This is totally unacceptable, not only, would it be an eyesore to the whole community,but more so it would detrimental to all our health!!What planet are you on even to consider this??!!

When determining applications for telecommunications development, local planning authorities should ensure that the necessary equipment is installed in a way that minimizes the visual impact on the surrounding area, but they should not impose health safeguards or base their decisions on concerns about potential health impacts, provided that the proposal complies with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure."

and this supports the approach- ‘Receive a certificate and don’t consider health’, but I appeal to you to apply the NPPF within a framework of all the obligations and powers available to you, ie in order to resolve the material planning consideration compatibility of the land and other buildings, and in order to fulfil your obligations as an EECC competent authority ie make public health imperative, (EECC Recital 110), reconcile the risks (EECC Recital 106), in relation to 1999/519/EC recommendations paragraph 19, take the recent science in this objection into account. The content of this objection is evidence based on science, it is not baseless concern.

This science as presented below fully supports and justifies concluding the proposed siting of this mast is an ‘incompatible and unacceptable’ use of the land.

Please compare the general statements about safety within the supporting documents and compare with the specific scientific evidence within the ICBE-EMF paper and New Hampshire commission included in this objection.

Please apply precaution beyond the precaution built within the ICNIRP guidelines, a power and obligation within the procedural standard in 1999/519/EC paragraph 19.

You have the power and obligation to decide whether to apply a health condition under EECC Annex 1 3B and the evidence below justifies doing so.

I accept that asking for this level of investigation and application of the law, is requesting you to go more deeply into your role in relation to health and the environmental implications beyond the currently the wording of NPPF policy and GPDO, but I appeal to you to recognise that it is important and necessary to fully address the many objections from the local residents whose lives will be adversely affected, ongoingly, if this application was approved.

At the time of me writing this there is not one letter of support!

1) WEIGHTING OF EVIDENCE

We received a letter in 2019 from the government solicitors DLA Piper which clearly indicates that the ICNIRP guideline is just a guideline and there is an obligation to consider other evidence.

DLA PIPER - the Guidance is not maintained and revised by PHE for the explicit purpose of any other body undertaking any other statutory function. If in any other context regard is had to the Guidance that is entirely a matter for the discretion of the relevant body and it must determine what weight to place on the Guidance given the clear indication as to the sources from which the advice and recommendations in the Guidance are derived. Equally, that body must determine what other evidence from your clients or other members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision, (letter dated 8th August 2019).

I request the evidence in this objection is read in full before deciding how much weight to place on it. Thank you.

2) EVIDENCE - SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION REVEALS 500M SETBACK REQUIRED

Please consider there are residents at Regency Drive, Longwood Road and Capgrave Crescent living close to the proposed site of the mast at, 80-90m, 23m, from 59m respectively. Exposure is distance dependent.

The high exposure areas non compliant to ICNIRP guideline levels zones calculated as part of the ICNIRP certification define an unsafe area about 25-50m, 5-10m drop from the antenna head which in this case is unlikely to not penetrate local resident housing, so it may not be necessary in this case to obtain the exclusion zone diagrams as evidence to affirm compliance and set the safeguard according to ICNIRP guidelines, however the exposures as examined by the New Hampshire Commission in relation to science conclude that a 500m setback is required to be protective of residents.

Please read the ‘Establishing setbacks’ on the final report of the New Hampshire Commission report page 104/390 (full section in Appendix 1).

‘From the 17 documents referred to in this appendix, shown below in historical order, this set-back for all new cell towers should be 500 meters which translates to 1,640 feet. All of these studies have been given support by a recent animal study from the Ramazzini Institute that links to them, as well as to the US National Toxicology’

This power point is a helpful ‘quick-read’ – it reveals the N.H. Commission's authority and source science.

3) EVIDENCE – RECENT JUDICIAL REVIEW RULING RE EFFECTS TO THOSE WITH METAL IMPLANTS & PACEMAKERS

A recent planning judicial review case ‘Steven Thomas v Cheltenham CBC ‘ruled that the effect on metal implants and pacemakers should be taken into account by the Case Officer. The judge correctly identified these effects are not covered by the ICNIRP guideline – ICNIRP declares states the effects are unpredictable and can happen below the guideline. (Think of putting metal in a microwave, one doesn’t!

In this case, please ascertain whether there are any people with EHS (Electrohypersensitivity) and metal implants in the area as the Dr who addressed the Mendip Planning Board testified that the emissions would likely worsen the condition of such a resident living 200m away. I request you take this factor specifically into account in this case.

P44 Judge Jarman ruling - AC-2023-cdf-00079 May 3 2024 Steven Thomas v Cheltenham CBC

‘However, the failure on the part of the authority to grapple with potential impacts on medical implants was, in my judgment, an error and this ground succeeds. The question of what relief, if any, is appropriate is another question and one to which I now turn.’

Microwave ovens (2.45 GHz) generate high-power, contained radiation, whereas base stations operate at lower power across broader frequencies, up to 3.8 GHz. Metal interacts with EMFs by reflecting, absorbing, or amplifying energy, potentially causing localized heating or interference, especially in implants like pacemakers. More research and updated safety assessments are needed to address these effects and ensure adequate protection for all people.

ICNIRP cite ISO 14117 – 2019 to cover this gap in EMF safety coverage for implantable devices. ICNIRP implies that by applying ISO 14117, manufacturers of active implantable devices are ensuring EMF compatibility of their products over the frequency range that the ICNIRP guidelines cover. An email response dated 30/07/24 from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government shows that the Government’s position is the same as ICNIRP’s, in that manufacturers of implantable medical devices are responsible for ensuring that EMFs cannot interfere with devices. The manufacturers would be trying to do this by applying ISO 14117. However, ISO 14117 does not cover other types of metallic implants such as metal prostheses and dental metals (e.g. dental braces, crowns, pins and mercury amalgam fillings). These, therefore, remain outside the “protection” of ICNIRP guidelines.

Also, ISO 14117 states that it does not guarantee EMF compatibility and that interference can still occur despite conformance of a device to ISO 14117. Thus, compliance with ICNIRP guidelines is not guaranteed. Additionally, ISO 14117 also states that EMF interference can occur below ICNIRP guidelines even if a device conforms to ISO 14117. Thus, people with implantable devices are at risk at EMF levels below ICNIRP.

It is enormously significant that ISO 14117 also only covers EMF frequencies up to 3 GHz. Mid-band 5G operates at 3.5 GHz, which although not declared, it is assumed this frequency will emanate from this proposed mast, and so effects to those with pacemakers will in this case not covered by ISO 14117.

4) EVIDENCE REGARDING THE NECESSITY TO CONSIDER MICROWAVE HEARING

There are guidance limits to protect against microwave hearing contained within ICNIRP 1998, ICNIRP 2020 principles statement, and within the guidance tables within the 1999/519/EC.

Microwave hearing is classed as a biological symptom which can go on to cause a health effect due to its persistent annoying nature. It is reported as popping, clicking and buzzing, and nowhere in the literature is it explicitly discerned from tinnitus. Tinnitus is a symptom people are commonly reporting when in close proximity to wireless radiation sources, and that these symptoms are relieved when in low or zero EMF areas. The ICNIRP exclusion zones foundational to the compliance certificate, are not calculated in relation to the guidance level to protect against these symptoms.

ICNIRP 2020 ‘However, it is not always easy to draw a clear distinction between biological and adverse health effects, and indeed this can vary depending on individual susceptibility to specific situations. An example is sensory effects from non-ionizing radiation exposures under certain circumstances, such as a tingling sensation resulting from peripheral nerve stimulation by electric or magnetic fields; magnetophosphenes (light flickering sensations in the periphery of the visual field) resulting from stimulation of the retina by electric fields induced by exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields; and microwave hearing resulting from thermoelastic waves due to expansion of soft tissues in the head which travel via bone conduction to the inner ear. Such perceptions may sometimes lead to discomfort and annoyance. ICNIRP does not consider discomfort and annoyance to be adverse health effects by themselves, but, in some cases, annoyance may lead to adverse health effects by compromising well-being. The exposure circumstances under which discomfort and annoyance occur vary between individuals.’

Please can you ensure that the proposed siting this mast is not going to expose residents in the locality to this biological symptom, which when experienced ongoingly would harm their overall health.

Please see appendix 2.4 for more information about calculating the exposure levels, and for evidence to the fact that these exposure levels ARE already being seen in locations measured by Ofcom but are not being reported as such.

https://safetechinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EECCsubmission12-9-2023-info-version.pdf

5) EVIDENCE – POTENTIAL HARMS TO LOCAL WILDLIFE in the WOODLAND 220 M TO THE EAST AND ON THE RIVER AVON 342M AWAY, AS WELL AS GARDEN WILDLIFE IN ADJACENT PROPERTIES

ICNIRP guidelines do not set guideline levels for environmental protection so other sources of information are needed to assess the impact to birds, bees and other wildlife in these zones.

The I nternational Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) concludes'the lack of consideration of chronic low-level RF radiation exposure on wildlife could result in dangerously disruptive effects on fragile ecosystems and on the behaviour and survival of species that have long existed in Earth’s natural environment',

and,

' The constant movement of most wildlife species in and out of varying artificial EMF can result in high exposures near communication structures, especially for flying species such as birds and insects. There is a substantial amount of scientific literature on the disrupting effects of RFR on wildlife (citing multiple sources of evidence)'.

Please refer to Assumption 13 in the paper for scientific references to original papers.

There are no specific references to show there are no effects to wildlife in the supporting documents, so please consider setting a precautionary condition under Annex 1 3B.

6) EVIDENCE - THE FIRST SIX STUDIES OF ‘IN SITU’ 5G RECORD IMMEDIATE (WITHIN COUPLE OF DAYS TO 6 WEEKS) ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF 5G RFR (PUBLISHED IN 2023)

https://www.journalserapublications.com/issues/v01/i01/JEPL_1020240101001.pdf

7) MATT WARMAN – PLEASE CONTRAST THE INFORMATION IN THE MATT WARMAN LETTERS SUPPLIED WITH THIS APPLICATION WITH THE FACT THAT MATT WARMAN INTERVENED TO STOP A MAST OUTSIDE A SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER 2023

Please consider that if Matt Warman agreed that the mast should not be placed outside the school, that equally pre-school aged children and children living at Longwood Road and Capgrave Crescent are equally vulnerable and should not be exposed.

It is quite disturbing that his ‘intervention’ happened outside the planning procedures which he has not clarified to every planning board in the country. Brislington residents don’t have him available to alter any approval in this case by phoning the applicant after the event.

Matt Warman’s Facebook post Sept 23. “Over the summer, a number of residents contacted me about their concerns over a proposed 5G Mast in Wrangle, and many more attended a public meeting I convened in the Village Hall. I have contacted those people who signed up to be kept up to date on this issue, directly.

In the course of that meeting, the vast majority of people expressed their desire to see improved mobile coverage in the village and across the county, and shared the ambition I pursued as a minister to see this happen rapidly. As I said then, I am confident this technology is being safely deployed in the UK, as it is being around the world as well.

It is, however, also the case that the positioning of masts is an emotive topic, and in order to maintain public confidence it’s important that networks get these decisions right. I am pleased that following my intervention, the Chief Executive of Three has agreed not to proceed with the proposed mast outside Wrangle Primary School and has now committed to exploring other more suitable sites in the local area. While this may take some time, I will encourage the company to do so as rapidly as possible.

As always, my priority is to listen to and represent the views of my constituents and I’m glad to have been able to ensure action was taken in this case.” -Matt Warman MP facebook post 6th September 2023

Such interventions made directly to telecoms companies from MP’s on behalf of their constituents would be unnecessary if suitable regulatory procedures were in place.

8) MISLEADING STATEMENTS WITHIN 22 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

These documents may support policy but they contain many misleading statements.

1. DOCUMENT ‘ALLAYING HEALTH CONCERNS REGARDING 5G’Please note the intention is to merely add debate not act as guidance

i) ‘It is not intended to be a guidance note with a specified set of recommendations or actions but rather seeks to add understanding and debate around the topic’Page 4 - Lower latency‘5G can support significantly lower latency, where appropriate, meaning very little lag, or buffering. This could enable mobile applications that simply aren’t possible today, such as multiplayer gaming, factory automation and other tasks that demand quick responses.’ & ‘Greater capacity 5G will also have vastly greater capacity, allowing networks to better cope with not only the rapidly increasing data demands of customers today, but also the growth of high-demand applications being planned in the future.’

MISLEADING However, the application details VF 20811_0 antennas, which do not appear to be mid-band or high-band 5G antennas. If these antennas primarily support low-band 5G, they will improve coverage but will not deliver the significantly increased capacity in paragraph 2 and will not support the advanced applications mentioned in the paragraph 1. Thus these claimed benefits must not be weighted in the risk benefit analysis.

ii) ‘As there has been no dispensation for 5G safety standards, it will have to meet the same safety standards as 4G, 3G and GSM, meaning 5G will be just as safe as 4G, 3G and GSM .’

This is misleading as there are no standards for either 4G or 5G, there are only guidelines.

The ICNIRP guidelines. There is substantive evidence in the ICBE-EMF paper and statements from Ex_ICNIRP member Professor James Lin that ICNIRP guidelines are NOT protective of children. Thus brochure wants to eschew the benefits saying the delivery of pulsed radiation is different, without defining exactly which frequencies are being used and then claim the safety is same as 4G and without addressing the definitive evidence that ALL science shows that RFR causes oxidative stress. 4G is not safe to those with EHS. Electro hypersensitivity. An Education Health Plan was awarded granting a teen a low EMF environment when a court recognised the science of harms in her case. There are recognised biological mechanisms of harm, oxidative stress being one of them. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36253855/

iii) "Reducing exposure to radio waves in the future requires more base stations in order to drive down both smartphone and base station power levels," bottom of page 5

The assertion that reducing radio wave exposure necessitates more base stations oversimplifies the issue. While additional base stations might lower the power levels of individual devices, they also introduce more sources of RF emissions, potentially increasing the total exposure in an area. Moreover, modern networks utilize adaptive power control to maintain efficient communication without requiring maximum transmission power.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications (IEEE Xplore) Independent studies have identified base stations as significant contributors to overall RF exposure, indicating that merely increasing their number may not effectively reduce exposure levels. For instance, a study published in Environment International found that "the largest contributors to total personal environmental RF-EMF exposure were downlink (meaning from cell tower base stations) and broadcast." This suggests that base stations play a major role in overall RF exposure. Therefore, increasing their number may not necessarily lead to a reduction in exposure levels https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.00910

iv) Page 6 ‘The most recent set of ICNIRP guidelines were published on the 11th March 2020, following a omprehensive assessment of peer-reviewed scientific literature over two decades, covering both thermal and non-thermal effects. The guidelines are designed to ensure that all people are not exposed to electromagnetic radiation at radio frequencies in a way that would have any adverse effect on the body, such as excessive heating. No evidence for cancer, infertility or other health effects has been found at the exposure levels recommended in the guidelines.

FALSE STATEMENT The ICNIRP guideline does not cover those with metal implants or medical devices such as pacemakers.FALSE STATEMENT ‘No evidence for cancer’ The Karipidis Review was reviewed by ICBE-EMF and they are answering specifically to the science and conclude?-‘The concordant results from the animal carcinogenicity studies on RF-EMF and the increased risk of brain gliomas and Schwann cell tumors from the case-control studies point to a potential cancer risk that was ignored by Karipidis et al. (2024a) in their overall conclusions.’ https://icbe-emf.org/scientific-response-to-the-rebuttal-of-karipidis-et-al-to-the-icbe-emfs-criticisms-of-the-who-cell-phone-radiation-cancer-review/

v) page 7 ‘It will ensure Ofcom is in a position to take appropriate enforcement action in the event of non-compliance with the ICNIRP Guidelines.Ofcom has already carried out their own independent measurements on some deployed 5G base stations and verified their compliance with the guidelines’Exposure is distance dependent, the Ofcom surveys do not record the distance from the mast at which their recordings are taken and the fact that their measurements are a fraction of ICNIRP guidleine, cannot be relied upon as evidence that the exposure to the local residents in the vicinity of this application will be equivalent, without distance, it is impossible to compare. Ofcom have only refereenced the ICNIRP basic limit, they have not referenced or measured the auditory limit which is a fraction of the ICNIRP limit and MUST be taken into account when considering the impact of this mast to the local residents.

2. DOCUMENT ‘LOCAL AUTHORITY ENGAGEMENT BROCHURE - SEPT 2020 (002)’

this brochure is full of general claims of 5G delivery and there is no link in the application to which benefit is applicable to this particular mast

Example the statement on Page 4"Digital connectivity is vital for the UK’s post-COVID economic recovery plan. Digital infrastructure will be fundamental to the UK Government’s ‘Project Speed’ initiative,"

lacks specificity and substance. It fails to provide clear, measurable goals or an actionable framework for how these objectives will be achieved at the local level and there is nothing in the application which is specific about new uses and gains to Brislington residents or businesses.

The vague reference to "improved coverage" and the unsubstantiated claim that "local collaboration is critical" do not provide a tangible basis for the proposed 5G mast. Without clear definitions of the technologies involved, specific target areas, or any detailed local impact analysis, these claims should be considered as unsubstantiated marketing rhetoric rather than factual justification. In light of this, I call for these claims to be struck out in the Benefit-Cost Analysis, as they fail to demonstrate any real, evidence-based benefit to the local community

3. DOCUMENT ‘COLLABORATING FOR DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY LETTER’

PROBLEMATICAL - The document outlines the UK Government's overarching vision for 5G and digital infrastructure but largely ignores the local context in which these plans will be implemented. Local communities and authorities should not be pressured into merely following a blanket policy without being given a clear opportunity to assess the actual benefits and address concerns about health, environmental impacts, and aesthetic disruptions. The vague, generic claims about economic growth and social inclusion provided in the document fail to substantiate the need for the specific 5G mast at this location in Brislington. For a meaningful and transparent process, more specific, localized data must be provided to demonstrate how this infrastructure will directly benefit this community, rather than relying on broad, national-level policy goals that may not reflect local priorities.

4. DOCUMENT ‘DIGITAL PUBLIC BENEFIT BROCHURE UPDATED’

There is enough 4G coverage in this area and there is no evidence of the notice to quit provided with the application. More glossy rhetoric not targeted to this application.

5. DOCUMENT ‘EMF GUIDELINES V20’

‘Virtually everyone in the modern world is exposed to electromagnetic fields generated by man-made sources.’

And this does not mean people are fairing well health wise from this exposure, there is a concerning increase in many conditions which have oxidative stress as a starting point in disease formation, including cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s), diabetes, cancer, respiratory issues, autoimmune diseases, and chronic fatigue

syndrome. Please consider the below.‘Published today in the journal Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” .2022 ‘Published today in the journal Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” demonstrates

how the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have ignored hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at exposures below the threshold dose claimed by these agencies, which was used to establish human exposure limits. The authors argue that the threshold, based on science from the 1980s – before cell phones were ubiquitous – is wrong, and these exposure limits based on this threshold do not adequately protect workers, children, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the public from exposure to the nonionizing radiation from wireless data transmission. ‘

6. 5G EMF BRIEFING WEB 05 20

7. HEALTH AND MOBILE PHONE BASE STATIONS DOC V.4

8. HEALTH SUMMARY V20

9. HM GOVERNMENT OFCOM 5G GUIDE

10.MATT WARMAN MP LETTER ON 5G BROADBAND

11. MATT WARMAN MP LETTER TO LPA CHIEFS 2021

12. MOBILE UK DIGITAL INCLUSION REPORT

13. MOBILE UK 5G LOCAL AUTHORITY TOOLKIT

14. MOBILEUK HEALTH FACT SHEET V1

15. ONLINE-NATION-2022-REPORT

16. RADIO PLANNING AND PROPAGATION V6

17.HOW IT WORKS V1218.PLANNING FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS V819.5G SERVICES V1020.GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEV JAN 2421. KEIR STARMER IN THE TIMES - WE WILL LAUNCH A GOLDEN ERA OF BUILDING22.MINISTER OF STATE LETTER TO LEADERS NOV 2024MINISTER OF STATE LETTER TO

LEADERS NOV 2024

I was intending to address each of these supporting documents, but have gone into overwhelm!The submission of 22 supporting papers with the application appears to be an attempt to overwhelm the decision-making process, creating the impression that the proposal is supported by an extensive body of evidence. However, it is important to note that quantity does not equate to quality. The volume of papers provided does not necessarily address the specific concerns of the local community, particularly regarding potential health risks from Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) exposure.

It is essential that the planning authority critically assesses the relevance and quality of the provided evidence rather than being swayed by the sheer number of documents. Additionally, the papers authored by the telecom industry will present the science in their favour and the ICBE-EMF papers being independent should be compared as they provide unbiased and neutral perspectives on the science.

Further, the majority of the evidence fails to consider the unique local context, such as the health vulnerabilities of the community, including the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing

medical conditions. As such, I respectfully request that you take a focused, balanced approach to evaluating the supporting evidence, ensuring that the specific health and environmental considerations are not overshadowed by the overwhelming quantity of generalised information.It would be appreciated that before any decision to set the evidence within the New Hampshire commission and ICBE-EMF papers aside that the thrust of these three very recent papers is absorbed, from which it is fair to conclude that the WHO and industry interests are presenting a false view of current scientific knowledge. The time is now to realise we advancing along the equivalent industry narrative of most toxins, smoking asbestos etc. Industry tries to block the truth emerging but the science demonstrating harms exists and ICBE-EMF as independent doctors and scientists are bringing it to light. https://icbe-emf.org/publications/

It is tough that in the dual jurisdiction of regulation of exposure it falls on individual Case Officer to make decisions, much better would it be for central government to set reasonable set backs and ensure that new technologies are genuinely safe but this is as it is, you have autonomous decision making powers and the residents near this proposed mast are in your hands, their health and well being is in your hands.

1) ‘Scientists Find the WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Study & the WHO Review on Cell Phone Radiation, Tinnitus, Migraine and Headaches “Scientifically Flawed” &

2) ICBE-EMF finds serious problems with WHO-Commissioned review of human observational studies on the effects of exposure to radio-frequency EMFs3) Scientific Response to the Rebuttal of Karipidis et al. to the ICBE-EMF’s Criticisms of the WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Review

Scientific rebuttal to the misleading responses from Karipidis et al. on the ICBE-EMF critique of their systematic review on exposure to RF-EMF and human cancer January 15, 2025 On December 30, 2024, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) published a critique (Frank et al., 2024a) of the systematic review (SR) on wireless radio frequency electromagnetic…

CONCLUSION

Thank you for considering the legal pathway to refuse on health grounds alongside the overbearing and out of scale proportions of the 20m height of the proposed mast. The need for precaution regarding this proposed siting, just meters away from residents, far outweigh the exaggerated generalised position on safety and benefits claimed by the applicant.

Best Regards,

Karen Churchill

15 Rode Hill, Rode, Frome, Somerset, BA11 6PS

We were never notified by the council for this planned project,

We are concerned about pollution and risks to our health, we assume some kind of Radiation willbe admitted from this mast.

Also this may effect wildlife, bees, birds etc,

I'm sure the effects of public health is unknown, why should these unknown risks be forced uponus.

So we strongly object to this Eye sore and health Hazard, I would be very interest to see your riskassessment/ data levels regarding radiation.

Hello

I live in this area, and I support a mast being erected.

Too many people believing fake stories about a mast and what it does ...

It's a shame, cos these are the same people who complain they have no signal andcan't do stuff on their phones or tablets.

So as a local to this site, I support it.

I want a better signal.

It has recently come to our notice that application has been made to site a mast on landat Broomhill Road, Brislington, Bristol BS4 4TU.

We live close to this site and HAVE NOT been notified by the council in writing aboutthis. I am therefore objecting to its installation on these grounds:

No notification by the council in writing.

Risks to public health and wildlife.The government, council and planners are following ICNIRP guidelines for safety, thelevels for which we understand are too high. These guidelines are not law andemissions from these masts are polluting. This mast will emit radiation 24/7. Thecouncil is responsible for Pollution control and prevention under the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 ( EPA 1990,PPC 1999). Bristol takes pride in being a sustainable city and has a duty to protect itsresidents and open spaces. 5G is a pollutant. Planning Officers have a duty to protectand make safe the community’s health.

The proposed site is close to a large housing area and children who absorb radiationwill be walking past this mast to and from school. Children, pregnant women and theelderly are particularly at risk from this radiation.Large numbers of people will also be walking past this mast to and from work and ingoing about their daily lives. People wearing metal glasses, who have metal fillings,braces and pacemakers are not protected by ICNIRP.

There is no indication of an exclusion zone around this mast and every mast shouldhave one. 5G is not tested for public safety and there is no insurance available forhealth liabilities.

ICNIRP does not set safety levels for wild life and this site is close to green spaces withlivery stables, woodland, the River Avon which are safe places for people and wildlifeincluding birds and pollinators.

Siting

Installing this 20m 5G mast on Broomhill Road would be a blot on the landscape. Thefirst thing we would see on opening the curtains would be this eye sore. It would be23m from houses on Longwood, 59m from Capgrave Crescent, 133m from greenspace, 220m from woodland and 342m from the River Avon. This mast, therefore,could have an adverse effect on families with children, elderly residents, a variety ofwildlife, birds and pollinators. All of which could be harmed by RF-electro-magneticemissions.

Please see full objection sent by emailOVERVIEWI object to this application on the grounds that the evidence of claimed benefits of 5G in theapplication is outweighed by the evidence of potential harms to the residents within 200m.There is a legal pathway to refuse on health grounds, it has been applied by Mendip PlanningBoard.The necessity to recognise this pathway and use it is becoming urgent and necessary as thesupporting documents with the planning application demonstrates wild inaccurate statementsabout the safety of masts and policy as expressed within NPPF and the GPDO is woefullyinadequate in providing the clarity to local authorities about their risk reconciliation role under theEuropean Electronic Communications Code (EECC).I am aware that the wording of the policy appears restrictive,'Paragraph 118 (formerly 116) of the NPPF (2024):'When determining applications for telecommunications development, local planning authoritiesshould ensure that the necessary equipment is installed in a way that minimizes the visual impacton the surrounding area, but they should not impose health safeguards or base their decisions onconcerns about potential health impacts, provided that the proposal complies with the InternationalCommission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure.'

and this supports the approach- 'Receive a certificate and don't consider health', but I appeal toyou to apply the NPPF within a framework of all the obligations and powers available to you, ie inorder to resolve the material planning consideration compatibility of the land and other buildings,

and in order to fulfil your obligations as an EECC competent authority ie make public healthimperative, (EECC Recital 110), reconcile the risks (EECC Recital 106), in relation to 1999/519/ECrecommendations paragraph 19, take the recent science in this objection into account. Thecontent of this objection is evidence based on science, it is not baseless concern.This science as presented below fully supports and justifies concluding the proposed siting of thismast is an 'incompatible and unacceptable' use of the land.Please compare the general statements about safety within the supporting documents andcompare with the specific scientific evidence within the ICBE-EMF paper and New Hampshirecommission included in this objection.Please apply precaution beyond the precaution built within the ICNIRP guidelines, a power andobligation within the procedural standard in 1999/519/EC paragraph 19.You have the power and obligation to decide whether to apply a health condition under EECCAnnex 1 3B and the evidence below justifies doing so.I accept that asking for this level of investigation and application of the law, is requesting you to gomore deeply into your role in relation to health and the environmental implications beyond thecurrently the wording of NPPF policy and GPDO, but I appeal to you to recognise that it isimportant and necessary to fully address the many objections from the local residents whose liveswill be adversely affected, ongoingly, if this application was approved.At the time of me writing this there is not one letter of support!

1) WEIGHTING OF EVIDENCEWe received a letter in 2019 from the government solicitors DLA Piper which clearly indicates thatthe ICNIRP guideline is just a guideline and there is an obligation to consider other evidence.DLA PIPER - the Guidance is not maintained and revised by PHE for the explicit purpose of anyother body undertaking any other statutory function. If in any other context regard is had to theGuidance that is entirely a matter for the discretion of the relevant body and it must determinewhat weight to place on the Guidance given the clear indication as to the sources from which theadvice and recommendations in the Guidance are derived. Equally, that body must determinewhat other evidence from your clients or other members of the public or interested parties toconsider in making any decision, (letter dated 8th August 2019).I request the evidence in this objection is read in full before deciding how much weight to place onit. Thank you.

2) EVIDENCE - SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION REVEALS 500M SETBACK REQUIREDPlease consider there are residents at Regency Drive, Longwood Road and Capgrave Crescentliving close to the proposed site of the mast at, 80-90m, 23m, from 59m respectively. Exposure isdistance dependent.The high exposure areas non compliant to ICNIRP guideline levels zones calculated as part of theICNIRP certification define an unsafe area about 25-50m, 5-10m drop from the antenna headwhich in this case is unlikely to not penetrate local resident housing, so it may not be necessary in

this case to obtain the exclusion zone diagrams as evidence to affirm compliance and set thesafeguard according to ICNIRP guidelines, however the exposures as examined by the NewHampshire Commission in relation to science conclude that a 500m setback is required to beprotective of residents.Please read the 'Establishing setbacks' on the final report of the New Hampshire Commissionreport page 104/390 (full section in Appendix 1).'From the 17 documents referred to in this appendix, shown below in historical order, this set-backfor all new cell towers should be 500 meters which translates to 1,640 feet. All of these studieshave been given support by a recent animal study from the Ramazzini Institute that links to them,as well as to the US National Toxicology'This power point is a helpful 'quick-read' - it reveals the N.H. Commission's authority and sourcescience.3) EVIDENCE - RECENT JUDICIAL REVIEW RULING RE EFFECTS TO THOSE WITH METALIMPLANTS & PACEMAKERSA recent planning judicial review case 'Steven Thomas v Cheltenham CBC 'ruled that the effect onmetal implants and pacemakers should be taken into account by the Case Officer. The judgecorrectly identified these effects are not covered by the ICNIRP guideline - ICNIRP declares statesthe effects are unpredictable and can happen below the guideline. (Think of putting metal in amicrowave, one doesn't!In this case, please ascertain whether there are any people with EHS (Electrohypersensitivity) andmetal implants in the area as the Dr who addressed the Mendip Planning Board testified that theemissions would likely worsen the condition of such a resident living 200m away. I request youtake this factor specifically into account in this case.P44 Judge Jarman ruling - AC-2023-cdf-00079 May 3 2024 Steven Thomas v Cheltenham CBC'However, the failure on the part of the authority to grapple with potential impacts on medicalimplants was, in my judgment, an error and this ground succeeds. The question of what relief, ifany, is appropriate is another question and one to which I now turn.'Microwave ovens (2.45 GHz) generate high-power, contained radiation, whereas base stationsoperate at lower power across broader frequencies, up to 3.8 GHz. Metal interacts with EMFs byreflecting, absorbing, or amplifying energy, potentially causing localized heating or interference,especially in implants like pacemakers. More research and updated safety assessments areneeded to address these effects and ensure adequate protection for all people.ICNIRP cite ISO 14117 - 2019 to cover this gap in EMF safety coverage for implantable devices.ICNIRP implies that by applying ISO 14117, manufacturers of active implantable devices areensuring EMF compatibility of their products over the frequency range that the ICNIRP guidelinescover. An email response dated 30/07/24 from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and LocalGovernment shows that the Government's position is the same as ICNIRP's, in that manufacturersof implantable medical devices are responsible for ensuring that EMFs cannot interfere withdevices. The manufacturers would be trying to do this by applying ISO 14117. However, ISO14117 does not cover other types of metallic implants such as metal prostheses and dental metals(e.g. dental braces, crowns, pins and mercury amalgam fillings). These, therefore, remain outsidethe "protection" of ICNIRP guidelines.

Also, ISO 14117 states that it does not guarantee EMF compatibility and that interference can stilloccur despite conformance of a device to ISO 14117. Thus, compliance with ICNIRP guidelines isnot guaranteed. Additionally, ISO 14117 also states that EMF interference can occur belowICNIRP guidelines even if a device conforms to ISO 14117. Thus, people with implantable devicesare at risk at EMF levels below ICNIRP.It is enormously significant that ISO 14117 also only covers EMF frequencies up to 3 GHz. Mid-band 5G operates at 3.5 GHz, which although not declared, it is assumed this frequency willemanate from this proposed mast, and so effects to those with pacemakers will in this case notcovered by ISO 14117.

4) EVIDENCE REGARDING THE NECESSITY TO CONSIDER MICROWAVE HEARINGThere are guidance limits to protect against microwave hearing contained within ICNIRP 1998,ICNIRP 2020 principles statement, and within the guidance tables within the 1999/519/EC.Microwave hearing is classed as a biological symptom which can go on to cause a health effectdue to its persistent annoying nature. It is reported as popping, clicking and buzzing, and nowherein the literature is it explicitly discerned from tinnitus. Tinnitus is a symptom people are commonlyreporting when in close proximity to wireless radiation sources, and that these symptoms arerelieved when in low or zero EMF areas. The ICNIRP exclusion zones foundational to thecompliance certificate, are not calculated in relation to the guidance level to protect against thesesymptoms.ICNIRP 2020 'However, it is not always easy to draw a clear distinction between biological andadverse health effects, and indeed this can vary depending on individual susceptibility to specificsituations. An example is sensory effects from non-ionizing radiation exposures under certaincircumstances, such as a tingling sensation resulting from peripheral nerve stimulation by electricor magnetic fields; magnetophosphenes (light flickering sensations in the periphery of the visualfield) resulting from stimulation of the retina by electric fields induced by exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields; and microwave hearing resulting from thermoelastic waves due toexpansion of soft tissues in the head which travel via bone conduction to the inner ear. Suchperceptions may sometimes lead to discomfort and annoyance. ICNIRP does not considerdiscomfort and annoyance to be adverse health effects by themselves, but, in some cases,annoyance may lead to adverse health effects by compromising well-being. The exposurecircumstances under which discomfort and annoyance occur vary between individuals.'Please can you ensure that the proposed siting this mast is not going to expose residents in thelocality to this biological symptom, which when experienced ongoingly would harm their overallhealth.Please see appendix 2.4 for more information about calculating the exposure levels, and forevidence to the fact that these exposure levels ARE already being seen in locations measured byOfcom but are not being reported as such.https://safetechinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EECCsubmission12-9-2023-info-version.pdf

5) EVIDENCE - POTENTIAL HARMS TO LOCAL WILDLIFE in the WOODLAND 220 M TO THEEAST AND ON THE RIVER AVON 342M AWAY, AS WELL AS GARDEN WILDLIFE INADJACENT PROPERTIESICNIRP guidelines do not set guideline levels for environmental protection so other sources ofinformation are needed to assess the impact to birds, bees and other wildlife in these zones.The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)concludes'the lack of consideration of chronic low-level RF radiation exposure on wildlife could result indangerously disruptive effects on fragile ecosystems and on the behaviour and survival of speciesthat have long existed in Earth's natural environment',and,' The constant movement of most wildlife species in and out of varying artificial EMF can result inhigh exposures near communication structures, especially for flying species such as birds andinsects. There is a substantial amount of scientific literature on the disrupting effects of RFR onwildlife (citing multiple sources of evidence)'.Please refer to Assumption 13 in the paper for scientific references to original papers.There are no specific references to show there are no effects to wildlife in the supportingdocuments, so please consider setting a precautionary condition under Annex 1 3B.6) EVIDENCE - THE FIRST SIX STUDIES OF 'IN SITU' 5G RECORD IMMEDIATE (WITHINCOUPLE OF DAYS TO 6 WEEKS) ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF 5G RFR (PUBLISHED IN2023)https://www.journalserapublications.com/issues/v01/i01/JEPL_1020240101001.pdf

7) MATT WARMAN - PLEASE CONTRAST THE INFORMATION IN THE MATT WARMANLETTERS SUPPLIED WITH THIS APPLICATION WITH THE FACT THAT MATT WARMANINTERVENED TO STOP A MAST OUTSIDE A SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER 2023

Please consider that if Matt Warman agreed that the mast should not be placed outside theschool, that equally pre-school aged children and children living at Longwood Road and CapgraveCrescent are equally vulnerable and should not be exposed.It is quite disturbing that his 'intervention' happened outside the planning procedures which he hasnot clarified to every planning board in the country. Brislington residents don't have him availableto alter any approval in this case by phoning the applicant after the event.Matt Warman's Facebook post Sept 23. "Over the summer, a number of residents contacted meabout their concerns over a proposed 5G Mast in Wrangle, and many more attended a publicmeeting I convened in the Village Hall. I have contacted those people who signed up to be kept upto date on this issue, directly.In the course of that meeting, the vast majority of people expressed their desire to see improvedmobile coverage in the village and across the county, and shared the ambition I pursued as aminister to see this happen rapidly. As I said then, I am confident this technology is being safelydeployed in the UK, as it is being around the world as well.

It is, however, also the case that the positioning of masts is an emotive topic, and in order tomaintain public confidence it's important that networks get these decisions right. I am pleased thatfollowing my intervention, the Chief Executive of Three has agreed not to proceed with theproposed mast outside Wrangle Primary School and has now committed to exploring other moresuitable sites in the local area. While this may take some time, I will encourage the company to doso as rapidly as possible.As always, my priority is to listen to and represent the views of my constituents and I'm glad tohave been able to ensure action was taken in this case." -Matt Warman MP facebook post 6thSeptember 2023Such interventions made directly to telecoms companies from MP's on behalf of their constituentswould be unnecessary if suitable regulatory procedures were in place.

8) MISLEADING STATEMENTS WITHIN 22 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTSThese documents may support policy but they contain many misleading statements.1. DOCUMENT 'ALLAYING HEALTH CONCERNS REGARDING 5G'Please note the intention is to merely add debate not act as guidance

i) 'It is not intended to be a guidance note with a specified set of recommendations or actions butrather seeks to add understanding and debate around the topic'Page 4 - Lower latency'5G can support significantly lower latency, where appropriate, meaning very little lag, or buffering.This could enable mobile applications that simply aren't possible today, such as multiplayergaming, factory automation and other tasks that demand quick responses.'&'Greater capacity 5G will also have vastly greater capacity, allowing networks to better cope withnot only the rapidly increasing data demands of customers today, but also the growth of high-demand applications being planned in the future.'

MISLEADINGHowever, the application details VF 20811_0 antennas, which do not appear to be mid-band orhigh-band 5G antennas. If these antennas primarily support low-band 5G, they will improvecoverage but will not deliver the significantly increased capacity in paragraph 2 and will notsupport the advanced applications mentioned in the paragraph 1.Thus these claimed benefits must not be weighted in the risk benefit analysis.

ii) 'As there has been no dispensation for 5G safety standards, it will have to meet the same safetystandards as 4G, 3G and GSM, meaning 5G will be just as safe as 4G, 3G and GSM .'

This is misleading as there are no standards for either 4G or 5G, there are only guidelines.

The ICNIRP guidelines. There is substantive evidence in the ICBE-EMF paper and statementsfrom Ex_ICNIRP member Professor James Lin that ICNIRP guidelines are NOT protective of

children. Thus brochure wants to eschew the benefits saying the delivery of pulsed radiation isdifferent, without defining exactly which frequencies are being used and then claim the safety issame as 4G and without addressing the definitive evidence that ALL science shows that RFRcauses oxidative stress. 4G is not safe to those with EHS. Electro hypersensitivity. An EducationHealth Plan was awarded granting a teen a low EMF environment when a court recognised thescience of harms in her case. There are recognised biological mechanisms of harm, oxidativestress being one of them. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36253855/

iii) "Reducing exposure to radio waves in the future requires more base stations in order to drivedown both smartphone and base station power levels," bottom of page 5The assertion that reducing radio wave exposure necessitates more base stations oversimplifiesthe issue. While additional base stations might lower the power levels of individual devices, theyalso introduce more sources of RF emissions, potentially increasing the total exposure in an area.Moreover, modern networks utilize adaptive power control to maintain efficient communicationwithout requiring maximum transmission power.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications(IEEE Xplore) Independent studies have identified base stations as significant contributors tooverall RF exposure, indicating that merely increasing their number may not effectively reduceexposure levels. For instance, a study published in Environment International found that "thelargest contributors to total personal environmental RF-EMF exposure were downlink (meaningfrom cell tower base stations) and broadcast." This suggests that base stations play a major role inoverall RF exposure. Therefore, increasing their number may not necessarily lead to a reduction inexposure levels https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.00910

iv) Page 6 'The most recent set of ICNIRP guidelines were published on the 11th March 2020,following a comprehensive assessment of peer-reviewed scientific literature over two decades,covering both thermal and non-thermal effects. The guidelines are designed to ensure that allpeople are not exposed to electromagnetic radiation at radio frequencies in a way that would haveany adverse effect on the body, such as excessive heating. No evidence for cancer, infertility orother health effects has been found at the exposure levels recommended in the guidelines.

FALSE STATEMENT The ICNIRP guideline does not cover those with metal implants or medicaldevices such as pacemakers.FALSE STATEMENT 'No evidence for cancer' The Karipidis Review was reviewed by ICBE-EMFand they are answering specifically to the science and conclude?-'The concordant results from the animal carcinogenicity studies on RF-EMF and the increased riskof brain gliomas and Schwann cell tumors from the case-control studies point to a potential cancerrisk that was ignored by Karipidis et al. (2024a) in their overall conclusions.' https://icbe-emf.org/scientific-response-to-the-rebuttal-of-karipidis-et-al-to-the-icbe-emfs-criticisms-of-the-who-cell-phone-radiation-cancer-review/

v) page 7 'It will ensure Ofcom is in a position to take appropriate enforcement action in the eventof non-compliance with the ICNIRP Guidelines.Ofcom has already carried out their own

independent measurements on some deployed 5G base stations and verified their compliancewith the guidelines'Exposure is distance dependent, the Ofcom surveys do not record the distance from the mast atwhich their recordings are taken and the fact that their measurements are a fraction of ICNIRPguideline, cannot be relied upon as evidence that the exposure to the local residents in the vicinityof this application will be equivalent, without distance, it is impossible to compare.Ofcom have only referenced the ICNIRP basic limit, they have not referenced or measured theauditory limit which is a fraction of the ICNIRP limit and MUST be taken into account whenconsidering the impact of this mast to the local residents.

2. DOCUMENT 'LOCAL AUTHORITY ENGAGEMENT BROCHURE - SEPT 2020 (002)'this brochure is full of general claims of 5G delivery and there is no link in the application to whichbenefit is applicable to this particular mastExample the statement on Page 4"Digital connectivity is vital for the UK's post-COVID economicrecovery plan. Digital infrastructure will be fundamental to the UK Government's 'Project Speed'initiative,"lacks specificity and substance. It fails to provide clear, measurable goals or an actionableframework for how these objectives will be achieved at the local level and there is nothing in theapplication which is specific about new uses and gains to Brislington residents or businesses.The vague reference to "improved coverage" and the unsubstantiated claim that "localcollaboration is critical" do not provide a tangible basis for the proposed 5G mast. Without cleardefinitions of the technologies involved, specific target areas, or any detailed local impact analysis,these claims should be considered as unsubstantiated marketing rhetoric rather than factualjustification. In light of this, I call for these claims to be struck out in the Benefit-Cost Analysis, asthey fail to demonstrate any real, evidence-based benefit to the local community3. DOCUMENT 'COLLABORATING FOR DIGITAL CONNECTIVITY LETTER'PROBLEMATICAL - The document outlines the UK Government's overarching vision for 5G anddigital infrastructure but largely ignores the local context in which these plans will be implemented.Local communities and authorities should not be pressured into merely following a blanket policywithout being given a clear opportunity to assess the actual benefits and address concerns abouthealth, environmental impacts, and aesthetic disruptions. The vague, generic claims abouteconomic growth and social inclusion provided in the document fail to substantiate the need forthe specific 5G mast at this location in Brislington. For a meaningful and transparent process,more specific, localized data must be provided to demonstrate how this infrastructure will directlybenefit this community, rather than relying on broad, national-level policy goals that may not reflectlocal priorities.4. DOCUMENT 'DIGITAL PUBLIC BENEFIT BROCHURE UPDATED'There is enough 4G coverage in this area and there is no evidence of the notice to quit providedwith the application. More glossy rhetoric not targeted to this application.5. DOCUMENT 'EMF GUIDELINES V20'

'Virtually everyone in the modern world is exposed to electromagnetic fields generated by man-made sources.'And this does not mean people are fairing well health wise from this exposure, there is aconcerning increase in many conditions which have oxidative stress as a starting point in diseaseformation, including cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases (such as Alzheimer'sand Parkinson's), diabetes, cancer, respiratory issues, autoimmune diseases, and chronic fatiguesyndrome. Please consider the below.'Published today in the journal Environmental Health, "Scientific evidence invalidates healthassumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequencyradiation: implications for 5G," .2022 'Published today in the journal Environmental Health, "Scientific evidence invalidates healthassumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequencyradiation: implications for 5G," demonstrates how the U.S. Federal Communications Commission(FCC) and the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) haveignored hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at exposures below thethreshold dose claimed by these agencies, which was used to establish human exposure limits.The authors argue that the threshold, based on science from the 1980s - before cell phones wereubiquitous - is wrong, and these exposure limits based on this threshold do not adequately protectworkers, children, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the public from exposure tothe nonionizing radiation from wireless data transmission. '

6. 5G EMF BRIEFING WEB 05 20

7. HEALTH AND MOBILE PHONE BASE STATIONS DOC V.48. HEALTH SUMMARY V209. HM GOVERNMENT OFCOM 5G GUIDE10. MATT WARMAN MP LETTER ON 5G BROADBAND11. MATT WARMAN MP LETTER TO LPA CHIEFS 202112. MOBILE UK DIGITAL INCLUSION REPORT13. MOBILE UK 5G LOCAL AUTHORITY TOOLKIT14. MOBILEUK HEALTH FACT SHEET V115. ONLINE-NATION-2022-REPORT16. RADIO PLANNING AND PROPAGATION V617. HOW IT WORKS V1218. PLANNING FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS V819. 5G SERVICES V1020. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEV JAN 2421. KEIR STARMER IN THE TIMES - WE WILL LAUNCH A GOLDEN ERA OF BUILDING22. MINISTER OF STATE LETTER TO LEADERS NOV 2024MINISTER OF STATE LETTER TOLEADERS NOV 2024

I was intending to address each of these supporting documents, but have gone into overwhelm!The submission of 22 supporting papers with the application appears to be an attempt tooverwhelm the decision-making process, creating the impression that the proposal is supported byan extensive body of evidence. However, it is important to note that quantity does not equate toquality. The volume of papers provided does not necessarily address the specific concerns of thelocal community, particularly regarding potential health risks from Radio Frequency Radiation(RFR) exposure.

It is essential that the planning authority critically assesses the relevance and quality of theprovided evidence rather than being swayed by the sheer number of documents. Additionally, thepapers authored by the telecom industry will present the science in their favour and the ICBE-EMFpapers being independent should be compared as they provide unbiased and neutral perspectiveson the science.

Further, the majority of the evidence fails to consider the unique local context, such as the healthvulnerabilities of the community, including the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existingmedical conditions. As such, I respectfully request that you take a focused, balanced approach toevaluating the supporting evidence, ensuring that the specific health and environmentalconsiderations are not overshadowed by the overwhelming quantity of generalised information.It would be appreciated that before any decision to set the evidence within the New Hampshirecommission and ICBE-EMF papers aside that the thrust of these three very recent papers isabsorbed, from which it is fair to conclude that the WHO and industry interests are presenting afalse view of current scientific knowledge. The time is now to realise we advancing along theequivalent industry narrative of most toxins, smoking asbestos etc. Industry tries to block the truthemerging but the science demonstrating harms exists and ICBE-EMF as independent doctors andscientists are bringing it to light. https://icbe-emf.org/publications/

It is tough that in the dual jurisdiction of regulation of exposure it falls on individual Case Officer tomake decisions, much better would it be for central government to set reasonable set backs andensure that new technologies are genuinely safe but this is as it is, you have autonomous decisionmaking powers and the residents near this proposed mast are in your hands, their health and wellbeing is in your hands.

1) 'Scientists Find the WHO Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Study & the WHO Review on CellPhone Radiation, Tinnitus, Migraine and Headaches "Scientifically Flawed" &2) ICBE-EMF finds serious problems with WHO-Commissioned review of human observationalstudies on the effects of exposure to radio-frequency EMFs3) Scientific Response to the Rebuttal of Karipidis et al. to the ICBE-EMF's Criticisms of the WHOCell Phone Radiation Cancer ReviewScientific rebuttal to the misleading responses from Karipidis et al. on the ICBE-EMF critique oftheir systematic review on exposure to RF-EMF and human cancer January 15, 2025 On

December 30, 2024, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of ElectromagneticFields (ICBE-EMF) published a critique (Frank et al., 2024a) of the systematic review (SR) onwireless radio frequency electromagnetic...

CONCLUSIONThank you for considering the legal pathway to refuse on health grounds alongside theoverbearing and out of scale proportions of the 20m height of the proposed mast. The need forprecaution regarding this proposed siting, just meters away from residents, far outweigh theexaggerated generalised position on safety and benefits claimed by the applicant.

The mass is too near the road and near residents which is a health hazard. Schoolchildren will be walking past this every day. Also no information has been given to any residents inthis area regarding this matter. The mast causes many serious health conditions.

Sir/ Madam,Regarding the proposed 5G 20 meter mast. I object on the following points.First:- No notice has been provided to me by anyone in any form of correspondence atall. Why not? Makes me think there is an attempt to advance the application withoutlocal residents being advised/ made fully aware.

Second:- A similar attempt was recently made for this 5G tower and various add ones,to be sited in front of a stable on a field between Longwood (footpath) and the woodedarea leading down to the railway line and river Avon.Residents of Sicot were advised, those in Longwood were not. Here history appears tobe repeating itself.

Third:- My previous comments (you have on record) state I am all for technologybenefiting residents IF it is safe, and proven safe, for this area. As such I suggested thetower be sited not far from the National Grid 36 meter tall tower and another 20 metertower, located off Ironmould Lane (easy enough to see and find on a map/site visit.

I never did receive any positive/negative reply, but did hear from local residents that theMast in the field adjacent to Longwood footpath was not going to happen.

So, please assure me and anyone else who takes the time to contact you, that 5G is100% safe, not it's "Sort of safe-ish".Would you and your children happily live close/adjacent to such a tower?

Should the system be totally safe, what is wrong with hiding it where I suggested it besited the first time this issue arose?It would appear that this issue/request will keep being re-circulated until a proven(documented safe area) is found, or, the whole idea is forgotten.

As a further suggestion....could an approach be made to the Owners of the 25 Acres of(what I know) as St Brendan's 6th form College and find a suitable spot there?

If it is not suitable to be installed in St Brendan's (Not adjacent to Ironmould Lane), thenit is, in my view, not suitable for any of Bs4 4tr, Bs4 4ts, or any postcode up to andincluding Bs4 4tu.

I await your considered reply to this correspondence.

Dear Sir/Ma,

As a concerned resident, I am writing in objection to the plan to install a mast at the site:Land at Broomhill Road, Brislington. Bristol BS4 4TU.

Kind regards,

Hi please do not continue with this 5g mast as there is a school just up the road fromthis site. I struggle to see why you would consider this as children will be walking pastthis site on there way to school in both directions. I strongly object to this . Applicationnumber 25/10240/y . Site land at Broomhill road brislington bristol Bs44tu.

There is 3 schools and 1 college

I'm writing you this email to strongly object to this 5 g mast being installed on BroomhillRoad Brislington. This is most harmful to elderly, children, and pregnant women. Thereare children walking past every day to school and college.

please do not go ahead with this🙏 🏻

The site application number is 25/10240/Y

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:To whom it may concern, I object to the 5G mast, on the land on Broomhill Road.

I live in Sidcot (BS4 4TY), and I suffer from the affects of 5G masts. I get headaches and feel in

fight or flight constantly. I keep 5G off my phone, because it makes my hands buzz. Dr's and

scientists are calling to stop 5G use due to serious health and environmental concerns.

Not to mention the appearance of it, with the industrial area, encroaching the lives of Broomhill

residents, there should be as little impact as possible on us. A 5G masts will mean I will need to

leave the area, as I will not be able to function and live a normal life.

Regards,

I'm a local resident and was not informed of this case by the council and also healthconcerns that the mass produces outweighs this construction. X.

I am extremely concerned about this application for an installation of a 20m 5G mast onBroomhill Road. May I ask, what are the exclusion zones given here? Is there finally a safety zoneguaranteed?The 5G mast would be close to a residential area, some homes on Longwood Road are just over20m away. Would you be happy having an enormous 5G mast this close to your own home? If youhave children or grandchildren, elderly parents or family members who are quite vulnerable, wouldyou be comfortable with them living so close to a mast that emits radiation which has never beenproven safe? I know I would not be and I am concerned for the welfare of the residents in thisarea. Many local people vulnerable to EMFs live in this community amongst them many elderlypeople. A considerable number will have hearing aids and metal implants, such as hipreplacements, some will have pacemakers. Scientific studies have shown that metallic implantsand pace makers amplify the EMFs manifold, up to 700%. However, there is no protection forpeople with pacemakers or/and metal implants and no insurance will cover for any health impactas a result from increased exposure to EMFs . Also, people with glasses and metal braces, dentalfillings will be affected. This also includes children and pregnant women. They too will not becovered by ICNIRP guidelines. http://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/titanium-exposure-and-human-health/

Young children belong to another group of people being extremely sensitive to radiation fromEMFs, such as 5G. The government is referring to ICNIRP guidelines for safety, but ICNIRP isproviding guidelines that are meant to be for adults who are exposed to EMFs for 8-30minutes.

This mast would be emitting EMFs 24/7. Young children's brains are much more receptive toEMFs than adults' brains. Children of 5 years and under absorb 60% more radiation than adults.Please take note of the ruling in a Dutch Court that has taken place on the 24 December 2020,where ICNIRP guidelines were not considered to be safe for someone being sensitive to EMFsliving 650m away from a 5G mast. stralingsbewust.info/2020/12/24/doorbraak-in-rechtspraak-rond-stralingsrisicos/

ICNIRP levels also do not protect pregnant women, which is most alarming. As mentioned before,this mast would be in the middle of a residential area and many pregnant women would beexposed to it. You as a council have a duty in safeguarding the citizens of Bristol, and foremostthe most vulnerable ones, including pregnant women and unborn lives.

The mast with its constant 5G emissions would also adversely affect all green spaces.Furthermore, the mast will be a real eyesore to anyone living in the area. It is also quite likely tomake people feel more anxious. House prices will plummet as a result of this ugly feature.Bristol is taking great pride in promoting how green it is. 5G is not green, it consumes vastquantities of energy and resources. It is also not smart. The people of Bristol have not been askedwhether they want this new technology. You, the council do NOT have to rely on guidelines thatare unsafe and dangerous.There has not been one single peer reviewed independent scientific study that has proven thatprolonged exposure to non-thermal wireless radiation is safe to humans and animals.However, there have been many peer reviewed studies world wide that express serious concerns.The report Bioinitiative 2012, for example shows a direct link to brain tumours, damage to DNAand genes, effects on memory, learning, behaviour, attention, sleep disruption, cancer,neurological diseases like Alzheimers, reduction of fertility and also on the brain development ofthe fetus and infants. An updated report on this from 2014-2020 is available.https://bioinitiative.org/media/spread-the-word/In his research paper of 2020, Ronald N. Kostoff, PH.D. Research Affiliate at the Georgia Instituteof Technology describes the 'implementation and operation of non-ionizing non-visible EMFradiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) infrastructure for communications, surveillance,weaponry, and other applications' as ' THE LARGEST UNETHICAL MEDICAL EXPERIMENT INHUMAN HISTORY'. He says it is 'unethical because it violates the key ethical medical experimentrequirement for "informed consent" by the overwhelming majority of the participants.'https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/62452/LARGEST_UNETHICAL_MEDICAL_EXPERIMENT_FINAL.pdf

I urge you to look beyond appearance and esthetics in your decision making and take into accountthe serious health concerns that are increasingly being voiced by scientists, doctors and membersof the public.The residents of this area would be placed at risk of increased sleep disturbances,learning impairment, DNA breaks, tinnitus and cancer. Please remember that you have an

obligation to represent the welfare of the people of Bristol.

Thank you.

PS The ORSAA letter to Councils gives more detail in the subjects I have mentioned above.https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/orsaa_letter_to_councils.pdf

For obvious reasons do NOT want this 5g tower this close to our community

I was not made aware of this from the council and do not want this near me or my kids.

Not only an eye sore, but not a necessity and unnecessary exposure of radiation to allof us but especially to our children and elderly who live in the area.

Disgusted to have not even been informed from the local council of this proposal.

I object to having this in front of my house. The potential health issues it carries, it's unsightliness,wildlife disruption and potential impact on our house prices is absolutely enough to not have thishere.

We have not been consulted on this planning application and object to erectingmask.There are electric pylon close to housing and more buildings to new trading units.

I've had no notification of this being done whatsoever we have one 5 g mast very closeto us already why should we have to have another spread the things around,they are an eyesore,negatively effect health and destroy house prices,we are absolutely not going to stand for thisand will demonstrate in surrounding roads quite happily,surly you should ask residents beforedoing this to people.

Reasons radiation. Home will be right opposite, drowning noise, quality of life,

Iam writing this letter again concerning the 5G mast ref 25/10240/y I have objected tothis before and objecting this now I have lived here for nearly 40 years and Iam very concernedabout this it is going to cause polluting effects from the radiation from the mast I believe this fallswithin the councils responsibility under the environmental protection act this area is a familycommunity with lots of children and children absorb more radiation not good 5G is a pollutant andwe don't want this here the planning officers have a duty to make the environment safe andsupport the community's health 5G does not support the health of the community iam alsoconcerned this 5G mast will lower the price of my property and they say it can take 15 and 25 percent off value of your house well that is not good some of the biological effects of a mast are alsoheat exposure that can effect the structure of cell membrane and people who live in places wherethese masts are can experience dissorders such as cancer lung disease and even physicaldefects in children so iam objecting to this big time there is lots more I can say but I only have 30mins and I feel very strongly about this it would of even been nice to have been notified about thisfrom the council which we were not iam not a happy resident and would like to be kept up to dateabout this

I am concerned that a proposal for an 20m 5G mast has been launched for installationon Broomhill Road. Telecoms have no right to impose this unsafe, untested and uninsurable pieceof 5G technology in such close proximity to residents and commuters in Brislington. The proposed5G mast would subject residents living in the vicinity to radio-frequency electromagneticmicrowave radiation (RF-EMR) polluting emissions, which are particularly harmful to children, theelderly and pregnant women.

Please note that residents already objected to a mast application a year ago on Ironmould Lane(Ref. No. 23/04976/Y), which was refused by the objections from the local residents. This newmast planning application is only 236m from the last and therefore the same reasons for refusalhold ground.

The proposed 5G mast would be 23m from houses on Longwood, 59m from Capgrave Crescentand 236m from previous mast application on Ironmould Lane. It would be 133m from open greenspace to the east, 244m from horses in Brislington Livery stables, 220m from woodland to the eastand 342m from the River Avon. Additionally, the site would fall within the Avon Wood Conservationand Bristol & Bath Green Belt. Therefore this 5G mast could adversely affect families with children,elderly residents and a variety of wildlife including birds, small mammals and pollinating insects, allof which could all be harmed from RF-electro-magnetic emissions.

It is also pertinent that 5G technology is not needed for fast internet services; fibre optic solutionsare much more efficient.

Please note that increasing numbers of doctors & scientists globally are calling for a halt on 5Gdue to serious health & environmental concerns. It is also known that children, pregnant womenand the elderly exposed to these unacceptable levels of radiation are particularly at risk. Residentsliving near 5G monopoles and under rooftop antennas suffer illnesses which disappear when theyare removed; this has serious implications for people living on or near to Broomhill Road and theneighbouring roads in Brislington.

5G technology has not been tested for public safety and there is no insurance available for healthliabilities. Additionally, there is a zone around every mast with antennae called an 'exclusion zone'within which the radiation is known to be unsafe. The plan for this 5G 20m mast on BroomhillRoad does not declare the area to which this exclusion zone extends. There is also no evidencethat the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines havetaken into account the cumulative impact of all operators equipment located in the area. Exclusionzones are much wider for 5G than 4G, as highlighted here:

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/business-management/health-and-safety/how-to-manage-radiation-exclusion-zones-for-phone-masts

Importantly there are issues of pollution and risks to the public and wildlife. Government, Councilsand Planners are following ICNIRP guidelines for safety. This must be challenged as ICNIRPlevels are too high and are protective of industry rather than the public. Legally, planners need totake this into account and realise that ICNIRP guidelines are not law; emissions from masts arepolluting and need investigating under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the PollutionControl Act 1990. Furthermore, recent evidence shows that 5G will increase, not decrease, carbonemissions:https://docs.google.com/document/d/18UYNRpoRUHQj_yPGBEbXO2l8aE4-QXMR87cIQUtM3LM/edit?usp=sharing

Please note further that public health is a material planning consideration and all evidence must beconsidered. As harm below ICNIRP safety levels is proven, ICNIRP guidelines are not safe andare not law (ehtrust.org). For instance, ICNIRP is based on heating effects over 6-30 mins foradults; the proposed 5G mast would emit radiation constantly. The effect would be worse forchildren as they absorb more radiation, and their developing nervous systems are vulnerable.

With regards to open, green spaces ICNIRP guidelines do not set safety levels for wildlife; beesand birds are especially vulnerable. Bristol City Council has a duty to protect its open spaces and5G is not sustainable; in fact, it is a pollutant. Studies show that the ecosystem is at risk - birds,bees, other insects, trees are affected - see https://rfinfo.co.uk/masts/ for more information. Theproposed mast would be 133m from open green space to the east, 220m from woodland to theeast and 342m from the River Avon. Additionally, the site would fall within the Avon Wood

Conservation and Bristol & Bath Green Belt. These are all significant places that provide muchneeded safe environments for fauna and flora, and for people. Planning officers have a duty tomake the environment safe and to support the community's health (NPPF 2019:8b). 5G does notsupport the health of its community. Exclusion zones must be declared.

It is pertinent to note the Danish Legal opinion on the 5G roll out in the work of Jensen, F.C.(2019). 'LEGAL OPINION on whether it would be in contravention of human rights andenvironmental law to establish the 5G-system in Denmark'. Jenson stated that 'It is the conclusionof this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described,would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, andthe Bern- and Bonn-conventions.'

https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/5g-danish-legal-opinion-jensen-2019.pdf

See also this article by Churchill, K. (2021). On December 20th 2020 a Dutch Court ruled that anincrease in health risks cannot be ruled out at even exposures of 1 V/m, which is well below thegovernment's "safety" ICNIRP guidelines.https://stop5ginternational.org/censorship-online-political-forum-in-uk-blocks-news-of-5g-dutch-court-ruling/

Interestingly we heard recently that America is also questioning the safety of 5G with somesuccess: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-wins-case-fcc-safety-guidelines-5g-wireless

It is also worth noting that The Environmental Health Trust has recently, in August 2021, won anhistoric court case against the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) for ignoring scientificevidence showing harm from wireless radiation. The court ruled that the FCC failed to addressimpacts of long term wireless exposure, failed to address impacts to children, failed to address thetestimony of people injured by wireless radiation, failed to address impacts to wildlife and theenvironment and failed to address impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.https://ehtrust.org/eht-takes-the-fcc-to-court/

With regards to appearance, installing this 20m (66ft) mast in a residential area would create anunpleasant eyesore for residents living on or near to Broomhill Road. It would certainly dominatethe view around this residential area. I therefore ask the planning department to serve the peopleof Brislington by refusing planning permission for the newly proposed 5G mast installation.

NB: the BBC narrative on RFR safety promoted by David Grimes is false. David Grimes, who isoften quoted by the BBC, has lied about his qualifications and his affiliations with Oxford and hasmade serious mistakes and omissions in his paper published in Dec 2021. The controversy aboutDavid Grimes' Dec 21 review in the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)

demonstrates that lies and corruption are in play serving to obscure science and evidence of harmfrom RFR. Now the scientists have fought back asking JAMA to retract it.https://microwavenews.com/news-center/open-letter-jama-network-retract-grimes-rf-cancer-review

Health concerns

Health concern and no notice given

Health concerns. Lots of elderly residents and children in local vicinity

Health concerns. I have a pacemaker and other health concerns that may be affected

Commenter Type: Neighbour

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comment Reasons:

Comment:Public health is a material planning consideration and ALL the evidence must be

considered. Harm below ICNIRP safety levels is proven. ICNIRP guidelines are not safe and are

not law (ehtrust.org).

Polluting effects of the radiation emitted from this mast falls within the Council's responsibility

under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999

(EPA 1990, PPC 1999).

Please be reasonable and move this Mast on Dixon Road, I work in Dixon Business Centre and

there is plenty of space on Dixon Road for a Telecomunication mast and people won't be

subjected to 24/7 high levels of radiation.

But this is too close to our homes.

I understand that the levels are "safe" under some regulations, but definitely not for 24/7 exposure

in such a proximity.

Also please let's use some common sense and please do not subject us to look at this monstrosity

everytime we walk out in the back yard or look out the window, let's be sensible about this.

Again, there is enough space in the adjacent Industrial areas, also there is a massive farm with

empty fields nearby!

I am 100% sure this thing doesn't have to be build close to our homes.

I have not received any notification for this from the Council, which is worrying, I have not objected

to those new Units being build because we need businesses and jobs, but this is something that

might affect our health and the Council didn't notify us, this is not good.

Thank you for giving me the chance to have my say in this!

We have already rejected one of these masts that was due to be built at the back of ourproperty. We already have several electrical pylons around us.we are still unaware of the dangersof theses masts to our health. Once again locals have not been notified of this and I was onlyaware seeing the small notice on a lamppost. I am dead against it and will make all neighboursaware of it .

I object to this Mast. We already live surrounded by pylons, so do not want this mastplaced near to residential homes, due to health risks. It is very interesting that we haven't beeninformed of the application and only made aware of this through the local Next Door Group