Planning Application Comment FS-Case-654848057
First name:Eileen
Surname:OConnor
Your Comments
Planning Application Reference:24/01485/TEL
Comment Type:Object to the proposalRef: 24/01485/TEL | Installation of a 17.5m high FLI ATS1301 lattice tower, 3No. antennas, 2No. 0.6m dishes, 1No. GPS Node, and 2No. ground-based equipment cabinets and ancillary development to be situated within an 7x7m compound with 2.1m close board timber fence along with the additional installation of native hedgerow | Townsend Hill Ipplepen Devon TQ12 5RU
I am the Co-founder and Charity Director for the EM Radiation Research Trust from 2003 to date:www.radiationresearch.org , Co-founder and Board member for the International EMF Alliance 2009 to date: www.iemfa.org. I was previously a member of the European Commission Stakeholder Dialogue Group on EMF from 2011 – 2014 and a member of the UK Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division EMF Discussion Group from 2006-2008 Chaired by the previous Health Protection Agency Chairman Sir William Stewart. I was a Co-founder and Chair for (SCRAM) Seriously Concerned Residents against Masts. 2002 – 2005.
Both the ICNIRP 1998 and 2020 advice on the risk of certain individuals with metallic implants is beyond the scope of the guidelines.
A Recent High Court case Thomas vs Cheltenham Borough Council ruled that there was a potential risk to people with medical implants below the ICNIRP limits and that this needs to be taken into account by the authority.
And at least two legal rulings in the UK have set a legal precedent for those suffering with Electrohypersensitivity also known as microwave sickness. The Upper Tribunal Judge in August 2022 in the case against East Sussex County Council found that a child with EHS should be considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and ruled that the Council MUST secure special Education, Health and Care Plan. https://phiremedical.org/in
It is common knowledge, and supported by peer reviewed evidence that phone mast radiation and the ICNIRP guidelines raise health & safety concerns, as follows.
• Can disrupt and disable medical devices such as pacemakers. (Outside scope of ICNIRP guidelines.) https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
• Not suitable for those suffering with Electrosensitivity. https://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ES-UK-information-leaflet.pdf
• ICNIRP based on thermally heating effects only. https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/intguidance.asp
• Masts emit pulsed microwave radiation. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)03243-8/fulltext
• RF/microwave radiation is recognised as a class 2B carcinogen by the WHO. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
• Are fire hazards due to electrical faults. https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/guest-commentary-is-5g-a-potential-fire-hazard/
• ICNIRP conflicts of interest stated by a judgement at the Turin Court of Appeal. https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Turin-Verdict-ICNIRP_Judgment-SUMMARY-of-the-Turin-Court-of-Appeal-9042019_EN-min.pdf
• Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9
• Paolo Vecchia, ICNIRP Chair from 2004 until 2012 said “the ICNIRP guidelines are neither mandatory prescriptions for safety, the “ last word” on the issue nor are they defensive walls for Industry or others.” Slide no (16) https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/021145_vecchia.pdf
Research that has shown significant adverse health effects for people living near masts that emit radiofrequency radiation. Here is a link to a list of peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around mobile phone masts as of the end of 2020. Out of 33 studies, 32 report health problems.
https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/scientific-studies-of-human-health-around-mobile-phone-base-stations.pdf
Campaigners have already successfully claimed against Brighton and Hove Council with Hutchison 3G as the interested party in the landmark legal ruling in November 2021 at the Planning Court, Queen’s Bench Division, High Court of Justice, London with The Honourable Mr Justice Holgate who overturned the local authority approval for the 5G mast to be sited close to a primary school. The ruling found that the Council “failed to address the health impacts” of the mast and was ordered to pay claimants costs of £13,340. https://rfinfo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Consent-Order-02.11.21.pdf
The BioInitative Working Group reviewed thousands of scientific papers that show biological harm from such radiation emissions. This group of experts calls for the precautionary approach and urgent action due to chronic EMF-related diseases that are a potential risk for everyone. https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/
The case of Yasmin Skelt vs Secretary of State (John Prescott) and Three Bridges District Council and Orange (2003), made it clear that it is not acceptable for local planners to accept an ICNIRP certificate according to a High Court Judge who highlighted “failure to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns of the claimant in his decision letter.” The First Secretary of State offered to concede the case and to pay reasonable costs.
We call on planning officials to reject this application and launch a full investigation calling for a complete review of the whole planning process for this technology taking health into consideration based on independent research.
Eileen O’Connor
Director EM Radiation Research Trust
www.radiationresearch.org