AFTER reading the article in the January 6 edition of the Shuttle/Times and News regarding the refusal of the Vodafone mobile phone mast proposed for the Scouts campsite at Rhydd Covert, I felt that I should write to clarify some of the points.
Dave Denton stated he didn't feel he was being irresponsible because he is following guidelines given by the Government and also his own association.
I have some information which may well change the opinions of readers.
I have very real concerns about the safety of mobile phone masts, based on the evidence available, which includes the most damning research study recently completed (December 2004) by 12 EU bases in seven countries over a four-year period.
Mobile phone companies cannot state their product is safe, but merely conforms to current radiation limits.
However, when calculating these radiation limits, the biological effects of radiation are not taken into account. These are the radiation effects which could later cause health problems and include cancers, changes to DNA, birth defects etc. Therefore, the current guidance is fundamentally flawed and does not take any health risk into account.
The guidance everyone follows by law is the 2000 Stewart Report, which says that caution should be taken in the use and placement of mobiles and masts, and caution should especially be used in the case of children.
They found no clear evidence of health effect, but needed more information to come to a conclusion, which would take time.
This report is now nearly five years old, and is missing information from studies showing more clearly the health risks from mobile phones, including the recent Reflex Study which has proven mobile phone radiation to cause irreparable breaks to DNA, damage to chromosomes, and increased cellular division rates.
Use this in conjunction with information about "how cancer forms" published by Cancer Research UK, and you will see all of these are the precursors for development of later health effects such as cancer, and birth defects.
Even the Education Secretary, in 2000, stated that masts on school sites should be limited, and not send the "beam of greatest intensity" across school land. Schools were also advised to limit mobile phone use for under-16s, and advised that masts placed on rooftops exposed those people in the building to very high levels of radiation.
This shows the level of caution which should be used when considering the placement of masts on any site, especially near children.
Cellular damage (which goes on to cause health effects) has been proven from mobile phones. Instead of waiting 10 years down the line for the clinical symptoms to manifest, a precautionary approach (sensible placement of masts, reduce talk-time on a mobile, use a fixed landline where possible) should be used, especially with children.
Therefore, the decision to not allow a mast permission was definitely in the best interests of the Scouts who would use Rhydd Covert, and anyone in the immediate area.
It would also be prudent for the Scout Association to re-think their policy of allowing masts at all their campsites in view of the possible future effects to the health of those using the sites.
DR JUSTINE NEEDHAM
Lickhill Road
Stourport
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article