Cartoon by John Sadler www.johnsadlerillustration.com

• THE huge debate over the safety of mobile phone masts and exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) was added to by the findings of the Ramazzini Institute of Italy in 2018.

In a study that took 10 years, the Ramazzini finding of tumours in rat hearts is consistent with a similar finding by the National Toxicology Programme (NTP) in the United States, which itself was a $25million project.

Both studies reported an increase in the incidence of tumours of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague Dawley rats.

The two laboratories worked independently at many thousands of kilometres distance, using the same strain of rats, and found the same results. It cannot be by chance.

In the 1980s both the NTP and the Ramazzini Institute found the same results studying benzene carcinogenicity. In particular, Zymbal gland carcinomas – very rare tumours – were found by the two laboratories.

These findings were very much criticised by the detractors of both laboratories but – 30 years later – benzene is accepted as a known carcinogen. It is unlikely to find the same rare tumours by chance.

The biggest question of all is this: The RFR studies I have highlighted are both huge projects that published their findings as recently as 2018.

Neither study, however, made it onto Camden councillor Meric Apak’s briefing paper on the subject, which was put together by officials who remain anonymous, and which parrots the establishment line that there is no issue with RFR from mobile phone masts. Why is this?

I once again invite Cllr Apak to explain himself to the people in a letter to the Camden New Journal. Camden Council has a statutory duty to protect the health of its citizens.

The law also clearly states that a freeholder can refuse a request to have mobile phone masts placed on their land or buildings.

Camden can and must scrap its digital rooftops programme because, as long as it exists, it cannot guarantee the health of its tenants and residents.

LOUIS LOIZOU
NW5