EMOTIONS boiled over at a meeting in Thurlestone called to discuss a proposal to erect a phone mast on the edge of the village.

More than 80 members of the public attended the meeting and there were high emotions on both sides, with people becoming animated and upset.

By the end, the issue had split public opinion down the middle.

Out of the 80 people attending, the vote went 26 'for' and 25 'against', with many abstainers.

Objections to the mast mainly involved perceived health issues surrounding micro-wave emission, siting other EU countries that have legislation on the minimum distances of masts from residences and maximum radiation levels, and the close proximity of the primary school.

One resident left in tears after recounting her medical problems, including ME, and her sensitivity to micro-wave radiation. She said she feared her 'safe haven' would be taken away from her.

One young resident stated the 'youth of the area do not want a phone mast', and it was not just older generations that had health concerns.

Other objections included the siting within an AONB, a possible 10-15 per cent drop in housing prices that have been seen with properties with a view of a communications mast, and the effect on wildlife migration patterns and interference in the behaviour of animals.

One man raised the point that buying a Vodafone 'Sure Signal' box or another brand of signal booster, that can be plugged into your WiFi and can boost the signal in your house without the need for a mast, although these cost in the region of £100-£200, depending on the service provider.

There were also people there who were very passionate about the ability to get phone signal in the area, with one man siting an accident with a family member who slipped and fell while out walking and the lack of phone reception meant that he chose to move her. When he found signal to call an ambulance, he was told by emergency services that it was the wrong thing to do and could have made her condition worse.

One resident who worked in general medical practice stated the life-saving use of mobile phones to contact emergency services and for those practitioners to also be able to contact and locate a patient.

The argument around the quality of medical research on phone masts and the amount of credible evidence supporting or disputing the possible harm from them could have easily continued for hours before the chair called the meeting to a close with a rough poll of raised hands, with 26 for and 25 against.

The proposed mast will be 15-20m high and of lattice construction with a dishes on the side to increase signal on all networks. There are two proposed sites for the mast, one is 100yards before the 30-mile-an-hour sign at the entrance of the village and the other is in Whitlocksworthy, South Milton.