Ten years of over usage of mobile phones have left me feeling dizzy and a warm head after ten minutes or so of usage now. I feel I can feel the adverse effects as soon as I put the phone to my ear. It is very worrying that there is now a device which can be built into mobiles to reduces emissions yet it is deemed an unnecessary additional cost to the mobile. I for one would rather pay an extra 10 or so pounds if I thought it would reduce emmisions. Especially where children are concerned. If this device can be built into phones then the technology is there to reduce emmissions from the masts surely. Why does this government need masses to be ill before they act on anything?

Michelle, Manchester,

In two weeks my life has turned upside down, I've recently started having all the main symptoms of Electro Hypersensitivity and believe my immune system has stopped defending me against a mobile phone mast 150m from my workspace (a metal framed converted attic) at a similar height. I've been working in this environment for 7 years and now I find it almost impossible to feel normal! I'm no hyperchondriac, not had a day off sick all year and two weeks ago would have called anyone nuts who suggested the government would allow the siting of harmful radiation generators near the populace but the government don't acknowledge the problem exists. In 20 years time I'm sure all the safety precautions will be taken but I'll probably be dead by then.

Andrew Washington, MAIDSTONE, Kent

As a state worker for the state of Calif. U.S.A. , I have been diagnosed with RF exposure after visiting my wife at a fire lookout( for the state of Calif.), we both have been diagnosed as well as around 20 other people who lived or worked at the same location. Damage to the cerebral area diagnosed by a liscensed doctor. The only common factor for some of us was the tower area. I came down with cancer. The state denies we are sick.

Ben Garcia, Bieber, U.S.A. California

Camden Council allows mobile phone transmission aerials to be sited only yards away from their flats without requiring any check to be made of the field strength produced within them.

Bob Woolvie, London, England

It's possible that at least some of the cancer clusters were caused by chemicals from closed (dumps) landfills. Many schools and housing developments have been built on top of or adjacent to dumps that contain cancer-causing chemicals. Before assuming that the cancers are being caused by EMF it would be wise to look beneath the soil. Historical research of the cancer cluster area would uncover the previous land-use.

Janice, Boonville, United States/California

10 out of 40 houses in my road have had people with cancer,we live very near to a large amount of phone masts which have not needed planning permission as they have been put on top of council owned highrise flats.These flats are for elderly people who would not raise suspition when cancer occurs.The people in the houses with cancer ,some of whom died young are more noticeable,my own daughter had Hodgkins Lynphoma when she was 19,at the same time a friend who lived next door but one died aged 48 of the same cancer ,could anyone tell me what the odds of this happening would be?

Sue Mathie, wirral, mersyside england

I'm concerned because they're planning to put a mast near my street. Could the waves still afect me a couple of streets down?

AG, Stevenage,

i am abit concerned as my school has a mobile phone mast on it and i am left wondering what health issues it might cause

cayleigh dawson, durham, united kingdom

These people do really give cause for concern. It is pretty easy to understand that mobile phones are infinitly more angerous than phone masts. The incident power relies on a thing called an inverse square law. Basically a signal at 100metres is 1/10,000th of what it would be at one metre. and 1/10,000,000th of what it would be at one centimeter. (ie the distance from your head).

So basically all these stupid middle class parents who give their kids mobile phones are in relative terms guily of frying their brains. In fact it is probably safer to be near a mast than far from one, as the power from the phone drops if the signal from the mast is good.

Claire R, Guildford, Surrey

I am concerned about the possibility of GATSO speed cameras emitting large quantities of microwaves. I have seen the size of the generator sets used to power these devices at the side of the motorway - they are huge - and this power surely can't be needed for the camera and flash, therefore it must be to power the radar element which obviously must be powerful enough to create a refelection that can be received. These things are sites to beam downwards with a wide beam which must encompass the footpath/houses/schools/bus stops etc near where these things are sited. Is this not another source of constant microwave radiation hazard?

simon maasz, chorley, UK

Mike Bell, Oxfordshire, Yes, in my opinion you should worry! I'm afraid we cannot live without the technology anymore but it is harming us....Did you see Panorama's report on Wifi if not please watch it online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm
Here's another report that is interesting "Health fear over new airport scanners" / 22.05.07
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397526-details/Health%2Bfear%2Bover%2Bnew%2Bairport%2Bscanners/article.do
As you know electromagnetic radiation is everywhere and we can only try to protect ourselves by using products to harmonize this radiation so all living organisms aren't harmed ( humans, animals and plants). Please feel free to contact me on bindi4@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Bindi , Leicester, UK

Can anyone tell me if living in a building (flats) with a mast on top of it could be dangerous. I have seen comments that it is the angle of the transmission which can be dangerous - we are underneath - is this less risky?

Nicky, Madrid

Nicky, Madrid, Spain

We have a Poice Radio mast 350 yards from our house and because we are on the top of a hill, the signal will have to be beamed right at and over/through our house to reach the countryside beyond.

Because we have a 50 mile view from our house, I would say that it is only reasonable that the power will be pretty ferocious. Should I and my family (including two children) under 10 worry? Also we receive our broadband via wi-fi from 5 miles away, such is our remote location.

Mike Bell, Oxfordshire

Mike Bell, Watlington, Oxon

Jons, Gothenburg, Sweden, you're absolutely correct by getting the Union and the Health Care People involved. I think we need to start looking at how we can solve this problem. We help people with electro pollution sensitivities and are currently looking for a couple of Companies who may be willing to have their workforce tested after spending the whole day on computers and a month after installing plates which provide a broad protective zone. I started looking into this area because I am especially passionate about Cancer Prevention in Children and don't like the masts on top of schools and in the school grounds. Like Jons, I started looking at ways of protecting my sons and my family.

Bindi, Leicester, UK

This is just like tobacco and the tobacco industry.
The industry denies everything although they know how bad it is. Just look at the Cell Phone War movie.
Those smoking a lot or using the cell phone a lot dies too early, at an average, that is already proven.
Passive smoking is now being banned more and more all over the world. In 20 years passive microwaving will most likely be a lot more regulated. Holding a cell phone to your head will look stupid, not cool.
Using the very sensible standard SBM 2003 shows that there are many areas today that can be classified as extreme anomalies. I make sure I don't live in one.
At work I've involved Union and health care people and we are now discussing what to do and not to do in the wireless age.

Jons, Gothenburg, Sweden

I spent 30 years working for BBC Transmission and much of my work was at or near high power transmitters.

It is not surprising that most of the people complaining above are women who clearly have no understanding of the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. They probably spend hours a day on their mobile phones complaining about masts near their homes.

That time would be better spent learning how to calculate the field strength from the distance and effective radiated power of the transmitter.

Tony Glazier

Tony Glazier, London, UK

During the Cold War the RAF had 4 radar stations down the east coast of England & Scotland. Each station sometimes outputted 60Megawatts of RF. Pulsed. Therefore, a study would be worthwhile around the area of these stations as they were operational for the best part of 40yrs-RAF Buchan,RAF Boulmer,RAF Staxton Wold & RAF Neatishead

Anon, Anon, Anon

Cancer induced by microwaves: A recent swiss study (The Schwarzenburg Shut-down Study) has shown that people exposed to microwaves with values from O,2 V/m to 4V/m have an average of a 80% loss of melatonin, an hormone believed to regulate cancer risks. Swiss & European limits are 50 to 60 V/m outdoor!

D. Ficher, Bern, Switzerland

I think this is a scare over nothing. Mobile phone transmitters radiate a fraction of the power of TV transmitters. If there is any truth in this then there should be a lot of cancer cases in Crystal Palace, South London, where there has been a large high powered transmitter in the middle of a built up area for decades.

Julian Moss, Cockermouth, UK

Fundamental scientific errors have been made over the past half-century in establishing co-called "safe limits" of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These errors have only recently begun to be recognized and addressed. A brief discussion (very condensed) can be found in the following two published abstracts:

Bulletin of the American Physical Society, vol. 50, no. 1, page 1178 (March, 2005)
M. Lundquist
Today's "safe" radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits DON'T protect human health near transmitters!

Bulletin of the American Physical Society, vol. 51, no. 1, page 518 (March, 2006)
M. Lundquist
A surprising answer in hte search for a comprehensive health protection exposure metric for radiofrequency (RF) fields

This periodical is also available on the Internet (Web); click on "Preview Abstract" to read what appeared in print:

<http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2005.MAR.U21.15>

<http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2006.MAR.H29.8>

Good science yields understanding!

Marjorie Lundquist, Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA

Andrew Ingle states:-

"In addition the received RF energy is further reduced by a principle known as the inverse square law. In other words if you double the distance from the antenna you receive ¼ of the power."

And the sharp intensity fall-off of inverse square means that if e.g. the mast operates at sufficient strength to cover a radius of 1 kilometre, then those living within 100 metres of the mast are receiving radiation at a level at least 100 times more than is needed to ensure a clear signal on a mobile phone.

and

"Finally the RF energy you receive from your mobile phone, when it is in call, is many times higher than that received from the mast antennas! The power that the mobile phones transmit is controlled by the network and is reduced the closer you are to a mast. If you are concerned by your level of exposure it better to have MORE masts!"

Not so. If there are known dangers then it should be those who use the technology who take the risk, not everybody.

Norman Dryden, Edinburgh,

The government must act urgently to adopt the precautionary approach to masts as recommended by the UK’s Health Protection agency. Significant uncertainty remains among leading scientists and medical experts concerning the long-term safety of exposure to RF radiation. Until evidence for safe levels are established, there must be an immediate moratorium on the siting of all mobile phone base stations within 500 metres of schools and homes. Planning laws must be changed. The government places a higher priority on the £billions received from phone compaines than on public health. The phone companies put commercial interests first. Look at what happened with BSE and asbestos when the warnings were ignored. The critical difference with phone masts is that they are imposed – individuals have no say or choice if one is installed next to their home. Their human rights are violated. With most other risks the individual decides e.g. smoking, using a mobile phone.

Stephanie, Royston,

Mike from Manchester - I would like to know where you read your information on the ICNIRP levels. All information I have read, specifically the facts in the Hyland Report, state quite clearly that the levels of radiation deemed as safe in this country are vastly higher than the levels allowed in other European and non-European countires, . Also, the ICNIRP guidelines only refer to thermal radiation and it is the non-thermal radiation that is the main issue with these masts. To make a throwaway comment saying that masts should be put up all around the place is absurd and incredibly harmful. I have a frequency monitor in my house, which transforms these 'invisible' frequencies into sound and it is quite clear to hear that they constantly pulse - and depending on the strength of them it can sound quite alarming. Anyone with children should be very concerned about the level of frequencies they are exposed to. They primarily include: Mobiles, Masts, WiFi, DECT phones and baby monitor

Tanya Luckett, Shalford, Surrey

So folks - there's a HUGE glaring error in this sudden "cell phone sickness" hysteria....and you've experienced it 24/7 everyday of your life if you were born after 1950 - it's called TELEVISION. Yes, there has been EXTENSIVE AND PROLONGED study of MUCH higher power transmisson in the same frequency range as cell phones - only 3 million times stronger. Right there in your own backyard is the 1 million watt Sutton Coldfield transmitter site - and despite over thirty years of intensive study - no compelling evidence linking RF with increased levels of cancer. In fact in some studies there were actually FEWER cancers reported the nearer to the site you lived! (NO, RF doesn't cure cancer either - but it does indicate normal statistical variations expected when there is no causality prresent.)

Mike Hansen, Lakewood, Illinois, United States of America

I bought my house in good faith - within 2 years 3 masts have been put up within 400 meters and another is planned. We live on the edge of Plymouth within a largely built up area and close to 2 junior schools. Now, meladromatic as it may seem I live with the worry that my family's health is at risk and fear for my young daughters. Surely the time has come for the telecomms industry and the Government to conduct real research into the safety of these masts.

Sharon Trevarthen, Plymouth,

Mike. The statistic you quote is actually "One in three people will develop cancer WITHIN THEIR LIFETIME" and not within a seven year period. A quarter of the staff developing tumours at one school within seven years (and a further quarter becoming 'significantly ill') is a frighteningly high incidence of illness, regardless of what you believe about mobile phone masts.

David, Lancaster, Lancashire

I am Electrosensitive, at present I have no rights of protection from the elctrosmog, in fact legislation is in place which protects machines from interfering with each other, not against the human. So while my neighbour fills his home with dect phones wifi, makes mobile calls day/night I have to look to paying out hundreds of pounds to sheild my house (for my familys sake not just mine) against his encroaching nuisance radiation ! My future is sealed it seems, I have been slapped down by this phenomenon - Electrosmog.

PS What phone company does Mike of Manchester work for, or is it plain denial/fear speaking the opposite truth !

Paul, guildford,

Thank you Dr Walker for doing the research.

The high ICNIRP recommended limits ignore non-thermal effects that were clearly demonstrated decades ago by Russian medical doctors.

I note with interest that Dr Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam [physician], Dr Christine Aschermann [psychiatrist] and many other medical doctors in Germany/Austria have associated patient ill-health with the radiation levels from mobile phone masts/DECT phonesand WiFi. German doctors demanded that the Wimax auction be stopped because of ill-health that radiation is causing in their patients. UK GPs - Take note!

The HF-EMR level in my bedroom before shielding was 1.3 Volts per metre from a mobile phone base station [3 operators sharing]. This radiation level caused me constant headaches and sleeping problems until i shielded my home.

I am now electrosensitive because of previous exposures 24/7. The most concerning effect is the breast pain that I experience if I stay near WiFi/ mobile phones too long.

Margaret (Psychologist), Lancashire,

What sort of World do we live in?

>One in which nothing is as it seems...

rodin, Rugby,

I agree with you Andy B from London.
Here in Spain it is happening the same.

Patricia-Montserrat Ferrer Fernández, Mataró, Spain

To clear up a point made by Iam Kemmish, Dr Walker is wholly concerned about public health. In our neighbourhood, close to 2 residential schools, O2 are half way through erecting a 100 ft mast. We are doing whatever we can to stop this tower/mast going up and he has been involved - with so many of these masts going up all over the country, he is no doubt unindated with requests for help. He has a wealth of information and results from research on this matter.
For those of you who would like to believe that this technology is not harmful, and would rather have the capability of sending pretty pictures from your phone than believing the results of the research carried out on non-thermal radiation....go and buy a house within 300 metres of a mast and tell us how you feel in about 5 years time.
The mobile phone industry is all about money and quite frankly it is the Government's fault that it has got so ridiculously out of hand.

Tanya Luckett, Shalford, Surrey

"According to many websites, UK (NRP/ICNIRP) maximum levels are "ridiculouly high" (up to 10,000 times levels of other countries)"
ICNIRP ( International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is, as the name suggests, an International standard, and the stanrd across the world. To say that UK ICNIPR levels are higher is completely false as they are all the one and the same. One other writer below states that masts cause hysteria and nervousness. This is after he has stated that the transmissions are repeater raysfiring like machine guns. People who make completely biased and unfounded statemens such as these are those who cause more nervousness and hysteria.
Also, if 25% of people in that special school are affected by cancer then that's lower than the 1 in 3 national average. Perhaps more masts should be put up all around the place.

Mike, Manchester,

Back in February I sat in an audience off 200 or so people in the Atlee room in Westminster to heard Dr George Carlo explain the scientific mechanisms by which mobile phone and Wi-Fi radiation causes cell damage which leads to cancer. The event was originally organised for MPs to get to grips with the science from the man who led the US cell phones companies’ own health research program in the 1990s. But overwhelming popularity caused it to be moved from a smaller venue to the Attlee room to accommodate the extra demand. However there was only one MP in the audience. It is not only the mobile phone companies that are at fault for pushing unsafe technology. It is also our elected representatives who have systematically failed to in their duty to protect us from such Machiavellian practices.

Simon Densley, London,

Similar studies have been reported in Austria, by Dr Gerd Oberfeld, showing a three-fold increase in cancer of those residents within a 400 metre radius of base stations compared with those outside this boundary. Locally, we have had 2 cancer deaths occurring in very close proximity to a base station (incidentally, adjacent to both an electricity substation and overhead powerlines - both suggested to be linked with 'electrical hypersensitivity'). To 'reassure' residents, monitoring was carried out and a report provided stating emissions to be 1.4% ICNIRP maximum levels and therefore 1/70th of the maximum accepted 'safe level'.
According to many websites, UK (NRP/ICNIRP) maximum levels are "ridiculouly high" (up to 10,000 times levels of other countries). See www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower for recommended guiedlines. Dr Oberfeld advises us via e-mail of the need for more precise measurement. A response re: this suggestion from the mast owners is eagerly awaited.

Michael Dashwood, Watford, Herts

James Hamilton - Your insistance on pressing the point that these are "towers" and not masts reduces the credibility of your "knowledgable" statements as you are wrong. Even the phone companies do not agree with your terminology as we can see from the title of the relevant application in my area:
"TL/2007/0521 - Telecoms application for 12.5m mast Incorp antennas and ground base eqp. cabinet"
Notice no mention of "towers" or "base stations" and the accompanying diagrams show no guys - just a pole with transmitters on the top. I wish that it did - it would give us additional grounds to object to it on the grounds of its destruction of the visual amenity of the area - the only grounds we can use for valid objections, since government guidelines mean the Local Planning Authority cannot heed objections on the grounds of health risks.

Catherine R, Reading, Berks

So, the Coalition Against Progress strike again. The reason for the ire against mobile phones is obvious- they're useful, they're fun, and they are high technology in the service of the people, thus making them prime candidates for vilification in the confused minds of the Activism Industry. As the comments section here shows, most people have no understanding of statistical variation and clustering- the truth is that similar clusters could be found around anything especially if the statistics are cherry-picked, as in this example wherein Walker has compiled his "study" using data supplied by highly politically motivated activist groups. This scaremongering is surely entirely bogus, but the activists know that they will be largely unchallenged since nobody can prove the negative "X is entirely harmless". They know they don't need to win any debate anyway- the purpose isn't science, it's scaremongering. And as we see, they're enormously successful at that.

Ian Bland, Northampton, England

I am interested to note that high blood pressure is included in the list of illnesses. Having taken to using Broadband via Wi-Fi some six months ago with the Hub sitting about five feet away from me, I find now that I too have slightly high blood pressure for the first time in my life. There is probably a false correlation between these two circumstances, but one does wonder if any studies, such as those mentioned in this article, have been carried out on the effects on health of wireless transmission in the home.

Michael Laughton, London,

Mobile phone companies try to provide the best signal to populated areas. So this study shows that some illness clusters match with that footprint in some areas. Could it be that the clusters can be detected simply because of the geographical destribution of population? Could it be other local factors (e.g. chemical pollution)? This is just alarmism.

One can find an example that suits one's point of view anytime, given enought samples. I have an example that proves my point and you have one that proves yours, all that is proven is that you prove anything with anecdote and a few examples. I don't believe this until this is more generally proving.

Look at some other high density arease of population (working or living) that have "good coverage" and prove this point. Lets assume the study was acurate, then there should be a massive "mega-cluster" all over central London. But there isn't, is there?

Alberto, Reading,

Sorry, what “digital TV and radio” operates at microwave frequencies? So what exactly are you on about with “pulsed microwave radiation”?
Can I say also that most of them ARE NOT MASTS! They’re base stations and TOWERS……. towers don’t have guys, masts do. Get it right!

James Hamilton, Greenwich, UK


To explain for your benefit, digital TV/radio uses pulsed microwave radiation as does all this other new technology.

Those of us who have been “sensitised” by this technology (and it can be just one or more than one of them) become more sensitive if we are subjected to it. Many of us have protection in place but as more is added it gets more difficult to protect ourselves.

For example: I realised in 2004 after being in pain, having sleepless nights, nose bleeds and other symptoms, that I was sensitive to TETRA. It took me 15 months to find the cause after exploring other avenues.
I did not know there was a form of protection until March 05 so I was further exposed even though I avoided all TETRA masts and TETRA lines of emission, which cross through buildings to join up with other TETRA masts. How do I know? I could “feel” TETRA most strongly when I became very sensitive and knew exactly where the lines ran even if it was miles from a TETRA mast. I have had this verified in a former home as it was tested in two different ways by two different people.

Over time I have become sensitive to 3G, WiFi and other things. I can no longer have digital TV and only have digital radio on for 20 minutes max at a time. Why? Because it causes discomfort and pain!

I have moved three times since September 03 because I could not live in some places
due mainly to the effect that TETRA had on me, which was worsened by the addition of 3G and then WiFi in the area.

Since we who are sensitive can feel pain or become unwell from different technologies it does not matter to us if towers have guys or not! A microwave oven does not have a guy either, yet one man I know was damaged by a faulty one and is now sensitive to ELECTRICITY!

You are obviously not electromagnetically sensitive, Mr Hamilton, and I hope for your sake that you never become so. Please spare a thought for the many of us who are.

Sandi L, Chichester, England UK

Last week’s Sunday Times (15 April) reported how T-Mobile covered up a report on research they funded which proved the ill/health, cancer link. The Ecolog study, drawn up in 2000 and updated three years later stated:

“Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer. This is particularly notable for tumours of the central nervous system.”

T-Mobile’s controversial cover up has been blasted by activists and MPs.

Now there are over 1000 independant studies proving the ill health link but the phone operators have simply dismissed their findings. So how on earth can these phone masts still be sited next to schools and housing now that even the phone operators own research proves that phone masts are lethal. Why isn't this government protecting us and at the very least, called for a moratorium on phone mast installations.

J Elliott, Bristol, UK

There is already masses of evidence already gathered that shows sound biological and physiological reasons why the radiowaves in the range used for mobile and wi-fi technology will have an impact on the body, and now a few studies that show clusters around masts. For those who think studies have been carried out around all the other 47,000 masts and no clusters have been found let me inform you that this is not the case. These 7 studies have been laboriously carried out by people who care and who want to stop further harm to people. The other 47,993 have yet to be undertaken. Any volunteers to carry out the masses of work involved??? Maybe the government would like to help. Isnt this situtation the kind that all this expensive computerisation in public services , NHS etc is for ??? Epidemiology. What is most alarming to those who already suffer chronic health problems is that there is already nowhere to go. And Wi-fi is now being rolled out across whole cities. It is time say STOP.

marion wallis, Bromley, UK

I'm appalled at all the comments stating that there is inadequate proof of Mobile phone masts being the cause of health problems and even that they should be left in place so we can really find out whether they are the cause or not! Do you realise you are suggesting that we wait and see how many other families will lose people they care about to illnesses that these masts may possibly be responsible for causing? This is asking anyone who lives near one of these masts to accept that they are being used as experimental animals - without any offer of compensation for the risks, or any possibility of moving away, as the presence of a mast within sight of a home renders it unsaleable. (And they ARE referred to as "MASTS" in planning applications!)
O2 have plans to put a mast within 30 metres of my house, and I do not want my children to end up like the haemophiliac patients of the '80s - unwitting participants in someone else's scientific investigation.

Catherine R, Reading, Berks

Its good that this is finally coming out.
There has never been a survey around a phone mast that has been in place for more than 8 years, that has not found a cancer cluster in the radius of the beam.
Thus the government is reluctant to do them so it leaves it to individuals
This pattern is repeated all over the world.
There have been 2 properly conducted surveys by doctors in Germany and Israel which found a tripling of cancers for those living within 400m of the masts compared with those that live outside that radius where they found the cancer rates were normal for the general population. There have been 8 other studies on humans living in the beam around phone masts, all of these show significant adverse effects on health.
There are many scientific research papers indicating the mechanisms for damage from the pulsed microwave radiation.
If anyone is interested they can see them on:
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php
www.mastsanity.org

Sue, london,

A council blunder has meant a mast being built on a football ground where kids play just 50 metres away from a residential area where I live with my husband and child, a special school and an old People's Home. We have formed a group named NO MAST HERE to try our very best to get the decision overturned. To read this headline about 'cancer clusters' just makes me feel sick. I think the studies are alarming and I think it is now time for the higher powers to listen and take note. Why do these masts need to be built so close to residential areas???

Maxine Bigford, Wolverhampton, UK

My husband is one of the increasing number of people who have become over-sensitised to mobile phones and anything that uses wifi. Within about 10 minutes of being in a room containing this form of radiation, he starts reacting by getting a headache which gets increasingly worse and starts feeeling dizzy and faint. He has found that going outside to get fresh air improves his reaction. He is so sensitised that he can tell if someone has a mobile phone on in his vicinity.
Unfortunately, this problem, although on the increase, has not been generally recognised and produces a mixture of disbelief and amusement when he explains his problem. He holds a top managerial position and attends many meetings where several people at a time will have a mobile phone switched on. When he asks people to turn them off, they often put them on vibrate which doesn't help. The situation for him has become intolerable now and he has handed in his notice at work because he can not continue in this work envt

anne, bath, uk

From the amount of serious comments here, and the obvious knowledge that some possess about this situation I have to agree with the few that insist that there should be a major investigation into cell phone masts and emissions from wireless computer equipment . It should be totally impartial and with no connection whatsoever to the companies involved. One must take it seriously, it is similar to sticking your head into a microwave. There are serious investigations going on here is Holland into this and other phenomena involving radio waves and electrical impulses from all sorts of sources. see: http://www.electroallergie.org/ Remember, the companies behind this are making millions of pounds and where there's that sort of money, things can get cloudy. It is so easy to say that it is harmless. Not so easy to cure the results.

Dave, Groningen, NL

RF that is above naturally occuring levels of ambient RF has been known to impact on health as far back as 1932. The Soviets further demonstrated this fact with the Moscow Signal in the 1950's.
Dr Walkers findings therefore are not surprising but to be expected.
The onus is on the industry to come up with alternative technolgies that will supercede the wireless form of communications.

panayis zambellis, luton,

"What about those people who have become sensitive to pulsed microwave radiation in the form of TETRA, mobilemasts, mobile phones, WiFi, cordless phones, other wireless products and even digital TV and radio?"

Sorry, what "digital TV and radio" operates at microwave frequencies? As far as I'm aware, just satellite television and radio services.

Digital Terrestrial TV is in Band IV and V (around 650 to 850MHz) and DAB digital radio is in Band III (in the UK, 200 - 220MHz).

So what exactly are you on about with "pulsed microwave radiation"?

Can I also say that most of them ARE NOT MASTS! They're base stations and TOWERS... towers don't have guys, masts do. Get it right!

James Hamilton, Greenwich, UK

It’s quite simple? The companies themselves warn on excessive usage of mobile phones to their customers. So logically, how much damage is radioactive mast doing? If there is the slightest risk of any harm being caused by these masts, then there can only be one decision - they will have to be moved! Perhaps it would be a good idea in the future for mobile phone companies to include warning labels on the conductors (Masts) as well as their products.

Layton Bevan, Neath, Wales

One compromising solution is to reduce EMF output from the masts. While this might logically neccessitate raising power output from mobile handsets - greater and more uniform proliferation of lower power masts would both eliminate the need for higher handset power output AND illness resultant from impaired calcium gate function from the 'diode effect' induced into cellular membranes by the pulsating EMFs.
(http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/10/3608)

'Radar speed guns' used by police have long been known to induce illness in constables - due to prolonged exposure, at close quarters, to power levels much higher than found in mobiles. Microwave penetration of flesh, and occurance of illness, is directly proportional to power and proximity.
Ergo, reducing power while increasing coverage (via more masts) will reduce occurance of illness.

Larry, Middletown, USA/NY

Wireless Networks should be a serious concern. They are becoming increasingly more powerful, and are totally unregulated. A transmitter owned by your next door neighbour with a range of over half a mile can be purchased for next to nothing...Be warned this will have a bigger long term effect than smoking.

Michael, Sussex, UK

Seven out of the 47,000 mast sites have "cancer clusters". So doing the maths this equals roughly a one in 7000 chance of a cancer cluster near a mobile phone mast. Is this evidence of a link? I think not.

Jon, Cambridge, UK

Quackwatch is indirectly sponsored by the companies who stand to lose CASH through real independent science. Look at the 2006 article in Lancet on the coverup by the Tobacco Industry of the effects of benzopyrene on human DNA. All breakthroughs in science were once considered impossible by the illiterate. Checkout the research on the effect of tuned frequencies on human cells, it's there if you look! Also checkout the new US military device used to control crowds using millimetric radar.

Chris, Letchworth,

Dr Beckers book 'Electromedicine' explained it all in the 1980's. Welcome to the world of Corporate Greed, manipulated science and bought politicians! The phone companies know radiation is harmful and cover it up!
The individual can and always makes a difference. Protest, write letters, send emails!

Chris, Letchworth,

Mobile Brain Tumour Revolution

It has already started, but these high speed repeater rays are like machine guns firing night and day---and go through whole bodies.

We already see small birds and bees lying in piles in the ray paths, but the Carbon Cloud is now highly charged with over a billion mobile phones on the planet, let alone the commercial and military rays.The result will be violent electrical storms like you haven't seen.

These penetrating rays cause all sorts of problems as they unbalance the bioelectric energy of the body; from nervousness, hysteria, depression, heart attack and various cancers.

Allan Mansfield, Glasgow,

Nick M - the 25% of staff at the special school with tumours is a clear and alarming statistic. Your comment "It is quite easy to show cancer clusters around almost anything" is fatuous. This issue should be very seriously and a full and extensive study funded. This could be the next BSE scandal.

Greg E, Swindon, UK

There has been quite some publicity on Masts in the past with regard to them having an effect on the amount of mercury stripped out of fillings which are 50pc mercury.

Research on mercury shows that this can have a mutagenic effect. In extreme cases, but relevent, divers welding with electricity have been known to have all their fillings stripped. It would appear that this could be a lesser form of that. It is the culmalative effect that we need to worry about.

Articles on mercurypoisoned.com

Ralph, Washington,

Nick is right to be concerned about the 'unequivocal evidence'. I would expect that a vastly greater number of masts show no clusters, and a similar study based on post boxes would also show 'clustering'. What is needed is unequivocal evidence of cause and effect.

Neil, Reading, UK

Regardless of the lack of evidence, I am sure the question you are all asking yourself is 'Do I live near one?' Here's the link to the Ofcom mast finder.

http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/

Ben, Primrose Valley, GB

Is this the "new asbestos"?

Congratulations to Dr. Walker and his fellow researches.
We now know the dangers from asbestos. But it took years to discover and unfortunately for those that have serious health problems as a result of contact with it, it was too late.
I cannot believe that we (the community) and local authorities allow masts to be deployed with such ease and without little objection.
Two were erected near to where my family and I used to live in Limehouse London, there were objections but the owners of the buildings and local authority permitted them, no doubt suitably recompensed.
More of these kind of studies are needed. We cannot afford to expose our children to such dangers. Whilst the government etc deny a link with cancer, more people will be expose and contract the disease. The phone companies deploying must be more committed to health & safety issues and not rely on flawed information.

Susan Prior, Rabat, Morocco

All random events show clustering - just look at the distribution of rain drops on a pavement or thow a handful or rice on the floor. Cancer affects 1 in 3 people, so clusters can be found anywhere - near a phone mast or near a library or a chip shop.

Bill Taylor, Edinburgh,

Like Nick M. says there's no real evidence which correlates masts to the cause of cancer. someone will have to take 20-30 sets of twins and have half live in a street witha mast nearby and the other living in a street without masts and then 10 years later we can have evidence of any correlation. We all like pointing the finger but scientifically the tie between cancer and masts is very loose. There need to be more studies and a very thorough analysis of the findings to make sure this is not a witch hunt. Saying that, precautions can always be taken and maybe there should be tighter regulations of where the masts go and what safety precautions should been taken.
By the way all you "beast" haters, don't you use mobile phones? Won't you whinge if the signal is weak? All big companies do is trying to make a bigger profit and that is by making sure the customers get good service. So accept your responsibility as consumers, whether of mobile phones, cars or sweatshop produced garments.

Alex, Manchester, UK

A special needs school in Islington (on Hungerford Rd) is completely surrounded by masts on neighbouring buildings. No chance for those kids to escape the beams! But the cell phone companies, the council and the educational authorities will do nothing - it's the mad cow story all over again.

Columbus, London,

Your article is alarmist and makes no mention of any statistics or scientific fact. Anyone who knows anything about research will be be familiar with the terms 'cause and effect relationship' and 'bystander relationship'. As one of the other comments in this 'have your say' thread states, it is possible to show clusters of cancer around all sorts of unlikely sites, for example a library or a bottle bank or a bus stop. Should these also be 'pulled down'...no. What is needed is for the media to inform the public of scientific fact not science fiction. The latter is best left to Dr. Who!!!

John Dixon, London, UK

The scientist who 'discovered' these clusters on behalf of the mast campaigners states that masts should operate at a lower power and away from where people live. Is he not aware that this will result in handsets having to operate at a much higher power in order to communicate with the base station while being held against the side of the user's head?

Chris L, Stockport, Cheshire

There are deeper issues here:

What about the increasing numbers of people who can't sleep at night or have headaches in certain places?

What about those people who have become sensitive to pulsed microwave radiation in the form of TETRA, mobilemasts, mobile phones, WiFi, cordless phones, other wireless products and even digital TV and radio?
Those who live near TV masts in scotland say it is terrible.

What about the disappearing bees and birds, the whales
etc that beach themselves?

These are warning signs that authorities choose to ignore
for want of the science - yet it is all out there but ignored!

Sandi L, Chichester, England UK

The proliferation of masts and the ubiquitous nature of mobile telephony is a huge concern. The commercial ramifications of stricter controls are unpalatable for big business generally and the views of well-informed individuals are being smothered because of this.

Tom, Lichfield,

Dismantling the masts in question removes all possibility of establishing whether it was these seven masts which were the cause of the clusters, or seven other things which just happened to be in close proximity to the masts. Whichever answer is correct, it is important to know, and now there's no possibility of knowing.

And if it was the masts, there is now no possibility of knowing what distinguished them from the tens of thousands of other masts which are not associated with clusters, and thereby finding something testable which would enable us to determine which _other_ masts pose potential risks.

Sad to say, but if Dr Walker were truly concerned with public health and not just with getting his name in the papers, surely he would have raised these points himself?

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

I agree with Nick M.

Why are mobile phone masts to blame and not flat screen monitors or microwave ovens?

What about wireless network access,same frequency and a lot closer? (0.1 W at one metre is the
same radiation as 100W at 30 metres)

All men develop prostrate cancer.

Approx one third of people will die of cancer.

By chance one in twenty samples will appear "significant" and look like a "cluster".

badscience.net is worth a look as is quackwatch.org

Baz, Worcs,

British Nuclear Fuels Limited wil have to be contacted to help the phone companies wriggle out of responsibility. They are past masters of the art. They will have hundreds of experts on their books left over from earlier 'investigations' of clusters around Sellafield who, for enormous 'consultancy fees', will say that these are 'naturally occurring' clusters. As Nick M says 'it's easy show cancer clusters around anything'. Especially of you pay people to find them.

eric, harrogate, uk

So because there are 7 clusters of cancer in the vicinity of the masts they are the cause? Firstly the geographic distribution of any illness in the population is never completely uniform. Most of the UK population live within site of a mast and suffer no adverse effects at all. Secondly the transmit power that the base stations is very low, well within internationally accepted guidelines, thousands of times lower than TV or radio transmitters for example. In addition the received RF energy is further reduced by a principle known as the inverse square law. In other words if you double the distance from the antenna you receive ¼ of the power.
Finally the RF energy you receive from your mobile phone, when it is in call, is many times higher than that received from the mast antennas! The power that the mobile phones transmit is controlled by the network and is reduced the closer you are to a mast. If you are concerned by your level of exposure it better to have MORE masts!

Andrew Ingle, Sofia, Bulgaria

We have a mast right in front of our house. My husband has prostate cancer at the early age of 45, and two of my neighbours have tumours, their father and husband died of prostate cancer.

MAS, Brighton,

In reality this is a form of criminal bodily harm perpertrated by the cell phone company - whether knowingly or unknowingly, on individuals. Its very clear. Now we just need the laws to be amended to reflect this new way of harming individuals, and then we'll have a way to legally put a stop to it.

FrItz, London,

You say "unequivocal evidence" - where? Nothing in this article mentions unequivocal evidence. It is quite easy to show cancer clusters around almost anything. The real question is whether this is statistically significant, and this article simply doesn't tell you one way or the other.

Nick M, Grange over Sands, Cumbria

Andy,we live in a world were nobody is accountable and nobody realy gives a toss...............the first place to get a full picture of what i mean is just look at the goverment,more spin than a funfair....

S Faremr, Blackburn, lancs

No surprises there then, despite being consistently told that phone masts present no health risk.

Mark, Manila, Philippines

It's so annoying that companies are more concerned with profits than the health of the population.
By rejecting any links to ill health, O2 has shown the nature of the beast when unequivocal evidence is produced to show the contrary.
What sort of World do we live in?

Andy B, London, UK

What concerns me is the fact that always seems to put all the pylons, masts etc etc etc in the poorer areas of towns and cities ,i.e. because they guess that the people wont complain. Would you ever seeks masts or pylons in posh areas ?. No of course not !. As for putting them near schools with this research now showing dangers, I think it is out of order.

alan, Guildford, uk