Written evidence submitted by Mrs Amanda Kenton



Smart Future isn’t safe or provably sustainable, nor protects human rights


Smart technology is wireless technology, and it is being imposed rather than people being given a choice. The impacts of smart technology can include human rights impacts (people do not consent to 5G) and health impacts which are extensively known and acknowledged in the scientific community but are irrelevant to the “net zero” SDG indoctrinated politicians who are advised to adhere to ICNIRP guidelines as if they were law, not merely guidelines, as inadequate and unscientific as they are anyway. https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html


Are all of these professionals misinformed in your opinion? https://phiremedical.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-Non-Ionising-Radiation-Consensus-Statement.pdf


Are all these organisations misinformed too? https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/signatories-organizations


Smart technology creates considerable densification of 5G transmitters and millimetre wave environments. How will the government protect people from MMWave exposures that concentrate in the skin and eyes created through 5G connected smart technologies? Has the government informed the public of the mWave research to date and the limited data available? A smart future is a future where health is not considered, as far as I can see. With countries like Switzerland (hosting the ICNIRP and WHO) having stopped 5G, why is the rest of the world being exposed without consent? The smart world is being imposed, just the same, and the safety issues (wireless health issues) are not being taken seriously by any government except Switzerland, Slovenia and Belgium.


A smart society might be one that is in denial about EMF damage for a long time if it listens to the government and not scientists.


Smart technology should reveal a lot about the society implementing it. Society”, a body of citizens with human rights and freedom to choose, arguably isn’t implementing though, so it reveals a lot about the few interests that are implementing it.


Citizens are coerced and incentivised to do it, through Big Tech lobbying government and government behaviourally managing the population on behalf of Big Tech. Smart technology is ethically suspect (the Stalinist regime can’t compare with what governments might become capable of with it). Smart technology is designed purely to algorithmically manage behaviour, collect personal data in a panopticon-style surveillance “smart” society and limit human influence in the world, (you’ve degraded human rights already, and introduced digital censorship so society says and does what the government and industry wants). Moving so machines replace humans through Artificial Intelligence middlemen, Ai will mediate the demands of the state, this will dehumanise citizens with smart technology.


The government will benefit greatly but citizens will be forced to act as if this is all ok. People will be fined for not agreeing with the government and protesting will be banned. All of this will be achievable through smart technology, which is proving already to be purely about the surveillance of individuals and is why we’ll soon see CCTV and 5G transmitters on lampposts, electric cars etc all connected to deliver what the RFID paradigm long needed, technology addiction and gamification to dumb down the panoptic interface and addict people to the social consumption of their own surveillance.


You can incentivise and create design that is safe by not following the UN making all of this nonsense an imperative based on end-times narratives of biblical implications while passing it all off as scientific. What is scientific about so-called “clean energy” that needs to be first mined, refined, manufactured, distributed, sold and landfilled. Do you think a world powered by lithium batteries is clean? You’d say its Emission free living, go to the ore refinery and find out about the emissions, solvent pollution, slurries and the brimming landfills and dumps to see their fate, which will require a plane flight to a third world country that bears the burden of the “smart” technology addiction you are promoting.


It is not a case of the human rights of people using the technology, but the burden on poorer countries created by the nonsensical logic of UN SDGs and the governments of the world, misleading people about the sustainability of smart technology. Smart technology requires awful industries like deep sea mining, green-washed by the UN to destroy the sea to cater for such a “clean energy” net zero world, that can’t possibly exist from anything “smart”.


How much nonsense can the government mislead people with, pandering to the UN’s logic and industry interests? None of this is smart. You ask what “safe” design means? Stop redesigning the oceans for greed and pillage to be raped by deep sea mining robots that tear up the sea bed and release carbon stores into the atmosphere and GHGs. Stop putting short life satellites in the skies and creating space debris. Stop lying about automated vehicles being safe, they are a metal container filled with electromagnetic radiation and dirty electricity. Driver assistance technologies can increase collision risks, and human error.Controlled tests show this doesn’t prevent all crashes. A study from the United States warns how driver assistance technologies create a false sense of security, increasing human error. “Adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping-assist technologies lull drivers into letting their guard down, which puts them at greater risk of crashing, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found.” An AI software run intelligent car does not guarantee safety.


Smart leaves people stranded, vulnerable prisoners, as the collapse of Smart Home corporation Insteon proved recently. https://hackaday.com/2022/04/25/insteon-abruptly-shuts-down-users-left-smart-home-less/


Smart is a predictive world too. And much smart technology is being used to predict human behaviour, monitor facial expressions, create databases of human beings, and cross relate all manner of information to people and things like a giant intelligence agency. What does that all really suggest to you? Is that what safety and security mean? Should we interview some veterans from the Eastern Bloc to see if they can cast any light on what “smart” really means and what type of government might want to know everything about everyone and take their human right away to implement it? The Soviet Union was a one-party state until 1990 and a totalitarian state from 1927 until 1953 where members of the Communist Party held all key positions in the institutions of the state and other organizations.” Considering corporations lobby governments, and governments have interests in corporations, and TNCs steer the UN and WHO, as well as philanthrocapitalists, how can we say the smart future looks any different to what has been described? Human rights must be primarily protected.


Government isn’t giving people a choice about going down this road. Not everyone consents or wants it. The government has just rewritten the Human Rights Act, tried to implement the WHO Pandemic Treaty and changed all manner of laws to accelerate the 5G roll out…and created the Online Bill to “cherry pick” what it must censor. That is one way the government implements “smart” (AI algorithms), in collusion with internet providers and social media companies, to regulate our speech. Human Rights? An algorithmic existence, of targeted so-called “fact-checked” information and potentially, onwards, a digital ID and a digital social credit system, digital currency, just as the UN, WHO and WEF recommends, all based on deceptions of the highest order.


All the arguments for pursuing a digital smart future (usually environmental) don’t stand up to scrutiny. Semiconductors, lithium batteries, sensors, LED lights, all the kit for the smart future require immense resources of non-sustainable, finite rare metals and minerals, and a lot of refineries to turn it into a profit. Refinement will happen on land. Processing will create toxic slurries and caustic emissions that promote acid rain which “can cause damage to crops, trees and buildings for many miles.” Deep Sea Mining clearly is not sustainable, nor does it create clean energy without toxic consequences for humans and ecosystems.


Semiconductors and solar panel manufacture create enough toxins to rend land unusable for generations. https://sciencing.com/toxic-chemicals-solar-panels-18393.html


Yet, this is all branded green for the “smart future”? How is this possible?


The problem of e-waste is catastrophic and not being addressed. When will it be recycled? It has been reported, “At least $10bn (£7.9bn) worth of gold, platinum and other precious metals are dumped every year in the growing mountain of electronic waste that is polluting the planet” according to the U.N.’s Global E-waste Monitor report of 2019.



The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that more than 1.3 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes”. WHO is the lead agency for road safety in the United Nations (UN). The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has set targets for reducing road traffic injuries, and emissions. The UN advocatesthe development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) to keep roads safe for everyone”. In 2022, according to National Highways most recent data serious injuries and deaths on “ALR smart motorways…. [are] more than three times higher” than on controlled SMs using a hard shoulder. Removing the hard shoulder to create ALR SMs has been clearly associated with an increase of accidents on these roads. While this is clearly recognised, other risks to safety are less apparent to most people. The safety risks of LED lighting and 5G have been ignored by National Highways because sustainability goals always trump safety, or so it seems. Scientists have examined LED “traffic signal lights, and automobile head and brake lights” considering their content to be “hazardous waste” and have recommended “crews attending to car accidents or broken traffic lights should be required to wear protective gear.” LED lights began to appear on car headlights in 2006 and were fitted to cars as part of the UN's World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations which is surprising because they are not sustainable and “contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances”. LED lighting, vital for the smart future is not sustainable or safe. LEDs’ remarkable luminance can increase human error on roads. A Royal Automobile Club (RAC) survey of 2061 motorists showed “Two-thirds [were] regularly dazzled" by oncoming headlights” with 15% of those polled suffering a near collision as a result.


The public security and telecommunications bill served to help protect the assets of telecoms under the umbrella of national security to implement a technology called 5G that has core networks run by software that is vulnerable to cyber-attacks in ways that weren’t previously possible. Other laws like the Electronic Communications Code (“the New Code”) have served to speed up the roll out of 5G to impose “smart” at all costs, making land instantly accessible (at criminally reduced rentals rates and at the expense of citizens’ health and human rights to challenge the telecoms companies mast applications) and utility infrastructure accessible for the densification of small cells (an any other smart accoutrements like CCTV cameras and sensors). The IoT is being rushed in without any regard for human rights and it is hugely concerning because it is not suggesting a future of maintained freedoms by an existence impinged upon and directed digitally, and hugely questionable on public health grounds.


How can any of this be changed? Invoke the precautionary principle (in relation to 5G and smart technology using it), restore free speech and human rights to be able to challenge governments, listen to scientists researching EMF toxicity and health issues, recognise electro-sensitive people in an electrical world and protect their rights and access to wi-fi free areas, protect human privacy, give people choice whether to own or use smart technology. Restore the rights of citizens to challenge masts and imposition of smart technology that can negatively affect well-being. Make it easier for people to choose or reject smart technology and build better options and equal standing for people who don’t want to live with smart technologies. There wouldn’t be a digital divide if people could choose to opt out of a “connected” existence, which simply does not appeal to everyone, and for very good reason.