People Power: Communities Take a Stand for Their Health

People Power: Communities Take a Stand for Their Health

We want to send huge congratulations to the residents of Worthing and the wider public who objected in overwhelming numbers to the proposed 5G mast at Durrington Community Centre (Application Reference AWDM/1596/25). Over 60 letters of objection were submitted. Their concerns included:

• ◆ Adverse visual impact on the local area
• ◆ Proximity to sensitive receptors, including homes, schools, and community centres
• ◆ Potential interference with medical implants and health concerns, including issues raised in prior court cases
• ◆ ICNIRP guidelines being insufficient to protect vulnerable residents

Thanks to their detailed, persistent, and well-evidenced objections, planners refused the application, recognising that the mast would adversely affect the visual character of the area and that superior alternatives were not properly ruled out. This is a clear example of the power of community action.

While we welcome these decisions and actions, the underlying issues remain unresolved:

Limitations of ICNIRP Guidelines and Public Health Considerations

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines are widely relied upon as a blanket safeguard, yet they have been heavily criticised by independent scientists, doctors, and even courts. At best, these Guidelines are inadequate because they set limits for exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation that are approximately one thousand times higher than levels where adverse health effects are already well-known and thoroughly documented in scientific literature.

Responsibility for safety is often divided among multiple authorities, network operators, and medical device suppliers, leaving the public with little direct protection. This makes it all the more important for community voices to be heard, for submissions to be made on local planning decisions, and for people to hold councils and operators accountable.

Scope of ICNIRP guidelines
The ICNIRP RF FAQs explain how exposure limits were developed and emphasise thermal effects as the basis for protection. However, they do not constitute a comprehensive safety assessment of all real-world human exposures, cumulative sources, or non-thermal biological effects.

Critiques of the evidence base
The ICNIRP FAQs state that research with inconsistent or unsubstantiated outcomes is not used to inform limits. Independent scientific reviews have identified methodological concerns and potential bias in the evidence base used to justify current guidelines. This includes significant criticism of recent WHO-commissioned systematic reviews upon which ICNIRP relied.

ICNIRP involvement with WHO
ICNIRP has not only produced its own exposure guidelines but has also had extensive involvement in the World Health Organization’s EMF Project and RF health reviews. Former ICNIRP commissioners and scientific experts have participated in multiple WHO systematic review teams that inform international assessments of RF health effects.

Limitations and public health context
Experts have documented potential conflicts of interest, the exclusion of relevant studies showing associations with health outcomes, and limitations in how exposures were evaluated. These findings raise justified questions about whether the FAQs’ assertions can be taken as a complete assurance of safety across diverse populations and exposure scenarios.

Equality and vulnerable populations
Public authorities have ongoing duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010) to have due regard to the needs of all groups, including those with medical vulnerabilities or sensitivities. Authorities are not restricted to relying solely on ICNIRP compliance when considering public health protections.

UK Government recognition of medical implant interference
The UK Government’s guidance on electromagnetic interference from medical devices confirms that various implants and devices, including pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants, programmable hydrocephalus shunts, ECG monitors, and infusion pumps, can be affected by electromagnetic fields. Manufacturers are required to take measures to mitigate these risks and to include recommended separation distances and information about residual risk in their instructions for use. This demonstrates that interference with medical devices is a recognised technical reality that is not fully addressed by compliance with ICNIRP guidelines alone. Public authorities also have a duty under the Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010) to consider the needs of people with medical vulnerabilities, meaning ICNIRP compliance cannot be the sole consideration when assessing potential harm. (gov.uk)

Gaps in oversight and protection
Currently, local authorities and schools rely primarily on ICNIRP compliance declarations when approving the installation of masts or Wi-Fi infrastructure. There is no standard requirement for authorities to contact individual medical device manufacturers to confirm safety, nor for schools to carry out site-specific risk assessments for vulnerable children or staff. This leaves individuals who rely on life-saving or essential medical devices, including children, people with chronic conditions, and those living with dementia, to manage their own protection in a complex and rapidly expanding RF environment.

Public authorities and central government must therefore assume primary responsibility, ensuring that planning decisions, infrastructure deployment, and monitoring practices actively protect the most vulnerable. Relying solely on ICNIRP compliance or expecting users to manage exposure themselves is insufficient. This systemic gap highlights the urgent need for proactive oversight, precautionary measures, and accountability to safeguard those at greatest risk.

References

1. ICNIRP RF FAQs – current evidence and scope of guidelines (https://www.icnirp.org/en/rf-faq/index.html)
2. Microwave News, ICNIRP Revamp: ICNIRP’s role in WHO EMF project and systematic review teams, Dec 11, 2023 (https://www.microwavenews.com/news-center/icnirp-revamp-closer-ties-who-emf-project)
3. Dahle et al. (2025) Environmental Health, The WHO‑commissioned systematic reviews on RF radiation provide no assurance of safety (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01220-4)
4. ICBE-EMF scientific critique of WHO review methodology (https://icbe-emf.org/scientific-flaws-of-the-who-review-on-cell-phone-radiation-cancer-risk/)
5. Equality Act 2010, Public Sector Equality Duty (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149

These issues have been painstakingly documented in our letters to Sefton Council, available on the Radiation Research Trust Call to Action page. Despite this, Sefton Council continues to rely on central government guidance and ICNIRP compliance. This situation reinforces the urgent need for public authorities and central government to assume primary responsibility, implement precautionary measures, and ensure that planning decisions actively protect those most at risk, rather than leaving the burden on individuals to safeguard themselves. Read our letters to Sefton Council here

Official Planning Refusal Document
You can download and view the Worthing mast refusal document to see the official details of the decision and supporting evidence submitted by the community. (Search by Application Reference AWDM/1596/25 or site address Telecommunication Site Bn0914, North of Durrington Community Centre)
https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/planning/

This PDF contains the full Decision Notice and Delegated Officer Report for the proposed 5G mast at Telecommunication Site Bn0914, North of Durrington Community Centre, Worthing. It documents the planning authority’s refusal, including the reasons related to visual impact and consideration of alternative sites.

Legal protection for public health under the EECC

Ofcom is the National Regulatory Authority, and the local authority is a competent authority under the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), which was brought into UK law in late December 2020 (rfinfo.co.uk). The EECC establishes the legal framework for electronic communications networks and services. Recital 106/110 and Annex I require competent authorities to consider public health in all authorisations for networks and related infrastructure. Authorities must assess potential health impacts and may attach conditions to ensure protection.

ICNIRP guidelines are voluntary scientific recommendations and do not replace this legal duty. Compliance with ICNIRP limits alone does not satisfy the EECC’s binding requirement to protect public health. Authorities are therefore legally required to have health considerations assessed and taken into account in planning and network decisions.

Highlighting Exemplary Local Leadership: Castle Point Borough Council

While many local councils have failed to address public health concerns from 4G and 5G infrastructure, Castle Point Borough Council shows that things can be done differently. Castle Point Borough Council has set a positive example for local leadership on public health and 4G/5G infrastructure. The Council acknowledged the submission made by the EM Radiation Research Trust along with many other community stakeholders during the 2025 public consultations on the Castle Point Plan.

The Council submitted its draft plan for Examination in Public on 31 January 2026. This marks the next formal stage, where an independent Planning Inspector will examine the plan’s soundness and legal compliance. The process is transparent, and public contributions continue to carry weight through representations and public hearings.

Castle Point’s proactive engagement demonstrates that coordinated public input can influence planning decisions, encourage transparency, and ensure that community health is considered. Full details of Castle Point’s plan and our involvement are available here

Merseyside Residents Take Action: Raising Awareness in Their Community

We also want to acknowledge the Merseyside residents’ association for their proactive outreach, going out into public spaces to alert residents about radiofrequency microwave radiation exposures from phone masts, including 5G, and highlighting that ICNIRP does not specifically address vulnerable residents or those with medical implants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfXZGnd3ukU

These are truly inspiring examples of people standing up for their health and community, showing that public engagement and vigilance can influence planning decisions and protect local areas. However, the work is not done. We will continue to demand real protection for vulnerable residents and accountability from authorities.

Call to Action: Take a Stand in Your Community

Follow these examples from Worthing and Liverpool:

◆ Talk to your friends, neighbours, and local community about RF radiation and 5G mast concerns

◆ Gather force and submit objections to local mast applications

◆ Attend public council meetings and raise questions of those in authority

Protecting medical implant users
If you have a medical implant, you can take proactive steps to protect your health. Contact your device supplier for guidance on safe separation distances from RF sources and ask whether their advice considers cumulative exposure from multiple devices and networks. Document all communications, request support from your healthcare provider or local authority, and follow manufacturer recommendations for safe device use. Where possible, join others in your community to request monitoring of RF exposures and submit evidence-based objections when new transmitters are proposed, citing both public health duties and the Equality Act 2010. (gov.uk guidance)

Tools You Can Use

EM Radiation Research Trust 5G Petition: https://radiationresearch.org/5g-petition-why-is-5g-bad/

Non-Consent Forms: https://radiationresearch.org/say-no-to-phone-masts-5g-smart-meters-and-wi-fi-complete-your-non-consent-form/

Parents can gather together and sign the non-consent forms to protect their children from being exposed to wireless radiation at schools from Wi-Fi or phone masts. You can also demand that schools and local authorities provide indemnity details for any possible future compensation claims for adverse health effects or property devaluation attributed to this exposure. Complete the non-consent forms, which include the section below, and return it to the sender:

• Name of policy holder
• Insurance provider
• Policy Number
• Limit of Indemnity

Take action today. Change happens when you take action.