1. 1. 5G Mast objection leaflets attached – you can adapt these to use elsewhere.
   2. Please register to be able to object to the Weymouth monopole – deadline Friday 7^th August.

Roma says:

Do comment:    https://planning.dorset.gov.uk/public-access/submitComment.do?action=submitComment&activeTab=neighbourComments

Two planning committee meetings are scheduled for next Wed & Thurs – not on the agenda for Wed and agenda for Thurs says to be published week of meeting.  Wonder if that’s deliberate as no-one seems able to confirm the 5G mast will come up.

It is possible to send in questions up to 450 words which I shall do, need to formulate carefully.

FB group Weymouth uk stop 5g & smart meters has 26 members, mostly from other areas.

More grist to the mill today.  Chasing phone numbers and the elusive case officer!

Sent: 04 August 2020 10:36
To: cranleighhouse.katherine@gmail.com
Subject: Re: from Roma – Weymouth 5G planning application letter

 

Planning Application WP/20/00417/TEL – Installation of 18m high monopole supporting 6no. antennas & 3no. equipment cabinets & ancillary development TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST SITE, WEYMOUTH WAY, RADIPOLE, WEYMOUTH

To: Members of Dorset Council Planning Committee

Copied to: Weymouth Town Councillors

Following Weymouth Town Council voting ‘no objection’ to the above application on 28 July 2020, we believe that the committee had insufficient knowledge and expertise to be able to make an informed decision. Fundamentally, they did not address matters of material concern regarding the documents submitted with the application or the fact that requisite technical reports are missing.

We were unaware that members of the public could speak at WTC zoom meetings and would like to make a number of points prior to this application being considered at Dorset Council planning committee on Friday, 7 August – at which members of the public can no longer attend.

1.        Precautionary Principle

As chair of WTC, Cllr Lucy Hamilton, pointed out that the Precautionary Principle is not available to Weymouth as we come under Dorset Council, the decision-making authority. Dorset council have already approved the roll-out of 5G and received a grant amounting to millions of pounds for this purpose. Perhaps this is why so little time was given to discussion concerning this important issue?

(1)The “Precautionary Principle” is derived from the Common Law “Duty of Care”. If an Act of Parliament is repugnant, or against common right or reason, or impossible to be performed, then the Common Law will control such an Act, and judge it to be void. (2) Equity defends and protects the Common Law from crafty evasions and delusions invented and contrived to corrupt the Common Law. (If there is a conflict between Equity and “ordinary law”, the Rules of Equity prevail). (3) Failure to uphold the Common Law “Duty of Care”, either knowingly or intentionally is criminal. (4) The Duty of Care, which is rooted in Divine Natural Law, states that: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”. Your “neighbour” is defined as “Anyone so closely and directly affected, that you ought reasonably to have them in mind when directing your mind to the acts or omissions in question” (Donahugh vs Stevenson).

(5) There is no question whatsoever, either that the Council has a Duty of Care to its constituents, or that there is abundant evidence that installation of 5G in the local constituency is “reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause injury to the Council’s constituents.

(6) The council is now on notice of the existance of that evidence (see below), and of its Common Law Duty to consider the said evidence. (7) Failure by any voting Council members, at least to fully examine the scientific, peer reviewed evidence provided in this letter will, in light of the serious nature of the likely injuries suffered by local constituents, be considered as reckless and criminal, and will be treated accordingly.

Plan WP/20/00417/TEL

As Cllr Graham Winter noted, the plan itself is confusing. The removal of only one of the present masts is indicated by the applicant, MBNL on behalf of Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. No mention is made of whether the second 11.7 m mast is to remain or also to be removed.

The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework (section 10, para 113) states that:

“equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.”

The proposed 18m monopole on a grass verge at Manor Roundabout will clearly not be camouflaged. Located in a residential area, this does not constitute a sympathetic visual amenity.

Missing Technical Documents

NPPD (section 10, para 115) states:

“Applications for electronic communications development (including applications for prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development.”

This evidence should Include (para 115a):

“… the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college.”

The WAP010 GPDO application letter refers to a pre-consultation letter, which is missing. There have been no consultations with interested parties, specifically local schools and environmental organisations including Dorset Wildlife Trust, the outcome of which the council can request to see.

Technical reports missing include:

Consultation with three schools: Radipole Primary, St Nicholas & St Laurence Primary, and Wey Valley Academy. No consultations have taken place with principals, governing bodies, parents’ committee and interested parents themselves. Many children living in the area pass the proposed site twice daily to/from schools in both directions.

The proposed monopole is adjacent to the bridleway to Two-Mile Copse. Lorton Meadows Nature Reserve is both a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). As an infrastructure project inside a designated area (and to satisfy HASAWA1974) a full Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment Report is required, to include a pollinator survey, survey of bat roosts, birds nesting in the area, and tree survey.

A Bio-Initiative Report is not submitted, detailing the effects of pulsed, data-modulated radio frequency, and electromagnetic microwave radiation (RF-EMR) on ecology, flora and fauna, to determine the intended frequencies will have no short or long-term biological effects on the ecology and environmental health.

The applicant fails to provide (NPPF, section 10, para. 114a):

“… evidence to demonstrate that electronic communications infrastructure is not expected to cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest.”

This relates to the Yeovilton to Portland flight path and emergency services: Search & Rescue and Police Helicopters operate in this coastal area.

–     The applicant/agent provides no technical performance specifications to identify the maximum and minimum wavelengths emitted by the equipment which will operate at various bandwidths and differing frequency transmissions, for immediate and future. Secondly, no submission is made as to how this will interact with other masts and antennas in the area.

–    A technical file accompanying the Declaration of Conformity (Decision No. 768/ 2008/EC of the EU parliament) must be submitted. Only the 1APP Prior Approval form is signed and dated. There is no signed Declaration of Conformity with legal joinder to the agent/applicant.

–    The applicant/agent must also declare compliance with ISO Standards.

It should be noted that the missing technical reports were not considered or even mentioned at the WTC meeting, which could be considered negligent.

Failure to submit the required technical documents means that the mast will be illegally erected.

Regulatory Bodies

Councillors will be aware that ICNIRP (International Commission for Non Ionising Radiation Protection) is currently responsible for providing guidance and safe limits regarding exposure to radiation. WHO (World Health Organisation) relies on ICNIRP for its standards. Central to PHE (Public Health England) advice is that exposures to radio waves should comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. Their ‘guidelines’ are just that – and do not constitute legislation or law.

Much peer-reviewed scientific and medical research has been carried out which concludes that the specific absorption rate (SAR) set by ICNIRP is not applicable to the radio frequency spectrums which 5G will expose us to. With minor amendments and additions over the years, these guidelines provided in the late 1990s fundamentally remain unchanged, and largely feature the thermal effects of radiation. This methodology does not accommodate more recent advances in radio frequency spectrums and does not properly address the effects of physiological and neurological exposure to the more invasive absorption rate attributed to 5G. We therefore suggest that applying these same guidelines to 5G technology is an inconclusive way of assessing the full risk of potential harm.

A great many peer-reviewed published studies do not form part of ICNIRP’s review when determining EMF exposure guidelines, simply because their 13 self-selecting members are unable or ill-equipped to do a full review of all the studies.

We comment that Cllr Luke Wakeling cited at the WTC meeting a partial quotation from the WHO website (and emailed the same):

“To date, and after much research performed, no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies.”

However, the rest of this quotation which he omits, reads:

“… Health-related conclusions are drawn from studies performed across the entire radio spectrum but, so far, only a few studies have been carried out at the frequencies to be used by 5G.”

We ask that you consider Dr Sarah Starkey’s review on ‘Inaccurate official assessment of radio frequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation’ which includes a critique of AGNIR’s 2012 report and considers evidence that RFR might cause detrimental health effects at exposures below the safety thresholds mandated by ICNIRP. She points to many incorrect statements, studies omitted, evidence dismissed or ignored, and conclusions left out.

The Chairman of ICNIRP himself states:

“Mobile telecommunication systems are brought on the market with the assumption, based on available knowledge at the time of introduction, that they are safe. …

Their website gives a disclaimer:

“ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published.”

The reason WHO has classified 5G (and WiFi radiation in general) as a ‘possible’ carcinogenic (2B),  which Cllr Wakeling pointed out at the WTC meeting, along with talcum powder, pickled vegetables, other items and occupations, is because the regulatory bodies simply do not know. This is confirmed by the Chairman of ICNIRP, Eric van Rongen, in an interview. What Cllr Wakeling omitted to say is that such substances and foods need to be used/consumed in vast quantities over a long period of time to present a problem. Crucially, one has made an informed choice of consent, whereas 5G is non-consensual and unavoidable. This could equally be interpreted that we should avoid it until its safe use is demonstrated.

It is telling that in the US state of Missouri, Johnson & Johnson have been ordered to pay huge sums in compensation and damages, in spite of alleging the safe use of talcum powder supported by decades of scientific evidence.

An aspect not covered by PHE guidelines are metal implants: teeth, cochlear, and any metal rods or plates as a result of surgery performed on humans and animals. All residents within the zone of any mast need to be informed that no guidance or evidence exists to predict the effect on tissues internally should they have metal in their bodies. As WHO verify, they are especially vulnerable:

“Tissue heating is the main mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency fields and the human body.”

ICNIRP Certification & Ofcom

NPPF (section 10, para 115b) refers to

“…  a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection.”

However, no such ICNIRP certificate exists. As a self-regulatory body that offer guidelines, ICNIRP neither endorse nor produce a certificate for submission with any planning application. Their website says categorically that ICNIRP:

“Does not provide or issue certificates to verify the safety of any device or installation”.

Thus, any telecoms company or their contractors submitting an ‘ICNIRP certificate’ with a planning application before a local authority are falsifying safety assurances and committing a fraudulent act.

Ofcom are currently looking into challenging this and other issues but have not put into place regulations that supercede the ICNIRP ‘guidelines’, which would have meant more robust control and transparency. Instead, the result of their consultation in 2019 proposes to relax planning permissions to enable the roll out of 5G, subject to prior approvals and technical consultations. However, it has been suggested that a body other than Ofcom should be created for overseeing pulsed microwave pollution regulation due to Ofcom’s conflict of interests.

PHE’s updated guidance, published on 3 October 2019, in respect of ‘5G technologies: radio waves and health’ remains unchanged:

“It is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network or in a new area. However, the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health.”
The word ‘should’ does not instil confidence. Again, they simply don’t know.

Conflict of Interest

The applicant submits the letter from Matt Warman MP, Under Secretary of State for Digital and Broadband, issued to all UK Local Authority Chief Executives. Mr Warman says we will find

“well over 3,000 studies informing these [over 100 expert reports on EMF] and the existing scientific exposure guidelines”.

These studies are sourced from the GSMA website, which represents the interests of mobile operators worldwide. Mr Warman at the same time refers to a portal which has an inventory of 30,439 publications and 6,634 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields. Implicit in a number of these studies cited by Mr Warman are statements that the safety issues surrounding the 5G roll out are far from conclusive, yet Local Authorities are invited to believe otherwise.

Dr Starkey comments on an overlap and conflict of interest of personnel between regulatory bodies, specifically in relation to the appropriateness of AGNIR in reviewing ICNIRP’s guidelines and vice versa, in parallel with HPA [Health Protection Agency], when some of its members sit on both organisations. She concludes:

“The involvement of ICNIRP scientists in the misleading report calls into question the basis and validity of the international exposure guidelines. To protect public health, we need accurate official assessments of whether there are adverse effects of RF signals below current international ICNIRP guidelines, independent of the group who set the guidelines.

A few months after her paper was published, AGNIR was quietly disbanded. COMARE, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, is now PHE’s advisory secretariat.

Dr Starkey comments further on all radiofrequency signals as a possible human carcinogen:

“Indeed, PHE is withholding appropriate specialist advice by having no mention of the IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] classification of radiofrequency signals on its current website.”

As recently as 13th January 2020, an Appeal Court in Turin refused to accept evidence from ICNIRP in a ruling on the cause of a brain tumour because of a conflict of interest. The Court did not consider ICNIRP to be a reliable witness.

Moreover, a memorandum attached to a resolution adopted by the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in May 2011, reads:

“it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.”

A Public Experiment

With the addition of 5G electromagnetic radiation (EMR) to the existing ‘electrosmog’ from Wi-Fi, 2G, 3G and 4G, levels of exposure to wireless radiation will increase with unknown effects. Every member of the population, including children and those who suffer from electrosensitivity (a condition now recognised in Sweden and by other researchers), will be mandatorily exposed 24/7. 5G infrastructure also relates to pulsed millimetre wavelengths which in some areas have been found to operate up to 66 GHz with known adverse effects on the community, especially children and wildlife.

The safety guidelines issued by Public Health England (PHE) rely on those set by ICNIRP even though ICNIRP cannot stand behind their own studies. These are primarily based on heating effects to an adult-sized head. It is known that babies and children absorb more pulsed non-ionising electromagnetic radiation than adults. Dr Martin Pall’s response to the updated Draft ICNIRP Guidelines (to be published later this year), comments that they do not reflect the science showing harmful biological effects and are still woefully inadequate to ensure safety on many grounds. It is also the case that members of PHE have been members of ICNIRP.

To date, over 240 scientists and doctors have signed an appeal urging the UN and WHO for greater health protection on electromagnetic frequency (EMF) exposure, particularly children who are more vulnerable. In calling for a moratorium in May 2019, they appealed to WHO that 5G wireless signals should be moved from Group 2B carcinogen to Group 1, the same category as asbestos and arsenic.

In 2013 SSITA (Safe Schools Information Technology Alliance) complained to PHE about their failure to provide appropriate precautionary advice on pulsed microwave-emitting technologies other than mobile phones, particularly the use of wireless networks in schools and homes. Links to other scientific bodies and researchers, along with excerpts of interviews, can be found in an article ‘5G: Big promises, unknown risks’.

‘The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment’, a paper by Mr Jean Huss, presented to the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, May 2011, is summarised as follows:

“The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have fully beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, be they sourced from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals, as well as the human body when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values.”

A recent ‘New Paper on the Risks that Mobile Technologies 4G WiFi 5G have on Children‘ clarifies:

“…  physicists and engineers have operated on the theory that non-ionizing RFR could not directly damage human DNA and lead to cancer, as it was far less powerful than Ionizing radiation (x-rays, nuclear etc.) That theory has been solidly and roundly refuted.”

In view of mounting physiological and neurological evidence of adverse health effects associated with exposure to 5G frequencies, Brussels was the first city to halt 5G. In England, Glastonbury and Frome Town Councils followed suit with the precautionary principle in 2019, and Totnes issued a moratorium. Several counties in Ireland have also halted 5G. Russia has now banned all wifi and mobile phones from use in schools and delayed the roll out of 5G. Florence in Italy has applied the precautionary principle; the Netherlands are insisting on further research before any approval; and Switzerland – a country that relies on technology for its banking system – has adopted an indefinite moratorium for its new network.

Duty of Care

The council have a duty of care to look after the welfare of its people. We ask councillors to consider whether applying the same thermal guidance to untested frequency emissions with unknown risks is acceptable grounds to approve a technology which there will be no getting away from? The next step will be boxes on lamp posts outside our homes.

Only Telecoms companies can properly establish those risks via their obligations under ISO procedures. No compliance with ISO standards is submitted with the above application.

Presumably, Dorset County Council will seek to avoid liability for those risks. To quote from a letter from DLA Piper, UK solicitors for PHE, to Leigh Day solicitors, 8 August 2019:

“A public body must determine how much weight to put on the PHE guidance. Equally that body must determine what other evidence from your client or other members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision. If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the guidance with illegality.”

Statutory Nuisance

We are aware that some areas are considering a Statutory Nuisance Complaint concerning nuisance, harm and injury risk created by radio frequency radiation (RF), wireless and Wi-Fi non-ionising radiation emissions, and electromagnetic radiation (EMR), the subject of an action as a prerequisite to investigation under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990.

The EPA reference to ‘effluvia’ includes vapours and invisible particles, which is associated with magnetism and electromagnetism, posed by EMR as a pollutant. Consequently, the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the EU Directive on Industrial Emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) 2010/75/EU, apply to the subject matter of any complaint alleging that broadcast wireless or Wi-Fi ‘effluvia’ is pollution/industrial waste. In such circumstances, the general public or individuals have not consented to the resulting nuisance causing harm, or injury risk, created by exposures that they/we cannot avoid.

We therefore challenge Public Health England’s (PHE) safety assurances which rest on the ICNIRP claims that many scientists and doctors believe are misleading. Because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are inadequate in the protection of environmental and public health.

Many councils are accepting face value guidance from these bodies, effectively endorsing the validity of the information they provide. We suggest these points cannot be ignored and that more independent research needs to be done before Dorset Planning authority approve this application.

Thank you for taking the time to read this submission.

Yours sincerely

Roma Harding (Springfield Road)

Mary Jordan-Winter (Samphire Close)

endorsed by other concerned residents.