Phillip & Angela Lee - Oatley Park Defenders

rawfrogpondΠολεοδομικά Έργα

16 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

75 εμφανίσεις



………………….

………………….

OATLEY.

N.S.W. 2223


Senator Richard Alston







…. April 2003

Minister for Communications, IT and the Arts

Parliament House

CANBERRA

A.C.T 2600


Dear Sir,

Re: Hutchison 3G Antennae Oatley Park



I am extremely concerned at the electro
-
magnetic radiation over the Oatley West Public
school and the Oatley Park oval (which is also the schools playing fields).


We now know that the Hutchison tower will over time attract more devices that will increase
the current cumulative risks.


The sc
hool is within the 180 metre recommended limit, which I am given to understand, is the
current health guidelines. I have been made aware of reputable studies that suggest that at
least the health risk threat to my children is inconclusive at best. More li
kely they are going to
be put in a higher risk situation of Alzheimer’s disease, childhood, adult and breast cancer and
nervous and immune system illnesses.


A 1998 National Institute of Environmental health and Safety (NIEHS) panel in the USA
formally cl
assified electromagnetic fields (which will be generated by this tower) as a
possible human carcinogenic being the same class as chloroform, lead, carbon tetrachloride
and DDT.


The Government has a duty of care to protect the children should there be any
possibility of a
threat to their health, now or in the long term because it is the Federal Government’s and in
particular CITA’s legislation that has allowed Hutchison to erect such a tower outside State,
Territory and local planning and environmental laws
.


So in summary our particular concern remains:


o

The children will suffer maximum radiation levels from this tower at the school and
at the Oatley Park Oval and it is a cumulative effect.

o

The children will suffer these prolonged maximum radiation levels f
or the period of
their primary schooling, for 7 hours per day for seven years in their most sensitive
developmental years.


Could you please personally confirm in writing that there is no health risk to the children
from this facility.


If you cannot then
the federal Government has a duty of care to protect the children.



Yours Faithfully


…………………………….



………………….

………………….

OATLEY.

N.S.W. 2223


Senator the Hon Kay Patterson




…. April 2003

Minister for Health

Parliament
House

CANBERRA

A.C.T 2600


Dear Madam,

Re: Hutchison 3G Antennae Oatley Park


A Hutchison 3G Antennae has now been constructed in Oatley Park, Oatley N.S.W. The
tower stands on the playing field used by the local school and the community.


The State and L
ocal governments are both opposed to the tower for both environmental and
health reasons. The Local Hurstville Council took Hutchison to the Land and Environment
Court to stop the tower, but the federal laws, at least until the beginning of April 2003, in
Senator Alston' words "grants immunity to the carrier in relation to State and Territory
Planning and environmental laws". Therefore court had no option but to allow construction to
proceed.


I am extremely concerned at the electro
-
magnetic radiation over

the Oatley West Public
school and the Oatley Park oval (which is also the schools playing fields).


We now know that the Hutchison tower will over time attract more devices that will increase
the current cumulative risks.


The school is within the 180 m
etre recommended limit, which I am given to understand, is the
current health guidelines. I have been made aware of reputable studies that suggest that at
least the health risk threat to my children is inconclusive at best. More likely they are going to
b
e put in a higher risk situation of Alzheimer’s disease, childhood, adult and breast cancer and
nervous and immune system illnesses.


A 1998 National Institute of Environmental health and Safety (NIEHS) panel in the USA
formally classified electromagnetic

fields (which will be generated by this tower) as a
possible human carcinogenic being the same class as chloroform, lead, carbon tetrachloride
and DDT.


The Government has a duty of care to protect the children should there be any possibility of a
threat
to their health, now or in the long term because it is the Federal Government’s and in
particular CITA’s legislation that has allowed Hutchison to erect such a tower outside State,
Territory and local planning and environmental laws.


So in summary our par
ticular concern remains:


o

The children will suffer maximum radiation levels from this tower at the school and
at the Oatley Park Oval and it is a cumulative effect

o

The children will suffer these prolonged maximum radiation levels for the period of
their pr
imary schooling, for 7 hours per day for seven years in their most sensitive
developmental years.




A parent had written and telephoned Senator Alston seeking assurance that there is no health
threat to the children from the emissions from this tower. The r
esponse, from a Ms Cowan of
Mr Alston’s office, was to the effect that the tower would have been constructed and its
emissions are within the national guidelines. I am sure the use of chloroform, lead, carbon
tetrachloride and DDT were also within Governme
nt guidelines before their effects on health
were such that those guidelines were changed. Therefore this did not give any personal
assurance that the children are safe in the light of a number of international studies and bodies
that suggest there remaine
d a risk. To this, I am given to understand, Ms Cowan advised that
the "health issues are the responsibility of the Health Portfolio" and terminated the
conversation. In effect, Ms Cowan as a representative of Mr Alston, indicated that Mr Alston
could not
give a personal assurance and that any health issue from his communications
policies are your responsibility.


I also understand that a local group of concerned parents have taken the matter up with Mr
Daryl Meham MP, our local Federal member as well.


As
we understand from Mr Alston’s office, you are responsible for the health issues related to
this tower. Could you please personally confirm in writing that there is no health risk to the
children from this facility.


If you cannot then the federal Governm
ent has a duty of care to protect the children.



Yours Faithfully






…………………………….



………………….

………………….

OATLEY.

N.S.W. 2223


The Hon Mr John Howard







…. April 2003

Prime Minister

Parliament House

CANBERRA

A.C.T 2600


Dear Sir,

Re:

Hutchison 3G Antennae Oatley Park


A Hutchison 3G Antennae has now been constructed in Oatley Park, Oatley N.S.W. The
tower stands on the playing field used by the local school and the community.


The State and Local governments are both opposed to the t
ower for both environmental and
health reasons. The Local Hurstville council took Hutchison to the Land and Environment
Court to stop the tower, but the federal laws, at least until the beginning of April 2003, in
Senator Alston' words "grants immunity to
the carrier in relation to State and Territory
Planning and environmental laws". Therefore court had no option but to allow construction to
proceed.


I am extremely concerned at the electro
-
magnetic radiation over the Oatley West Public
school and the Oat
ley Park oval (which is also the schools playing fields).


We now know that the Hutchison tower will over time attract more devices that will increase
the current cumulative risks.


The school is within the 180 metre recommended limit, which I am given t
o understand, is the
current health guidelines. I have been made aware of reputable studies that suggest that at
least the health risk threat to my children is inconclusive at best. More likely they are going to
be put in a higher risk situation of Alzhei
mer’s disease, childhood, adult and breast cancer and
nervous and immune system illnesses.


A 1998 National Institute of Environmental health and Safety (NIEHS) panel in the USA
formally classified electromagnetic fields (which will be generated by this t
ower) as a
possible human carcinogenic being the same class as chloroform, lead, carbon tetrachloride
and DDT.


The Government has a duty of care to protect our children should there be any possibility of a
threat to their health, now or in the long term b
ecause it is the Federal Government’s and in
particular CITA’s legislation that has allowed Hutchison to erect such a tower outside State,
Territory and local planning and environmental laws.


So in summary our particular concern remains:


o

The children wil
l suffer maximum radiation levels from this tower at the school and
at the Oatley Park Oval and its effects are cumulative

o

The children will suffer these prolonged maximum radiation levels for the period of
their primary schooling, for 7 hours per day for
seven years in their most sensitive
developmental years.




A parent had written and telephoned Senator Alston seeking assurance that there is no health
threat to the children from the emissions from this tower. The response, from Ms Cowan of
Mr Alston’s off
ice, was to the effect that the tower would have been constructed and its
emissions are within the national guidelines. I am sure the use of chloroform, lead, carbon
tetrachloride and DDT were also within Government guidelines before their effects on healt
h
were such that those guidelines were changed. Therefore this did not give any personal
assurance that the children are safe in the light of a number of international studies and bodies
that suggest there remained a risk. To this, I am given to understand
, Ms Cowan advised that
the "health issues are the responsibility of the health Portfolio" and terminated the
conversation.


In effect, Ms Cowan as a representative of Mr Alston, indicated that Mr Alston could not give
a personal assurance.


I believe tha
t that parent then contacted the Hon Kay Patterson’s office and spoke to a Ms
Lynne Barrow who was very helpful and who then later advised that she had

spoken to the
office of Minister Patterson's Parliamentary Secretary, The Hon Trish Worth, who will refe
r
the request for assurance to ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency) for response.


In effect, whilst being very helpful Ms Barrow as a representative of Ms Patterson, indicated
that Ms Patterson could not give a personal ass
urance.



Some 10 days have past and there has been no response from ARPANSA.


Mr Howard in the absence of any assurance from your Federal Ministers could you please
personally confirm in writing that there is no health risk to our children from this facil
ity.



If you cannot then of course the federal Government has a duty of care to protect the children.



Yours Faithfully






…………………………….

.