Reply to Bishop’s letter of 20th Dec.
25-01-01
Dear Bishop John,
Thank you for your letter of 20th Dec. 2000. We appreciate you taking the time to answer our concerns. However there are several points which we feel the Church should consider.
Your quote from “Radio Aerials and Your Church” – A National Approach, cited the Stewart Report. That same report recommends A Precautionary Approach (ch.6), stating “the possibility of harm from exposures [from base stations] insufficient to cause important heating of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence” (6.44). Our main concern is based on sections 6.63ff where the report recommends that the beam of greatest intensity does not fall on schools. This is because of the increased susceptibility of children to microwave absorption, and that they necessarily spend several hours in school, thereby increasing their exposure. It seems to have escaped the notice of everyone concerned in these matters that children spend many more hours at home than at school. To allow exposure for 18 hours a day is unacceptable. It follows that this precautionary approach for schools has to be extended to cover residential areas where children live.
You state, quite rightly, that this is a matter of government policy and, along with many other groups in the U.K. we are aiming to change it. However the Church cannot avoid its responsibilities in this area. To take the money, knowing that when health risks are confirmed, it will be the government and the phone companies who will “carry the can,” is to us obscene. As long as there is evidence to cast any doubt on the safety of base stations, the church has a duty to act accordingly and protect those living close by. You said in your letter that your experience of such aerials is that “you would not notice them unless you knew they were there.” This again, is one of our major concerns. If the Church of the Holy Trinity had not needed planning permission, these aerials would have gone up without our knowledge. (Having a copy of the Vodafone installation plans, we would disagree that the aerials would be unnoticeable.) In how many other places are people being exposed to this radiation without their knowledge? There has been no attempt by the church or the phone companies to inform the local community of these installations. We recently received a letter from Phil Willis M.P. part of which is relevant to this issue: -
“There is an added problem with the mast at the Church of the Holy Trinity, Knaresborough. Under existing church law, the church itself has power over planning issues and therefore can, I believe, site masts within the spires without having any recourse to the overall planning system. I am checking out the legality of this issue because in effect it could drive a coach and horses through any attempts we are making in Parliament to take the issues of health seriously with regard to telecommunications masts.”
The Church is not acting in community interests. It would be quite possible in Knaresborough to site two masts away from residential areas and provide the same coverage. People have the choice to use mobile phones and society must pay the price of the visible penalty for the convenience of modern communications technology. We all accept electricity pylons and telephone wires.
The Church of England has a further responsibility in that, being such a large landowner, it has the opportunity to follow the example of the increasing number of county and local councils, and make a stand on this issue. This would force the government and phone companies to take this matter seriously.
There have been several articles in the press about the need for churches to house these masts to raise money. We can appreciate the cost of maintaining these old buildings, and indeed would not wish to see them deteriorate. However, the Church of England has huge sums of money invested in many areas including property and business, and could easily divert enough to repair all the churches in the U. K. should they wish. Also, in our particular case, the local residents have expressed a wish for fund-raising which includes the local community. The church is ignoring this potential at the risk of their own survival.
We urge you to consider carefully all the evidence and act accordingly, and not to hide behind government policy and out-dated safety guidelines.
cc Diocesan Registrar
Holy Trinity Church Wardens
Mr. J. Humphries, Radio Four
Mr. Philip Mawer, Secretary General, Archbishops’ Council
Most Rev. & Rt. Hon. Dr. G. Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury
Most Rev. & Rt. Hon. Dr. D. Hope, Archbishop of York
