HOW heartening it was to read the Bury Times (August 20) and to see a Labour councillor, Gordon Sharkey, supporting those of his constituents who are campaigning to prevent approval being given for yet another 3G telecommunications mast.

He is obviously an enlightened councillor who has the courage of his convictions and is prepared to stand up and be counted amongst those who are aware of the perceived threat to the health of those living in the residential area centred on Glendale Avenue, Sunnybank, Whitefield.

Congratulations to Coun Sharkey. Now, I wonder can he do anything to persuade his colleagues to revoke the unlawful prior approval given by Bury Council to the construction of other 3G telecommunications masts in residential areas of Bury?

Since this correspondence about such masts began, I have been referred to websites which have supplied me with evidence of the serious biological effects on living human cells. The evidence is so frightening that I have decided not to include it in an open public letter because it may well induce feelings of panic, or a sense of hysteria, amongst some parents.

However, some people may wish to be informed so I suggest they view www.equilabra.uk.com/emfnewinfo.shtml and draw their own conclusions.

I am left with increasing apprehension at the way in which the Government is leaving the public in the dark or is simply burying its head in the sand and pretending that Labour politicians -- such as the policy-makers on Bury Council -- know best. Do these councillors not realise that if they do not declare their personal opposition to these planning applications they may be leaving themselves wide open to litigation in the future?

Consider, for instance, the magnitude of the gulf in thinking between the National Radiation Protection Board (NRPB) and other scientific bodies and governments. It is alarming. The NRPB has produced guidelines which were supposed to provide the public with safe levels of maximum exposure to radiation. At the same time, scientists and scientific bodies in other countries were significantly reducing their exposure levels.

For example, in 1995 the New Zealand Environment Court took a precautionary approach and set a level that was 5,000 times less than that set by the NRPB in the UK in 1993.

What is going on? I reckon that the greedy milking of commerce by the New Labour Government, in order to fund its own dogmatic high-prestige projects, is one reason, but there must be something deeper that this if public trust regarding the nation's health is being so blatantly betrayed.

I wonder if MPs David Chaytor and Ivan Lewis share my view that a significant number of the electorate will, in all probability, still have this uneasy feeling as they are poised to put pen to paper in the general election next year.

DAVID H. FOSS,

Layfield Close, Tottington.