Cadoxton residents are angry about 5G mast

By MARCUS STEAD - reporter

Glamorgan Star news 15/08/2023

3 minutes read

Local residents (and pets) at the base of the mast.

RESIDENTS living near Church Road in Cadoxton have expressed anger over the installation of a large 5G phone mast, which they have described as an eyesore and a potential danger to public health.

The new mast is on a patch of grass at the junction of Bridge Street and Church Road, directly opposite Cadoxton Primary School, and at 18 metres is around twice the height of nearby lamp posts.

Local resident Jacqueline Fyfe said the community had not been adequately consulted about the mast: “There was very little knowledge or discussion among the community about the mast being installed.

“Apparently notices were posted on lamp posts nearby but if that was the case, they were certainly torn down very quickly.

“It’s an absolute eyesore that spoils the appearance of the area. I’ve also got serious concerns about the public health implications, especially with it being so close to Cadoxton Primary School, which is on the top of the hill – in fact, the upstairs classrooms are directly in line with the mast.

“This is yet another example of the Vale Council treating the people of Cadoxton as second-class citizens,” she said.

While online conspiracies about 5G masts spreading Covid have no scientific basis and can confidently be debunked, some experts are encouraging governments and councils to act with caution.

Among those urging caution is Professor John William Frank from the Usher Institute at the University of Edinburgh, who in 2021 published an essay titled Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? in which he said that 5G uses much higher frequency radio waves (RF-EMFs) than in the past and it relies on very new and relatively unevaluated supportive technology to enable higher data transmission capacity.

In his essay, Professor Frank argues several major reviews published over the last decade on the potential health harms of 5G have not stopped the clamour from “a growing number of engineers, scientists, and doctors internationally…calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more and better research, and hold off on further increases in public exposure, pending clearer evidence.”

Professor Frank points out that permitted maximum safety limits for RF-EMF exposure vary considerably around the world, and that ‘5G systems’ is not a consistently defined term, comprising quite different specific technologies and components. In his essay, he says: “It is highly likely that each of these many forms of transmission causes somewhat different biological effects – making sound, comprehensive and up-to-date research on those effects virtually impossible.”

In conclusion, Professor Frank says that there is no compelling public health or safety rationale for the rapid deployment of 5G, and that main gains being promised are either economic, possibly for some more than for others, or related to increased consumer convenience.

Local resident Gail Portlock began a social media campaign in which she urged people to complain to the Vale Council’s Planning Committee: “Communication from the council on this important issue were very poor and I only became aware of it around two weeks before the decision was rubber-stamped by the Planning Committee.

“I used social media platforms to make local residents and parents of schoolchildren aware of the proposals and I encouraged them to complain, but it was all done at very short notice, and I got a strong sense they weren’t interested in listening to us anyway,” she said.

Mrs Portlock’s mother, Jill Clemett, lives directly opposite the new mast. She said: “This monstrosity is the first thing I see when I step out of my front door and whenever I look out of my window – it looks absolutely horrendous.

“The way the council have pushed this through without considering the impact it has on the community is disgraceful and I’m very upset about it.

“It’s horrible to look at and I share the concerns other people have about the possible risk to health,” she said.

Responding to public concerns, a Vale Council spokesperson said: “Planning permission was not required for the mast, rather it was the subject of a Prior Notification Procedure.

“That means, once the council has been informed, a site notice is posted and interested parties have the opportunity to share their views on the application. That period ended in March after which the mast was erected.

“As far as health implications are concerned, planning policy in Wales indicates that local authorities must check that guidelines on radiation protection are being met, which they were in this case.”

By MARCUS STEAD

Other items to read:

⭐ All of our social media in one handy place – here