6. None of these situations appears to relate to thermal heating of any kind. These effects could not be ascribed to thermal heating because the distances involved are far too great. However, they may relate to biological effects from low intensity microwave radiation over prolonged periods.
However, the research has not been carried out into cumulative effects.
• It is necessary to ask why?
• Perhaps in the light of the Industry’s approach over the years to the mobiles themselves, the answer may be fairly obvious?
In the absence of conclusive evidence that mobiles themselves and mobile networks are safe – something the scientists agreed they can not prove without substantial additional properly structured research – it is necessary now to use common sense and prudent avoidance. The European Treaties relating to the Environment described common sense as the Precautionary Principle and preventative action – see Article 130r.
7. What does prudent avoidance, preventative action, precautionary approach mean in practice? No-one wants to prevent the advance of telecommunications. It is a great new boon to living when used sensibly. However, common sense needs to prevail over the economics of the Industry’s proliferation.
There is no need these days to place Telecommunications Masts and Base Stations too close to permanently occupied residences and children’s schools. The only reason that Masts are placed too close, i.e. the near side rather than the far side of a farmers field is because it is cheaper. Cheaper because it is nearer the electricity supply, cheaper because it is easier for maintenance and access from an adjoining road or track.
However, the requirements are not that spot specific and there is absolutely no reason why a properly erected and located Mast should be closer than a minimum of 200 to 250 meters from any inhabited property, using a ground based Mast and Ground Based Station. Unfortunately the Industry ignores the obvious because it is easier and cheaper, and usually regrettably there is no-one to take them on or to challenge their planning application with the Planning Authorities.
8. Recently groups all over the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland have been successful in showing planning authorities that there is a better way to interpret the outmoded Telecommunications Legislation (1984) the outmoded planning circulars and the general ignorance of the fact that European Union Treaties advocated the Precautionary Principle (1993 Maastricht) to safeguard the public’s health.
Governments are there to be wise and knowledgeable. Governments are not there to be led by the Industry in pursuit of progress and financial gain at the expense of the public at large. Governments are there to be able to interpret properly scientific guidance or advice.
This proliferation of’ Network Masts may turn out to be the next BSE for ignoring the warnings and acting without any common sense or prudent avoidance.
9. Reverting to the mobiles themselves, it is not common sense to put a mobile against your head for four or five hours a day at the incidence of your employer. In law, almost certainly that Employer is not providing a safe system of work.
Equally, under the Consumer Protection Act it seems probable now that the manufacturers ought to display some form of health warning on their products to protect themselves from product liability claims – and of course the users to whom then sell the huge number of phones from internal danger to enable such consumers to make an informed choice or consent.
Possibly (update 2000), in due course, it will be shown scientifically that living in too close proximity to a Mast is damaging to health, and possibly then there will under provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 be legal remedies available, which allow people to seek compensation from the mobile phone network providers, and also against those who allow the Masts to be on their land.
This may include eventually even some Local Education Authorities who seem to be prepared to allow Masts to be erected regardless of possible risks to the children on school property for whom they are in loco parentis in return for an annual rental.
This aspect is currently now under investigation by the Secretary of the State for Education following the meeting of the House of Commons Select Committee in June 1999 with Representatives of NRPB as mentioned below.
Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Tacoma, Washington, USA
Trinidad and Tobago, Port-of-Spain
Click on any of the pictures below
to learn more