Masts: why such complacency?

First, it is necessary to understand that mobile phone masts and cordless telephones do not produce the same emissions as radio and television, which are in the form of continuous waves. The danger comes from pulsing emissions which emanate from mobile phone transmitter masts, cordless telephones and mobile phones.

The guideline adopted by the UK Government, and followed by Bury MBC, certainly does not guarantee against symptoms such as nose bleeds, headaches, sleeping disorders or nausea, to name but a few. Neither, though, does it guarantee safety from developing serious diseases such as cancer, pre-cancerous growth or motor neurone illness.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government and our local council try to maintain the untenable position that there is nothing wrong with the current position, when there manifestly is something seriously wrong.

The only other people who, it seems to me, have a vested interest in locating these masts in residential areas are the mobile phone operators and the site owners.

The Strutt and Parker survey confirmed that rents for mast sites range from an average of £4,123 per month in rural areas to £18,000-plus for London roof-top locations. It seems a reasonable assumption, therefore, that the rental per month for a mast siting in residential areas of metropolitan boroughs such as Bury, is most likely to be in the region of £8,000-£13,000.

Finally, I do not want to get involved in a wrangle with Councillor Boden but I cannot let his misinterpretation of my published letter of September 3 go unchallenged. In that letter I asked:

Why isn't its (pulsing radiation emissions from mobile phone transmitter masts) perilous effect on health publicised in equal measure with the hazards of passive smoking?"

I have never suggested that the one should be publicised and not the other. Such a suggestion would, indeed, be, to quote Coun Boden, "risible".

DAVID H. FOSS,

Layfield Close, Tottington.