Sir, - I refer to the letter from Mr Maloney of ESAT Digifone (July 20th) and from Mr Donovan (July 13th) on the subject of mobile phone masts. The awarding of the second mobile phone licence to ESAT can reasonably be described as a political decision, as it was awarded by the relevant Minister and the threats of legal action by some of the runners up only emphasise the point.
Mr Donovan makes the very sensible point that the same political process could be used to require ESAT to use existing masts for their antennae and to comply in full with the (draft) planning guidelines already in existence. There are numerous existing masts with Telecom, ESB and other bodies having networks. These companies should be directed to share such masts at reasonable commercial rents. It seems very likely that it is less trouble and cheaper for ESN to approach landowners who have little or no knowledge of the value to ESAT, or the health implications, of these masts on their lands.
The Safe Communications Council, representing 27 citizen groups in 18 counties, submitted detailed proposals to the Department of Environment for the planning guidelines for mobile phone masts, especially in relation to health and safety, as the jury is still out on the hazards of microwave radiation and the research is only now being done on this relatively new technology. The draft guidelines published had scarcely two paragraphs on health and safety, among the 50 odd paragraphs on other topics. The department still has not published the final guidelines, despite the large number of planning applications for mobile masts. (The Sunday Tribune on July 14th mentioned, in passing, that Eircell has plans to launch a further 150 stations in the next two months).
Mr Moloney of ESAT claims to exercise a co location policy, yet the planning application for a mast in front of a historic site at Garristown, Co Dublin claims that ESAT has been unable (to date) to secure agreement to use other company's masts. Even more surprising, it will require two masts in this area if this one is refused - hardly "locating as sensitively as possible, ensuring minimum visual and environmental impact"! This proposal is for a 30 metre mast on an elevated site, contrary to claims that smaller masts "can and will" be erected on elevated sites.
No reasonable person can be against increased competition, but let us not destroy our landscape for short term profit, when all the projections are that this will be a lucrative business for ESAT - vis a vis the recent sale to foreign companies of over half of ESAT shares. Let ESAT do this properly the first time, and comply in full with the letter and spirit of the planning guidelines and with common sense. Our health and our tourist industry are also national interests; where are the politicians now? - Yours, etc.,
The Green, Garristown, Co Dublin.