Subject:  Re Rochdale success (Teague)(Philips).
Date:     Sun, 17 Sep 2000 171053 -0500
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

........Clarification from EMF-L........

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Rochdale success (Teague)(Philips).
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:51:32
From: Alasdair Philips 
To: roy@emfguru.com

Roy
I wonder if some clarification is needed here. What I meant was that the
cellular companies are required to provide good cellular telephone
coverage (ie good signals and reception to/from their base stations).
This means that they are required to have adequate masts.

Where high and noticeable masts (but these are usually best from an 
EMF health protection point of view) are refused, some of the companies
are using these low (20 feet typical) lamp-post type masts right outside
private houses which they are allowed to do without needing the formal
'planning permission' that the taller masts need. However, they need
FAR more of these because, as they are so low, most radiation gets lost
in the nearby houses and people.

So, in my opinion, getting a high mast refused (as in this case) may
be a victory, but may also lead to higher radiation exposure in the end.
I flagged this up as the companies will almost certainly use this 
technique in other countries, too.

Good wishes
Alasdair



At 04:55 14/09/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>.........From EMF-L.........
>
>Alasdair is suggesting that what I am calling "success" in the U.K.
>is not what it appears to be......  In fact, he points out here and 
>on his website, the companies in the U.K. are creating an even worse
>hazard when they construct "like 30 - 80 low height masts" rather
>than one tall one.  He says that "the law" is obliging them to do
>this......!!???  They have a "legal duty", he says..........
>
>If so, this would not be the first law that should be changed....  
>Nor would it be the first instance that foolish alternatives were 
>chosen "in the name of the law."
>
>In the name of "the law" all manner of unwise and unjust activity may  
>be conducted......  Would the people of Britain want their government
>to pass a law that obliged industry to substitute lead in automobiles 
>when they cannot afford to use chrome....????  Or would they want the 
>medical community to substitute tobacco as a sedative because there 
>exists a "legal duty" to do so.....????....guru......
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: Rochdale success (Teague).
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 19:01:00
>From: Alasdair Philips 
>To: roy@emfguru.com
>
>Dear Roy
>
>Please read my  www.powerwatch.org.uk  web site    about planning 
>issues and UK masts. UK cellular companies are currently installing MANY 
>(like 30 - 80 instead of 1 !!!) low height lampost masts in areas that 
>have persistently refused 15m or higher masts (which are much safer
>from an EMF exposure point of view). Please be aware of this very real 
>issue. The companies currently do not need ANY permission to install 
>lampost masts on roads of less than 'A' class rating (ie residential 
>streets). In some areas one campany is currently installing over 50 such 
>masts wher one or possible two 15m masts would have satisfied them but 
>were refused by local councils. This is potentially disastrous from an 
>EMF health point of view.
>
>Whether we like it or not these companies do have the legal DUTY (!!!) to
>provide adequate coverage across the whole UK.
>
>Alasdair
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~