Subject: Re Australian Standards (fwd)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 031509 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
.......The following exchange of messages between Libby Kelley and
Lyn Ward is full of good info about "standards" that are being
implemented in the case of cell-phone antennas (within communities).
Thanks, Libby, for sharing this.....guru......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 23:02:21 -0700
From: dingel@concentric.net
To: Roy Beavers
Subject: Re: Australian Standards
Dear Roy:
I got an excellent response to my inquiry to Lyn Ward - in Australia
about the Wollogong standards. Dr. Neil Cherry spoke of them at the S.F.
forum he gave in March. With industry pressure to place cell towers and
wireless devices at schools, I am looking for model standards which are
specific and much lower than ours in the U.S. Thought I would pass it
along. Dr. Neil Cherry highly recommended this organization - their
address, phone and email addreseses are below.
Libby Kelley
From: Sutherland Shire Environment Centre
Subject: Re: Standards
Dear Libby
Thank you for getting in touch with me on this issue. I am unsure of the
status of the Wollongong policy but will make enquiries and contact you re
the outcome.
However, from memory, Wollongong's policy was very much based on that of
Sutherland Shire council which was the first Australian council to
introduce a policy (in Jan 1997) for the placement of mobile phone towers.
This policy has since been adopted by many councils around Australia and
modified by a few.
Sutherland Council's policy is as follows:
"Local guideline for acceptability of siting microwave base stations
Zone/Use
Industrial/Business - 300 metres from any residence unless annual average
exposure at nearest residence is less than 0.2 +/- 0.02 uW/cm2
Dwellings/boarding houses/residential land/sensitive uses - 300 metres from
any swelling, boarding house or residential land unless annual average
exposure at any of these is less than 0.20 +/- 0.02 uW/cm2. 300 metres
from any school, childcare centre, hospital or aged care centre and less
than 0.20 +/- 0.02 uW/cm2 annual average exposure.
Bushland/wetland/national park/nature reserves and state recreation areas -
only with consideration of environmental procedures to minimise impact
during construction, maintenance and operation, and also with an acceptable
workplan."
The figure of 300m has become almost a defacto standard for councils here,
having been widely adopted.
A much stricter policy is Wollahra Council's "Code on Mobile Phone Towers &
Public Health". This provides that "Councils shall oppose all proposed
activities within a four kilometre radius of sensitive areas. In this
context 'sensitive areas' include schools, hospitals, day care centre,s
nurseries, kindergartens, aged care centres and residences and the like."
At the NSW Local Government and Shires Association annual conference last
october, a strong resolution was passed that reflects councils' concerns:
"That all councils adopt planning controls that:
(a) limit the location of mobile telephone base stations (and other
commercial electromagnetic emitting facilities) to greater than 500 metres
from residences, schools, child care centres, hospitals and nursing homes;
(b) require mobile telephone base stations (and other electromagnetic
emitting facilities) to emissions of no more than 0.001 microwatts per
square centimetre;
(c) require the owners of mobile telephone base stations to monitor
emissions in accordance with this level and report to the appropriate
council at least yearly on levels achieved;
(d) request the federal government to reverse the policy of exclusive
digitalisation for Australia and thereby permit analogue to continue beyond
2000;
(e) the federal government be requested to immediately establish the Health
Risk Review that had $4M allocated in the mau 1997 budget;
(f) that the Local Government Association establish a Task Force to
facilitate discussion and negotiations between councils and mobile phone
companies to work towards establishing programs of progressive relocation
on a priority basis of those mobile phone base stations which are already
located within 500 m from residences, schools, childcare centres, hospitals
and nursing homes; and that the negotiations also seek to ensure that
these facilities would be monitored annually for electromagnetic radiation
and the results be reported to the local council."
Having said all this, I should point out to you that the policies of
Australia's 700+ councils are to some extent irrelevant.
The Federal Government has neatly stitched up legislation so that - while
pretending to return powers for the siting of towers to councils and state
governments - it retains control of "low impact facilities". These are
facilities that don't look too bad or can be easily hidden or disguised.
Only the gross high impact towers require approval from councils and if
this is refused, the telecommunications carrier has the right to appeal to
the State Land and Environment Court. Defending its decision thus becomes
a costly (and therefore undesirable) option for many councils.
You will see references in the above policies to "sensitive" areas such as
schools and preschools. This is largely the result of strong community
campaigns against such towers and so much lobbying that even the Federal
Government has had to recognise that such locations are unpopular. Many
campaigners use the popular buzz words "prudent avoidance" (which has even
been endorsed by our chief electricity authority). They maintain that,
even if there is no conclusive evidence of health effects, we cannot afford
to risk the health of our kids. This is a bit hard to argue logically.
Some communities have withdrawn children from schools near towers and the
NSW Parents and Citizens Federation has come out strongly in opposition to
towers near schools.
We have continued to lobby local government associations which,tend to be
either supportive or apathetic. Ultimately, however,the buck stops with
the Federal government who kisses the feet of industry.
Hope this has been of some help. Please let me know if there is anything
else I can pass on.
Best regards
Lyn Ward
at 07:22 3/09/98 -0700, you wrote:
Dear Lyn Ward:
I have a draft standard for Wollgong Council, which was adopted for one
year and was to be up for renewal in October. Do you have the status on
that standard? Do you know of any other standards which have been adopted
which are at least as good as these?
In California, the industry is promoting sitings on school grounds as they
claim the right to locate these towers on all public lands. To bar them
would be discrimination and restraint of trade. The State seems unable to
defend the citizens. I
think this is going on on ther states as well - Florida for example has had
several recent battles. There is new legislation in our Congress, HR 4388,
which would mandate rapid deployment for ""public saftey" reasons,
including placing control over all communications under the Federal
Communication Commission. I will desseminate any new information you send
me to the public policy, scientific and citizen communities I interact with.
Thank you,
Libby Kelley
Executive Director
Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about the
Federal Communication Commission's Health and Saftey Rules
Sutherland Shire Environment Centre
Suite 16, Eton Arcade 754-760 Princes Highway, Sutherland NSW 2232
PO Box 589, Sutherland NSW 2232 Australia
Ph: +61 2 9545 3077 Fax: +61 2 9545 3411 Email: ssec@acay.com.au
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html