«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 766   Next›  Last» 

Mobile-phone induced EEG changes similar to those seen in depression: study
Estonia Created: 26 Aug 2021
Abstract: This review aims to estimate the threshold of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) effects on human brain based on analyses of published research results.

To clarify the threshold of the RF EMF effects, two approaches have been applied: (1) the analyses of restrictions in sensitivity for different steps of the physical model of low-level RF EMF mechanism and (2) the analyses of experimental data to clarify the dependence of the RF EMF effect on exposure level based on the results of published original neurophysiological and behavioral human studies for 15 years 2007–2021.


The analyses of the physical model of nonthermal mechanisms of RF EMF effect leads to conclusion that no principal threshold of the effect can be determined.

According to the review of experimental data, the rate of detected RF EMF effects is 76.7% in resting EEG studies, 41.7% in sleep EEG and 38.5% in behavioral studies. The changes in EEG probably appear earlier than alterations in behavior become evident.

The lowest level of RF EMF at which the effect in EEG was detected is 2.45 V/m (SAR = 0.003 W/kg).

There is a preliminary indication that the dependence of the effect on the level of exposure follows rather field strength than SAR alterations.

However, no sufficient data are available for clarifying linearity-nonlinearity of the dependence of effect on the level of RF EMF.

The finding that only part of people are sensitive to RF EMF exposure can be related to immunity to radiation or hypersensitivity. The changes in EEG caused by RF EMF appeared similar in the majority of analyzed studies and similar to these in depression.

The possible causal relationship between RF EMF effect and depression among young people is highly important problem.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: International Journal of Radiation Biology, Hinrikus et al., 23 Aug 2021

Court orders FCC to revisit its safety guidelines for RF radiation
USA Created: 19 Aug 2021
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must reexamine its health and safety guidelines for 5G and other wireless based technologies.

The case was filed in early 2020 by the Environmental Health Trust. Another petitioner, the Children's Health Defense, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., filed its own lawsuit but decided to file joint briefs with Environmental Health Trust as recommended by the court.*

Last Friday, the court ruled that the FCC’s decision in 2019 that its 1996 radio frequency emission guidelines adequately protect the public was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence based, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The court also found that the analysis provided by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration, on which the FCC relied for its decision, was also not evidence based.

The court ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines; address the impacts of RF radiation on children; address the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation; and address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.

“To be clear, we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation — we merely conclude that the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law,” stated the order.

“The court’s decision exposes the FCC and FDA as captive agencies that have abandoned their duty to protect public health in favor of a single-minded crusade to increase telecom industry profits,'' said Kennedy, in a statement.

Kennedy has repeatedly claimed that the FCC is a "captive agency," led and controlled by telecom industry insiders who are not objective about the health effects of RF radiation.

Children’s Health Defense lead attorney Scott McCollough said, “This is an historic win. The FCC will have to re-open the proceeding and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidence showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.”

*The story was updated on 8/16/21 to specify that there are two separate lawsuits.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Fierce Wireless, Linda Hardesty, 16 Aug 2021

MSP blasts telecoms giant for "ridiculous" behaviour as phone mast row rumbles on
Scotland Created: 17 Aug 2021
A telecoms giant seeking to build a controversial mobile phone mast in the heart of a Cambuslang community have been accused of "ridiculous" behaviour by only giving locals just over a week to respond to their plans.

H3G, better known as Three, are looking to install a 65ft mast on Hallside Boulevard in Drumsagard, much to the concern of some residents, who fear it will become a blight on the landscape.

However H3G's contractor for the masts, WHP Telecoms Ltd, wrote to local councillors on July 18 asking for views on the proposal “prior to the submission of a formal planning application” and promptly made a formal application eight days later.

The company insist they have followed proper procedures with their application.

It is understood they had not received any replies from councillors to their letter, which was sent during the summer recess.

Rutherglen MSP Clare Haughey told Lanarkshire Live she was incensed over the way the proposal has been handled.

She said: "I hear from constituents frequently that they want improved coverage in their area and, as we know, there is already established telecommunications infrastructure in local neighbourhoods.

“However, fundamentally, any new installation like this must be sited properly and companies must work with local communities.

"To give only an eight-day period for a pre-application engagement with residents, particularly at a time when many people are on holiday, is ridiculous and they are showing no courtesy to the people of Drumsagard."

Cambuslang East councillor Katy Loudon was also furious with the company.

She added: "Many residents have deep concerns about the plans for a mast – particularly as it is 20 metres tall, in a residential area.

"There are legitimate objections about the location of the proposal and the effect it would have on its surroundings.

"Clare and I would have been happy to work with the company to find a more suitable site. Instead, they’ve gone ahead with the formal application.

"All things considered, I oppose these plans."

It is understood the company believe the Hallside Boulevard site is the best choice to ensure the widest breadth of coverage.

A Three spokesperson said: "5G rollout is vital for residents and businesses of Cambuslang. We want to offer the community a reliable network experience and this site will be critical to making that happen.

“We followed best practice throughout the consultation process including contacting the local councillors and local planning authority. We did not receive any objections here and therefore submitted a formal application.

"The local planning authority now has 56 days to decide, considering any objections it receives."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Daily Record, Jonathan Geddes, 17 Aug 2021

Proposed Eir mast in Balla refused planning permission
Ireland Created: 15 Aug 2021
PLANS by Eir to erect a telecommunications mast in Balla have been rejected by Mayo County Council.

The company sought permission to erect a 21m high monopole telecommunications support structure together with antennas, dishes and associated equipment at the eir exchange, at the rear of Balla Garda Station, on Main Street.

Council planners found that the development would have a negative visual impact on the setting associated with St. Cronan's Catholic Church, which is listed on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage.

It would interfere with the character of the landscape, which it is necessary to preserve, and would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

A number of observations were submitted to the council raising concerns relating to health, visual impact and the proposed location being in close proximity of houses, schools, the church and playgrounds.

Another observation questioned the lack of fibre optic cable in Balla and whether this proposal would supersede the need for the roll-out of faster broadband infrastructure.

In its submissions to the council, Eir said the greater Balla area is a known coverage weak spot.

Unlike most towns and villages there is no sizeable existing telecommunications structure and identifiable garda station mast, Eir mast or other operator mast in Balla which would have historically attracted mobile phone operators.

An existing timber pole infrastructure at the rear of the garda station was outdated, one dimensional and limited in functionality and could not support Eir in achieving its coverage objectives in Balla.

Eir doesn't currently transmit from its exchange at the rear of the station and its coverage is deficient.

The new structure they proposed would significantly improve its next generation services for the benefit of local residents.

Coverage, they noted, has long been a source of complaint among local businesses and residents.

Ballyglass appeal

Meanwhile, a grant of permission for a mast in the village of Ballyglass has been appealed to An Bord Pleanála.

The council gave the green light to Eircom for a 21-metre high structure.

However, three parties have lodged an appeal with An Bord Pleanála against that decision, including the local community council.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Connaught Telegraph, 14 Aug 2021

Controversial Three 5G mast plan turned down
United Kingdom Created: 15 Aug 2021
Plans for a 5G mobile phone mast that saw a village up in arms has been refused.

North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) has said the planned mast at the junction of Cromer Road and Pauls Lane in Overstrand cannot go ahead.

The decision was greeted with relief by parish council chairman Bruce Stratton, who said: "It's good news that NNDC have taken the view of the public and had the good sense to refuse it.

"We have to accept that everywhere in the UK will have 5G because that's a government dictate, and as a parish council I don't think we're opposed to having 5G in the village - if we don't have it we would fall behind the times.

"But the location for this was totally wrong. Phone companies have to consider the views of Overstrand and choose locations that aren't disruptive."

The mast would have been 60ft (18 metres) tall and sited next to the Belfry Centre for music and arts and the Belfry Primary School. The application to erect the mast was put in by WHP Telecoms and it would been used by the Three network.

Objections centred around the visual impact the mast would have had, and the possible risk to traffic because the structure would have cut some views of the nearby road.

Mr Stratton said a parish council meeting in July where the mast was discussed was "probably the biggest one we've ever had" with 70-80 people gathered both inside and outside the meeting room to oppose the plans.

At the meeting, one resident said that a lollipop lady had recently been struck by a car on the junction, adding: "Kids are already taking their life into their own hands on that road."

Another resident, Derek Johnston, 62 said: "There's a lot of cars that come out there - it's already a restricted view and this is going to make it even worse. The main concerns are for the school, and the safety and visual impact.

An NNDC officer report on the application says: "Details of the siting and appearance of the development have been submitted, which are considered unacceptable in this instance.

"As a result, this application is refused and planning permission would be required."
Will mast saga drag on?

Angie Fitch-Tillett, NNDC ward councillor for Poppyland, which includes Overstrand, said she was delighted with the decision to turn the plans down.

Mrs Fitch-Tillett, who also campaigned against the mast, said: "Obviously I'm very happy with the officers' decision. I think it's the right one.

"I'm concerned that it will go to appeal, but we will keep our fingers crossed".

5G technology allows for faster internet speeds by using high frequency waves, but they need more transmitter masts to operate than previous telecommunications technology.

Earlier this year the government announced plans to increase the maximum allowable height for masts on public land from 20m to 25m for existing masts, and 30m for new ones.

But stricter rules were to come in for protected areas such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Meanwhile, the government has said it wanted to extend 4G technology to 95pc of the UK by 2025.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: North Norfolk News, Stuart Anderson, 14 Aug 2021

Court Victory! FCC ordered to explain why its ignored scientific evidence of wireless harms
USA Created: 15 Aug 2021
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges in favor of environmental health groups and petitioners; finds FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to respond to comments on environmental harm.

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.”

About the Case

In EHT et al. v. the FCC, petitioners argued that the FCC ignored thousands of pages of research and expert testimony showing harmful effects from wireless radiofrequency radiation to humans, wildlife, and the environment when it decided that the 1996 wireless radiation limits did not need to be updated with a full health and safety review.

Environmental Health Trust filed its case in the Court of Appeals with Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Elizabeth Barris, and Theodora Scarato, MSW. They were represented by attorney Edward B. Myers. EHT’s case was then consolidated with a separate case filed by Children’s Health Defense, Michelle Hertz, Petra Brokken, Dr. David O. Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran, and Paul Stanley M.Ed. Children’s Health Defense was represented by attorney Scott McCollough and Robert Kennedy Jr. Evidentiary briefs were jointly filed. Scott McCullough represented Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense, and petitioners in the oral arguments.

Oral arguments were held January 25, 2021, before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit including Hons. Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Robert Wilkins.

Environmental Health Trust attorney Edward B. Myers previously intervened in the successful case of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes against the FCC. In this earlier case, the court upheld the relevance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the EHT et al., v FCC case as well.

The FCC is represented in-house by William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis, and Richard Kiser Welch.

Go to the source link below to view the court documents.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EHTrust, 13 Aug 2021

"Excessive" 5G phone mast near Ayrshire school rejected by planners
United Kingdom Created: 9 Aug 2021
Three - one of the UK's biggest mobile phone companies - denied in bid for 18-metre structure.

Planners have knocked back a proposal to erect a 5G mast across from an Ayrshire school and nursery.

Three - one of the UK's biggest mobile phone companies - wanted to place the 18-metre structure — almost 60ft — near Irvine's Castlepark Primary school and early years centre.

They said there was a need to upgrade capacity and coverage for 5G services in a "highly constrained cell search area."

Plans submitted to North Ayrshire Council showed that the phone mast would be taller than nearby trees, streetlights and buildings at Castlepark Circle, just before the junction at Carron Place.

And a planning report stated that would be 'excessive' as the application by CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited was refused.

The report noted: "The proposed mast would not benefit from any screening and would be highly visible in the surrounding area.

"The scale of the proposed mast would be excessive in terms of height with regards to its surroundings.

"The design of the mast and associated infrastructure would be utilitarian in appearance.

"While such infrastructure is common in residential areas, the excessive scale of the proposed mast would result in it having a significant, and potentially detrimental impact on the character and visual appearance of the surrounding area."

Just one letter of objection was received, arguing that the proposed development would be an eyesore and raising concerns about the potential health impacts of 5G.

But in response, North Ayrshire planners stated: "There is no evidence of any negative health side effects associated with wireless technologies."

One resident supported the plans, arguing that "people want a good mobile signal and the proposed development will be beneficial to the area."

Planners also said: "North Ayrshire Council supports the roll out of 5G, however, there is a requirement to assess whether the siting and design of telecommunications infrastructure would require prior approval."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Daily Record, Eric McGowan, 08 Aug 2021

Proof of EHS beyond all reasonable doubt
United Kingdom Created: 6 Aug 2021
Leszczynski’s review [1] included two important conclusions. Firstly, the need for the WHO, ICNIRP, ICES and governmental organisations to revise their denial of the link between EHS and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) because the data is of insufficient quality for proof of the lack of causality. Secondly, instead of studying a nocebo effect, research should focus on finding “suitable biochemical and biophysical markers” for symptoms in each EHS individual.

However, the review also stated that “So far, scientists were unable to find causality link between symptoms experienced by sensitive persons and the exposures to EMF”. This comprehensive assertion does not seem to reflect all the scientific evidence.

The criteria for proof, here onwards defined as beyond all reasonable doubt, differ between causality for an environmental intolerance (EI), such as EHS, and causality for a bacterial or viral disease. For the latter, there is usually a cellular organism or virion. For an EI, there can be several triggers and pathways affecting many organs, tissues and cells. EI can also be caused by genetics and viruses.

Proof of causality for an EI necessarily depends, as for any cause, on sequential temporality. This temporal sequence is usually evident in a repeatable physiological symptom(s) or change(s) often measurable by an objective marker(s). However, each individual may react differently to a given environmental stimulus. Scientific proof of health causality usually also requires a known mechanism. In the case of an electromagnetic EI such as sunburn or skin cancer from sunshine, individual differences have long been known, while a mechanism in the form of a genetic defect in DNA repair was discovered in 1968.

For EHS, another electromagnetic EI, differences in individuals’ symptoms from man-made EMFs have been known since 1733. In 2008 the first genetic variant associated with EMF sensitivity was discovered, the XRCC1 Ex9+16A allele, a DNA repair polymorphism, linked with childhood leukaemia near substations and powerlines [2]. In 2014 it was reported that people with EHS were 9.7 times more likely to have GSTM1 + GSTT1 null genotypes [3], indicating a susceptibility to oxidative stress. This genetic variation can also increase the risk of multiple sclerosis, some cancers, Alzheimer’s and asthma, each sometimes associated with EHS. Such genetic variants seem more common at higher than lower latitudes and in women than men, with others associated with higher levels of mercury. EHS symptoms are also associated with some demyelinating neurodegenerative conditions.

A causal link between electrosensitive symptoms and EMF exposures has also been proved for other mechanistic pathways in addition to genetic. Calcium flux through membrane depolarisation was discovered in 1974, involving the radical pair mechanism at ELF up to MHz, as in modulated cell phone signals. Unmodulated GHz radiofrequency can generate oxidative stress and may act through ferritin, calcium spikes or water modification, but further proof is needed. Other pathways include cryptochromes [4]. Such EMF sensitivity occurs in 100% of people subliminally, and in 30% consciously [5]. Hypersensitivity is associated with the 1.2% severely disabled by EMFs.

Scientific proof also partly depends on repeatability, as in provocation tests, either subliminal or conscious. Such tests were first applied to EHS in the 1980s by Dr Cyril Smith, who originated the term ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity’, and Dr Jean Munro. Following near-quantum and non-linear insights by Professor Herbert Frölich, they first identified the specific frequencies to which an individual was sensitive. They then reproduced the EMF exposure, proving that positive provocation tests of screened subjects could be repeated accurately. Similar tests were used in 1991 at the Environmental Health Center, Texas, by Dr William Rea, who held the world’s first professorship in environmental medicine at the University of Surrey in 1988. These achieved 100% success by screening for specific frequencies and rejecting 84% of subjects without consistent responses [6]. Dr Magda Havas and Professor Andrew Marino confirmed this through similar diagnostic protocols. High accuracy in blinded provocation tests was also recorded for individuals in studies without screening, as at Essex University in 2007, but their individual data were not published and therefore lost in averaging. Some unscreened studies hypothesised without evidence a different condition, namely a nocebo effect or electrophobia, known since 1903, but inapplicable to unaware adults, some of whom suffer physiological EHS.

Further proof of EMF causality for EHS symptoms includes the 20% of subjects known since 1998 to suffer electrosensitivity symptoms during Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. Likewise, walking fast through magnetic fields near MRI scanners can induce electric currents causing specific EHS symptoms, with a small hypersensitive subset. Similarly, some people are sensitive to geomagnetic disturbances and thunderstorms [7].

Clinical evidence also contributes to proof of EHS. Specific EHS symptoms were identified from 1932 in Eastern Europe and the USSR, usually among people occupationally exposed, such as radar, radio or electricity workers. As EHS spread into the general population with the use of cell phones, Wi-Fi and smart metres, specialist EHS centres assessed greater numbers, such as Professor Dominique Belpomme’s in Paris. In 2015 he published the first comprehensive study of objective molecular biomarkers including cerebral blood perfusion scans, showing that EHS is a multi-systemic EI like chemical sensitivity. In 2021 Belpomme led 32 international experts requesting that the WHO acknowledges EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and includes it in its International Classification of Diseases [8]. In 2017 Dr Gunnar Heuser published evidence from fMRI scans of brain effects [9]. Similar scans helped convince a 2020 government report that the U.S. diplomats in Cuba were harmed by radiofrequency weapons.

In the 1930s, sufficient proof that adverse health symptoms were caused by non-thermal EMF exposure led to the first radiofrequency guidelines being non-thermal. Non-thermal effects of radiofrequency were shown as primary, with heating secondary. In 1953 sensitivity symptoms were shown to include cancers among radar workers and, from 2004, among people living nearer a cell phone tower compared with those further away, while in 1979 increased leukaemia was found among people living near powerlines. The IARC recognised non-thermal effects by classifying radiofrequency EMFs from cell phones as a 2B carcinogen in 2011. This led to courts from 2012 fining employers, and compensating EHS employees severely affected by non-thermal EMFs.

The scientific proof of the causal link between symptoms and EMF exposures has also been accepted since the 1990s by insurers. They refuse to underwrite EMF risks except as high category like asbestos, another carcinogen. Following Sweden in 2000, like the WHO in 2005, some countries specifically recognise EHS as functionally disabling and requiring accommodation under equality legislation. In 2020 a Dutch appeal judge recognised a person with EHS as an interested party in siting a cell phone tower.

Finally, two of the review’s three “essential, but still unanswered” questions – the EMF levels tolerated without conscious adverse effects and the counter-measures to protect people with EHS – were answered in some respects by the EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 [10], subsequently adapted for the International Guidelines on Non-Ionising Radiation of 2018. Typically, public health levels to prevent harm are set 10 to 50 times below the lowest experimentally proven health effects to accommodate exceptionally hypersensitive individuals. However, some non-thermal guidelines include the duration of EMF exposure to facilitate greater flexibility, while also protecting sleep locations and those proven as the most sensitive groups in society.

Research funding: None declared.

Author contributions: Author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

Competing interests: Author states no conflict of interest.

Informed consent: Not applicable.

Ethical approval: The comments expressed here do not involve new research on humans or animals.


1. Leszczynski, D. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev Environ Health 2021 Jul 6. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0038 [Epub ahead of print].

2. Yang, Y, Jin, X, Yan, C, Tian, Y, Tang, J, Shen, X. Case-only study of interactions between DNA repair genes (hMLH1, APEX1, MGMT, XRCC1 and XPD) and low-frequency electromagnetic fields in childhood acute leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 2008;49:2344–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428190802441347.

3. De Luca, C, Thai, JC, Raskovic, D, Cesareo, E, Caccamo, D, Trukhanov, A, et al.. Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediat Inflamm 2014;2014:924184. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/924184.

4. Sherrard, RM, Morellini, N, Jourdan, N, El-Esawi, M, Arthaut, L-D, Niessner, C, et al.. Low-intensity electromagnetic fields induce human cryptochrome to modulate intracellular reactive oxygen species. PLoS Biol 2018;16:e2006229. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006229.

5. Bevington, M. The prevalence of people with restricted access to work in manmade electromagnetic environments. J Environ Health Sci 2019;5:1–12. https://doi.org/10.15436/2378-6841.19.2402.

6. Rea, WJ, Pan, Y, Fenyves, EJ, Sujisawa, I, Suyama, H, Samadi, N, et al.. Electromagnetic field sensitivity. J Bioelectr 1991;10:241–56. https://doi.org/10.3109/15368379109031410.

7. Panagopoulos, DJ, Balmori, A. On the biophysical mechanism of sensing atmospheric discharges by living organisms. Sci Total Environ 2017;599–600:2026–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.089.

8. Belpomme, D, Carlo, GL, Irigaray, P, Carpenter, DO, Hardell, L, Kundi, M, et al.. The critical importance of molecular biomarkers and imaging in the study of electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:7321. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22147321.

9. Heuser, G, Heuser, SA. Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields. Rev Environ Health 2017;32:291–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2017-0014.

10. Belyaev, I, Dean, A, Eger, H, Hubmann, G, Jandrisovits, R, Kern, M, et al.. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health 2016;31:363–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011.

Received: 2021-07-13
Accepted: 2021-07-20
Published Online: 2021-08-02

© 2021 Michael Bevington,

published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Reviews on Environmental Health, Michael Bevington, 02 Aug 2021

Controversial phone mast plan is thrown out at Appleton
United Kingdom Created: 6 Aug 2021
PLANNING chiefs at Warrington have thrown out proposals for a mobile phone mast in Longwood Road, Dudlow’s Green Appleton.

The proposal by CK Hutchison Networks was for a 20m mast with a wraparound cabinet and associated ancillary work.
The borough council’s development management committee rejected the scheme after hearing there had been 28 objections from members of the public, an objection from Appleton Parish Council and also from local borough councillors.

Officers had also recommended the scheme be refused.

They said the siting and appearance of the mast would be acceptable but that it would be detrimental to highway safety because it could obscure the view of pedestrians using a nearby crossing.

There were also concerns over the impact on nearby protected trees.
Members of the public also objected because of the proximity of houses, overbearing impact because of land levels and harm to the character of the area.

The applicants claimed there was a need to upgrade their network to improve coverage and capacity, mosty notably in relation to 5G services.

They said the site was chosen to avoid interference with other networks.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Warrington Worldwide, David Skentelbery, 05 Aug 2021

Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis
South Korea Created: 5 Aug 2021
We evaluated 18 studies that included 4280 samples - Exposure to mobile phones is associated with reduced sperm motility, viability, and concentration. The decrease in sperm quality after RF-EMW exposure was not significant, even when the mobile phone usage increased. This finding was consistent across experimental in vitro and observational in vivo studies.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Environmental Research, Kim et al., 30 Jul 2021

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 766   Next›  Last»