Background 

Government and Telecommunication Companies quote the ‘ICNIRP Guidelines’ as assurances of safety for any mast/s saying, 'The mast has an ICNIRP [safety] Certificate' or, 'The mast's emissions fall well below the ICNIRP Guidelines', etc.

However, the ICNIRP Guidelines ONLY cover the Thermal (i.e. heating) effects of Mobile Telephone Mast emissions. Hence all that an ICNIRP certificate means is that the mast won’t cook you!

When the guidelines were made in 1998 it was generally thought that the only effects of the Mobile Telephone Mast emissions would be thermal, hence the ICNIRP Guidelines as they currently stand.

However, it is now widely accepted that NON-Thermal effects do occur but these guidelines have NOT been updated to include NON-Thermal effects.

The Thermal (heating) effects are accepted to be negligible - however, NON-Thermal effects are now known to affect the make-up of our bodies and how our bodies work, posing real risks to our health and to our lives.

Barrie Trower (a scientist who has been involved in microwave research since the Sixties):- 

Knowing that 80% of the research displayed on the World Health Organisation website shows roughly a 3/4-fold increase in cancers and other related illnesses at extremely low levels of microwaves = 400m from low level transmitters, I suggest that quoting ICNIRP (upper) level is not sufficient to justify transmitter power.

The ICNIRP guidelines do give an upper level; however, the Committee also states, in the same report:

Quote (p 546)…children, the elderly and some chronically ill people, might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure….may be useful or necessary to develop separate guidelines…”

Have decision makers surveyed the local populations to determine this fact. i.e. electrosensitive, elderly, the sick, etc?

The same ICNIRP statement also goes on to say:

Quote (Conclusion)…several steps in these procedures require scientific judgement; e.g. on reviewing the scientific literature and determining appropriate reduction factors…”

Have decision makers shown evidence of reviewing scientific research in order to reduce their emissions below that known to cause illness?

I argue that it is not only a misconception to only ever quote the upper limit of the ICNIRP guidance, but disreputable and, possibly, fraudulent.

There may be legal issues here, under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 6 and 8) and the United Nations UN22 Standard Rules, along with the responsibilities of a Landowner and what is permitted of his or her land.

B Trower

Scientific Adviser

RRT