Submitted to Technical consultation: changes to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure. Submitted on 2021-06-14 15:00:56
About You – Submitted by Founder of Retail Market Practise – Business Consultancy including EMF stress reduction
Radio Equipment Housing
Question 1 The Government has committed to make it easier to deploy radio equipment housing without the need for prior approval. This is to support the deployment of 5G and incentivise the use of existing sites for site sharing.
Comments:
Radio Equipment Housing should be used that reduces EMFs from impacting humans and the environment adversely. So it’s not the size but the strength of the pulse of the output that matters most now and going forward to 6G et al. An essential part of the control should be monitoring EMFs pre and post any installation and subject to prior approval. If this risk check cannot be done then the scientific precautionary principle should apply.
Comments:
The visual test should be that it is not detrimental to human health or the environment, wellbeing and enjoyment, nor of business livelihood. This means measures must be put in place to make any installation subject to multi – stakeholder consultation of a minimum quorum of three parties. For example independent public health, environmental, public and business.
Strengthening existing ground-based masts
Question 2 The Government has committed to make it easier to strengthen existing masts without the need for prior approval to be given by the local planning authority. This is to encourage use and sharing of existing masts and so limit the need for new ones.
Comments:
This is technically a non-choice without proper prior measurement of EMFs and the impact it would have on humans and the environment plus other sources of EMFs. In other words without first understanding the cumulative impact of any changes. Distance is a key dimension when it comes to measuring strength of EMFs let alone the long term impact thereof. So it is not a binary pre-populated choice of answers but rather a carefully scientific measured and risk impact understanding that precedes any decision-making. And which this consultation clearly has NOT catered for.
Not Answered
Question 3 The Government has committed to make it easier to strengthen existing masts without the need for prior approval to be given by the local planning authority. This is to encourage use and sharing of existing masts and so limit the need for new ones.
Comments:
Building-based masts
Question 4 The Government has committed make it easier to deploy building-based masts nearer to highways, subject to prior approval. This is to support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage encourage using existing structures.
Comments:Existing and future development plans must be taken into account including the cost of moving problematic masts must be a clause built into the contract upfront and prior to its very 1st installation. We suggest 2-3 subsequent permitted installs but with a substantial motivation reviewed by a pan independent multi-stakeholder sign-off of public health aka medical, environmental impact, public wellbeing and business viability, for example.
Question 5 The Government wishes to go further to enable the deployment of building-based masts nearer to highways. This is to support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage encourage using existing structures.
No
Comments:
Implementation
Question 10 We welcome comments on what more, if anything, the Government should do to ensure successful implementation of the proposed planning reforms to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage .
Comments:
Provide alternatives to 5G deployment to cater for everyone in society, including those who are hyper sensitive to electricity. This means regularly reviewing EMF output of all options including ground/ Ethernet cabling that is emf -free vs. 5G deployment. Insist that telecoms supply optimal connectivity via all available options & run independent systems checks for any manipulation that attracts hefty fines to discourage push-evolution of tech.
Public Sector Equality Duty
Question 11 The proposals outlined in this technical consultation build upon the principles that the Government has established to enable the deployment of 5G and extending mobile coverage, and have been considered under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Comments:
Include a quota that companies with women and BAME compliance do and oversee the work, will be prioritised in order to include a higher safety factor and to reduce the risk of push-technology. This should increase the government’s duty of care.
Assessment of Impact
Question 12 We welcome any further evidence specifically on the regulatory impacts of the proposed changes to planning regulations set out in this technical consultation
Comments:
The scientific precautionary principle is advised in the absence of sufficient evidence. This approach has not yet been taken into account by government to date which begs the question what calibre of scientists are advising government? This is indeed high-risk given the historical course of events and also caveats stemming from industries such as tobacco, fibreglass, fossil fuels and now wireless-technologies. Not only is it irresponsible from a cumulative radiation exposure impact but also due to the advent of pandemics and the unknown nature of variants forming… and the long term effect might prove catastrophic. An essay by Professor John William Frank, calls for a moratorium on further 5G rollout. An experienced epidemiologist and chair of public health research and policy at the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics concludes in his essay published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.– “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” – that industry and health agencies should “err on the side of caution.” The precautionary health principle championed by Frank is when “significant doubt about the safety of a new and potentially widespread human exposure should be a reason to call a moratorium on that exposure.” The 5G moratorium should stay, he argued, “pending adequate scientific investigation of suspected adverse health effects.”
https://www.lightreading.com/5g/professor-calls-for-5g-moratorium-over-health-fears-omdia-begs-to-differ/d/d-id/766801
Supporting Evidence & Confidentiality
Confidentiality
I would like my response to be treated as confidential:
No
Any additional evidence to support your consultation responses should be added here.
Supporting evidence:
fpubh-07-00223.pdf was uploaded https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00223/full
Recent Comments