When I became Vice Chair of the Infrastructure Overview & Scrutiny Panel at RBWM my first action was ask for a debate on 5G. Recently I was asked for my thoughts on plans to extend a local telecom mast. This makes the debate even more relevant and urgent…
Public Health England’s solicitors recommend local councils do their own research…
Nicholas Martin responded to my appeal for thoughts on the recent Oakley Green application and has assisted me in compiling the response below.
The British Government and the BBC rely on ICNIRP guidelines which say microwave radiation in air which is 4G, 5G, wifi smart meters and bluetooth is all safe.
But the Swiss Committee of electromagnetic scientific experts say ICNIRP should not be relied on . The Swiss scientific group BERENIS says:
“BERENIS, the Swiss expert group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation, clearly disagrees with ICNIRP opinion that radiation protection provided by ICNIRP safety limits protects equally all members of the general public”
And The EU Reflex study shows that prolonged radiation from a cell phone and magnetic fields can cause genetic damage similar to that caused by radioactive radiation.
Professor Alexander Lerchl, who is leading a study examining the effects of 5G on human cells (funded by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection), has been found guilty by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen of disseminating false allegations about the results of the 2004 REFLEX EMF study. Professor Lerchl has to bear the costs of the legal proceedings…
And Swisscom a leading telecom company, admit the following in their patent application WO2004075583A1
“These findings indicate that the genotoxic effect of electromagnetic radiation is elicited via a non-thermal pathway. Moreover aneuploidy is to be considered as a known phenomenon in the increase of cancer risk.”
In summary this planning application should be rejected on the following grounds:
This is a siting issue – it is ‘incompatible and unacceptable use’ of land and that is a material planning consideration. There is evidence of a pollutant involved causing adverse health effects which need to be evaluated under sentence 1, section 180, NPPF and the Planning department has to take account of that evidence. The polluting effects have to be investigated by competent persons. That competence falls under the environmental health/director public health remit. The evidence shows this application is unsustainable under the NPPF social sustainability objective – there is no net benefit – the application should be refused.
Evidence submitted in support should be evaluated by the relevant competent people – the Environmental Health personnel – not the Planning Department personnel – and that evaluation should be made available to public scrutiny.
Thank you.
Jon Davey
Leave a Reply