Tuesday, 3 December 2013


Fed up with crazy driving, noisy neighbors, barking dogs and you just want to vent? Leave your comments here but remember it won't solve your problem and you probably need to have a polite conversation with the involved parties! Please no insults or details which specifically identify people and homes e.g. car registration, names and addresses.


  1. We have just been informed of the proposal of a cellular telephone mast and base station to be installed at erf 147 , Edenglen - located at 36 Van der Walt road, Edenglen (Site).
    It would be appreciated if this notice could be brought to the attention of as many members as possible in and around the area.
    All affected should at least be afforded the opportunity of knowing of such proposal.
    As many drive past “another notice” not much attention is usually given to the contents thereof and in this case the contents have long term consequences which should be shared before not after the event.
    We were one of those who just “drove past” and did not take any notice until it was brought to our attention by our neighbour. We have until the 18th August 2017 to object and these need to be sent to both the Chief Building Inspector, Department City Development, PO Box 25, Edenvale, 1610 and to the property owner’s lawyers - Smit & Fisher Planning (Pty) Ltd, PO Box 908, Groenkloof, 0027 or you can email them at ruan@sfplan.co.za - Please use Reference: Bedfordview Newsite 3121

  2. www.emfsa.co.za/news/property-values-desirability-cell-towers/

  3. A single uninsured RF injury claim can wipe out years of lease revenue and expose the property owner to expensive litigation costs.
    In 2013, AM Best, the leading insurance rating agency, estimated that 250,000 workers are overexposed to radiation annually at wireless antenna sites. Since then, global insurers have chosen to exclude RF coverage from their policies. The last global insurer to exit the RF exposure market was Lloyd’s of London in 201.Schools and churches, as well as private property owners should take note of the following:

  4. Please use this to lodge your Objections to this:

    Objection to proposal of a cellular telephone mast and base station to be installed at erf 147, Eden Glen - located at 36 Van der Walt road, Eden Glen (Site).This objection is addressed to:

    1. The Chief Building Inspector Department: City Development Edenvale

    2. Ruan Seeley, Smith Fisher Planning (PTY) Ltd

    3. The ward councillor of ward 18, City of Ekurhuleni Municipality Reference Bedfordview-NEWSITE- 3121

    We request that this application be denied due to the technical inaccuracies in this notification. It refers to Erf 147 AND Erf 174 See Page 2 of this documentWe object to this application as we require the following information (IN WRITING) in order to make an informed decision:
    1. What will the pulse modulated technologies be that will be initially transmitted from this facility i.e. 2G, 3G, 4G?

    2. The names of any new pulse modulated technologies envisaged in any forward planning for this site, for example 5G?

    3. The names of envisaged upgrades to existing technologies in any forward planning for this site [increased number of antennae]

    4. Does the applicant and all other entities involved with this application understand that the standards from which it has selected its safety limits are based solely on the thermal effect of unmodulated radiation? Yes or No!

    5. If “yes we do understand ” to 4 and the application is for the generation of pulse modulated radiofrequency radiation, which international body specifically dealing with such pulse modulated transmission types do you use for safety guidance and why?
    6. Will the applicant commit to providing financial support for the radiation protection of occupants of surrounding buildings where the sleeping areas exceed these recommendations as set out in this document? EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.xml?format=INT

    7. Will the applicant commit to financially supporting annual biomarker tests for those persons living within 300 meters of the tower?
    8. Are you aware that it is impossible to insure against long term negative health effects caused by non-ionizing radiation?

    9. Can you explain why this might be the case, especially in the case of Lloyds of
    London underwriters and Swiss Re?

    10. Are you aware that cell phone towers are listed by South Africa’s Government environmental agencies as an environmental pollutant?
    11. Have you read the preliminary findings of the National Toxicology study which found evidence of brain and heart lesions after years of cell phone use?

    12. Are you aware that with cell phones, home Wi-Fi and microwave ovens we have control over how and for how long we are radiated? With cell phone towers we do not!
    13. Are you aware that the safety regulations to which the South African government subscribes may be contested in the near future in the International Criminal Court?
    Property Prices And desirability
    Property value fluctuations are determined by the desirability of a property on the open market and not by government departments. Cell phone towers are known to reduce the desirability of surrounding properties. Property values, desirability and cell towers. http://www.emfsa.co.za/news/property-values-desirability-cell-towers/

  5. We demand that the application be denied as the investments of the property owners in the vicinity of the proposed tower are at stake.: 94% of respondents said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or the price they would be willing to pay for it http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-National-Institute-Science-Law-Public-Policy#.VNRBPp3F-So

    The provisions of section 7 of the National Building Regulations as interpreted by Judge Yekiso [Case No 6866/04, page 18] in our opinion overrules all other By-laws, Policies and Schemes.
    Therefore it is always the prerogative of the Community to determine prior to approval whether it would find the structure “unsightly, objectionable or it may derogate from the value of surrounding properties” and not the City Manager or persons appointed by him/her.

    Yekiso Judgement (Page 18)

    If the application is successful, then in terms of Section 7 of the National Building Regulations residents will also have their properties valued before and after the tower is installed. Any reduction in value which can be directly linked to the cell tower will be the responsibility of the municipality and the applicant

    The Ekurhuleni Town Planning Scheme, 2014 is established, in terms of Section 18 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 1986 (15 of 1986).
    In terms of Section 19 of said Ordinance, the general purpose of a Town Planning Scheme is "… shall be the co-ordinated and harmonious development of the area to
    which it relates in such away as will most effectively tend to promote the health,safety, good order, amenity, convenience and general welfare of such area as well as efficiency and economy in the process of such development."

    Therefore to avoid hypocrisy on its part, The City must accept objections based on the fact that the precautions implemented by the City do not guarantee there will be no health issues caused by prolonged exposure to this pollutant as a result of approval of this application.

    We demand that the application for the cell tower be denied as cell tower radiation is an environmental pollutant as stated by the National Environmental Management Act:

    “pollution’. means any change in the environment caused by—

    (i) substances;

    (ii) radioactive or other waves; or

    (iii) noise, odours, dust or heat.

    Pulse modulated radio waves fall under the category ‘other waves’
    We demand that the application be denied because of the health affect the tower will have on the surrounding residents, especially vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women and the elderly. We cannot take that risk and neither should the municipality. Some of these houses are in very close proximity to the proposed tower. International EMF Scientist Appeal
    Collectively we also request that:
    1. children and pregnant women be protected;
    2. guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened; https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
    Studies find that people living near a base station experience fatigue, headache, sleep disruption, irritability, depression, decreased libido, memory loss, dizziness, nausea, increased risk of cancer, tremors, loss of appetite, rashes, visual disruptions and overall discomfort. (1,2) People who live within 350 meters of a cellular antenna for more than a decade experience a four-fold increase in cancer rates. Among women, the increase is ten-fold. (3,4)

  6. People who live within 200 – 500 feet of an antenna report genetic, growth and reproductive effects; increases in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier; behavioral, molecular, cellular and metabolic effects; and an increased risk of cancer. (5)
    In Brazil, from 1996 to 2006, researchers tracked people who lived within 500 meters of a base station. They found 34.76 deaths by neoplasia (some kind of tumor) per 10,000 inhabitants. Outside of this area, a decrease in the number of deaths by neoplasia occurred: the greatest incidence was 5.83 deaths per 1000 people. The mortality rate has been higher for the residents within an area of 500 m from the BS. ► The radiation superposition near the BS has also been observed; the nearer the stronger. ► Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits that are the same of ICNIRP. ► The human exposure pattern guidelines are inadequate. More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently (6)
    In Israel, living near a cellular antenna for one year led to a dramatic increase of cancer. The increase correlates with previous data on significant increase in leukemia among people who live near broadcasting towers in Honolulu7 and Hawaii. (8)
    Egyptian researchers found that long-term (six years) exposure to cellular antennas and mobile phones negatively impacts human hormone profiles: cortisol, serum progesterone (in females) and thyroid hormones are all affected. (9)
    After a cellular antenna was installed in Rimbach, a small town in Bavaria, Germany, sixty residents had their urine tested regularly over eighteen months, beginning in Spring, 2004. Participants’ stress hormones (adrenaline and noradrenaline) increased significantly; their dopamine and phenylethylamine levels decreased substantially. While participants maintained their usual lifestyle, they experienced increases in sleep problems, headaches, dizziness, concentration problems and allergies. Because chronic disruption of hormones damages health in the long run, researchers expect “major health problems” from long-term exposure to radiation from cellular antennas. (10) For the past two years, cell tower studies have been carried out, in particular, outside of Europe. Two new Iranian studies have been published on the impact of cell tower radiation (ALAZAWI 2011, SHAHBAZI-GAHROUEI et al. 2014). The frequency of health symptoms was compared between residents living within 300 m of the cell antenna site to those living farther away than 300 m. The identical results of both studies: “Most of the health complaints such as nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbance, memory loss and lowering of libido were statistically significantly more often reported by residents living near a base station (≤ 300 m distance) com-pared to those living in a distance of more than 300 m to a base station. The authors suggested that mobile phone base stations should not be sited closer than 300 m to residences to minimize exposure of the residents” (11)

  7. 1. Levitt, B. and Henry Lai, “Biological effects from exposure to
    electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays,” Environ. Rev 18: 369-395, 2010.
    2. Kundi, M. and HP Hutter, “Mobile phone base stations–Effects on wellbeing and health,” Pathophysiology 16:123-135, 2009.
    3. Wolf and Wolf, “Increased incidence of cancer near a cellphone
    transmitted station,” Trends in Cancer Prevention, ed. F. Columbus, Nova Science, 2007, 1-8.
    4. Review by Kundi, “Evidence for Childhood Cancers (Leukemia), Brain
    Tumor Epidemiology, III, Epidemiological studies of RF and Brain Tumors,” C. Selvin et al, The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields.
    5. Levitt, B., ibid.
    6. Dode, A.C., et al, “Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base
    stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil,” Sci
    Total Enviro, (2011), doi;10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051.31.
    7. Goldsmith, JR, “Epidemiologic Evidence of Radiofrequency Radiation
    (Microwave) Effects on Health in Military, Broadcasting, and Occupational Studies,” Int’l Occup Environ Health, 1995; 1: 47-57.
    8. Maskarinee, G., et al, “Investigation of increased incidence in childhood
    leukemia near radio towers in Hawaii; preliminary observations,” J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol, 1994; 13: 33-7.

    9. Eskander, E.F et al, “How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?” Clinical Biochemistry, (45) 2012, 157-161.
    10. Buchner, Klaus and Horst Eger, (2011), “Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields–A Long-term Study under Real-life Conditions,” Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft, 24(1);44-57.
    (11) (EMF-Portal on the study by SHAHBAZI-GAHROUEI et al. 2014).

  8. The guidelines used by the Ekurhuleni municipality and the Department of Health are outdated and do not protect public health. The Precautionary Principle is ignored. We therefore demand that this application for the cell tower be denied. “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life. These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency” Open letter of “no confidence” to WHO 26.01.17 European coordination of organizations for an EMF exposure regulation which truly protects public health (PECCEM)


    We reject this application because a social enhancement study must be done to assess the impact this will have on the health and quality of life of the nearby residents.

    We hereby inform the municipality and the applicant that should the application be successful, the residents will undergo medical tests that will be repeated periodically. These tests will include screening for cancer, metabolic issues and electro hypersensitivity. If such medical conditions occur the municipality and the applicant will be considered liable for medical expenses.

    We demand that this application is rejected on the following basis: precedence has been set. A recent High Court decision explicitly stated that the Government is required to take into account new information regarding health effects since the formulation of policies of any kind. In the case of cell tower emissions the latest research and the Precautionary Principle is clearly ignored.

    Therefore in terms of section 7 of National Building Regulations it is our opinion that it is our legitimate right to a As Low As Reasonably Achievable or pollution free safe environment [National Environmental Management Act] and sustained value of our property will be jeopardized by the approval of this application and we will hold the approving Municipality responsible for any resultant health issues based on known biomarkers and/or diagnosis by a medical professional and property devaluation by comparison over time as determined by a registered property professional.

    1. Marc, thank you for your wonderful and well researched ojection... I do hope that you have sent this off to all 3 parties. Everyone needs to see this!!!!

    2. Absolutely. I hope people who are unsure, will copy and paste the info to lodge their objections

    3. Hi Marc. I wish I'd seen your objection before I sent mine in. It's way better, but hopefully mine will still be acknowledged.

  9. Well said Marc. Would be interesting to see the zoning rights of this ERF - which one is the next question.
    The municipality will definitely be in breach of their duties to the citizens if they allow this to go ahead. ----- Ron

  10. Good day. Does anyone know the status of this application? I sent in my objections to the relevant people but have had no feedback.

  11. In South Africa, there are four major providers of credit accounts and each offers their own line of charge plates that can fit the various spending habits and south african lifestyle of South African citizens. For each of the accounts they offer, they also have different qualifying criteria, features, benefits, interest rates and annual fees. It is necessary to check each of these credit accounts and compare them in order for you to find the best type that can suit you.