We have been told that at any one time there are often as many as 1000 groups campaigning against the erection of masts near their homes, yet to our knowledge, so far, three attempts by members of parliament to get a Private Members Bill through to second reading have failed miserably. The members of parliament who have introduced these bills want what has become a blatantly obvious need - tighter planning control. This is not going to happen in the totally inadequate 'private members Bill' system, where the bill is heard (if at all) on a Friday morning when most members have already retired to their constituencies. Although The Local Government Ombudsman's "Special Report- Telecommunication masts: problems with 'prior approval' applications" of June 2007 (see www.lgo.org.uk) goes a long way to redress some of the problems of maladministration committed by errant Councils, we are concerned that the Ombudsman system may not be able to react with sufficient expediency, or force, for example, to the report brought out by an international group of scientists on August 31st. 2007 (see www.bioinitiative.org) which reviewed more that 2000 studies and concluded that the existing ICNIRP public safety limits on emissions levels are "inadequate to protect public health". One may well now wonder what had become of the precautionary principle, and how both the Telecom companies, local councils and the executive arm of the government, The Planning Inspectorate, can continue to affirm that as long as ICNIRP guidelines are adhered to then there should be no further need to consider health issues.

The CAVI Society has raised this issue with the Local Government Ombudsman as part of a complaint which it has submitted with regard to maladministration by Solihull Council and is intending to raise the same concern with The Planning Inspectorate in Bristol. We are also concerned that under the Newport Judgement of 2000 perception of health risks are allowed to be considered as a material planning consideration, yet if a mast is erected as a result of maladministration then residents lose the benefit of The Newport Judgement, which surely constitutes for them a great injustice. We have asked our legal team to look at the consequences of this anomaly. Raising awareness of these issues is some of the present work being undertaken by us. We have also sent in submissions to The Church of England's Children's Society's Good Childhood Enquiry and sent a copy to The Children's Commissioner for England.

We try to support parents who are campaigning against masts which are likely to be erected in close proximity to children's schools or nurseries-andthe publication of The BioINitiative Report has lent an urgency to our work.We also work with advising parents as to how to make the home environment safer by pulling out cordless phone systems and either returning to a landline system or installing a safer cordless phone system that does not emit microwave radiation 24/7. (For info. on such a system please see www.lowradiation.co.uk ).  We have discovered for ourselves, and have also been made further aware, of the fact that as more and more people are converting lofts in their homes, rather than move house, that more and more children (and adults) are sleeping within what may be a main beam from a mast whose signals were designed to pass over the roofs of two-storey houses. Many people are therefore putting themselves and their children at greater risk than they may sometimes realise from converting lofts without due awareness and consideration of this issue. No loft conversion where people are going to sleep should be undertaken without a proper analysis of any possible incoming radiation and how best to incorporate radiation-reducing materials into the conversion process. In some cases it may be decided not to proceed with such a conversion.