Dr Lisa Hutchinson
We have many letters on the ACHES website that are extremely useful in helping individuals raise concerns or objections to councils and local planning authorities in relation to new applications or upgrades to existing telecommunications infrastructures, such as 5G masts, street hubs and LED streetlights. One letter that needs highlighting is the Local Councils and Telecom Mast Planning Adjudication letter on the ACHES website. Herein, we explain the reasons this letter is so important and adds value to anyone wishing to file an objection. Furthermore, this adjudication letter serves as an educational piece for councillors and other local planning experts who might not realise that ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) and NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) guidelines are just that – guidelines – and are not mandatory or statute.
ICNIRP and NPPF not statute
Many councillors wrongly assume that they cannot include health aspects when considering telecommunications mast applications. There is a common misconception that they must obey NPPF and ICNIRP guidelines, as if they are mandatory or statute. This is absolutely not the case, as outlined in the 9-page letter on ACHES. Briefly, Lord Gill in the Supreme Court reprimanded the Suffolk Coastal District Council for treating the NPPF as law, when it is not. Here is an excerpt:
“The guidance given by the Framework (the NPPF) is not to be interpreted as if it were a statute. Its purpose is to express general principles on which decision-makers are to proceed in pursuit of sustainable development” (Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd).
Similarly, ICNIRP guidance (which is not mandatory) includes the following disclaimer on their website: “ICNIRP undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability or completeness of the information and views published. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website.” Notably, ICNIRP guidance does not cover anyone with a metal device, such as pacemakers, metal implants and metal fillings.
Considering indirect effects
In their 2020 ‘Statement of Principles’ ICNIRP states: “Indirect effects: most health effects considered in non-ionizing radiation protection are direct effects. However, health effects can also arise from indirect pathways. For instance, they may occur from an electric discharge arising from metallic objects charged by exposure to some types of non-ionizing radiation; these types of indirect effects are considered by ICNIRP. Other types are not, for example, heating of metallic objects in the body, such as prostheses, or an influence on the operation of medical devices such as pacemakers. The latter electromagnetic interference effects are of a technical nature and do not fall within the remit of ICNIRP.”
Since 2017, nano-metal particulates have been found in vaccines, and conductive nano particulates have been discovered in dental anaesthetics. Many people have metal fillings, dental implants, or other metal medical inserts, such as synthetic hips or pacemakers. Thus, the vast majority of people fall outside the scope of ICNIRP guidance and should be canvassed and safeguarded by their relevant local authority before the installation of electromagnetic field (EMF)-emitting 5G structures.
Cheltenham Borough Council sets precedent
Earlier this year, Cheltenham Borough Council appealed an earlier ruling by Judge Jarman in a judicial review case brought against the Council. Judge Jarman said that the council had failed in not protecting residents who are excluded from the ICNIRP guidance. The appeal by the Council was dismissed on these grounds. This means that the ruling by Judge Jarman remains, and might have significant repercussions on Councils across the nation.
ICNIRP guidance refers to exposure limits of 6 or 30 minutes. Importantly, the average is taken and this ‘averaging’ hides the strength of the pulses and modulations. In other words, no matter how high the individual pulses, the process of averaging these outputs can hugely underestimate the true values and lower the ‘official’ figure to well below the ICNIRP maximum threshold. Moreover, as the Wi-Fi signals from such structures are constantly emitting EMFs 24/7, the cumulative effects are many times more than the upper limit recommended by ICNIRP.
Carcinogenic effects
The telecom industry itself has revealed in a SwissCom patent application that telecom mast technology is carcinogenic. The salient information is below:
“These findings indicate that the genotoxic effect of electromagnetic radiation is elicited via a nonthermal pathway. Moreover aneuploidy is to be considered as a known phenomenon in the increase of cancer risk. Thus, it has been possible to show that mobile radio radiation can cause damage to genetic material, in particular in human white blood cells, whereby both the DNA itself is damaged and the number of chromosomes changed. This mutation can consequently lead to increased cancer risk. In particular, it could also be shown that this destruction is not dependent upon temperature increases, i.e. is non-thermal.”
The reason this is important is because ICNIRP, which is non-mandatory, considers only thermal effects and not non-thermal effects. The telecommunications industry via the Swisscom patent application, effectively states that non-thermal effects contribute to cancer. Further scientific evidence supports these claims. For instance, a team led by Wilhelm Mosgöller of the Medical University of Vienna and Igor Belyaev of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava contend that “years of low-dose radiofrequency (RF) exposure can increase the incidence of chromosomal aberrations. Such changes could lead to serious, though uncertain, health consequences, including cancer.” Senior European scientists are reporting that people living near cell phone towers show significant changes in their genetic makeup. This is the first time that chronic exposure to cell tower radiation has been linked to unrepairable genetic damage.
Furthermore, an EMF exposure-related increase of oxidative damage has already occurred thousands of times below the limit values in the non-thermal range, from a power flux density of 0.1 μW/cm2 (= 1000 μW/m2 ) and from a specific absorption rate (SAR) = 3 μW/kg. This is far below the limit values and exposures to which users are exposed during normal operation of end-user devices, routers, transmission masts (or cell towers) and Wi-Fi hotspots.
Councils could be liable for health harms
Solicitors on behalf of Public Health England (now called UKHSA – UK Health Security Agency), make it clear that any public body that relies on ICNIRP becomes liable and not the issuer of the guidance. A key concern is that councils are highly unlikely to be insured against health claims for harm to health caused by radiation from this technology. Major underwriters, such as Lloyds of London and Swiss Re refuse to underwrite EMF health effects. This was also confirmed in a Wandsworth Borough Council, FOIA reply below, which reiterated that their insurer would not cover for such EMF effects. See below.
“Request for Information: WBC-FOI-05223 (Wandsworth Borough Council)
FOI request: Please would the Council send me the exact clause in their public liability insurance that shows that the Council is indemnified against claims on the Council for harm caused by EMF radiation.
Response: The current opinion of the Council’s incumbent insurer is that such claims would not be covered under the Council’s liability policy.”
Verizon acknowledges health risks to its shareholders
Furthermore, In the Verizon 2023 statutory submission is the following statement: “We are subject to a substantial amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements. In addition, our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.” The following statement is in the Verizon 2023 statutory submission: “We are subject to a substantial amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements. In addition, our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”
The Government reaffirmed after a consultation that all new masts require Prior Approval: Ministerial Statement, March 2022: “All new masts will still require the prior approval of the local planning authority, which will assess the proposed siting and appearance of the mast. Masts that exceed these heights will require full planning permission. The new Code of Practice will also provide detailed guidance on how operators could engage and consult with local communities on new development proposals to ensure that their views are considered.”
Conclusion
In summary, local planning authorities have received this adjudication letter from ACHES, and therefore have been given full knowledge of the circumstance, which places them in an invidious position if they follow ICNIRP, not if they don’t. For example, if members of the public were to consider that their cancer was caused because of proximity to a telecom mast that was granted planning permission by their local council, such members of the public might resort to the courts for financial remedy. If such court actions were to be successful for the claimants, that might drive councils into special measures if there is no underwritten indemnity for them.
The overarching legal obligation upon councils is set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which requires that “each local authority must take steps as it considers appropriate for improving the health of the people in its area”. It is hard to imagine that carcinogenic radiation from telecom masts close to residential areas, sanctioned by local planners, would be in conformance with this Act. local planning departments should and must include health in telecom mast planning adjudication. The law requires this under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), “siting and appearance” are the criteria in mast planning adjudication and health effects are absolutely key in assessing the “siting” aspect of a telecom mast planning application.
By weighing up, for example, the material planning consideration of the acceptable or unacceptable usage of landhealth in telecom mast planning adjudication, take into consideration objections by residents on health grounds. Evidence of harm to health submitted by residents in their objections can be included as evidence of incompatible use of land to be put alongside the NPPF’s ICNIRP guidance in support of compatible use of land. Finally, by considering the health effects, this aligns with the Gunning Principles. See here for our recent post on this topic.