible for this plan is to read this, might I suggest an area less prone to the possible dangers of radiation emitted by these devices, like the Brackenhurst College, for example.
As a youth currently living in Southwell and also Mansfield, a busier area, it currently is unlikely to affect me, but the children currently in Lowes Wong primary are succeptable to this potential danger.
It is completely unnecessary to place the mast in such a reserved location, and as you may or may not be aware, the residents of Southwell agree with this view.
It has already been confirmed that the same expansion of "signal" can be achieved by placing the mast in a whole list of other locations and as I described before, I am in favour of the mobile telephony signal in Southwell being improved, but please reconsider where it's being placed. You will be hindering what is a nice area of Southwell.
JJ (17)
11th June 17:00
With reference to the proposed installation of a 15m phone mast on the Ropewalk in Southwell.
I would like to take this opportunity to register my opposition for the following reason:-
Damaging effect of radiation on health, especially children (bearing in mind the closeness to the Junior and Infant Schools). A large number of parents and children walk up the Ropewalk to school and would therefore have to pass these poles at close proximity at least twice a day.
According to research, exposure to the type of radiation emitted by mobile phone masts has been linked to problems such as leukaemia, lymphoma, seizures and epilepsy – how can anyone who has any regard for human nature propose to erect something which has the potential to cause health problems like these. In my view it would be completely irresponsible to continue with this proposal and I would therefore like to register my vehement opposition.
D and N Robinson
11th June 13:35
We strongly object to having a mobile phone mast so close to the schools and where people live. If there is any doubt over health impacts then this cannot go ahead. I am sure if a chemical store or industrial buidling was going to be built so close to a school, it wouldn't happen. Why is it allowed to happen? Who in the future when it is proven to be harmful will be accountable? As parents, our job definition is simple, bring our children up in a safe enviroment until they can look after themselves. If this mast goes up, we are being forced to fail.
F and K McNish
8th June 21.00
The main arguement I have heard in favour of allowing the mast to be sited in the heart of our community is that the alleged health risks are not proven conclusively. However, the onus is not on our community to present indisputable scientific evidence to support our campaign. Under The Children Act of 1989, part 3, Section 17 it places " a legal obligation on local authorities to protect children in their areas against significant harm and or abuse or the risk of. The Children Act stands apart from other legislation in so much as the risk of harm does not have to be proven, or to have taken place, but could be a likelihood or perceived risk." The Government recommends that Local Authorities therefore adopt a "Precautionary Principle."
Perhaps we should also be writing to our District Council and asking them why they have failed in their duty of care to our children?
A and S Jacobson
(source: scram.uk.com)
8th June 10:06
We would like to voice our vehement opposition to this mast. Our young children have to walk within 30 metres of this mast every day to get to their school. They are then in the school all day, only 120 metres from the mast. In this era, you would have thought that common sense would dictate that a mobile phone mast within 120 metres of 2 schools, a medical centre, and dental practice would be totally unacceptable. Ok so you may lose your phone signal in some areas of Southwell - well, we've managed until now and see no need for this mast. Some things in life are more important.
We need to protect our children and we will do all it takes to do so. You can count on our full support.
Kind Regards
Garry & Debra Barker
