Betreff: Sutton Coldfield again in spotlight
Von: Iris Atzmon
Datum: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:08:15 +0200

With regard to the Dolk 1997b British study that is refered here as the study which did not find the excess of incidence (leukemia), Neil Cherry analyzed this study in his criticism of the ICNIRP standards. The original researcher, Dolk thanked his comments and "observed that the lack of replication of the Sutton Coldfield
(TV&FM) results near Crystal Palace (TV only) may have occured either because there is no causal link or because the model of decrease in exposure with distance is not appropriate for all transmitters. [like Cherry wrote]. Assuming constant exposure to Sutton Coldfield and no marked demographic changes, she would have expected a continuing localised excess in the results of Cooper et al under a causal interpretation".  (Cyril Smith, Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 2001, volume 11 nos 2-4 )
----- Original Message -----
From: Eileen O'Connor
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: News article and details including photographs of the Sutton TV Mast

Please see enclosed links which give full details and photographs about the Sutton Coldfield TV Masts, notice the new mast growing up next to it.


When I was diagnosed with breast cancer my doctors told me Sutton Coldfield has the second highest rate of breast cancer in the UK which makes it one of the hot spots of the world, see proof enclosed and ignored    Photograph and radiation maps enclosed

----- Original Message -----
From: Eileen O'Connor
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: Today's News paper on Phone/TV Masts

eileen has sent you this article from

Please find time to send your comments to the Sutton Coldfield Observer you will find a link at the bottom of the news article


Read the news article SAFETY FEARS SWITCHED OFF BY TV MAST CLAIMS the Sutton Observer also commented on this story in their comment section which was titled

Mixed Signals and said:

“Its behind you” That is the traditional cry when looming danger – with a farcical element – is spotted.

Masts in Sutton, except they are not just behind you – they are everywhere.  But is there a danger?  With so many mixed signals about health effects, a degree of pantomime has entered the row. 

It is frustration over this situation which has led campaigners this week to remind people that their earnest efforts are serious – despite some scientists’ claims appearing to trivialise their concerns.

The Government says there is no proof of risk.  Campaigners believe in proof too.  But they say there should be no mobile phone masts near people’s homes until proven safe.

Their efforts should be applauded whatever you believe about the risks – if a mast is set to appear in your back yard, to whom will you turn?





Sutton has had its fair share of mast controversies. Matters came to a head a couple of years ago when vigilantes felled a mobile phone mast in Wishaw which was believed to have caused a spate of cancer cases nearby. Campaign groups then grew in number and strength, with most local mast applications facing fierce opposition from residents despite planning chiefs' hands being tied by Government insistence that the devices were safe. Here, JOHN NEWTON reports on the latest local twist in the ongoing row which this week turned full circle as the debate returned to Sutton's original - and tallest - antenna.

This week, exasperated campaigners have said that Sutton's TV transmitter - allegedly responsible for a cluster of cancer cases - has had its supposed risks completely undermined following a science conference. "People who are suffering or who have sadly died have a right to be represented and should not be forgotten or ridiculed," explained Eileen O'Connor, founder of action group Sutton Coldfield Residents Against Masts (SCRAM) who feared campaigners' efforts had been belittled.

Her comments came after Professor Anthony Barker, an eminent scientist investigating mobile communications' effects on health, told a high-profile, national seminar that there was no proof of phone masts posing safety risks - a threat as negligible, he said, as TV transmitters.

Mrs O'Connor, who left SCRAM - now 'Seriously Concerned Residents' - to take her campaigning to national level, complained: "Professor Barker said there are no concerns about TV transmitters.

"But a study has provided evidence of cancer clusters around the Sutton Coldfield TV transmitter.

"How can important studies such as this have been missed?"

The 1997 report to which she refers, Cancer Incidence Near Radio and TV Transmitters: One, studied the amount of leukaemia cases among people living close to the mast which is in Four Oaks; using national cancer rates as the control group.

Its conclusions claimed there was an increased risk of adult leukaemia within a 2km radius of the transmitter and that there was a significant decline in risk outside of the boundary.

However, a second study conducted on other
UK transmitters to test the Sutton results found no excess of adult leukaemia within the 2km mark.

There was a significant decline in risk with distance from the transmitters, but it did not repeat the Sutton data - leading to the conclusion that the second set of results gave only very weak support to the Sutton findings.

The results were not found in childhood leukaemia, but instances of the illness in youngsters did not decline with distance from antennae.

Professor Barker, who has three decades experience in studying the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, told the conference: "There is no reason to expect mobile phone signals - which are essentially low-powered radio transmissions - to be bad for health.

"We have big TV and radio transmitters all around us," he said recounting the last six or seven decades, adding controversy began only when phone masts entered the public consciousness.

The Government-commissioned Stewart report concluded in 2000 that there was no evidence of health risks associated with using mobile phones.

Let us know your views via the Observer website: or text us with your news and views - see page 12 for details.



At the time of sending this email, 1 reader had commented on this story on the website. Click here to read the comment.

At the time of sending this email, 1 reader had commented on this story on the website. Click here to read the comment.

For more news, visit