Subject: Two major articles from the UK - more litigation (Kelley).
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 131023 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
........From EMF-L.......
Notice that "watchdog" Alen Meyer is "after the government" again....
We sure need someone like him in the U.S.....!!! (Thanks Libby, for
these!!)......guru.....
It is better to light a single candle
than to curse the darkness..
WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com
People are more important than profit$$
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Two major news articles from the UK - more litigation pending
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:03:46 -0800
From: Libby Kelley
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <000801c07659$1eb1a760$0c8ccad8@bld>
FRIDAY DECEMBER 29 2000, The Times
Minister faces legal action over cell phone masts
CHRIS AYRES, MEDIA BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT
FEARS that mobile phone masts may cause health
problems have prompted a pressure group backed by the model
Jerry Hall to pepare legal action against the Government.
Mast Action UK claims that Nick Raynsford, the Minister for
Housing and Planning, contravened the European Human Rights
Act when he wrote to council leaders telling them to ignore health
issues when considering mast planning permission applications.
The Times disclosed yesterday that Verizon Wireless, the US
mobile phone company owned partly by Vodafone, is facing up to
ten lawsuits from brain tumour victims. They claim that their
tumours were caused by mobile phone use. More than £3billion
was wiped off Vodafone’s stock market value following the report.
Mast Action UK, supported by the television presenter Caron
Keating and Marion Roe, the Conservative MP for Broxbourne, is
raising funds to fight the case. In Mr Raynsford’s letter to council
leaders on June 29, he said that bans or moratoriums on mobile phone
mast applications, prompted by fears that masts are linked to cancer,
DNA damage, leukaemia, epilepsy and birth defects, were “wholly
unjustified”. He added that as long as masts met basic International
Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines, “it should
not be necessary for a planning authority to consider the health
effects further”.
The letter was written eight weeks after the Government raised £22.5
billion by selling “third generation” licences to five mobile phone
companies. They will have to erect as many as 30,000 masts over the next
three years if they are to take full advantage of the licences.
Alan Meyer, the lawyer representing Mast Action UK, said yesterday
that the letter had broken European law because it denied people the right
to a “fair and proper hearing” when objecting to planning permission
applications for masts. He had written to Mr Raynsford on December 14
but had not received a response. Mr Meyer added that although the
international guidelines were recommended by the recent Stewart report
into mobile phone health issues, they protected against the effects only
of “thermal heating” from masts, not the more serious biological effects.
The Government recently conducted a consultation on mobile phone mast
planning issues and is to publish its conclusions early in the new year.
The process has been delayed by a High Court ruling that John Prescott,
as Environment Secretary, could not decide planning appeals. The court
ruled that the Environment Secretary was, in effect,
acting as judge in his own cause.
Jim McCafferty, a telecoms analyst at SG Securities, the investment
bank, said: “If you look at Vodafone, they have about 7,500 base stations
at present. I’d say they’ll have to build the same number again to get
. . . third-generation mobile phone services.”
Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*******************************
THURSDAY JANUARY 04 2001, The Times
Man sues phone firm over mobile mast next door
BY CHRIS AYRES, MEDIA BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT
ORANGE is facing a High Court objection to one of its mobile phone
masts under the new European Human Rights Act, in what is thought to be
the first of hundreds of similar ending cases.
The Times has discovered that David Lale, a company director from
Harewood, near Leeds, lodged a High Court appeal last Friday against a
decision to put a mast next to his house. Mr Lale claims that the
Government did not allow him to object to the mast at a fair and
proper hearing. He says this breaks Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
There are growing fears in the mobile phone industry that legal action
taken under the Human Rights Act — which came into force last year —
could slow down mast-building programmes. This could damage the
revenues of mobile phone companies, which could in turn affect their
future funding and stock market performance.
Mobile phone companies need to build 30,000 new masts throughout
Britain over the next seven years to take full advantage of their
third-generation licences. These licences, sold by the Government for
£22.5 billion last April, allow mobile phone companies to offer
high-speed Internet services via mobile handsets.
Mast Action UK, a political lobbying group supported by MPs such
as Glenda Jackson and celebrities such as Jerry Hall, said that it was
also planning to object to several mobile phone masts using the Human
Rights Act.
The organisation plans to use the Act to argue that the planning
system is unfair because it does not allow people to object to masts on
health grounds. They will also argue that planning inspectors are not
independent because they are employed by the Secretary of State.
Although all masts meet basic international safety guidelines
on thermal heating — recommended by the recent Stewart report — Mast
Action UK claims there is not yet enough evidence to show that masts
are not linked to diseases such as cancer. The Government is expected
to publish a report on mobile phone mast planning issues within weeks.
A spokeswoman for Orange refused to comment on the impact of the Human
Rights Act on the company. Instead, she said: “We choose sites that meet
our technical needs, our customers’ coverage requirements, and that
comply with all planning and environmental regulations.”
A spokeswoman for the Federation of the Electronics Industry, which
represents mobile phone companies, said: “We are not in a position to
comment on something that is going through the High Court that is not
directed at the mobile phone industry.” The Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions also refused comment.
A telecoms analyst, who did not want to be named, said: “If this is
successful some precedent will be set which will certainly inhibit
(mobile phone companies’) freedom of movement.
There are also lots of public relations issues here for mobile phone
companies. They do not want to upset their potential customers.
Unfortunately, however, masts are necessary if their services are going
to work.”
Mr Lale is raising a fund to fight his case. He says the mast, which
is disguised as a lamppost, is less than 15ft away from the bedroom of
his two children, aged six and eight. Mr Lale’s children have written to
Hans Snook, the departing chief executive of Orange, asking him to put
the mast somewhere else for the sake of their health.
Mr Snook, who is leaving Orange to spend more time to pursue his
interest in alternative medicine, has not replied.
Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd.
January 04, 2001
Libby Kelley
Executive Director
Council on Wireless Technology Impacts
936 B Seventh Street, #206
Novato, California 94945
Voice: 415 892-1863
Fax: 415 892-3108
_____________________________________
Join the EMR Network! http://www.EMRNetwork.org
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com