Lichfield Responds to Mobile Phone Mast Protests
Datum: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:43:11 +0100
response sent to Gavin Drake yesterday.
the attention of:
of Communications for the Diocese of Lichfield
have read your press release dated 24th June 2007, which in part
relates to the proposed siting of a mobile telephone base station (mast) in the
Church of St. Francis of Assisi, Friar Park, Wednesbury and would like to make
some observations on the several matters raised.
regard to the protest on Sunday morning, we both condemn the actions of a few
of the residents. However their actions must be viewed in the light of the
provocation they had from a member of the church, who came outside before the
morning service had begun and shouted at all those present that “The local
council had informed her that the mast was going there anyway, whatever
happened today”. When asked to name the person on the council she declined.
Sandwell council had already informed protestors that they had not received any
application for a mast, and if they did, then the full consultation process
would follow. She also refused to speak to our local councillor after the
service on this matter. She then continued by giving a “thumb-nose” gesture to everyone
there. This was not the way we would have expected a member of the church or
one of its representatives to behave and merely resulted in inflaming what was
up until then a peaceful protest. The comment that the church was “blockaded”
is an exaggeration. If that had been the case then the police who were in
attendance would have dealt with the matter. No involvement by them was
Farrell had already made it quite plain that he was not interested in talking
to any of those who had requested a meeting and was also very dismissive of the
feeling of his parishioners. He also stated that the mast would go ahead in one
form or another. We would suggest that this was not the best way to promote
good relations or to get any factual information on the real concerns of
everyone who would be affected if this proposal went ahead.
feel that whilst we are not in the immediate area or in the possible zones of
greatest intensity from any mast sited on the church, we have a duty to our
neighbours to make them aware of all of the possible effects to health and
devaluation of property that could result from such an installation. It goes
without saying that the church also has a responsibility, a duty of care, to
everyone in the community and should avail themselves of all the true facts
before coming to any decision.
regard to the statement from the Court of Arches that “The Chancellor of
|Lichfield attached a disproportionate weight to the subjective perception of
hazard”, we would inform you of some of the evidence which links adverse health
to masts which has been researched by peer reviewed independent
is not hysteria or psychological, that has resulted in thousands of Electro-
Hypersensitive people developing adverse health complaints, with no knowledge
that there were masts in their vicinity, and who were also not aware that the
masts were emitting microwave radiation. EHS has been recognised, as a valid
health symptom in many countries and estimates are that at least 5% of the
population fall into this category with many, many more having the symptoms,
but not making the link to EMR emissions.
is now overwhelming evidence of a direct link between mast emissions and
adverse health. The government and the mobile operators have a huge financial
investment in this technology, and of course will not admit that there is any
problem. They consistently quote from research that has been conducted by
either the operators or their own scientists who are bound to support the view
that there are no adverse health effects. However at no time has the government
or the operators been prepared to produce any evidence that proves mast and
phone emissions are safe. There are however hundreds of peer reviewed research
papers linking adverse health effects from EMR.
us give you a few examples.
and probably the most damming, is the ECOLOG report. This was commissioned by
one of the operators, T-mobile, in 2000. The report examined 220 peer reviewed
and published research papers and after close scrutiny came to several
conclusions, some of which are listed below.
initiating and cancer promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic
fields used by mobile telephone technology.
of the endocrine and the immune system.
of the concentration of the hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals
the central nervous system, which reach from neuro-chemical effects to
modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain
experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile
telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on certain cognitive
operator buried this report, as it proved to be a damming indictment of the
adverse health effects from phones and masts and would have had disastrous
effects on the mobile phone industry if it had been released to the media. The
report has now been translated from German and is in the public domain. Download
www.w-a-r-t.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk. Whilst there is a lot
of technical information, the synopsis gives most of the relevant conclusions.
may also listen to several radio interviews with some of the scientists who
have researched these matters at: -
is not the only research on this subject that has been conducted by truly
independent scientists. We would sight the following few as an indication of
the dozens, if not hundreds that indicate strong links to adverse health.
APPEAL October 2002
Morgan Brain Tumor Registry
Study, Germany (November 2004)
reports can be found on any of the following web sites: -
much clever than us, have investigated many of the research that the operators
have quoted as being proof of no adverse effects being discovered, but in many
cases have found that the information in the original documents has been
deliberately altered or sections completely omitted in order to substantiate
William Stewart re-stated on a recent panorama programme that a precautionary
approach should be adopted in the siting of masts.
trust that you will view all of the evidence with an open mind and not be
persuaded to let money take precedence over peoples welfare.
& Peter Mobley