Campaign Against the Erection of a Phone Mast & Base Station
at St Peter-le-Poer Church Colney Hatch Lane N10
The Parochial Church Council (PCC) of St Peter-le-Poer Church have decided to proceed towards hosting a mobile phone base station "subject to consultation with the local community"
We believe that this consultation process is fatally flawed.
The Parochial Council have only listened to evidence from the installers QS4 Ltd regarding the base station, which is like a jury only listening to the defence side of the argument.
The consultation is being wholly managed by the QS4 Ltd who have been underhand and less that fair in their dealings.
In the first instance QS4 Ltd sent this letter to householders:
Before discussing the letter itself, it is worth noting that the delivery was somewhat sporadic, as many householders in the area simply did not recieve it.
The letter itself is misleading from start to finish.
The letterhead gives a false email address for QS4 Ltd, and the letter goes on to invite people to email their concerns to them. Cock-up or conspiracy ? It does seem amazing that a multi-million pound organisation can fail to deliver letters to a very small number of households, and also manage to get their own email address wrong!
The first paragraph can be dismissed as rhetoric - there is no desire amongst mobile phone companies to improve reception as there is absolutely no problem with mobile phone reception anywhere in the vicinity. Instead the mobile phone companies want to foist 3G services - largely 'adult entertainment' services (see the Moral Arguments) on an unsuspecting public.
The idea that the phone companies are doing this out of some altruistic desire to ensure better reception for the average (2G) phone user is absolutely untrue.
The letter goes on to mention that the Parochial Council have received a presentation on "all aspects" of the proposal. This was revealed to be a misrepresentation, as when questioned, the signatory to this letter John Horsley confessed he was unaware of much of the latest scientific research linking base stations to ill-heath.
How on earth could he have then presented details on "all aspects" of the proposal to the Parochial Council when there are gaping holes in his own knowledge ?
QS4 states that the "Church would therefore like to hear the views of the Church members, Hall-users, and local residents". Strange then that some of the groups who use the Church were completely unwaware of the proposal until contacted by the researchers of this site. We also understand that not all of the parishioners are aware of the proposal.
Some "consultation" this is turning out to be!
QS4 Ltd claim that they work with the Local Authority - well not in this case they won't - they don't have to. As John Horsley admitted when questioned by the researchers of this site, the phone base will not require planning permission as it is unlikely to involve changing the outside of the Church
This means there is NO local accountability at all in this process. Local democracy has been effectively side-stepped - no-one involved in the decisions relating to this planning process are elected officials or representatives of the local communities.
Amazingly John Horsley insisted that this was a fairer and more effective way of conducting planning. No doubt it is more effective for QS4 Ltd, but it removes any local democratic influence in this process and as such the researchers of this site are currently examining the legality of this under EU Human Rights Law.
QS4 Ltd claim they are committed to the highest standards of health and safety - this is simply not true - if they were they would not be in the business of installing Base Stations. The exposure of the brain to the microwaves inherent in this technology has been termed "the largest human biological experimet ever" (Salford et.al 2001). As the acclaimed New Zealand Scientist Dr Neil Cherry put it - "there is no safe threshold level. The only safe exposure level is zero"
QS4 Ltd aren't interested in your health and safety - they are only concerned with making big bucks. They are playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with your health. See the Scientific Arguments for more details on the growing body of worldwide Scientific opinion supporting the ill-health effects of Base Stations.
QS4 Ltd state that they have erected phone masts and base stations in hundreds of Churches throughout the country "without any problems". Without any problems for whom? For QS4 Ltd? For the Church coffers? For the local residents? For the structure of the building? For Mr John Horsley? What about St Michael and All Angels' Church in Ryde on the Isle of Wight, or Bideford Parish Church in Devon (where strangely enough QS4 Ltd also managed to miss some householders out when delivering their consultation letters), or St Luke's Church, in St John's, Tunbridge Wells where police had to be called to protect representatives from QS4 from an angry crowd of 100 local protesters. A protest at St. Mark's in Westfield, East Sussex has caused the Church Council to think again - and there are plenty of other examples. John Horsley, as the Church Relationship Manager must be aware of them all.
Maybe John Horsley refers specifically to health problems - in which case this is hardly surprising. The pact with between the Church and QS4 Ltd was only agreed in June 2002, with the first installations taking places some time after then. As the problems associated with Base Stations tend to manifest themselves over longer time periods, we can expect the number of health issues (or statistical anomolies as John Horsley would have us believe) to increase with time. See the Scientific Arguments for more details.
QS4 Ltd state that they are "obliged to a greater level of consultation than other installers". As other installers do not have to consult local residents but instead apply for Planning Permission via the Local Council, any consultation - however shabby, would be greater than other installers.
However, when Planning Permission has been sought from the Local Council by other installers (as for example with the application for a 3G mast outside the Library on Colney Hatch Lane by T-Mobile in December 2005)
the Local Council are obliged to consult with the local community to a far greater extent than QS4 are with this proposal. The council typically write to all householders within 500yrds of an installation, rather than residents within the 150yrds that QS4 have haphazardly written to. What is more the figure of 150yrds seems to have been plucked from the air by QS4 Ltd. It is certainly not based on any scientific opinion and in other locations they used different criteria.
This attempt by QS4 to present themselves as somehow more caring and more understanding
than the average installer is galling. QS4 Ltd are not the good guys they want us to believe - they deliberately target Churches knowing that they can circumvent the planning process and sideline local democracy.
QS4 Ltd managed a drop-in session on Tuesday 7th November - just 4 days after the date of the letter. This gave local residents and community groups virtually no time to organise and mobilise opposition to the proposal. John Horsley failed to realise how this could be seen as a deliberate ploy by QS4 Ltd to stifle debate.
The Church Hall was bedecked with leaflets and propganda provided by QS4 Ltd which told only one half of the story. Studies and articles that support the proposal that the link between mobile phones and ill-health was unproven were available duly photocopied (presumably with the copyright holders permission?) and available as handouts. There was no information available on the highly respected peer-reviewed Academic and Scientific papers that DO suggest a link between Base Stations and ill-health
QS4 Ltd's representative John Horsley flitted amongst the local people in attendance - the overwhelming majority of whom were against the proposal, handing out leaflets and presenting a wholly biased and one-sided opinion. Indeed when one of the researchers for this site contradicted Mr Horsley, he became quite agitated stating 'I was talking to him - not to you'. He then grabbed the resident by the elbow and steered him off to the propoganda sheets pinned to the wall.
At other points in the meeting John Horsley implied that there was more radiation emitted from a handset than a mast. This has been dismissed as 'ludicrous' by expert Dr Grahame Blackwell who went on to state 'It is true, of course, that no-one puts their skull as close to a mast antenna as they do to their handset, so the level of radiation reaching their brain and body tissue is greater from a handset than from a mast - for the duration of a call. However, the body's repair/recovery systems can quickly do much to compensate for the shock (and it IS a shock) to the body & brain from the radiation suffered during a brief call, whereas someone in the radiation of a mast 24/7 has no opportunity for such repair/recovery - in fact, research shows that such radiation depresses the body's own immune response mechanisms, leaving a person open to attack from (notably) cancer as a result of this reduced self-protection. As you'll see from the REFLEX summary [see the Scientific Arguments]....this type of radiation (at so-called 'safe' levels) causes single and double-strand DNA breaks of the type that CAUSE cancer (multiply replicated result) - as well as leaving the victim with seriously reduced capability to resist this life-threatening disorder.'
At the same meeting a member of the Church Parochial Council suggested that the base station proposed for the Church would not add to the background level of radiation. This misinformation was presumably gleaned from QS4 Ltd's presentation. This was similarly ridiculed by Dr Blackwell 'It is similarly ludicrous to suggest that addition of extra antennae wouldn't add to levels of radiation (unless they never switch them on).... They probably mean that levels would still have to be below government 'safety' thresholds when added to existing emissions - but since those 'safety' levels are vapourware that's not a lot of consolation (see ....Stewart & ICNIRP) [see the Scientific Arguments for more details]....it is not possible to add to something without increasing it - that's a contradiction !'
Later in the week a researcher for this site visited the Church Hall to attempt to speak with the Mothers and Toddlers Group. However, permission to speak with the group was refused by the organiser! Leaflets were handed over to the group organiser, but as our researcher was not permitted to speak to them directly we have no idea if Mothers ever received the information that could be so pertinent to their children's health.
With fair and honest debate blatantly stifled like this, propoganda and disinformation spread in abundance, and an industry spokesperson woefully short of the full facts, the consultation has so far been a total farce.
Scientific Arguments
Moral Arguments
Useful Links
Return to Homepage
The letter itself is misleading from start to finish.
The letterhead gives a false email address for QS4 Ltd, and the letter goes on to invite people to email their concerns to them. Cock-up or conspiracy ? It does seem amazing that a multi-million pound organisation can fail to deliver letters to a very small number of households, and also manage to get their own email address wrong!
The first paragraph can be dismissed as rhetoric - there is no desire amongst mobile phone companies to improve reception as there is absolutely no problem with mobile phone reception anywhere in the vicinity. Instead the mobile phone companies want to foist 3G services - largely 'adult entertainment' services (see the Moral Arguments) on an unsuspecting public. The idea that the phone companies are doing this out of some altruistic desire to ensure better reception for the average (2G) phone user is absolutely untrue.
The letter goes on to mention that the Parochial Council have received a presentation on "all aspects" of the proposal. This was revealed to be a misrepresentation, as when questioned, the signatory to this letter John Horsley confessed he was unaware of much of the latest scientific research linking base stations to ill-heath.
How on earth could he have then presented details on "all aspects" of the proposal to the Parochial Council when there are gaping holes in his own knowledge ?
QS4 states that the "Church would therefore like to hear the views of the Church members, Hall-users, and local residents". Strange then that some of the groups who use the Church were completely unwaware of the proposal until contacted by the researchers of this site. We also understand that not all of the parishioners are aware of the proposal.
Some "consultation" this is turning out to be!
QS4 Ltd claim that they work with the Local Authority - well not in this case they won't - they don't have to. As John Horsley admitted when questioned by the researchers of this site, the phone base will not require planning permission as it is unlikely to involve changing the outside of the Church
This means there is NO local accountability at all in this process. Local democracy has been effectively side-stepped - no-one involved in the decisions relating to this planning process are elected officials or representatives of the local communities.
Amazingly John Horsley insisted that this was a fairer and more effective way of conducting planning. No doubt it is more effective for QS4 Ltd, but it removes any local democratic influence in this process and as such the researchers of this site are currently examining the legality of this under EU Human Rights Law.
QS4 Ltd claim they are committed to the highest standards of health and safety - this is simply not true - if they were they would not be in the business of installing Base Stations. The exposure of the brain to the microwaves inherent in this technology has been termed "the largest human biological experimet ever" (Salford et.al 2001). As the acclaimed New Zealand Scientist Dr Neil Cherry put it - "there is no safe threshold level. The only safe exposure level is zero"
QS4 Ltd aren't interested in your health and safety - they are only concerned with making big bucks. They are playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with your health. See the Scientific Arguments for more details on the growing body of worldwide Scientific opinion supporting the ill-health effects of Base Stations.
QS4 Ltd state that they have erected phone masts and base stations in hundreds of Churches throughout the country "without any problems". Without any problems for whom? For QS4 Ltd? For the Church coffers? For the local residents? For the structure of the building? For Mr John Horsley? What about St Michael and All Angels' Church in Ryde on the Isle of Wight, or Bideford Parish Church in Devon (where strangely enough QS4 Ltd also managed to miss some householders out when delivering their consultation letters), or St Luke's Church, in St John's, Tunbridge Wells where police had to be called to protect representatives from QS4 from an angry crowd of 100 local protesters. A protest at St. Mark's in Westfield, East Sussex has caused the Church Council to think again - and there are plenty of other examples. John Horsley, as the Church Relationship Manager must be aware of them all.
Maybe John Horsley refers specifically to health problems - in which case this is hardly surprising. The pact with between the Church and QS4 Ltd was only agreed in June 2002, with the first installations taking places some time after then. As the problems associated with Base Stations tend to manifest themselves over longer time periods, we can expect the number of health issues (or statistical anomolies as John Horsley would have us believe) to increase with time. See the Scientific Arguments for more details.
QS4 Ltd state that they are "obliged to a greater level of consultation than other installers". As other installers do not have to consult local residents but instead apply for Planning Permission via the Local Council, any consultation - however shabby, would be greater than other installers.
However, when Planning Permission has been sought from the Local Council by other installers (as for example with the application for a 3G mast outside the Library on Colney Hatch Lane by T-Mobile in December 2005) the Local Council are obliged to consult with the local community to a far greater extent than QS4 are with this proposal. The council typically write to all householders within 500yrds of an installation, rather than residents within the 150yrds that QS4 have haphazardly written to. What is more the figure of 150yrds seems to have been plucked from the air by QS4 Ltd. It is certainly not based on any scientific opinion and in other locations they used different criteria.
This attempt by QS4 to present themselves as somehow more caring and more understanding than the average installer is galling. QS4 Ltd are not the good guys they want us to believe - they deliberately target Churches knowing that they can circumvent the planning process and sideline local democracy.
QS4 Ltd managed a drop-in session on Tuesday 7th November - just 4 days after the date of the letter. This gave local residents and community groups virtually no time to organise and mobilise opposition to the proposal. John Horsley failed to realise how this could be seen as a deliberate ploy by QS4 Ltd to stifle debate.
The Church Hall was bedecked with leaflets and propganda provided by QS4 Ltd which told only one half of the story. Studies and articles that support the proposal that the link between mobile phones and ill-health was unproven were available duly photocopied (presumably with the copyright holders permission?) and available as handouts. There was no information available on the highly respected peer-reviewed Academic and Scientific papers that DO suggest a link between Base Stations and ill-health
QS4 Ltd's representative John Horsley flitted amongst the local people in attendance - the overwhelming majority of whom were against the proposal, handing out leaflets and presenting a wholly biased and one-sided opinion. Indeed when one of the researchers for this site contradicted Mr Horsley, he became quite agitated stating 'I was talking to him - not to you'. He then grabbed the resident by the elbow and steered him off to the propoganda sheets pinned to the wall.
At other points in the meeting John Horsley implied that there was more radiation emitted from a handset than a mast. This has been dismissed as 'ludicrous' by expert Dr Grahame Blackwell who went on to state 'It is true, of course, that no-one puts their skull as close to a mast antenna as they do to their handset, so the level of radiation reaching their brain and body tissue is greater from a handset than from a mast - for the duration of a call. However, the body's repair/recovery systems can quickly do much to compensate for the shock (and it IS a shock) to the body & brain from the radiation suffered during a brief call, whereas someone in the radiation of a mast 24/7 has no opportunity for such repair/recovery - in fact, research shows that such radiation depresses the body's own immune response mechanisms, leaving a person open to attack from (notably) cancer as a result of this reduced self-protection. As you'll see from the REFLEX summary [see the Scientific Arguments]....this type of radiation (at so-called 'safe' levels) causes single and double-strand DNA breaks of the type that CAUSE cancer (multiply replicated result) - as well as leaving the victim with seriously reduced capability to resist this life-threatening disorder.'
At the same meeting a member of the Church Parochial Council suggested that the base station proposed for the Church would not add to the background level of radiation. This misinformation was presumably gleaned from QS4 Ltd's presentation. This was similarly ridiculed by Dr Blackwell 'It is similarly ludicrous to suggest that addition of extra antennae wouldn't add to levels of radiation (unless they never switch them on).... They probably mean that levels would still have to be below government 'safety' thresholds when added to existing emissions - but since those 'safety' levels are vapourware that's not a lot of consolation (see ....Stewart & ICNIRP) [see the Scientific Arguments for more details]....it is not possible to add to something without increasing it - that's a contradiction !'
Later in the week a researcher for this site visited the Church Hall to attempt to speak with the Mothers and Toddlers Group. However, permission to speak with the group was refused by the organiser! Leaflets were handed over to the group organiser, but as our researcher was not permitted to speak to them directly we have no idea if Mothers ever received the information that could be so pertinent to their children's health.
Scientific Arguments
Moral Arguments
Useful Links
Return to Homepage