TETRA - Relevant Issues for a Letter of Objection (Lustleigh)

You can copy bits of this text - or the whole thing - into a new blank Word or Works document if you wish. Just highlight the text (drag over it with left mouse button down) then Copy (Edit menu at top, or Ctrl-c). Go to your word-processing document and Paste (Edit menu, or Ctrl-v). You can then put bits into your own words however you wish.

Letters will be accepted (and taken into account) right up to the Planning Meeting (not just up to the ‘Closing Date’) - the sooner the better, though.

Issues to address

Visual impact is the main issue that planning authorities usually focus on, but that depends on your particular circumstances – although of course a mast (even a fake tree mast) and the equipment housing beside it are totally inappropriate for any attractive spot. Location close to a school should be challenged - there is a very strong case for not exposing children to radiation that could be harmful to their development. Likewise if it would be close to an old people’s home (residential home) it should be pointed out that the elderly and infirm are also vulnerable to any such form of radiation. If the proposed site is close to hotels or guest houses, it is reasonable to point to likely loss of livelihood - would you want to holiday near one of those things?

The major issue here, of course, is health. Now Local Planning Authorities are directed by government not to consider health risks, or concerns over health risks (since they claim there are no health risks) – but this directive is in fact contrary to English Law [Human Rights Act 1998, Section 6(1)], which Local Authorities must abide by. It is also contrary to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also now part of English Law. Our law also now includes case law, verified in the Court of Appeal, which states that that “public fear and concern is a material planning consideration even if that fear is irrational and not based upon evidence”. That is even more the case where the public fear is based on some scientific evidence, even if that evidence is limited to the effect that there is a reason to do further research (as is very clearly agreed by all to be the case here).

If you live near the planned site, tell them how close you are and how that makes you feel. Remember that you may be subjected to radiation 8 hours a day while you sleep (research indicates that the body repairs itself in deep sleep, and emissions interfere with this), and maybe 24 hours a day. Again, the young, the elderly and the sick/infirm are particularly vulnerable. Research shows that the high-risk zone extends 2 km (1.25) miles or more from the base of a mast.

There is no evidence that TETRA is safe – that was agreed by everybody on the ITV documentary on TETRA, 10.45 pm Tuesday 20 August. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that further research is essential – that is also agreed by everybody. The only tests of TETRA health effects have been with serving police in Lancashire and Yorkshire – and, as highlighted in the documentary, around 200 of them have already reported sick as a result of using TETRA.

You could point out that ASBESTOS, THALIDOMIDE, LEAD in PETROL, BSE and, most recently, DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS are all examples where we have been forced to be wise after the event- at the cost of many lives and much human suffering. ‘Reassuring’ scientists have been proved wrong many times - will Government never learn from experience?

The Stewart Report (Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, published May 2000)

This Government-backed report advised “A cautionary approach”, putting the onus of proof on developers to prove that it is safe (as has always been the case with, e.g., new drugs) rather than on the public to prove that it is not. It also urged that “modulation around 16 Hz should be avoided, if possible, in future developments”. This is the frequency of the brain’s natural beta rhythms. TETRA is modulated at 17.6 Hz (pulses per second), which could (and according to the evidence, does) interfere with those rhythms.

DAILY MAIL May 19 2001. (Paul Kendall, Technology Correspondent. P. 43) “In a report last year Sir William highlighted scientific studies which showed that radiation around 16 Hz caused brain cells to lose more calcium than they should under normal conditions. This, in turn, affects the control of the central nervous system. Now comments Sir William made to the Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry earlier this year have come to light.

Asked whether low frequencies posed ‘the highest risk’ to human health, he replied: ‘We thought that that was an area that should be avoided if at all possible. Clearly it has not been avoided.’

Sir William was then asked why he had not been able to persuade the authorities to avoid the use of low frequencies.

He replied: ‘We did not focus particularly on that issue, but we pointed out that it was a hazard.’

Tory committee member Christopher Chope declared: ‘The Government is investing £2.5 billion on a system that will adopt the frequency you (Sir William) have identified as being the most hazardous.’

Sir William: ‘That is a question for the Government, not for me.’ “

DAILY TELEGRAPH (13/7/01, p. 12) “He (Sir William Stewart) is concerned that he may have been kept in the dark about Airwave (TETRA) specifications, saying Government observers who sat on the committee knew the Airwave specifications but did not mention them. . . .Sir William added that the National Radiological Protection Board should have been more forthcoming about the modulation used by the communications system. ‘They never said anything about it.’ he said.”

NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board) Report on TETRA

This report states that published research studies to date “. . . do not exclude the possibility of a risk of cancer that appears only after many years of exposure, nor of a hazard from RF (radio frequency) radiation modulated specifically at around 16 Hz.” Also that “Further studies need to be carried out on the effects of amplitude modulation or pulsing on neuronal activity and signalling within and between nerve cells.” It further proposed research into the possibility of pulsed waves increasing the likelihood of epileptic seizures, and suggested the use of “Human volunteer studies . . .to measure changes . . .arising from exposure to TETRA handsets”. It observed that staff in the emergency services would be using this service extensively, and so could provide useful data for “future epidemiological studies.” – in effect making them guinea pigs for this untried technology.

Views of Eminent Scientists in the Mobile Telecommunications Field

Barry Trower was commissioned by the Police Federation of England & Wales to produce a report on TETRA for their members. His conclusions, based on a thorough study of an extensive body of research by highly regarded expert scientists, highlighted serious health risks posed by the nature of the radiation used in TETRA. We are very fortunate in that Barry lives locally and was able to give an excellent talk on this subject in Lustleigh Village Hall on 19/8/02, answering questions on the implications for the village. He made it very clear that there are serious potential health concerns for everyone in the Lustleigh area, making this proposed mast a totally unacceptable health hazard.

Roger Coghill: “A criminal could not have come up with a better system. They couldn’t have chosen a better frequency with which to disarm and debilitate the very forces that are trying to secure their arrest.” Guardian 8/5/02

Alisdair Philips said TETRA had the potential to become the ‘next asbestos’. “It is beyond belief that anyone could be contemplating the rollout of a system like TETRA because of the evidence about the dangers of pulsed frequencies.” he said. “To design a communications system based on these principles is mind numbing.” Guardian 8/5/02

Dr G J Hyland (reporting to the European Parliament): “Of particular concern to the public is the involuntary subjection of certain groups of the population 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to the emissions of base stations . . . the environment of these people is effectively permanently polluted – a pollution from which there is literally nowhere to hide. This totally unacceptable state of affairs raises serious ethical questions . . . in that it is these people who will eventually reveal the degree to which chronic exposure to these fields is noxious – information that is not currently available; in other words they are effectively involuntary subjects in a mass experiment."

Dr Debbie Eklund has highlighted incidence of cancer and leukaemia clusters within 2 km of masts worldwide.

There are a very large number of peer-reviewed (i.e. carefully checked) research papers, by a substantial number of researchers, pointing to likely effects on health of pulsed microwaves (as in TETRA). These include:

Cancer, Leukaemia, heart/blood/bone-marrow disorders, depressed immune system, memory loss, problems with concentration, Neurological illnesses, miscarriage, infertility, fatigue, headaches, epilepsy, mental disorders, etc, etc.

Existing medical conditions can be aggravated – The Stewart Report recognises that certain people are particularly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. This is a point worth including if you know it applies to you.

Possible Personal Liability of Planning Officials (Information from Neil Pepperall, Caseley)

The Construction Design Management Regulations, 1996, make a requirement for safe construction and safe operation of a site after practical completion – no time limits. All Design Professionals involved have a Duty of Care both expressly in terms of contractual appointment & also implicitly from case precedents, building regulations and codes of conduct. A death arising from a Design Negligence is a “Criminal Manslaughter” charge. Employers cannot indemnify employees, nor will Professional Indemnity insurance cover them, against criminal charges. It is likely that (an) individual planning official(s), whose professional judgement leads to planning authorization which later leads to a death, could personally face Criminal Manslaughter charges. You may wish to point this out in your letter, and ask for the name(s) of the planning official(s) whose professional judgement will be relied upon for this planning decision. It could be pointed out, in this respect, that a number of Lustleigh residents have heart pacemakers – which can be seriously affected by TETRA radiation. In this respect the ‘eggshell skull’ principle is clearly applicable – i.e. if one takes(/approves) an action which affects individuals with a specific weakness, the perpetrator is held fully responsible.

Private Water Supplies Barry Trower confirmed that electrical installations like microwave masts attract radon gas, which gets into the water table when it rains, and is active there for over 10 years. Drinking this water will cause internal radiation damage.

Other News Articles include: “BOBBIES TO BE ‘GUINEA PIGS’ TESTING CANCER FEAR RADIO”, Sunday Independent (Devon), Jan 27 2002; “Police fear cancer risk from Airwave”, Network News, 28 Nov 2001, “Police in radio protest”, Daily Express, March 23 2002; “AIRWAVE: THE URGENT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS”, ‘Police’ magazine, Dec 2001; “Danger alert on £2.5bn police radio system”, Sunday Express, Feb 4 2001; “AIR OF DANGER”, Manchester Metro News, July 19 2002, “COPS FALL SICK AFTER TESTING NEW RADIOS”, Sun, July 18 2002. PLUS two with story lines of specific interest: “Firemen call up a hazard”, Daily Express, March 14 2002, includes “Risky radios waste our cash Firefighters have been issued with new radios but, incredibly, have been warned not to use them except in an emergency because of concerns that the radiation they emit could be dangerous”; “New police radios could cause jet crash”, Mail on Sunday,March 25 2001: “Britain’s new police radio network emits pulses so powerful it could cause planes to crash and hospital life support systems to fail, police unions have been warned. . . . Trials on the system, which is designed to help the police communicate more effectively over wider areas, have said that TETRA should not be used near airports as it interferes with air traffic control during take-off and landing. It has also been found to cause speed cameras to fail and breath test devices to give false readings”.