O2 Mast, Rush

LeoB

Chinafoot wrote: »

These things have to go somewhere. Would you have an issue with it going into Balbriggan/Skerries/Lusk? Why should Rush be immune from these developments?

Agreed, but Dont think it was meant like that, its the location within the town that bother op.

Sandyhills ms

Sandyhills ms wrote: »

The mast to be situated in the golf club is in an area zoned high amenity , open space and sensitive landscape , hardly an appropriate site. it is an area marked in the biodiversity plan as protected too . It will be visible from the beach at low tide, it will be another blight on a town full of wires and cables. Is that what we want for our town?

Do I have to keep repeating myself ... I would have a problem with a mast in any of the towns listed in the same circumstances .

Now for all you medical experts perhaps you can address the issue of zoning , the placing of mobile phone masts in sensitive landscapes.

The Hill Billy

I don't claim to be a medical expert and neither do others on this thread. I just quoted the World Health Organisation's opinion on RF radiation.

As for erecting masts on sensitive landscapes - this has happened and will continue as these areas are generally open and provide the best coverage.
.

The Rooster

Hill Billy wrote: »

I agree that the health argument against mobile masts is not very strong at all. In fact, we a far more likely to suffer serious health issues from Radon Gas in our homes.

Radon gas levels are very low in Rush, hardly register at all. One less thing to worry about thankfully

00lk

Hill Billy you said 'I work in telecoms myself and have yet to see any planning for a mast or relay refused on health grounds. '

Do you or anyone else know if and how these mobile phone masts actually get stopped? Is there a couple of key ingredients you must have in your objection to make it a success?

The Hill Billy

But that would be 'cheating'.

Seriously though - If you wish to object to a phone mast being erected at a certain location you must have reasons for that objection (eg, "I don't want it ruining my view", "I'm scared that I might get cancer from it", "The mast will be transmitting at 'x' frequency which will affect the 'y' equipment in my workshop", etc.). Those are the truthful reasons that you should state when objecting.

For argument's sake - let's say that I provided you with a reason that resulted in a mast not being erected elsewhere. Then you state that reason on your submission when in fact the real reason for your objection would still be "I don't want it ruining my view", "I'm scared that I might get cancer from it", etc.

That's just wrong.

00lk

Ok, as Phone Masts go, is this a bit of a big deal?;

the construction of a 30m high lattice
telecommunications/3G support structure, carrying 6
no. panel antennas and 4 no. RT link dishes, with
associated telecommiunications cabinets and
equipment located at ground level, all enclosed in
chain link fencing and all associated works, plus new

access track

I would imagine it is. Its on a farm about 200mtrs from 5 or 6 houses.

The Hill Billy

Fairly standard tbh.

LeoB

As H.B stated you need to have reasonable grounds. I think there was a case a few years back where the high court said "You are not entitled to a paricular view", (someone objected to a house being built in the line of view)

I think the only other real way is for people to turn down the money they are offered and in these times that is a hard ask €15,000 is a lot of money

00lk

Thanks Leo,

Is it fact that the landowner may be liable if, down the line, if it is proven that radiation emitted from these masts has harmful side effects for humans? Be a great frightener as a slogan on a sign. !!

The Hill Billy

No, it would be sensationalist scaremongering.

00lk

How Awful !!

LeoB

00lk wrote: »

Thanks Leo,

Is it fact that the landowner may be liable if, down the line, if it is proven that radiation emitted from these masts has harmful side effects for humans?. !!

No way. With the land deals that have gone on around here you would have some job sueing anyone.

But is a club not the recipiant of the money in this case?

Corsendonk

00lk wrote: »

Thanks Leo,

Is it fact that the landowner may be liable if, down the line, if it is proven that radiation emitted from these masts has harmful side effects for humans? Be a great frightener as a slogan on a sign. !!

Everything gives off radiation, thats how we see colours. Anyone got the address of God so I can sue his ass off?