by Sue Kedgley
Cell tower springs up in Christchurch
Every week someone contacts me about an unwanted cell tower, mast or antennae, that are being erected near to where they live.
Last week I got a call from a woman in Herne Bay, Auckland – who had discovered that a cell phone mast was about to be erected on a telephone pole outside her home.
She was distraught – even more so when I had to inform her that she had no legal right, under present regulations, to be consulted, and that there was little she could do other than make an almighty fuss about it.
I was also contacted last week by a Christchurch woman about a cell tower that had been constructed next to her child’s school. In the morning when she took her child to school, there was no cell tower. But when she went to pick her child up at three o’clock, a cell tower had been erected, directly across the road from the local school (see picture above).
Nobody in the community had been consulted, not even the school –despite the fact that other countries (for example, France, New South Wales) do not permit cell towers to be erected next to schools.
Speaking of cell towers, who are we to believe? The Mayor of Manukau or the Prime Minister?
Earlier this month, the Mayor of Manukau, Len Brown, told the Howick and Pakuranga Times that the Prime Minister had assured him he would be recommending to Cabinet that the National Environmental Standard on Telecommunications be reviewed, particularly the need for consultation. (He was referring to the present standard which allows telcos to erect cell phone masts and antennae on virtually any telephone pole in New Zealand, without have to inform or consult anyone first).
So the Wellingtonian (one of the only media to cover the cell tower issue) decided to ring up Mr Key’s office to find out if this was correct.
He couldn’t get a straight answer from the Prime Minister’s office, but Environment Minister Nick Smith said he ‘wouldn’t give too much credence’ to the report of the Mayor’s comments in the Howick Times.
So the Wellingtonian rang Len Brown, to see if he had been correctly quoted. Mr Brown’s office assured him that the Mayor had been correctly quoted, and that the Prime Minister had undertaken to take the present radio frequency rules to Cabinet and look at changing them.
So the Prime Minister can’t wriggle out of this one, or renege on this promise – even if he is being heavied by the telecommunications industry, who certainly won’t want a review. The present regulations are causing upset and distress all around New Zealand, as people discover cell phone towers have been erected without their knowledge or consent.
Even the Local Government and Environment committee recommended, in their recent report on cell towers, that “telecommunications companies should consult local communities on the location of cellphone towers, cellphone sites, cabinets and other EMR equipment in an area, and seek to come up with sites that have the least impact on nearly residential dwellings and schools.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Sue Kedgley on Mon, November 30th, 2009
Tags: Cell tower, consultation, environment, health, Sue Kedgely
More posts by Sue Kedgley | more about Sue Kedgley
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Like or Dislike:
8 
0 (+8)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
One of the reasons for this is confusion between different types of radiation. Cell phones operate at frequencies similar to microwave ovens and (UHF) televisions. This radiation is non-ionising, i.e. the frequency is too low to cause ionisation, unlike X-Rays, Gamma Rays and Cosmic Rays. Visible light is exactly the same type of radiation – electromagnetic radiation – and lies in between cell phones and ionising radiation, with infra-red on the cell-phone side and ultra-violet on the X-Ray side. In other words, cell phone radiation is closer to the heat radiation from a heat lamp than it is to UV, X-Rays or other ionising radiation.
Incidentally electromagnetic radiation has almost nothing in common with other forms of nuclear radiation (neutrons, alpha or beta radiation, etc) other than the word “radiation”.
Another reason for the paranoia is that without equipment, radiation is undetectable – you can’t feel it, see it (except for visible light), hear it, taste it or smell it. Yet with the right equipment, it can be detected at very low levels – many orders of magnitude below what could be considered dangerous. This seems to have escaped the notice of one council that allowed a cell phone site providing there was “no detectable radiation at the property boundary”. (Since a cell phone is capable of detecting such radiation, this essentially meant that the tower was permitted only if it didn’t work at all.)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0 (+10)
A school cert pass in science?
Like or Dislike:
9 
9 (0)
Cell phone towers use directional aerials. These concentrate the signal into the horizontal plane, so little signal escapes upwards or downwards. (More accurately, the beam is usually tilted down slightly.) This means that someone standing within 10-20 metres of the tower is not getting the full signal from the transmitter, and someone directly underneath the tower is in a weaker signal area rather than a high-strength zone that might be expected. The gain of the aerial allows lower power levels to be used at both ends (tower and mobile phone).
What is often overlooked is that there is no advantage in transmitting a much stronger signal from the cell phone tower than from the phone. If the cell phone tower can’t hear the phone, then the call isn’t going to work, no matter how much power the cell phone tower puts out. Therefore while the cell phone tower does use higher power levels than the cell phones, it is only a few times higher in power. To people near the cell phone user (e.g. in the same room or the same car), the power levels from the cell phone will exceed that from the cell phone tower they are using.
Paradoxically the way to reduce the exposure from cell phones and cell phone towers is to have more cell phone towers, so the average range of a connection is reduced and lower power levels can be used at both ends. This isn’t going to be possible if cell phone towers can’t be set up near where the users are.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0 (+10)
Sue, is the issue here the lack of consent involved in erecting a cell tower? or the fear of exposure to ‘harmful’ radiation leading to a perceived need of further consultation (or regulation on their construction)?
In my opinion, the visual impact of a cell tower is extremely minimal anyway, not quite at the same visual impact level of a wind turbine (which I believe are aesthetically pleasing).
On the plus side, the children at the school will have good cellphone reception!
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Actual consultation with nearby residents is likely to hit the NIMBY syndrome.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
What exactly is Sue Kedgley’s position on this?
Does she have a problem with the asthetics of the towers destoying the pristine environment that they inhabit in the Urban landscape?
Is it the potential life threatening health hazzards caused by the very low levels of UHF radiation that these towere emit?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
More towers means better coverage.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)