Betreff: Diocese of Lichfield Responds to Mobile Phone Mast Protests
Datum: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:43:11 +0100
w-a-r-t response sent to Gavin Drake yesterday.
For the attention of:
Director of Communications for the Diocese of Lichfield
We 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.
With 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 necessary.
Father 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.
We 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.
With 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 scientists.
It 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.
There 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.
Let us give you a few examples.
First 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.
1. Cancer initiating and cancer promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology.
2. Disruptions of the endocrine and the immune system.
3. Reduction of the concentration of the hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals and humans.
4. Effects on the central nervous system, which reach from neuro-chemical effects to modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain functions.
5. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on certain cognitive functions.
The 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 from
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.
You may also listen to several radio interviews with some of the scientists who have researched these matters at: -
This 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.
FREIBURGER APPEAL October 2002
Santini Study 2002
Lloyd Morgan Brain Tumor Registry
Naila Study, Germany (November 2004)
More reports can be found on any of the following web sites: -
Scientists, 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 their claims.
Sir William Stewart re-stated on a recent panorama programme that a precautionary approach should be adopted in the siting of masts.
We 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.
Ann & Peter Mobley