Summary of Oral Evidence presented to IEGMP by Mr A Meyer, Halsey Meyer Higgins, on Friday 4 February 2000

Home > Summaries of Oral Evidence >

Mr Meyer introduced himself as the lawyer acting on behalf of Mr Mohamed Al Fayed, who is concerned that base stations might have adverse health effects if placed close to residences or schools, and also as one of the lawyers who had been assisting Northern Ireland Families Against Telecommunications Transmitter Towers. In 1997, Mr Meyer had become involved with a case in which a base station had been installed close to the home of three small children. Planning objections were raised on health grounds and, after planning approval had been granted, a Judicial Review obtained. As a result of the publicity generated by this case, many groups opposed to the siting of masts had approached Mr Al Fayed or Mr Meyer direct. He has now been involved with many sites where planning consent has been required, and in a number of cases permission has either been refused, or the operators have been required to identify alternative locations.

Mr Meyer considers that concern is invariably expressed about base stations rather than handsets and relates to distances from residences or schools. A number of symptoms have been reported, including headaches, loss of concentration or sleep, and nosebleeds, although these are usually dismissed as anecdotal by the authorities.

Referring to paragraph 37 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, Mr Meyer noted that where planning authorities are concerned about possible health risks they are directed to consult the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), who in turn refer to the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The advice from NRPB is that exposures from base stations are typically well below the guidelines. Despite this, Mr Meyer still believes that local residents have experienced adverse effects and that these are usually only observed after the base station has been commissioned and become operational; in his experience those affected are ordinary, reasonable people. He suggested that many scientists believe in the existence of athermal effects and explained that when, as a lawyer, he weighed the evidence, he found it had too many consistencies. Mr Meyer submitted a five page memorandum supported by extracts from the scientific literature relating to 'auditory effects' of low-intensity pulsed radiofrequency fields. He noted that ‘auditory effects’ have apparently been recognised for many years, and argued that this could explain why some animals are reported to exhibit unusual behaviour in proximity to operational base stations. He suggested that whilst some people are unusually sensitive, there are many ordinary people who also suffer effects similar to those reported to be associated with the 'auditory effect'. Some members of the Group felt that the auditory argument is implausible as base station exposures would be well below the established threshold for microwave hearing. Nevertheless, the evidence would be examined.

Mr Meyer represents clients who had an Orange base station 60 metres (m) from their home. The installation was only 57 m from the glass wall of their children's school, and one child is experiencing learning difficulty. He noted that people in this situation suffer genuine stress and that it is medically recognised that prolonged stress can trigger long-term effects. The Group noted that anecdotal evidence may be useful, if only to identify areas for future research. Mr Meyer concluded by stating that as a lawyer he feels there must be a reason to explain why anecdotal stories of adverse effects only become apparent after base stations become operational. That reason cannot be thermal heating.

Mr Meyer also took part in the general discussion with members of Northern Ireland Families Against Telecommunications Transmitters (NIFATT).

First issued 19 April 2000 | Last updated 9 May 2000