The Bally Mobile Phone Tower

As a P&C, we want to provide an update on an issue which has consumed a lot of time and energy over the last 12 months. About a year ago, a small number of parents approached the Bally Boys P&C concerned about the fact that the school had a Mobile Phone Tower on the premises.

They were concerned about the potential health risks to the boys and the teachers.

For a few meetings, some impassioned cases were made about the health risks of mobile phone towers, especially to children.

The welfare of the boys, in particular, is a very high priority for all members of the P&C. It’s why we are here.

As such, we were all keen to understand the level of risk and if we should take steps to lobby to have the tower removed.

Some History and Background

The tower was put on the site in 1993. A 20-year lease was agreed. That lease was renewed in 2013 for a further 20 years. The lease is between the Department of Education and Optus. Optus, in turn, sublets the space to the other mobile phone providers. In return for the use of the land for the tower, the school (not the department) was paid $750,000 (or $37,500 per year).

In 1997, the Department of Education introduced a policy for Mobile Phone facilities:

“The Department of Education adopts a policy of prudent avoidance by not endorsing the installation of any mobile telecommunications facilities on school property.”

A key word in this policy is the word ‘installation’.

The policy appears only to cover new installations rather than existing ones.

They also mention ‘prudent avoidance’, which suggests there is no scientific reason for this, it is merely a precaution.

The full policy is available here: https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/mobile-telecommunications-facilities?refid=285776

In 2013 the P&C at the time were consulted about the renewal of the lease and voted to support it. Bally is not the only school to have a mobile tower on or near its school grounds.

So, in 2020, we have 13 years remaining on the lease. The lease does have a break clause, but it requires the return of the money. If the lease were broken now, around $450k would have to be returned.

As mentioned, the school has no legal standing in relation to the lease as it is not a signatory. Likewise, if the tower was removed from the Bally grounds, we would have no control on where it would be replaced. The oval across the road was one of the original sites considered for placement of the tower.

Health Matters

While the money is essential for the school, which is considered by many to be underfunded, the health of the boys is, without question, much more important. So determining the actual health risks was a priority for the P&C.

Unfortunately, this did not prove to be straightforward. In a world of misinformation, it has proven hard to separate out the facts from the fiction. With 5G rolling out and the COVID pandemic, there has been a significant increase in the numbers of articles, studies, videos and information available online. Many of these reference scientific studies and research which ‘clearly’ show that there are risks. However, many of these ‘studies’ have also been discredited, making it hard to determine the truth.

Both sides of the safety issue were debated extensively in a recent 4 Corners episode on the ABC. You can view that episode here - https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-truth-about-5g/12519392

As a P&C, we are not medical professionals, and we are not scientists. In recognition of this, our next step was a plan to survey the broader school community so that we could determine the views of the community and see if concern about the presence of the tower on school grounds was widespread.

Surveys!

We planned to carry out an online survey and invite parents and teachers to participate. This approach sounds straightforward enough, however, as we were putting the survey together, we started to realise that this approach itself may be flawed. How do we make sure that the respondents were representative of the whole community? How do we stop people who are not part of the community from submitting entries?

We started to realise that if the approach were flawed, then the survey would probably not give us what we needed, a clear view of what the community felt about this issue.

To better understand how we could get what we needed, we approached a professional survey company to explore the methodologies required to survey accurately. They explained that the only real way to achieve what we wanted was to take a random sample of around 200 households and survey them by phone. This approach would cost around $8000.

Perhaps that money could be better spent on the school? Especially when you consider that even with the majority of the community in favour of removing the tower, our power is still limited.

What the CMO said

During the time taken to explore the survey options, more and more information came to light about the debate surrounding EME (electro-magnetic energy) from mobile towers. We found out that Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, in response to the growing number of conspiracy theories, made a statement about 5G and other mobile telephony technologies in January 2020.

“I’d like to reassure the community that 5G technology is safe. There is no evidence telecommunication technologies, such as 5G, cause adverse health impacts. This position is supported by health authorities in Australia – such as the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) – and around the world, such as the World Health Organization (WHO).”

The full statement can be found here: https://www.health.gov.au/news/safety-of-5g-technology

Whilst many opinions are perhaps open to debate, the P&C Executive felt that given the unconditional nature of the statement and the fact this is from Australia’s highest medical authority, this opinion outweighs all others.

Furthermore, it was felt by the P&C Executive, after many meetings and discussions on this subject, that even if we did object to the tower being on school grounds, the most we could do was lobby against it.

We felt that given the CMO’s statement, we would be unlikely to be able to make a convincing case for removing the tower on safety grounds. A lot of time, effort and even money could be spent on this issue without achieving the desired result. As an Executive, we considered that this attention could be better spent on other ways to improve the school that have a more significant positive impact on the boys.

Consequently, the P&C Executive wanted to convey its research and thinking to the rest of the P&C and seek a resolution to the matters raised. At the August meeting of the P&C, a presentation was made which put the case for the P&C taking no further action on this matter.

You can view that presentation here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UBjs_p77LlOzIHDl_lC7V-ymE0MY5WneopLWtYb7UaE/edit?usp=sharing

It has a lot of links to more information from both sides of the argument. Members were asked to vote on a motion that we take no further action. That motion was carried.

So the P&C will take no further action on the matter unless things change significantly.

As a P&C we are satisfied that there is no health risk to the boys.

There have been ongoing discussions within the school on this matter. The School Principal and School Executive Team, who have also explored this matter and who also prioritise the boys’ welfare, are aligned with the views of the P&C.

Of course, there are still differences of opinion on this matter within the P&C, across Australia and the World. There are a group of parents within the P&C who still believe there is a risk to the boys, and they may form their own group to lobby the Government and the Department of Education about the tower. I

However, we should be clear that no further time or resources will be spent on this issue by the P&C, and this group is not representative of the P&C nor endorsed by the P&C.