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

Background: Implantable pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are designed to include a “magnet mode” feature that can be activated from magnets stronger than 10 G. This feature is designed to be used when a patient is undergoing a procedure where electromagnetic interference is possible, or anytime suspension of tachycardia detection and therapy is needed. A publication in Heart Rhythm demonstrates an iPhone 12 triggering the magnet mode of a Medtronic ICD.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine the separation distance between consumer electronic devices that may create magnetic interference, including cell phones and smart watches, and implantable pacemakers and ICDs where magnet mode can be triggered.

Methods: The static magnetic fields of the iPhone 12 models and Apple Watch were measured at several planes in 1 cm resolution using an FW Bell 5180 Gauss Meter with STD18-0404 Transverse probe (unidirectional probe).

Results: All iPhone 12 and Apple Watch 6 models tested have static magnetic fields significantly greater than 10 G in close proximity (1-11 mm), which attenuates to below 10 G between 11 and 20 mm.

Conclusion: The findings of this study support the US Food and Drug Administration recommendation that patients keep any consumer electronic devices that may create magnetic interference, including cell phones and smart watches, at least 6 inches away from implanted medical devices, in particular pacemakers and cardiac defibrillators.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34600610/

The post Static magnetic field measurements of smart phones and watches and applicability to triggering magnet modes in implantable pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators appeared first on EMFSA.

Source BBC https://bbc.in/3A3sZJw

Apple has listed products it says should be kept a “safe distance” away from medical devices like pacemakers and implanted defibrillators.

The list includes iPhone 12 models, Apple Watch and MacBook Pro.

Many consumer-electronic devices contain components, such as magnets, which can interfere with medical devices.

The BBC has asked for comment from Apple, which has promoted heart health as a feature of its products.

Some Apple Watches can take an electrocardiogram test that records the timing and strength of the electrical signals that make the heart beat.

But the current notice warns of risks from components in some products.

Read more at https://bbc.in/3A3sZJw

The post Apple lists products that pose risk to pacemakers appeared first on EMFSA.

Abstract

Introduction: : Electromagnetic interference (EMI) of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) can lead to malfunctions and pose a danger for implant carriers. The increased use of DC technologies, e.g., in electric mobility, creates more static fields representing an increasing hazard for implant carriers.

Areas covered: : A combination of approaches was used to determine thresholds for EMI by static fields. A literature search was conducted to identify relevant EMI mechanisms and to extract possible thresholds. The literature search revealed four interference mechanisms caused by static magnetic fields and none for static electric fields. Due to the scarce information on motion-induced EMI, numerical simulations were performed to obtain a threshold. The simulation results were evaluated using medical product standards and benchmark tests on commercially available CIEDs. The results show that motion-induced interference should not occur below the activation of the magnetic safety switch (reed switch or Hall-effect sensor, MSS).

Expert opinion: : The determined threshold for motion-induced EMI at 24.8 mT shows that the MSS activation is still the most relevant mechanism that can occur at 0.8 mT. Limit values for the general population do not protect implant carriers from EMI.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33710950/

The post Interference of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices by Static Electric and Magnetic Fields appeared first on EMFSA.

University of Groningen

This video paints the life and scientific contributions of Professor Serge Daan (1940-2018). Daan was an inspiring biologist with a broad interest in science. He started as professor at the University of Groningen in 1975. His publications were cited over 17,000 times and include seminal work in chronobiology, sleep research, psychiatry, physiology, ecology and behavioural biology. The ‘Two Process Model’ of human sleep regulation he developed with Alex Borbély and Domien Beersma, still inspires many sleep researchers all over the world. He was awarded several prizes and awards, including the prestigious International Prize for Biology, which he received from the Emperor of Japan.

Production: University of Groningen, Heddema Communications

For more about the life and work of Professor Serge Daan:

https://www.rug.nl/fse/research/daan_-prof.-serge

Prof Daan:

“In physics you ask how come?, in biology you ask how, but also why.”

“Biologists have the real experimental and analytical approaches.”

The post The life and contributions of Prof. Serge Daan, behavioural biologist appeared first on EMFSA.