VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:27:15 04/12/03 Sat
Author: DR, Oatley West
Subject: Bring on '3'

I haven't really followed the debate about the towers but from what I can tell, the main objections are:
a) That the erecting of the tower is a desecration/scar on the beauty of Oatley Park and
b) That the increased radiation levels are dangerous for the kids at OWPS and the users of Oatley Park (some even mentioned the local flora/fauna). I'd just like to say that these objections are very very weak.

Objection a) is especially weak; Instead of slightly modifying one of the existing light towers, which I don't remember anybody protesting, we are now in a situation where we are going to have not two towers but five up at the oval! I'm certain that had Hurstville council had better legal advice they would have realised that taking the towers away was a futile, money wasting exercise.

Objection b) is also weak. If you are going to argue along these lines then you must provide evidence that the the tower is going to dangerous levels of radiation - the burden of proof is on you! From my understanding, the radiation coming from the 3G tower (in the levels and at the frequency it will be at) is safe.

For me, the benefits of the tower far outweigh the costs if there even are any. If anyone can provide me with some proper eveidence then maybe I'll listen to your pitiful protesting.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:

[> You're kidding, right? -- Webmaster, 16:22:29 04/12/03 Sat

J-of OP, D.R., James Stevens (or whatever name you choose to post under). It sure sounds like you are following the debate, given the number of postings you have made under your different names.

As I read them, your points basically are:

1. The tower, sheds, cabling and infrastructure don't negatively affect the Park.

2. That when potentially hazardous technologies are introduced it is up to those innocently exposed to them to prove they are unsafe; that it is NOT up to the sponsor of the technology to prove that it IS safe.

Well, to me the later point is preposterous and I won't bother to comment on it: just remember asbestos, thalidomide or tobacco. Will Hutchison be there in 20 years to meet billions in litigation claims?

On the issue of commercial development in the Park, a couple of comments:

>>The park has a history of 166 years. Imagine only one "insignificant" development each year. Over may years the cummulative impact is HUGE.

>>It is not just a tower; there is a lot of supporting infrastructure - go and look at the "shed" compound, for example. The other companies have 3G licences - when they start to build their networks, they will use Orange's development as a precedent - potentially three MORE sheds.

>>It also established a precedent of commercial development and environmental fragmentation in this rare, signicantly sized park within metropolitan Sydney. It is a precious habitat for several rare and endangered species.

Finally, you say the costs outweight the benefits. What exactly ARE the benefits of the 3G system over existing mobile networks that justify this kind of encroachment into an important nature reserve? To me, they're cute (video games) rather than worthwhile.

If you are so keen on the system, so confident of its side effects, why not offer your home as a site? Orange are more than happy to build on residential sites WITHOUT PERMISSION (see the AFR article link on this site). I wonder how keen your neighbours will be.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Hypocrisy -- Book, 15:59:53 04/13/03 Sun

Speaking of tobbacco, I saw quite an amazing sight at todays 'Breakfast.'

Picture this, two mothers wearing your "People Power" shirts, obviously against the 'dangerous' EMR they believe the 3G tower will emit, whilst they smoke cigarettes beside their 5-8 year old daughters.

Knowledge Corrupts

--
Book

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> ? -- A W, 10:01:31 04/15/03 Tue

Thats theyre problem. Whats that got to do with anything??

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]



Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+10
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.