I was one of the people present at Ashley's for the presentation referred to. Most others and myself were not convinced about the claims of safety.
There is no shortage of information that can we found on the net, as we all know. It is convenient to cull out facts that favour the viewpoint that one is trying to push. However, most data we have encountered, seems to lean towards the *dangerous radiation* aspect, and there is absolutely no data assuring "NO HEALTH HAZARDS" . Appending here an article announcing a recent High Court judgement in Punjab. I am sure all cellular companies and tower builders must have presented every possible statistic, and yet the verdict is clear. It is only a matter of time before this becomes a regulation. 'Safety' is a relative term, who is to finally check on a regular basis on ground realities? The multi-operator tower is to be rented out to several providers, who is to keep tabs on the technology, emissions etc by each? Lastly, finding an alternate site is not the responsibility of other villagers. Sonali ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *No mobile towers in residential areas: HC Saurabh Malik Tribune News Service* Chandigarh, February 13 Mobile towers may soon be phased out of Chandigarh’s residential areas. Dealing with the towering problem, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant development, today made it clear that it wanted the mobile towers to be shifted out of residential areas in phases. As a bunch of petition seeking the removal of mobile towers from city’s residential areas came up for hearing this afternoon, the Bench headed by Justice MM Kumar directed the Chandigarh Administration to formulate a policy for their shifting in a phased manner. In what could ring in difficulties for mobile service providers, the Bench also set a two-month deadline for the Chandigarh Administration to come up with the policy. The development was significant as there were not less than 18 towers in Chandigarh and its villages. Expressing concern over the effects of radiation, the High Court ruled that it was the duty of the government and mobile companies to inform residents about the harmful effects. The High Court had only recently ruled the government would be duty bound to inform the public living where a mobile tower was to be erected about the “amount of radiation it will emit” and its harmful effects thereof on the health of people. The information would have to be supplied in the shape of a public notice before the mobile tower was erected. The HC also directed the companies installing mobile towers to do the same. Making it clear that "there is no absolute right to carry on any business, the Bench ruled that it (business) is subject to reasonable restriction and regulation", and highlighted the damage being caused due to the radiation. "It will be the duty of the local authorities to issue a public notice for information of all concerned where the permission for erection of a tower is being considered or granted to apprise the public as to what amount of radiation it will emit and the effect thereof on the health of the people living in the area," read the judgement. The High Court held, "The mobile emit signals in the form of radio waves. It is feared that radio waves can cause changes to the cells in our brain. If the DNA in the brain cells gets damaged, they may become cancerous and cause brain tumours. It is also feared that radio waves can alter chemical and electrical reactions in our brain, changing, in effect, the way the brain cells communicate. Studies conducted have revealed that sparrows have declined in the most contaminated electromagnetic fields". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Devine Computers <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > Dear Saligaonetters > Pardon the large attachment to this email, I am enclosing a 31 slide > presentation as a PDF file which Cyril, Gerard (my dad) , myself and Venas > jointly gave to a small group of immediate neighbours for the Dialogue. > *unfortunately, > this was never explained to the public at large by those who attended this > session as was expected from them. *the presentation attached contains > some more detail since that day to make it self explanatory. > At another informal meeting (which I personally was not present for) at > the panchayat office in the morning a day or two after the Gramsabha, I was > told that the following decision was reached. IF they (the villagers) can > find a suitable site in saligao that fits with all the operator > requirements and IF it satisfies all other requirements by law ; and IF > the neighbours agree* ; then and only then will the tower shift* after > consultation with all 3 members of the present "tower team". *till such a > site is found, it will continue to reside at its present location*. I was > told that the present people (a sizable number) included Gladstone, Diago, > Austy, Mario Silu, Gordon and a few others including Cyril and Venas. > this condition was agreed by All present because as Cyril told them - "if > we stop work at this site - you will not help us in searching for an > alternate site and you will say "baba my work is done - I got the tower > stopped". when the tower is up - it will remind you to search for an > alternate site". It was on this basis that the "Dialogue" planned with > Marjorie with the general public on the weekend was dropped. > After speaking with people around, and from the mails that have been put > out, one can conclude that these "facts" were again not communicated to the > people of saligao. one can only hope that, more does not remain hidden. > > Saligao villagers have remained without a tower for 12 years! while other > villages / cities progress. > > I personally find it Ironic that some of the people "protesting" against > this tower for whatever reason, forget that they have towers on their own > business properties; and some have now come forward offering theirs. A > typical NIMBY (not in my backyard) approach?. > > Mog asundi > Ashley > > -- > Saligao-Net is at http://groups.google.com/group/saligao-net > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe email [email protected] > -- Saligao-Net is at http://groups.google.com/group/saligao-net To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe email [email protected]
