SKM_C364e15062121340

Page 2

Research and studies show evidence of a link between electromagnetic exposure and cancers.
I will not try and list them — there are far too many and a simple Google search can bring
dozes of them up. But, as an example, a study involving the University of Tasmania found
children living within 300m of high voltage powerlines were five times more likely to
develop cancer and three times more likely if they lived within that range at any time up to
the age of 15.

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s own published resources
acknowledge the potential risks posed by long term electromagnetic exposure. ARPANSA’s
Electricity and Health fact sheet says:

“.. there are some epidemiological (population) studies that have reported a possible
association between prolonged exposure to ELF magnetic fields at levels below the exposure
limits but higher than what is typically encountered and increased rates of childhood
leukaemia. Based largely on this limited evidence the International Agency for Research on
Cancer has classified ELF magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Given there are studies pointing to risks of long term electromagnetic exposure, and research
is still being carried out in this field, there are no guaranteed assurances that long term
electromagnetic exposure is safe. I believe it would be negligent of any authority to condone
the placement of a wireless network facility in the area proposed by Aurecon and the NBN.

As it is, a high voltage powerline easement runs through my property and high voltage
powerlines exist within 300m of my house.

Given I already face this risk with my property, I am concerned about the effect of additional
long term electromagnetic exposure if a telecommunications facility is also erected within
similar proximity.

I have attempted to find research about the effects of long-term electromagnetic exposure
from the combined sources of high voltage powerlines and “fixed wireless” facilities. But
given they are still researching the effects of these individual sources, it appears no-one has
yet looked at the combined effect. One would have to assume that the risk would be
compounded rather than improved.

Research suggests electromagnetic exposure can be reduced or interrupted by trees or
buildings. Maps supplied by Aurecon show very few trees between the proposed “fixed
wireless” facility and my property.

Because the proposed tower is uphill from my property, and because of an electricity
easement running through my property, I am limited in being able to effectively “plant out”
or build to protect myself, my tenants, or livestock or other animals on the property.

The council cannot be 100% sure that there will be no health risks associated with the
placement of a “fixed wireless” facility as proposed at 249 Schreibers Rd, Cooran, and on
that basis alone, should not approve or condone the proposal.

Visual impact and aesthetics

As mentioned, my property is downhill from the proposed “fixed wireless” facility.

Page 3

According to the maps supplied by Aurecon there are few trees between the proposed facility
and my house.

Because the proposed tower is uphill from my property and because of an electricity
easement running through my property, I am limited in being able to effectively “plant out”
to block the view of the tower.

Financial

Given public concerns about the effects of electromagnetic exposure, the appeal of my
property to potential buyers or tenants would be reduced if a “fixed wireless facility” was
built at the adjoining property. Therefore, the value of my asset or my rental income would be
reduced.

Inadequate/inaccurate public information/notification

The Site Location map supplied by Aurecon on behalf of NBN Co and Ericsson does not
adequately identify existing dwellings on neighbouring properties.

My house, which I believe to be the closest house to the proposed tower, is apparently
represented by a small square on Lot 2, RP 807386, but not labelled as an existing house.

An existing house on Lot 11, RP883248, is not identified or labelled.

An existing dwelling (a converted barn shed) on what J believe to be Lot 12, RP 83248 , is
not identified or labelled, nor is a home site which has already been cut and levelled. The RP
number is also possibly incorrect.

An existing dwelling on Lot 27, RP215098, is not identified or labelled.

Two existing dams on my property are not identified or labelled. Numerous power poles in
the area of the map are also not identified or labelled as such.

The map gives the impression that the nearest house to the proposed facility is further away
than it actually is, and that there are nowhere near the number of dwellings on the adjacent
properties as there actually are.

A map not even identifying the closest house to the proposed facility is not acceptable and
does adequately not meet the Public Notification requirements. Deliberate or not, it misleads
the reader to think there are fewer houses in close proximity to the proposed tower than there
actually are, and therefore, fewer people affected people. This may affect the number and
content of submissions about the proposal.

The proposal to locate this tower on 249 Schreibers Road follows the community’s rejection
of a site at Coles Creek Road, Cooran (DA MCU 13/0051). The proposal to erect a tower at
Coles Creek Road was the subject of two community meetings (neither of which I was able
to attend as an absentee owner living and working in another part of the Sunshine Coast).

No similar public meetings have been held to discuss the Schreibers Rd proposal. I am
concerned that residents of Schreibers Road and Sankeys Road, who a) have not received

Page 4

correspondence about this tower because they do not live adjacent to it, or b) do not drive
past 249 Schreibers Road and therefore, have not seen a public notification sign, or c) are
absentee owners and therefore have not seen a sign, would be unaware of the this proposal
for the Schreibers Road valley, and therefore not have the opportunity to make submission.

It seems to be that this proposal has ended up in my backyard because a bigger group of
people has said “not in my backyard.” The issues that are of the same concem to them —
health, visual amenity, financial consequences — are no less for me.

Other grounds
I bought 211 Schreibers Rd to get away from civilisation as much as I could afford to.

In the 10 years that I have owned it, I have had to fight off a ridiculous State Government
plan to run the Bruce Highway through my back paddock (three of five options for the
realigned highway ran through my property).

T have had to rebuild after a fire destroyed the existing house.

I’ve narrowly escaped the Traveston Dam travesty (homes on nearby Coles Creek Rd were
resumed).

I have had Powerlink/Energex wanting to propose putting an extra high voltage powerline
pylon on my property when the line is duplicated because it would be cheaper for them than
putting one in alignment with the existing pylon.

And now someone wants to plonk a phone tower up the back?

L love my property but I am sick of having to fight for it, particularly fighting off those who
want to use it as a “dumping ground” for infrastructure. It’s better than that.

Some years ago, it was proposed that a phone tower be built over the hill next to Federal
State School. I believe that was avoided when a nearby landowner volunteered or agreed to
have a tower on their property.

Perhaps, instead of scattering towers over every hill in the Noosa hinterland, all of these
mobile phone and internet providers should buy a block of land — just like the rest of us — and
group all of their towers there give residents some peace of mind and security, knowing that
there is not going to be one plonked next to them, and so that the council does not have to go
through this process every six months. There should not be a problem grouping them if they
are as safe as their purveyors say they are.

Sincerely
1 / /
Mell
Z

J. L. Hill