This page summarises key issues you can cite in correspondence with Wealden District Council. It excludes height-based arguments and focuses on certificate independence, case law, liability issues, mainstream reports, expert commentary, and peer-reviewed studies.
At-a-glance
Certificates ICNIRP âstatements of conformityâ are operator-supplied self-declarations, not independent health assessments.
Legal Cases UK courts confirmed EMF impacts (e.g., on medical implants) can be material planning considerations.
Insurance Major insurers exclude RF/EMF health liability, treating it as an emerging, long-tail risk.
Mainstream Reports Some masts have been removed due to cancer-cluster concerns, raising public alarm.
Expert Warning RFK Jr. and others publicly caution that RF radiation may be a health hazard.
Peer-ReviewedPeer-Reviewed Evidence (Selected Studies Reporting Adverse Effects) included below with DOI/PubMed links.
1972 U.S. Navy âGlaser ReportâA plainâEnglish guide to the Naval Medical Research Institute bibliography by Zorach R. Glaser, Ph.D. (AD0750271). included below with DOI/PubMed links. DTIC entry
Expert Commentary: RFK Jr. on 5G Health Risks
Source: RFK Jr. appears in a YouTube video titled âRFK Jr. sounds the alarm about 5G: âRF radiation is a public health hazard!ââ produced by user âHerb Strabo.â
ICNIRP Certificates Are Not Independent Assessments
Local planning authorities typically accept an ICNIRP declaration from the operator as proof of compliance. However:
These declarations are provided by the operatorânot verified by a third party (Gov UK Code of Practice).
Ofcom guidance reiterates that planners should not rely on their own judgments beyond what's declared by operators (Ofcom EMF statement §4.40).
Bottom line: ICNIRP certificates only show 'thermal' complianceânot proof of absence of broader biological effects.
Relevant Legal & Regulatory Cases
Cheltenham (2025, UK Court of Appeal): EMF effects (e.g., on medical implants) can be a material consideration in planning decisions. (source)
Brighton & Hove (2021, High Court): The Councilâs approval of a 5G mast near a school was quashed for failing to consider health impactsâÂŁ13,340 in costs awarded. (source)
FCC 2021 Remand (USA): D.C. Circuit rebuked FCC for insufficient reasoning on non-cancer RF effects, remanding decision. (ProPublica summary)
France ANFR (2023): iPhone 12 sales were halted over excess SAR levels; resumed only after software update. (Reuters)
Insurance & Liability Risks
RF/EMF is treated as an uninsurable or emerging risk. Public health claims are often excluded from standard policies.
Swiss Re SONAR (2019): Highlights 5G/EMF as a high-impact emerging risk. (source)
Lloydâs on EMF: Insurance market flags EMF as a liability concern. (source)
Business Insurance (2007): Insurers report excluding EMF coverage due to asbestos-like litigation risk. (source)
Implication: Operators may not be insured against future claimsâand the Council should be aware of liability implications.
Mainstream Reports of Mast Removals / Cancer-Cluster Concerns
These cases highlight local actions taken in response to health worriesânot proof of causation.
Ripon, CA (2019): School tower removed after multiple cancer cases raised concern. (CBS Sacramento, Modesto Bee)
Valladolid, Spain (2002): School transmitters removed amid reported cancer cluster. (The Guardian)
Bath, UK (2022): Council refused 5G mast near school, citing community health concerns. (Silicon UK report)
A concise list of peer-reviewed studies reporting adverse findings from RF/wireless exposures. Not exhaustive; shows why precaution and proper risk appraisal are reasonable planning considerations.
Carcinogenic Signals (Animal)
Ramazzini Institute â Falcioni et al., 2018, Environmental Research. Heart schwannomas â in male rats at low SAR. DOI · PubMed.
NTP (USA) â 2G/3G, rats: clear evidence of heart schwannomas (males) and some gliomas. See peer-reviewed reports. Summary.
Human Epidemiology (Positive/Suggestive)
INTERPHONE, 2010, Int. J. Epidemiology: highest decile call-time â elevated glioma OR (interpret with caution). DOI · PubMed.
Sadetzki et al., 2008, Am. J. Epidemiology: ipsilateral heavy use â parotid tumours (Israel). DOI · PubMed.
Lönn et al., 2004, Epidemiology: â„10 years use â acoustic neuroma; ipsilateral effect stronger. DOI · PubMed.
Reproduction (Male Fertility)
Adams et al., 2014, Environment International (meta-analysis): reduced sperm motility/viability. DOI · PubMed.
Kim et al., 2021, Environmental Research (meta-analysis): overall semen quality â with mobile use. DOI · PubMed.
Rahban et al., 2023, Fertility & Sterility (Switzerland, nâ2.8k): higher use â lower sperm conc./count; weaker with newer tech. DOI · PubMed.
Oxidative Stress & DNA/Genotoxicity
Meyer et al., 2024, Environment International (systematic review): oxidative-stress biomarkers affected in many studies. DOI · PubMed.
Yakymenko et al., 2016, Electromagnetic Biology & Medicine: oxidative mechanisms review. DOI · PubMed.
Lai & Singh, 1995, Bioelectromagnetics: DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain after low-intensity 2.45 GHz exposure. DOI · PubMed.
Houston et al., 2019, Scientific Reports: mouse spermââ ROS & DNA damage after RF-EME. DOI · Article.
Neuro/BBB & Development
Aldad et al., 2012, Scientific Reports: prenatal exposure â persistent hyperactivity/memory effects. DOI · PubMed.
Nittby et al., 2009, Pathophysiology: increased BBB permeability after GSM-900. DOI · PubMed.
Eberhardt et al., 2008, Electromagnetic Biology & Medicine: BBB permeability & neuronal damage. DOI · PubMed.
mmWave / 5G-Relevant (≥24â60 GHz)
Kojima et al., 2009, Health Physics: acute ocular injuries at 60 GHz (thermal mechanism). DOI · PubMed.
Papaioannou & Samaras, 2011, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.: rabbit eye heat-transfer model at 60 GHz, matches measured thresholds. DOI · PubMed.
Note: Many authorities judge typical public exposures (within ICNIRP limits) as safe; however, the above peer-reviewed literature documents signals of possible harm under certain conditions, supporting precautionary siting near sensitive receivers (schools, homes, clinics) and independent measurement.
Learn More: EMF & The Invisible Rainbow
The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life by Arthur Firstenberg (AGB Press; first ed. 2017, updated printing 2020) surveys two centuries of electrification and correlates major shifts in ambient electromagnetic exposure with reported changes in public health. The book is widely cited by campaigners and includes extensive endnotes to primary sources.
Themes you can reference
Historical correlations: Waves of new electrical technologies (telegraphy, electrified lighting, radio, radar, wireless) are presented alongside contemporaneous reports of novel syndromes and symptom clusters.
Biological plausibility: The text compiles research on non-thermal effects reported across organisms (plants, insects, animals, humans), including oxidative stress, cardiac/autonomic changes, and neurological symptoms.
Precautionary framing: Firstenberg argues that public-health policy should account for uncertainty and cumulative ambient exposures, not just short-term thermal limits.
How to cite the book in letters
Firstenberg A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Santa Fe, NM: AGB Press; 2017 (rev. 2020). ISBN: 978-0-692-68357-3.
When discussing history/correlations, point to the chapters on electrification & early epidemiology (midâlate book) and the comprehensive endnotes.
When discussing biology, reference the sections collating non-thermal effects across species and organ systems; add peer-reviewed citations from the section above to support specific mechanisms.
Note: The bookâs interpretations are debated. Citing it as a secondary synthesis alongside primary peerâreviewed studies (see above) keeps submissions balanced while showing reasonable grounds for precaution.
How to Use This in Your Letter
Ask the Council to:
Recognise that the ICNIRP certificate is not an independent health assessment.
Reference legal precedents showing EMF can be a material consideration.
Note the lack of liability insurance for RF harm.
Consider mainstream cases where concerns led to mast removal.
Review peer-reviewed literature indicating adverse effects and request independent measurements where appropriate.
Consider historical and biological context as presented in The Invisible Rainbow, treating it as a secondary synthesis with extensive references.
Quick FAQ
Are ICNIRP certificates independent?
No. They are operator declarations of compliance with exposure limits, not independent health assessments.
Can EMF be a planning consideration?
Yes. UK decisions indicate EMF impacts (e.g., on medical implants) can be material in planning.
Is there peer-reviewed evidence of adverse effects?
There are animal, mechanistic, and some human studies reporting adverse findings under certain conditions (see section above).
How should I reference The Invisible Rainbow?
Cite it as a book (see details in the Learn More section) and pair it with specific peerâreviewed studies for each claim.
Additional sources: Ofcom FOI on ICNIRP declarations, UK Code of Practice documents, and ProPublica FCC analysis (available upon request).
â Back to top