Summary of Oral Evidence presented to IEGMP by Dr H Kennedy and Mrs M Dean, Northern Ireland Families Against Telecommunications Transmitters (NIFATT), on Friday 4 February 2000

Home > Summaries of Oral Evidence >

Dr Kennedy introduced herself as the Chairperson of Northern Ireland Families Against Telecommunications Transmitters (NIFATT). Mrs Dean is Secretary of NIFATT.

Dr Kennedy identified the planning process as a key issue. The situation in Northern Ireland is different from that in England and Wales because planning is dealt with by an agency of the Department of the Environment rather than by local authorities. This means that the local population is effectively unable to influence the outcome. In addition, network operators have Permitted Development Rights as they do elsewhere. In consequence, providing they are not in an area already protected by current legislation (eg areas of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty), they do not require planning consent for masts of less than 15 m. Prior to August 1998, no prior notification was required. Although, in theory, local authorities can now raise objections during the 28-day prior notification period, in practice, as borough councils meet only once a month, operators can avoid objections by careful timing of their notification. In England and Wales, the prior notification period has been extended to circumvent similar tactics. Mrs Dean suggested that some borough councils are so dissatisfied with the current situation that they have threatened to withdraw their working relationship with Planning Services.

Dr Kennedy noted that the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is a statutory body charged with providing advice on protection from radiation, including radiofrequency (RF) radiation. In its evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, NRPB had accepted the possibility of non-thermal effects and had indicated that it would continue to investigate this area. However Dr Kennedy also noted that, more recently (September 1999), an official representative of NRPB had stated publicly that the organisation had limited funds to carry out practical research into possible behavioural effects. NIFATT is concerned that continuing cuts in Government funding would further compromise this endeavour and would welcome increased funding for NRPB; it was noted that Government funding had been reduced for eight successive years. Mrs Dean believes that funds should be made available to support independent research, and suggested that this could be administered through NRPB. She is concerned that the telecomunications industry may have tried to control research in the past, and may have deliberately selected inappropriate experimental models. She also noted that reports of effects are often dismissed on the basis that they are 'not replicated' and queried why, as a matter of urgency, the industry has not funded the replication of these studies. Mrs Dean further suggested that money should have been made available immediately for independent replication. The Group noted that some replication studies have now been completed whilst others are in progress, but that they took time.

Mrs Dean argued that in order to assess properly the impact of new base stations, it is important to measure baseline exposure levels prior to construction and on a regular basis following their erection. This information should be available, preferably on a database that was searchable by postcode. It is also important that epidemiological studies are conducted; she suggested that health questionnaires should be sent to members of the public within 500 m of any base station, perhaps twice yearly for five to ten years. She suggested that people are also angry because the current system was undemocratic.

General discussion

Mr Royds and Mr Meyer also took part in the general discussion.

In a general discussion with all the presenters, the Group noted that values of field strength are often confusing for those who lack a technical background. The Group wondered whether comparison with equipment operating at similar frequencies, such as microwave ovens, would be useful. However, Dr Kennedy feels that such comparisons could be misleading as microwave ovens were not operating 24 hours a day.

Mr Meyer believes that people understand distance more readily than field strengths. He suggested that recommending safe distances would do much to reassure the public. Mrs Dean suggested that base stations should be at least 200–300 m away from homes and schools. However, Mr Royds cautioned against such an approach, noting that field strengths varied from site to site. He stressed that there is no substitute for measurements backed up by an independent audit.

Several of the presenters feel that higher masts provide an additional margin of safety, and it was suggested that in general most people would prefer a smaller number of higher masts rather than more low masts. Most people, given the choice, would prefer larger masts even in protected areas such as areas of outstanding natural beauty or areas of special scientific interest. Masts in these areas may be regarded as unsightly, but, in general, the public are more concerned about their health.

First issued 9 May 2000