Dear Blaise Costabir...
119 views
Skip to first unread message
muriel&mario
Apr 4, 2012, 4:47:18 PM4/4/12
to Blaise Costabir, SaligaoNet
Dear Blaise,
When I saw you at the Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) seminar on World Consumers Day, on 15 March, I felt happy and hopeful. In fact, it made my day!
I was happy that at last I found someone, a family member who could talk to Claire's mother Joan, (your mother-in-law), Lynette, the widow of her late son Alfie and their 3 children. I was hopeful that at last, someone from the family would be able to tell them the truth about the radiation hazards and other realities connected with the Mobile Phone Tower, less than a 100 mts. away from their home, in the Delaney compound opposite.
All you knew of me at the time, was "the gentleman who identified himself as a resident of the picturesque village of Saligao". But I knew who you were and that was why I went out of my way to meet you and give you a set of documentation containing the 5 documents attached here, a CD containing the first video documentary of the Delaney Tower struggle and 10 pages of newspaper cuttings.
That package contained our entire case!
The only reason I took the trouble to meet you and give you all this material, was because I saw you as the only person who could talk to Joan, Lynette and the children and actually help that vulnerable family protect themselves from a hazardous mobile phone tower.
But what did you do with all this information given on a platter to you, in good faith?
You pinched indiscriminate bits and pieces of it, twisted them into poor fiction, put words into my mouth and used the shoddy result to hinge the rest of your article on.
For example, I did not say any of the following:
- that I am from the picturesque village of Saligao
- that I wanted to enjoy the benefits of the mobile phone, but wanted it shifted because it spoilt the beauty of the village.
- that I wanted it shifted 500 mts. away from the "present" location, into somebody else's back yard.
What I did say was that, the global mobile phone industry was invading Saligao, its habitat, its environment and its aesthetic space. I also said that it was an assault on the fundamental Right to Life (Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution) of an entire community. The invasion and assault, I pointed out was effected by international finance, in the form of Multi National Corporations that represented the global mobile phone industry. In the panel discussion during that seminar, I asked the panelists, if there was anything in the Consumer Protection Act to protect consumers from such an invasion and assault.
This was the scope of my intervention that day at the GCCI auditorium. It is possible that you did not hear me too well as you were sitting in the last row of a packed hall. I did not go into the details that you have poached and misused from the extensive documentation I voluntarily shared with you.
What you have done is to take the scientific and well documented facts from the information I gave you and twist them to form the springboard of your entire column.
In a summary of the problem given to you, we presented 13 reasons why Saligaokars want the mobile tower shifted to a safe place (see attachment on press_summary).
In that particular document, our stand is very clear: "We have no objection to a tower. But we want it shifted to a safe location, at least 500 mts. from residential areas." This is in keeping with a Gram Sabha resolution passed on the 19 Feb. 2012. We have even pointed out 2 such safe alternate sites, out in the fields, well away from all human habitation.
It is difficult to understand why you should have twisted this to mean, that we do not want the tower in our backyard, and that it should be shifted into someone else's. We have never ever taken such a stand and there is nothing in the documentation I gave you, to even remotely suggest such a position.
That press_summary dtd. 14 March, succinctly articulates the entire case of the communities protesting the present location of the Delaney Tower. It is surprising that a columnist of your technological stature should fall so short of journalistic ethics when writing about well documented and scientific facts given to you, in black and white. To reduce Saligao's entire case to one of "Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY)" is nothing short of pure mischief and an inexpensive way to find a topic for your column!
Till today, no one has had the scholarship, scientific temper or the plain courage to study that document with all its references, engage the village in a debate about it, or very simply refute the positions on which the community case is based. Like you have bravely attempted in your article, many over the last 9 weeks, have taken random pot shots, misrepresented scientific fact, beaten around the bush, tried to divert everyone's attention with colourful distractions, frustratedly descended into 'tantrumy' name calling and mud slinging...or quite plainly caught the bull by the tail!
But if you really have Goa's development at heart, if you have the scientific temper to examine the evidence, if you have the patience to study the issue as it exists in Goa today, then as we have done with the Tower Team and their few supporters, we challenge you to seriously revisit the documentation we gave you and discuss the issue threadbare.
No one is against development, Blaise.
All we are saying is: make it participative, sustainable, pro-people, pro-earth, conservational. Make it just!
Not pro-profit and pro-greed. Not selfish. Not exploitative!
Warm regards.
Mario.
--
"We did not inherit Abreu Vaddo/Saligao/Goa/the Earth from our ancestors,
we merely borrowed it from our children." - Indigenous Wisdom
................................................................
there *is* anOTHERgoa
at <http://www.anothergoa.blogspot.in>
& <http://www.youtube.com/anothergoa>
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
muriel & mario,
c/o FULKAR,
6/22, sonarbhatt, saligao.
bardez. goa. 403511.
tel: 0832-2278276 / 2409999
<anothergoa AT gmail.com>
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
When I saw you at the Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) seminar on World Consumers Day, on 15 March, I felt happy and hopeful. In fact, it made my day!
I was happy that at last I found someone, a family member who could talk to Claire's mother Joan, (your mother-in-law), Lynette, the widow of her late son Alfie and their 3 children. I was hopeful that at last, someone from the family would be able to tell them the truth about the radiation hazards and other realities connected with the Mobile Phone Tower, less than a 100 mts. away from their home, in the Delaney compound opposite.
All you knew of me at the time, was "the gentleman who identified himself as a resident of the picturesque village of Saligao". But I knew who you were and that was why I went out of my way to meet you and give you a set of documentation containing the 5 documents attached here, a CD containing the first video documentary of the Delaney Tower struggle and 10 pages of newspaper cuttings.
That package contained our entire case!
The only reason I took the trouble to meet you and give you all this material, was because I saw you as the only person who could talk to Joan, Lynette and the children and actually help that vulnerable family protect themselves from a hazardous mobile phone tower.
But what did you do with all this information given on a platter to you, in good faith?
You pinched indiscriminate bits and pieces of it, twisted them into poor fiction, put words into my mouth and used the shoddy result to hinge the rest of your article on.
For example, I did not say any of the following:
- that I am from the picturesque village of Saligao
- that I wanted to enjoy the benefits of the mobile phone, but wanted it shifted because it spoilt the beauty of the village.
- that I wanted it shifted 500 mts. away from the "present" location, into somebody else's back yard.
What I did say was that, the global mobile phone industry was invading Saligao, its habitat, its environment and its aesthetic space. I also said that it was an assault on the fundamental Right to Life (Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution) of an entire community. The invasion and assault, I pointed out was effected by international finance, in the form of Multi National Corporations that represented the global mobile phone industry. In the panel discussion during that seminar, I asked the panelists, if there was anything in the Consumer Protection Act to protect consumers from such an invasion and assault.
This was the scope of my intervention that day at the GCCI auditorium. It is possible that you did not hear me too well as you were sitting in the last row of a packed hall. I did not go into the details that you have poached and misused from the extensive documentation I voluntarily shared with you.
What you have done is to take the scientific and well documented facts from the information I gave you and twist them to form the springboard of your entire column.
In a summary of the problem given to you, we presented 13 reasons why Saligaokars want the mobile tower shifted to a safe place (see attachment on press_summary).
In that particular document, our stand is very clear: "We have no objection to a tower. But we want it shifted to a safe location, at least 500 mts. from residential areas." This is in keeping with a Gram Sabha resolution passed on the 19 Feb. 2012. We have even pointed out 2 such safe alternate sites, out in the fields, well away from all human habitation.
It is difficult to understand why you should have twisted this to mean, that we do not want the tower in our backyard, and that it should be shifted into someone else's. We have never ever taken such a stand and there is nothing in the documentation I gave you, to even remotely suggest such a position.
That press_summary dtd. 14 March, succinctly articulates the entire case of the communities protesting the present location of the Delaney Tower. It is surprising that a columnist of your technological stature should fall so short of journalistic ethics when writing about well documented and scientific facts given to you, in black and white. To reduce Saligao's entire case to one of "Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY)" is nothing short of pure mischief and an inexpensive way to find a topic for your column!
Till today, no one has had the scholarship, scientific temper or the plain courage to study that document with all its references, engage the village in a debate about it, or very simply refute the positions on which the community case is based. Like you have bravely attempted in your article, many over the last 9 weeks, have taken random pot shots, misrepresented scientific fact, beaten around the bush, tried to divert everyone's attention with colourful distractions, frustratedly descended into 'tantrumy' name calling and mud slinging...or quite plainly caught the bull by the tail!
But if you really have Goa's development at heart, if you have the scientific temper to examine the evidence, if you have the patience to study the issue as it exists in Goa today, then as we have done with the Tower Team and their few supporters, we challenge you to seriously revisit the documentation we gave you and discuss the issue threadbare.
No one is against development, Blaise.
All we are saying is: make it participative, sustainable, pro-people, pro-earth, conservational. Make it just!
Not pro-profit and pro-greed. Not selfish. Not exploitative!
Warm regards.
Mario.
--
"We did not inherit Abreu Vaddo/Saligao/Goa/the Earth from our ancestors,
we merely borrowed it from our children." - Indigenous Wisdom
................................................................
there *is* anOTHERgoa
at <http://www.anothergoa.blogspot.in>
& <http://www.youtube.com/anothergoa>
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
muriel & mario,
c/o FULKAR,
6/22, sonarbhatt, saligao.
bardez. goa. 403511.
tel: 0832-2278276 / 2409999
<anothergoa AT gmail.com>
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
muriel&mario
Apr 5, 2012, 4:50:13 PM4/5/12
to Blaise Costabir, Sujay gupta, SaligaoNet
Dear Blaise,
Thanks a lot for taking the trouble to reply. It is only in a dialogue like this that we can appreciate each other's points of view; indeed, each other's lives.
From the little we had heard about you, Muriel and I always knew you were refreshingly different from other businessmen in Goa. We knew that at least you were definitely pro-Goa and not blindly chasing the quick buck that most other entrepreneurs do.
We also appreciated the fact that you were thinking out of the box and by introducing the plastic septic tank, were honestly addressing Goa's needs. This is also why we always promote your Shakti water tanks, because after examining one, we genuinely believe that they are "superior by design!"
It was with this kind of information, that I approached you at the GCCI auditorium, with a lot of warmth and friendship; also because we are quite close to your folks in Saligao. There was not the slightest intention to 'use' you to "lobby" with your Saligao family, but to sincerely ask you to explain to them the details in the documentation I gave you...especially because I believed at the time that others were keeping the real truth away from them.
It is against this back drop that I (and others) were completely baffled that you had reduced the struggle in Saligao to a cheap and selfish NIMBY issue. In spite of having all the documentary evidence to the contrary, you still seem inexplicably fixated with this view. So we will leave it at that and "agree to disagree", as you wisely suggest.
We will move on and let our own history as well as the future development of the struggle, do the talking.
For now, I am are terribly, terribly sorry that you were so hurt by what came across as questioning your credentials. I had no intention of doing this, as we did not have any idea of the tremendous sacrifice you and your dad had made for Goa. Please forgive me for any perceived attack on your past credentials. It was totally unintentional and not even remotely implied.
Since you were writing on the "Story of Goa's development", it appeared that you were not applying your mind to the reasons behind the Saligao struggle. Worse, you were misrepresenting the facts to arrive at pre-determined conclusions that you seemed keen on recording. This was why I said, "If you have Goa's development at heart,,,study the documentation I gave you". It was a response only to that particular column of yours.
But that is in the past. For the present, Muriel and I want to first thank you for giving us, in your reply below, a tiny peep into what you and your family have done for Goa.
Second, we want to record our deep gratitude and admiration for this sacrifice in the past and your continued efforts to guide Goa's development, especially in the industrial sector. We may not agree with the methods you use in reaching your conclusions, but that does not deny the tremendous effort you put into your vision for Goa and the sacrifice you employ to make it a reality.
Third, we would like to congratulate your wife Claire for standing by you as you valiantly battled on. It could not have been easy for her, probably wondering when and if you would return from work, each day. We know that situation well and that is why we would like to salute the two of you for the courage you displayed during that phase of your lives.
Beyond that, we would like to offer all the support and solidarity we can for any struggle you undertake for Goa, at that level. To that end we are definitely on the same side! We cannot afford to split ranks because of minor and initial differences of opinion - if they continue to be minor!
Since you set out "not to create enemies of friends, but better friends", we would like to say that because of your sharing of the sacrificial roles you and your family played and continue to play in Goa's industrial development, today, we are certainly better friends than before!
Warm regards, much solidarity and 'mog asudi' to both you and Claire.
Mario...and Muriel.
PS1: I am posting this to SaligaoNet.
PS2: Since that was a personal reply to your column (URL of which was posted to SaligaoNet), we replied personally to you. The way it was written, with the various personal references to you and others, it was not meant as a reply in the 'Letters to the Editor' column.
We request Sujay not to carry it in the Herlad, in its present form.
However, as part of the development debate, and without referring to anyone, we do not mind writing objectively on this phenomenon of mobile phone towers in the State. If he finds it suitable, Sujay can then carry it on the Edit page.
M&M.
------------------------------------------
On 5 April 2012 10:58, Blaise Costabir <bla...@gmizm.com> wrote:
Thanks a lot for taking the trouble to reply. It is only in a dialogue like this that we can appreciate each other's points of view; indeed, each other's lives.
From the little we had heard about you, Muriel and I always knew you were refreshingly different from other businessmen in Goa. We knew that at least you were definitely pro-Goa and not blindly chasing the quick buck that most other entrepreneurs do.
We also appreciated the fact that you were thinking out of the box and by introducing the plastic septic tank, were honestly addressing Goa's needs. This is also why we always promote your Shakti water tanks, because after examining one, we genuinely believe that they are "superior by design!"
It was with this kind of information, that I approached you at the GCCI auditorium, with a lot of warmth and friendship; also because we are quite close to your folks in Saligao. There was not the slightest intention to 'use' you to "lobby" with your Saligao family, but to sincerely ask you to explain to them the details in the documentation I gave you...especially because I believed at the time that others were keeping the real truth away from them.
It is against this back drop that I (and others) were completely baffled that you had reduced the struggle in Saligao to a cheap and selfish NIMBY issue. In spite of having all the documentary evidence to the contrary, you still seem inexplicably fixated with this view. So we will leave it at that and "agree to disagree", as you wisely suggest.
We will move on and let our own history as well as the future development of the struggle, do the talking.
For now, I am are terribly, terribly sorry that you were so hurt by what came across as questioning your credentials. I had no intention of doing this, as we did not have any idea of the tremendous sacrifice you and your dad had made for Goa. Please forgive me for any perceived attack on your past credentials. It was totally unintentional and not even remotely implied.
Since you were writing on the "Story of Goa's development", it appeared that you were not applying your mind to the reasons behind the Saligao struggle. Worse, you were misrepresenting the facts to arrive at pre-determined conclusions that you seemed keen on recording. This was why I said, "If you have Goa's development at heart,,,study the documentation I gave you". It was a response only to that particular column of yours.
But that is in the past. For the present, Muriel and I want to first thank you for giving us, in your reply below, a tiny peep into what you and your family have done for Goa.
Second, we want to record our deep gratitude and admiration for this sacrifice in the past and your continued efforts to guide Goa's development, especially in the industrial sector. We may not agree with the methods you use in reaching your conclusions, but that does not deny the tremendous effort you put into your vision for Goa and the sacrifice you employ to make it a reality.
Third, we would like to congratulate your wife Claire for standing by you as you valiantly battled on. It could not have been easy for her, probably wondering when and if you would return from work, each day. We know that situation well and that is why we would like to salute the two of you for the courage you displayed during that phase of your lives.
Beyond that, we would like to offer all the support and solidarity we can for any struggle you undertake for Goa, at that level. To that end we are definitely on the same side! We cannot afford to split ranks because of minor and initial differences of opinion - if they continue to be minor!
Since you set out "not to create enemies of friends, but better friends", we would like to say that because of your sharing of the sacrificial roles you and your family played and continue to play in Goa's industrial development, today, we are certainly better friends than before!
Warm regards, much solidarity and 'mog asudi' to both you and Claire.
Mario...and Muriel.
PS1: I am posting this to SaligaoNet.
PS2: Since that was a personal reply to your column (URL of which was posted to SaligaoNet), we replied personally to you. The way it was written, with the various personal references to you and others, it was not meant as a reply in the 'Letters to the Editor' column.
We request Sujay not to carry it in the Herlad, in its present form.
However, as part of the development debate, and without referring to anyone, we do not mind writing objectively on this phenomenon of mobile phone towers in the State. If he finds it suitable, Sujay can then carry it on the Edit page.
M&M.
------------------------------------------
On 5 April 2012 10:58, Blaise Costabir <bla...@gmizm.com> wrote:
Dear MarioMy initial reaction was to ignore this mail as other wise we will go back and forth. You are entitled to your views and me mine. However since I saw this marked to a group I thought I should clarify some points.Out of the 20 odd congratulatory messages, two were contrary to my view, one was my wife who felt with so many dear friends in Saligao it was not correct to get involved as it meant one side would be offended. My reply was if we think of Goa, who should we make a point with, our friends or our enemies. The other is your email.I am marking a copy to Sujoy the editor of Herald and he may publish your reply if he feels necessary. Please mark my reply to your friends on Saligao net as I do not think I have access to them. My points are in red below.My view is not on your tower, my view is asking people to think before opposing, we want power but not the power station. We want a good life but not a composting station near our house. Since I do not like sitting on the fence I have made my point, not to create enemies of friends but better friends. Why can we not make our views open without it being if you are not on my side you are against me. I clearly stated, I would appreciate your agitation more if each of you and your families gave up the cell phone first.The local MLA unfortunately is conditioned to think this ward 20 odd votes so what should I do. Will he also give up his phone. Will he after reading about the hazards take a decision that in his constituency there will be no towers and no cell phones will be allowed or as usual will he play to the gallery and not for Goa.Have a good day.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:17 AM, muriel&mario <anoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Blaise,
When I saw you at the Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) seminar on World Consumers Day, on 15 March, I felt happy and hopeful. In fact, it made my day!
I was happy that at last I found someone, a family member who could talk to Claire's mother Joan, (your mother-in-law), Lynette, the widow of her late son Alfie and their 3 children. I was hopeful that at last, someone from the family would be able to tell them the truth about the radiation hazards and other realities connected with the Mobile Phone Tower, less than a 100 mts. away from their home, in the Delaney compound opposite.
All you knew of me at the time, was "the gentleman who identified himself as a resident of the picturesque village of Saligao". But I knew who you were and that was why I went out of my way to meet you and give you a set of documentation containing the 5 documents attached here, a CD containing the first video documentary of the Delaney Tower struggle and 10 pages of newspaper cuttings.
That package contained our entire case!
The only reason I took the trouble to meet you and give you all this material, was because I saw you as the only person who could talk to Joan, Lynette and the children and actually help that vulnerable family protect themselves from a hazardous mobile phone tower.
Mario, when you gave me the information and asked me to lobby with my mother in Law, I was upfront and very clear. I said to you that I cannot oppose any tower or ask my mother in law to do the same because I use a cell phone.You said to me, you wanted it moved 500 mts away to a field and I asked what about the people around the field. I further added that since I live in Fatorda, where would the tower there go, there is no 500 mts radius open space. So my written views should not have surprised you.
But what did you do with all this information given on a platter to you, in good faith?
You pinched indiscriminate bits and pieces of it, twisted them into poor fiction, put words into my mouth and used the shoddy result to hinge the rest of your article on.
For example, I did not say any of the following:
- that I am from the picturesque village of Saligao
- that I wanted to enjoy the benefits of the mobile phone, but wanted it shifted because it spoilt the beauty of the village.
- that I wanted it shifted 500 mts. away from the "present" location, into somebody else's back yard.
What I did say was that, the global mobile phone industry was invading Saligao, its habitat, its environment and its aesthetic space. I also said that it was an assault on the fundamental Right to Life (Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution) of an entire community. The invasion and assault, I pointed out was effected by international finance, in the form of Multi National Corporations that represented the global mobile phone industry. In the panel discussion during that seminar, I asked the panelists, if there was anything in the Consumer Protection Act to protect consumers from such an invasion and assault.
This was the scope of my intervention that day at the GCCI auditorium. It is possible that you did not hear me too well as you were sitting in the last row of a packed hall. I did not go into the details that you have poached and misused from the extensive documentation I voluntarily shared with you.
Mario, Let us not split hair on syntax and language. Let us get to the point.I have referred to nothing from your information as I did not read it, neither did I read the counter material given by Ashley. That is not to say I have not gathered my own information on the subject. I am clear that despite being an unproven hazard, I find the cell phone very useful. I have stated my view, you are perfectly within your rights to continue protesting and even stopping the tower.
What you have done is to take the scientific and well documented facts from the information I gave you and twist them to form the springboard of your entire column.
Mario you must be reading someone else's column, please quote one line from your documents that I have used.
In a summary of the problem given to you, we presented 13 reasons why Saligaokars want the mobile tower shifted to a safe place (see attachment on press_summary).
Saligaokars? did anyone oppose the tower in Tony Rex property. I know a few who do not agree with your view does that means they are not Saligaokars? You contradict yourself when you say you did not ask the tower to be moved 500 mts away and here you say moved to a safe place.
In that particular document, our stand is very clear: "We have no objection to a tower. But we want it shifted to a safe location, at least 500 mts. from residential areas." This is in keeping with a Gram Sabha resolution passed on the 19 Feb. 2012. We have even pointed out 2 such safe alternate sites, out in the fields, well away from all human habitation.
Please see this statement in light of my point that Goa needs a generating station, if every Gram Sabha takes this views where will we go for power, In that case we need not bother about tower as there will be no power to charge the cell phones and therefore no need for towers. The TN, CM has already set the ball rolling by stating that she wants 100% of the nuclear power generated in her State. By the way how many of those who voted against the tower are willing to give up their cell phones, I clearly stated I would appreciate your agitation if you all said that we do not want the tower it is bad for health and therefore we are giving up our cell phones. If there is no demand for cell phones there is no need for towers. Are you sure the safe sites have no human habitation around then or have no settlement zones which will be inhabited later. Will the tower look prettier in these safe sites?
It is difficult to understand why you should have twisted this to mean, that we do not want the tower in our backyard, and that it should be shifted into someone else's. We have never ever taken such a stand and there is nothing in the documentation I gave you, to even remotely suggest such a position.
Mario, really now. You are now saying you do not want the tower, you deny saying to me that it can move to the fields......
That press_summary dtd. 14 March, succinctly articulates the entire case of the communities protesting the present location of the Delaney Tower. It is surprising that a columnist of your technological stature should fall so short of journalistic ethics when writing about well documented and scientific facts given to you, in black and white. To reduce Saligao's entire case to one of "Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY)" is nothing short of pure mischief and an inexpensive way to find a topic for your column!
Mario, this is not Saligao's case. There is a tower at Tony Rex's place. Those people around are from where? Two, I am not talking about Saligao, I am talking about Goa's development and the Abreu Vaddo tower case represents the NIMBY to the hilt. I do not need anyone's research to write my columns, despite the fact that given my work schedule and involvement in many social causes it would be easy to use someone else's thinking and documents. Ofcourse on the other hand it is preposterous for you to assume that just because you did lots of research it is to be accepted by all thinking individuals without question?
Till today, no one has had the scholarship, scientific temper or the plain courage to study that document with all its references, engage the village in a debate about it, or very simply refute the positions on which the community case is based. Like you have bravely attempted in your article, many over the last 9 weeks, have taken random pot shots, misrepresented scientific fact, beaten around the bush, tried to divert everyone's attention with colourful distractions, frustratedly descended into 'tantrumy' name calling and mud slinging...or quite plainly caught the bull by the tail!
Mudslinging...you did that in your previous para, where you made nasty comments on my writings. I have tried to avoid dropping to the same level. I, agree with your view, the information should be given to all but not many read or do their own study. So it is left to people like you who can take a message across. However once you have given your information, let the receiver decide one way or the other. Unfortunately I get the impression that you believe that if anyone does not support the "NO TOWER" option he is anti Mario. I am not anti Mario.I simply agree to disagree with you on this point.
But if you really have Goa's development at heart, if you have the scientific temper to examine the evidence, if you have the patience to study the issue as it exists in Goa today, then as we have done with the Tower Team and their few supporters, we challenge you to seriously revisit the documentation we gave you and discuss the issue threadbare.
Boss, to question my credentials or my love for Goa India because I do not agree with your position is simply untenable. My family has lost land in Verna for what is termed as development. I have fought initially single handedly and then with the support of a very courageous NGO, (GOA STATE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION) to stop the rape of our industrial estates by the MLA who belonged to the ruling Congress. This despite opposition from my wife who feared for my life. Why did I do it? To get more money for my self? To get land for myself? No simply because I believed goans had sacrificed land for the development of Goa (my father is one of them) and their sacrifice was being spat upon by corrupt elements. I wanted that their sacrifice not be in vain. We have made the difference and that is for Goa.Therefore when I hear a person who is simply fighting for a cause that purely benefits a few, and these few question my credentials I am not going to sit and take such nonsense lying down. I am not some retired guy with no work, I have a business to run and kids to bring up and I do what I think I can for the love of Goa and India. So please do not dare try and blackmail me into supporting your irrelevant cause by equating it to some patriotic duty.As far as the debate goes, there is no point. Your point is well taken. However I repeat give up your phones and stick to land lines. I will back your cause.
No one is against development, Blaise.
Exactly as long as it is NOT IN MY BACKYARD
All we are saying is: make it participative, sustainable, pro-people, pro-earth, conservational. Make it just!
Not pro-profit and pro-greed. Not selfish. Not exploitative!
Please examine the your statements above. Are you saying if the profit is shared so as not to be exploitative it is ok. Participative, you and all your supporters want the use of the cell phone, so you must have a tower. Where would you put the tower?. Why was no objection or research done when a tower was raised at Tony Rex's place.......simple it was not in my backyard. I rest my case.Warm regards.
Mario.--
Maurice Britto
Apr 6, 2012, 5:00:35 AM4/6/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com, Blaise Costabir
Dear Blaise,
Brilliantly written, you exposed the fraud that this is, especially the falsehoods that keep being perpetrated by this guy.... Keep up the good work!!!!
|
Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا
Apr 6, 2012, 5:26:39 AM4/6/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com, Blaise Costabir
I definitely don't think the arguments of the many concerned villagers are as simplistic or illogical as Blaise has made them seem. It's often not that simple a choice between for "development" and being "anti-development".
Try telling the mining-ravaged villagers that they need to "sacrifice" something for the sake of "global development". For China's economic growth, our mineowners (and the politicians they create), or for US overconsumption. At the end of the day, if we in the middle-classes (and above) sacrifice a little of our limitless wants, it surely wouldn't hurt anyone so greviously. On the contrary, we might all end up having healthier lifestyles ourselves, and having more to pass around to those who don't have enough to live on.
Yet, everyone speaks in the name of "development" and believes they're doing the planet a great favour!
Personally, I would anyday prefer a *poor* mobile signal to potential hazards which are still only being properly understood. Better still, can we push for improved BSNL landline facilities, that have served us well even when these were in skeletal form in the early 1990s?
FN
--
FN +91-832-2409490 or +91-9822122436 f...@goa-india.org
Books from Goa,1556 http://scr.bi/Goa1556Books
Audio recordings (mostly from Goa): http://bit.ly/GoaRecordings
--
FN +91-832-2409490 or +91-9822122436 f...@goa-india.org
Books from Goa,1556 http://scr.bi/Goa1556Books
Audio recordings (mostly from Goa): http://bit.ly/GoaRecordings
Christopher Desouza
Apr 6, 2012, 7:49:13 AM4/6/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
| Well Said! Rico. CD --- On Fri, 4/6/12, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا <frederic...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Blaise Costabir
Apr 7, 2012, 2:55:49 AM4/7/12
to muriel&mario, Sujay gupta, SaligaoNet
Dear Mario
First, I hold nothing against you or your cause. If you manage to stop the tower so be it. I am happy that the column has generated some interest and debate which is the whole idea of writing.
Convincing me is not the issue, I am not the decision maker, however like you I have a point of view. I believe that if I hear you and your supporters are giving up mobiles and hence forth will depend on land lines I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and your cause.
I am sure all the information you gathered on the ills of towers is true. Unfortunately I believe the gains outweight the negatives. What may be more relevant is to force the government to come up with norms of where they will be installed. Like one article said not near a hospital. Great.
The fact that even a "poor" signal which FN can live with finally comes from a tower close to someone else's house. Meaning the "poor" signal is a source of radiation to another. So if the radiation is bad for me, it should be bad for others and therefore no towers must be allowed not a selective tower. This means that the entire group was not in town when the tower in Tony Rexs; place came up and therefore could not agitate against it of it was at a safe distance and so no one bothered.
These two points keep saying to me that the NIMBY syndrome is at work. Hence unless someone convinces me other wise I will hold my view. But if I get information to the contrary.I will surely change my position.
For now we are friends who agree to disagree. I sincerely wish you all the best in your endevour as I would wish Ashley is his.
Blaise
--
We are switching to our new email id, please note.
The old id is also operational
Frederick FN Noronha * फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या * فريدريك نورونيا
Apr 7, 2012, 3:13:43 AM4/7/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
On 7 April 2012 12:25, Blaise Costabir <bla...@gmizm.com> wrote:
The fact that even a "poor" signal which FN can live with finally comes from a tower close to someone else's house.
Blaise, are you sure that tower is in some residential locality too? FN
Blaise Costabir
Apr 7, 2012, 3:21:49 AM4/7/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
FN
Pls come to my home in Fatorda, I can show you the tower.
I would find it hard to believe that in Goa we can set up towers 500 mts away from any residential property and yet use the mobile phone. In Mumbai too next to impossible. in Mumbai they sit on top of residential buildings by the dozens.So basically we have to make a choice Mobile phone or no mobile phone. Not tower or no tower.
Alternatively you show me a tower and I will show you a hose within the 500 mts radius.
I repeat what we need the Government to come up with is regulations as to where the towers can be set up.
I think we can go on talking till the cows come home and beyond as like smoking which we know kills but it is indulged in anyway. So also I would like to use a mobile phone despite its hazards and the younger generation cannot do without the same even for 5 secs at a time.
Have a nice day.
On 7 April 2012 12:25, Blaise Costabir <bla...@gmizm.com> wrote:
The fact that even a "poor" signal which FN can live with finally comes from a tower close to someone else's house.Blaise, are you sure that tower is in some residential locality too? FN
--
Saligao-Net is at http://groups.google.com/group/saligao-net
To post to this group, send email to salig...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe email saligao-net...@googlegroups.com
Christopher Desouza
Apr 7, 2012, 11:10:21 AM4/7/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
| Hi Blaise! We have never met. I live in California. Alfred your wife's brother was a very good friend of mine and we were room mates for a few years in Bombay. I have watched with pride his children growing up. And this is why I am writing to you. Now I watched with interest as the mobile tower situation in Saligao, has developed from what should have been a coming together of minds for the greater good of the community. Instead this has developed into mudslinging between people who have formerly come together for the well being of the community. I am saddened! I too welcome change and am open to business but do believe in eco-sensitive and eco-sustainable development. Now this what has transpired in Abreu vaddo is not exactly a eco sensitive development, as the human settlement in the
place has been there much before any consideration for a tower. Now you may all debunk each other and throw out challenges and mud in a very non-chalant way destroying the community as you go along. There is much to be said for non sponsored science. I mean the science that has not been funded by industry. In science that has been funded by the telecommunication industry, they of course will have a biased opinion. The one that is friendly in outlook to their industry. Now this same industry puts in millions of dollars into government coffers around the world. That is why this industry has developed at such a fast pace. To date they do not clearly know the consequences of this rampant surge. Now the 2 sides in this argument from my perspective are: 1. People who want improvement no matter what the cost to themselves and their community, People not sensitive to community sensitivity and
community risk or human eco sensitivity. People motivated only by egos and $$$$$. 2. People who are averse to being subjected to the health hazards of the telecom industry. People open to change and modernization with proper risk management and eco-sensitivity. Both goals could be met if sane minds prevail. All it takes is to have the tower located 500 mts from Human habitation. That is all the community is asking for. I agree with you as that you should work together to have government standards on location of towers. But the fight has to start somewhere and this is ground zero to have exactly those standards set in place. I will now quote an expert in the field of Radio submission and Electro-magnetic submission.He has worked 16 years in this field for military and industrial applications. He is my brother, Mariano, in Melbourne, Australia. He says(about the people in Saligao) "
they just don't understand how severe the consequences of exposure from cell phones and towers are. I for one use the cell phone as sparsely as possible". My brother has been warning me of the consequences since the advent of the cell phone business. I personally try to use the cell only for text and advise all to do the same Mario of course has already detailed all the related consequences to the human mind and body and these are from unbiased scientific studies around the world. Yet you seem intent to throwing out challenges instead of working with this community to begin to start some sort of standard for the location of mobile towers away from residential communities in Saligao and Goa. Just because it happens in the rest of Goa, does not mean it has to happen in the educated community of Saligao as well. Mario, Gerard, Ashley, Maurice, Rico and all those involved in this argument. You are all
friends of mine and I consider community leaders in Goa. C. D'Mello and V. Cordeiro, Blaise I do not know personally but know their families. Please lets get together and do something about this and get together a managed risk and an eco-sensitive solution. My personal stake in this is that my good friend Alfred's children not suffer from consequences from exposure as they live within the 500 mts limit of the proposed tower. Hope sane minds prevail !! Yours in community! Chris De Souza San Francisco Bay Area. |
|
bla...@gmizm.com
Apr 7, 2012, 5:00:59 PM4/7/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
Christopher
Happy Easter.
I will stand shoulder to shoulder to stop the tower if each of those opposed will give up their cell phones. I believe there is no place in Goa where you can put a tower with no residences within 500 mts radius. This means what the abreu vaddo group is asking for if they do not give up their phones is NIMBY.
I hope you see the point.
Blaise
Happy Easter.
I will stand shoulder to shoulder to stop the tower if each of those opposed will give up their cell phones. I believe there is no place in Goa where you can put a tower with no residences within 500 mts radius. This means what the abreu vaddo group is asking for if they do not give up their phones is NIMBY.
I hope you see the point.
Blaise
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
From: Christopher Desouza <goan...@sbcglobal.net>
Sender: salig...@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 08:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
ReplyTo: salig...@googlegroups.com
Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا
Apr 7, 2012, 5:15:48 PM4/7/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
On 8 April 2012 02:30, <bla...@gmizm.com> wrote:
I will stand shoulder to shoulder to stop the tower if each of those opposed will give up their cell phones. I believe there is no place in Goa where you can put a tower with no residences within 500 mts radius. This means what the abreu vaddo group is asking for if they do not give up their phones is NIMBY.
I hope you see the point.
Nice argument!
It's like saying: I too will oppose murder, provided all those against it first surrender their kitchen-knives.
As for NIMBY, it can be used to justify just about anything controversial and disliked by a community. Check out its roots and where it comes from:
NIMBY
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NIMBY or Nimby is an acronym for the phrase "not in my back yard". The term (or the derivativeNimbyism) is used pejoratively to describe opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development close to them. Opposing residents themselves are sometimes called Nimbies. The term was coined in 1980 by Emilie Travel Livezey, and was popularized by British politician Nicholas Ridley, who was Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment.[citation needed]
Projects likely to be opposed include but are not limited to tall buildings, chemical plants, industrial parks, military bases, wind turbines, desalination plants, landfills, incinerators, power plants, prisons,[1]mobile telephone network masts, schools, nuclear waste dumps, landfill dump sites, youth hostels, wind farms, golf courses, housing developments and especially transportation improvement schemes (e.g. new roads, passenger and freight railways, highways,airports, seaports).
NIMBY is also used more generally to describe people who advocate some proposal (for example,austerity measures including budget cuts, tax increases, downsizing), but oppose implementing it in a way that would require sacrifice on their part.
Merwyn Sequeira
Apr 8, 2012, 1:47:07 AM4/8/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
Chris,
Very well written. True, all these people are known to us from childhood, we definitely grew up in better times. I just pray rather than hope (that's for dreamers) that sane minds will prevail and all these wonderful minds (no pun intended) come to some consensus for the good of all.
Sincere regards,
Merwyn
Ashley Delaney
Apr 8, 2012, 5:42:06 AM4/8/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
Dear Blaise,
You expect too much from Mario, asking him to give up his
phone. He and his daughter continue to use the cell phones that
they have borrowed from me more than a year ago. Since they were
so opposed to the tower emissions, dont you think they were
ethically obligated to return my phones and start using landlines
a long time ago?
Mog asundi,
Ashley
-- Important: This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and probably doesn't contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or subject to legal or Ashley related privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, (although you may find that hard to believe), you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited by several Commonwealth Acts of Ashley. If you have received this communication in error please notify The Man Ashley immediately and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
Blaise Costabir
Apr 9, 2012, 12:48:01 AM4/9/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
FN
Thanks for the update on NIMBY. That is exactly how I imagined it.
However, you analogy is not quite correct nor reflects my position. A murder may or may not be committed by a knife, even if the knife was used all knives would not be involved.
For the tower to be useful you need mobiles and vice versa. The reason I say to you who are opposed to the tower not just in Saligao, is because if an agitator opposed to a tower on health grounds continues to use a cell phone then he is effected by the NIMBY syndrome. Obviously his cell phone is powered by tower which will cause radiation to someone who lives close to that tower. Therefore if you continue to use a mobile phone while opposing a tower, since there is no safe place to locate it, it is perfect NIMBY thinking.
I have no problem with opposition to a concept/road/treatment plant/generating station etc but I do have an issue if the same opponents want the benefits of the concept/road/treatment plant/generating plant etc. That was is the central issue of my monthly column and not to take sides in Saligao.
Blaise
2012/4/8 Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا <frederic...@gmail.com>
--
Saligao-Net is at http://groups.google.com/group/saligao-net
To post to this group, send email to salig...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe email saligao-net...@googlegroups.com
Christopher Desouza
Apr 9, 2012, 6:35:04 AM4/9/12
to Alan Fernandes, salig...@googlegroups.com
No Mariano was not pursuing a RO course. That was me. Your questions on california are irrelevant to the subject as these were put in long before the actual ramifications were known. With the knowledge that we have today, I do not think the Saligao should do the same. Also Alan if everyone was jumping into a dry well would you? Regards |
|
To: "Christopher Desouza " <goan...@sbcglobal.net> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
dilip dacruz
Apr 9, 2012, 12:45:02 PM4/9/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
Just to clarify my position re the tower in case I'm being misunderstood.
I said there was no evidence of harm (and there isn't despite all the abstracts M&M send.). Cancer is not an issue according to the peer-reviewed literature. And that includes the Scandanavian study and the Brazilian one. Not theoretically (bio-physics) and not epidemiologically. But I qualified my position with the 'just in case' phrase saying it was better well away from residences just in case there were weak side-effects like depression which were difficult to study.
Remember I also pleaded against an impasse, arguing better a tower than none at all. Mobile phones save lives. I see that on a regular basis at work. More 999 calls are made on mobiles than landlines. The arguments for and against a mast will go on and on. It's like blindness and watching TV, or eating butter, or Kennedy's assassination, etc etc. Some arguments never go away.
We need to compromise and move on, avoiding the usual circular arguments. Its unfair for the Delaney's to lose out financially. Its also unfair to expect people who are genuinely scared of the mast to accept it in their midst. So what's the compromise position, anyone?
cruzmi...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [SALIGAONET] Re: Dear Blaise Costabir...
Alan Fernandes
Apr 9, 2012, 8:12:49 PM4/9/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
Chris,
What abt new communities that are coming up in California - don't they have mobile towers for the community what about those ramifications?
If there was a real danger to human life from mobile towers , do you really think california , the most Eco friendly state in the US would allow mobile towers in residential areas?
The problem here is that M&M need to back off from objecting to any development that takes place and let entrepreneurs bring about change and development because soon M&M's credibility will erode and people will start to loose confidence in their cause no matter how genuine the seriousness of the problem is.
May be we need to focus on M&M's motives?
Like dilip da Cruz said "cell phones saves lifes"
Let's see how many people from abreu vaddo who are against the mobile tower because they believe it causes radiation voice their opinion on the saligao net demanding the tower be moved else where.
Alternative solution would be to have a referendum for the people of Abreu Vaddo - those that favor the tower and those that oppose the tower. Best way to resolve this issue once and for all.
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Desouza
Apr 9, 2012, 8:57:59 PM4/9/12
to salig...@googlegroups.com
| I second that suggestion Alan. That is the best thought out solution as I too can see that there are some in Abreu Vaddo for and some opposed and do not forget 500 mts goes into other vaddos. As a matter of note in residential communities in Solano County where I live we do not have cell phones towers in the middle of residences. We do have towers but they are out of the 500 mts range. I would be protesting if one should come within 500 mts of my residence. Regards Chris |
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages