"Unplug Glastonbury Wi-Fi," say residents

Friday, November 28, 2008, 00:00

GLASTONBURY residents are demanding that the town’s Wi-Fi is “unplugged” and masts are removed from the town centre.

The Somerset County Council’s six-month wireless internet trial in the rural market town comes to an end this month - and, at a meeting last Friday to review the initiative, residents expressed anger at the negative impact on the town.

Computer programmers who have not benefited from the scheme, therapists who claim they are treating an increasing number of people suffering psychosomatic symptoms, mothers concerned about their children’s exposure to non-ionising radiation and residents who believe their health has been affected by the installation of six Wi-Fi hotspots in the centre of Glastonbury, all aired their views at the meeting held in the town hall.

Resident Linda Taylor said: “We were not asked if we wanted Wi-Fi in the town, nor were we given an opportunity to vote for it. Why Glastonbury? This place is not appropriate for a Wi-Fi trial. People are complaining of headaches, tingling skin among other symptoms. This makes me wonder what is it doing to the children.”
The Glastonbury Wi-Fi initiative, launched by the Somerset County Council (SCC) and Connecting Somerset in May is funded with public money from the council and the South West Regional Development Agency.

It is one of a number of projects being rolled out by the SCC in Somerset and is aimed at bringing wireless internet connections into rural areas and towns across the county.

But connecting Glastonbury appears to have not had the anticipated usage. Figures presented at the public meeting by council representative Matt Ballard show the number of users ranged from 57 in May to 156 in September, with the total number of users being 422 people over the past six months. He assured people the pilot scheme was under review and said their opinions would be noted in the report made before county councillors Alan Gloak, Alvin Horsfall and Ian Galloway decide on the future of Wi-Fi in Glastonbury.

Mr Ballard said if the pilot was to continue, there were plans to make it a free service and to introduce a number of initiatives including laptops into schools, sponsorship opportunities from companies such as Toshiba, neighbourhood watch links and community media services.

Sam Welbourne, Director of local IT company, Ergonet said at the meeting, although he believed the council were seeking to help individuals and business owners in Glastonbury with the service, the usage figures over the six month trial were very poor.
“The local community are getting very poor value for money for this project and I would really like to know how the council sees this scheme developing as a lot of money has gone into it.”

Although 40 people turned up to the meeting to discuss whether the initiative had any economic benefits residents said the meeting was not representative of the town as most people were at work.

However, a petition of 400 signatures against the three-year pilot scheme, which is costing more than £33,800 of public money, was presented to the council.

Computer programmer Terry Scott pointed out there were more signatures against the service than people using it. Resident Eloise Brown told the council it was trying to sell the people of Glastonbury something they clearly did not want.
Another resident, Tim Bates, said councillors had been prickly and dismissive about the subject when he had addressed them on the matter.

He added: “I do not want it. I do not see anyone using it, and it does not seem to be a good deal. Unplug it.”

Residents demanded the council invested the cash in cabled connection instead of Wi-Fi, claiming it carried no health risks.

Mother, Natalie Fee, said she was pro Glastonbury having better internet connection, but said she wanted cable, not Wi-Fi as she and a number of parents were worried their children were being exposed to low level radiation 24 hours a day, seven days a week from Wi-Fi masts.

Residents expressed fears that scientific knowledge of the service was not complete and urged the council to take a precautionary attitude.

In a statement released after the meeting, a spokesman for the SCC said: “There is no consistent evidence to date, that exposure to radio frequency signals from Wi-Fi adversely affects the health of the general population. The signals from the system we have installed in Glastonbury are very low power and the resulting exposures are well within internationally accepted guidelines and those set out by the SCC.”

Spokesman Graham Philips, from independent organisation Powerwatch, which plays a central role in the UK Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Radiation health debate, said: “Someone using a Wi-Fi enabled laptop will be exposed to approximately twice the level of radio frequency electromagnetic fields to someone living 60 to 70 metres away from a mobile phone base station. The exposure from Wi-Fi, unlike TV and non-digital radio transmitters, is very similar to base station exposure.

“Symptoms found in those living around base stations include concentration or memory problems, sleep disturbance, dizziness, nausea and other adverse neurological end points. The EU Parliament believes there is enough evidence for precaution, and the principality of Liechtenstein has recently legislated public exposure limits (Environmental Protection Law 2008) of 0.6 V/m (lower than exposure using a wireless laptop).

“Unlike the drug and food industry, whose products have to go through extensive pre-market trials and testing, there is no pre-market safety net for wireless devices. Considering current evidence, the public should not be subjected to city-wide exposures without the health of the local population being carefully monitored before, during and after roll-out.”

Miranda Shearer
mshearer@bvmedia.co.uk