The Cheltenham Cell Mast Case – Steven Thomas challenged the installation of a 15-meter telecommunications mast in Cheltenham’s Central Conservation Area. The case: [2025] EWCA Civ 259.

Mr. Thomas opposed the mast due to concerns about EMFs, particularly their effects on individuals with medical implants like pacemakers. The legal challenge was prompted by the decision of the Cheltenham Borough Council that the development did not need prior approval.

High Court Judgment (2024)

The High Court ruled in [2024] EWHC 1035 (Admin) that the council made an error by failing to consider the potential impact of EMF on individuals with medical implants. However, it denied relief, ruling that the final decision would have remained unchanged even if the issue had been addressed.

Court of Appeal Decision (2025)

Thomas appealed the ruling, but in [2025] EWCA Civ 259, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. While the council had made a procedural error, it did not affect the approval of the mast. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the council stood.

Full case details

Case background

Winning the Battle but Losing the War

•The battle was won: The Cheltenham Cell Mast Case proved that Cheltenham Borough Council made a procedural error by failing to consider the impact of EMFs on individuals with medical implants.

•The war was lost: Despite this, the court did not overturn the decision by the council or stop the approval of the mast.

Public Health Concerns

This case underscores the need for local authorities to consider public health concerns, particularly for potentially vulnerable individuals, in telecom planning. However, it also shows that if the overall outcome is deemed justified, procedural errors may not change the final decision.

ICNIRP and RF- EMF Exposure Risks for Implants

RF- EMFs can interfere with active implants. This is acknowledged by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP considers such exposures outside the scope of its guidelines. Medical professionals and manufacturers are mostly responsible for the management. (Ref: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz))

Everyday Devices

Smartphones, wearables, and audio devices emit electromagnetic fields. These fields can affect medical implants. For example, Apple advises users with pacemakers or defibrillators to maintain a safe distance from their devices. (Apple Support).

Key Takeaways:

• Councils should consider EMFs and medical implants—this case confirms that failing to do so can lead to legal challenges.
• However, overlooking these concerns may not always overturn a decision. The court ruled that officials would have approved the mast regardless.
• Future legal challenges may have a stronger case if it can be shown that the outcome could have been different had EMF risks regarding implants been considered.
• This case could set a legal precedent, encouraging councils to take specific EMF-related health concerns more seriously in planning decisions.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for specific legal concerns.

Related https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/titanium-exposure-and-human-health/

The post The Cheltenham Cell Mast Case – Winning the Battle but Losing the War appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

The aim is to evaluate specific absorption rate (SAR) values from exposure near handheld ultra-high frequency radiofrequency identification readers (UHF RFID guns—small electronic devices, or even portable computers with relevant accessories—emitting up to several watts of electromagnetic field (EMF) to search for RFID sensors (tags) attached to marked objects), in order to test the hypothesis that they have an insignificant environmental influence. Simulations of SAR in adult male and female models in seven exposure scenarios (gun near the head, arm, chest, hip/thigh of the operator searching for tags, or near to the chest and arm of the scanned person or a bystander). The results showed EMF exposure compliant with SAR limits for general public exposure (ICNIRP/European Recommendation 1999/519/EC) at emissions up to 1 W (reading range 3.5–11 m, depending on tag sensitivity). In the worst-case scenario, guns with a reading range exceeding 5 m (>2 W emission) may cause an SAR exceeding the general public limits in the palm of the user and the torso of the user, a bystander, or a scanned person; occupational exposure limits may be exceeded when emission >5 W. Users of electronic medical implants and pregnant women should be treated as individuals at particular risk in close proximity to guns, even at emissions of 1 W. Only UHF RFID guns emitting below 1 W may be considered as environmentally insignificant EMF sources.

https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/1/202

The post An Evaluation of Electromagnetic Exposure While Using Ultra-High Frequency Radiofrequency Identification (UHF RFID) Guns appeared first on EMFSA.

• Concerns About Immune Responses to Metal in Medical Devices
• Metal-Containing Implants
• Dental Amalgam
• Determining Medical Device Material Safety
• More FDA Information on Metals in Medical Devices

Participate in the Immunology Devices Panel Meeting in November 2019 – see more at

 https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/products-and-medical-procedures/metals-used-medical-devices?utm_campaign=2019-09-30%20Metal%20Implants%20and%20Dental%20Amalgam&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

On November 13-14, 2019, the FDA will host a public meeting of the Immunology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee to discuss metal-containing implants and dental amalgam. Read the FDA’s paper on metal-containing implants and paper on dental amalgam for more information on the topics.

The FDA has heard concerns raised by patients and other device users, and we have received adverse event reports that note biological responses to certain metals used in medical devices. Based on our evaluation, we believe the current evidence, although limited, suggests some individuals may be predisposed to develop a local or systemic immune or inflammatory reaction when exposed to certain metals contained in select implantable devices.

The symptoms some people have noted may be limited to the region where the device is implanted or may be more generalized. Reported systemic symptoms include fatigue, rash, joint and muscle pain, and weakness. Although uncommon and varied, these symptoms can sometimes mimic more well-established inflammatory conditions, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

The science around immunes response to materials in medical devices is expanding and furthering this science to improve patient treatment options and outcomes is a priority for the FDA.  Lab tests commonly used to diagnose allergy-based sensitivities may not be adequate to identify susceptible individuals. To better understand how a patient responds to materials used in medical device implants and harness that information to improve the safety of devices in patients, the FDA is working to engage the public—in particular, scientists, patients, and health care providers—and industry stakeholders to determine the current state of the science, critical gaps in the existing science, and what approaches the FDA should consider.

See more at:

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/products-and-medical-procedures/metals-used-medical-devices?utm_campaign=2019-09-30%20Metal%20Implants%20and%20Dental%20Amalgam&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

The post Metals Used in Medical Devices appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

Historically, titanium (Ti) has maintained the reputation of being an inert and relatively biocompatible metal, suitable for use in both medical and dental prosthesis. There are many published articles supporting these views, but there is recent scientific evidence that Ti, or its corrosive by‐products, may cause harmful reactions in humans. It is important for all medical and dental professionals to understand the implications, complexities, and all potential pathways of exposure to this metal. These exposures are not only from the environment but also through various commonly used products in medicine that are often completely overlooked. These external (intermittent) and internal (constant) exposures have an impact on whole‐body health. This review examines possible harmful effects, risks, and often ignored potential complications of Ti exposure to human health.

3 EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION ON TI IMPLANTS

Crouzier et al22 investigated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electromagnetic frequency/field (EMF), radiofrequency radiation (RFR), and its relationship with implantable devices. It has been discovered that a significant part of the population bears metallic devices including orthopedic plates, rods, screws, prosthesis but also dental implants, stents, electrodes wires, or electronic devices.

Metallic devices are well known to strongly interact with EMF by diffraction or focusing thus, leading to a significant local enhancement of field intensity.22 With the use of electronic devices, such as cellphones or personal computers (PCs), becoming increasingly prevalent in recent years, many articles only emphasize the convenience of these electronic devices without addressing the potentially negative influences of the emitted electromagnetic waves on the body.23

Metals present within the body can act as an antenna to collect harmful radio waves, thus inducing many general and severe symptoms, such as headaches, fatigue, tinnitus, dizziness, memory loss, irregular heartbeats, and whole‐body skin symptoms, which are considered to be caused by electromagnetic hypersensitivity. In dentistry, Ti dental implants may be the material most commonly associated with antenna activity and may promote harmful effects of electromagnetic waves. Dental treatments should be performed in a manner that avoids the harmful influences of radio waves on patients.23 We believe this can be accomplished by using biocompatible nonmetal dental materials.

Metallic implants amplify high frequency (HF)‐EMF 100‐700 folds nearby and exceed the safety levels. If dental metals (crowns, fillings, bridges, Ti implants) are implanted in the upper jaw, HF‐EMF is enhanced in the cranial nerves and brain. The presence of dental metals may increase the risk for HF‐EMF‐induced brain cancers several fold and should be acknowledged as confounding variable in future studies, exploring brain cancer risk in dependence of HF‐EMF exposure.24

Patients with severe or fatal illnesses (like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer, multisystemic atrophy, multiple sclerosis (MS), severe elektrohypersensitivity, Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and severe chronic pain (neuralgia, migraine) often have pieces of dental metals, mostly mercury (Hg) amalgam, in the jaw bone.24

Yakymenko et al25 looked at 100 available peer‐reviewed studies dealing with low‐intensity RFR; 93 of these studies confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. The oxidative efficiency of RFR can be mediated via changes in activities of key ROS. ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low‐intensity RFR, which include both cancer and noncancer pathologies. In turn, a broad biological potential of ROS and other free radicals, including both their mutagenic effects and their signaling regulation, makes RFR a potentially hazardous factor for human health.

The modern data on the biological effects of low‐intensity RFR leads to a firm conclusion that this physical agent is a powerful oxidative stressor for living cells.25 The database used by Yakymenko25 was about 18 months old, when that paper was published. As of July 8, 2015, there had been 153 papers published on the oxidative stress effect of RFR, of which 90% (137 papers) showed effect vs 10% (16 papers) reporting no effect. Thus, there is overwhelming peer‐reviewed research confirming the potential harmful effect of radiofrequency radiation.26 Sometimes head and neck cancer patients treated with high‐energy X‐rays and gamma rays have Ti dental implants. Ti dental implants in the field of irradiation were capable of causing significant radiation scatter. Therapists involved in radiation planning should consider dental implants on the radiation beam as a presumed cause of osteoradionecrosis.27 The calculations showed that the presence of a dimension‐reduced implant results in remarkable differences in the dose distribution all around the implant.

Similar to standard implants, the risk for dose enhancement was notably important for the bone in direct contact with the implant.28 For the different radiation beams studied, the irradiation angle between scattering Ti dental implants and the central axis does not significantly affect the total dose that may lead to osteoradionecrosis of the mandible.29 Animal and human studies indicate that irradiated bone has a greater risk of implant failure than nonirradiated bone. This increase in risk may be up to 12 times greater.30 Implant therapy is no longer considered impossible for patients who have received radiation treatment for head and neck cancer. However, the risk of osteoradionecrosis and failed osseointegration are barriers to implant therapy for this population.31

There is a significant increase in the risk of implant failure in irradiated patients (risk ratio: 2.74; 95% confidence interval: 1.86, 4.05; P < 0.00001) and in maxillary sites (risk ratio: 5.96; 95% confidence interval: 2.71, 13.12; P < 0.00001). Conversely, hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy did not reduce the risk of implant failure (risk ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval: 0.19, 8.82; P = 0.80). Radiotherapy was linked to higher implant failure in the maxilla, and HBO therapy did not improve implant survival.32 There is a risk of radio frequency (RF) heat generation within Ti. 3.0 T‐MRI scanners are becoming increasingly common. The specific absorption rate (SAR) of 3.0 T‐MRI is quadruple that of SAR compared with 1.5 T‐MRI, due to its being proportional to the square of the strength of a static magnetic field. The effect of heat generation on 3.0 T‐MRI can thus be greater than on 1.5 T‐MRI. The rise in temperature of Ti implants was measured to be a maximum of 0.4°C.33 The impact of magnetic force from an MRI on dental materials will attract iron‐containing (or ferromagnetic) objects and may cause them to move suddenly and with a great force like a “missile”. This can cause possible risks to patients or anyone in an objects “flight path”. It can pull any ferromagnetic object in the body too. Tissue injury can be caused due to heating the prosthesis. RF heating was confirmed to take place at both ends of the implants in spite of their different shapes. It is recommended to treat all material as MR unsafe, if the dentist is not sure about the type of prosthesis/appliance. It is advisable to remove the prosthesis/appliances prior to MRI.34

To view the full review: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/osi2.1001

The post Titanium exposure and human health appeared first on EMFSA.