Subject:  Re Rochdale success (Teague)(Philips).
Date:     Thu, 14 Sep 2000 045509 -0500
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

.........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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips,   BSc(Eng), DAgE, MIAgE
Director, UK Powerwatch, (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
   http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




At 11:25 13/09/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>.........From EMF-L........
>
>It seems that these things happen (the right way!!) more frequently in
>the U.K........  BTW......  Whatever became of that government official
>who misrepresented the contents of the Stewart Report???  The story is
>on guru's WEBSITE .......Cheerio.......guru......
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Rochdale success
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:57:10 +0100
>From: "Edward Teague" 
>Reply-To: "Edward Teague" 
>To: 
>
>Last night the Rochdale (near manchester UK) refused planning permission for
>a BT Cellnet radio base station.
>
>Petition of 1480 signatories helped.
>
>regards
>
>Edward Teague
>
>
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips,   BSc(Eng), DAgE, MIAgE
Director, UK Powerwatch, (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
   http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com