OVER the past few years, many people have written in to make their complaints known about both the burning of new and recycled fuels at Lafarge, and the construction of new mobile phone masts.

They claim that these things cause adverse affects to the environment and people, and fight to have them stopped or removed. These claims however, are largely unsubstantiated as there are many authoritative bodies in place to make sure the effects are minimal or non existent.

What these people don't seem to grasp is the wider effect, not using these fuels and not constructing the extra masts, will have to everybody everywhere.

The main reason for the use of cheaper fuels at Lafarge is surely to cut costs and so provide cheap building materials to build our homes. Do people really want more expensive homes than they already are, especially the new buyers?

And how many of your readers could truly say they could do without their mobile phone? I work as a customer service advisor for a major mobile network, and the industry is constantly trying to cope with higher demand and the consumers' request for new technologies and services.

How are they meant to provide this if nobody wants a mast near their home? When people sign the petitions against masts, if it gave them the choice of a mast, or no mobile coverage at their home, I'm sure they would choose the mast. Especially when they find out that their TV gives out more radiation than their mobile does! Nobody complains to the TV manufacturers.

People should remember that we live in a large community, and to live our lives in the comfort most of us enjoy, using the services and technologies we have, sometimes we have to compromise a little.

A TURNER

Westbury