This article was posted by 
Residents of Craigavon in Fourways, north of Johannesburg, have vowed to fight wireless broadband provider iBurst to the bitter end over a base station they claim is harming their health.
Tracey-Lee Dorny, who is spearheading an initiative to have the iBurst tower removed, says the residents will not back down, despite claims this week by iBurst that it has proved that the tower is not responsible for the health problems they have experienced.
TechCentral visited the base station on Friday with Dorny (pictured), who has moved out of her house adjacent to the tower because she feared for the health of her 10-year-old son.
The Dorny family is now renting a house elsewhere in Fourways.
Dorny says the residents do not want a court battle and will first exhaust all avenues available to them at the Gauteng department of agriculture, conservation & rural development. This is the government department responsible for approving new base stations and ensuring that the impact on the environment in minimised.
She says she wants the provincial government to order iBurst to remove the tower. She claims the telecommunications company erected the base station without following the proper procedures — a charge that iBurst has denied.
iBurst now says it has proof that none of the health-related problems experienced by the community was related to electromagnetic radiation from the base station.
The company’s CEO, Jannie van Zyl, earlier this week revealed to journalists that he had ordered that the Craigavon tower be switched off in early October, not long after the first health complaints had come in, and that it had remained switched off until mid-December.
He says the residents continued to claim the tower was affecting them, even though it was switched off.
Dorny is furious at Van Zyl’s move. She says the fact that the tower was switched off for so long suggests that it is not even needed. She says Van Zyl has effectively admitted to using people “against their will as human experiments, which is against the constitution” and has perjured himself by issuing conflicting statements.
She also says iBurst did not disconnect all components of the base station. She says microwave backhaul links, which connect the tower to other parts of iBurst’s network, were never switched off.
Van Zyl denies this, saying the access and backhaul (microwave) components of the tower were deactivated, too.
One of the tower’s microwave dishes, which provide point-to-point connectivity, is aimed over Dorny’s house, though not directly at it (see picture below). Dorny is concerned the microwaves have harmed her and her family.
Microwave dish, at right, seen from Tracey-Lee Dorny's upstairs balcony
But Van Zyl says the microwave link connects directly to another base station, and says no microwave “leakage” would have affected the Dorny home. He says he has offered to pay for independent consultants to measure radiation around the tower, but says iBurst has not received an invoice from anyone in the Craigavon community.
Dorny, however, is not going to give up without a fight. “We certainly don’t believe this is over,” she says.
“We’re intelligent, sane people, and we’re approaching it in that way. We don’t want a circus.”
She accuses Van Zyl of being confrontational and claims he belittled residents when he met with them late last year, suggesting that the reason they were suffering from ill health had to do with them “eating too much McDonald’s food”, among other things.
Van Zyl says he was simply making the point that there are many factors that affect people’s health. “Where you find the highest density of cellphone masts, you also find the highest concentration of fast-food outlets.”
Dorny, who has shown TechCentral images of rashes and other afflictions she believes are caused by radiation from the iBurst tower, says no-one knows the long-term health effects of living next to cellular base stations.
It’s very clear that Dorny genuinely believes that the radiation from the tower is harmful — while TechCentral was visiting the house she’s moved out of, she became emotional about having to leave what she described as her “dream home”, which she says she spent nine years building.
She says she went as far as to put up “silver paper” on her son’s bedroom walls in an effort to protect him.
She claims her son’s health improved almost immediately after the family moved out of Craigavon.
“My son would wake up screaming, holding his head at night. He would vomit a few hours after getting home from school.”
Dorny also developed a severe rash. “You feel like your skin is burning — burning and itching at the same time.”
The rash, she says, lasted for several weeks. Due to its severity it took almost a month to clear after moving from Craigavon. “The skin took even longer to restore some texture.”
Van Zyl is far from convinced. He says it’s more likely that some other environmental factor led to the skin rashes and other health-related problems. “There might be something else in the area,” he says. — Duncan McLeod, TechCentral
- Subscribe to our free daily newsletter
- Follow us on Twitter or on Facebook
I wonder if these “intelligent, sane people” have also stopped using cellphones which work with similar technologies?
I find it odd that of all the iBurst stations in the world, remember iBurst is in atleast 12 countries world wide including South Africa, Azerbaijan, Norway, Ireland, Canada, Malaysia, Lebanon, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of the Congo and USA, that this is the only one giving such problems?
The final point I find odd is that there is no mention of doctors or medical tests, now maybe that is just an ommision in the article but assuming it is not, why are these people not showing that proof? If I had a “severe rash” which “lasted for months”, I would have a boat load full of doctors test results and would be offering up that proof with my “sane and intelligent” argument.
Robert if you read the article carefully you will note that iburst has in fact been shown some evidence (despite claims that they have not). (Techcentral too notes they were shown photographs of the rash). Iburst’s chief was shown some rashes in person. He responded variously to each resident that their affliction must be 1) mcdonalds; or 2) boyfriend problems; or 3) steroids. He has never taken their claims seriously.
The true biggest revelations this week are lodged within the subtext of iburst’s stated “revelations” (as dutifully reported by mybroadband). The real news is in the implications of what iburst is now claiming. Iburst cannot claim the ground they want to claim (the “we have disproved our tower as a cause” claim) without admitting to have breached the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Specifically, i refer to the following section:
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996)
Chapter 2: Bill of rights
12 (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right-
(c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.
Further unsavoury implications of iburst’s claims this week are that iburst knowingly issued false statements to the media. I’d be pretty annoyed if i were a journalist and the ceo of a major company admitted to having fed me false information. Again, by implication iburst admits to having knowingly issued false to the media, to having misused and abused their function by making them unwitting co-conspirators in his carrying out of a large-scale, unconstitutional medical experiment. The Star, the Fourways Review, Techcentral, MyBroadband (a known close iburst+vodacom ally), Itweb, Carte Blanche and Primedia have all been issued statements by iburst which the ceo now by implication admits to as being false.
I say all this under threat of legal action from iburst for my speaking out on the matter.
Debbie,
You seem very passionate about this but “a large-scale, unconstitutional medical experiment”? Please, give me a break.
While Van Zyl is no doubt arrogant and abrasive, the basic facts that he has revealed indicate that if the tower wasn’t operational, the health problems were not caused by radiation from it. All these other complaints about honesty in press releases, medical experiments and so forth are merely red herrings meant to distract from evidence that the health claims against the mast are bogus.
Maybe you should separate your dislike for Rudolf Muller and Jannie Van Zyl and their respective companies from the facts in evidence.
Anyone who gets that worked up can induce these symptoms in themselves or in frightening children. If she’d gone ahead and take up the company on their offer to check things out more thoroughly I’d be more inclined to listen but she just sounds like she has other issues that need to be assessed.
LOL you moan when it is on , you moan when it is off and proves a mockery of your arguments.
I suggest you look at other aspects of your lifestyle to explain your medical conditions.
Radiation exposure will not “suddenly” get better when you leave. That type of exposure leave permanent damage to your skin and dna if it was at the level you are suggesting.
Why not admit you dont like the idea of a mast on your border because it is an eyesore and hits your property value ?
@Gary Waterworth: Tracey-Lee Dorny says she was misquoted regarding her rash. She’s asked us to change the relevant quote to indicate that it took almost a month after she’d left Craigavon for the rash to clear and that even after that her skin did not restore its texture for some time. We agreed to change the quote and have done so. – Editor
The sad thing is, her child’s health is probably deteriorating while she’s chasing a bad lead and wasting time finding the real reason this is all happening to them. I bet there’s a hundred things that could cause the symptoms she’s experiencing, like moulds, contaminted water mains, etc.
@gary
i think you’re confusing “ionising” and “non-ionising” radiation. The wireless transmission towers, cellphones and your home microwave produce non-ioniosing radiation. Very different from nuclear radiation which is ionising.
Much of the discussion in this regard suffers from the same misconceptions.
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionising_radiation
Andrew is dead-on. The radiation emitted from towers like iBurst’s are non-ionising and harmless to people living nearby.
People need to stop pretending that we don’t know what the effects of this kind of technology are – we know a hell of a lot about it. The residents of Craigavon are making the mistake of confusing correlation with causation. They obviously haven’t done much research either.
Having a rash proves nothing. It could be caused by a new plant in the garden, something she ate – or even her toothpaste. It is ridiculous to pin symptoms on any possible factor until there is empirical evidence that proves causation.
Agreed there is a lot known about it , but there is also a lot that is unknown about long term affects.
For every report that even cellphone levels hare harmful there is a report that it is not.
I even remember seeing that it could be beneficial for certain types of conditions
Basically I think that community has been their own worst enemy. Going overboard with health conditions , where at that level of exposure they would have only seen effects in years if not decades in the future.
To my mind, I think that they do not like the tower as it is an eyesore and lowers their property values.
Sure maybe Iburst and the relevant contractors didnt follow the procedures, but I have yet to see any direct evidence ( and the hypothetical arguments on various forums are not evidence ). I actually agree with Iburst’s stance. In some ways they have been a lot more accommodating than I would have been. Only when it comes to a court battle and they are faced with court orders do they have to supply all the documentation. Until then they just have to bide their time.
So where is the court battle they have been threatening ?
“To my mind, I think that they do not like the tower as it is an eyesore and lowers their property values.”
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there, Gary.
A classic case of NIMBY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimby
Debbie,
You are confused, NOT having the tower operating cannot be construed as “experimenting” on you in any possible way.
The fact that you continued to manifest symptoms regardless of the fact that the tower was OFF pretty much proves that whatever you are suffering was not caused by the tower.
The fact they they turned it off at the first complaints shows them to have attempted to alleviate your problems.
The fact that they did not tell you it was off and allowed you continue your hysteria shows them to be genius.
“electrosenesitivity” is purest bull****, you have been proven to be either a hysteric or a liar, take your choice.
You can never quote Wikipedia in a debate, for the same reason you may not use it as a reference for academic papers – its too easy to be edited by someone who doesn’t really know what (s)he is talking about.
That aside, I was always told by my lecturers (to put it simply) that the waves are literally too thick to actually affect you
oh lulz, now my comments get deleted.
@Debbie –
1) I saw the pictures and notes that they were shown, however I am looking for a medical doctors investigation. A independant 3rd party is important to prove anything.
2) I disagree that the public forum of MyBroadband is an ally, since it’s members are made of many people some of which are iBurst competitors and this would help them.
3) Why are you under threat of legal action? Do you work for iBurst?
See this has made the international websites now: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/15/electrosensitives-to.html