|
FAO Mr. G. Wall |
|
|
|
I am writing to object to this planning application on a number of grounds. |
|
First, a development of this type, in this setting, is totally out of keeping with the objectives of National Parks in general and Dartmoor National Park in particular. The proposed site is a beautiful natural habitat in a nationally-recognised village of outstanding natural beauty. The ‘fake tree’ mast design is a mockery of its proposed surroundings. |
|
Second, and most importantly, the proposed development poses a serious potential threat to health. I am aware that government has directed planning authorities not to consider health, or concerns about health, in respect of such applications. However, I am very reliably advised also that conformance with this directive would put individuals on the Planning Committee in breach of English Law (Human Rights Act 1998, Section 6[1]) and of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6[1]). I appreciate that this places your committee members in a very difficult position, especially as a failure to make a decision confers planning consent by default – which would also breach the above law. I would ask you to consider the following, as the law requires. |
|
The Stewart Report on mobile phones (May 2000) identified a dearth of material to substantiate the assertion that this technology is safe – indeed none at all to positively support the safety of the TETRA technology used in Airwave. It specifically identifies pulsing frequencies around 16 Hz to be avoided if at all possible; TETRA pulses at 17.6 Hz (masts in TETRA trial areas have been measured as doing so). It also advocates ‘a precautionary approach’, indicating that evidence is required that a system is not harmful, not just absence of evidence that it is. The NRPB Report on TETRA explicitly states that published research studies to date “. . . do not exclude the possibility of a risk of cancer that appears only after many years of exposure, nor of a hazard from RF (radio frequency) radiation modulated (pulsed) specifically at around 16 Hz”. It observes that staff in the emergency services would be using this service extensively, and so could provide useful data for “future epidemiological studies.” – in effect making them guinea pigs for this untried technology. The results of this ‘human experiment’ are already being seen in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where around 200 serving police officers have so far reported sick as a consequence of using TETRA. |
|
This use of pulsed microwaves corresponds identically to radiation weapons used in the Cold War – this is well documented – causing epilepsy, leukaemia, miscarriages and other disorders. It is known that the brain’s natural beta rhythms operate in this range, and there is substantial peer-reviewed research by highly respected scientists to indicate that those rhythms are disrupted by pulsed signals as used in TETRA In case it is considered relevant, I would add that the deleterious effects are likely to be more damaging in children, both for reasons of size and tissue formation. |
|
Thirdly, irrespective of actual health hazards, this proposal should be rejected on grounds of legitimate concerns about health. Again, English Law, proved in the Court of Appeal, states that “public fear and concern is a material planning consideration even if that fear is irrational and not based upon evidence”. Given the overwhelming evidence that there are grounds for concern, and a total lack of evidence to allay that concern, how much more relevant is this as a consideration. |
|
Fourth, the Stewart Report recognizes that some individuals in the community are particularlly susceptible to radiation hazards. My own wife, with an excellent Honours Degree in Computing, is unable to pursue a career in this discipline for this very reason – I shudder to think how this radiation, from a source just a few hundred metres from our home, could affect her. A number of Lustleigh residents use heart pacemakers; a form of radiation that cannot be used near airports, hospitals, speed cameras or breathalysers (Mail on Sunday, March 25 2001) could literally be the death of them. |
|
Fifth, Planning staff and/or Committee Members could be opening themselves to criminal charges by approving this application. The Construction Design Management Regulations, 1996, make a requirement for safe construction and safe operation of a site after practical completion – no time limits. A death arising from a Design Negligence is a “Criminal Manslaughter” charge. Employers cannot indemnify employees, nor will Professional Indemnity insurance cover them against criminal charges. It is possible that (an) individual planning official(s), whose professional judgement leads to planning authorisation which later leads to a death, could personally face Criminal Manslaughter charges (authorisation without such judgement is of course not a possibility). In this respect I would ask that the name(s) of the planning official(s) exercising such judgement be officially recorded in the minutes of the Planning Meeting. |
|
Sixth, I am advised that a mast of this kind concentrates the collection of radon gas, which is then taken down by rainfall into the water table. Persons drinking that water would then suffer internal radiation damage. Since a number of people living downhill from this proposed site (including myself) have private springs or wells from which they drink water, this constitutes another, entirely different, form of health hazard. N.B. For some this is their water supply. |
|
Seventh, the proposed site and surrounding area is a natural habitat for a wealth of both flora and fauna. It is within the remit of the National Park Authority to preserve the wildlife and ecology of the Moor, but all forms of life close to such a development are susceptible to cellular disruption from the radiation. I have observed honey buzzards (adults with young) over our garden that almost certainly nest in Caseley Woods; there are rare bats in a number of localities close to this site; I am told we have dormice nesting in our garden wall; the list goes on. |
|
|
|
In the light of the raft of issues touched on in this letter, I would respectfully ask you to reject this application. |
|
|
|
Yours sincerely |
|
(Dr) Grahame Blackwell |
|
|
|
|
|
|