Addressing your points -
1. On what basis do they do this?
2. Biological effects can only be linked with received power, not transmitted power.
Ranking of UK is not evidence of a problem.
Whether the peak or accumulated dose is fairer depends on the mechanism by which any damage is done. Without proposing a mechanism, alternative metrics can be thrown up until an apparent effect is found. Because of the way statistical testing works, this makes the hypothesis untestable.

A mobile phone 10cm from the centre of your head is roughly equivalent to a mast at 70cm. If you wish to compare 10 minutes a day to 24 hour exposure, that is a factor of 6×24 = 144 different, which conveniently corresponds to being exactly 12 times further away. That is, using a mobile 10 minutes a day is equivalent in accumulated dosage to living all day every day 12×0.70 = 8.4 metres from the mast. With no intervening walls or windows.

Can we see a reference to the ecolog report, please, so we can see the original conclusions giving the quantified extra risk, and judge the methodology? (And in English, please.) Money spent on a project is no guarantee of quality.

Scientific papers connecting disease X with factor Y are a mainstay of graduate student research – they have to be treated with caution. Publication bias (the tendency not to publish if your experiment doesn’t find anything) and other statistical problems are rife.

That a correlation can be detected does not make it a significant risk in the colloquial sense of the word. You first have to quantify the risk and your uncertainty about it, and then compare it to the level of background natural risks that we all accept and ignore.

Absence of data is not evidence of a problem. There is insufficient data to set safe limits on exposure to lettuce too – should we therefore ban unasked-for side-salads, just in case?

(Lettuce naturally contains high levels of Caffeic acid, a known carcinogen, in case you thought my example spurious. See papers and discussion by Ames and Gold.)

I am generally in favour of choice, but as I said, people should understand that they are irradiated all the time by EM fields stronger than those from mobile phone masts, and exposed to many much larger risks and unknowns. Your choices conflict with our choices, and your choices would, if pursued consistently, imply all of us cutting ourselves off from the 21st century. I believe we all ought to have a sound understanding before we make such a decision.

People use a mobile phone from choice that same choice should be given to people to have or not have a mobile phone mast radiating into their home.
I would be happly to debate the issues further if anyone is interested.

We’ve had mobile phone technology for decades now. The scientific consensus is that it presents little or no health risk, but what risk there is lies in the phones themselves, not the masts. Indeed, because of the inverse-square law, the more masts we have, the less of a health risk the phones themselves become.

By contrast, I notice that the Ally Pally mast is less than a kilometre from Campsbourne Junior School. This mast emits a vastly stronger signal than anything a phone mast can – after all it services the whole of North London – so why not campaign to have it closed down? Yet, I notice, you are campaigning to keep it OPEN. That doesn’t seem to be terribly consistent.

I’m not going to query the business about ruining lovely views of London, although that sounds a little odd to me, but I am quite amazed at the implied campaign here to ban mobile phones.

Of course you understand that the mast operates in exactly the same way and at the same frequencies as the phones do. Because a mast may be talking to many phones, the effective power is about 50 times that of a phone, but because of the inverse square law, the two are equivalent when you are about 7 times as far from the mast as the phone. (Seven squared is about 50. You can check these figures with the ‘big boys’.) So being within 20 metres of one is like being within 3 metres of an operating phone, (like sitting near to someone using one on the bus or train) – and to actually put one of these devil-devices right against your head – deadly!

Worse, the further from the base-station the phone is, the more power it transmits – all the way up to 2 Watts. So if you don’t have any base-stations nearby, those phones your kids are using have to ‘shout’ to reach with all the lethal power of a two Watt light bulb. Right next to their heads!

I suggest your best argument to the mobile phone company is as follows. Because the phones are far deadlier than the masts, it makes no sense to oppose the mast unless you oppose phones even more, and therefore they’re banned from the area. And since none of the residents ever use mobiles, there is no point in putting a mobile phone mast there, as it would never actually transmit.

I realise an MP must represent the views of their constituents, however well founded or otherwise they may be, but in this case I feel it is your duty to warn them of the similar dangers of mobile phones, RF TV senders, wifi networks, TV and local radio transmissions, police and ambulance radios, microwave ovens, and indeed all uses of AC electricity in their homes, which emit electromagnetic radiation. Your constituents are being irradiated all the time, evidently without their knowledge. It is about time they were told.

PS. Best of luck with your efforts to improve people’s education in conflict zones around the world.