By Graeme Wearden, 1 December 2003 14:20
NEWS The destruction of a mobile phone mast in the West Midlands has led to concern that campaigners against mobile phone base stations are increasingly taking matters into their own hands, and could hamper the rollout of third-generation (3G) mobile services.
The base station, at Wishaw near Sutton Coldfield, was pulled down in the early hours of 6 November. It has been sited there for a decade, and people living nearby blame it on a number of cases of serious illnesses in the area.
Since the destruction of the mast, which police are said to be treating as an act of vandalism, local residents have maintained a vigil at the site to prevent a replacement base station being built.
The attack in Wishaw occurred around the time of another incident in Dudley when mobile network equipment was set alight, and comes just months after one of Hutchison 3G's masts was pulled down in Tiverton, Devon. At least two further masts have also been destroyed in Northern Ireland. These actions appear to indicate a trend of direct action by communities who fear that mobile phone masts are a health threat.
Thousands of additional mobile masts are being built across Britain to support 3G networks, and this rollout is thought to be responsible for a surge in the number of mobile protest groups now in existence. But according to the mobile phone industry, these attacks won't have a major effect on the rollout of new data services - but could cause serious injury to those responsible.
"Pulling down a mobile phone mast is dangerous, both to the perpetrators and people living nearby," said a spokesperson for the Mobile Operators Association (MOA), which represents Vodafone, Orange, T-mobile, O2 and Hutchison.
These five operators all own 3G licences, which means they must have built 3G networks that cover at least 80 per cent of the population by 2007. According to the MOA, erecting the extra masts needed shouldn't be a big problem.
"The operators estimated they will need a total of 48,000 mobile phone masts to hit the 2007 coverage requirement, and they have 40,000 at the moment," the MOA spokesperson explained. "The vast majority of mobile phone masts are built with no problems at all, and there is plenty of opportunity for people to make their views felt during the planning application process".
Back in 2001, the UK government commissioned an investigation into the possible health dangers of mobile phone masts. This inquiry concluded there was no evidence of a problem, but recommended a precautionary approach to the issue.
Graeme Wearden writes for ZDNet UK
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. Geoff Watts
These foolish and ignorant people are guilty of criminal damage and should be dealt with via the proper legal process. I seem to remember that there is a main TV transmitter at Sutton Coalfield running thousands of times more power than a mobile phone transmitter. Do they want all the TV transmitters removed as well?
2. anonymous
IT ABOUNT TIME BT DID SOME PROPER TEST ON THE MASTS TO STAMP OUT ANY FEARS PEOPLES HAVE. IT WILL COST MONEY
BUT WILL BE BETTER IN THE LONG RUN. PEOPLE MOAN ABOUNT PHONE MASTS. BUT STILL BUY MOBILE PHONES HOW IRONIC IS THAT. IF PEOPLE ARE BOTHED ABOUNT HELTH PROBLEMS THEY SHOULD USE THEIR PHONES IN AN EMERGENCY ONLY.IAM NOT FOR PHONE MAST.SURLEY THEIR IS AMORE AMICABLE WAY OF DOING THINGS WITH OUT DESTROYING THINGS.
3. anonymous
Neither of these people obviously don't live next to one of these monstrositys. When my children are at risk I will do anything to stop that. Once all legal methods have been exhausted what other options are there? I suggest you do some research before making such outrageous comments.
4. Amanda Wesley
The onus should be on the industries to prove that their technology is safe, not up to those who are likely to suffer from ill-effects to prove that they are not safe by contracting Cancer or experiencing many of the side effects which have been documented.
With regard to the first comment, the use of the word ignorant should surely be reserved for those who are unaware that our government allows higher levels of radiation than other countries (even China and Poland) and that we are one of the few countries not to have an exclusion zone.
It is interesting to note that the countries where proper research has been conducted have much more stringent limits on the siting of Masts. Denmark has actually stalled the introduction of 3G following research on the health effects of Masts.
If multinationals continue to use ordinary people as Guinea Pigs, they must not be surprised when the populace finally say 'enough is enough'.
5. Drew Edgar
The proven health risks - microwaves can damage the brain & soft tissue, particularly of children or other vulnerable people such as the infirmed or the aged - make it utterly inappropriate to site masts close to people's homes, so close to working businesses and Hospitals.
Accordingly, in England’s second city, Birmingham City Council has an all-party policy of banning the erection of antennae on Council property.
Following on from the inquiry conducted by Sir William Stewart, a former UK Chief Medical Officer, who recommended (The Stewart Report) on 11 May 2000 that a "precautionary approach" be taken to the erection of antennae, a Case has been launched by the Harrogate Borough Council & the Government against T-mobile, Orange & Hutchinson.
In due course the Case will be heard before the Court of Appeal who will consider inter alia the proven health risks & considerable public concern over the issue of erecting antennae in residential areas.
Amongst the principal findings of the Stewart Report were -
1. Some scientific evidence shows that radio-frequency (RF) radiation may affect biological function. It is not possible to say therefore that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects.
2. A precautionary approach should be adopted until more detailed information becomes available.
Some people's well-being may be adversely affected by the environmental impact of mobile phone base stations (antennae) sited next to houses, schools or other buildings, as well as by fear of perceived direct effects.
3. All base stations, including those under 15 metres, should have permitted development rights revoked and the siting of all new base stations (masts) should be subject to the normal planning process.
4. The widespread use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged.
In conclusion, The Precautionary Principle (Maastricht Treaty 1993) is at one with Stewart's conclusions above. The Precautionary Principle is implicitly incorporated into environmental planning policy or guidance.
Furthermore, art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to respect for a person's private and family life, home and correspondence. I am advised, “that living in fear due to the proximity of a mast may infringe this right.”
6. Andrew Porter
Why should the Luddites be outside the law. There are so many radio waves around us that a mobile mast makes no difference. The elected government has tested and authorised these installations. It is the lack of perception of risk that annoys me. None of the phone mast campaigners smoke, drive, drink or of course use mobiles do they? The false scare over MMR and it's misinterpretation by campaigners has caused a Mumps epidemic in Lancashire.
7. anonymous
This will only continue and spread to other nations if things don't improve. The security cameras at the masts, the barbwire fences, nothing will stop people who are defending thier lives. They have taken the peaceful approach but been ignored, what other options do they have?