[D V]

Your remark, "all of which [...]" is far off the mark. The strong majority of studies directly on cell masts indicate harm, great harm. See the latest on a broad symptomology, and re cancer deaths as one consequence of that symptomology being ignored,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38565331/Speci...a-Germany- - -Evidence-of-a-Dose-Response-Relationship

&

http://www.emrsa.co.za/documents/brazilresearch.pdf .
I cannot speak to who has examined what where you are, but a responsible citizen must closely examine this accessible material, mostly unreported on in the mainstream media, protective of the dangerous status quo.
I would be pleased to direct your attention to others in the UK who could assist you, if not asked to directly provide you with info myself for you to follow up beyond these two leads (do not neglect their bibliographies!).
[email also sent privately to poster]

[Deborah Breedon]

Check out the Library here on CfPS.

Long time ago (2005), I held a scrutiny event at Walsall football club as part of a scrutiny review to which I invited mobile phone companies to speak with Members, partners and user groups. At that time 3G technology was becoming stronger and there was concern about carrying handsets on the body (particularly for police) and whether masts should be placed in close proximity to schools, lots of debate about permissions to locate the masts and planning regulations.

There was no conclusive evidence at the time to say what the health implications were, several reports had been commissioned. Looking at the library it seems this still is an issue of public and health concern, but there is lots of secondary evidence to research.

Deb Breedon

[Ed Hammond]

Hi Antony,

In situations like this, where councillors propose to investigate an issue on which there is (nationally) divergent opinion, scrutiny has to be quite careful to think about how and why it's getting involved. It would be a poor use of time for scrutiny simply to rehash a debate that's gone on elsewhere, particularly as councillors will lack the expert background to make judgments about some of the complex medical and technological issues involved.

It reminds me of an incident of a local authority that shall remain nameless (mainly because I can't remember actually which one it was) where a review of climate change was in danger of turning into a review which sought to establish whether climate change was actually man-made or not.

Background research will be important in establishing what powers the council has to define where masts go, and whether there are any particular local concerns about local issues pertaining to the placement of masts.

Interestingly, the Stewart Report (2000) (which you have probably seen) suggests that masts are generally safe, and that the radio transmitters used in 'phones themselves are where the potential health dangers lie. The 'phone's transmitter has to work on a stronger power the further away it is from the cell tower, so paradoxically this could suggest that, to minimise health effects, we should be building *more* masts.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee did, I think, carry out an investigation in 2001 as well.

As I say, there are limits to what scrutiny can achieve in looking at this issue from the health angle, purely because the main factors here are national research and national policy over which scrutiny has no influence. That doesn't mean that there won't be something in this area that you can profitably examine, however.

[Robert Mack]

We undertook a review on mobile phone masts a few years ago which is in the CfPS library. However, the review did not cover the health issues and instead focussed on planning consultation. The reasoning behind this decision was that, amongst other things, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee felt that it did not have the resources or expertise to be in a position to adjudicate on the complex scientific, medical and legal issues arising. Its also worth bearing in mind that, would there to be an issue with mobile phone masts, there would more than likely be an even bigger issue with mobile phones. I think its fairly safe to say that mobile phones are with us to stay.

A brief trawl around the net will, I am sure, give you a good idea of the territory that you are likely to find yourself in should you decide to look at the health issues. In addition, its hard to see how overview and scrutiny committees are going to be in a position to make any sort of impact and deliver outcomes by looking at the health issues..