The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
Dear Scrutiny panel,
Firstly thank you for making the time for these public meetings. I must say that as a newcomer to such things they are a bit daunting when it comes to asking questions and it is easy for them to be led away from the subject. However I look forward to reading the transcript.
Meanwhile I would like to put down a couple of points regarding issues raised as it was not a meeting in which one is able to put in a comment.
Firstly the idea of an independent random monitoring system of emissions is crucial. I believe that in cases where some masts are out of operation, the telecommunications firms answer is to whack up the power in the next closest masts. This means that random spot checks are crucial and I believe that similar is done for testings in the air of radiation from Cap De La Hague by the Environment department. I do not see the expensive of this being huge we do not have far to travel to take readings, equipment to do so is available on the internet.
Second comment, Steve Smith was supposed to represent health and alleviate concerns, however, someone who has not bothered to read the information (from both sides) available does not give a good representation of our Health Department. He kept quoting from the WHO who have conflicting information posted on their website to what is available in fact sheet 304. I would like to suggest that scrutiny recommends that these people take a more impartial view of the situation and look at all the studies that have been conducted. For example the WHO admits that 80% of epidemiological studies show adverse health effects, these studies are based on real life, where are the real life studies that show no health concerns?
Other points that weren't raised were the difference between the frequencies of G2 and G3 mobile systems. A lot of adverse information is based on the G3 technology as it is more ferocious, the mast at St Martin is now a G2, what would the emission levels read as G3. What would the reading be where this masts emissions meet the emissions from the mast passed to be erected at the Royal St Martin, ie overlap emission levels.
Re landowners, we have heard many rumours, to find out some figures try asking those who rejected the offers, Ransoms Garden centre is one, so is Lord Jersey.
Thanks