War over iBurst tower erupts

[Hectic]

quitely switch the tower on again for a week or so and then see if anything happens, most likely nothing will.

+1

 

[Hectic]

All the health issues mentioned have been experienced in my househould this month.

Turns out it is a combination of allergies (my son, daughter and me) and a hectic ear infection (me) - seasonal stuff.

Oh, and the nearest iBurst tower is 2km away from me. When I cycle past it (nearly every day) I do not get any strange signals going through my body either.

Jaaaa, but have you noticed how your neighbours are looking at you lately?

 

[SUPERMAN89]

I got a tower near my house for years now, its a cellc / neotel and telkom 3g one. And no one has said anything about issues at all

 

[j@w]

The only thing that gets proved regarding this whole debate is that 36.81% of MyBB are stupid.

Switch off your laptop, tv, fridge, freezer, microwave, cellphone, don't go out in the sun, don't stand close to the ground (earth), don't go into space.

GO BUY TINFOIL HATS!

 

[Gekco]

If IBurst really did not comply with the correct implementation procedure, then I expect IBurst to immediately stop their current approach, and to re-start the correct implementation procedure.

The correct procedure is for IBurst to publish their intentions, and then to allow time for objections.

Why are IBurst deflecting (ignoring) that part of the community's claims?

This is the aspect that concerns me as well.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=3285916&postcount=379

 

[marine1]

I fully support action against these companies, for too long they have flouted laws and regulations, not specifically Iburst but these towers are everywhere and there must be some negative impact from them

 

[Rosaudio]

this it? http://picasaweb.google.com/loudanlily/IBurstTower#

 

[mxc]

The main issue here is that iBurst is acting in a greedy, big company way without concern for the local community but only on how much money it can make.

Surely they knew people will not be happy with a tower being erected just metres from their houses, but with their big corporate arrogance they just went ahead anyway. Screw the public! They erect it on a servitude, as a "temporary structure". Why did they just not move it several hundred metres away in the centre of the park? Probably because it would have cost them a little extra.

Stuff them I say.

 

[jannievanzyl]

The main issue here is that iBurst is acting in a greedy, big company way without concern for the local community but only on how much money it can make.

Surely they knew people will not be happy with a tower being erected just metres from their houses, but with their big corporate arrogance they just went ahead anyway. Screw the public! They erect it on a servitude, as a "temporary structure". Why did they just not move it several hundred metres away in the centre of the park? Probably because it would have cost them a little extra.

Please provide the supporting information for these statements, won't you.

Or maybe if you read all the articles on this tower then you would have known that the tower is in its current location because iBurst was instructed by the local authorities to place it there, on that specific location. And not one of a number of other sites orginally proposed by iBurst.

But then I guess it's easier to make "skeptikal" and inflamatory statements rather than ask for the actual facts. Why let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

[Necuno]

Please provide the supporting information for these statements, won't you.

Or maybe if you read all the articles on this tower then you would have known that the tower is in its current location because iBurst was instructed by the local authorities to place it there, on that specific location. And not one of a number of other sites orginally proposed by iBurst.

But then I guess it's easier to make "skeptikal" and inflamatory statements rather than ask for the actual facts. Why let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

mind linking those instructions ?

 

[jannievanzyl]

mind linking those instructions ?

It's called a RoD (Record of Decision) and is the final document GDACE (the actual authority) issues to either allow or deny a tower. This document is only furnaced after the end-to-end process is completed to their satisfaction including handling of all objections by residents or other 'interested parties' of which there were a number.

I only have it as a printed document, but you're most welcome to come and read it. A number of parties including the local councilor, a number of journalists and a number of residents have seen it and could find no fault with it. After all, it's issued by government, not iBurst.

This specific RoD was issued in October 2008 (which makes a mockery of the claims that the tower was hastily erected "before residents noticed") and included specific instructions where GDACE felt iBurst had to amend its original request.

Specifically the RoD instructed iBurst to place the tower close to the high trees (exactly where it is now), to drop the height of the mast (to fit better with the trees), to make it a monopole and to paint it green (again to blend in better with the trees).

 

[Necuno]

It's called a RoD (Record of Decision) and is the final document GDACE (the actual authority) issues to either allow or deny a tower. This document is only furnaced after the end-to-end process is completed to their satisfaction including handling of all objections by residents or other 'interested parties' of which there were a number.

I only have it as a printed document, but you're most welcome to come and read it. A number of parties including the local councilor, a number of journalists and a number of residents have seen it and could find no fault with it. After all, it's issued by government, not iBurst.

This specific RoD was issued in October 2008 (which makes a mockery of the claims that the tower was hastily erected "before residents noticed") and included specific instructions where GDACE felt iBurst had to amend its original request.

Specifically the RoD instructed iBurst to place the tower close to the high trees (exactly where it is now), to drop the height of the mast (to fit better with the trees), to make it a monopole and to paint it green (again to blend in better with the trees).

i see. stupid question then why would the goverment ask you to put a tower there ? or was this after iburst requested that they need another tower and that place was given as a target site for construction ?

bit cold to drive over now to read the doc

 

[marine1]

I think the only way for this to be resolved is for the courts to decide and preferably a high court as we all know how easily influenced lower courts can be.
If it was at my location, I would object, that thing looks like it can talk to other planets

 

[Gekco]

So what about all the claims regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment and the handling thereof?

Is it true that 'Le Hanie' does not have a degree in Environmental Management?
The claims that residents were not informed properly?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost...&postcount=379

I am not even going to mention certain person(s) who seem to have claims disputing those of certain statements made by iBurst with regards to the proper following of procedure in the EAI. (Unfortunately some of them have been banned on this forum as you well know)

iBurst have apparently also made some unsubstantiated claims regarding "illegal" protest by residents, "defamatory" statements made by residents as well as "vandalism" to the tower.

Please provide the supporting information for these statements, won't you.

But then I guess it's easier to make "skeptikal" and inflamatory statements rather than ask for the actual facts. Why let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

[Spyking]

Consider that we're being BOMBARDED daily by charged particles from outer space which are infinitely more powerful than then the comparatively minuscule power output from cellular towers and you know that somebody is talking out of their rear-end.

Not if you think it through... Natural radiation from Outer space, and caused by mother earth will be inherently safe to us due to the fact that we evolved with them being around us. Having a rather new all of a sudden out of balance source of radiation in basically all developed and populated areas can just be the same as us using carbon for energy... And from the looks of international research being done the verdict does not look good so far for RF.

Ours is a species who fools around with stuff we are not 100% sure of, digital and electronic technology is still new in the frame of the history of human beings - and we are yet to learn some crucial rules to use these discoveries in accordance to the policies set out by mother nature.

 

[Necuno]

wow here is a long read on it , seems that even carthe blanche is going to do a little show on it.

Wireless broadband operator iBurst and a community in Fourways, north of Johannesburg, are at loggerheads over the construction of a base station that some residents of the neighbourhood claim is resulting in serious health problems.

The tower, at Fourways Memorial in the small suburb of Craigavon, was switched on on 12 August 2009. Since then, residents who live close to the iBurst facility have reported skin rashes, headaches, vomiting, sleep disorders, fatigue, upset stomachs, tinnitus and other health conditions.

A residents’ group has claimed that the problems are directly related to electromagnetic radiation.

Now the residents have hired a team of lawyers and are headed to court in an attempt to have the tower removed.

Carte Blanche, a popular weekend television magazine programme, is also expected to highlight the situation on its show, probably this Sunday.

iBurst CEO Jannie van Zyl has ordered that the tower be turned off for two weeks in an attempt to prove to residents that their health problems are not related to electromagnetic radiation from the base station.

But Karl Muller, an interested party who claims that wireless networks are harmful to people’s health, says iBurst’s approach is not helpful.

“The supreme law of this land is the constitution, and the bill of rights gives us the right not to be used in experiments without our informed consent,” Muller says.

“Van Zyl is basically proposing an entirely uncontrolled experiment … without any medical input or supervision. It’s outrageous, a genuine violation of people’s rights, and I’ve strongly suggested to the residents that they should not engage in any debate along these lines with iBurst.”

In addition to the health problems, residents claim that iBurst didn’t strictly follow the environmental approval process before erecting the base station, a claim that Van Zyl firmly rejects.

Some residents want the tower removed because it is an eyesore and has reduced property values in the area, Van Zyl says. He believes aesthetic objections, not health concerns, are the main reason for the residents’ complaints.

He says he doesn’t doubt the sincerity of the residents, but believes any health problems are unrelated.

But Craigavon resident Tracey-Lee Dorny says at least 40 people have symptoms she believes can be ascribed directly to electromagnetic radiation. She says pets have also been affected, with some animals having developed skin rashes.

Now the community is planning to take iBurst to court in a class-action lawsuit. It is also lodging a complaint against the company with the provincial government, alleging that procedures weren’t followed.

Dorny says the community wasn’t properly notified of iBurst’s plans. She says entire housing complexes in the area were not told in advance about the tower’s construction. She also says the community was not given sufficient time to comment on and object to an amended plan.

But Van Zyl says that the Gauteng department of agriculture, conservation & environment approved the tower’s construction following a rigorous approval process.

He says all residents within 100m of the base station were informed of the plans before construction began, as required when lodging an application with the provincial government. Notices about the planned construction were also published in newspapers.

Though iBurst received more than half a dozen objections from residents — most of them health related — iBurst says it’s unusual for it to receive as few objections as it did in the case of the Craigavon tower.

Van Zyl says the approvals process is complex — residents have to be notified and objections collated, among other things — and was started more than two years ago. iBurst received approval to build the tower in October 2008.

Though a few complaints had been lodged prior to the construction of the tower, Van Zyl says the bulk of objections flooded in only after the tower was built.

But many residents claim they had not been notified about iBurst’s plans. Van Zyl says every effort was taken to ensure all residents received notice of the company’s plans — including hand-delivered letters and registered letters sent via post.

Van Zyl says iBurst was only granted the go-ahead to build the Craigavon mast after it agreed to reduce the tower’s height from the 35m proposed initially to 25m.

It also agreed to build it among trees at the Fourways Memorial and to paint it green to minimise its visual impact.

But the community claims it wasn’t given time to object to the amended plan.

The Craigavon tower is the fourth base station that iBurst has constructed in the Fourways area. Van Zyl says it was essential that the company expand its coverage in the area to cater for fast-growing demand. iBurst operates about 265 base stations countrywide.

“We are not going to build a tower simply to annoy people,” Van Zyl says. “This was the result of a two-year process.”

Already strained relations between iBurst and the residents broke down this week. In a letter from Dorny, copied to TechCentral, Van Zyl accuses the residents of abusing a “spirit of co-operation” he says he had tried to foster. “Your continuous attempts to sensationalise this whole process smacks of no intent (sic) to resolve this amicably.”

Van Zyl says iBurst switched off the tower on Monday, 16 November, but Dorny and other residents are up in arms, claiming the tower is still active. Though the broadband access component of the tower has been disabled, Dorny says the microwave backhaul links — these allow towers to carry data to each other via line of sight — remain operational.

“It was agreed that every single thing would be switched off on the tower,” Dorny says. “We wanted total transparency and honesty. We are trying to work with [iBurst]. We tried to delay any form of legal action until this was resolved.”

However, in his letter to Dorny, Van Zyl says iBurst will henceforth treat the matter at a “proper scientific level” only.

“You will see from any test results that no radiation is coming from the tower. That is factual information and is in stark contrast to the anecdotal stories you have offered as proof up to now,” he writes.

“I therefore require that you provide iBurst with medical proof that the tower did indeed cause the symptoms you claim, failing which it will be turned back on again.” — Duncan McLeod, TechCentral

http://www.techcentral.co.za/furious-fourways-residents-head-to-court-over-iburst-tower/11396/

 

[jannievanzyl]

i see. stupid question then why would the goverment ask you to put a tower there ? or was this after iburst requested that they need another tower and that place was given as a target site for construction ?

Basically, yes.

iBurst identified the area more than 2 years ago as needing an upgrade, i.e. all the towers in the area were maxing out and the residents were complaining (yes, the same residents).

Then a long process started, first to find a number of suitable sites from a RF coverage perspective. Negotiations with land owners, etc. followed. Eventually, after all the processes were completed (including notifying adjacent landowners, handling any objections, etc.) the RoD was issued. But it still came with certain changes instructed by the authority.

So, in this case, the actual location on the memorial's property, the size, type and shape and the colour of the mast were all instructions we had to follow.

There was a cluster of high trees on an otherwise mostly bare piece of land, and the instruction was to blend the mast in as much as possible with the trees. Thus a smaller, green, monopole close to the trees.

I notice a number of people on this forum, mostly lead by Debbie, keep on insisting the process was "fatally flawed". I've asked her numerous times, in e-mails and in person, to give me an example of where the process was not followed but so far she's not given me an answer.

Some of the residents, and especially Tracey-Lee Dorny claims she was never informed. Yet there is signed proof on file her household accepted a hand-delivered notification in addition to a registered letter sent to her and her husband.

Her neighbour, also adjacent to the memorial park, is another person who claims he never received notification. Yet he is actually one of the people whose name appears on the original list of objectors! Again, this is all on file.

I find it interesting that all those on this and other forums (including debbie, halicon, skeptik/starstreak, prometheus, gecko, rustum, sackboy (skeptik again?), etc.) have not accepted my offer to come and look at the file and tell me exactly what is wrong. Yet they are very vocal on-line.

iBurst have gone out of its way to try and accommodate the residents, but this cannot carry on indefinitely. I had to beg them to meet with us, they kept on refusing. We've asked repeatedly (as did some members of the press) for proof of health issues caused by the tower. To this day they refuse to provide these to anyone. Their actions after the meeting on Monday (where I agreed to switch off the tower), clearly shows no intent to resolve the situation. On Wednesday they sent out a letter to all residents to gather at the mast on Thursday for a mass action photo op. for Carte Blanche. This after they set up iBurst to be at the tower at the same time under false pretenses. The fact that very few people (outside of debbie and halicon, who do not live in the area) actually showed up, shows how important this whole saga has become to the greater community.

So far, not a single bit of proof, even something as simple as a doctor's note confirming symptoms appearing and disappearing, as residents move in and out the area, has been provided.

 

[marine1]

Jannie it is always a breath of fresh air having you as the CEO, respond here directly.
I still think this has to be played out in the courts no?
At least there the outcome is final and all accusations and allegations can be dealt with without all this speculation by every "Tom Dick and Harry."

I do think that maybe after some time, they have had some health issues and that maybe from a health point of view this tower should not be next to people's houses as shown in the pictures.

I know you and I totally disagree on the health implications from towers and cellphones etc and unfortunately I am not a qualified expert so one would not take my opinion seriously, however it is IMO only natural that if you are next to a tower or you use a cellphone for long periods of time, you are going to get sick.

We used to live in an area, next to Illovo, we had no signal from Vodacom as we were in a dead zone.
We managed to have a tower put up outside our house, yes a tower, cnr 6th Avenue and Athol Road.
Since that time my whole family experienced negative health.
We were always tired, most of us got sick very often.
My mother had extremely bad headaches etc.
Since moving, all of that disappeared.

I dont say you are misleading the public but I do believe that there is a cover up.
It may not be proved yet but I do believe that these towers are dangerous.

What would your response be if the people were informed but now they were experiencing negative health from the tower and this was proved?

 

[Necuno]

Basically, yes.

iBurst identified the area more than 2 years ago as needing an upgrade, i.e. all the towers in the area were maxing out and the residents were complaining (yes, the same residents).

Then a long process started, first to find a number of suitable sites from a RF coverage perspective. Negotiations with land owners, etc. followed. Eventually, after all the processes were completed (including notifying adjacent landowners, handling any objections, etc.) the RoD was issued. But it still came with certain changes instructed by the authority.

So, in this case, the actual location on the memorial's property, the size, type and shape and the colour of the mast were all instructions we had to follow.

There was a cluster of high trees on an otherwise mostly bare piece of land, and the instruction was to blend the mast in as much as possible with the trees. Thus a smaller, green, monopole close to the trees.

I notice a number of people on this forum, mostly lead by Debbie, keep on insisting the process was "fatally flawed". I've asked her numerous times, in e-mails and in person, to give me an example of where the process was not followed but so far she's not given me an answer.

Some of the residents, and especially Tracey-Lee Dorny claims she was never informed. Yet there is signed proof on file her household accepted a hand-delivered notification in addition to a registered letter sent to her and her husband.

Her neighbour, also adjacent to the memorial park, is another person who claims he never received notification. Yet he is actually one of the people whose name appears on the original list of objectors! Again, this is all on file.

I find it interesting that all those on this and other forums (including debbie, halicon, skeptik/starstreak, prometheus, gecko, rustum, sackboy (skeptik again?), etc.) have not accepted my offer to come and look at the file and tell me exactly what is wrong. Yet they are very vocal on-line.

iBurst have gone out of its way to try and accommodate the residents, but this cannot carry on indefinitely. I had to beg them to meet with us, they kept on refusing. We've asked repeatedly (as did some members of the press) for proof of health issues caused by the tower. To this day they refuse to provide these to anyone. Their actions after the meeting on Monday (where I agreed to switch off the tower), clearly shows no intent to resolve the situation. On Wednesday they sent out a letter to all residents to gather at the mast on Thursday for a mass action photo op. for Carte Blanche. This after they set up iBurst to be at the tower at the same time under false pretenses. The fact that very few people (outside of debbie and halicon, who do not live in the area) actually showed up, shows how important this whole saga has become to the greater community.

So far, not a single bit of proof, even something as simple as a doctor's note confirming symptoms appearing and disappearing, as residents move in and out the area, has been provided.

i see, thanks for the reply.

 

[jannievanzyl]

Jannie it is always a breath of fresh air having you as the CEO, respond here directly.
I still think this has to be played out in the courts no?
At least there the outcome is final and all accusations and allegations can be dealt with without all this speculation by every "Tom Dick and Harry."

Clearly iBurst is comfortable the process was followed and the tower comply (and far exceed) all health requirements. If the residents wants to challenge this, it is clearly their right.

I dont say you are misleading the public but I do believe that there is a cover up.

By iBurst? As offered before, all information and data is on file and is available.

It may not be proved yet but I do believe that these towers are dangerous.

What would your response be if the people were informed but now they were experiencing negative health from the tower and this was proved?

If any concrete proof comes along, the relevant authorities will adjust their regulations and we'll immediately comply.