Assert your rights in regard to telecoms masts

Did you know there are two important legal cases in the UK seeking to assert our rights in regard to telecoms masts? Don’t let Councils trick you into believing you can’t object on health!

All new ground masts need Prior Approval.

The role of a Council in determining whether to grant or refuse prior approval for a telecoms mast is based on siting & appearance.

The siting of any mast can generate health related material planning considerations arising in-situ which have to be addressed in law.

Did you know that there is an area around every mast which is ICNIRP non-compliant and is unsafe for the public to enter? This is usually 50m wide and 4.5m vertical clearance. It is commonly called a “public exclusion zone.”

Remember – the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is guidance only and does not override the obligations that Councils must address in law.

Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council (2024) – the judge ruled that proximity to vulnerable residents at a retirement home was a material consideration and that the ICNIRP Certificate was insufficiently protective (the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover anyone with metal implants, including pacemakers). Note – this is now at the Court of Appeal scheduled for a hearing 19 February 2025. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/663a735283075d3d98341c7b

Mendip (2021) – a mast was refused on health grounds after the council listened to evidence from both sides, including expert testimony that a resident with EHS and metal living 345m away with metal implants (ref 2021/1952/FUL) would likely be harmed.

Brighton (2021) – The High Court ratified Brighton’s concession that they had failed to consider the proximity to a local school. The proceedings cost Brighton over £13,000 (ref: BH2021/01639).

Stroud (2024)– One of the main reasons for refusal was that there were 3 people living nearby with pacemakers, and the telecoms company refused to provide the ICNIRP public exclusion zones when requested by the planning officer, see p8 of the Light Paper: https://thelightpaper.co.uk/assets/pdf/Light-49-Sept-24-Web-Final.pdf

Proximity of a mast to residents and vulnerable groups has to be assessed in order to assess safety and dispose of the ‘incompatible and unacceptable use material planning consideration’. The ICNIRP certificate is not enough unless it clearly shows the areas of non-compliance. You have a right to demand to see these zones by putting pressure on the case officer (see Stroud as an example).

There is currently another court case pending against the Central Government where Karen Churchill and Neil McDougall are challenging the DoH&SC, the DLUHC and the DSIT to properly establish the status of Councils as competent authorities under the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) in UK law. Some Councils legal departments have confirmed they are, some claim they are not and some don’t know. This ambiguity is unacceptable. The case seeks to protect objector rights, and make public health imperative; Councils are required under the EECC to reconcile environmental and public health concerns arising from proposed new masts in accordance with

the precautionary principle and taking into account recent science. Among the main remedies sought in this challenge are to ensure that public exclusion zones are provided and that the siting of telecoms mast is safe for vulnerable groups who can be affected by radiation at limits lower than that prescribed by ICNIRP. This includes recognition & operation of the public auditory limit.

Apple AirPods

AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe?

The third generation of Apple’s AirPods (aka AirPods 3) was introduced in 2021 and emit Bluetooth microwave or radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in the 2.402 – 2.480 GHz frequency range to communicate with a smart phone or other wireless device.

In the 1980s of course there were concerns about over-ear Sony Walkman headphones, and then about the ‘In ear’ headphones. With some justification the latter, when loud volume with no attenuation by distance or air was a predominant feature – and yes there were harms. These were acoustic mechanical waves however, with very different qualities to pulse modulated electromagnetic radiation.

AirPods have a SAR (specific absorption of radiation by tissue) rating of 0.626 W/kg, the ‘safe’ limit for phones is 2 W/kg.  Remember that this is only an assessment of thermal effects, the ability to heat up tissue.  It is the biological effects at non thermal levels of radiation that are of concern. 

The microwave field strength measured next to the ear with an Airpod functioning can reach 15 V/m. This unit V/m is another that measures ‘power’.  An iPhone in a pocket typically pulses 15 to 30 V/m.

The UK ‘safe’ thermal exposure limit is 60 V/m (averaged over 6mins), but these guidelines set by the ICNIRP are incomplete and have been found untenable in court.  Organisations that advocate for safer non thermal limits advocate down to 1-2 V/m as possibly safe.

Note that whereas phones may be in use for 20-40mins at a time, an Airpod is often kept in the ears for hours at a time, and so the cumulative exposure is substantial.

A further serious concern is raised by these levels since the ICNIRP defined Auditory limit is 4.34 V/m averaged over 6 minutes. The mechanism cited is thermoplastic expansion, but we also know that there can be other non thermal effects. Known symptoms can be tinnitus.

Cases of tinnitus have been on a dramatic rise since CV19 and the mRNA injections. It is always hard separating co-factors but there is a real risk that chronic use of AirPods pulsing at nearly 4X the auditory limit could be laying foundations for future problems.

There are 100s of credible studies that show that biological systems suffer from adaptive stress when exposed to chronic levels of RFR, therefore should we not consider that transmitting and receiving pulsed microwave signals inside the ears, either side of the brain, is probably not at all sensible ?

Whilst long term effects and actual mechanisms are being studied we would suggest that a Precautionary Approach to the use of Airpods would be sensible – i.e  use for short periods and never go to sleep with them in. Turn all devices onto Airplane/Off at night.


For further reading :  https://www.saferemr.com/2016/09/airpods-are-apples-new-wireless-earbuds.html

https://ehtrust.org/airpods-facts-health-effects-of-wireless-radiation-to-the-brain/