Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:59:38 +0000
From: roger
To: Richard.Flindell@networkrail.co.uk,
Richard Hoile, Calstock Parish
sheryll.murray.mp@parliament.uk, sheryll@sheryllmurray.com,
Peter.Phillips@cornwall.gov.uk

Subject: Calstock mast co-ordinates

Dear Mr Flindell

First I would like to point out that I am not a pro or anti mast casualty and my interest is due to friends and neighbours being concerned.

Whereas you wish to exploit Part 17 of the 1995 GPDO and inform residents that there will be a 95 foot mast at the bottom of their garden, like it or not, - my opinion is that this endeavour could have benefited from a proper public consultation as prescribed under Circular 9/95, Appendix B, para. 8." to consult with the Council and the general public" and a planning application.

So!

I have a number of queries relating to the irradiation that people will be exposed to from the mast at Calstock. I acknowledge that you are of the opinion that it is all within regulations, but then so are the toxins produced by smoking tobacco etc., but this does not make it acceptable. It can take many decades possibly even centuries to discover the health impacts of new technologies and update regulations. By then it is often to late to do much about it.

In fact, it is the perceived danger that is also the real danger, which is why a proper planning application, rather than using permitted development rights in this instance, would have seemed beneficial.

The real problem RE: the radiation is well expressed as follows :-   Washington Post

“The psychological effects were the biggest health
effects of all — by far,” said Fred Mettler, a University of New Mexico professor emeritus and one of the world’s leading authorities on radiation, who studied Chernobyl for the World Health Organization. “

In the end, that’s really what affected the most people.” Fears of contamination and anxiety about the health of those exposed and their children led to significantly elevated rates of suicidal thinking and anxiety disorders, and rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression about doubled, Mettler and others said.

“The effect on mental health was hugely important,” said Evelyn Bromet, a professor of psychiatry at Stony Brook University who studied the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. “People’s fears about getting cancer, or their children getting cancer, and family and friends dying from radiation exposure were very intense.”

Worry is a killer and therefore the crude manner of deploying this mast may be akin to torture for those living close.

Consequently it seems prudent to provide details of the perceived dangers so that the worry dissipates.

Off course there is also the visual impact alone, devoid of the fact that the mast radiates high frequency radiation. This matter I will discuss separately but for now please send me exact co-ordinates of the proposed location for the mast to be located near Calstock railway station and the other information detailed following the embedded plan.

• On a plan that you provided Calstock Parish Council, there is a
  cross. Is this an approximation or exact location?
• The document states that the centre of the map is as follows: You can also see the blue cross that was on the document, not exactly the same as the map centre.
• Moreover on your documents to Cornwall Council you state the proposed location, as inscribed by me, on the following extract and modified map referred to.

I have just obtained an accurate and detailed official copy of an OS map detailing the same area and will impose the three 'locations' that could be the real position.

I understand that in your earlier letter to Cornwall Council the co-ordinates may be approximate, given that they only refer to a 10m position, presumably allowing a 33feet adjustment should it be deemed advisable.

I note from that document you detail other masts to the metre, so I would be grateful if you would do the same for this instance. As you claim the beam is narrow, the site location therefore will impact upon the orientation of the beam.

Ok to add to the above and clarify my requests please provide me
with the following:

a) the exact co-ordinates for the mast

b) the radiation pattern relative to the area you intend it to cover so I can assess the need need for the beam widths of the antenna. i,e. The pattern relative to the extreme places near Harewood and Bere Alston that you want to cover.

c) the actual (field strength) in relation to the distance from the antenna, in both dBm and voltage

d) the controlled output of the amplifier as expected when used, I have it from you that the designed maximum output is 46dBm

e) the actual make and model number of the amplifier so I can check it's documentation from the manufacturers or maybe you could directly send me the manufacturer's info.

f) details on the contents of the big cabinet, as a 40watt amplifier is very small (46dBm)

g) details of the actual signal input and output voltages to the transmitting amplifier you expect

All these matters are important as I intend to assess your figures and produce a map of the projected irradiation to the immediate vicinity.

I already have a plan of the antenna beam width pattern from source, but this is not indicative of the actual power output you will generate.

One of the most important issues is the voltage at a particular distance, so a projection of that info from your dept. is paramount.

Thank you

As I live in the sticks with a slow dial-up connection, I would appreciate that if your reply contains attachments you send to *********

Roger Lovejoy

Copied to
Calstock Parish Council
Cornwall County Council
Sheryll Murray MP South East Cornwall