Questions remain about the safety of phone masts
04 July, 2019
• THE subject of telecommunications masts on roofs was covered in a recent briefing paper prepared for Cllr Meric Apak.
It states that: “Telecoms sites are part of Camden’s digital rooftops programme. We consulted on this in 2015.”
The problem with the 2015 consultation, and indeed the current briefing paper, is that it is centred on the International Committee on non ionising radiation protection (ICNIRP) and its guidelines.
Camden takes its lead on this from other organisations similarly wedded to the ICNIRP guidelines, such as the Health and Safety Executive, Public Health England, the EU, and the WHO.
Cllr Apak’s briefing paper completely ignores the serious scientific disputes that have raged for years around the ICNIRP and its guidelines.
Current radiation protection guidelines are based on short-term exposure and thermal radiation effects. ICNIRP guidelines have been widely criticised for rejecting evidence of adverse health effects at sub-thermal or biological and cancer levels.
Many scientists now feel that, unless ICNIRP adopts appropriate biological guidelines, it should be disbanded or its membership should be replaced by those who accept biological evidence.
Nowhere does Cllr Apak’s briefing paper mention that Camden has a statutory duty to protect the health of its citizens. He accepts the results of his briefing paper and protects the anonymity of the officials who prepared it for him.
Meric Apak needs to answer questions in the New Journal Letters pages as to his stance on these issues.
First, what has he got to say to the contributor from May 16 2019 who was sent a load of documents by Camden, telling him that the phone masts put up in a telecom building adjacent to his residential block in WC1 were perfectly safe, and which subsequently resulted in him and many of his neighbours getting cancer?
No doubt the original advice Camden gave these innocent people was centred on the ICNIRP and its guidelines? What does Cllr Apak have as a response to these people?
Secondly, given this situation and the controversy surrounding the ICNIRP guidelines, why is Camden not immediately scrapping its entire digital rooftops programme, including removing all existing installations and scrapping all plans for any further ones, including those being considered for Mullen Tower and Monmouth House, both of which are in close proximity to primary schools?
Raglan Street, NW5