About Us	Search	Advertising

	Brought to you by:

Barry Delport, 33 Fernkloof Drive, Hermanus Heights:

Having read the letters of Izak Kenney (“Ugly tower” HT 11/7), Enviro-Africa and Wendell Meiring (captain Hermanus Golf Club) I would like to add my comments.

It has been proposed that a 35 m high broadcasting tower be built on the golf course in close proximity to our residential properties bordering the course. This tower is a broadcasting base station for three networks, namely MTN, Cell C and Vodacom (12 antennas) emitting tremendous amounts of radiation and must never be allowed.

These towers pose serious health risks to people living within 1,5 km of the towers which are also noisy, emanating loud humming. The radiation is said to causes damage to internal organs.

There are 270 000 websites about the health risks that this type of mast can cause.

The height of 35 m is the equivalent of an 11-storey building. The height restriction in Hermanus of 7,5 m would be infringed upon.

The aesthetics of a 35 m tower would be unsightly even if it were disguised as a pine tree. Everyone's view would be compromised and would also devalue their properties by at least 50%.

Meiring's comments indicate that he has little consideration for other people and their health and is prepared to sell his soul to the devil for a few rand.

Izak Kenney, 43 Fernkloof Drive, Hermanus Heights:

The captain of the Hermanus Golf Club has accused me of being motivated by self-interest in wanting to have the proposed Vodacom cellphone mast on the golf course positioned elsewhere.

He is quite correct. I certainly don't want an unsightly 35 m mast in front of my house, nor do I fancy being subjected to a high level of radiation.

However, he is not only untruthful but malicious when he says that I want to have the mast moved in front of someone else's home. In my letter to the Hermanus Times, presumably deleted on grounds of space, and to the golf club, I had specifically written that “there are many alternative sites on municipal land for the Vodacom project, which would not be close to a residential area”.

The golf club ostensibly wants the mast because Vodacom made it a “simple business proposition” in terms of which an “attractive long-term rental” would be paid. I presume that this attractive rental would be very much in the self-interest of the club, irrespective of the interests of the ratepayers.

The truth is that the mast can only be built on the golf course subject to the approval of the municipality.

On an important issue such as the best possible siting for a cellphone mast with a potentially harmful level of radiation, it is clearly not sound policy to allow a private club on its own to decide the location.

This is surely a matter of great public concern which should involve the local authority, accountably acting in the best interests of the ratepayers.

I repeat that the best siting for the cell-phone mast would be on municipal land not close to residents. The “attractive long-term rental” would then accrue to all ratepayers and not to the members of a private club just because it needs some hard cash to balance its books.

	Back to top
© Overberg Media (Pty) Ltd.