We see continued success as mast applications are being refused across the country, with an estimated 60% refusal rate. However further progress is needed to protect the public and the environment as every approval is of deep concern, especially to the children living and attending schools in close proximity to 5G masts.
We have seen several approved outside schools this month despite committed campaigning. We can emphasise our successes in our objections (e.g. refer to Mendip refusal on health grounds) and it is vital we keep informing our councils about the authority of the sources of information which invalidates the sole application of the ICNIRP certificate.
This graph shows data for England regarding Telco Mast planning decisions.
In Wales about 50% were refused in 2023, and in Scotland about 70%
When engaging with councils (or schools) we can refer to ICBE-EMF.org and emphasise Professor Lin’s appraisal. He is effectively our “Whistleblower”, being EX-ICNIRP and eminent in his field. The IEEE who published his paper were formerly the U.S. Department of the Navy.
“These limits are devised for restricting short term heating by RF radiation and aim to prevent increased tissue temperatures. Thus, they are not applicable to long term exposure at low levels. Instead of advances in science, they are predicated on assumptions using outdated exposure metrics, thus their ability to protect children, workers, and the public from exposure to the RF radiation or people with sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and systems”Prof James Lin
It is imperative that we do not allow their mantra “you cannot refuse on health” to deter us from objecting on health grounds, we can double down and make sure we are refining our arguments about this in our objections.
It is very much arguable in Law that public and environmental Health are Material Considerations (ie are relevant even to a Prior Approval). Even if the Councils take a literal line we are still sowing seeds and educating that ‘The Science’ is NOT settled.
Next month we will have news of a submission being made to government about the illegality of policy 118 and will be posting instructions of how to use this to best effect with your council. Please look out for news of this important progression in the campaign
In a sane world
…. if the council only paid attention to James Lin’s paper, the ICBE paper, and the PHIRE 2020 consensus statement there should be no further hesitation to refuse most masts before solutions are found. (remember also about your wifi and phones in pockets – walk the talk)
Example 1. a willing Council can easily refuse a mast using all of our arguments which boil down to Incompatible Use, due to a threshold of evidence having been reached globally indicating the serious and credible probability of harm being caused by cumulative exposure.
They have UK Acts, EU codes and directives, UN charters etc to support their position. These are all covered in various of our blogs and template letters.
Example 2. an unwilling Council can pretend to consider our evidence and claims, weighing up the Risk/Benefit of current vs UKHSA evidence, and legitimately (in the eyes of the ‘Law’) decide that on balance the benefit still outweighs the risk. It is still hard to successfully challenge these approvals which basically strictly interpret Policy 118 as ’Law’, and pay lip service to their competent authority role, and local authority duties of care. They fall back on UKHSA statements and ICNIRP only, claiming there is no exceptional evidence of a hazard yet which would justify a departure from planning policy.
Please see the latest example objection on health, which can either be used alone or in combination with technical, siting and amenity issues.
Link to general mast objection template: HERE
This video from Courtney in Pittsfield is great motivation from fellow campaigners across the pond:
13-year-old Activist Stands Up to Big Telecom. 3 mins, then interview.
Lawyer Scott McCollough reiterates the importance of breaking the mantra that local decision makers are impotent, he asserts they are not and calls for collaborative solutions. He affirms his commitment to keep fighting Verizon in Pittsfield where residents have been forced from their homes when they became sick after a 5G tower was installed.