Noordhoek cell tower a health threat, especially to children

I AM writing to you as a concerned citizen and community member of the Noordhoek Community Objection Group who wish to bring your urgent attention to the cell tower application being considered by the city of Cape Town tomorrow.

I am particularly concerned for the many young children in the Chapmans Peak Village, Noordhoek area – most of whom are under the age of 10 – and the effect the proposed tower will have on the adjacent farm, an organic dairy farm, as there are several studies showing genetic and neurological damage to cows from electromagnetic radiation.

Not to mention the immediate neighbouring homes, wetland sensitivities, bird life, bee hives and horses on the land next door to the proposed tower.

I’ve taken the liberty of attaching, for your urgent perusal, a document written by Olga Sheean, addressed to the councillors of Cape Town and e-mailed to all within the city and, most recently, to mayor Patricia de Lille, requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the unacceptable proliferation of cell towers metres from houses in residential areas.

The Noordhoek cell tower application is a case in point.

This document highlights personal cases of suffering being experienced by people living in Cape Town due to cellphone towers, and subsequently a very strong argument as to why the location for the Noordhoek cell tower is ludicrous.

The city’s vision is, after all, “to create the type of Cape Town that we want to leave for our children and for our children’s children.

We want a city that people will be proud to call their home, a city that works for, and with, all our people.”

The Bill of Rights in the constitution provides special protection for children:

“A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”.

Children cannot make safety oversight for themselves, nor self-advocate.

The “precautionary principle” states that when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action.

This principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.

I do not believe it is worth the risk to allow this cell tower to be approved.

In closing, I would like to highlight the following (Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996):

“Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being, and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”

I sincerely hope that you will take our community objection and request to be heard to heart, and in turn, support our vision in the press to protect Noordhoek and future generations. Rosslyn Tebbutt Noordhoek Community Objection Group