Ainslie mobile phone base station proposal

By 28 January, 2014 59

Over the weekend we became aware of a development application to build another mobile phone base station with 11 antennas in the bush next to the ACTEW substation in Ainslie near the corner of Chisholm and Duffy Streets, just 90 metres away from residences and around 500 metres away from Baker Gardens Pre-school and Campbell High School.

The base station’s proposed location would be too close to residences, with several located within 100 metres. Those residences in close proximity include several that are occupied by the elderly or young children, who would be subject to continuous exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

According to the application, there would be an almost seven fold increase in the electromagnetic radiation produced from mobile phone base stations at the location. While this is already a very significant increase, electromagnetic radiation from the mobile phone base stations cannot be considered in isolation. The applicant ignores the fact that the electromagnetic radiation from the base stations would be additional to electromagnetic radiation from ACTEW’s substation and overhead high voltage transmission power lines.

It is still too early to definitively determine whether the electromagnetic radiation from the proposed base station would or would not pose a health risk. Mobile phone technology is very new and it continues to evolve and be rolled out at a rapid pace. There are no long term studies into the effects of emissions or radiation from the 3G network stations. There are no guarantees that mobile phone base stations will not have adverse health impacts on those living or working near to them who face continuous long-term exposure to electromagnetic radiation. It is important to note here that children absorb radiation at a much higher rate than adults.

Despite reassurances from mobile phone providers, APANSA and the WHO, there is considerable evidence from studies published in reputable scientific and medical journals that suggest that residents living within 500 metres of mobile phone base stations can suffer from significant adverse health impacts, including higher incidence of cancers and neurological effects including dizziness, headaches, memory loss, depression, irritability, chronic fatigue, sleep disruption, lowered libido and skin problems. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2011) found that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

The base station proposal would further diminish the environmental integrity and natural heritage values of the Mount Ainslie Nature Reserve and possibly have negative health impacts on the large population of Eastern Grey Kangaroos living in close proximity to the proposed location.

The community consultation process has been inadequate. SSMC has failed to advise or consult directly with the community, particularly those residents in close proximity to the proposed location, Ainslie Village, the schools in the neighbourhood or the CSIRO. The timing of the public notification through ACTPLA and any newspaper advertising has been unfair as the period coincided with the summer holiday period, meaning that many residents living close to the proposed location have been away on holiday and are therefore unaware of the proposal. We only discovered the development application by accident when looking on ACTPLA’s website for unrelated information.

While we recognise the socio-economic benefits that improved mobile phone services would offer to Ainslie and neighbouring suburbs, we are opposed to the construction of a base station at the proposed location given the potential health impacts on residents living in close proximity. The lack of consensus in the scientific and medical community on the potential for adverse health impacts, and the need for ongoing research suggests that the Precautionary Principle should be applied and mobile phone base stations should be located in the most sensible locations. There are some locations, such as those close to residential properties, which are simply unsuitable for base stations.

The application is open for comments until tomorrow 29 January.

If you are concerned about the proposal’s potential impact the community, please feel free to draw from the above to submit comments to ACTPLA as outlined below.

Mike

 

AINSLIE

Development Application: 201324530

Address: NO ADDRESS

Block: 12 Section: 100

Proposal: PUBLIC WORKS-COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY-ALTERATION-ADDITION. Proposed upgrade of existing mobile telecommunications facility and addition of a new monopole.

Period for representations closes: 29/01/2014

See the ACTPLA website for more info:

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/your_say/comment/pubnote?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZhcHBzLmFjdHBsYS5hY3QuZ292LmF1JTJGcHVibm90ZSUyRnB1Ym5vdGVEZXRhaWxfbmV3LmFzcCUzRkRBX25vJTNEMjAxMzI0NTMwJmFsbD0x

A written representation clearly stating the reasons for your submission can be sent by email to ACTPLA’s Customer Service Centre at: esddcustomerservices@act.gov.au

 

Please login to post your comments
59 Responses to Ainslie mobile phone base station proposal
#1
p996911turbo9:05 pm, 28 Jan 14

Your assertions that the electromagnetic radiation from this proposed base station will be harmful are absurd and show a spectacular lack of scientific understanding. This is borderline offensive. The reason we have bodies like ARPANSA is precisely to advise on whether these systems are appropriate. Then we have the WHO who can confirm we’re not being lied to by ARPANSA.

Where are your degrees in biology and and radioactive affects? How much peer reviewed research do you personally do in this field? Let me guess: you have no idea what you’re talking about. And now you’re asking me to distrust ARPANSA and the WHO?

Futhermore, your link between mobile phone radiation and HV transmissions lines makes precisely zero scientific sense.

If you don’t want the tower because it’s ugly: good. Say so. I’ll support you on that. But don’t tell me your pseudoscientific anti-establishment rant and expect to get away with it.

#2
m_ratt9:08 pm, 28 Jan 14

……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\

#3
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:32 pm, 28 Jan 14

NIMBY

#4
bd8410:33 pm, 28 Jan 14

Just put your tin foil hat on and you’ll be right. I’m sure you’ll have some spare from the many roll you’ve already used to wrap every single item in your house. Could put some antennae on the hats too.

#5
2620watcher10:39 pm, 28 Jan 14

If I read this right, it’s currently a Vodafone tower which Telstra also occupy. This DA is for Optus to upgrade the pole and also add their antennas. So effectively moving from 2 carriers to 3.

While I’m sure we all love to live free of EMR, it’s an existing site which I presume those nearby are already aware of.

#6
Eyeofthetiger10:45 pm, 28 Jan 14

Finally. The reception around this area is horrible, but slowly getting better. Pretty bad considering its 10 minutes to the CBD.
Go grab your tin foil hat and run along now.

#7
switch10:51 pm, 28 Jan 14

I bet he uses a mobile phone.

#8
arescarti4211:07 pm, 28 Jan 14

p996911turbo said :

Your assertions that the electromagnetic radiation from this proposed base station will be harmful are absurd and show a spectacular lack of scientific understanding. This is borderline offensive. The reason we have bodies like ARPANSA is precisely to advise on whether these systems are appropriate. Then we have the WHO who can confirm we’re not being lied to by ARPANSA.

Where are your degrees in biology and and radioactive affects? How much peer reviewed research do you personally do in this field? Let me guess: you have no idea what you’re talking about. And now you’re asking me to distrust ARPANSA and the WHO?

Futhermore, your link between mobile phone radiation and HV transmissions lines makes precisely zero scientific sense.

If you don’t want the tower because it’s ugly: good. Say so. I’ll support you on that. But don’t tell me your pseudoscientific anti-establishment rant and expect to get away with it.

+1

Some of the most disgraceful nimbyism and garbage science I’ve ever seen.

I look forward to OP leaving Canberra for a remote underground bunker to escape all the scary electromagnetic radiation that we’re all constantly being bombarded with from insidious new inventions like the sun.

#9
c_c™11:24 pm, 28 Jan 14

It’s not reception people, the networks are using very robust 800-900 mhz frequencies. It’s capacity, that’s why you have trouble connecting in central Canberra. They’ve oversold their networks so that the base stations are being saturated with users.

It’s absolutely terrible in Sydney’s CBD on a week day, it ended up being faster to turn off 3G and rely on EDGE instead. And while 4G offers some improvement, just wait till it becomes the norm and becomes saturated.

#10
c_c™12:01 am, 29 Jan 14

Re: the OPs tin foil post, they obviously have no idea just how many base stations are around the place, not to mention femtocells and WLAN base stations and other wireless transmission equipment.

For some years now, there’s been a TV translator mounted on an ACTEW water tank in Tuggeranong, it’s rated power output is 150w in the 550-600mhz range and it’s close to houses. To my knowledge, no one complained because TV doesn’t illicit the same rebuke as does mobile phones, despite the fact a 3G cell site has just a fraction of the output, about 3w for 2100mhz stations.

But let’s look at some other examples, because in Canberra, we’re fortunate that the other TV translators tend to be in green reserves, not a luxury they have interstate.

The ABC has a 650w and 2.6kw transmitter on top of The Elan building in Kings Cross, other channels have their own with similar outputs.

The Eagles Nest Restaurant at Thredbo has a 20w ABC transmitter on it.

They may not know the name, but I’m sure a lot of people on here know of Hampden Road in Artarmon, in the middle of the suburbs. Couldn’t miss those transmitters from the Pacific Highway surely. Less than 200m from houses, with 4 x 200kw, 1 x 850kw, 4 x 50kw transmitters on top.

If someone has figures on a massively higher cancer rate for people in Artarmon, please feel free to post them. I’d be interested.

#11
magiccar96:15 am, 29 Jan 14

So we’re happy when we can get super fast 4G speeds, and complain when we don’t get 100% perfect cell coverage, yet we bitch and moan when a new tower is built.

If you don’t want the electromagnetic radiation hand us your mobile phone and all other electronic devices and see how you go…

#12
gentoopenguin7:56 am, 29 Jan 14

You forgot to add that a mobile phone tower will attract to many aliens. They love that shit!

#13
Growling Ferret8:14 am, 29 Jan 14

Is this Johnboys last great troll?

There are mobile base stations everywhere. Buildings, shops, schools, sporting facilities – just about everywhere. There is one about 25m from the houses at the bottom of my street.

Is there an Inner north NIMBY Wanker of the week award?

#14
RadioVK9:10 am, 29 Jan 14

Won’t somebody think of the children!

And the Elderly!

And the Kangaroos!

Seriously though, you’re talking about levels that are just over 4% of the maximum safe exposure level as determined by the WHO. Consider that we live in an environment where we are literally being bathed in EM radiation on a daily basis, from all sorts of sources, at levels that are probably quite a bit higher than the 4% you’d get from a mobile tower. On a day to day basis, mobile phone towers are a single drop into a big ocean of RF.

You should probably also do some research into the different types of radiation. I don’t think EM radiation works the way you think it does…

#15
justsomeaussie9:13 am, 29 Jan 14

This needs to be filed between the Wind Farm disease study and the emails you get from your mum about what microwaves do to water.

Just let these people know that every second billions of radiated particles are passing through their bodies.

#16
Inappropriate9:14 am, 29 Jan 14

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

#17
breda9:26 am, 29 Jan 14

In a previous life I used to have to read letters to Ministers about mobile phone towers. There were two categories of letters – those like the OP, who lived in fear of the modern equivalent of evil spirits, and those who claimed that the Minister was murdering people who could not get in touch in emergencies because of inadequate or congested coverage.

Both of these hysterical and to-be-pitied categories are still with us, according to friends who still work in that area.

#18
Chop719:32 am, 29 Jan 14

This is a brilliant read.
(Insert golf clap here)

#19
Spectra9:55 am, 29 Jan 14

Inappropriate said :

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

Why certainly.
Are you suggesting that melanomas are not caused (at least in part) by exposure to ultra-violet light? If so there’s an awful lot of scientists who would be interested in your research.

That notwithstanding, though, I’m afraid I have to agree with the general sentiment in the comments…this is baseless pseudo-scientific NIMBYism at its finest.

#20
pierce10:24 am, 29 Jan 14

Just for the record, tin foil hats have been shown to have shown to actually amplify any EM or other waves floating about. Apparently you’re better off with a lead-foil hat – if that was a thing.

#21
Deref10:59 am, 29 Jan 14

p996911turbo said :

Your assertions that the electromagnetic radiation from this proposed base station will be harmful are absurd and show a spectacular lack of scientific understanding. This is borderline offensive. The reason we have bodies like ARPANSA is precisely to advise on whether these systems are appropriate. Then we have the WHO who can confirm we’re not being lied to by ARPANSA.

Where are your degrees in biology and and radioactive affects? How much peer reviewed research do you personally do in this field? Let me guess: you have no idea what you’re talking about. And now you’re asking me to distrust ARPANSA and the WHO?

Futhermore, your link between mobile phone radiation and HV transmissions lines makes precisely zero scientific sense.

If you don’t want the tower because it’s ugly: good. Say so. I’ll support you on that. But don’t tell me your pseudoscientific anti-establishment rant and expect to get away with it.

Well said, Turbo. I look forward to seeing MCB’s anti-vaccination rants.

#22
Inappropriate12:26 pm, 29 Jan 14

Spectra said :

Inappropriate said :

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

Why certainly.
Are you suggesting that melanomas are not caused (at least in part) by exposure to ultra-violet light? If so there’s an awful lot of scientists who would be interested in your research.

That notwithstanding, though, I’m afraid I have to agree with the general sentiment in the comments…this is baseless pseudo-scientific NIMBYism at its finest.

Yeah yeah, and x-rays are EMR too. I was referring to non-ionizing radiation :-P

#23
c_c™2:39 pm, 29 Jan 14

pierce said :

Just for the record, tin foil hats have been shown to have shown to actually amplify any EM or other waves floating about. Apparently you’re better off with a lead-foil hat – if that was a thing.

haha, very good point. Reminds me of tests over the years of various covers and attachments for mobile phones that were sold on the claim they protected users from exposure to the phone’s EM emissions. Of course those tests found those accessories either didn’t do anything at all, or worse disrupted the phone’s signal causing it to transmit at a higher power output, raising the SAR.

#24
troll-sniffer2:45 pm, 29 Jan 14

Oh dearie dearie dearie dearie dearie dearie dearie me!

You’re exposed to more radiation from the wiring in your own home than what you could ever be exposed to from this or any other of Canberra’s many phone and radio towers.

Or have you adopted an electricity-free lifestyle already? Thought not.

#25
c_c™2:54 pm, 29 Jan 14

troll-sniffer said :

You’re exposed to more radiation from the wiring in your own home than what you could ever be exposed to from this or any other of Canberra’s many phone and radio towers.

Not to mention Halogen and CFL globes both emit a certain level of UVR (not a dangerous amount at normal usage distances and many halogens should have filters). And the old cathode ray televisions and computer monitors emitted at least a small amount of x-rays.

#26
roccon5:14 pm, 29 Jan 14

more towers means phones radiating at lower power, with the base station likewise not “yelling as loud” either as it communicates with the device as it is now closer.

example: Scullin… new tower went in at Scullin and my phone went from trying to melt the coffee table to being as cool as a cucumber. A win for all :-)

#27
CraigT6:36 pm, 29 Jan 14

CraigT said :

…and possibly have negative health impacts on the large population of Eastern Grey Kangaroos living in close proximity to the proposed location.

Get help, Mike. You are clearly suffering from anxiety, paranoia and delusions. The sooner you admit *you* have the problem, the sooner you can avoid the frustration and anger involved with fighting against reality.

#28
Queen_of_the_Bun7:51 pm, 29 Jan 14

Have you looked at the mobile base station on the roundabout at Goyder St and Jerrabomberra Av Narrabundah? Closer than 90 metres to apartment complexes and a school. But we accept it because we are not NIMBYs.

If you’re happy not to use a mobile phone or wifi, keep on complaining. Your neighbours may disagree with you.

#29
c_c™8:35 pm, 29 Jan 14

roccon said :

more towers means phones radiating at lower power, with the base station likewise not “yelling as loud” either as it communicates with the device as it is now closer.

example: Scullin… new tower went in at Scullin and my phone went from trying to melt the coffee table to being as cool as a cucumber. A win for all :-)

You’re half right there, it does mean phones can use less transmission power, which reduces emissions. However the tower always has to cover the same area so doesn’t do anything for tower output. Same with WiFi base stations in the home, the transmission power is set, each devices then decides how much to use to meet that signal.

#30
Spectra10:17 am, 30 Jan 14

Inappropriate said :

Spectra said :

Inappropriate said :

Show me a study that proves that EMR can mutate DNA and perhaps then I’ll believe it can cause cancer.

Why certainly.
Are you suggesting that melanomas are not caused (at least in part) by exposure to ultra-violet light? If so there’s an awful lot of scientists who would be interested in your research.

That notwithstanding, though, I’m afraid I have to agree with the general sentiment in the comments…this is baseless pseudo-scientific NIMBYism at its finest.

Yeah yeah, and x-rays are EMR too. I was referring to non-ionizing radiation :-P

I figured. But what’s the point of life if not to post pointless pedantry to the internet? :)

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Advertisement

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.