Object to Phone Masts
OBJECTIONS TO PHONE MASTS
Summary of Links in this document
(NB where a link starts with https://web.archive.org it means the original report / page is no longer on the original internet location but is found at www.archive.org ) :
Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 - Telecommunications - August 2001 (PPG8) (paragraph 10) states: "Pre-application discussions should also be carried out by the operator with other organisations with an interest in proposed development, such as residents groups, parish councils or amenity bodies".
PPG8 is being ignored, therefore, Planning Applications should be refused and applicants invited to reapply when ALL such discussions/presentations have taken place.
a) Installation masts will, under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Principle, violate the human rights of residents.
b) The Government directive on phone mast planning applications was effectively overturned by the then Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, the Rt Hon John Prescott. On 26 September 2003 a High Court Judge signed a Consent Order that finalised the quashing of a Planning Inspectorate appeal decision. The decision, to allow an Orange mobile phone mast to be erected in Grove Way, Chorleywood, was over-turned on the basis of the Inspector's "failure to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns of the claimant in his decision letter". The case in question is Yasmin Skelt -v- The First Secretary of State and Three Bridges District Council and Orange PCS Limited.
c) In the words of previous High Court rulings, such guidelines must not be allowed to "fetter the decision-maker's discretion" in the planning process. The 2003 Ruling makes it crystal clear how that principle should operate in practice.
This Decision makes it very clear that slavish adherence to PPG8 and unquestioning reliance on ICNIRP certification, is not sufficient to ignore health concerns. PPG8 is guidance. From that point, PPG8 was no longer (and should never have been) 'carte blanche' for masts to go up anywhere and everywhere with a total disregard for legitimate public health concerns.
This ruling has not since been overruled. Therefore, LPAs are legally required to consider the health implications of mobile phone masts when making a decision on planning applications for such masts. (see
The 2011 IARC (WHO) Report
From May 24th to 31st 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organisation, in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields:
• occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves;
• environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and
• personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones.
Their conclusion was as follows -
Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification [note - uprated from a group 3 classification]. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
Notes on grouping of health dangers
• Group 2B - 'Possibly carcinogenic to humans'; Note that other substances classified as Class 2B include diesel exhaust, chloroform, jet fuel, lead and DDT.
• Group 3 - 'Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans'
Note – in other words, radiation from mobile phones and masts (“personal” and “environmental” exposure) has been internationally recognised for the past 2½ years as a possible carcinogen.
Councils need to decide who will be liable for damages should low-level electromagnetic radiation from a mobile phone mast which they have allowed to be erected be proven to have caused these ‘possible’ cancers.
Has the District Council made suitable arrangements to deal with such claims? As a Council Tax payer, I require the legal position regarding liability on this issue to be clarified.
It is very telling that many insurance companies are now excluding Public Liability cover in respect of telecommunications masts.
The Stewart Report
In May 2000, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, under the leadership of Professor Sir William Stewart, presented their government-sponsored report ("Mobile phones and health") to the nation. This study of the possible health effects of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters adopted an evidence-based approach. That is to say, it conducted an extensive review of the literature and then asked for evidence from experts, members of the public, representatives of government, interest groups and the industry.
There were nine conclusions published in the report. They are:
1. The use of mobile phones will continue to increase.
2. Evidence to date does not suggest a general health risk.
3. Some scientific evidence shows that radio-frequency (RF) radiation may affect biological function. It is not possible to say, therefore that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects.
4. A precautionary approach should be adopted until more detailed information becomes available.
5. Emissions from masts will be many times less than emissions from handsets.
6. Some people's well-being may be adversely affected by the environmental impact of mobile phone base stations (masts) sited next to houses, schools or other buildings, as well as by fear of perceived direct effects.
7. All base stations, including those under 15 metres, should have permitted development rights revoked and the siting of all new base stations (masts) should be subject to the normal planning process.
8. The use of mobile phones while driving is dangerous.
9. The widespread use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged.
Unfortunately, the Government always 'cherry pick' the Stewart Report to add their own 'spin' to the claims about the safety of any new mast or network. The Government and the mast companies always quote conclusions 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 (usually only 2). They never quote conclusions 3, 4, 6 or 7.
The Government announced, in April 2001, that planning controls over new masts would be improved. But the sting in the tail was a statement that “concerns over health may not be considered as a legitimate planning issue when approving new phone mast sites”. This first appeared in a press release dated 16 March 2001 from the then Planning Minister Nick Raynsford. This 'health' statement contradicts conclusions 4, 6 and 7 from the Stewart Report. Why?
Stewart is very clear on the value of a precautionary approach: No masts near schools
The Stewart Report lines up with Human Rights and other legislation, as follows: the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Precautionary Principle (Maastricht Treaty 1993) are very strongly supported by Stewart's conclusions numbers 3, 4 and 6. It is very likely that, in the future, UK legislation will have to fall into line with European legislation: the UK is bound by treaty to this, and yet the UK government has not yet incorporated the Precautionary Principle into environmental planning policy or guidance. The Human Rights Act is of course already embodied in British Law.
Author - Mike Barratt July 2001.
After 7 years of exposure to radiation from a mobile phone mast erected in the village in 1994, 77% of the population became ill with sleep problems, headaches, dizziness and low immune system problems, the likely cause being radiation from the mast.
Among those living in the 18 houses within a 500-yard radius of the mast there were 20 cases of serious illness, including cancers of the breast, prostate, bladder, lung and motor neurone disease.
A horse nearby had blood problems, with continuous treatment needed by the vet.
One extraordinarily important fact is that since the Wishaw Mast was pulled down in November 2003, many of the residents reported a restored feeling of well-being, an improvement in their sleep patterns and increased energy levels. The headaches and dizzy symptoms have also disappeared. The village also saw something of a baby boom with three babies born in the village: one of the women had previously had treatment for pre-cancer cervical cells, another had previously suffered a miscarriage.
The residents also noted a return of wildlife in the area and the horse has since recovered and is now strong and healthy and no longer needs treatment.
Author: Eileen O´Connor
Trustee for the EM Radiation Research Trust: www.radiationresearch.org
1st October 2005
b) The Naila Study
The Naila Study, (Germany, November 2004), conducted over 10 years, was released by The Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, Germany. Medical doctors compiled case histories since 1994 - 2004, looking at heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumours. They discovered a threefold increase after five years exposure to microwave radiation from a mobile phone mast transmitter for up to 400 metres distance, compared to those patients living further away.
c) The Wolf Study, Kaplan, Israel and others
A study carried out by Ronni Wolf MD and Danny Wolf MD, of the Kaplan Medical Centre in Israel (April 2004) discovered a fourfold increase in cancer within 350 metres after long-term exposure to microwave radiation from a mobile phone mast and a tenfold increase specifically among women, compared to patients living away from the mast.
Other short-term mobile phone mast studies have also found significant health effects such as headaches, dizziness, depression, fatigue, sleep disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems.
d) The Freiburger Appeal
In October 2002 a team of German medical doctors started the Freiburger Appeal. After seeing a dramatic rise in severe and chronic diseases, they had noted a clear temporal and spatial correlation between disease and exposure to microwave radiation. The appeal has since been signed by thousands of doctors.
“Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar to us, we can see, especially after carefully-directed inquiry, a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as: Installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity….
What we experience in the daily reality of our medical practice is anything but hypothetical! We see the rising number of chronically sick patients also as the result of an irresponsible "safety limits policy", which fails to take the protection of the public from the short- and long-term effects of mobile telephone radiation as its criteria for action.
Instead, it submits to the dictates of a technology already long recognized as dangerous. For us, this is the beginning of a very serious development through which the health of many people is being threatened. We will no longer be made to wait upon further unreal research results - which in our experience are often influenced by the communications industry, while evidential studies go on being ignored. We find it to be of urgent necessity that we act now!”
e) Case study : the village of Benajarafe, Spain
The residents of the Spanish village of Benajarafe had long feared that a mobile phone mast has been causing cancer in their village. They have now scored a massive victory by having it removed.
After a two year battle, Vodafone has been ordered to take down the controversial transmitter. The locals are adamant that the mast, which stands just metres from their houses was the reason for a high incidence of recent cancer deaths. Of the nearly 400 residents there have been a staggering 50 cases of cancer with more than 30 people dying in recent years.
Many others claim to have been suffering from insomnia, headaches, depression and memory disorders due to the mast. Following numerous protests Velez Malaga Town Hall issued a municipal order in 2009 to have it taken down as its construction 16 years ago was not licensed. After Vodafone lost an appeal against the order, the town hall received notification that it could be removed.
f) Study reported in Clinical Biochemistry journal
Case Report - Egypt
How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?
This study is concerned with assessing the role of exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) emitted either from mobiles or base stations and its relations with human's hormone profiles.
Design and methods
All volunteers' samples were collected for hormonal analysis.
This study showed significant decrease in volunteers' ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels.
The present study revealed that high RFR effects on pituitary–adrenal axis.
This study is concerned with assessing the role of long-term exposure to high radio frequency radiation emitted either from mobile phones or from base stations and its relations with human's hormone profiles. All volunteers were followed for 6 years and blood samples were collected regularly every 3 years for time intervals of 1 year, 3 years and 6 years for hormonal analysis and the blood samples were taken at 8.0 a.m. This study showed reduction in volunteers' plasma ACTH, serum cortisol levels. Also, they showed decrease in the release of the thyroid hormones especially T3. In addition, each of their serum prolactin in young females (14–22 years), and testosterone levels significantly dropped due to long-term exposure to radio frequency radiation. Conversely, serum prolactin levels for adult females (25–60 years) significantly rose with increasing exposure time.
In conclusion, the present study revealed that high radio frequency radiation effects on pituitary–adrenal axis represented in the reduction of ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin in young females, and testosterone levels.
Clinical Biochemistry -
Volume 45, Issues 1–2, January 2012, Pages 157–161
Authors: Emad F.Eskander, Selim F. Estefan, Ahmed A. Abd-Rabou Hormones Department, Medical Research Division, National Research Centre, Cairo, 12622, Egypt. Fax: + 20 2 33370931.
Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists.
g) Non-ionising radiation from mobile phone masts – health issues and the body’s negative feedback mechanisms .
People living close to mobile phone masts (base stations) frequently report symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity such as dizziness, headaches, skin conditions, allergies and many others, the mechanisms for which are only just beginning to be understood. There is also growing anecdotal evidence for cancer clusters forming around them. However, we are regularly told by the mobile phone industry that these base stations are safe because their microwave radiation falls off rapidly with distance and is far too low to generate significant heat. Sadly, this is not true. It is based on the false assumption that it is only their heating effect that can cause damage and a serious misunderstanding of the ways in which living organisms use negative feedback to respond to changes in their environment, including the metabolic insults from mobile phones.
There are hundreds of scientific papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals showing biological effects from non-ionising radiation that may be hundreds or thousands of times below the levels that cause significant heating. Furthermore, these non-thermal effects include many independent and well-replicated studies showing that the radiation from mobile phone handsets can cause serious damage to the DNA of living cells in less than 24 hours, so we cannot regard these handsets as being safe for anything other than short-term use.
Because of the extreme sensitivity of at least some cells to mobile phone radiation, it is likely that the much weaker radiation reaching people living or working close to base stations will also suffer adverse effects. Claims by the mobile phone industry that the base stations are safe because the radiation falls off rapidly with distance are flawed. Although the radiation level does indeed fall off as they say, the biological response will remain more or less constant over a wide range of signal strengths due to the ways in which living cells routinely use ‘negative feedback’ to compensate for changes in their environment.
Living cells have a range of negative feedback mechanisms that sense non-thermal radiation damage and use it to trigger various defence systems. These systems are expensive in energy and resources and also reduce metabolic efficiency. The object therefore has to be to keep this damage within ’tolerable’ limits rather than to eliminate it. They do this by cutting in only when they approach the limits of toleration. The effect is to keep the damage at or close to these ‘trigger points’ over a wide range of radiation levels, ranging from that due to a mobile phone handset held close to the head, to that from a mast, which may be hundreds of metres away.
The radiation from a handset may actually be less damaging since it is used only intermittently and the body has a chance to recover in between times. However, continuous irradiation from mobile phone base stations, DECT phone base stations and Wifi routers may not allow adequate recovery time, so chronic irradiation from these sources could be far more damaging and more likely to result in cancer, allergy-related conditions and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. There is an urgent need for further research in this area, since the assumption that the only biological effects of non-ionising radiation are due to heating, and fall off rapidly with distance, no longer fits the facts.
Author - Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD is an Honorary Lecturer in Biology at Imperial College London. March 2008
h) Non-ionising radiation from mobile phone masts – research into health issues
Masts produce microwaves, we all know what these do, they defrost our bread, warm up our food, cook our dinners, we know they HEAT. The emissions from these masts are the same except much lower so they do not heat the body up quite so much, though it still has an effect on our bodies, but none considered to be a problem by many Government bodies. So as long as masts produce emissions below a set level they say its okay. However heating is not the only effect of microwaves. The non-heating effects that scientists have now proved change the cell and how it works are NOT regulated in this country so there is no measure, no control and no research - except on the population of Great Britain! Many eminent scientists argue that there is a link between cancer/leukaemia and the siting of these masts. Cancer involves the mutation and duplication of cells - cells change – it has been proved that pulsing microwave emissions cause changes in living cells. We are all intelligent enough to come to our own conclusions!!
The radiation is known to affect systems in the brain influencing it in a way that can cause headaches and also memory problems, two of the most widely reported side effects. It also shortens the duration of REM sleep and the secretion of a substance called melatonin decreases. Both of these effects are consistent with reports of sleep disruption. It's also a fact that during the 'Cold War', the same emissions that come from masts were used (successfully!!) by the Soviets to induce serious adverse health effects in the staff and children of Western Embassies in Eastern Bloc countries!
Due to the diversity of people and the way each person's body reacts to external influences, not all people are affected and the severity of reactions will vary from person to person, according to the robustness of their immune system. This makes the occurrence of non-thermal effects more difficult to predict and therefore more difficult to regulate and control, this does not mean however that they should be ignored.
Children are particularly susceptible because they are still growing (so their cells are dividing at a faster rate) and their nervous system is still developing. On top of that their immune systems are also weaker than adults and their skulls are smaller and thinner causing them to absorb substantially more radiation than adults. The electrical brain wave activity does not settle into a stable pattern until the age of 12 so below this age their brain waves are more susceptible to interference from the microwave emissions - similar to radio interference.
Mobile phone masts do not give off the same emissions as TV/Radio transmission. Television and radio emissions from other telecommunication units have continuous waves, mobile phone emissions PULSE. The frequency at which they pulse closely resembles the frequency of the electrical pulses of the brain. It is believed that this is why there are increased reports of epilepsy, depression, headaches, migraines, etc. in communities and schools that have masts.
The telecommunication companies and the Government agencies CANNOT categorically say that occurrences of cancer and leukaemia, especially in children, are not directly associated with the siting of masts, maybe in the school grounds, maybe on top of a block of flats. These masts are everywhere and most people don't know they're there. You might be suffering from one of the known problems and not realise why.
i) Adverse Health Effects on Humans
Documenting the health hazards of this Wireless Age, The World Health Organization (WHO), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in 2011, announced that Radiofrequency (RF) Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) can possibly cause cancer, "based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use."
The microwave (MW) radiation emitted from Wi-Fi and devices such as smart meters closely resembles that of cell and cordless phones, according to Dr. Carpenter and Dr. Olle Johansson, and therefore are possibly cancerous as well, with children absorbing "as much as twice the microwave radiation as adults." Children’s risk from exposure to a carcinogen and neurotoxin, like RF/MW, increases "as age decreases," L. Lloyd Morgan testified in Oregon’s U.S District Court.
The effects of RF electromagnetic radiation (EMR), specifically microwave radiation, have been documented for some time. In the 1950’s, thousands of workers were suffering after the implementation of microwave technology developed during World War II. In an effort to study and treat those affected, clinics were established in Moscow, Leningrad, and other cities in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe for the new occupational disease – Radio Wave Sickness – presenting symptoms such as:
"Insomnia, headaches, dizziness, nausea, memory loss, difficulty concentrating, irritability, respiratory illness (bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia), flu-like illness, asthma, fatigue, weakness, pressure or pain in the chest, increase in blood pressure, altered pulse rate (usually slowed), pressure behind the eyes, other eye problems, swollen throat, dry lips or mouth, dehydration, sweating, fever, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, tremors, pain in the legs or the soles of the feet, testicular or pelvic pain, joint pain, pains that move around the body, nosebleeds, internal bleeding, hair loss, digestive problems, skin rash, ringing in the ears, impaired sense of smell, pain in the teeth (especially with metallic fillings)," Arthur Firstenberg wrote in his Radio Wave Packet.
Many of these people developed anxiety, depression, or emotional instability, and upon physical exam presented unequal pupil size, altered reflexes, heart arrhythmias, EKG and EEG abnormalities, and, in advanced stages, signs that the heart and brain were being deprived of oxygen. "Most clinicians reported that about 15% of microwave workers developed symptoms of radio wave sickness, and that about 2% had to permanently cease working… Workers were exposed to microwave radiation during work hours only, and to levels of radiation less than what the general public is exposed to currently for hours per day, or even all the time, from cell phone and wireless Internet technologies."
In her book, Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, B. Blake Levitt wrote:
"The Soviet Union did some interesting RF/MW research on behavioral aberrations that is unparalleled in the United States. It has been known for many years that low-intensity EMFs produce adverse effects on the autonomic and central nervous systems of humans and animals in strengths far too low to cause tissue heating. For years U.S. researchers dismissed much of the Soviet research, partly for political reasons but also because they could not replicate many of the studies because the Soviets (for security reasons of their own) left out important details. With the end of the Cold War, some of these gaps have been filled and American researchers have been able to replicate some Soviet work."
Physicians today, like Dr. Klinghardt, say the main symptom in every patient we see is, "loss of zest." People are still living, but more of a half-life, with a loss of "enthusiasm, sex drive, and joy." This is consistent with the findings of his colleagues in other practices in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. "What is it that has changed in the last 15-20 years? …What we discovered is very simple - it’s the exposure to electromagnetic fields."
Researchers today are correlating symptoms, "such as sleep disturbance, fatigue, memory loss, headaches, depression, dizziness and tremors—the same symptoms reported by Soviet doctors half a century ago — with either intensity of cell phone use or proximity of homes to communication towers."
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) says many studies, reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, demonstrate the harmful biological, non-heating effects of RF exposure, including:
• Genetic damage – chromosomal instability, gene mutations, altered gene expression, DNA structural breaks and fragmentation found in neurons, sperm, red blood cells, blood lymphocytes, hematopoietic tissue, epithelial and lung cells, and bone marrow;
• Neurological damage – "increase in blood-brain barrier permeability and oxidative damage, which are associated with brain cancer and neurodegenerative diseases" such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Headaches, tremors, dizziness, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased attention, memory, and reaction times, visual disruption, and sleep disturbances have been reported;
• Nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, reproductive defects, developmental effects, and cancer.
In Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, B. Blake Levitt wrote:
"In humans, EMFs in various frequencies have been found to adversely affect calcium binding at the cell surface, DNA synthesis, and cell division; to alter circadian rhythms, affect or alter some important enzyme activities, and affect specific glands like the pineal and the hypothalamus area of the brain as well as the production of certain neurotransmitters, like serotonin and dopamine production; to increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier; to create artificial stress responses; to overstimulate the immune system initially, then suppress [it] and decrease T-lymphocyte production; and to promote malignant tumor growth with particular concentrations in the central nervous system, in the blood and skeletal systems, and in glandular tissue. The eyes, the brain, and the testes seem to be especially prone to abnormal effects from the RF frequencies. The eye serves to amplify some RF/MW frequencies, which is probably why increases in posterior cataracts have been observed in some microwave workers. (Microwaves are also known to increase drug sensitivity in people taking glaucoma medication). The testes are very close to the body’s surface, which is probably why increases in testicular cancer have been reported in law-enforcement officers who have rested functioning radar guns in their laps."
One study by the University of Athens, showed over an of eight month period 143 proteins in the brain were affected by the Radiofrequency radiation of a cell phone or DECT portable phone, "including proteins that have been correlated so far with Alzheimer’s, glioblastoma, stress, and metabolism… This study is anticipated to throw light in the understanding of such health effects like headaches, dizziness, sleep disorders, memory disorders, brain tumors, all of them related, to the function of the altered brain proteins."
An increasing number of people are becoming hypersensitive due to electromagnetic radiation. Studies on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) began in earnest in the 1990's; they found that "the EMF involved was usually within the non-ionizing range of the electromagnetic spectrum," the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum utilized by cell and cordless phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, etc.
The AAEM says EHS "has been documented in controlled and double blind studies with exposure to various EMF frequencies," with pulsed frequencies shown to "consistently provoke neurological symptoms in a blinded subject…"
"A collection of scientists and physicians recently conducted a double-blinded research study that concluded that EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally-inducible neurological syndrome (McCarty et al., 2011 )" County of Santa Cruz Health Officer said.
Using radio frequency meters, Canadian researcher, Dr. Magda Havas, demonstrates the biological effects of Wi-Fi, and "how wireless household appliances such as portable phones, Wi-Fi base stations and DECT baby monitors broadcast constant microwave radiation that are similar in intensity a few hundred meters away from a large cell phone tower.
j) Bavarian State Government Study – impact on cattle and sheep (Although not of direct relevance, indirectly reflects the detriment on other/similar organisms)
A study, funded by the Bavarian State Government in Germany, was set up in response to reports of adverse health effects in dairy cattle, after a Telecoms mast had been erected for TV and cell phone transmission. Scientists documented a significant drop in milk yield and behavioural disorders in some of the cows that related to the microwave transmissions from the mast.
When the cattle were moved to a farm 20 km away, their milk yield and behaviour returned to normal within days. When the cattle were returned to the mast environment their symptoms returned as well.
Fodder analysis and the amount of feed could not account for the changes among the cattle. Analysis of aborted foetal material did not find any pathogens causing the abortion based on microscope and cultural examination and on serological tests. Autopsy of dead cows reported acute heart and circulatory collapse with internal bleeding from several organs.
Exposure to RFR at the stable entrance was 80microW/cm with the highest reading reported on the farm near the barn being 350microW/cm. These values are much lower than the FCC guideline of 1000 microW/cm.
Because of the ubiquitous usage of electric power and the increasing spread of high-frequency transmitters for mobile communication and TV & Radio broadcasting, humans and animals in highly industrialized countries are these days exposed to electrical and magnetic fields to a degree which exceeds the natural tension levels of relevant fields by a magnitude and presents a new influencing quantity in the evolutionary history of humans and animals (Katalyse 1994).
For a long time the possibility of an influence of weak electrical and magnetic fields on the well-being of humans and animals has simply been ignored. The limits were only relating to acute cases of health impairment which can occur at some workplaces under extremely high exposure rates. The ever increasing knowledge of the biological effects of even weak electrical and magnetic fields as well as numerous epidemiological studies with the focus on a possible increase in the risk of cancer through field exposure have, however, led in the last ten to fifteen years to an altered discussion of the possible risk potential of such fields (Adey 1993; Hendee and Boteler 1994; Katalyse 1994; Meinert and Michaelis 1996; Robert 1993; Savitz 1995; Shaw and Croen 1993; Sobel et al. 1996; Wertheimer and Leeper 1994).
As one can be protected well from electrical fields in contrast to magnetic fields, the effects of such fields on human and animal health are rarely the focus of scientific research. In comparison, low-frequency magnetic fields can practically penetrate any matter without being slowed down, and high-frequency electromagnetic fields and waves can cause biological effects - even in greater distance from their source – which are possibly connected to health risks (Katalyse 1994). Fields of this type which are a necessity of civilisation and have certain health effects are commonly known as "Electrosmog".
The question of a possible risk of cancer, which today cannot be discounted mainly because of numerous findings based on experiments with animals (Liburdy and Löscher 1997; Löscher and Mevissen 1994), occupies the foreground of public debate about possible health risks through exposure to low-frequency magnetic or high-frequency electromagnetic fields. In addition, there are extensive indications of interactions of magnetic fields with the hormonal balance, biorhythm, immune system, nervous system, behavioural patterns and psychological functions, interactions which can have a detrimental effect on health (Katalyse 1994; Liburdy u. Löscher 1997; Löscher u. Liburdy 1998). In this connection it is often forgotten that not only humans but also pets and farm animals who are exposed can suffer such impairments to their health because of field exposure, for example in the vicinity of high tension pylons or transmitting antennas (Marks et al. 1995). Similarly to epidemiological studies on humans with field exposed workplaces the risk of breast cancer for hundreds living in apartments with high flux densities of low-frequency (60 Hertz) magnetic fields was seven times higher in comparison with animals that were not exposed (Reif et al. 1995), a finding that can be explained by the "Melatonin Hypothesis" of magnetic field effects (Löscher and Mevissen 1997).
A series of earlier studies looked at the effect of magnetic fields on farm animals. Lee et al. (1997) discovered that sheep which had been grazing in close proximity to a high tension mast, showed an impaired immune system. Examinations of dairy cows that had been exposed to magnetic fields resulted in inconsistent findings which ranged from no influence at all to a reduction in milk yield, changed milk composition and fertility problems (Algen and Hultgren 1985a, b, 1987; Amstutz and Miller 1980; Angell et al. 1990; Burchard et al. 1996; Marks et al. 1995; Martin et al. 1986).
A recently publicized study discovered a significant increase of micronuclei in erythrocyte in the blood of cattle grazing on a farm near a transmitting facility. This is an indication of a genotoxic effect of the exposure (Balode 1996). (source: http://www.whale.to/b/loscher.html )
k) Impact on bees
Bees have clusters of magnetite in the abdominal areas. Colony collapse disorder (CCD) was observed in beehives exposed to 900 MHz for 10 minutes, with sudden disappearance of a hive’s inhabitants, leaving only queen, eggs, and a few immature workers behind. With navigational skills affected, worker bees stopped coming to the hives after 10 days and egg production in queen bees dropped drastically to 100 eggs/day compared to 350 eggs (Sharma and Kumar, 2010). Radiation affects the pollinators, honeybees, whose numbers have recently been declining due to CCD by 60% at US West Coast apiaries and 70% along the East Coast (Cane and Tepedino, 2001). CCD is being documented in Greece, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland. Studies performed in Europe documented navigational disorientation, lower honey production, and decreased bee survivorship (Kimmel et al., 2007). EMFs from telecommunication infrastructure interfere with bees’ biological clocks that enable them to compensate properly for the sun’s movements, as a result of which, may fly in the wrong direction when attempting to return to the hive (Rubin et al., 2006). Bee colonies irradiated with digital enhanced cordless communications (DECT) phones and mobile handsets had a dramatic impact on the behavior of the bees, namely by inducing the worker piping signal. In natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony (Favre, 2011). Review Article Biology and Medicine, 4 (4): 202–216, 2012 Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem – a review
Authors: S Sivani*, D Sudarsanam, Department of Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
*Corresponding Author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Accepted: 3rd Dec 2012, Published: 6th Jan 2013
Non-ionising radio frequencies can affect important pigments; for example, Ritz and co-workers (Nature, Vol. 429, 13th May 2004) showed that they affect the normal functioning of cryptochrome.
Birds, bees and other animals use cryptochrome to sense the direction of the earth's magnetic field for navigation, and radio waves can interfere with this. In fact, the cryptochromes are a family of pigments, present in virtually all animal and plant cells, where they also form a vital part of the biological clock that senses time. In animals that use the sun for navigation, an accurate sense of time is important because it enables them to compensate for its changing position throughout the day.
In the case of bees, which can use either magnetic or solar navigation, radio waves from mobile phone masts will leave them with little or no sense of direction. This is probably the main contributory factor to the so-called colony collapse disorder in which foraging bees simply do not return to the hive. The bees are clearly severely disturbed by this sort of radiation since, if you place an iDECT cordless phone base station (emitting non-ionising radiation similar to that emitted by a mobile phone mast) next to a hive, the bees leave and do not return. These effects now threaten the very survival of the bee population, which in turn threatens us because many of our crops depend on them for pollination.
Link now at:
The potentially disastrous decline in bees, a vital pollinating element in food production for the growing global population, is likely to continue unless humans profoundly change their ways, from the use of insecticides to air pollution, according to a United Nations report released today.
“The way humanity manages or mismanages its nature-based assets, including pollinators, will in part define our collective future in the 21st century,” UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Achim Steiner said. “The fact is that of the 100 crop species that provide 90 per cent of the world’s food, over 70 are pollinated by bees.”
UN report - 10 March 2011
The electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phone towers and cellphones can pose a threat to honey bees, a study published in India has concluded.
An experiment conducted in the southern state of Kerala found that a sudden fall in the bee population was caused by towers installed across the state by cellphone companies to increase their network.
The electromagnetic waves emitted by the towers crippled the "navigational skills" of the worker bees that go out to collect nectar from flowers to sustain bee colonies, said Dr. Sainuddin Pattazhy, who conducted the study, the Press Trust of India news agency reported.
He found that when a cell phone was kept near a beehive, the worker bees were unable to return, leaving the hives with only the queens and eggs and resulting in the collapse of the colony within ten days.
Over 100,000 people in Kerala are engaged in apiculture and the dwindling worker bee population poses a threat to their livelihood. The bees also play a vital role in pollinating flowers to sustain vegetation.
If towers and mobile phones further increase, honey bees might be wiped out in 10 years, Pattazhy said. (source: http://phys.org/news170920128.html#jCp )
There may be Bats in the vicinity of the mast in this application. It is well known that mobile phone mast emissions affect the sonar of these animals and therefore carry a very real threat to them. All species of bats are endangered and therefore are protected under British and International Law. Significant consideration must be given to this issue when making the planning decision, since any harm to bats as a result of radiation from the mast will be a legal offence.
Rowena Varley, of Cornwall Wildlife Trust's bat group, said: "The scientific evidence we've received suggests that bats … might well suffer biological damage through emissions from these masts."
Although the Government has made repeated assurances that people are at no health risk from the phone masts, it is suspected that the electromagnetic radiation which they emit may have a detrimental effect on bat colonies. Research on the effects of mast emissions has found that they cause DNA damage in the brain cells of rats. Wildlife groups fear that prolonged exposure could cause similar damage in bats.
Ms Varley said: "It's likely that transmission of signals within the range of frequencies used by bats for echo-location might interfere with their ability to feed and navigate." Bats are not believed to use their echo location system in areas with which they are familiar, and it is feared they may fly into new masts and be killed or injured.
A review on the impact of radiofrequency radiation from wireless telecommunications on wildlife is presented. Electromagnetic radiation is a form of environmental pollution which may hurt wildlife. Phone masts located in their living areas are irradiating continuously some species that could suffer long-term effects, like reduction of their natural defenses, deterioration of their health, problems in reproduction and reduction of their useful territory through habitat deterioration. Electromagnetic radiation can exert an aversive behavioral response in rats, bats and birds such as sparrows. Therefore microwave and radiofrequency pollution constitutes a potential cause for the decline of animal populations and deterioration of health of plants living near phone masts. To measure these effects urgent specific studies are necessary.
Electromagnetic radiation can exert an aversive behavioural response in bats. Bat activity is significantly reduced in habitats exposed to an electromagnetic field strength greater than 2 V/m . During a study in a free-tailed bat colony (Tadarida teniotis) the number of bats decreased when several phone masts were placed 80m from the colony
In the light of current knowledge there is enough evidence of serious effects from this technology to wildlife. For this reason precautionary measures should be developed, alongside environmental impact assessments prior to installation, and a ban on installation of phone masts in protected natural areas and in places where endangered species are present. Surveys should take place to objectively assess the severity of effects.
Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife
Author: Alfonso Balmori Direccion General del Medio Natural, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y Leon, C/Rigoberto Cortejoso,
14, 47014 Valladolid, Spain
Received 10 August 2008; received in revised form 28 August 2008; accepted 30 January 2009
(source: http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Balmori+2009.pdf )
There is a very real possibility that it could be argued that ES victims are suffering from a disability. If so, it would be illegal under UK Law for any public body to discriminate against them - including allowing the installation of a mobile phone mast and thus causing their symptoms to worsen.
The following information need to be taken into consideration in the decision as to whether or not to allow the installation of the mobile phone mast
Electro-sensitivity (ES) is a condition which can develop when people are exposed to things like computers, cordless phones, low energy lighting, mobile phones, mobile phone masts, powerlines, smart meters, substations and WiFi.
Anyone can develop electrical sensitivity, at any age, including children. Studies show that a small number (under 1%) of people are badly affected, 3-8% moderately sensitive, and up to 30% are slightly sensitive.
Electromagnetic (EM) fields and radiation from electrical and wireless appliances, at home, at work and outside, can provoke ES. The most common symptoms are head/ear pain when using a mobile phone, headaches and sleep disruption when living near a phone mast or WiFi, sleeplessness, lethargy, miscarriages and depression living near powerlines, or redness and burning on the face or arms when using a computer. Other symptoms include nose bleeds, tinnitus, poor focus/attention, dizziness, anxiety, skin tingling, burning sensations, concentration and memory problems, muscle and joint pains, cardiac palpitations, fatigue, irritability and erratic high blood pressure.
Unfortunately, ES is often progressive. The sufferer may become sensitive to a wider range of frequencies, or their symptoms may become more severe. They may react to chemicals or develop other allergies.
Cordless and mobile phones, phone masts, powerlines, smart meters, low energy lighting and WiFi are NOT safe? The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies powerline and radio frequency radiation as class 2B possible cancer agents. Some scientists say they should now be class 2A probable or class 1 certain. Hundreds of scientific studies show increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, brain tumours, cancer, cardiovascular effects, damage to DNA, depression, fertility problems, leukaemia and miscarriages.
Unfortunately, the UK government still follows poor and outdated advice from Public Health England (PHE) and its Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR). This protects the public only from acute heating effects, although these high limits are obsolete according to the European Parliament.
The current scientific consensus accepts that long-term, low-level EM exposure is harmful and that some people are more sensitive to it than others. Some other countries and their courts now recognise that ES exists, that mobile phone masts and WiFi cause ES symptoms, and that mobile phones can cause brain tumours.
Source - Electrosensitivity UK leaflet.
Sweden now has a medical register of 285,000 people who are sensitive to non-ionising radiation and California 700,000. We believe these figures are underestimated, since many people are not aware that their symptoms are connected to a condition known as electro-sensitivity or hypersensitivity (EHS) people. However, if the same figures apply to the UK this could indicate over 2.1 million people are knowingly or unknowingly affected.
The Irish Doctors´ Environmental Association believes that a sub-group of the population are particularly sensitive to exposure to different types of electro-magnetic radiation. The safe levels currently advised for exposure to this non-ionising radiation are based solely on its thermal effects. However, it is clear that this radiation also has non-thermal effects, which need to be taken into consideration when setting these safe levels. The electro-sensitivity experienced by some people results in a variety of distressing symptoms which must also be taken into account when setting safe levels for exposure to non-ionising radiation and when planning the siting of masts and transmitters.
Author: Eileen O´Connor Trustee for the EM Radiation Research Trust: www.radiationresearch.org 1st October 2005
A world full of wireless technology is illegally discriminating against ES victims. ES victims should be protected under UK law. It would appear that ES victims meet the criteria for disability rights under all sections listed within the law.
Governments throughout the world and authorities such as WHO, ICNIRP and the UK Health Protection Agency are ignoring the voice of objection from independent scientists and members of the public worldwide as they continue to encourage the proliferation of wireless devices. The world has created an invisible under-class who are denied the opportunities available to everyone else. ES victims are often unable to use their talents and capabilities to earn a living through denial of access to transport and places most people take for granted.
With other forms of disability, society has taken the view that such a situation is unacceptable and as legislated to ensure equal access and equal opportunity. It is offensive, inhumane and wholly unacceptable to force people out of society to live in the wilderness and allow this sort of discrimination.
Discriminating and ridiculing people who are disabled goes against the UN 22 Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for People with Disabilities - since 2007 upgraded into The UN Convention on Human Rights for Persons with Functional Impairments.
ES people should be granted disability rights and protection under UK law. We question the legality of the current system as it is discriminating against ES people.
(Original Source - http://archive.radiationresearch.org/legal.asp )
Link now at:
When referring to human rights legislation, I am also referring to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Principle rather than the Human Rights Act, since the Act itself only implements the Convention into domestic law. There are potentially 2 areas of the convention which the implementation of the mast might violate: Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1, for differing reasons.
Article 8 relates to the right to a respect for a private and family life, home and correspondence. In relation to phone masts this comes directly into being in relation to the quality of life that is potentially destroyed by the development and could also relate to the value of houses in the village, if they are appreciably depreciated by the development.
In the Rayner case (Powel & Rayner v UK (A 172 - 1990)) the applicant argued that the intensity and persistence of aircraft noise interfered with his rights to respect for the private life and home. The Government took the view that the claim fell outside Article 8(1) altogether, but the Commission took the view that it covered - 'indirect intrusions which are unavoidable consequences of measures directed against private individuals .. considerable noise nuisance can undoubtedly affect the physical well-being of a person and thus interfere with his private life'. Although this case was actually lost, nevertheless the point is made that, on environmental grounds the effects of developments can infringe a person’s private life. In particular, the potential health aspects of phone masts, not simply the physical, but the mental state of those affected by this type of development.
This would be particularly relevant to the protection of younger members of the community, where they might be exposed for long periods due to the closeness of the antennae to bedrooms and schools. There may very well be a case to argue that those affected had such fear that their whole fabric of life has been destroyed, forcing them to lead a lifestyle that would otherwise be alien to them. A simple example might be that those who are keen gardeners, abandon their gardens and take up a life of seclusion, afraid to step forth from their homes for fear of the effects of irradiation.
This may very well seem at first fanciful, and over the top, but reality is that it is more common than might be imagined, with at least one very recent instance coming to our attention, of a man from St Helens, who had a pacemaker fitted, and refused to leave the home for fear that the mast he would have to pass would cause his pacemaker to malfunction.
This basic argument is also brought home in the Lopes Ostra case (Lopes Ostra v Spain (A 303-C - 1994)), where the applicant was successful in claiming that the State’s failure to act to prevent, or to protect her from serious pollution (fumes from a waste disposal plant) constituted a failure to respect both her home and her private and family life. Another instance of the disruption of family life may be where parents refuse to allow their children to visit their grandparents that live in close proximity to a mast.
The context of home in the property sense is covered by Article 1 of the First Protocol. In as far as Article 8 is concerned, the issue is one of 'peaceful enjoyment', this is particularly important, as shown by the aircraft noise cases. Is then the fear of an adverse health threat from base stations such that it interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home? I would argue strongly yes, if we are talking about the perceived fear of the inhabitants of that home, especially if children's bedrooms are close to, or in the path of, the beam of intensity.
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Thus states Article 1 of the 1st Protocol. This includes for our purposes the property that is your home and possessions within it. This might also affect businesses, where the value or trade of the business falls as a consequence of the development, example a restaurant, where people are reluctant to dine due to the close proximity of a base station, or a hotel, where guests are reluctant to stay.
Bouygues Telecom to remove a mobile telephone antenna in the commune of Tassin-la-Demi-Lune (Rhône), whilst elsewhere SFR was ordered to do the same in Châteauneuf-du-Pape (Vaucluse). A court in Angers also ordered Orange France to remove three antennas located in a church bell-tower in the commune of Notre-Dame-d'Allençon in Maine-et-Loire.
All three courts justified their decision on grounds of the potential risks to public health, following complaints made by local residents and pressure groups. The judges took the view that there was a ‘probable’ risk, and that the principle of precaution should be applied. The ‘principle of precaution’ is a law that was enshrined in the French constitution in 2005, as part of a commitment to protect the environment. The clause can be used where it is considered there is a potential risk to public health.
International studies on Mobile Phone Tower Health risks, many highlighting the particular vulnerability of babies and small children. A small number of papers are listed below for reference:
b) Khurana, Hardell et al., Int. J Occup. Envir Health, Vol 16(3):263-267, 2010
“Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations”
--Analysis of 4 studies were from Germany, and 1 each from Austria, Egypt, France, Israel, Poland, Spain --7 studies showed altered neurobehavioral effects near cell towers --3 studies showed increased cancer incidence --Effects occurred < 500 meters from cell towers
c) G J Hyland , “How Exposure to GSM & TETRA Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans”,
Associate Fellow - Department of Physics Executive Member - International Institute of Biophysics, University of Warwick Coventry, UK Neuss-Holzheim, Germany
d) H. Eger at al.,“The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer” (Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft 17,4 2004). blog.cat/gallery/17983/17983-97698.pdf --theproportion of newly developing cancer cases is significantly higher among patients who live within 400 meters of a cell phone transmitter. --relative risk of getting cancer increased by 200% after 5 years operation of the transmitter --early age of cancer diagnosis
e) Wolf R, Wolf D, (April 2004) “Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station”, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 1(2) April 2004
Similarly found that within 350 meters of cell phone antennas there was: -- 300% increased incidence of cancer among men and women -- 900% cancer increase among women alone -->4x risk of cancer after 3-7 yrs exposure <350 meters --early age of cancer diagnosis
f) Abdel-Rassoul G et al, (March 2007) “Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations”, Neurotoxicology. 2007 Mar;28(2):434-40
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16962663 Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations were shown to be at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems (headache, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, sleep disturbance), and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions.
Exposed inhabitants exhibited a significantly lower performance than controls in one of the tests of attention and short-term auditory memory [Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT)]. Also, the inhabitants opposite the station exhibited a lower performance in the problem-solving test (block design) than those under the station.
g) Hutter HP et al, (May 2006) “Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations”, Occup Environ Med.
--Found a significant relationship between some cognitive symptoms and measured power density; highest for headaches. Perceptual speed increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels. There was no significant effect on sleep quality.
h) Dode et al, “Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil”, Science of the Total Environment, Volume 409, Issue 19, 1 September 2011,
Cancer deaths in center of city: --within 100m 4.342/1000 (35%increase if within 100 meters) -- >1000m 3.212/1000
i) Santini R et al, (September 2003) “Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of base stations: II/ Incidences of age, duration of exposure, location of subjects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors”, Pathol Biol (Paris). 2003 Sep;51(7):412-5
j) Santini R et al, (July 2002) “Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations:
I/Incidence according to distance and sex”, Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002 Jul;50(6):369-73
Santini et al found significant health effects on people living within 300 meters of mobile phone base stations. Fatigue, sleep disturbance, headaches, concentration problems, depression, memory problems, irritability, cardiovascular problems, hearing disruption, skin problems, dizziness, etc.
k) Eskander EF et al, (November 2011) “How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?”, Clin Biochem. 2011 Nov 27. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021 --Showed significant decrease in volunteers' ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels from RF exposures from both mobiles and cell towers.
l) Levitt & Lai, “Biological Effects from Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted by Cell Tower Base Stations and Other Antenna Arrays”, Environmental Reviews, 2010 --Over 100 citations, approximately 80% of which showed biological effects near towers --Built case for ‘setbacks’ and need for new exposure guidelines reflecting multiple and cumulative exposures
m) Sage & Pall, January 2014, Presentation to Washington State - Symptoms and RF levels in Various Cell Tower Studies
n) Carpenter, D. O. “Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields”, Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 159-172. Summarizes excessive RF radiation increases risk for cancer, male infertility and neurobehavioral abnormalities.
o) Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and Health, Welfare and Sport, "Effects of Global Communications System Radio- Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective Complaints", (September 2003) -- Notes by
Grahame Blackwell: Found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally-recognised criteria (including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness etc) from 3G mast emissions well below accepted ‘safety’ levels (less than 1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines). Those
who had previously been noted as ‘electrosensitive’ under a scheme in that country were shown to have more pronounced ill-effects, though others were also shown to experience significant effects.
p) Oberfeld, Portoles, Navarro et al, “The Microwave Syndrome—Further Aspects of a Spanish Study”, Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria, University Hospital La Fe. Valencia, Spain, Department of Applied Physics, University Valencia, Spain, Foundation European Bioelectromagnetism (FEB) Madrid, Spain, Presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004
Notes by Grahame Blackwell: This study found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM mobile phone base stations. They observed that: “The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems." As their conclusion the research team wrote: "Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not higher than 0.02 V/m for the sum total, which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cni2 or 1 μW/m2, which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002."
q) Usfie, Israel (as shown in Documentary “Full Signal”). Cancer cases only found in vicinity of new cell towers with very few exceptions. See the film to hear about the study which was conducted by a local doctor who noticed increasing cancers following installation of cell towers on a ridge line in the city.
r) Naila Study, Germany (November 2004), Report by researchers (five medical doctors) “Following the call by Wolfram König, President of the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (Federal Agency for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors. The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1,000 patients were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register. The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 meters from the cellular transmitter site, which bas been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients
living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.”
In relation to Article 6 of the ECHR, which provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”
In light of the decision of the House of Lords in R (Alconbury Ltd & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2001) 2 WLR 1389, there is no reason in principle, in an appropriate case, why the scope of Article 6 should not 10 extend to the administrative decision making process relating to a third party’s objection to the grant of planning permission.
Recent cases have shown that planning processes may indeed, in appropriate circumstances, be subject to Article 6 requirements. In Friends Provident Life & Pensions Ltd v. The Secretary Of State For Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Ors  EWHC Admin 820 (30th October, 2001) Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC Admin 820, Forbes J held that the proprietary rights of the applicant third party objector were, in that case, sufficiently affected to warrant the engagement of Article 6 in relation to local authority planning processes.
In relation to Article 8 of the ECHR, which provides: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” and, “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. By searching PubMed, we identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies of long-term mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more definitively understand its health impact.