Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Technical consultation: changes to permitted development rights for electronic

communications infrastructure

Radio Equipment Housing

Question 1. The Government has committed to make it easier to deploy radio equipment
housing without the need for prior approval. This is to support the deployment of 5G and
incentivise the use of existing sites for site sharing.

1A) To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals: 

On Article 2(3) land to: 

 Permit single developments up to 2.5m3 without the need for prior approval;  

 permit single developments exceeding 2.5m3 subject to prior approval.  

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.
Comments

1. Article 2(3) land is land of special beauty and/or interest. One of the features is the
lack of street clutter and proliferation of equipment which impacts on these areas of
natural beauty.

2. A suggestion of equipment housing of 2.5m3 gives no indication of what kind of

dimensions this could turn into. It could be anything. It is important to be clear on
what these dimensions could look like. The taller the structure, the more intrusive
and more impact on the area it would have.

3. Without further detail, any proposals regarding not needing prior approval on Article
2(3) land should be revisited when further details are available.

4. Different mobile operators may interpret this in various ways. It will be important to
understand from the operators what they have in mind and to provide that in an
understandable way to the public in order to have a meaningful consultation.

5. Single developments exceeding 2.5m3 (whatever dimensions they relate to) should
not be permitted on Article 2(3) land. There are no reasons given for such equipment
to be required for the public to make an informed decision.
 2

1B) To implement this we would welcome your views on the following proposal: 

 To permit the installation, alteration or replacement of radio equipment housing

within the boundaries of a permitted compound, without the need for prior approval,
subject to measures to mitigate visual impact. This proposal would apply on all land
except land on or within sites of special scientific interest.  

We recognise that conditions would be needed to ensure that new equipment housing
does not have an adverse visual impact on the local area. We therefore particularly
welcome comments on what measures would be most appropriate to mitigate visual
impact.
Comments

1. This does not provide sufficient information to enable a meaningful response. Such
equipment could amount to 50m3, 1000m3 or more. What does this mean?

2. There are not many ‘permitted compounds’ in Article 2(3) land that I am aware of to
which this could apply. Given the design of mobile operators equipment to date
which does not mitigate visual impact, it is asserted that any design of such
equipment would not have any mitigation of its impact.

3. It is important that there is some oversight on the design and structure of the
equipment in these areas of outstanding natural beauty. If the government is entirely
committed to increasing housing equipment, then the best mitigation of this
equipment would be for it to be underground entirely so that it is not visible at all.
 3

Strengthening existing ground-based masts

Question 2. The Government has committed to make it easier to strengthen existing masts
without the need for prior approval to be given by the local planning authority. This is to
encourage use and sharing of existing masts and so limit the need for new ones.
2A) To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals:  

 To permit the alteration or replacement of existing masts with wider masts, subject to
the following limits: on all land, for existing masts less than one metre wide, permit
increasing the width by up to two-thirds without the need for prior approval;  

 where an existing mast is greater than one metre wide, permit increases in width
without the need for prior approval. Subject to consultation responses this would be
by either: 

o (a) up to one half or two metres (whichever is greater) on all land (including
Article 2(3) land and land on a highway); or 

o (b) up to one third or one metre (whichever is greater) on Article 2(3) land
and land on a highway, and one half or two metres on all other land.  

 on all land permit greater increases in width than proposed above subject to prior
approval  

 that any change in width is calculated by comparing the widest part of an existing
mast with the widest part of the new altered or replacement mast. 

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.
Comments

This section deals with:

A. An understanding of the reason for this proposal

B. If the width applies to the pole rather than to the top of the mast
C. If the width applies to the top of the mast

A. An understanding of the reason for this proposal

1. I understand that the operators are trying to upgrade their existing legacy 2G/3G sites
to 4G Massive MIMO or 5G (both use beam forming technology) and are finding that
the design of their existing sites do not allow them simply to add the new technology
next to the existing.
 4

2. This is because the size and shape of the 4GMM and 5G systems is far larger than
the “slice of cake” exclusion zone that 2/3G created.

3. 4GMM and 5G can create an exclusion zone 54 m in front, 5m behind and 2.3m
below the antenna. This simply does not fit within a dense building environment
where buildings are only 20m apart in some instances.

4. So the operators have tried to redesign their sites, increasing the heights of the
antennas or relocating them on to a new tower on rooftops.

5. Planning authorities have been rejecting applications for consent on the basis of
visual impact.

6. Hence the Government seeking to drive through amendments to planning legislation-

removing the barriers to development.

7. All this will have an impact upon visual amenity but the driver is health and safety.
The operators do not want to admit that 4GMM/5G creates these massive exclusion
zones.

8. I think that the problem that we have is that the contractors working for the operators
are poorly trained- they are paid peanuts- and so mistakes are being made.

9. Decisions on health and safety, the size and orientation of exclusion zones etc, are
being taken by people without the qualifications or the training. It is simply leading to
numerous mistakes and without any form of regulation, the operators could be seen
to be abusing their statutory powers.

10. I understand that this proposal will result in an increased width which will be a heavier
structure.  Thicker steel and so bigger members. Sometimes a change from
triangular section to square.  

11. This is to create a stronger tower that can support more or larger antennas and
dishes, or both. Also 4G Massive MIMO and 5G require remote radio units that are
located close to the antennas.

12. So the tower has to have a greater structural capacity to allow for the increased
weight and wind loading.  It is the wind loading that is the issue. 

13. It may be necessary to increase the size of the foundations also. Deeper and wider to
prevent overturning in the wind.  

14. The larger tower will also be capable of being grown. Extending it to allow sharing
and subletting to other operators. Not just mobile phone operators but also other
companies that require radio links.

15. So the operators get the land for next to nothing but then monetise the asset by
subletting it to other non code operators who would usually pay the land owners rent.
 5

16. It is recognised that existing designs of masts do not permit their conversion to 5G
because of the particular shape of the public exclusion zone required for 5G masts.
It is also recognised that for health and safety purposes because of these exclusion
zone shapes, that 5G masts have to be fairly tall as the exclusion zone drops 9m
from the top of a 20m mast.

17. However, many of the 1G to 4G masts which form the current infrastructure would
still need to be in situ. The industry anticipated in 2017 that 500,000 new masts
would be needed for 5G.

18. The intention may be now to replace all existing masts with very tall masts over 20m
which will need a much wider base and concrete support to house the bulk and
weight of the new equipment.

19. It is assumed that these width suggestions apply to the pole at the bottom rather than
the mast at the top. If they apply to the mast at the top, there are different
considerations to be considered.

B. If the width applies to the pole rather than to the top of the mast

20. These new masts are unlikely to be shared because operators will need the space to
put their own equipment for 1G to 4G as their old infrastructure is eventually
replaced.

21. So, there will be a proliferation of larger masts on Article 2(3) land and indeed, on all
land and indeed on all land which is not acceptable.

22. No dimensions of current masts are given so that it is not possible to understand
what this request means. Insufficient information given for the purposes of this
consultation makes it a sham.

23. I think in feet. An existing mast which is one metre wide is already approx. 3 feet
wide. An increase by another half metre (1.5 feet) or two metres (6 feet) is a
considerable increase. That would mean a mast of 4.5 feet or 9 feet wide. Unless I
have misunderstood these dimensions, that will allow a massive increase in size of
replacement masts which will be visually obstructive, including land on a highway.

24. The alternative of one third (1 foot) or one metre (3 feet) would mean a 4 foot or 6
foot mast. Again these are massive measurements. What kind of equipment is
intended with these massive measurements? There are no suggestions of what
these could look like.

25. Massive infrastructure like this is not suitable for residential areas.

C. If the width applies to the top of the mast

 6

26. What kind of top part of the mast will be potentially 9 feet wide? In our area which is
near Hampstead Heath, there are many birds of interest which fly in and out of the
Heath. Having such vast structures would be detrimental to the street scene, would
be against the local councils planning guidance and neighbourhood plans and be
wholly incongruent and out of place in residential areas whether they be Article 2(3)
land or not.

27. The concern then turns to the exclusion zones of increases of width of the tops of
masts if the height of them will not also increase. The shape of the public exclusion
zone of a 5G mast is quite different to the shape of the public exclusion one of a 4G
mast.

28. The public exclusion zone of a 5G mast with massive MIMO with beam forming
technology is in the shape of a massive whale with a fin at the back. It would radiate
from the top of the mast. On, say, an 18m tower, the exclusion zone would have a
radius of 54m making the exclusion zone 108m in size for a Step 1 (optimum power)
configuration, 39m radius for a Step 2 (lower power) configuration and probably a
33m radius for a Step 3 (still lower power) configuration.

29. Below Step 3, there is a ‘fixit’ power configuration which can be set which is lower
still. But it’s a fudge which does not use standard software. Steps 1, 2 or 3 are set
power outputs.

30. Using a 5G antenna in an urban setting with a 4G massive MIMO will be a

challenging environment as the exclusion zones intertwine. The exclusion zones drop
by about 9m from the base of the antenna (assuming a 3m antenna, that’s only a
15m clear pole). So, a 9m exclusion zone drop from the base of the antenna at 15m
leaves only headroom of 6m (18 feet) which may be the height of a double decker
bus. So, if the heights of poles are not increased but the width of the masts are being
increased, the public exclusion zones will go into buses and other tall mobile vehicles
as they pass by.

31. Where the poles are near to highways, this will provide a permanent exclusion zone
violation for such equipment for tall mobile vehicles.

32. Such masts would also mean that suddenly the exclusion zones widen which may
make them non-compliant as the exclusion zones move into nearby houses and
other buildings.

33. If a mast is initially set to a fixit setting, a maintenance contractor who is visiting may
change the setting when he visits to a Step 1 (max power), Step 2 or Step 3. This will
mean that the initial setting which had a particular exclusion zone profile could
change to put everything around in the exclusion zone.

34. Mobile operators have been told if they provide an ICNIRP certificate that all they
have to do and planning officers don’t have to bother their heads further. But the
mobile operators will know that their equipment do not comply as they know what the
 7

exclusion zones are vis a vis their equipment although they do not share them with
anyone.

35. In fact, I am aware that some mobile operators actively prevent their exclusion zone
maps being provided to interested parties and that they go as far as writing on the
plans which are provided to others that they are not to be disclosed to the local
council or others. This is wrong.

36. Some operators are aware that their exclusion zones currently go through residential
buildings.

37. The danger, therefore, is that, in existing urban areas with mature telecoms networks,
there is an upgrade to 5G masts without an attendant increase in the height of the
poles and antennae and suddenly the exclusion zones move into residential and
other buildings, irradiating the public in breach of the ICNIRP guidelines.

38. The ICNIRP guidelines set exclusion zones which are not currently being honoured
by some mobile operators and no one is measuring and checking to ensure the
health and safety of the general public which, in turns, puts them at risk.

39. So, if, for example, a street mast is currently 2m above residential roof height in a
road, and the mast is upgraded to 5G, then all houses will be in the public exclusion
zone. The power output would have to be set to ‘fixit’ or the height of the mast will
have to be increased for a taller or stronger mast.

40. If the heights of the masts are not increased for the widths of masts anticipated, then
it is unlikely that the mobile operators could deliver 5G in urban environments
because they won’t be able to operate it within health and safety limits.

41. Part of the problem is that modifications to the installation and occasional
maintenance work are carried out by sub-contractors appointed by the operators.
Some of them do not know what they are doing and can set the wrong settings on the
equipment which can inadvertently increase the size of the public exclusion zone
penetrating nearby residential buildings.

42. The problem is that the designers are just working from a survey report that someone
else has produced. That someone else is usually poorly qualified and does little
investigation, leaving the H&S aspect to someone else. That someone else assumes
that the surveyor has considered H&S. So a site on a slope – homes uphill will be
higher than the radio planner is aware of and so the power output, height of the mast
etc, could be wrong. The result - exclusion zone penetrating onto the upper rooms
of the homes.

43. The photo at Attachment 1 (to be attached to this submission) shows a real site
which was a NEW site. Note the loft conversion on the right behind the tree. The
plan view is even worse. And all the mobile operators have to do is issue an ICNIRP
certificate saying that it complies with ICNIRP design guidelines for the general
public. What ICNIRP design guidelines?
 8

44. In addition, yo yo operators go up and down buildings relating to the equipment so

that the disruption to building owners is massive and they have no idea of the
exclusion zones.

45. Another problem is that much of the equipment is automated and controlled remotely
by the operators. In one case I have heard that the equipment can only be turned off
by a team in India. The mobile phone base station will adjust its output power
according to the call traffic being carried subject to a maximum that is set in spectrum
licensing conditions. This makes it difficult for the landlord of a property, concerned
about the health and safety of other rooftop workers, to predict the actual output at
any given time. Output frequencies are also set in spectrum licensing conditions.
The exclusion zone will vary depending on the power output.

46. Safety information should be at the forefront of the minds of operators but it is not.
They do not share information as recommended by the Stewart Report 2010 which
was the last major enquiry by UK government professionals of his industry.

47. At the very least, and to help building owners to understand their health and safety
responsibilities to others with this equipment around them, and to provide such
information to rooftop workers, there should be a detailed antenna inventory of the
following information: antenna type (e.g. sector antenna, microwave dish, folded
dipole), operator, location (position, height, orientation), operating parameters, extent
of any exclusion zone and date of installation. This should be provided to all
buildings surrounding the relevant masts and also put on a website searchable by the
general public.

48. Increasing the width of masts has another issue – the cumulative effect on nearby
masts and antennae given its increase in size. Who does the calculation of the
cumulative effect of the radiofrequency radiation and the exclusion zones if these
changes are implemented? There are no proposals around that which would impact
on the health and safety of the general public.

49. It is well known that two masts next to each other or one above the other will increase
the amount of radiofrequency radiation and the exclusion zones will go further. There
are no such measurements taking place. The government in making these proposals
is considering introducing legislation that will be harmful to human health. This is the
wrong side of risk measurement.

50. Many local councils in the original consultation rejected this idea because of the
damage to the skyline and vistas. Their views should be respected.

51. Because Street Furniture sites are macro base stations deployed at low level there
are some special compliance issues that need to be considered. Specifically
consideration needs to be given to the following and the proposals will make these
issues more urgent.
 9

(a) Streetlights – It is necessary to ensure that a worker can work on a nearby

Streetlight without entering into the antenna occupational exclusion zone.
Hence as a guideline Street Furniture poles should be minimum of 8m from
any lighting column.

(b) Trees – It is necessary to ensure that a tree surgeon or a householder can

undertake tree pruning without entering into the antenna public exclusion
zone.

(c) Domestic Premises – It is necessary to ensure that householders can use

their balconies, undertake tree pruning, roof or gutter maintenance without
entering into the antenna public exclusion zone.

(d) Double Deck Buses – It is necessary to ensure that the public exclusion
zone does not impinge upon a double deck bus. For reference a double deck
bus should be assumed to be 5m in height.

(e) Railway Bridges – If mounted close to a railway bridge it is necessary that

the public exclusion zone does not impinge upon the train.

1.
 10

2B) For existing masts greater than one metre wide we have proposed two alternative
options:  

Permit the alteration or replacement of existing masts with wider masts, subject to the
following limits: 

 Option A) up to one half or two metres (whichever is greater) on all land (including
Article 2(3) land and land on a highway), or  
 Option B) up to one third or one metre (whichever is greater) on Article 2(3) land and
land on a highway, and one half or two metres on all other land.   

Greater increases in width than proposed above would be subject to prior approval. The
above proposal would also not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.  

Which of these two options do you consider to be most appropriate?

If you would make any further comments, please include these in your response to Question
2A (above).

 Option A  Option B

1. I do not consider either option to be more appropriate due to the lack of information of
the dimensions and impact.

2. Please also consider the responses to question 2A above which are repeated here.
 11

Question 3. The Government has committed to make it easier to strengthen existing

masts without the need for prior approval to be given by the local planning authority.
This is to encourage use and sharing of existing masts and so limit the need for new
ones.

To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals:  

To permit the alteration or replacement of existing masts up to a new height of 25 metres,

without the need for prior approval, outside of Article 2(3) land. 

The Government also proposes to align permitted development height limits for alterations
to existing masts with those proposed for new masts. This would permit the alteration or
replacement of existing masts subject to the following limits: 

 on Article 2(3) land and land on a highway, up to a new height of 25 metres subject
to prior approval;  

 on all other land, up to a new height of 30 metres, subject to prior approval;  

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.
Comments

1. 25m is massive. This is 75 feet. 30m is 90 – 96 feet. Our country would look like
something out of the War of the Worlds.

2. Even with approval from local councils, this would be overpowering, overbearing on
all land, including Article 2(3) land and spoil the street scene of every street in the
country.

3. Such structures are not right for residential areas or on town centres where the
residents regularly shop. They would need massive equipment to accompany them,
blocking pavements and street corners providing an obstacle course for the blind and
physically disabled.

4. Such large structures do not exist in towns at present and the thought of their
proliferation makes my heart sink.

5. Such structures are not appropriate for the landscape in this country.

6. What if one set in a residential area falls over in a storm? It would do enormous
damage which could result in death.

7. Such structures would ruin the skyline and vistas of conservation areas and other
Article 2(3) land.
 12

8. As stated in question 2, it is recognised that the masts must grow to be safe for 5G
antennae, but I have heard that mobile operators are penny pinching and are estate
agents of the worst type – they do not care how they entreat with the public and it is
only when they are caught out that they try to pretend that they are changing their
design.

9. The original consultation response from the government stated that they would
consider restrictions and environmental protections resulting from these proposals.
How can 25m and 30m monstrosities be considered to be part of any “environmental
protection” measures?

10. There must be other ways of delivering 5G which do not have the visual impacts of
these behemoth structures. A plea is made to move to fibre broadband only rather
than the mobile radiation promoters. New technology is being introduced every day
and the UK’s engineers are innovative and thoughtful. Why can’t they think of a
solution to disabled EHS sufferers and a suitable alternative to these ill considered
ideas?

11. The exclusion zones of these behemoths and the equipment they will house will be
enormous. They will impact on the public doing loft conversions which may go
through the exclusion zones. These proposals will hamper home and building
development because of the exclusion zone issues.
 13

Highlighted text below means new proposals which were not part of the original
consultation but included here as a new consultation.

Building-based masts

Question 4. The Government has committed make it easier to deploy building-based

masts nearer to highways, subject to prior approval. This is to support deployment of
5G and extend mobile coverage encourage using existing structures.
To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposal: 

Permitting the installations of masts within 20 metres of the highway on buildings that are
less than 15 metres in height. Existing limits to the location and heights of masts and
number of antennae that can be deployed on building would remain. This proposal
would not apply on Article 2(3) land or land on or within sites of special scientific interest.

Comments

1. This is a new proposal which was not contained in the original consultation
document.

2. This proposal means that in residential roads where houses have no front garden but
open onto the pavement which is perhaps 6 feet from the road, these masts may be
placed on top of them.

3. Residential roads where houses have small front gardens will also be impacted. 20m
is 64 feet so that this proposal really impacts residential roads and high streets where
shops open onto the pavement.

4. It is helpful to see Article 2(3) land excluded. But, masts on homes will be a health
and safety hazard. Not least because of damage they can do during storms.

5. Not only will they form exclusion zones which will impact work by workmen on
rooftops, terraces and balconies, but they can also hinder property development.
How would one remove a mast to build a loft conversion or roof terrace? How would
one use one’s roof terrace if there is a mast which has an exclusion zone which
impacts one’s roof space?

6. These proposals will affect many residential roads in the UK. The limit on the
number of antennae at present is 5. That is a lot of antennae to place on someone’s
house, not to mention the load bearing issues involved in the weight of such
equipment.

7. Many roofs on buildings which are less than 15 metres in height would not be built to
take masts with this number of antenna, or even a mast with one antennae.
 14

8. Even with planning permission, this will be a health and safety hazard to the general
public. These proposals would also form a breach of human rights as set out in the
responses to question 12.

Question 5. The Government wishes to go further to enable the deployment of

building-based masts nearer to highways. This is to support deployment of 5G and
extend mobile coverage encourage using existing structures.
5A) Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to permit shorter masts on
buildings without the need for prior approval, subject to measures to mitigate visual
impact?

 Yes  No
5B) We would welcome your views on this proposal. We particularly welcome
comments on the measures proposed to mitigate visual impact: 

 limiting the height of masts that can be deployed without the need for prior approval
to a height of no more than 6 metres above the highest part of the building, and  

 only applying this permitted development right outside of Article 2(3) land and sites of
special scientific interest.  

Comments

1. These questions are also new and not part of the original consultation.

2. I do not agree with these proposals at all. Enabling masts of 6m (18 feet) above the
highest part of the building could be a mast of any size depending on the
configuration of the building. This is not sufficient information to be able to give a
considered view.

3. The comments to Question 4 apply equally here. Apart from the breach of human
rights as set out in Question 12, these masts may attach to buildings on the side and
be very tall extending 18 feet into the air. This is not appropriate for Article 2(3) land
at all, changing the landscape forever with these protuberances.

4. It is not right to impose unlimited dimensions of equipment to be attached to

someone’s home.

5. Encouraging the use of existing structures does not extend to using the public’s
residential homes so that any suggestion that the original proposal to make is easier
to deploy building based masts nearer to highways covers the public’s homes is
misconceived.

6. These proposals do not provide sufficient detail for the public to make informed
comments.

7. I would encourage these proposals to be dropped.

15
 16

Highlighted text below means new proposals which were not part of the original
consultation but included here as a new consultation.

New ground-based masts

Question 6. The Government has committed to enable higher masts, subject to prior
approval. This is to support deployment of 5G, extend mobile coverage and to
support the sharing of masts.

To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals:  

 On Article 2(3) land, and land which is on a highway, to permit new ground-based

mast up to 25 metres in height, subject to prior approval  

 On all other land, to permit new ground-based mast up to 30 metres in height,

subject to prior approval  

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest. 

Comments

1. Do see responses to question 3 which are repeated here.

 17

Question 7. The Government has considered whether further measures are needed to
support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage.

We are considering whether permitting monopoles up to 15 metres in height outside

of Article 2(3) land and land on or within sites of special scientific interest without the
need for prior approval would support the Government’s ambitions for 5G
deployment.

We would welcome your views on this proposal. We particularly welcome comments

on the restrictions, limitations and conditions that would be required to ensure this
permitted development right would only apply to monopoles, and to mitigate visual
impacts.

Comments

1. 15m is 48 feet. These are tall poles indeed. I do not agree to the 15m monopoles
without planning permission would support the Government’s ambitions for 5G
deployment. There would be a proliferation of street clutter by all types of mobile
operators. There is no way to mitigate the visual impact. They are ugly, tall and a
blight on the landscape.

2. Do see other comments to this consultation which will also be relevant here.
 18

Safeguarding

Question 8. The Government wishes to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to
mitigate the impact of development from the proposals on safeguarded areas. To
achieve this, we are proposing to amend the General Permitted Development Order for
all developments relating to masts within official safeguarded areas related to
Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas.

8A) Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to amend the General Permitted
Development Order to include a prior notification procedure relating to safeguarded
areas, and to require prior approval for proposed mast developments in proximity to a
defence asset?
 Yes  No

8B) We would welcome your views on proposed the prior notification procedure and
prior approval requirement.

Comments

1. Prior notification is not adequate to address the concerns of these site operators.
There is a prohibition at present for a reason. Operators should not have carte
blanche to put up their equipment wherever they like. There will be no co-ordination
and there will be a free for all.

2. An approval regime is more appropriate. These site operators would be able to set
out what they should be.
 19

Small Cell Systems

Question 9. The Government wishes to update the definition of small cell systems in
the General Permitted Development Order. This is to ensure that there is no
uncertainty about the types of technology that fall within the definition.
9A) Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to amend the definition of ‘small
cell systems’ in the General Permitted Development Order?
 Yes  No
9B) We would welcome your views on this proposal.

1. This is a new question and was not part of the original consultation.

2. The proposals seek to redefine a small cell as a cell using 10 W/m2. This is not a
sensible way to define a small cell antennae. Its like saying that you are going to
build the next generation 747 aircraft by starting with the size of the fuel tank – you
would not do that, would you? I suspect not.

3. There is inadequate information to give a proper response but the following should
be noted.

4. Depending on the power output, 10 watts per metre squared (10W/m2) is the
maximum acceptable limit for total RF radiation levels for ‘General Public’ (GP) areas
for standard GSM, 3G & 4G mobile phone transmissions above 2GHz in frequency.

5. For bands lower in frequency the General Public limit is f/200 W/m2 where f is the
frequency in MHz. For example Band 20, at around 800MHz, has a lower ICNIRP
General Public limit of 800MHz/200 W/m2 = 4 W/m2.

6. Occupational exposure to RF Radiation for the majority of mobile telecommunication

frequency bands, i.e. those near or above 2GHz, is set at 50Watts/m2 whereas the
General Public limit is set a fifth lower at 10Watts/m2.

7. This is significantly lower for bands below 2GHz. The traditional 900MHz band, used
by both Vodafone and O2 (TEF) has a General Public limit of around 4.5Watts/m2
and the relatively more recent 800MHz band, also available to both CTIL Operators
has an even lower limit of 4Watts/m2.

8. There is no single table setting out the values that I have seen but the methodology
for calculating this is set out in the EU/1999/519 and EU/213/33 docs. Gobbledygook
to me.

9. Unless there is a common framework of technical design assumptions and agreed

interfaces which would avoid fragmentation and benefit from economies of scale,
these cells won’t be shared between mobile operators.
 20

10. The article below is a good place to start.

https://www.5gradar.com/features/5g-small-cells-everything-you-need-to-know

11. This article contains a section on “Regulating 5G small cells” which may be helpful. It
describes one of the biggest challenges within the world of 5G small cells is coming
up with a set of industry standards and definitions for this emerging tech.

12. To this end, the Small Cell Forum (SCF) - whose members include Airspan, AT&T,
Cisco, CommScope, Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, and Vodafone
- has begun publishing the first “informed and consensual” overview of 5G small cell
network architectures and product definitions. 

13. Titled ‘5G Small cell architecture and product definitions’, this is the first such study of
its kind, with the aim of providing an informed view of the most important
configurations and specifications for companies Main recommendations for 5G small
cells.

14. Headline elements of the new report include a clear definition of a 5G small cell
network, key indoor and outdoor small cell deployment scenarios, a summary of 5G
small cell RAN architecture options, an overview of small cell regulation and power
classes, and a reference to hardware configurations for the main 5G small cell
products expected to launch over the next five years.

15. The report aims to provide a consensus view and concise definition of the types of
5G small cells being rolled out now and in the near future. It also includes definitions
of the key characteristics of the different types of commercially viable 5G small cell
RAN products that will be available over the next five years, including 3GPP and O-
RAN Alliance 5G disaggregated open RAN specifications – work that covers
macrocells, but also includes microcells and picocells.

16. "Small cells, or femtocells as they were previously known, have played an
increasingly important role in wireless networks since their introduction more than a
decade ago. One would have thought that a small cell is well defined; however, it has
taken significant effort to work out what a 5G small cell is,” remarked Vicky Messer,
Director, Product Management at Picocom.

17. It is hoped that the report will enable the networking industry to innovate within
“common, agreed design frameworks”, which will support product diversity, whilst
also maintaining scalability and interoperability as 5G small cells are increasingly
installed in our communities over the next five years.

18. That report would be a good place to start to understand what is needed for small cell
regulation.

19. Merely identifying a small cell by its power output is no way to start the regulation of
this part of the industry.
 21

Implementation

Question 10. We welcome comments on what more, if anything, the Government

should do to ensure successful implementation of the proposed planning reforms to
support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage .

Comments

This seems to be a new kind of question which was not part of the original consultation. This
section deals with:

A. General
B. State Aid concerns
C. Dovetailing with existing health and safety legislation
D. Something needs to be done about the current behaviour of mobile phone
operators and their agents

A. General

1. Thought needs to be given to what happens to people who wear medical mobile
wearables which may interact with radiation equipment placed on their homes? This
would include pacemakers, insulin pumps and the like. No thought is being given to
the impact on such persons with the proliferation of equipment as contained in these
proposals.

2. The proposals will work hand in hand with the changes proposed by the Electronics
Communications Code. Some comments should be made about both.

3. If the government only listens to the MNOs, the evidence base will always be biased
and I suggest, exaggerated and not reflective of the overall market.

4. It is important that we try to redress the balance- the operators say that landowners
and their agents and overseas owners of infrastructure companies (APW etc) are the
cause of all the problems and that we are stopping the roll-out of sites and upgrades-
which is why the existing laws needs further amendment.

5. We have to bring the focus back on to what government intended- speeding up a

connected Britain? How is this going to be achieved- and why has the existing law
not worked?

6. Remember the operators were lobbying the DCMS to say that they could not roll out
in rural areas because of greedy landlords demanding ransom rents?
No evidence was provided for this and yet still they claim this to be the case- even
when land owners in rural areas would willingly surrender their land for a mast to
bring connectivity to their village.
 22

7. That residents of such villages resort to installing the infrastructure for broadband
themselves and at their own cost, surely raises a question about the operators
claims.

8. The Shared Rural Network project has had to be created with the Government
having to subsidise the operators to the tune of £500 million to get the operators out
of the high profit making urban environments, airports and other high footfall sites
and into areas where low population levels make operating sites unprofitable for
them. Even then the operators are dragging their feet, rural coverage does not fit
their financial models.

9. Operators have confirmed that rural areas will not be getting 5G. So living in the
countryside will mean that you will only get a 2nd class level of coverage. 5G is being
reserved for towns and cities where lucrative contracts will make them huge profits.
So much for a world class leading national network.

10. The operators are further undermining the government by failing to invest the millions
of savings they are making on rents into rural networks and demanding that the
Government help them directly- financially- with investment in the shared rural
network.

11. The numerous previous consultations, costs analysis and other reviews prepared in
support of the proposed changes to the law, including the Electronics Communication
Code, were focussed upon the operators achieving substantial cost savings with
anticipated rent reductions of 40%. I refer you to the Govt briefing paper of June
2016.

12. But what actually happened? The operators demanded rental savings of over 90%.

13. The initial offerings were just 99.9% of the previously stable telecoms market. In
many instances, the operators offered just £50 in rent. That was not what
Government intended. This fundamentally undermined all the impact assessments,
financial studies and analysis upon which the changes to Electronics
Communications Code were based.

14. Who was responsible for this? Was it landowners and their agents?

15. In one fell swoop, the operators washed away the very foundations upon which the
revisions to the Electronics Communications Code were based.

16. Everything that the operators have done since then appears to have been
deliberately designed to alienate the site provider- to drive a wedge between operator
and land owner and to undermine the Governments aims.

17. Another key element in consultations when revising the Code was the ability of the
land owner to be able to remove an operator if it intended to redevelop. Government
 23

recognised that the uncertainty of being able to secure vacant possession was a
barrier to deployment of sites.

18. The Government stated that it intended that the revisions would give the land owner
certainty in being able to remove the operator- but in return, the operator would be
given a longer period- 18 months- to find an alternative site.

19. We now see operators routinely submitting objections to landlords applications for
planning consent to redevelop their own land in a crude attempt to prevent that
redevelopment.

20. Once again, the operators have totally undermined Governments best intentions.

21. The recent University of Arts case taken to the Upper Lands Tribunal by the
operators is an example of how they treat landlords who wish to redevelop. They
attempted to persuade the court that the termination notice was defective and
therefore ineffective. This was despite there being no dispute that the site was to be
redeveloped.

22. What message does this send to land owners- especially for those who cannot afford
the massive legal fees that these cases incur.

23. Similarly in the case of these proposals, they will stop building development because
of the exclusion zone issues. Similar problems as with the Code will occur and there
will be a lot of litigation.

24. Land owners with operators on their land find that they are also unable to use their
own land for their own use/business as reclaiming the site for their own use is not a
ground for terminating an agreement. So hospitals, police, offices etc who wish to
install their own communications apparatus or air conditioning units or similar plant,
cannot do so.

25. Asking the operator to relocate their apparatus or to redesign the site to remove H&S
exclusion zones, results in a blank refusal or a demand for costs to be paid for lift and
shift. This is appalling and is likely to happen with these proposals.

26. Was this what Government intended?

27. What effect does the government think this has on the relationship between the land
owner and the operator?

28. Does the government not recognise that the operators have yet again undermined
the intentions of the Code?

29. A submission made to the government relating to amendments to the Code back in
2016 is as relevant to these proposals as they are to the Code. An extract of the
submission is below:
 24

Termination

10. It has been an industry standard for the last 20 years for agreements
under the current Code to allow for termination upon 12 months written
notice. Some landowners especially in towns and cities already view 12
months as bringing an unacceptable delay to their redevelopment programs.
By extending this notice period to a minimum of 18 months, many landowners
and developers will find it hard to be persuaded to voluntarily offer their sites
to Operators thus reducing the pool of available sites even further and
triggering the “compulsory acquisition” of the site by the Operator via the
courts.

11. Assuming that the courts support the Operator then apparatus could be
installed on land or a building where the owner is likely to be uncooperative or
“hostile”, leaving the Operators, especially in urban environments where
apparatus is installed on secure rooftops, at risk of network disruption due to
their inability to gain timely access their apparatus for fault repair or
maintenance purposes.

15. Suggested Amendment

The requirement for a minimum notice period of 18 months required to bring a

Code agreement to an end [Para 30 (3) (a)] should be removed to allow the
landowner and Code Operator to negotiate the notice period openly – an
“Agreed Period” so as to reflect the ability of the Operator to acquire
alternative sites in the area and to reflect the landowners own business and
operations.

(3) The date specified under sub-paragraph (2) (b) must fall—

(a) after the end of the (period of 18 months) AGREED PERIOD

beginning with the day on which the notice is given,

30. This was ignored.

31. The 2016 submission continues:

Landowners/Occupiers Business and Operational Needs.

16. The new Code provides for the leases automatically continuing and only
being brought to an end by the landowner/occupier on one of four grounds
these being:

a. Substantial breaches

b. Persistent delays in making payments

c. if the test under para 20 is no longer met and

d. The site provider intends to redevelop

 25

17. Whilst the New Code takes into consideration the Operators business and
technical needs when a landowner seeks to determine an agreement [Part 5
Termination and Modification of Agreements Para (13)], it does not take into
consideration the landowners technical needs, only (b) the use of the land, (c)
any duties imposed on the landowner or occupier (sic site provider) by an
enactment and (d) financial considerations.

18. Suggested Amendment

We submit that there is a clear statutory requirement lacking in the New Code
for the landowners/occupiers business (as opposed to duties), operations and
technical needs to be taken into consideration. Certain categories of
landowners should not have their own operations compromised by a Code
Operator nor their ability to upgrade and modernise their own operational
equipment. This includes owners of secure and Blue Light sites and hospitals
together with maintainers of communications infrastructure such as Network
Rail or TFL.

Upgrades

19. It is believed that automatic rights to upgrade are the Achilles heel of this
existing Code. The thrust of the existing Code is that upgrades must be
permitted in order to allow the Operators to provide a modern, fit for purpose
data and communications network.

Management costs

38. One fundamental issue that appears to have been underestimated in the
legislation’s drafting is the cost to the landowner associated in managing the
numerous visits to sites by the multitude of contractors acting for the
Operators. The location of many of these sites, be it on the roof or an office
block, police station, drill tower or police mast, when taken together with other
users of the site, requires careful management. Much of the work is at height.
Health and Safety has to be considered and risk assessments and method
statements submitted by contractors have to be checked.

39. Sites are now being upgraded regularly. The numbers and frequency of
fault rectification visits continues to increase year on year as equipment
becomes more complex. The cost saving exercises of the Operators, for
instance in replacing expensive air cooling units with forced air fan units, has
resulted in numerous additional site visits due to equipment overheating.

40. It may be of interest for the committee and the Minister to have some
facts and figures presented in support of the landowners. One of our clients
has a portfolio of 11 sites. Over 12 months from 2014 to 15 they received
over 140 access requests from the Operators various contractors.

41. During 2015 to 16, when the number of sites reduced to just 9, but 150
access requests were received. In addition, breach notices had to be issued
 26

and managed. All this incurred cost and took staff away from their primary
work.

42. Public authorities such as fire and ambulance trusts have historically
justified the locating of apparatus on their sites against perceived health and
safety fears. The financial benefits received effectively subsidised public
funding and helped deliver vital public services.

43. However the existing Code will make it harder for them to:-

1. secure vacant possession if intending simply to sell the land or building

upon which the apparatus is located

2. achieve full market value as the protection afforded to the Code Operators
by the New Code (effectively a sitting tenant) will devalue that land or building

3. rationalise estates or redeveloping sites within timescales

4. discharge their public duty to obtain maximum value for land as required of
public authorities as the compensation regime will be linked to compulsory
purchase order valuation regimes.

44. Public authorities could quite rightly find themselves under severe public
criticism for effectively subsidising privately owned mobile phone Operators
whose shareholders and customers will be benefiting financially at the
taxpayers expense. They will be given no option but to terminate the
agreements in accordance with the provisions of Part 5 [Para 13] (c) and (d).

20. We are extremely concerned that the key concept of granting automatic
rights to upgrade equipment has been included without any statutory
requirement for the Operator to inform the landowner in advance or to consult
with them. This could have catastrophic results for some existing landowners.

21. We are concerned that the Code places an implied reliance upon the
Operators to identify in advance where potential exists for technical
interference. How would they know what systems the landowner is operating
on the same building? Some frequencies used by security personnel will not
be disclosed for security reasons. In short, Code Operators cannot be
expected to, and would not be able to, identify that risk.

32. And this is exactly what is happening today which is a major problem with the Code.
The cost of managing the system has been pushed on to the landlord which is unfair
as the landlord has no commercial interest in the operation of the operators. This is
undemocratic and an abuse of the electorate by the government.

33. The 2016 submission continues.

Health and Safety

 27

22. Potentially the existing Code could place the landowner in conflict with the
Health and Safety Executive. Employers are required to ensure that risks are
reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Part 3 [Para 16 (5) (a)
and (b)] states that no agreement under Part 2 of the existing Code can
prevent or limit upgrading or sharing of Apparatus or make upgrading
subject to conditions to be met by the Operator. This would exclude the
condition that the Operator should inform the Operator of upgrades and seek
to prevent technical interference IN ADVANCE.

23. Radio frequencies and the power at which they are transmitted, can
introduce risk to various related technologies including safety critical
and operational radio, signalling and communications systems.
Potentially also, equipment used in hospitals.

24. The inability of some existing site providers to control upgrades will, we
submit, inevitably leave them with no alternative but to terminate their
agreements with the Code Operators unless additional provisions are added
that mitigate risks associated with upgrading.

In our experience, if there is one thing that some of the mobile phone
Operators have consistently demonstrated over the past decade, it is
that they seek every opportunity to save money wherever possible,
some even going to the extent that they take a calculated commercial
risk of breaching conditions of their leases, say by sharing sites where
leases exclude such rights or by adding equipment beyond specified
limits.

30. There is no guarantee that Code Operators will voluntarily enter into what
can be costly and time-consuming technical analysis or practical
demonstrations –assuming that they can identify that risk in advance
(consider police covert radio systems) -when their primary concern appears to
be saving time and money.

31. The Government are clearly persuaded that the Code requires revising
perhaps to prevent repetition of such breaches. We submit that the
Government should have paid more heed as to why the landowner restricted
these rights in the first instance. For many landowners, health and safety,
security and operational reasons are the triggers.

Suggested Amendment

32. The rights to upgrade must be made subject to a statutory requirement for
the Code Operator to inform the landowner in advance of any intention to
upgrade a site and to mitigate any risks associated with the introduction of
that upgrade

34. Does the government not recognise that the operators have yet again undermined
the intentions of the Code?
 28

35. The operators are now complaining that landowners or their agents are deliberately
trying to delay upgrades or their own deployment of apparatus on a site by asking for
unnecessary information such as structural assessments or health and safety
exclusion zone drawings.

36. This is information that any building and land owner would need in any event to allow
it to discharge its own duties of care under at least 3 separate pieces of  health and
safety legislation. This is legislation that carries criminal sanctions.

37. The Government should know that this information was always provided upon
request -and more often than not even without a request having to be formally made-
in the years preceding the Digital Economy Act. So why are some of the operators
now refusing to provide it? Is it simply due to cost? Or is it because they are
concerned that they are creating H&S issues?

38. It is reckless in the extreme for the operators to now try to undermine H&S legislation
and to place the site provider in breach of statutory legislation that was in place long
before the operators got a whiff of the opportunities to make massive cost saving
measures.

39. Again, Government should ask itself, what has changed? Why is the operator acting
like this? It should not be asking, “why is the land owner or the land owners agent
acting like this?” Land owners have always and will always, ask for this information
where necessary.

40. Those who drafted the Code went to great lengths to emphasise that the ability of the
operators to resort to using its Code Powers (and in particular resorting to the Court)
should be a last resort. Only after all attempts at negotiation had been exhausted
should the threat of legal action be used.

41. So why is it that the very first approach to the site provider usually includes a threat
of legal action? Why is it that the operator does not allow its agents to negotiate
terms as they used to do in the years leading up to 28th December 2017?

42. Recently we have seen the operators instruct solicitors to write directly to clients legal
departments deliberately by-passing land owners surveyors or agents even after
negotiations have started and where no response has been received from the
operator.

43. This is their first response- go legal.

44. The letters are clearly designed to drive a wedge between the agent and the client.
The contents of the letters are very, very carefully drafted and set out a “position” that
the letter relies upon throughout, to suggest that the agent is putting the land owner
at risk of legal action and costs. The letter even quotes very select extracts of the
lease, often only a section of a clause. Had the whole clause been quoted, or the
 29

correspondence from the agent been quoted correctly, it would have become
immediately clear that the legal position was very different to the “position” set out in
the letter.

45. This sort of behaviour from operators is becoming the norm. It is inexcusable.
It is unbecoming of a company granted statutory powers. If ever a regulator
was needed, it is in this industry. The operators are giddy with the power that
they have been granted by the Code.

Some Questions

46. Why is it that everything the operator has done appears to undermine the
Government’s intention to facilitate the rollout of a rural network?

47. Why are the operators targeting urban areas and dragging their heels in urban
areas?

48. Where are all the millions of pounds of savings that the operators are making,
actually going?

49. Do the operators really care about rural networks when they appear to be targeting
urban areas and limiting upgrades and 5G coverage to urban networks, making huge
profits from urban networks.

50. Why are the operators saying that land owners and their agents are to blame for
what are effectively, their own failures?

51. Why are the interests of the land owners being totally ignored?

52. Surely the Government cannot be so gullible? Or maybe it is because the Minister is
surrounded by ex employees or consultants of the mobile phone operators that he is
not being given the correct picture?

53. The Code of Practice is a guide only – for operators to adopt good practice. It is
toothless and the operators do not adopt it- merely pay lip service to it.

54. The laws should be clarified to provide total transparency for land owners who will be
totally unfamiliar with the impact, risk and burden that will result from having MNO
and fixed line apparatus over, in or under the land.

55. A separate section dealing with fixed line and buried services should be introduced.

56. Mobile operators (both mobile and fixed line) should be required to advise the
occupier in their initial correspondence that whilst the initial request may be for a
survey the Code and any other new laws based on these proposals grant them
statutory powers. Any new laws should require the mobile operator to:-
 30

1) state that it has legal powers and explain what these are – providing
references to independent articles.

2)        set out how this could impact upon the occupiers and owners own use of the
land.

3)        Confirm whether the occupier is required to return vacant possession to the
land owner/superior landlord and explain that this will not be possible if the
operator installs equipment on the land

4)        Outline the consequence of the survey - that the mobile operator will then
seek to occupy that land - effectively for perpetuity – impacting directly upon
the occupiers ability to use that land

5)        Outline the cost and time implications to the land owner/occupier

6)        Advise the recipient of the letter to seek legal advice and/or specialist
telecoms agent advice

7)        Confirm that it will pay for that advice

8)        investigate and confirm in a site report provided to the land owner/occupier

a.        what the existing land is used for

b.        How their apparatus and ongoing presence will impact upon that use

c.        H&S information regarding exclusion zones, their height, size and
potential impact upon health

d.        The potential impact upon the ability of the land owner to increase the
height of surrounding buildings or to develop land

e.         the timescales for removal or lift and shift to facilitate redevelopment

9)        offer to pay the land owner/occupier compensation (without caveats,

restrictions or convoluted invoicing and notification mechanisms)

h) comply with the recommendations in the Stewart Report of 2010 to restore

public confidence in the process which is currently being abused.

57. The new laws should include a regulator with teeth.

58. There needs to be a balance for the protection of landowners. This should not be
extended to allow for unlimited rights.

59. The automatic sharing of rights is one of the main reasons why emergency services
cannot allow mobile operators onto its property due to security and operational risks.
 31

60. Automatic upgrading of equipment should not be permitted. The issue will always be
a site specific issue, taking into account the features of the site itself, then
landowners use of the site and crucially what is being proposed. Landowners must
have some control over their property as they are ultimately liable for any loss and
damage which occurs on their property. There is no indemnity provided by operators
to the landowners for such loss and damage. That is again another unfair feature of
what is being foistered on landlords.

61. There is a significant difference between the addition of an antennae say in an

industrial area, where there are no access restrictions and the site already has 3
antennae; and a site of architectural merit where there has previously not been an
antennae and the building has restricted access.

62. In each case there has to be an assessment. Upgrading where there are no
additional visual impact or no addition burden on the landlord may be okay. But how
can an operator know that unless they discuss it with the landlord. The key is what is
it proposed to be carried out, unless that is known the Tribunal cannot make an
assessment.

63. It could mean that you could never install equipment on a building of Architectural
merit because of the operators unlimited right to upgrade. This would remove yet
more sites that previously would have been available to operators.

64. An impact assessment report should have been carried out before these proposals
were even put forward.  Absence of a full and detailed review of the issues and
impact, some of which have been identified in these pages, is prejudicial. 

65. Agreements will have been entered into under the old Electronics Communications
Code and in line with the 1954 Act for many different reasons.  Any rights restricting
the upgrading and sharing of equipment will have been negotiated consensually on
the basis that both parties were happy with and willing to contract upon in full
knowledge.  Other terms would have been ordered (say under a 1954 Act renewal).

66. There should not be interference with that arm’s length negotiated agreement.

67. Firstly, it should not be assumed that the current agreements do not provide the
ability to upgrade or share which the Operators say they want.  There are many
examples where Operators are seeking an unlimited right to upgrade or share, where
they have not immediate plans to do so, are unable/do to provide the details of the
work they wish to undertake, do not confirm whether it can be undertaken under the
current rights, or have not even asked the landowner to consent to the works.  Many
of the old agreements entered into do not have restrictions.

68. Where agreements do have restrictions there are likely to be valid reasons why there
the restrictions in place, say for example the landowners own use of the buildings. 
Removing those restrictions could severely impact the landowners own use and put
them into a position where they may be in breach of their own obligations either in a
property or other sense.  Unless the agreement is at the end of its contractual term
 32

the landowner will not be able to take any action to remove the equipment, and will
not be entitled to any compensation.  This could prevent landowners from using their
own land.

69. For emergency service operatives, this may mean that they may have to take steps
to immediately remove Operators from all of their sites. 

70. Where the contractual term of an agreement has not come to an end and there is no
break clause – it could put the security of the whole building at risk and therefore
impact on operational duties.  Some may, in a worst case scenario, have to cease
using their own buildings if they cannot ensure the necessary security.

B. State Aid concerns

71. The other issue that I am concerned about with the implementation of these
proposals is state aid.

72. These proposals are not simply designed for use by private companies, but also by
the government’s own mobile network, currently contracted to Airwave. This will be
taken over by EE (British Telecom) shortly.

73. These proposals will enable the government to put up equipment wherever they like,
spending taxpayers’ money but when the contract is handed over to EE, they will
simply hand over the equipment and land to EE at no cost. This will be state aid and
should not be permitted.

74. I understand that a lot of work is going into surveying sites for government equipment
a present and when those sites are populated, the sites may be given at no cost to
EE in perpetuity. This needs to be fully investigated to ensure that inappropriate
state aid is not provided.

75. Any sites paid for with taxpayer money should remain in taxpayers’ hands.

C. Dovetailing with existing health and safety legislation

76. The proposals do not demonstrate how they dovetail with current health and safety
legislation.

77. The owner of a building has a legal responsibility to ensure that any works conducted
on its premises are done so in a safe and competent manner and that risk is reduced
to “As Low as Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP).

78. The requirement for the owner to take reasonable steps to mitigate risks extends to
both residential and commercial buildings that it owns and controls. In commercial
buildings it may require regular inspections of plant such as fire sprinkler systems or
specific checks on refurbishment works.
 33

79. This duty serves to protect the occupiers of the building, other members of the public
and contractors.  The following Acts and Regulations that carry criminal sanctions for
serious breaches are considered relevant for telecoms sites located on rooftops of
buildings (this is not exhaustive):-

(a) The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

(b) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
(c) The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR 2005)
(d) Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016
(e) The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

80.  I understand that it is not possible for criminal activity to be indemnified.

81. As the “Responsible Person”, for the management of health and safety the owner
does not replace the duties of the designer or principle designer of the radio base
station. This is to protect the occupiers and visitors to the building, passers by and
the contractors accessing the roof or building.

82. The definition of the “Responsible Person” varies but is captured in essence by the
definition contained in The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 as follows:-

(a) in relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extent

under his control;
(b) in relation to any premises not falling within paragraph (a)—

(i) the person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise)
in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other
undertaking (for profit or not); or

(ii) the owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have
control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade,
business or other undertaking.

83. I believe that the effect of this is that the Respondent shares liability for risk imported
by visiting contractors carrying out work on any of its property

84. Contractors working on antennas have been known to drop tools or equipment, nuts,
bolts or washers. Where these are located close to or overhanging an unprotected
edge, drop zones should be created to mitigate against the risks of death, serious
injury or damage to property. When positioned over or close to entrances, access
into and out of the building may have to be shut off temporarily or closely controlled..
It may even be necessary to erect scaffold tunnels to protect occupiers when
entering or leaving the building.

Conducting works on rooftops

85. Working on roofs is a high-risk activity. According to the HSE publication Health and
safety in roof work (Fifth Edition) 2020, “roof work accounts for a quarter of all deaths
in the construction industry” and “More than half of the fall-from-height deaths in the
 34

construction industry are roof-work-related. Falls from height are the biggest killer in
construction.” Any fall from a roof that is not arrested will inevitably result in death or
serious injury.

Relevant legislation

86. Employers and the owners of the building have a duty under the Health and Safety at
Work Etc Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety
and welfare of employees and others affected by their undertaking to include
members of the public and other contractors. To mitigate a risk to ALARP ‘As Low as
is Reasonably Practicable’ means that the degree of risk in a particular activity or
environment can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of
taking measures to avoid the risk. The greater the risk, as can be the case with work
at height, the more likely it will be to go to greater expense and trouble to reduce it.

87. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 expands on the
requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974, placing a duty on
employers to assess risks to the health and safety of their employees and others who
may be affected by their undertaking, and to do what is reasonably practicable to
control those risks by putting in place arrangement and controls, to eliminate or
mitigate risks in accordance to the principals of prevention.

88. Suitable and sufficient assessments of the hazards associated with all roof
access/work will be required for the purpose of deciding whether all reasonably
practicable control measures have been taken to ensure the safety of all persons.

89. The Work at Height Regulations apply to work in any place where, if there were no
precautions in place, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury.
They place duties on employers, the self-employed and any person who controls the
work of others (such as facilities managers or building owners who may contract
others to work at height). Those with duties under the Regulations must ensure that:

(a) All work at height is properly planned and organised;

(b) Those involved in work at height are competent;
(c) The risks from work at height are assessed, and appropriate work equipment
is selected and used;
(d) The risks of working on or near fragile surfaces are properly managed; and
(e) The equipment used for work at height is properly inspected and maintained

90. The overriding principle of these regulations is that employers must do all that is
reasonably practicable to prevent anyone falling. A hierarchy for managing work at
height is stipulated:

(a) Avoid work at height where possible;

(b) Use work equipment or other measures to prevent falls where working at
height cannot be avoided;
(c) Where the risk of falling cannot be eliminated, use work equipment or other
measures to minimise the distance and consequences of any fall.
 35

Supervision

91. The owner needs to attend upon the mobile contractor for a number of reasons
including:-

(a) Giving the visiting contractors a site safety induction- highlighting known site
specific risks.
(b) Conducting a photographic condition report prior to works starting and
agreeing with lead contractor
(c) Unlocking doors to restricted spaces such as water tank rooms, lift motor
rooms, electrical intake rooms and the roof itself.
(d) Identifying spaces that are reserved for the owners own use (any of the items
of equipment previously mentioned in this statement).
(e) Identifying to the operator areas reserved to other tenants, for instance the
demise identified in commercial radio operators lease plans.
(f) Liaising with tenants and residents who may be unaware of the visit or its
purpose.
(g) Liaising with the owner’s anti-social behaviour officer if necessary (visible
signs of drug use, physical damage to property)
(h) Reporting the presence of pirate radio installations to the owner and to Ofcom
and police.
(i) Liaising with the operator to understand what the likely impact will be upon the
building and roof space for the build works (6-8 weeks duration) and
thereafter.
(j) Attempting to diffuse complaints made by occupiers regarding the works or
contractors and where they result in a formal complaint providing a report and
supporting documentation as required. Some complaints could reach the
Chief Executive’s Office in stage 2 or Housing Ombudsman -all time
consuming and costly.
(k) Identifying areas where the operator wishes to install apparatus and checking
with the owner that it has no plans to use that space itself.
(l) Checking that all rubbish is removed from the roof
(m) For other works, checking that it is done in compliance with contraction
drawings or method statements where appropriate eg correct intumescent
mastic is used for fire stopping and not white silicone sealant.
(n) Liaising with building manager and concierge where appropriate

92. The proposals contain no visibility of how they interact with these health and safety
obligations imposed on the owners of buildings on which these proposals will make
an impact. That is not fair and right.

93. Because Street Furniture sites are macro base stations deployed at low level there
are some special compliance issues that need to be considered. Specifically
consideration needs to be given to the following and the proposals will make these
issues more urgent.
 36

(a) Streetlights – It is necessary to ensure that a worker can work on a nearby

Streetlight without entering into the antenna occupational exclusion zone.
Hence as a guideline Street Furniture poles should be minimum of 8m from
any lighting column.

(b) Trees – It is necessary to ensure that a tree surgeon or a householder can

undertake tree pruning without entering into the antenna public exclusion
zone.

(c) Domestic Premises – It is necessary to ensure that householders can use

their balconies, undertake tree pruning, roof or gutter maintenance without
entering into the antenna public exclusion zone.

(d) Double Deck Buses – It is necessary to ensure that the public exclusion
zone does not impinge upon a double deck bus. For reference a double deck
bus should be assumed to be 5m in height.

(e) Railway Bridges – If mounted close to a railway bridge it is necessary that

the public exclusion zone does not impinge upon the train.

D. Something needs to be done about the current behaviour of mobile phone

operators and their agents

94. I try to explain what I mean below.

95. The results of current scientific research show that there are no evident adverse health
effects provided that exposure remains below the levels set by these current guidelines
and standards. While I disagree that this is the case, for the purposes of explaining this
section, I will assume that the first statement is correct.

96. For more than 30 years the UK Mobile Network Operators (“MNO’S”) have been
designing their sites to ensure that risks to health and safety to all persons were
designed out by ensuring that persons could not enter into areas where exposure to
non-ionising radiation exceeded the International Commission on Non Ionising
Radiation Protection (“ICNIRP”) guidelines in force at the time.

97. ICNIRP is formally recognised as an official collaborating non-governmental

organisation by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour
Organization (ILO). ICNIRP is also consulted by the European Commission.

98. Their guidelines are available at

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf

99. Where it was not possible to design out this risk, exclusion zones must be clearly
marked and physical barriers installed to prevent persons from accidentally entering
these zones.
 37

100. The MNO’s complied with relevant health and safety legislation applicable to
telecommunications base station apparatus and in particular, to the design
requirements imposed by the International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation
Protection (“ICNIRP”).

The operators

101. But with the advent of 5G and the apparent difficulties that the MNO’s are experiencing
in obtaining planning consent for their 5G sites in urban areas, the MNO’s appear to
be departing from the standards that they previously adopted and are now failing to
design some sites to comply with ICNIRP guidelines and EU standards and if so, is this
placing health and safety of the public at risk?

What has changed?

102. The new 5G antennas or “apertures” transmit radio waves in a very different way to
2/3/4G sector antennas. The safety or exclusion zones required to comply with the
ICNIRP design guidelines are not only a different shape but also massively larger and
in addition extend backwards and downwards.

103. Consequently, the MNO’s needed to raise the antennas high above the roof surface to
ensure that these exclusion zones do not extend into adjacent buildings or cut off
access to plant located on the roof for the building owners maintenance teams. For
streetworks sites, the risk has been extended to members of the public on the top deck
of buses as well as council street light maintainers, builders and home owners.

104. The requirement to increase the height of the 5G antennas (to comply with the ICNIRP
design standards) has in some instances seen MNO’s submitting full planning
applications for 7.5m tall lattice masts on top of rooftops where existing 2/3/4G
antennas are currently supported on far shorter poles. The planning authorities have
rejected many such applications leaving the MNO’s unable to install 5G on existing
sites.

105. Now it appears that where MNO’s previously designed out the risk of exposure to non-
ionising radiation from their 2/3/4G antennas to comply with these guidelines,
operators are now apparently designing in risk by reducing the height of the 5G
antennas in order to achieve planning consent.

Existing H&S Legislation re Design

106. In controlling risks arising from EMF exposure, the HSE refer to compliance with the
ICNIRP guidelines. ICNIRP recommends designing out risk of exposure by, for
instance, siting antennas high enough and towards the edge of a roof.

107. The ICNIRP guidelines are applied through UK health and safety legislation (and are
supported by the CDM Regs 2015) and so companies designing, building and
operating communication networks are required to carry out suitable and sufficient risk
 38

assessments, as well as to put in place measures to reduce the identified risks to as

low as reasonably practicable.

108. See also https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone-base-stations-

radio-waves-and-health/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health

109. The ICNIRP exposure guidelines reference exposure levels given in the EU Council
Recommendation on limiting exposure of the general public to radio waves
(1999/519/EC). This advises that it may be necessary to create an exclusion zone to
prevent anyone being exposed to strong electromagnetic fields (“EMF”).

110. The UK MNO’s also have to follow the design principles set out in the Construction
(Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (“CDM Regs”) that makes those who
commission construction work and those who are key in the design and construction
process, responsible for eliminating, reducing or controlling foreseeable risks that may
arise. Therefore, it is immediately apparent that the requirement to design out risk is a
common thread shared by the ICNIRP guidelines and the CDM Regulations.

111. The CDM Regs also require duty holders to collaborate and establish key information
products to pass on to future building owners (particularly through the ‘Health and
Safety File’). The CDM Regs apply to all building work, whatever the scale of the work
or the size of company doing it with the principle of risk being owned and managed by
those who create it.

112. The principles of health and safety law apply not only to those who are engaged in
work but also to those who are placed at risk by work activities including members of
the public.

113. The Hackitt report on Grenfell recommends a very clear model of risk ownership, with
clear responsibilities for the Client, Designer, Contractor and Owner to demonstrate the
delivery and maintenance of safe buildings. The sharing of information is critical to this.

What are the risks?

114. Leaving aside the competence of the numerous MNO’s contractors and sub-
contractors, the equipment cabinets and feeder cables are not really an issue save in
terms of trip hazards, or if cabinet doors are left open to be blown off the roof.

115. It is the siting and orientation of the antennas together with their respective frequencies
and power outputs need to be considered. The antennas produce magnetic and
electromagnetic fields that could present a risk to human health and if touched, could
cause severe burns to skin and flesh.

116. Members of the public are still fearful that mobile phone base stations cause cancer
but research has indicated that there is no evidence of this and instead advises that a
cautionary approach be taken to the siting and operation of base stations. Hence the
requirement to comply with the ICNIRP design guidelines.
 39

117. The European Commission website advises the following:- “Exposure to

electromagnetic fields triggers immediate biological effects if they are strong enough.
Effects range from stimulation of nerves and muscles to heating of the body tissues,
depending on the frequency. Exposure guidelines have been established to protect
against these effects”

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/electromagnetic-
fields07/index.htm

What are the MNO’s doing differently?

118. In seeking to justify the strategy of locating 5G and massive MIMO antennas at heights
that create public exclusion zones across rooftops and sometimes into rooms
below, the MNO’s are saying that employers have a duty under CEMFAW to train their
employees, IF THEY WORK AT HEIGHT, in rf awareness. Then these workers fall into
the category of “occupational workers”. This allows the operators to design sites to
comply only with the less stringent ICNIRP occupational levels only. The public
exclusion zones are 5 times larger than occupational.

119. BT/EE has advised some sites that any worker who works at height should
automatically be trained in rf awareness and such training would make them an
occupational worker.

120. Cornerstone (the 50/50 joint owned venture between Vodafone and Telefonica O2) is
now interpreting the ICNIRP guidelines as stating that as all workers are expected to
be healthy, no matter what their occupation, they satisfy the ICNIRP definition of
occupational workers.

121. That neither is correct should sound the warning bells to Government, site providers,
building owners and members of the public. These approaches are negligent.

What is the definition of an “Occupational Workers”?

122. To seek clarity on this situation views were sought from ICNIRP directly. In
correspondence with a respected member of the Commission (ICNIRP), he stated
directly that:

“We consider that awareness of exposure is key in order to allow training and
understanding of the risks. A person who is paid to do roofing, say, near a
mobile phone base station may be no better informed about the risks of
exposure than someone who works at home. In the new guidelines, we also
add the proviso that workers are considered to be healthy, to differentiate them
further from the general public (who will most certainly contain some people
who are ill).

Thus, without explicit training or understanding, even paid employees should

be considered members of the public and be exposed to RF fields less than
those considered acceptable for workers.”
 40

123. Mr Sienkiewicz also referred to the EU Non-binding guide to good practice for
implementing Directive 2013/35/EU Electromagnetic Fields Volume 2: Case Studies
which states:

“Workers are required to access the rooftop to carry out a variety of building
inspection and maintenance tasks. These may include: window cleaners,
roofing contractors, air conditioning engineers, insurance inspectors and
antenna riggers. The latter groups may have received extensive training in
radiofrequency radiation safety and may be equipped with personal exposure
alarms, while the former groups are likely to have received no training and
accordingly have little knowledge of the issues.

Good practice would be for the operators to adopt a ‘safe by position’ principal
when installing antennas. This means that the antennas are located so that
workers at normal roof standing level cannot inadvertently enter an antenna
exclusion zone. The antenna exclusion zone is the area near the antenna
where the exposure could exceed the reference levels given in the Council
Recommendation (1999/519/EC).

An antenna exclusion zone should only be accessible to workers with climbing

aids such as ladders or scaffolds. Where workers need to access an exclusion
zone then it may be necessary to shut down the antenna. If an antenna
exclusion zone must impinge upon the rooftop standing area then the rooftop
area should be demarcated.”

124. Another senior member of ICNIRP recently confirmed the following:

"The general public is defined as individuals of all ages and of differing health
statuses, which includes more vulnerable groups or individuals, and who may
have no knowledge of or control over their exposure to EMFs."

Accordingly, it is not just pregnant women and the unemployed.... It is

probably easiest to think of the occupational category as a subset of the
general public that are permitted to have higher exposures under certain
conditions (rather than having certain legal classifications). The features that
justify someone being treated as belonging to the occupational exposure
group are specified in the guidelines as:

"Occupationally-exposed individuals are defined as adults who are exposed

under controlled conditions associated with their occupational duties, trained
to be aware of potential radiofrequency EMF risks and to employ appropriate
harm-mitigation measures, and who have the sensory and behavioral
capacity for such awareness and harm mitigation response. An
occupationally-exposed worker must also be subject to an appropriate health
and safety program that provides the above information and protection."

Accordingly, the focus is not on the ... legal status (e.g. licensee) or job title
(e.g. installer) ..., but is on the sort of issues that are relevant to health and
safety (such as health status and safety training). This is because ICNIRP's
 41

role relates to health and safety, rather than the policy that countries
implement to try to achieve health and safety.”

125. Therefore, it is clear that both ICNIRP and the European Union distinguish between
workers employed within the radio industry, such as riggers whom they classify as
“occupational” and all other workers from different trades who may need to work at
height to access plant located on rooftops, including those on adjacent buildings, street
lighting maintenance contractors, builders, members of fire services, surveyors,
inspectors, all of whom are classed as members of the public.

126. If the guidelines are not complied with the MNO’s would therefore be in direct conflict
with ICNIRP design guidelines and the EU Directive 2013/35/EU and as a
consequence, could be putting the health and safety of members of the public at risk.

127. In correspondence in an attempt to clarify operators positions Cornerstone was asked

to confirm what levels of safety were being applied to a site and they responded as
follows:

“The UK operator view has always been that the occupational limits apply to
any work related exposure. Thus, on rooftops where access is controlled,
restricted to workers only and where signage is in place the occupational limits
are applicable.”

128. Cornerstone appear to be applying occupational safety levels to categories of workers

whom ICNIRP define as being members of the public as they have not been trained to
ICNIRP Occupational levels.

129. More recent correspondence from senior BT Networks staff, advised that now their
position is:

130. “If a rooftop is not being explicitly maintained for public use…then we would expect
access to be controlled on the basis that only someone with appropriate rooftop safety
training should be permitted in the area, which would include RF and therefore make
them an RF aware worker subject to occupational not public compliance distances.”

131. What this is saying is that anyone who works on a rooftop, no matter what their trade,
should undergo rooftop safety training – AND THAT TRAINING WOULD INCLUDE RF
AWARENESS. But a quick look on various training centres websites reveals that this is
not the case. RF Awareness is a separate course. Then again, does a 30 minute online
training course in rf awareness make that person an ICNIRP occupational worker.

https://www.praxis42.com/elearning/emf-awareness/

132. The statement that being trained in rf awareness automatically makes the person an
“…RF aware worker subject to occupational not public compliance distances” also
requires a little further consideration.

RF Awareness Training
 42

133. Providers of training courses for working at height including specialist mast and tower
rigging training companies have been contacted and it is clear that “RF awareness” is a
specialist course. Even then, different levels of “RF awareness” are offered- from a
simple “RF overview” that takes a few minutes as part of a very limited number of
working at height courses, to the more in depth courses for those workers who are
employed in the telecoms industry.

134. This latter course includes training on the use of rf monitors that would need to be worn
at all times when on site.

135. A quick check on training courses for roofers, builders, scaffolders confirms that not
even an “RF overview” let alone a more intensive “RF safety course”. Other
government bodies have confirmed that they do not train employees in rf awareness.

136. The specialist more detailed “occupational courses” include training on how to use and
interpret readings on RF monitors.

137. So, according all those trades who work at height, builders, lift engineers, scaffolders,
roofers, electricians, cherry picker operators, surveyors, fire fighters, water treatment
contractors, lift engineers, street lamp maintenance workers (close to 5G street poles)
crane operators, bricklayers, builders, inspectors, surveyors, window cleaners,
abseilers and millions of other manual workers should already be wearing these
monitors and be trained to occupational levels.

138. So are sites such as low level streetworks columns a cause for area of concern? Not
only do the MNO’s have to consider the risk to occupiers of adjacent business
premises, residential homes and maintenance workers for street lighting, but they
should also look at the passengers on the top deck of double decker buses.

139. There used to be drawings marked with these exclusion zones. But where the MNO’s
once provided landlords and their agents and local planning authorities with drawings
showing ICNIRP exclusion zones for both public and occupational levels CTIL are now
refusing to do so for 5G sites. Instead they only now provide a copy of a document
prepared by the MNO’s site designer stating that the design complies with the ICNIRP
design guidelines.

140. That is clearly not sufficient.

Planning Policy and health and safety

141. Government planning policy on health and safety requires the planning authorities to
consider only whether telecoms installations comply with ICNIRP public exposure
guidelines. The MNO’s now submit their planning application only with an “ICNIRP
Certificate” that serves as a formal document to satisfy the planning officer that the
public will not be put at risk from the effects of EMF. It is therefore an important
document and given the refusal of the MNO’s to provide drawings, is the only “official”
document that allows planning authorities to determine whether the “site is safe”.
 43

142. Requests for drawings showing ICNIRP exclusion zones for a proposed EE 5G
upgrade were met with various reasons for not providing them by the MNO’s agent
Waldon Telecom, including that the drawings were not available when in fact, they had
prepared the drawings themselves and were in possession of them all the time.

143. Months later these same drawings were obtained from a different source. These
clearly showed that the public and occupational exclusion zones extended across the
relevant building. They also showed in plan view only, the public exclusion zone
extending into residential buildings adjacent to the site. The elevation view showed the
exclusion zone just 5.56 meters above ground level and the roof height of single storey
buildings within the relevant site- but the 2 storey residential homes were excluded
from the drawings.

144. Further, the drawings were marked “NOTE: ANY DRAWINGS SHOWING ICNIRP
EXCLUSION ZONES MUST NOT BE SENT TO THE SITE PROVIDER, SITE
PROVIDERS AGENTS OR PLANNING DEPARTMENTS.

145. This suggests that the operators agent submitted a false instrument (the ICNIRP
certificate) to the planning authority in order to obtain planning consent. This raises
very serious issues for planning authorities.

Exclusion Zones

146. The sizes, shapes and locations of 5G and Massive MIMO exclusion zones are very
different to previous 2/3/4G technologies with public exclusion zones being up to three
times the size.

147. This is well demonstrated by the typical drawings at Attachment 2 and Attachment 3
showing 3G and 4G exclusion zones in plan and elevation view of a building in south
west London.

148. A common analogy for these exclusion zones is that they are shaped like slices of
cake. Critically the exclusion zone does not extend downwards below the antennas or
very far behind it and the design- with antennas located on poles high above the roof
surface -allows members of the public to stand below and behind the antennas without
entering the public exclusion zone. Note that up until now, it has been common
practice within the industry for the MNO’s to show the public exclusion zones created
by the antennas as this is an ICNIRP design requirement.

149. The drawing at Attachment 4 for the same building shows the balloon shaped
occupational (blue) and public (red) exclusion zones created by new 5G/Massive
MIMO systems. This is for the same building with the 5G antenna located at the same
height as the existing 2/3/4G antennas.

150. The drawings referenced the power output reduced to fallback option 3 (the lowest
standard step) and yet the public exclusion zone cuts across the roof surface and in
 44

the extract from the drawings below, it also shows the public exclusion zone
encroaching over the roof of the adjacent residential building.

151. The plan view, Attachment 5, of the same building shows the balloon shape of the
exclusion zone- very different to the slice of cake for 3/4G systems.

152. Attachment 6 is the elevation view. The exclusion zone extends into the adjacent
building.

153. Both building owners (and their respective contractors) will be unable to access the
roof without entering a public exclusion zone. NB. In the elevation drawing at
Attachment 6, the lowest red line indicates the height at which a member of the public
can stand without being within the ICNIRP public exclusion zone. This site design
does not comply with the ICNIRP exposure or design guidelines for members of
the public and yet the operator submitted an ICNIRP certificate to the planning
authority that stated:

The “ICNIRP Declaration” certifies that the site is designed to be in full

compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency (RF) guidelines of the
International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP) for public
exposure as expressed in the EU Council recommendation of July 1999.”

154. The above is not an isolated example. Earlier in 2019, when MNO’s were still issuing
drawings showing the exclusion zones marked upon them, there was an upgrade
request to a site in North London that showed the ICNIRP public exclusion zone
encroaching into the top floor residential apartment of the building. The extract from the
drawings showed a minimal increase in antenna height of 0.7m, planning having
previously been refused for a 7.5m tower on top of the lift motor room.

155. The MNO subsequently attempted to upgrade the site simply by adding the 5G
antennas to the existing 3G antenna support poles.

156. This would have created not only a large public but also an occupational exclusion
zone across the roof – See Attachment 7. Again, this design does not comply with
ICNIRP design guidelines nor with the principles of the CDM Regs 2015.

157. The design guideline document refers to 3 further power outputs for 5G sites that
reduce the public exclusion zones from 54 meters to 33 meters. Where all the MNO’s
are on a site, the exclusion zone increases to 58m. In dense urban areas, many
buildings both residential and commercial, could well be within these distances placing
members of the public within the exclusion zones. Attachment 8 contains figures
showing the shape and extent of exclusion zones created by EE and Three 5G rooftop
sites.

158. Attachment 9 are figures showing the shape and extent of exclusion zones created by
2 operators on streetworks sites.

Regulation
 45

159. Who checks whether the MNO’s are in fact complying with these vital H&S safety
measures and how can those who share responsibility such as the building owners
identify if they are being breached? After all they are not experts in this field.

160. Before the advent of 5G and Massive MIMO, the MNOs would readily share their
drawings upon which the location, precise height and orientation of the antennas were
clearly shown as well as the ICNIRP exclusion zones created by the 2/3/ 4G antennas.
With these, any physical measures such as barriers and signage required to ensure
that persons did not inadvertently enter the exclusion zone and place themselves at
risk, were easily identified. The experience was, before the new 5G systems were
introduced, that it was rare for an exclusion zone to be created across any part of a
roof as the antennas were located high enough above the roof surface and close to the
roof edge to design out this requirement.

161. The MNO’s also used to submit drawings to the Local Planning Authority (“LPA”) upon
which the exclusion zone for every individual antenna was clearly shown in both plan
and elevation view in addition to the a ICNIRP certificate signed by a radio engineer
employee of the MNO (not a contractor with a vested interest in building the site),
confirming that the site design complied with ICNIRP public exposure levels.

162. But all this has now changed.

163. MNO’s are designing in risk.

164. CTIL are not providing drawings showing the exclusion zones created by the antennas.

165. They are refusing to provide details of frequencies or transmit power levels that would
allow independent checks to be carried out.

166. MNO’s are submitting applications for planning consent to the LPA with only an
ICNIRP certificate of compliance prepared by the site designers. Sometimes, they
don’t even bother to provide the ICNIRP certificate and local councils may not call them
out on it.

167. MNO’s are now seeking to pass H&S risks that they once designed out of their sites,
on to the building owner.

168. I have seen MNO’s drawings showing ICNIRP exclusion zones which the operators
have marked with the instructions: “NOTE: ANY DRAWINGS SHOWING ICNIRP
EXCLUSION ZONES MUST NOT BE SENT TO THE SITE PROVIDER, SITE
PROVIDERS AGENTS OR PLANNING DEPARTMENTS”

169. This raises serious legitimate concerns for both site providers and those in the industry.
The consequences of the government granting statutory powers to the MNO’s has not
been appreciated by the government. They remain unregulated and site providers are
unable to achieve satisfactory resolutions to what appears to be increasing levels of
dubious practice.
 46

170. Planning authorities and site providers should be able to demand copies of drawings
that show the ICNIRP public and occupational exclusion zones marked upon them.
They share responsibility for ensuring that the health and safety of the general public is
not put at risk.

171. The Government and ICNIRP need to take action to ensure that the MNO’s disclose
correct H&S information including drawings showing both the general public and
occupational exclusion zones. Building owners will soon need to appoint a “relevant
person” who will have a statutory duty to prepare a health and safety plan for tall
buildings and will not be able to do so if the operators continue to refuse to disclose
their own H&S risk reports and fire safety surveys. That will place the building owner at
real risk of fines, imprisonment of both.

172. These risks have not been taken into account in the proposals so that implementation
of the proposals may founder on the public’s anger at the failure of the government to
protect their health and safety and for allowing mobile operators free rein which is
being abused without restraint.
 47

Public Sector Equality Duty

Question 11. The proposals outlined in this technical consultation build upon the
principles that the Government has established to enable the deployment of 5G and
extending mobile coverage, and have been considered under Section 149 of the
Equality Act 2010.

Considering the technical detail of the proposals, we would welcome views on the
potential impact of the matters raised in this consultation on people with protected
characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?

This section will deal with:

A. General
B. Detail
C. Electrohypersensitivity
D. Conclusions
E. Recommendations

A. General

The Court of Appeal judge in the case of Watts v DCLG and DCMS referenced this from the
July 2019 consultation response document:

We will undertake a technical consultation on the detail of the proposals, including

appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards, prior to amending the
existing legislation and will reassess whether there would be a positive or negative,
direct or indirect, impact on people with protected characteristics, and update the
Public Sector Equalities Duty assessment as necessary.

This question above does not quite deliver this promise. There are no questions about the
environmental protections or safeguards regarding reducing the impact on people with
protected characteristics.

We do comment as follows:

B. Detail

1. Relevant sections of S.149 of the Equality Act 2010 states:

149 Public sector equality duty

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the
need to—

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that
is prohibited by or under this Act;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant

protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
 48

(3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between
persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not
share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—

(a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant

protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;

(b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

(c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in

public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is
disproportionately low.

(4) The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different
from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to
take account of disabled persons' disabilities.

2. The main duty for the purposes of this consultation is to eliminate disability
discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity between the disabled and non-
disabled. To that end, the duty is to remove or minimise disadvantages, take steps
to meet the needs of disabled persons and to encourage those disabled persons to
participate in public life or other activity where their participation is disproportionately
low. This includes steps to take account of disabled persons disabilities.

3. Persons who suffer physical and mental impairment from the effects of mobile
telecommunications electromagnetic radiation (also known as radiofrequency
radiation) are disabled within the definition of s. 6 Equality Act. Those who suffer
from the effects of this kind of radiation are called ‘Electrohypersensitive’ (“EHS”).
They suffer from the effects of radiation and radiation sickness. I describe what this
means below.

C. Electrohypersensitivity

4. 1. 4% of the UK (2.7m) has EM sensitivity (UK government-sponsored survey), about

1.2% (804,000) severe sensitivity, 0.65% restricted work, and up to 80%
subconscious sensitivity (e.g. chronic inflammation).

5. Electrosensitivity was first described in the medical literature in 1932. It began with
electrical, radio and radar workers. Since then it has spread into the general
population, as wireless devices became common.

6. Interestingly, a lot of the people who 'sense' EMR may have above average hearing,
and, anecdotally, it has been said that EHS is more common amongst people who
are musical.

7. There is a body of thought that being sensitive to RFR may be due to a sixth sense.
ICNIRP recognises that magnetite (cells which detect magnetic fields through
 49

magneto-reception) has been found in humans but they dismissed it because they
did not know what it did.

8. Kirschvink et al 1992 (PNAS) was the seminal observation of magnetite in the human
brain. At least in magnetotactic bacteria it is "assembled" under gene control - quite a
feat!

9. The other two papers are also of interest, showing that magnetite in the human body
can detect ELF and RF EMFs!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139347/?
fbclid=IwAR3tiJmbZJG9vAXAmHX-xyE2WPpxsThU9sZm12bFd-
qlDWjOfRWfZLvewTU

10. If it is a sixth sense, why do some people get it and other don’t. Professor Henshaw
postulates that it may be because EHS people are a distinct group like those with a
genetic predisposition to cancer. The second is that we are all electrosensitive but
EHS people are at the highly affected part of the distribution. He prefers the latter
option, but the truth is we do not know.

11. The science of a sixth sense is not as developed as other science about EHS which
now has a well developed body of science. Rather than a sixth sense, it is easier to
consider EHS as an allergy to RFR.

12. An excellent summary of the science related to EHS is by Michael Bevington and can
be found here:

SELECTED STUDIES ON ELECTROSENSITIVITY (ES) AND ELECTROMAGNETIC

HYPER-SENSITIVITY (EHS), 4th edition (March 26th 2018) with over 2,000 studies
and references:

https://www.scribd.com/document/462824039/Selected-ES-and-EHS-Studies-2018-
by-ESUK?

secret_password=aZuRSUoqhAHUpb9JYZ3p

13. See also Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome) – Review of

Mechanisms,Yael Stein (MD)a,b,∗, Iris G. Udasin (MD):

https://www.scribd.com/document/462823401/Stein-Udasin-2020-EHS-Review-of-
Mechanisms?secret_password=hqLAK5OgpQMXySzQjrEI

14. The summary states:

“Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), known in the past as “Microwave

syndrome”, is a clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of a wide
spectrum of non-specific multiple organ symptoms, typically including central
nervous system symptoms, that occur following the patient's acute or chronic
 50

exposure to electromagnetic fields in the environment or in occupational

settings.

Numerous studies have shown biological effects at the cellular level of

electromagnetic fields (EMF) at magnetic (ELF) and radio-frequency (RF)
frequencies in extremely low intensities. Many of the mechanisms described
for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) apply with modification to EHS.

Repeated exposures result in sensitization and consequent enhancement of

response.

Many hypersensitive patients appear to have impaired detoxification systems

that become overloaded by excessive oxidative stress. EMF can induce
changes in calcium signaling cascades, significant activation of free radical
processes and overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells
as well as altered neurological and cognitive functions and disruption of the
blood-brain barrier. Magnetite crystals absorbed from combustion air pollution
could have an important role in brain effects of EMF.

Autonomic nervous system effects of EMF could also be expressed as

symptoms in the cardiovascular system. Other common effects of EMF
include effects on skin, microvasculature, immune and hematologic systems.
It is concluded that the mechanisms underlying the symptoms of EHS are
biologically plausible and that many organic physiologic responses occur
following EMF exposure.

Patients can have neurologic, neuro-hormonal and neuro-psychiatric

symptoms following exposure to EMF as a consequence of neural damage
and over-sensitized neural responses. More relevant diagnostic tests for EHS
should be developed. Exposure limits should be lowered to safeguard against
biologic effects of EMF.

Spread of local and global wireless networks should be decreased, and safer
wired networks should be used instead of wireless, to protect susceptible
members of the public. Public places should be made accessible for
electrohypersensitive individuals.”

15. There is also a very good recent study below of EHS and multiple chemical
sensitivity (MCS) - Dominique Belpomme and Philippe Irigaray

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139347/?
fbclid=IwAR3tiJmbZJG9vAXAmX-xyE2WPpxsThU9sZm12bFd-
qlDWjOfRWfZLvewTU

16. EHS in artistic terms, is an allergy to RFR, exhibited by symptoms which could lead
to death. In broad terms, the body is swamped by RFR, it has chemical, biological
and physics related effects and symptoms of illness result. Some people react badly
to peanuts, vaccines or chemotherapy. It depends on the individual and the drug. In
this case, it is RFR.
 51

17. There is a key difference between the initial detector which senses magnetic fields,
and the subsequent biological response. For example, the ear senses music, but the
brain decides whether it likes it or not.

18. The body starts shutting down when the intensity of the waves become too much
giving signs to remove oneself from the offending pollutant.

19. EHS sufferers are in effect, wifi refugees.

20. Here is a paper in 2011 confirming that EHS exists:

https://www.scribd.com/document/462823819/EHS-Evidence-for-a-Novel-
Neurological-Condition?secret_password=vTXRv77GmQV49VuP0GJO

21. Professor Henshaw likened EHS to an allergy as in a peanut allergy or hayfever. The
resource for EHS sufferers is www.ES-UK.info which contains guidance, reports,
studies etc to be helpful to such sufferers.

22. Michael Bevington has written a paper on numbers involved in ES and EHS,
whichalso has some material on aspects of the condition:

https://www.ommegaonline.org/article-details/The-Prevalence-of-People-With-
Restricted-Access-to-Work-in-Man-Made-Electromagnetic-Environments/2402

23. Michael Bevington is a trustee of ES-UK, a charity dedicated to providing information

to those with EHS. He articulated EHS as:

“Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity is categorised as a multisymptomatic

‘elallergy’ in the Nordic classification of 2000 (R.68.8). Its symptoms are
‘certainly real’ and it can be a ‘disabling condition’ (W.H.O., 2005). It was first
recorded in the mid 20th-century as an occupational illness, but it has now
spread into the general population through environmental exposure from
increasing levels of electro-magnetic fields and radiation.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/462608652/EHS-Bevington-2013

24. The SCENIHR report 2015 rejects EHS:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf

“Symptoms that are attributed by some people to various RF EMF exposure

can sometimes cause serious impairments to a person’s quality of life.
However, research conducted since the previous SCENIHR Opinion adds
weight to the conclusion that RF EMF exposure is not causally linked to these
symptoms. This applies to the general public, children and adolescents, and
to people with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to
electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF).
 52

Recent meta-analyses of observational and provocation data support this

conclusion. For symptoms triggered by short-term exposure to RF fields
(measured in minutes to hours), the consistent results from multiple
doubleblind experiments give a strong overall weight of evidence that such
effects are not caused by RF exposure. For symptoms associated with
longer-term exposures (measured in days to months), the evidence from
observational studies is broadly consistent and weighs against a causal
effect. However, it has gaps, most notably in terms of the objective monitoring
of exposure. Human studies on neurological diseases and symptoms show
no clear effect, but the evidence is limited.”

25. There is a range of sensitivity to all environmental exposures. Some people are more
sensitive at detecting temperature change or light change or vibration sense for
example, than others.

26. RFR is known to be harmful not simply to humans, but also to plants, trees,
pollinators and animals. The harm of RFR to humans has been known since the
1970s as shown by the Naval Research document listing 2,000 studies from Russia
and Eastern Europe showing harm to humans and animals and the NASA 1981
report.

27. Despite that, ICNIRP does recognise that some people may be sensitive to RFR and
in their guidelines, they do state that governments should consider guidelines to
address such persons. This suggestion is ignored by our government and Public
Health England who both proclaim that there is no harm to humans below ICNIRP’s
guidelines.

28. In the UK, people who suffer from electrohypersensitivity (“EHS”) are largely ignored.
GPs are not taught about EHS symptoms in medical school so do not recognise the
symptoms when they are presented with them. Hospitals do not recognise the
symptoms either. Exposure to radiofrequency radiation is a recognised diagnosis in
the UK albeit many GPs are unfamiliar with that diagnosis.

29. In the UK, many people presenting with symptoms of EHS are told that their
symptom have nothing to do with RFR, they are psychosomatic or have
psychological anxieties. Many become refugees in their own homes trying to work
out for themselves what is wrong with their health. Some eventually work out that
their condition relates to wireless devices and have some degree of improvement
when they eliminate RFR from their home environment and shield their homes from
external RFR. But they are excluded from public spaces and cannot participate in
public life. They are disabled and discriminated against in every way, for some such
as Phillip Watts, suffering pain which is like ‘torture’ (as he puts it in his own words)
because of the effects on him biologically of RFR from external influences.

30. Employers are ignorant of the symptoms despite the Electromagnetic Radiation
regulations and health and safety at work obligations to their employees. I have been
contacted by an engineer at Openreach whose job was to connect the cables
carrying the radiofrequency signals for wireless equipment and who developed cuts
 53

and burns on his body which he showed to his employer who ignored his plight. He
mentioned that he showed his employer his medical notes which included a
reference to him suffering from radiation effects but these were dismissed by his
employer and he was eventually forced out of his employment.

31. The World Health Organisation says that electromagnetic frequency exposures
below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP guidelines do not appear to have any
known consequence on health. Our government and Public Health England (“PHE”)
take that view as do many governments around the world. This is demonstrably
wrong.

32. Hospitals in the UK use ICD10 to generate reimbursement codes, along with OPCS
codes. ICD10 W90 refers to exposure to non-ionising radiation and then you have
subcategories on where the exposure occurred. So, there is a code which is being
used by GPs to identify the symptoms of non-ionising radiation exposure. There is a
growing group of GPs who are recognising the symptoms of EHS.

D. Disability

33. Those who suffer from EHS are disabled under the Equality Act. They suffer from
physical and mental impairment which include the following which have substantial
and long term adverse effects on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities:

Symptom Source

Flu-like symptoms EUROPAEM EMG

Headaches Same as above
For those working in RFR: NASA study in 1981
 Decrease in sensitivity to smell
 Breathing difficulties NASA study in 1981
 Pain in muscles and heart region

 Tinglings and odd sensations in the Dr Andrew Tressider

limbs
 Rashes
 A feeling of pressure in the head

34. Other symptoms identified are below:

Symptom Source

 Cancer growth stimulated NASA study in 1981

 Death (by ventricular fibrillation) Same as above
Cardiovascular disturbances in those chronically Same as above
exposed to RFR at various frequencies

 Crib death - Sudden infant death syndrome

 54

Symptom Source

Long term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor EUROPAEM EMG

for diseases such as:
 certain cancers
 Aheimer’s disease
 male infertility
 Fatigue Same as above
 A lack of energy Same as above
 Sleep problems Same as above
 Depression Same as above
 Concentration difficulties Same as above
 Death (by ventricular fibrillation) (bottom of NASA study in 1981
pg 23)
 Microwave hearing
 Neurasthenia (pg 24)
 Headaches
 Eyestrain
 Fatigue
 Dizziness
 Disturbed sleep at night NASA study in 1981
 Sleepiness in daytime
 Moodiness
 Irritability
 Unsociability
 Hypochondriac reactions
 Feelings of fear
 Nervous tension
 Mental depression
 Memory impairment
 Pulling sensation in the scalp and brow
 Loss of hair
 Increased perspiration of extremities
 Difficulty with sex life

 Headaches Dr Andrew Tressider

 Fatigue
 Disturbed sleep
 Tingling
 Pains in limbs, head or face
 Stabbing pains
 Brain fog and impaired cognitive function
 Dizziness
 Tinnitus
 Nosebleeds
 Heart palpitations
 Irritability
 55

Symptom Source

For those working in RFR: NASA study in 1981

 Bradycardia
 Disruption of the endcrine-humoral
process
 Hypotension
 Intensification of the activity of the thyroid
gland
 Exhausting influences on the central nervous
system
 Increase in histamine content of the blood
 Increased fatigability
 Periodic or constant headaches
 Extreme irritability
 Sleepiness during work
Cardiovascular disturbances in those chronically NASA study in 1981
exposed to RFR at various frequencies
 Functional disorders of central nervous
system
 Hyperacidity
 Epigastric pain
 Disorders of cardiovascular system
 Leukopenia of blood
 Esinophobia of blood
 Changes in electroencephalogram
 Loss of memory
 Inability to concentrate
 Reduced blood pressure
 Change in electrocardiogram
 Change in blood composition
 Eye pain
 Headache
 Vascular changes in eye
 Decreased male fertility
 Insomnia
 Headache
 Excitation of magnetosphosphenes

35. Below are some of the stories which I have been told by those who are EHS:

Dave Ashton – being zapped

https://beingelectrosensitive.blogspot.com/2016/08/joining-up-dots.html

Text of the link is below:

Name:

Dave Ashton
 56

Country:

UK

How long have you been electrosensitive (and how long did it take you
to make the link to

EMFs?):

I've been electrosensitive since at least 2007, but I can think of previous
episodes that were probably indications of sensitivity. I finally knew beyond all
doubt in December 2013.

Your story (anything that you want to say about electrosensitivity and
you):

(For my friend in Green Bank West Virginia, the de-facto EHS capital of the
U.S., who has asked me a number of times to tell my story!)

The way that I look at it:

• We are bio-electromagnetic beings; if we weren't, EEGs and ECGs wouldn't

work!

• Our brainwaves are completely entwined with the Schumann Resonance,

the electromagnetic pulse of our planet. (1)

• We are ALL sensitive to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) at the cellular level

(2)

• When we are exposed to EMFs, things happen: sometimes these are

beneficial, and sometimes they are anything but...

I worked for many years as a freelance IT consultant, helping to design,

develop, test, and implement computer systems in the UK and in a number of
European countries. I wouldn't say that I was setting the world alight, but I
had a reasonable job, and I was reasonably good at what I did.

At home, I had a mobile (cell) phone, and a DECT cordless phone. I didn't
have Wi-Fi, but then again, despite having worked in the technology field for
so long, I wasn't besotted with having the latest gadgets.

All was proceeding relatively normally until 2007, when - out of the blue - I
started to develop strange, intermittent, and unexplained symptoms. The first
of these was vertigo episodes, and these were soon joined by relentless
headaches and dizziness.

I was living and working away from home a lot, and so I did what many
people probably do – I hoped that it would all somehow go away, and I
carried on as before.
 57

To cut a long story short, over the next three years my symptoms continued
to worsen, until the point in 2010 when I was physically unable to continue
working, and was forced to leave in the middle of a contract.

I haven't been able to return to work since.

For the next couple of years, I attempted to get the National Health Service
(NHS) to tell me what was causing my chronic headaches, dizziness and
vertigo - with a complete lack of success.

Their tests revealed nothing of significance, and quite quickly the GPs and
specialists that I saw seemed to lose interest, and fall back on the "it's a
psychological issue" mantra, or else provide conflicting opinions, such as: the
symptoms are cervicogenic, I may have a rare neurological problem, I may
have Dystonia, I may have Motorists Vestibular Disorientation Syndrome, I
may have an Otolithic Vestibulopathy, and so on.

They prescribed anti-depressants, which made me substantially worse. They

prescribed Gabapentin, which was absolutely the last straw.

I gave up on the NHS in disgust, and tried to get answers from private
healthcare, and - when this also failed - from alternative/complementary
practitioners.

I saw physios, vestibular physios, chiropractors, and craniosacral therapists.

Much later, and much poorer, I still didn't know what was wrong with me, and
what was preventing me from recovering.

I read dozens, possibly hundreds, of books, trying to self-diagnose my

condition, so that I could sort out some targeted treatment (rather than the
scattergun treatment that I'd received previously, plus cognitive behavioural
therapy and psychotherapy, which had made no difference whatsoever).

In 2012, I happened to see a book called Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone
Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of
Electronic Pollution, by Ann Louise Gittleman.

This was a subject that I knew nothing about, but I did used to sleep with my
mobile by my head, as an alarm clock. I remember at the time being
sceptical, but still interested. I bought the book.

After reading it, I decided to restrict my use of my phone, and I replaced my

DECT cordless phone with a wired landline.

When these changes didn't improve my symptoms, I thought "well, it can't be

that then", and moved on to explore other possibilities. Even so, a seed had
obviously been planted in my mind.
 58

I went through detox regimes, completely changed my diet, tried exercising (a

lot) - but there was no improvement. Something was still affecting me, and
holding me back.

Meanwhile, my symptoms spread out from the initial headaches, dizziness

and vertigo to include gastrointestinal issues, vision problems, tinnitus,
fatigue, chronic pains, and others besides. Things were getting progressively
worse - despite the assurances that I was given by health professionals to the
contrary.

I explored yet more possible causes, and eventually ended up with energy
medicine - using pulsed electromagnetic technologies to try to cure me (even
though I still didn't know what the problem was).

I think that by the time that I started seeing a PEMF and Scenar therapist
though, I had started to return to the idea again that I might really be
sensitised to EMFs. The more of this electrical treatment that I had, the worse
that my symptoms became! I found that I was reacting to electrical lighting -
especially CFL lightbulbs.

Another key eureka moment was when I spent a week in a rented house by
the seaside, which had Wi-Fi, and which the owner asked me not to switch
off. Despite the location, and the glorious summer weather, I felt unbelievably
dizzy all week, and midway through the holiday, for no obvious reason, I
developed one of my occasional sore throats and a relentless dry cough that
lingered for ages after the holiday ended.

I still wasn't 100% sure about this electrosensitivity thing though, and it was
only when I finally bought a meter to measure the radiofrequency/microwave
radiation in my home that I finally accepted the incontrovertible proof that I
was electrosensitive.

Why?

I felt much worse in areas of the house where the microwave radiation was
highest. It really took seeing those readings to finally convince me beyond
any doubt.

Some discoveries that I made with my RF/MW meter:

1) My bedroom was exposed to radiation from a mobile mast (cell tower)

which was in direct line of sight of my window. I was being bathed in this stuff
while asleep.

2) My electricity meter was emitting microwaves into my home (it turned out to
be an AMR transmitting meter, which I later had changed for an old analogue
model, after a long fight with the utility).

3) I was being very badly affected by the microwave radiation from my

neighbour's DECT phone on one side, and by the Wi-Fi etc. on the other.
 59

4) My DECT phone, which by that time I'd stopped using and had replaced
with a corded phone, emitted staggering levels of pulsed microwave radiation.
Just incredible - the readings from these phones have to be seen to be
believed. When I think about some of the long calls that I made in the past...

This all explained why, despite having by now stopped using my mobile
phone and DECT cordless phone, I still wasn't improving. I was still being
irradiated in my home from external sources, and by my own electricity meter.

That's probably enough for now, but hopefully I'll do another post at some
time in which I talk about what happened next...

What you'd like your friends and family to know about your life now, and
what you'd like them to do:

I know that it can't be easy for you to deal with my condition, as it means that
everything that you thought that you knew about the safety of wireless
technologies is wrong. I can understand why this wouldn't be greeted with joy.

Please try to understand that this isn't my choice - I can't decide not to feel
the unbelievable pain and dizziness just because I don't like it. My disability,
or functional impairment, or whatever it's called, is unfortunately very real.
Tests that I have had done privately show that things are significantly wrong,
and that the problems are systemic.

Also, despite the daily pain and overwhelming challenges of living in a now
microwave-saturated world, I have not joined a wacky religious cult, and I
don't believe that I'm mad.

I have tried to talk about my condition to many of you, and of the wider
consequences of our infatuation with microwave-emitting technologies. It's
not always been easy.

This saddens me deeply - anyone with a life-changing condition wants and

needs to be believed and supported. My intention has never been to hurt
anyone. Rather, I'd like to prevent anyone else from going through the same
sort of experience that I am going through.

To those who do believe that this is all some elaborate psychological

delusion, I just want to say that I will always be here to help you, if your view
of the world changes, and you realise that I was right all along. I won't say "I
told you so" (but I don't promise not to think it).

What you'd like health professionals to do, based on your experience:

I felt an immense amount of frustration with, and anger against, health

professionals and specialists, who let me down when I needed answers. I
now realise that there is a systemic failure in the UK's health system, and
elsewhere too, in terms of educating aspiring medics on the biological effects
of electromagnetic radiation.
 60

It is not just that these people often didn't listen to what I was saying, and
jumped to the conclusion that it was all down to "stress", it was that their
whole system had failed them and me - as it fails so many others with chronic
health conditions.

Anecdotally, it sounds as if some healthcare professionals are now starting to

understand the health effects of EMFs, and discuss the issue with their
patients. I welcome this, and the process urgently needs to accelerate.

The health service as a whole must cure itself of its wireless fetish; it must
urgently remove wi-fi and mobile masts (cell towers) from NHS premises, and
it must stop this appalling habit of giving discharged patients wireless
monitors and wearables to take home with them.

"First, do no harm" must be carved on the souls of all health workers. This
means: do not expose patients to harmful pulsed microwave radiation, a
Group 2B carcinogen, under any circumstances whatsoever - if for no other
reason than by doing so, you make GP surgeries and hospitals no-go areas
for electrosensitive people, who have the same rights as anyone else to be
given effective, safe and timely healthcare.

We must NOT suffer effective discrimination, and a lack of accommodation

for our condition.

What you'd like politicians, and those in authority, to do:

Listen - you guys need to wake up and smell the coffee. The UK, and
elsewhere, is facing an unprecedented crisis, as more and more people are
made sick by environmental pollution, in which EMFs play a large part.

Stop pretending that electrosensitivity doesn't exist, and that it's a

psychological issue. Also, stop taking your radiation advice from conflicted
organisations (WHO, SCENIHR, AGNIR, PHE, ICNIRP etc.) who care more
about keeping the wireless gravy train rolling than they do about protecting
people.

Act with integrity, and act on a precautionary basis, by implementing

biologically-based maximum exposure levels, such as those recommended
by the BioInitiative Report.

Realise that the problems associated with exposure to this radiation aren't
confined to electrosensitive individuals - what about pregnant women, infants
and children, the elderly, and those who are already predisposed to disease?
What about everyone else, too?

Understand that ignoring this issue and kicking it into the long grass just
delays the inevitable day of reckoning, and makes the cost of dealing with the
crisis so much greater.
 61

Appreciate that the economy is based on a healthy workforce, and try to

comprehend the economic cost of inaction - both on productivity, and on the
further endless drain of "investment" into a failing, crisis-riven NHS.

Act with urgency to 1) recognise electrosensitivity, 2) support sufferers, and 3)

divert resources into research, education and treatment.

In general, what needs to happen to improve your life?

Very simple. The dangers of microwave radiation, and other EMFs, need to
be fully understoodand urgently acted upon. The world needs to cure itself of
its addiction to wireless technologies, until and unless a properly verified and
safe alternative can be found.

Electrosmog (electromagnetic pollution) levels must be reduced to an

absolute minimum - not just for electrosensitive individuals, not just for all
humans, but for all life on the planet.

The perpetrators of the catastrophic wireless proliferation need to be held to

account, and punished where they have acted with criminal negligence,
despite the warnings from so many scientists, health experts, and advocates
over the years.

Abbreviations:AGNIR - Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation

AMR - Automatic (or automated) meter reading

CFL - Compact fluorescent lamp

DECT - Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications

ECG - Electrocardiogram

EEG - Electroencephalogram

EHS - Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

EMF - Electromagnetic field

GP - General Practitioner

ICNIRP - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

NHS - National Health Service

PEMF - Pulsed electromagnetic field (Therapy)

PHE - Public Health England

RF/MW - Radiofrequency/microwave
 62

SCENIHR - Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health

Risks

WHO - World Health Organisation

References

1. Resonance Beings of Frequency:

https://vimeo.com/54189727

2. Dr Martin Pall's work on voltage-gated calcium channels and the nitric

oxide/peroxynitrite

("NO/ONOO") cycle:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dave-ashton/dr-martin-pall-papers-videos-
andaudio/1711701152380957

Anon 2

From:
Sent: 16 August 2020 21:50
To: Jessica Learmond-Criqui <jlc@lawlcs.com>
Subject: 5g case

Hello

...

I felt it imperative that I contacted you with regards to my experience over the
last few months being exposed to 5g.

I live on the Wirral and since the second week of lockdown is when the torture
began. I leftlive about 1 mike from 2 phone masts one Which is a new 5g one
I think. Every morning since early April around 5 am the strength of signal
coming I to my house has become the unbearable. Originally I didn’t know
what was happening, I kept waking to to a burning sensation in my legs and
pure dehydration. After some research I found out it was EE who where the
culprits. As the weeks have gone on and 5g has rolled out even in the day
now it’s awful. Sinus pressure, tight chest, burning sensation in my arms,
dizziness, nausea, tinnitus, fatigue are just part of daily life now and it gets
worse by the day. This genocide must be stopped there seems to be a nasty
agenda in the use of this technology and it’s not for the benefit of the general
public. I hope you find this useful and should you require any more
information get in touch. I wish you every luck with your case and I am happy
to contribute in any way if needed.

Kind regards
 63

Anon 3

Wed,

Jul 29,

1:09 PM

to

Hello there.

I am enquiring if i can get some representation or advice on my next steps.

To keep it short and brief ill get straight to the point.

During Lockdown meaning lack of healthcare available 5G was set up right by

my area of living. They set this up in February at around 3.a.m. in the morning
2 weeks into a lockdown issued by the British prime minister .

The next day i have woke up with 24/7 headaches, tinnitus and insomnia. (i
have 30 + years of no headaches what so ever) I have also been sectioned to
a small area in my own dwelling due too this tinnitus and migraines that follow
as well as brain and lymph node swellings. I have no history of head aches in
over my 30 years of life. I also care for an elderly over 70 and this has had a
monumental effect on my care to wards her.

I can no longer use mobile phone due to head pain. It took me over 4 months
to get proper medical care because of the lockdown. I told my local MP and
have been almost totally dismissed.

I look into 5G to find there has been zero health and safety tests and many
court cases in the USA & one in the UK that have won. Here is "apparently"
the UK's successful case against gates head council. I also can no longer use
mobile phones due to pain in my brain.

https://principia-scientific.org/uks-first-5g-court-case-and-the-people-won/

My local MP Nicola Richards has been dismissive and then asked for my
personal details which i dont trust at all.

If i could get any representation or advice and support. i would welcome it

with open arms.

It took me 4 months to get any medical health due to the cornovirus epidemic
due to it being set up during lockdown. Thank you for your time and hope to
hear from you soon
 64

Anon 4

From:

Sent: 02 June 2020 17:04

To: Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Subject:

Hi Jessica,

...

I have had to discard my mobile after so many years and have felt a lot better
after not using it. It was giving me severe neurological disorders.

I am not anti-technology. I actually work in the IT field. But have been affected
in a big way in the last few years through implementing WIFI and other
wireless tech in offices and schools. I had to quit my job because of this. I
now mainly work from home but still suffer when I am exposed for lengthy
periods.

Kindest Regards,

2019 11:35

To: 'Jessica Learmond-Criqui' >

Subject: RE:

Hi Jessica,

...

We had a highly EHS participant in one of our local EMF awareness and
support groups. He was ‘operationally viable’ for only about 1.5 hours a day
because his sensitivity was even worse than. He came to one meeting
(struggled with the room environment) then asked me to survey his home
(May 2019) in a high EMF zone: it was not a great outcome but I offered
positive alternatives and work-around advice, as I always try to do.

Two weeks later he hanged himself. Because of his EHS he had no social life
and he was not discovered for a further two weeks. This is another Jenny Fry
story, only no-one will hear about this statistic.
 65

If you need to check back with either of us on anything in order to be able to

strengthen the weight of evidence please do not hesitate to do so, even to fill
in blanks which seem hardly worth adding, or which you didn’t start off
thinking were important.

KR,

36. Schedule 1 to the Equality Act explains long term effects as including the effect of an
impairment which has lasted for at least 12 months. While the cause of the
impairment is not relevant for the purposes of determining that an individual has a
disability, the cause here is relevant to the extent that the government’s policies
result in the cause which produces the effects causing the impairment.

37. Below is a letter from Dr Andrew Tressider, which explains the medical diagnosis of
EHS.

Dr Andrew Tresidder MBBS MRCGP (1989) Cert Med Ed, Section 12

Approved Doctor

Sea
Ilminster
Somerset
TA19 0SB

Andrewtresidder3@gmail.com

Nov 2018

To my Medical Colleagues, GPs, Psychiatrists, Neurologists and others:

Electrosensitivity – an Environmental illness, an Authentic

Diagnosis, not a Delusional Disorder

Summary:

Electrosensitivity is the symptomatic sensitivity to Electric or Magnetic Fields

of any frequency, including RadioFrequency (RF or Microwave)
transmissions. As a symptomatic condition, it is becoming common due to the
increasing environmental pressure on human biology. The source is pollution
from wireless and other EM fields. Doctors as yet rarely recognize it due to
educational issues. Safety always lags technological advance. There are
barriers to recognition of harms.

Current UK Advisory Safety Limits are based upon the outdated and
disproven myth that Non- Thermal means Non-Harmful. Society and
organizations have yet to fully travel the road from ‘there isn’t a problem’,
‘there might be a problem but it’s very small’ to ‘there is a problem’. Society
does not recognize humans as electromagnetic beings, as well as physical
bodies needing careful nutrition to maintain health. Meanwhile, increasing
 66

numbers of people suffer, often ignored or dismissed because society

doesn’t yet appreciate the issue, and doctors have no answers.

Electrosensitivity is soundly supported by both biology and physics.

You may be being consulted by a person who has this under-recognised

condition.Thank you for reading this. It provides information that you may
not easily find elsewhere. Electrosensitivity (ES) is a condition first
described in 1932, and is when a person’s physiology is affected by external
Electromagnetic (EM) fields, giving rise to a typical spectrum of symptoms,
often neurological. It is therefore an illness caused by environmental agents
– essentially an environmental toxic pollutant. Electrophobia is a fear of EM
fields, and is a nocebo driven response. Symptoms of fear or paranoia
about any agent, circumstances, person or issues can be part of a
psychiatric condition, and may be part of a delusional state which will have
other features. ES is completely separate from any delusional condition and
from Electrophobia.

ES is a condition that can arise due to continued exposure to an

environment polluted by man- made EM and RF (radio-frequency) wireless
signals at levels at orders of magnitude below heating effects, and is well
understood in Russia. Symptoms include headaches, fatigue, disturbed
sleep, tingling, pains in limbs, head or face, stabbing pains, brain-fog and
impaired cognitive function, dizziness, tinnitus, nosebleeds, palpitations and
others.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, (now known to be partially a failure of

mitochondrial function) was initially difficult to diagnose and indeed
construed by some as psychological illness. I have written this briefing
sheet to summarise my understanding of ES in case you wish to consider
it in your differential diagnosis.

My qualifications for this are as follows: I trained at Guy’s Hospital, and

have been a GP since 1989, seeing a wide range of Primary Care Practice.
I have a special interest in Health and Well Being, both physical,
psychological and emotional, and have studied this whilst working with my
patients. I seek to give the best of orthodox diagnoses and treatment, and
also recognise other factors that contribute to and may maintain ill health,
in order to eliminate them if possible. I have a wide-ranging interest in
factors that affect health. I work for NHS Somerset CCG as a GP Patient
Safety Lead, where I have done a number of Investigations into Root
Causes, for the University of Bristol as an Examiner and Educator and
former Somerset Academy GP Lead, and am approved under the Mental
Health Act as a Section 12 Doctor. I teach Doctors on Health and Self-Care
on behaIf of the BMA and in Somerset Hospitals and wider afield.

I am also a trustee of the charity ES-UK, which post has given me access
to more information and research about the condition than many clinical
colleagues, and in this I have consulted scores of people (at no charge)
 67

with electrosensitivity, severe enough to impact badly upon their lives. My

Experience: As a Section 12 Approved Doctor under the Mental Health
Act, I have been involved in at least 400 Mental Health Act Assessments
over ten years, and have good relationships with our excellent Somerset
Psychiatrists. In all of the assessments I have done, though I have seen
many patients with paranoia or delusional states including reference and
being watched from the television and the like, I have never seen anyone
with ES during an MHAA.

I have however, separately (i.e. not in Mental Health Act Assessment

settings) seen patients whose symptoms are reliably caused by exposure
to Electromagnetic fields, especially RF (Radiofrequency) transmitting
echnology, but also by EM Fields and by Dirty Electricity (for an
explanation see below). It is only too easy, as I know from my medical
career, to make a diagnosis only from the choices within the medical
framework that we have learnt

about, often years ago, especially when faced with a condition whose
aetiology we cannot explain.

System Educational Problem: The aetiology of ES is discussed below but

essentially the big problem that we all face as Clinicians, Scientists and
Researchers is that the Medicine we have learnt is predominantly based on
the discipline of Chemistry – not Physics. Yes, MRI Scanners and CT scans
are Physics (i.e, information technology) based – however the vast majority
of the narrative of pathology, physiology, anatomy, diagnostics and
therapeutics is Chemistry based. Yet we are seeing in the field of IT that a
Physics based understanding of technology has changed our world (yes,
your phone, computer, internet use etc. has Chemistry based hardware, but
the working of it is largely Physics based). And all clinicians are aware, from
the history of medicine, that new insights into understanding are always
occurring.

Actually, there is a growing awareness that the human body works on

biophotons and information flows
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15947465 and electromagnetics as
well as Chemistry, and that proteins in cell walls work as switching
transistors. No wonder that exposure to certain frequencies of EM or RF
fields at low power can have a biological effect – because this is how the
cells work on microvoltage and microwattage powers (see Energy
Medicine, James Oschman, 2nd ed. 2015, Elsevier).

And of course the first noticed symptomatic effects will be on the nervous
system, especially if already compromised due to (common) sub-clinical
nutritional deficiencies of Omega 3 fatty acids, B Vitamins (think pellagra
as a deficiency illness), intra-cellular magnesium, zinc, manganese and
others.
 68

Potential Diagnostic Traps: If we as doctors cannot explain something,

it’s only too easy to diagnose the problem as either psychological or
delusional, and in this we may fall into error, caused by our own
unfamiliarity or the progress of understanding faster than our educational
system transmits to us. If one has never yet diagnosed a case, it can need
an astute diagnostician to differentiate between the unfamiliar yet real
effects happening in a body at unseen levels resulting in distressing
symptoms which give avoidance behaviour (because that person knows
that they feel unwell near certain devices), and on the other hand a patient
with a true delusional state as part of a mental disorder. However, once the
clinician is aware of the existence of Electrosensitivity, the differentiation
becomes easy, especially after seeing the pattern of several cases, as
delusional states usually have several characteristic facets to them, and do
not claim a plausible (though as yet unfamiliar) Physics based explanation.

An unfortunate myth/mantra perpetuated in science, by Private Industry

Bodies such as ICNIRP, with its own vested interests, and repeated by
Regulatory Bodies including PHE (HPA), (some of whose advisers are
members of ICNIRP, which is surprising, and could be construed as a
conflict of interest) is that nonthermal = non-harmful (now known to be
FALSE) (i.e. if it doesn’t heat you over 6 minutes) – but this completely
ignores all signal effects, which have known biological consequences. If
ants can die from proximity to a wifi router, mobile phone or laptop on wifi
(because they lose their ability to navigate, as caused by a signal, not a
thermal effect) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23977878 ), rats’
retinas be harmed by certain frequencies of LED light
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25863264 whilst our ears can detect
a billionth of a watt and our eyes a single photon, then is it surprising that
measurable EM or RF fields can affect some people – and some people
become hypersensitive and develop nervous system symptoms to
extremely weak signals?

Safety issues always lag technological advance, whether from new

medicines, car safety (think seat belts and tyre tread), asbestos etc, and
early advice about possible problems is often ignored by not believing, by
discrediting or worse by blaming the messenger. (It is human nature to be
conservative).

From research, I have learnt about the importance of sleep, posture,

breathing, emotional support, nutritional correctness, and
freedom from electromagnetic transmission fields amongst other
areas.

I have seen a number of people who feel unwell in the vicinity of wireless
transmitters, mobile phone masts, cordless phones, from using a mobile
phone, and from active alarm sensors, amongst other things, in my
practice as a GP and elsewhere. I can confirm this from experience of
 69

headaches, brain fog and word finding difficulties with prolonged exposure
to RF including wifi, mobile or cordless phones.

A typical history of a more severe case is that after an electromagnetic

insult (such as a new powerful RF (wireless) device being introduced into
the person’s environment, or an electric shock), symptoms may
progressively appear, in response to exposure to electromagnetic fields of
various different types. These fields include using appliances such as hair-
driers, vacuums or cookers, which produce high levels of electric and
magnetic fields, or cordless phones, wifi routers, mobile phones and a
whole range of wireless transmitting technology which produces RF
(radiofrequency, or microwave) transmissions, or computers, monitors and
other devices, and fluorescent lights (as opposed to the older
incandescent type of bulbs). A careful history is paramount in detecting
this condition, especially if aggravating and alleviating factors are
described and detected, possibly helped by using field detectors
(measuring devices for EM fields and wireless radiation).

Symptoms include headaches, fatigue, disturbed sleep, tingling,

pains in limbs, head or face, stabbing pains, brain-fog and impaired
cognitive function, dizziness, tinnitus, nosebleeds, palpitations and
others.

It is clear that the primary area of disturbance is in the nervous system. It

is not known why some people react to these and others do not, however
it may be that heterogeneity of genetic make- up, nutritional status,
and other factors predispose people to develop the condition once
sensitised. Certainly general factors like lack of sleep can exacerbate the
issue.

Mechanisms include voltage-gated calcium channel disruption,

upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system, interference in the blood
brain barrier and alteration of melatonin production, production of heat
shock proteins, failure of DNA recombination due to the radical spin pair
mechanism, and interference with intercellular microsignalling and circadian
rhythms. What is certain is that it is not a nocebo effect, as animals are
affected, such as ants, fruit flies and others. As we understand more about
biological systems using electromagnetic signals to communicate, a whole
host of biological effects will become apparent. We already know that
semen quality is affected by RF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927498 .

Prevalence: some people suffer from Electrosensitivity to a severe and

incapacitating degree, which affects less than 1% of the population, whilst
moderate may affect up to 3-5%, and mild 20- 30%. Please see: The
Austrian Medical Association EMF Guidelines, and “Electrosensitivity:
Sources, Symptoms and Solutions” Textbook of Bioelectromagnetic and
Subtle Energy Medicine, 2nd ed., 2015. http://www.esuk.
 70

info/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/02.2-Tresidder-and-Bevington-ES-chapter-
47-2015.pdf

Electrosensitivity is an under-recognised illness in the Western world.

However, since the 1930s it has been recognised by Russia and the
former Eastern Bloc countries, and also by the US in Naval Medical
research https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Barrie_Trower_SA.pdf It did not exist before
mains current was used.

Now that many people are being exposed to radio frequency transmissions,
both in and outside the home and workplace, the number of people who
fall ill because of this will rise. Current sufferers, if able to obtain a correct
diagnosis, are likely to be seen in retrospect as the canaries, the early
messengers of problems. ES appears to be a disability caused by
environmental pollution, and may be a useful warning sign for society of a
problem. For an interesting view on this, with research based upon many
years of government activity from the 1950s on, see Wifi, a potential
Thalidomide
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/emf_117.p
df

The whole area may be an inconvenient truth, and sometimes it is easier to

discredit the messenger than to honestly investigate forwards. It is not yet
taught about at medical school or to PostGrads and therefore is
unlikely to be diagnosed by most GPs or Hospital Specialists at present. In
two or three years’ time, the picture is likely to be different regarding
medical knowledge and expertise. This is a new area of disability that is
explicitly recognised in Canada, Sweden and the USA, and is becoming
more and more important.

Treatment is currently problematical. It is essential to minimise

exposure to adverse EM fields, as well as pay attention to nutrition,
sleep and other factors to ensure high levels of health. Despite this,
many people steadily worsen, and become casualties of the environmental
RF and EM pollution, causing a steady decline in their health, often losing
their jobs, ability to enter public places, and sometimes even unable to
remain in their houses. Current UK NHS medical knowledge and
approaches offer little hope of any treatment or improvement, although a
number of GPs and others do recognise the condition. Future hope may be
found by taking a salutogenic (health oriented) approach.

Current and historical UK PHE (HPA) advice is based on the outdated

incorrect theory that only thermal effects may cause harm, and takes no
recognition of signal effects, and therefore is unhelpful. The PHE advice is
based upon the flawed Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR)
2012 Report, which has ‘an incorrect and misleading executive
summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions
and conflict of interest’ (see Appendix).
 71

Unfortunately, senior people in UK Scientific and Advisory bodies still trust

this outdated theory, partly due to the System Educational Problems. A few
authorities still consider that the condition is a psychologically mediated
nocebo effect (‘we don’t know what’s going on, so the patient must wrong’)
– such authorities come from the same school of thought that decided that
CFS/ME was psychologically mediated. We now understand the biological
basis of compromised mitochondrial function. This historical view of CFS
can be replaced now we understand how mitochondrial function is
implicated. http://www.ijcem.com/files/IJCEM812001.pdf .

A thorough review of up-to-date papers on Electrosensitivity appears in

Bevington’s summary 'Select Studies on ES and EHS' available on the
Research tag in the ES-UK website http: http://www.es-
uk.info/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/02.3-Selected-ES-and-EHS-Studies-
2018.pdf

Society is aware that most mobile and smart phones now include advice to
keep them away from the body (though ‘pocket hotspots’ are being
popularized); it seems as though the industry may be shifting position
towards acknowledging not just heating effects, but also other significant
non- thermal effects.

Some areas of the Insurance Industry have serious concerns about the
health effects, and exclude cover for EM and RF from their policies. In the
USA, unusual multifocal breast cancers in young women in their 20s have
been reported immediately adjacent to where their mobile phone has been
kept in the bra.

Since symptoms from EM exposure can be delayed and cumulative, a

patient's history of symptoms and exposures may be difficult to follow
for someone not experienced in the types of technology now known to
have biological effects.

Thank you for considering this diagnosis in your differential of

possibilities. I hope this is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Tresidder

Useful resources:

Valuable technical studies on objective physical markers and symptoms

include:

 The Austrian Medical Association Guidelines:

http://electromagnetichealth.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2012/04/EMF-
Guideline.pdf
 72

 Belpomme et al, 2015: Reliable disease biomarkers

characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple
chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique
pathological disorder.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326

- Belyaev et al, 2016: EUROPAEM 2016 EMF Guideline 2016 for the
Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF-related Health Problems
and Illnesses https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/27454111/

- Work (trans.) by the German psychiatrist and

psychotherapist C Aschermann:
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/Aschermann2009.pdf

 Andrew Tresidder & Michael Bevington: “Electrosensitivity: Sources,

Symptoms and Solutions” ch. 47 in: Textbook of Bioelectromagnetic and
Subtle Energy Medicine, 2nd ed., Paul Rosch, 2015 (NB this is a 28Mb
file). http://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/02.2-Tresidderand-
Bevington-ES-chapter-47-2015.pdf

 Dieudonné M, 2016: Does electromagnetic hypersensitivity

originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a qualitative study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369906

- Bevington M, 2016, a summary of papers on ES

http://www.es-uk.info/wpcontent/ uploads/2018/05/Selected
%20ES%20and%20EHS%20studies.pdf

Please see www.es-uk.info and www.powerwatch.org.uk , and also

Prof. Denis Henshaw: www.electricfields.com. The Powerwatch
Handbook by Alasdair & Jean Philips (Amazon) is recommended.

Electromagnetic Sensitivity by Michael Bevington is an excellent

overview with 1828 scientific references, available from ES-UK, BM Box
ES-UK, London WC1N 3XX for £12: www.es-uk.info.

Professor Martin Blank’s “Overpowered” (2014) is a useful overview,

including the politics, Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis, 2nd Ed,
James Oschman, Elsevier 2015 is helpful

Dr Mallery-Blythe’s excellent scientific overview: “Electromagnetic

Radiation, Health and Children” also https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=tRbE4CvKA4Q&feature=youtu.be&t=25693
http://phiremedical.org/category/for-medical-doctors-scientists/

Prof Martin Pall’s ‘Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great
Harm Caused by (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes
Them’ is concerning a 90 page, seven chapter document on EMF effects,
 73

how they are produced in the body and the corruption of the international
science:

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards–dr-martin-l.-pall–eu-
emf2018-6-11us3.pdf

Appendix – conflicts of interest and flawed conclusions in science

The ‘authoritative’ 2012 AGNIR report has been analysed in the following
paper, and found to be flawed:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27902455 The abstract states “The
Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the
basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF)
electromagnetic fields in the United Kingdom and has been relied upon by
health protection agencies around the world. This review describes
incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and
conflict of interest, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment.
The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect
the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the
International Commission on

Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure
guidelines being assessed. This conflict of interest critically needs to be
addressed for the forthcoming World Health Organisation (WHO)
Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields.
Decision makers, organisations and individuals require accurate information
about the safety of RF electromagnetic signals if they are to be able to fulfil
their safeguarding responsibilities and protect those for whom they have
legal responsibility. PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide
accurate information about the safety of RF fields. “Unfortunately, the report
suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall
conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest.
Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot
be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is
covered up.”

One hopes that PHE may wish to reconsider the safety of the AGNIR
Conclusions, as the current analysis illuminates serious conflicts of
interest and errors within AGNIR’s report, and shows either

1) predetermined conclusions, 2) scientific bias, conscious or

unconscious (including System Educational Problems), 3) errors in
analysis and flawed conclusions, or, 4) less comfortably, that greater
forces have required this result (‘Active Denial’ is a strategy used by
individuals, companies and governments to avoid responsibility). There
are no other obvious explanations. PHE may have trusted the
independence of AGNIR without appreciating these factors, or the
System Educational Problems mentioned above.
 74

Some studies trying to elucidate the issue (eg Kings’ College London) have
reached flawed conclusions. In the otherwise excellent (from the data,
method and analysis point of view) BMJ published KCL paper by Rubin in
2006 Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within
participants double blind randomised provocation study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520326 and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440612/

‘sham’ was not ‘sham’ – because in ‘sham’ mode the headset heated
itself to a similar degree as when ‘active’ RF was being transmitted – of
course by electricity, generating EM Fields – and the transmissions were
changed to ’internal divert’ – therefore current was still passing: ‘It was
possible to divert power in either variant to an internal load to provide
sham RF exposure conditions with heating and low frequency magnetic
fields similar to the exposure modes’.

http://www.mthr.org.uk/documents/MTHRreport2012.pdf p26.

Rubin states ‘For the sham exposure, a continuous wave signal was
generated to ensure that the system heated up to the same degree as the
active exposures but was diverted to an internal load instead of being
transmitted through the antenna; only minimal leakage of this signal
occurred’. For a sensitive person, this, of course, would be an active test –
no wonder the paper was unable to state that sensitive subjects had a
different experience from sham – because ‘sham’ was active. (The
unfortunate error was to fail to appreciate that signal effects can occur at a
wide range of power outputs with sensitive biological systems, and that low
frequency magnetic fields similar to the exposure modes may also cause
symptoms – as opposed to power (heating) effects which tend to diminish
with decreasing power – and therefore to assume that the described ‘sham’
really was ‘sham’).

Any lay analysis of the results (fig 2) clearly shows that there are two
distinct groups – the controls, who had few symptoms at all at any point
through the study, and the sensitives, who after being near the controls at
the start, had steadily increasing symptoms (far more than the controls), at
all stages after the commencement of the study, until a relative decline after
the transmission was switched off at 50 minutes. Rubin comments
‘Sensitive participants reported headache-like symptoms in a mean of
70.4% of calls. The next most common symptoms were skin warmth
or burning (43.8% of calls), difficulty concentrating (30.0%), and
dizziness (20.8%). Very few control participants reported any
symptoms in relation to mobile phone signals; the highest mean
frequency was for skin warmth or burning (2.9%). For headache,
burning sensations, skin sensations, and eye pain we found evidence
of a main group effect—sensitive participants reported greater
severity.’
 75

Rubin’s data shows that in the sensitive group, 2 subjects were excluded
due to severe symptoms at baseline, 6 withdrew at stage one (half due to
severe symptoms), and 3 at stage 2. He also states ‘We also analysed the
number of severe reactions seen in each condition, with a severe reaction
defined as a participant requesting that an exposure be terminated early or
withdrawing from the study entirely after an exposure. Twenty-six such
reactions occurred in the sensitive group (9 withdrawals; 17 early
terminations), and none occurred in the control group’. This is helpful
evidence to support the fact that sensitive subjects really do develop
symptoms to the point that they have to withdraw – whereas controls do
not.

Unfortunately, the conclusion included the sweeping assertion that there is

no biological basis - an assertion made in a paper with only 19 references -
and no analysis of or reference to the thousands of papers documenting
biological evidence on animals and humans available even in 2005, and in
opposition to understanding of voltagegated calcium channels effects,
amongst other mechanisms. It is most unfortunate that because the authors
(mainly psychologists, with no biologists) did not appreciate that the
supposed ‘sham’ (with current passing in a device strapped to the head and
transmission happening ‘internally’) was not sham at all, but active, it was
assumed that only psychological mechanisms were involved. The paper’s
conclusion is ‘No evidence was found to indicate that people with self
reported sensitivity to mobile phone signals are able to detect such signals
or that they react to them with increased symptom severity. As sham
exposure was sufficient to trigger severe symptoms in some participants,
psychological factors may have an important role in causing this condition’.
This conclusion of course fits with the then prevailing chemistry narrative of
medicine rather than an informational physics perspective as explained by
Oschman in Energy Medicine, Elsevier, 2000

If one reinterprets the data in this light, and includes a less narrow
literature search of relevant human and animal studies (e.g. see the 1828
references in Bevington’s 2013 book), the data in Rubin’s 2006 paper is
truly excellent support of the fact that Electrosensitivity exists. Rubin
could be congratulated upon this research, if the erroneous
conclusions made in 2006 were now reframed to the diametrically
opposite point of view. A new conclusion might state: ‘Evidence was
found to indicate that people with self reported sensitivity to mobile
phone signals at even very low levels are able to detect such signals
or that they react to them with increased

symptom severity from either active transmission or biologically active

internal divert. As even the lower level of exposure originally thought to be
sham exposure was sufficient to trigger severe symptoms in all sensitive
participants, this is important evidence that some subjects are
sensitive to field strengths dramatically below SAR limits set by
ICNIRP, and therefore that reliance upon thermal safety limits alone
 76

is invalid. This study disproves the fiction that “non-thermal” equals

“non-harmful” ’. (The Insurance industry also has these reservations)

Possible Ways Forward

Fortunately, Engineers are problem solvers, and can create

wonderful solutions. RF and wifi everywhere has been designed on
the parameters of good connectivity , and the mistaken
presumption that only thermal limits are relevant for safety.

Ask engineers to design sleep mode as a default for routers, cordless

phones etc, and other applications, ask them to research biological
modulation to bring harmony into signal, ask them to ensure that peoples’
sleeping space is a signal free haven and sanctuary for the organism to
recover and rest – and ensure human health – then engineers will always
find effective solutions.

Ask the health scientists to acknowledge the issue and to look carefully at
how to help susceptible people with high quality nutrition, careful serial
supplementation to address (among others) B vitamin and zinc and
magnesium deficiencies which are widespread, to look at the human
software system and how to strengthen and support it, and to ensure white
spots of low or no signal for susceptible people to function in, – and they will
find answers

EM Pollution and Electromagnetic Stress – General Advice Sheet

This advice is ahead of its time. It is written with the benefit of experiencing
many cases of electrosensitivity. This is a contested area, as ‘Safety
ALWAYS lags technological advances’ (think tyre tread, seat-belts,
asbestos, lead in petrol etc.). The reader is asked to research for
themselves.

Human health is a delicate balance. It can be adversely affected by

interfering factors such as chemical pollution, smoke, pollens, moulds, the
food we eat, what we drink, lack of sleep, lack of fresh air, lack of sunlight,
lack of fresh water and so on. Electromagnetic pollution is another
factor which affects the body. Our bodies were developed in an
environment free from man-made EM signals (which are up to 1018
stronger than background), whilst the body uses minute micro- currents
for cellular function.

Symptoms may be none, or include tiredness, poor quality sleep,

irritability, heart palpitations, headaches and a feeling of pressure in the
head, speech and thinking disturbance, brain fog, dizziness, tinnitus,
vertigo, tinglings and odd sensations in the limbs, joint pains, rashes
and others.

Electromagnetic problems are caused by:

 77

 Field effects from cables and appliances (e.g. lights, hairdryers,

washing machines, cookers, bedside radios etc.).

 Signal effects from microwave transmitting technology (e.g.

microwave ovens, mobile phone masts, cordless phones, mobile
phones, WiFi, wireless routers, Wii devices, laptop computers, wireless
printers, alarm sensors, iPads, Blackberries, baby alarms, utility smart
meters, wireless central heating controls, and a car’s Bluetooth devices.

 ‘Dirty electricity’ also damages health.

The key solution is to minimize your exposure in the home, especially

during sleep time:

Switch off wifi routers and cordless phone base stations and any
other devices whenever you can – remember the signal is designed to
go through walls and throughout the house.

Put iPads, phones and other wireless devices onto airplane mode.

Instead of WiFi, consider a DLAN wired router system for computer

internet via the ring main.

Consider changing alarm sensors to passive only (rather than active

which use microwaves).

Think about refusing offers of wireless central heating controls and

wireless smart meters. The Council of Europe recommends a
Precautionary approach, although current UK Public Health England
advice is based on heating effects of transmissions only, not the
observed signal effects. The World Health Organization’s IARC says that
wireless technologies are a Class 2b possible carcinogen.

Accepted biological effects of EM fields include: increased childhood

leukaemia, adverse effects on sperm production, pregnancy, embryo
development and hormones; there are links with depression, Motor
Neurone and Parkinson’s diseases, several cancers, behavioural problems
and cataracts.

Mechanisms include: changes in calcium influx, failure of repair of DNA

breaks, blood brain barrier permeability, heat shock protein production,
disruption of vital melatonin production (e.g. by blue light from screens),
general sympathetic (stress) upregulation of the body and disruption of cell
to cell signaling. The overall effect may be to age us all more quickly…

Industry pressure may hinder discussion or reporting, or ridicule the

‘Canaries in the Coal Mine’ who are the early ES sufferers. Please do
not take this on trust: research and make up your own mind! read…
 78

‘The Powerwatch Handbook’ by Alasdair Phillips,

‘Overpowered’ by Martin Blank, and ‘Energy Medicine’ by
James Oschman

38. It is immaterial whether or not PHE or the government accept that EHS
sufferers are disabled. It is a matter of English law that they are disabled.
The government should respect the law of the land.

39. EHS sufferers are not able to go where there is electromagnetic radiation
for long or at all. There excludes them from many public and private
places.

40. By implementing a strategy which excludes these disabled people from

public and private spaces, the government is in breach of its equality duty.
It is in breach of its duties to eliminate disability discrimination and to advance
equality of opportunity between the disabled and non-disabled.

41. These plans do nothing to remove or minimise disadvantages experienced by those

who are EHS. There are no steps proposed which could meet their needs. There is
no encouragement for EHS people to participate in public life or other activity where
their participation is disproportionately low. There is nothing to take account of
disabled persons disabilities.

42. In the Government Guidance which must be taken into account by any court or
tribunal determining if someone has a disability, sets out the meaning of normal day
to day activities:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/570382/Equality_Act_2010-disability_definition.pdf

“D3. In general, day-to-day activities are things people do on a regular or

daily basis, and examples include shopping, reading and writing, having a
conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and
dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking
and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities.
Normal day-to-day activities can include general work-related activities, and
study and educationrelated activities, such as interacting with colleagues,
following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews,
preparing written documents, and keeping to a timetable or a shift pattern.”

43. From the stories above, it is easy to see that EHS sufferers are not able to carry out
their normal day to day activities because of their illness.

44. In the Stewart report in 2000, there were recommendations for ‘white zones or
corridors’ to be set up for those with EHS so that they can participate in public life.
These white corridors would be free of electromagnetic radiation so that they can
enjoy the theatre, go to their GP, visit the hospital, go to a restaurant, go to a concert,
 79

without suffering for days afterwards the effects of the radiation. These
recommendations were not implemented.

45. I am also aware that the UK government follows ICNIRP’s guidance and that ICNIRP
rejects any science which shows biological effects which does not cause heating of
the body. Its guidelines are based on science which shows a heating effect on the
body and it rejects the concept that adverse health effects can occur without heating
of the body. Therefore, biological effects which occur without heating of the body are
totally unprotected. These are just two of the deep flaws in ICNIRP’s guidelines (as
wholeheartedly adopted by the UK Government).

46. But, this is immaterial to determining whether a person has a disability and whether
or not the government is fulfilling its equality duty. It has been shown that EHS
sufferers feel ill in places with radiation. There is professional medical evidence to
confirm that this is the case as shown by Dr Andrew Tressider’s letter. In those
circumstances, it behoves the government to comply with English law and to meets
its equality duty.

47. These proposals for higher, stronger masts, closer to highways etc increase the
electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere which makes EHS sufferers ill.

48. The government considers that the proposals will have positive impacts even on
those who have protected characteristics. This is wrong. They will not.

49. Below are more stories from those who suffer from EHS:

First story

The discrimination of people with 'Protected Characteristics'

Question 6 of the Government's 5G consultation refers to 'people with

protected characteristics', as is set out in section 149 of the Equality Act of
2010.

The Government believes that 'the changes raised in this consultation will
have a positive effect on all persons, including those with protected
characteristics'.

In fact, the Government's plans would be deeply discriminatory against many

of these people.

It is known that children, for example, are particularly vulnerable to RF

radiation from mobile phones and so on (see papers on the subject by
Professor Om Gandhi). The public is not being warned, and people - including
very young children - are using these devices in an unconstrained manner.
They are being exposed to the radiation from wireless infrastructure on a daily
basis, and very few will have any idea of what the long term consequences
are likely to be.
 80

In addition, people who are sensitised to this radiation, such as myself, will
also be discriminated against, as we will be subjected to yet more RF
radiation, and will lose any last remaining 'not spots' of reduced levels of RF
radiation to which we can flee.

It appears that we are to be denied the fundamental human right to say

whether or not we wish to be exposed to ubiquitous radiation in the
environment. First it was cellular services such as 2G, 3G and 4G, then WiFi
everywhere, then so-called 'smart meters', and now 5G small cells and other
infrastructure. We are being steadily disenfranchised, concerning one of the
most critical issues of our time.

Many of us lose our jobs, and sometimes our homes, because of our
sensitivity, and the terrible symptoms that we are forced to endure on a daily
basis. Our condition is then denied as being 'real' by the ignorant, or by those
with interests to protect. Our right to protest via the planning process is
removed. We are patted on the head, and told that our condition is
'psychological'. With the honourable exception of one or two MPs, the
Government and official organisations treat us with utter contempt.

With the advent of 5G small cells in close proximity to our homes, and the
relaxation of any remaining planning constraints for wireless infrastructure,
who knows what the effect on sensitised people will be, except to say that it
will be very bad indeed.

The Government has been warned repeatedly over the years about the
harmful effects of RF Radiation, not just on sensitised people such as myself,
but on everybody, including infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly,
and those who are either sick, or who are predisposed to illness. The non-
industry science is clearly showing that these warnings were, and are, well-
founded. The Government is in very big trouble indeed.

Second story

Many people I know, and myself included, have become EHS

(Electrohypersensitive) as a result of chronic exposure to microwave radiation
signals already constantly transmitted in public spaces and workplaces.

There is ample evidence that EHS is caused by such radiation and ample
evidence that once sensitised, exposure to signals (below ICNIRP thermal
levels) trigger numerous debilitating symptoms so numerous it would be
difficult to list them all – just see www.bioinitiative .org for more information on
the effects - such effects often resulting in impact to ability to work. It is a fact
that such people’s symptoms appear in the presence of the (so-called low
level) radiation and dissipate and stop / go away in the absence of such an
environment.

Therefore, making the spread of transmitters more likely and faster by these
proposals will run contrary to Equality Act 2010 Section 149 Clause (1)(a) in
 81

relation to EHS which is clearly a disability under Section 149 Clause (7) and
therefore a protected characteristic. The public body will also run counter to
Clause (3). In not allowing the proposals, this is fully in-line with Section 149
Clause (6). The proposals are likely to create many more people with similar
disability.

Third story

I was diagnosed as Electro-Sensitive (ES) approximately fifteen years ago by

my GP and it is recorded in my ‘Emergency Care Summary’ of my Medical
Records.

I am using a wired computer to write this because I cannot use Wi-Fi without
suffering debilitating symptoms that distress me.

I had been suffering symptoms for a few years in my employment whilst

working with non-wired technologies including insomnia, changes in my heart
rate; skin rashes; nose bleeds; cognitive disturbances; pains in my body;
nausea, head-aches especially sharp debilitating shooting pains in my head
and fatigue to name just a few of the symptoms.

There was obviously anxiety as a result of feeling unwell with experiencing

the symptoms and tests carried out in hospital and by my GP not diagnosing
the source of the problem at that time.

I kept a diary as advised to do by my GP and realised that the symptoms

occurred when in the vicinity of masts; when the microwave in the kitchen
was working and when people nearby were using mobile phones. These are
just a few examples; I could go on.

I need to have electrical appliances wired and even then I cannot use
electrical equipment for too long before symptoms occur.

I cannot remain in shops or on public transport for long due to the Wi-Fi and
modern technology.

I did my research and I need to make sure that I only use wired technologies.

www.getwiredin.co.uk

At present, I can walk where there are no masts, mobile phones, Smart
meters or transmitters, but that would all change with 5G Technology and I
would suffer like millions of others. This would be a breach of my human
rights and the rights of others as well as my rights under the Equality Act of
2010.

Apple and Samsung are already facing class action suit due to handset RF
radiation emissions
 82

https://z6mag.com/2019/08/25/apple-and-samsung-facing-class-action-
suitdue-to-handset-rf-radiationemissions/?
fbclid=IwAR1iz84C0oszjvtbUu4H7pmWVaqw_ksq44X8D1c07guq3MC1WxGv
5SCQ9lM

There was ‘no informed consent’ to make me suffer in this way and I certainly
do not consent to being exposed to even more dangerous radio frequency
radiation with 5G.

I have a right to a live a reasonably normal life and feel safe and secure in my
own home.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recognises the various symptoms of

electro-sensitivity and electro-magnetic intolerance as causing a functional
disability.

http://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/06.1-DisabilityLetterNotes-
General.pdf

The public has never been informed of the 1000s of peer-reviewed published
scientific papers demonstrating biological damage at non-thermal levels.

The Government and the companies have a duty to do the right thing –
(‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ of the Equality Act 2010) to protect all the public
including those like me who are electro-sensitive.

Finally, there needs to be more transparent and balanced interest

representation in this country like Brussels

https://www.radiationresearch.org/politics/more-transparent-and-
balancedinterest-representation-commission-adopts-new-expert-group-rules/

Fourth story

Having looked through the consultation paper, there is one area I would like
to highlight specifically and that is question (6) relating to the ‘Equality Act’.

I am electro-sensitive and my health is impacted around mobile phone

technology, WIFI, DECT phones etc. I have included a leaflet from the ES-UK
registered charity which gives details of the condition. I have had to make
significant adjustments to my life and my surroundings in order to maintain,
support and protect a level of health. I am unable to travel on public transport,
visit the doctor, dentist, optician without risking an increase in negative health
symptoms, and these are the public services that I should be able to easily
use to support and maintain my health. Currently, as there are no screened
facilities in public waiting areas or consultation rooms (ie areas where
WiFi/mobile phones are prohibited), I have not visited the dentist or opticians
in some time as this increases my anxiety levels and negative health
symptoms.
 83

The WHO recognises various symptoms of electromagnetic intolerance and

electromagnetic sensitivity as causing ‘functional disability’. Under the ‘Public
Sector Equality Duty’ I understand that the local authority has a duty to
consider how their policies and decisions affect people who are protected
under the Equality Act. I would draw your attention to ICNIRP’s Statement
2002 which was published in Health Physics 82(4):540-548:2002 the
following extracts from the document (people being protected) should flag up
a precautionary warning about amending any laws to support the rollout of 5G
and increasing mobile communications:

“...Some guidelines may still not prove adequate protection for certain
sensitive individuals...’

‘...different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to

tolerate a particular NIR exposure, for example, children, the elderly and
some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more
forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population...’

As the symptoms I experience are debilitating and cause functional disability I

believe I should be considered under the ‘protected characteristics’ as being
an individual who needs protection from over exposure to electromagnetic
radiation, yet if these planning laws are amended to blanket everywhere in
mobile signal to reduce ‘not spots’ where is the respite for those of us who are
electro-sensitive, the ‘not spots’ would be our refuge, I feel this would be
discriminating against those who are sensitive to these frequencies.

Fifth story

People who are sensitised to electromagnetic radiation such as myself are

already badly affected by existing electrosmog in the environment. I ran a
business for 25 years, but I was forced to give it up due to ill health that was
caused by man-made radiation, at ICNIRP's levels.

I am effectively discriminated against on a daily basis, through something that

is no fault of mine. .... I am functionally disabled by RF Radiation, and I can
assure you that neither 5G, nor any other type of man-made RF Radiation,
has a 'positive impact' on me. They have a severely negative impact on my
health, and my ability to perform in society as a normal person.

E. Conclusion

50. It is clear from these comments that those with EHS have physical and mental
functional disabilities caused by RFR which means that they fall within the definition
of disability under the Equality Act 2010. As such they are entitled to the protection of
the public sector equality duty.

51. The widespread roll-out of 5G radiation to every last rural area through the proposed
strengthening of the permitted development rights in favour of Code Operators is
very likely to remove the “white zones” where those people who suffer from EHS can
 84

currently find refuge from the debilitating symptoms of EHS. This goes against
section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which does already recognise the symptoms of
EHS sufferers as disabling.

52. Some 3.6% of the population suffer conscious symptoms from wireless
radiation like 5G.

53. Since some 2,400,000 people in the UK (3.6%) suffer conscious symptoms caused
by wireless radiation like 5G, it is essential that 5G is kept within the international
long-term biological guidelines to protect their health.

54. 800,000 (1.2%) in the UK are severely affected by wireless radiation like 5G. Some
are forced by existing levels of wireless radiation to abandon their homes and try to
find remote areas of the country where they are forced to sleep in tents or cars. A few
have even fled abroad. This does not accord with established United Nations human
rights and should be remedied as soon as possible.

55. The PHE/ICNIRP guidelines cannot be relied on and certainly not for the purposes of
considering risks to all individuals including those who are particularly vulnerable to
electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G for the following reasons:

(a) ICNIRP’s failure to consider non-heating effects and impacts;

(b) The fact that ICNIRP’s conclusions relate to the population as a whole and
not to the position of more vulnerable people within it;
(c) the fact that ICNIRP’s guidelines are for short-term exposure only;
(d) other studies contradict ICNIRP’s guidelines including for the reasons above;
(e) PHE’s Chairman is a member of ICNIRP which provides a conflict of interest;
(f) ICNIRP as an organisation is beset by conflicts of interest and a lack of
independence from the mobile industry so that its conclusions cannot be
relied on as the basis for conclusions about the health impacts of 5G or these
proposals, generally or for people who are particularly vulnerable to their
impacts;
(g) these proposals are a breach of human rights and breach a number of
international agreements.

56. It is not right in a democratic society to harm others intentionally by placing

equipment which is known to cause adverse health impacts near to those who are
EHS. Appropriate rules to safeguard EHS sufferers must be put in place so that the
equality duty can be fulfilled.

F. Recommendations

57. At the very least, these proposals should not permit masts in residential areas at all.
It is difficult for the government to know everyone who is EHS, whether mildly or
more severely. Providing a safe space for residents where they are not bombarded
with radiation should be the minimum safeguard introduced by the government with
any further roll out of masts, antenna and small cells.
 85

58. Safe zones or white zones should be planned so that those who are EHS can
participate in public life, including going to school for children who are EHS.

59. Mobile operators should be mandated to provide maps of the exclusion zones which
apply to each of their equipment on a website searchable by the public so that EHS
sufferers can be alerted to equipment which may be detrimental to their health being
at risk of being placed near them. They should then be given the right of veto to
object to such equipment being placed near them and mobile operators must be
bound by that right of veto.
 86

Assessment of Impact

Question 12. We welcome any further evidence specifically on the regulatory impacts
of the proposed changes to planning regulations set out in this technical consultation

Comments

This section deals with:

A. Potential Human Rights breaches make the proposals illegal

a. Article 8 - Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
b. Proportionality
c. Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination;
d. Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of property.
B. One sided regulatory impact
C. Failure of the government to ensure that the public is aware of the meaning of the
outcome of these consultations
D. Failure to put in place an adequate regulatory authority to regulate the mobile
operators

A. Potential Human Rights breaches make the proposals illegal

1. These regulations, together with the Electronics Communications Code removes the
idiom or British proverb that an ‘Englishman’s home is his castle’ which is taken to
mean that British people believe they have the right to do what they want in their own 
home, and that other people or the state should not interfere in their private lives.
Here, the state now dictates that commercial interests may encroach, disrupt and
force themselves into and on their private homes, land and lives.

2. As such, these proposals are incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the UN
Convention on Human Rights and are illegal.

3. If the proposals are implemented, the following sections of the Human Rights Act are
likely to be breached:

(a) Article 8 - Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
(b) Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination;
(c) Protocol 1, Article 1: Protection of property.

4. Much of the information below is taken from the public authorities Guide prepared by
the Equality and Human Rights Commission entitled “Human Rights: Human Lives:
A Guide to the Human Rights Act for Public Authorities” which can be found at the
link below:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/file/2501/download?token=cX71W4Bx
 87

Potential breach of Article 8 - Respect for your private and family life, home
and correspondence

5. It is recognised that Article 8 is a qualified right and that this right can be restricted
only in specified circumstances. But before addressing the qualified right, it is helpful
to confirm what is meant by “home”. The right to respect for one’s home does not
give one a right to housing. It is a right to enjoy one’s existing home peacefully.
This means that public authorities should not stop one entering or living in one’s
home without very good reason, and they should not enter without one’s permission.
This applies whether or not one owns one’s home. A person’s ‘home’ may include
their place of business.

6. These proposals will stop EHS sufferers from being able to live in their own homes
for the reasons set out in Question 11.

7. Now, this right may be restricted, provided such interference has a proper legal
basis, is necessary in a democratic society and pursues one of the following
recognised legitimate aims as prescribed by Article 8(2):

(a) national security

(b) public safety
(c) the economic well-being of the country
(d) the prevention of disorder or crime
(e) the protection of health or morals
(f) the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

8. But the interference must be necessary (not just reasonable) and it should be
‘proportionate’ – that is, not more than is needed to achieve the aim desired.

9. In some circumstances, the state must take positive steps to prevent intrusions into a
person’s private life by other people. For example, the state may be required to take
action to protect people from serious pollution where it is seriously affecting their
lives. It is asserted that radiofrequency radiation is a pollutant and is seriously
affecting the lives of EHS sufferers.

10. The right to respect for one’s home may mean, for example, that the state has to take
positive action so that a person can peacefully enjoy their home, for example, to
reduce aircraft noise or to prevent serious environmental pollution. It is asserted that
the proliferation of mobile telecoms equipment with these proposals will result in
serious environmental pollution.

11. What must a public authority do?

(a) Always be alert to policies or actions that might interfere with a person’s right
to respect for their private and family life, their home or their correspondence.
It is asserted that these policies interfere with these rights.
(b) Where possible, a public authority should try to ensure that its policies or
decisions do not interfere with someone’s right to respect for private and
 88

family life, their home and their correspondence. It is asserted that these
policies will interfere with this right.
(c) If a public authority does decide that it will be difficult to avoid interfering with
someone’s Article 8 rights, it will need to make sure that the policy or action is
necessary, pursues one of the recognised legitimate aims and is
proportionate to that aim. A public authority may be asked to produce reasons
for its decisions.
(d) Public authorities may also need to consider whether there are situations
putting them under obligation to take active steps to promote and protect
individuals’ Article 8 rights from systematic interference by third parties, for
example, private businesses. It is asserted that this last one would require
the government to take active steps to protect disabled EHS sufferers rights
from what will become the systematic interference by mobile comms
operators if these proposals are continued.

12. Of course, whether Article 8 rights are actually breached will depend on all the
circumstances of the case. A public authority can interfere in someone’s Article 8
rights, provided this is permitted by the law, is necessary, and is a proportionate
means of achieving one of the legitimate aims prescribed by Article 8(2) listed above.

13. If the aim that the government wants to achieve does not fall within one of those
listed in the text of the Article, it is likely that the restriction will not be legitimate.

14. None of these reasons apply to the content of the proposals so that the government,
in pursuing these proposals are in breach of Article 8. It, therefore, leaves itself open
to a successful legal challenge on this ground.

15. The government must ask itself, is the restriction necessary in a democratic society?

16. For a restriction to be necessary in a democratic society there must be a rational

connection between the legitimate aim to be achieved and the policy/decision that
restricts a person’s rights. It is not sufficient to put forward a legitimate aim if, in fact,
the restriction will not make a real difference in achieving that aim.

17. The government should also ask itself “Are you sure you are not using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut?”

18. A policy/decision should be no more restrictive than it needs to be in order to achieve

its objective. This is called ‘proportionality’. For example, a blanket application of a
policy/decision to everyone concerned will often be considered disproportionate, as it
does not take into account individual circumstances, and the individual rights of each
person affected. It will have the effect of imposing restrictions in circumstances where
they are not really needed.

19. The government should ask itself whether the objectives can be achieved only by the
policy/decision they are proposing. Ask itself if there is any other less restrictive way
of achieving the desired outcome. If there is another less restrictive way of achieving
the desired outcome, but the government decides not to adopt it, they will need to be
 89

prepared to say why you have made that choice. Their reasons will have to be good
ones.

Proportionality

20. The principle of proportionality is at the heart of how the qualified rights are
interpreted.

21. The principle can perhaps most easily be understood by the saying ‘Don’t use a
sledgehammer to crack a nut’. When taking decisions that may affect any of the
qualified rights, a public authority must interfere with the right as little as possible,
only going as far as is necessary to achieve the desired aim.

22. It may prove useful to ask the following questions to determine whether a restrictive
act is proportionate or not:

(a) What is the problem that is being addressed by the restriction?

(b) Will the restriction in fact lead to a reduction in that problem?

(c) Does a less restrictive alternative exist, and has it been tried?

(d) Does the restriction involve a blanket policy or does it allow for different cases
to be treated differently?

(e) Has sufficient regard been paid to the rights and interests of those affected?

(f) Do safeguards exist against error or abuse?

(g) Does the restriction in question destroy the very essence of the Convention
right at issue?

23. It is asserted that these questions have not been considered in the context of these
proposals.

Potential breach of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination

24. Article 14 requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Human Rights Act
must be protected and applied without discrimination, which includes direct and
indirect disability discrimination.

25. These proposals may be indirectly discriminatory to disabled EHS sufferers.

26. The courts have ruled that the human rights protection from discrimination includes
indirect discrimination. This occurs when a rule or policy, supposedly applying to
everyone equally, actually works to the disadvantage of one or more groups. These
proposals work to the disadvantage of disabled EHS sufferers who will be
disproportionately affected by the proposals.
 90

27. In the public authority human rights guidance, it is noted that when seemingly neutral
treatment creates a disproportionate disadvantage for people with a particular
characteristic, compared to people who do not share the same characteristic, it is
known as indirect discrimination. Article 14 of the Human Rights Act gives people the
right to protection against both forms of discrimination in relation to all the other rights
guaranteed under the Convention. It means that everyone is entitled to equal access
to those rights.

28. The government will need to consider whether it discriminates against anyone in
relation to the exercise of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14.

29. The government must consider whether the restrictions inherent in these proposals
affect the disabled EHS sufferers. Any differential impact should be noted, even if it is
unintentional.

30. Indirect impact also needs to be considered, for example where the restriction
applies in principle to everyone but would have a particularly heavy impact on a
particular group or class who would find it harder to comply. If you decide that your
restriction does apply unequally in the way a Convention right is enjoyed or
protected, you will need to decide whether or not the differential treatment is justified.
It is necessary to consider:

(a) whether the differential treatment is in pursuit of a legitimate aim?

(b) whether the differential treatment is proportionate to that aim (i.e. is there no less
discriminatory way of achieving the aim)? If the answer to both these questions is
‘yes’, then it is likely that differential treatment will be justified.

Potential breach of Protocol 1, Article 1 – protection of property

31. This article protects one’s right to enjoy one’s property peacefully. See below:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-1-first-protocol-
protection-property

32. The article states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in
the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the
general principles of international law.

33. A public authority cannot take away one’s property, or place restrictions on its use,
without very good reason. One of the consequences of these proposals is that if a
landowner wishes to redevelop their home or put a balcony on the roof, if a
mast/antenna or small cell has been placed on the roof, there are no provisions
allowing them to require its removal.

34. As the equipment may generate a public exclusion zone, people may find themselves
unable to use certain parts of their property. This would be tantamount to placing
restrictions on the use of one’s home. This right applies to companies as well as
individuals. The public exclusion zone may vary depending on the power output of
 91

the equipment which, in turn, will depend on the degree of usage. Power output
would have to be increased if it is being used a lot.

35. It is recognised that Protocol 1, Article 1 cannot impair the right of the State to
enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance
with the general interest or to secure payment of taxes or other contributions or
penalties.

36. What is being proposed here is not in the public interest. The mobile operators are
not the government. They are not public or state bodies. They are private
commercial interests with shareholders and they do not represent the government in
any way.

37. It is recognised that there are some situations in which public authorities can take
things one owns or restrict the way one uses them. This is only possible where the
authority can show that its action is lawful and necessary for the public interest. The
government must strike a fair balance between one’s interests as a property owner
and the general interests of society as a whole.

38. A public authority should assess its policies and functions which are relevant to the
rights under the Human Rights Act for discriminatory impact. In relation to
characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010, this closely overlaps with its
obligations under the public sector equality duty. It is asserted that if the government
assessed these proposals in conjunction with the Electronic Communications Code
for discriminatory impact against disabled EHS sufferers, they would abandon these
proposals entirely.

What must a public authority do?

39. Where possible, a public authority should try to ensure that policies or decisions do
not interfere with peaceful enjoyment of possessions, restrict the use of possessions
or take away possessions. Where this is unavoidable, then the interference must be
lawful and necessary in the public interest.

40. If a public authority does decide that it is necessary to interfere with someone’s
possessions, there must be an objective and reasonable justification for that. It is
asserted that there are no objective or reasonable justifications for imposing masts
and small cells on people’s homes and private land which would be permitted by
these proposals.

B. One sided regulatory impact

41. The regulatory impact of the proposed changes to planning regulations set out in the
technical consultation will be one sided. It gives all power to the mobile operators
and none to the public. There is no adequate regulatory authority who regulates the
mobile operators. There is no regulation of what they do provided that they provide
an ICNIRP certificate. No authority oversees what they are doing, checks what they
are doing and there is no authority to whom the public can easily turn if the mobile
operators misbehave.
 92

42. Some of them misbehave in the following fundamental ways. I have seen some of
this behaviour personally while commenting on masts and from information sent to
me by others.

(a) They misrepresent the height of buildings in their drawings. I have seen one
set of drawings where the residential building inside the public exclusion zone
was 8m and the drawing showed the building as being 5m and just under the
exclusion zone.
(b) They state on one part of the mast planning application that there are say 3
antennae and on the plans it is shown there are 6 antennae.
(c) They re-categorise rooftop workers who may need to access the rooftop after
the installation of the masts and antennae as ‘occupational workers’. The
exclusion zones are smaller for occupational workers who are supposed to
have radiation training. But, window cleaners, roof repair maintenance
workers etc do not have such training and are not occupational workers. But
it means that the mobile operator’s equipment can be designed to be lower
and more aesthetically pleasing than it should be for health and safety
purposes. But that results in the poor rooftop workers who access the rooftop
not having a clue that the antennae or masts have dangerous radiation within
an exclusion zone and wondering around to do their work while being in the
public exclusion zone and being irradiated.
(d) They do not provide the ICNIRP certificate with their planning applications.
(e) They do not adhere to the Code of Practice by not communicating properly
with the community, by having bad design of equipment, by having 6
antennae in an application when the permitted development rules limit the
number to 5 antennae.
(f) They do not adhere to the rules relating to churches, including contacting the
diocese to enquire whether there is permission for their equipment.
(g) They do not check that the load bearing of the church’s roof is adequate for
their heavy equipment.
(h) They do not follow the Code of Practice by siting the masts in appropriate
areas;
(i) In one case that I heard of, the mobile operator went to do a survey on a
rooftop and put up undisclosed equipment on the roof without the owner’s
consent.

43. At least with driving offences, if one is not happy about a ticket, there is the appeal
authority to whom one can immediately turn and get a decision quickly and at no cost
to oneself. Not so with this regime. There is nowhere for a member of the public to
turn if the mobile operators are not complying with the ICNIRP guidelines or abusing
their power.

44. These impacts leave the public vulnerable, exposed, defenceless and at the mercy of
mobile operators.

C. Failure of the government to ensure that the public is aware of the meaning of
the outcome of these consultations
 93

45. Many of the public are not aware of the space race for satellites which include the
British government. They are not aware that fairly soon, there will be 100,000
satellites from SpaceX, OneWeb, Blue Origin and others, all vying for their
communications business in competition with the terrestrial mobile operators.

46. These satellites will need ground based masts which will be different, and in addition,
to the terrestrial masts used by the mobile operators. So, not only will there be
legacy 1G – 4G systems in place for each of the four main mobile operators beaming
radiofrequency radiation, there will also be the at least 500,000 (so the mobile
operators estimated in 2017) new masts just for 5G, then the land based masts for
the satellite comms which are likely to be in the hundreds of thousands also to have
a similar reach to the terrestrial masts and antennae.

47. Then there will be the intermediate drones and nanosatellites below the satellites
which will also vy for masts.

48. The regulatory environment and impacts which are being promulgated by these
proposals will provide a free for all environment where any supplier can put any mast
wherever they like which will blot the landscape, providing street clutter which won’t
be properly thought out (which we are seeing at the moment with current mast
applications) and cause obstruction, congestion, cumulative radiation which will not
be measured with other nearby equipment (including smart meters, wifi system on
street lamps, small cell apparatus which will be everywhere and other nearby masts
and antennae).

49. You are giving the mobile operators carte blanche to do what they want with no
oversight.

50. And, while there are 4 main terrestrial operators at present, what if there is another
new entrant who has a system which could disrupt the market but who also want to
put up their own masts and antennae. The number of equipment will proliferate with
no ‘OFF’ button to stop the proliferation.

51. The failure adequately to ensure the public understand the implications of these
consultations make the consultations a sham.

52. The disparate nature of these consultations and those relating to the Electronic
Communications Code ensure that the public are not able to put two and two
together to work out the government’s intentions to take away their property rights to
peaceful enjoyment and is of deep concern.

D. Failure to put in place an adequate regulatory authority to regulate the mobile

operators

53. There is no recognition of the need to require mobile operators to report the
measurements of their equipment on a regular basis so you have no idea what they
are doing – what powers are being used and when – what frequencies are being
used – what the public and other exclusion zones look like.
 94

54. The government has maxed out the country’s credit card pouring billions into finding
out and tracking how a virus works to stop the spread of coronavirus 19 but you have
no plans whatsoever to monitor how mobile operators and others who wish to put up
antennae, masts etc will do their business and impact on the public. It is the most
serious dereliction of duty that any government could commit and a betrayal of the
trust which the public puts in good governance.

55. The people of the United Kingdom deserve better than the keys to our homes and
lives being handed to mobile operators, some of who misrepresent what they are
doing and abuse their trading position.

56. Public Health England which has probably now been disbanded and replaced by a
different public body, has not had any personnel who is an expert in non-ionising
radiation for at least two years. They have failed to fill the vacancy for this post for
the last two years. Their experts are experts in ionising radiation, which is different.
Therefore, the public health authority in the UK is not keeping up to date with the
developments of the impact.

57. The Equality Impact Assessment prepared for the first consultation was inadequate.
The government failed adequately to take into account the plight of
electrohypersensitive sufferers and how their equipment affects their normal day to
day activities. The science is immaterial and the view of PHE on whether or not they
accept EHS as a disability is irrelevant. These EHS sufferers have diagnoses of
EHS from qualified GPs who state that their conditions are a result of non-ionising
radiation.

58. A proper Equality Impact Assessment needs to be carried out with these people in
mind.

59. There is no regulation requiring the mobile operators to make their systems resilient
or to prevent cyber attacks. Your regulations are tying in the public to greater use of
the mobile operators systems, but in the event of a cyber attack or serious sun flare
which may blow out their systems, much of this equipment and systems may be
made unusable. Some thought needs to go into the resilience of these systems and
their ability to withstand ‘acts of God’ and of man.

60. These regulations together with the Electronics Communications Code will enable
mobile operators to force themselves into people’s homes to put up their equipment
and their land with no oversight by local planning authorities (who are able to take
residents views into account). One of the judges to a case brought by a mobile
operator using the Electronic Communications Code to force itself onto someone’s
land referred to the Code as the biggest land grab and change in the property rights
of private owners for over a century.

14.6.21
 95

JLC