Written evidence submitted by Save Us Now
Barrie Trower former Royal Navy microwave weapons expert made it clear that the EMF microwave field effects of many emitters have a multiplication factor.
Therefore smart meters which are continually emitting microwave signals contribute to a multiplying up of a densified microwave field brought about by interacting signals from smart meters, 5G telecom masts, 4 G masts, LED streetlights housing 5G antennae and wifi.
The abstract of the report below from STOA talks about the effects from such technology and I have highlighted the conclusion in red. No government would want to be seen to be encouraging cancer and infertility in a human population unless they were interested in reducing the size of the human population which would be genocide, naturally – and the UK government could not be advocating that of course, as I am sure you would confirm.
Therefore smart meters working on pulsed microwave signals should be converted to working as wired Ethernet devices or replaced with analogue meters.
The UK government local and national has an obligation to protect its citizens, under the Health and Social Care Act, from the effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation.
Smart meters contribute to increased exposure of people to non-ionising radiation and if the government were to encourage roll out of smart meters, the government might face itself with a Judicial Review in relation to the Health and Social Care Act, perhaps.
Reliance on ICNIRP makes that relying body liable as DLA Piper – solicitors to PHE now UKHSA – made clear as no liability accrues to the guidance itself. The attached letter from Wera Hobhouse to the DDCMS makes it clear too that this technology is not insurable. So a body relying in ICNIRP could potentially face unlimited liability should citizens bring Personal Injury claims against such a relying body, for harmful effects brought about by such radiation.
Below is an article from the Daily Mail about cancer effects in 8 children which resulted in the turning off of a telco microwave emitting cell tower – claimed by its operator to be emitting below the permitted levels – and which levels we might assume are the ICNIRP levels. The US DC Court of Appeal instructed the FCC ( the UK OFCOM equivalent ) recently to reassess their radiation exposure levels and also instructed them to consider the non thermal effects ( ICNIRP is related primarily to thermal effects)
EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 690.012 – July 2021:
The upcoming deployment of 5G mobile networks will allow for significantly faster mobile broadband speeds and increasingly extensive mobile data usage. Technical innovations include a different transmission system (MIMO: use of multiple‐input and multiple‐output antennas), directional signal transmission or reception (beamforming), and the use of other frequency ranges. At the same time, a change is expected in the exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of humans and the environment. In addition to those used to date, the 5G pioneer bands identified at EU level have frequencies of 700 MHz, 3.6 GHz (3.4 to 3.8 GHz) and 26 GHz (24.25 to 27.5 GHz). The first two frequencies (FR1) are similar to those used for 2G to 4G technologies and have been investigated in both epidemiological and experimental studies for different end points (including carcinogenicity and reproductive/developmental effects), while 26 GHz (FR2) and higher frequencies have not been adequately studied for the same end points. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency (RF) EMF as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2B) and recently recommended RF exposure for re-evaluation 'with high priority' (IARC, 2019). Since 2011 a great number of studies have been performed, both epidemiological and experimental. The present review addresses the current knowledge regarding both carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards of RF as exploited by 5G. There are various in vivo experimental and epidemiological studies on RF at a lower frequency range (450 to 6000 MHz), which also includes the frequencies used in previous generations' broadband cellular networks, but very few (and inadequate) on the higher frequency range (24 to 100 GHz, centimetre/MMW). The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence ofreproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals. Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies
Below is an abstract from an unclassified US military intelligence document which shows the effects of microwave radiation at low power intensity:
PREPARED IY U.S. ARMY MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION AGENCY OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL
UNCLASSIFIED DST-181QS-074-76 March 1976
“Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities. Combinations of frequencies and other signal characteristics to produce other neurological effects may be feasible in several years. The possibility of. inducing metabolic diseases is also suggested. Animal experiments reported in the open literature have demonstrated the use of low-level microwave signals to produce death by heart seizure or by neurological pathologies resulting from breaching of the blood-brain barrier.”
Here is very interesting information in relation to the “Havana Syndrome” – and as previously stated smart meters contribute to a densified microwave field and therefore to its effects:
"Havana syndrome": U.S. Army/Air Force study finds pulsed microwaves compliant with current safety standards could potentially cause traumatic brain injury
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
November 9, 2021
ABC News, Nov 5, 2021:
"Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday detailed new efforts to investigate "Havana syndrome," the mysterious health affliction affecting dozens of U.S. personnel first identified in Cuba and now including several countries."
"Symptoms include headaches, dizziness, cognitive difficulties, tinnitus, vertigo and trouble with seeing, hearing or balancing. Many officials have suffered symptoms years after reporting an incident, while some have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries."
"In an effort to learn more, Blinken confirmed Friday that the State Department has deployed new technology to U.S. missions around the world to help understand the cause.
'The details I can provide on this are limited as well, but I can say that new technology is helping us more quickly and thoroughly evaluate a variety of potential causes of these incidents, and we've distributed across posts so that we can respond rapidly to new reports,' he said." (Conor Finnegan and Matt Seyler, "Blinken details new efforts to investigate 'Havana syndrome," ABC News, Nov 5, 2021)
And from the Mail on Line:
PUBLISHED: 11:06, 6 December 2017 | UPDATED: 19:12, 6 December 2017
'This makes me think the victims may have developed electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) from exposure to electromagnetic fields in the embassy,' Joel Moskowitz, a community health professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told Daily Mail Online.
'This happened during the Cold War to personnel stationed in the US embassy in Moscow when the Soviets were bombarding the embassy with microwaves to monitor oral communications in the ambassador's office.'
Medical testing has revealed the embassy workers developed changes to the white matter tracts, which acts like information highways between brain cells letting different parts of the brain communicate.
In my opinion, the "Havana syndrome" is likely caused by exposure to microwave or radio frequency radiation (RFR) resulting in the onset of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in exposed individuals who have greater sensitivity to RFR. Moreover, as I explained to the Daily Mail in December 2017 the symptoms may be caused by exposure to low-moderate intensity microwave radiation used for surveillance:
Daily Mail Article about injuries from microwave radiation:
Cell phone tower shut down at elementary school after eight kids are diagnosed with cancer in 'mysterious' cluster
By MIA DE GRAAF HEALTH EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 17:53, 4 April 2019 | UPDATED: 19:44, 4 April 2019
Eight children have been diagnosed with cancer at the same elementary school - prompting parents' fears that a cell phone tower could be to blame.
The affected students at Weston Elementary School in Ripon are all under the age of 10, each with different types of cancer: brain, kidney, liver and lymphoma.
There is scant evidence that cell phone towers pose a real risk to humans, but even skeptics say the number of cases affecting children in such a small city is unusual.
Sprint, which owns the tower, has shut it down despite insisting the radio frequency levels are 100 times below the federal limit.
But the kids' mothers say their own private investigator found much higher levels, though still below the limit.
Wera Hobhouse MP letter to DDMCS
The Rt Hon Caroline Dineage MP
Minister of State (Minister for Digital and Culture)
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
100 Parliament Street
London
SW1A 2BQ
27 February 2020
Dear Minister,
I am writing to seek clarification from the government on liability for health risks relating to the 5G rollout, in particular the issue of indemnity for public bodies charged with safeguarding and public health. I note the changes to planning law in the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019).
These changes make it difficult for local authorities to object to applications by the telecoms industry relating to 5G infrastructure.
The following sections are of greatest relevance:
114. Local planning authorities should not impose a ban on new electronic communications development in certain areas, impose blanket Article 4 directions over a wide area or a wide range of electronic communications development, or insist on minimum distances between new electronic communications development and existing development.
116. Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.
Public Health England endorses these guidelines. Please see the following statement from the Ofcom website:
"In the UK, Public Health England (PHE) is responsible for providing advice to Government on all aspects of public health, including exposure to radio waves. PHE’s position is that exposures to radio waves should comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP is formally recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO). The guidelines developed by ICNIRP cover all frequencies used for mobile telecommunications in the UK, including new 5G services."
The current government advice from Public Health England is as follows:
"It is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network or in a new area. However, the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health."
However, the December 2018 issue of The Lancet stated that “A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.”
LLoyds of London has refused to insure against health effects from all wireless technology since 2010 (Exclusion 32) and there are currently no insurers in the world who will cover this. 5G is rated a high impact risk by reinsurers Swiss Re in their Emerging Risks Report (May 2019) which states:
“To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence…Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker.”
The above shows that 5G health effects are uninsurable and at the same time recognised by reinsurers as a high impact risk with regard to future litigation. Members of the campaign group Stop 5G Bath have received a letter from PHE's own solicitors, which exempts PHE from all liability in the event of future legal action relating to health effects from 5G if their guidance should turn out to be incorrect or misleading. In this letter they state:
“A public body must determine how much weight to put on the PHE guidance. Equally that body must determine what other evidence from your client or other members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision. If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the guidance with illegality.”
(Quote from a letter from DLA Piper, UK solicitors for PHE, to Leigh Day solicitors for Karen Churchill et al., dated 8th August 2019 - hard copy available upon request.)
PHE's lawyers advise public bodies to balance PHE's guidance with evidence from other sources i.e. not only from ICNIRP. This contradicts the government's own planning regulations which require local authorities to adhere strictly to ICNIRP's guidelines (see above). This advice of course applies to other bodies responsible for health and safety, including multi-academy trusts who bear responsibility for the health and safety of all children and young people in their care, as well as other public sector employers. This gives no choice to public bodies about accepting a potentially catastrophic risk.
In light of the above, please could you confirm how the government plans to indemnify local authorities and other public bodies against future property, injury and health claims from members of the public relating to 5G?
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Wera Hobhouse
MP for Bath
Submitted by Nicholas Martin
Member of the Political Party SUN, Registration No: PP6712
22/06/2022