Fight against cellphone towers in Johannesburg

F1ve_Claw

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
1,001
I live down the road from the Craighall Park tower. It is literally just a few people causing, not the whole suburb. I for one like my strong signal!
 

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
10,610
I live down the road from the Craighall Park tower. It is literally just a few people causing, not the whole suburb. I for one like my strong signal!
The outcry when the 4G Street-pole tower went up was literally 7 people out of 6 complexes that stood to benefit. Same rhetoric about dangerous radiation etc.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,107
It’s been like this for years, I can remember having community meetings when Cell C was rolling out 3G.
 

absynth

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
1,381
Nimbys at it again.

I only wish we could get the street pole towers in our area.We have next to zero reception in the higher reaches of Cape Town CBD due to lack of towers.

And as you might guess.Also caused by the nimbys.
 

blowdart18

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
760
So I bet these are the same people who complain to their service providers about poor signal and dropped phone calls ??
 

Ho3n3r

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
17,067
If you're scared of this, you can believe the earth is flat as well.
 

morkhans

A MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
10,629
My main gripe with the proliferation of towers is visibility. I'd much prefer the street lamp type than the huge 15-25m undisguised towers that go up.

There also seems to be little regard for placement of 10m+ masts in relation to the bordering properties. There should be some consideration of visual impact to the neighbours i.e. placement should inconvenience the property owner more than it does the neighbours.

Also the more we push fibre into the suburbs the less people should be relying on mobile for high speed internet.
 
Last edited:

Napalm2880

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
1,884
We've had this same issue in Broadacres, JHB and there are valid reasons residents are opposing these street pole cellular masts. Here are some of the facts:

- The lamp pole site only provides coverage from 400-800m (line of sight), and usually only for a specific provider.
- The lamp pole has a total height of 15m (12m pole with 3m for antenna) and do not require Civil Aviation or Environmental approval,
- As the lamp pole is an existing infrastructure (even if it is replaced for structural reasons), no building plan or Town Planning approval is required,
- The box accommodating the equipment can be placed next to the pole or within 10m of the pole

Now some of the problems:

- Generally RF emissions from base stations are lower than ICNIRP guidelines. However there is nothing preventing transmission at higher power levels from these street lamp towers to compensate for various issues in the coverage area. i.e NO environmental approval and NO audits on transmission levels have or will ever be required. While the health-risks might be negligible, in our area they're planning to install directly outside an old-age home / frail care. There are no guarantees that the cellular equipment will not interfere with medical appliances.

- While the visual impact of the tower on property values is debatable, the mini substation they erect next to the tower is horrendous. They've installed these without consulting residents, or our Ward Councillor.

- The entire project isn't transparent at all. Besides a small poster placed on the street lamp explaining the 'consultation process' (which didn't take place). It took me weeks and a number of e-mails just to find that MTN equipment was being installed. From what I understand there is no plan for equipment sharing - so this will only ever benefit MTN customers. Telkom for example have been installing their own mini towers - also without following any kind of consultation process.
 
Last edited:

AntennaMan

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,361
these people should stick to facebook groups
On our areas Facebook group one of these discussions broke out. The one guy said that he was a technician at a nuclear power plant and scored "96%" in his nuclear radiation test, therefore he is qualified to say that cellphone radiation is dangerous.
There was one voice of reason that tried to argue using facts and logic, and he was kicked off the group for it.

That group will give me cancer before any cellphone radiation....
 

blowdart18

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
760
Also the more we push fibre into the suburbs the less people should be relying on mobile for high speed internet.
People will still rely on mobile for many other applications especially when traveling through cells, i.e Navigation, VoLTE, etc etc.
Can't carry fibre with me as much as it would be great :p
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
10,889
So I bet these are the same people who complain to their service providers about poor signal and dropped phone calls ??
^This.
Anyone remember the Iburst fiasco, they claimed it was causing issues so Iburst turned it off didn't tell them , they still claimed it was causing issues shup up when they said but it was off.
 

Mike Hoxbig

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
34,887
Probably from the old farts who sit at home with nothing else to do. Happens in our complex too, they're the first the complain about anything progressive...
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,751
On our areas Facebook group one of these discussions broke out. The one guy said that he was a technician at a nuclear power plant and scored "96%" in his nuclear radiation test, therefore he is qualified to say that cellphone radiation is dangerous.
There was one voice of reason that tried to argue using facts and logic, and he was kicked off the group for it.

That group will give me cancer before any cellphone radiation....
The simple test is what is the frequency band being used by "4G" . If it is above 1 GHz, it has the potential to be dangerous. Now one has to delve deeper into the technology to determine what the risks are. No one can state categorically that radiation above 1 GHz is not dangerous. All that the proponents can claim are that at the power levels involved the health risks are not considered significant. Now you are at the mercy of the networks themselves, to ensure that they deploy the networks within the rules and if there is no mechanism to get them to commit to that or check what they are doing the suspicion will always be there that they are exceeding the limits. No one want to take their word for it.

And yes unfortunately that is what is wrong with social media platforms, rational and fact based debate is just not possible. And what is truly a problem is that on this, a technical forum, we are fast getting to the point where rational scientific debate based on facts is becoming impossible.
 
Last edited:
Top