Dr Lisa Hutchinson
Background
ACHES has been in touch with all local councils regarding planning application adjudication, and there are a number of interesting points. Councils rely on ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidance for non-ionising radiation safety; however, ICNIRP excludes people with any form of metal implants. In a recent judicial review court case, Judge Jarman held that Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) was in error because the council had not considered people with metal implants. People with metal implants include those with pacemakers, replacement joints, mesh, dental amalgam fillings, and other implants. The ICNIRP guidelines specifically exclude such individuals from the scope of their guidance—the very guidance that local councils rely on. The Court of Appeal dismissed CBC’s attempt to overturn the Jarman ruling.
5G is Isotropic Radiation
Only the relevant council can grant planning permission for telecommunications infrastructures, such as 4G and 5G masts, which comes with great responsibility. Power emitted from 4G, and lower ‘Gs’ drops off in accordance with the inverse square law. This law states that the power intensity of the radiation decreases in relation to the square of the distance from the emitting source. This defines isotropic radiation. In other words, the closer to a mast a person is, the more intense the radiation exposure. 5G is entirely different: it is directed energy, focused into beams, which describes non-isotropic radiation. In order to comply with ICNIRP, councils need to confirm that the power intensity and power drop-off — which varies for each antenna design — is within the ICNIRP guidance of 1mW/cm2, including from other nearby mast(s). Regarding 5G equipment, this will depend on the specification details of the 5G antennas. If local councils do not obtain this antenna information, they cannot ascertain whether the applied for antenna array complies with ICNIRP guidance.
Power Output from Masts
It should be emphasized, however, that an ICNIRP certificate is insufficient to verify whether the power output from any mast is within the ICNIRP guidelines. This is because ICNIRP certificates do not provide the antenna design details, the power intensity, or power drop-off with distance of the 5G apparatus. Thus, the council will not know whether the radiation at the boundary of the ‘exclusion zone’ is ICNIRP compliant. In the absence of this information, any planning application for 5G and other wireless equipment should be refused.
A response that was provided by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency to James Leighton, on the 23rd December 2024 under reference 20/10/24/LS/427, noted the following: “Consequently members of the public should be protected:
– if the manufacturer of the AIMD [active implantable medical device] used the designated standard to demonstrate compliance with UK Regulators
– the manufacturer of the AIMD issued no applicable warnings, and
– exclusion zones around mobile phone masts based on ICNIRP public exposure guidelines are respected by the AIMD wearer”.
Safe Exclusion Zones
The radiation at the edge of the exclusion zone is vitally important in relation to the UKHSA directive, as detailed above. Thus, how is any local council going to inform all potential visitors of any area within the UK who have AMIDs of the relevant mast exclusion zones in order to comply with this UK HSA directive? Since such people are not within the ICNIRP guidance, this makes the requirement for local councils to comply with UK regulations paramount. In such circumstances, all councils must contact residents or visitors to an area to warn them that, based on ICNIRP public exposure guidelines, they are not within a safe zone of exclusion. If this is not possible, people who are not within a safe area are perfectly entitled to complain and lodge formal complaints against any council that has not respected the safe limits of radiation exposure due to mast applications being granted across all areas of the UK.
Public Action Justified
Since ICNIRP specifically excludes medical device interference from its safety remit, vulnerable local residents with pacemakers or other medical metal implants are left entirely unprotected by these guidelines — as are any visitors to any areas who also have metal devices. If a resident suffers a medical emergency due to interference from equipment leased on council land, the council faces unlimited financial liability under civil law. This is because its standard municipal policy strictly excludes EMR/EMF (electromagnetic radiation/electromagnetic fields) claims. Furthermore, failure to record this identified, and structurally uninsurable financial exposure on the Corporate Risk Register constitutes a significant weakness in governance arrangements. Members of the public are advised to write to their council under Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 in relation to corporate property assets leased to commercial telecommunications operatives. The right to receive such information falls within a public inspection window compliant with transparency. It should also align with the Gunning Principles (see associated link on this subject). External auditors for councils, would also be copied into the correspondence. This creates a binding and transparent regulatory record that requires formal determination.
Implications for Insurance Liability
This alarming situation has serious implications for liability insurance for local councils. Insurance companies will not underwrite the risk of harm to health by EMF radiation. So, how is the Council going to underwrite the risk of potential lawsuits for health damage, initiated by people who are excluded under ICNIRP? This is especially relevant in these financially stressed times for local councils? This concerning risk needs to be identified on the relevant risk register and should be audited at the appropriate time, by both the internal auditor and the external auditor. In such circumstances, all Councils could face unlimited financial liability from this risk. For the above detailed reasons, it would be intelligent and advised for all Councils to refuse 5G mast applications.
