Although awareness of possible dangers has been growing for some time around the country, it is not something we have yet campaigned on, although there are several local residents' campaign groups around the city.
Telecommunications masts are being installed all over the country at a remarkable rate, with 60,000-100,000 new masts required in the next three to five years. The Stewart report, based on the view that the only measurable danger from masts is the "heating effect" of resultant radiation, has recommended precautionary strategies for emissions levels, siting and availability of information. It also calls for further research as there are too many gaps in existing knowledge.
Although its precautionary measures are supposed to allow for these uncertainties, many people believe that the report is still too lenient, has not taken various pieces of research into account and ignores the possibility of harm from "non-thermal" effects of radiation: the report concluded that although there is some evidence for non-thermal effects of microwave radiation on the human body, there was not yet any conclusive evidence of actual harm . The city council's document, consequently, does not deal with possible non-thermal effects and it is unlikely that these can be taken into account until research is carried out (or accepted) at a national level. Research has suggested possible health effects including cancer and sleep disorders. It could take many years to provide the absolutely conclusive evidence required by the industry and government.
Judging whether the Stewart report is adequate requires greater knowledge than mine. In fact, alarmingly, it seems to be a subject requiring greater knowledge than that of the report's compilers.
The situation became more interesting when we heard that Kent County Council had taken the decision to ban all new telecommunications masts on their property. It seems their reasoning was that, although they may or may not be satisfied with the precautionary principles of the Stewart report, these principles would not be backed up by legislation for a long time, so that existing masts and mast applications could not be subjected to the scrutiny necessary to ensure safety.
For example, the Stewart report recommends a national database of the positions and emissions of all masts. Phone companies are falling over each other to provide the best coverage, necessitating more and more "rival" masts - and while any one mast might conform to maximum emission levels, the combined effect of several masts in the same area could lead to dangerous cumulative levels. The city council's draft guidance states that "there is no justification in refusing telecommunications applications on health grounds provided that the base stations do not exceed the maximum emission levels set by the ICNIRP. The Government expects all new base stations not to exceed this level" This does not take into account the possibility of cumulative levels from neighbouring masts.
The Stewart report also recommended independent auditing of emission levels from all masts on a random basis. Before this is implemented, operators can easily escape keeping to safe limits.
One of the public's main concerns is the siting of masts near, or in, schools. At present, schools and hospitals are offered financial incentives of up to a38,000 per year by network operators to lease their roof space for masts. It is estimated that children absorb 1 bd to 2 bd times more microwave radiation than adults, so any harmful effects are likely to be greater. Again, the city council's draft policy on this is currently inadequate: "Grounds of education and health institutions will only be acceptable where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with the precautionary approach adopted by the Stewart report." However, the Stewart report states that proximity to school grounds can be more dangerous than sitings on school roofs, as the signals travel in a horizontal beam.
As is so often the case, the public and groups like FOE are more concerned about the possibility of danger than are the government. Time and time again we are told there is as yet "no conclusive evidence" - and time and time again the evidence is gradually found to be conclusive when damage has been done. Now, as in the cases of BSE, asbestos, climate change, thalidomide, we are told the dangers from cellphone transmissions are not conclusively proven and perhaps unlikely. The telecommunications industry is booming and has a lot of money riding on it. So who should they believe? The Government's planning guidance states that "In the Government's view, local authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies" - because the Stewart report "does not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those already proposed". Happily for residents of Kent, their council has not followed this advice - advice which, to be frank, makes a bit of a mockery of the local consultation process. I can only hope our own Council learns from Kent's.
Karen Leach
What you can do:
* There is a thorough briefing on the Scottish FOE website: www.foe-scotland.co.uk .
* If you have a mobile phone, try to use it only when you have to. From the industry
point of view, new masts are needed to meet demand. Rather like the roads, if
we keep using them, they'll keep building them.
* Keep an eye open for applications in your area and respond with your concerns.
* The official deadline for the masts consultation is passed but it might still
help to write to the city's planning section expressing your concern.
* New legislation and planning guidance is being set in the next three months.
Write to your MP and Michael Meacher (Environment Minister) stressing that public
and health concerns must be made material considerations in dealing with mast
applications.
* Contact me and I will try to put you in touch with other experts, as I am not
one!