Written evidence submitted by Jessica Learmond-Criqui

 

BROADBAND AND THE ROAD TO 5G

HEALTH IMPACT OF 5G

BRIEFING

This note addresses the call for evidence as part of the inquiry by Parliament into Broadband and the road to 5G.  It deals with that part of the enquiry as follows:

“What are the challenges to the roll-out of 5G “.  The major challenge is the health of humans.  The roll out is detrimental to the health of the nation and needs to be stopped pending evidence from the industry that this technology is safe.

Executive Summary

  1. There are widespread concerns amongst the medical research communities around the world that the current ICNIRP (International Commission on non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) electromagnetic frequency (“ENF”) radiation guidelines are not fit for purpose, in that they only address EMF heating effects, and not the many other potential effects at a cellular or physiological level. The ICNIRP guidelines are the default guidelines used by the UK government and government agencies to set limits on exposure to EMFs.

 

  1. There is already a huge body of work by specialist biochemists, scientists and doctors citing adverse effects on health of prolonged exposure to pulsed high frequency EMF radiation at levels well below the ICNIRP-recommended guideline maxima, and the members of ICNIRP, the EU's SCENHIR and the WHO EMF project, actually represent a minority view amongst scientists and health researchers.

 

  1. This situation should not be exacerbated by the introduction of widespread millimetreWave (mmWave) EMF radiation into the public realm as part of the next stage of 5G rollout, as is currently imminently threatened by DCMS/Ofcom in the UK, until it is definitively proven on an internationally peer-reviewed basis that subjecting the public to potentially ubiquitous and enduring mmWave EMF radiation alongside existing 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, Smart Meter, and IoT radiation, will not result in any adverse health consequences.

 

  1. To date, it is understood that there has been no research anywhere specifically addressing the potential biological and health effects of mmWave RF radiation on humans, animals and insects. It is not acceptable for the public to be exposed to large numbers of small cells emitting mmWave radiation in the 26GHz, 40GHz and 66-71GHz bands as part of the next stages of 5G rollout, until sufficient very focussed and appropriate research has been completed, to demonstrate that there are no adverse biological and health effects. Otherwise the government will effectively be treating the general population as live subjects in a UK-wide 'in vivo' experiment on mmWave radiation.

 

  1. This is not acceptable not least because this is a breach of the Nuremburg Code (see further below) and the "Precautionary Principle" must be applied. To do otherwise could expose the NHS to massive costs downstream if there are generalised adverse effects that will then need to be treated by the NHS.

 

  1. It is noteworthy that some Lloyds of London Underwriters are already excluding the potential effects of non-ionising RF radiation from their terms of liability cover, as are Swiss Re.

 

  1. Until widespread use of the mmWave bands is deemed safe for long-term human exposure, based on evidenced and peer-reviewed research, I am asking mobile phone companies, including yours, to cease and desist from making any plans to release any portion of the 26GHz band for public 5G use (whether experimental/trial or commercial). Any existing trial use of the 26GHz band for 5G small cells in various UK cities must be strictly time-limited and terminated when feasible pending confirmation that the long-term irradiation of the general population with 26GHz and 40 GHz and 70GHz RF signals is safe.

 

  1. From the contents of this note, you will see that there is a large body of evidence of harm from EMFs which is being ignored by the ICNIRP and the UK government. 

 

  1. I would urge your company to suspend the roll out of 5G until such time as the evidence of safety can be assured. 

 

  1. Thank you in advance for your urgent consideration of these potentially alarming public health issues.

This note deals with the following issues:

(a)               What is 5G;

(b)               Why are people concerned about health re 5G;

(c)                What do some doctors say;

(d)               The government and its agencies have washed their hands of health issues;

(e)               So, what are the ICNIRP guidelines and what’s wrong with them;

(f)                  How do the UK agencies interact with the international agencies and ICNIRP;

(g)               Let’s now look at some legal aspects; and

(h)               Conclusion.

 

  1. The rolling out of 5G is damaging the health of the nation and causing pain and suffering to many people. There are over 250,000 sufferers of electrohypersensitivity.  This is criminal and must be stopped pending proof from the industry that this technology is safe.

 

  1. Masts are catching fire because of electrical faults, such as the one in Birmingham – see below:

 

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/watch-birmingham-ee-phone-mast-18035916

 

  1. Please read the NASA report stating damage to humans from electromagnetic fields.

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19810017132 2019-11-10T22:35:43+00:00Z

 

Please also see the Ecolog Institute report prepared for T Mobile in 2000 which confirms harm to humans from electromagnetic frequencies.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/456107862/T-Mobile-Ecolog-Study-Appendices-A-D?fbclid=IwAR1er4NjhQYGex_7BLe0UaXbWYy7ss1FhrTCl63T5eJ08259xzC1IHaWt6c

 

See also a report on the clear evidence of the risks to children of smartphone wifi and radio frequency radiation by Professor Tom Butler. 

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/456572218/On-the-Clear-Evidence-of-the-Risks-to-Children-From-Smartphone-and-WiFi-Radio-Frequency-Radiation-Final-2019

 

  1. What is 5G

 

  1. Simply put, 5G stands for 5th Generation of the telecommunications network.  These words describe the different stages of development of the carriage of data over waves.  Each generation is an evolution of the network from the previous generation. 

 

  1. 1G was the carriage of voice data, 2G brought international roaming, texts and sim cards (the data in bus shelters use 2G), 3G enabled voice, video and internet in a mobile scenario and 4G was the convergence of multimedia (and pretty much everything goes) and technology.  

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-1G-2G-3G-4G-and-5G

  1. So, 5G is a progression from 4G and brings multiple antenna, millimetre wave, small cells, Li-Fi and all the new technologies from the previous decade together which could be used to give 10Gb/s to a user, with an unseen low latency, and allow connections for at least 100 billion devices.  Speed of delivery to a device is said to be at least 100 times faster than 4G.  You can read about the breakthrough from 4G to 5G at the link below:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22507512

 

  1. The debate about 5G has arisen from the fact that it will use a higher frequency of the wave spectrum to deliver its data.  The higher the frequency, the bigger the data load which can be carried.  5G is set to use millimeter waves (microwaves which are the same as are used in your microwave oven) to deliver its data load.  That’s where the problem lies.

 

  1. Of course, its not the whole story because current EMFs from 4G do have health impacts to EHS sufferers.  Some health impacts are set out in the slides of a presentation below which was given during a public meeting in 2014 to the European Economics and Social Committee:


https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/dr-jamieson---revised-presentation.pdf?sfns=mo

 

It spells out clearly that low level EMFs are harmful to humans.

 

  1. If you have limited time and want a swift way into the issues, I would urge you to

read the BioInitative report at:

 

https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/. 

 

  1. That document should bring you up to speed with the issues quite quickly.

B.              Why are people concerned about health re 5G

  1. There are people in the UK and abroad who suffer from the effects of electromagnetic frequencies and are recognized medically to be Electromagnetically Hypersensitive (“EHS”).  They suffer a range of symptoms when they come into contact with EMFs including headaches, fatigue, disturbed sleep, tingling, pains in limbs, head or face, stabbing pains, brain-fog and impaired cognitive function, dizziness, tinnitus, nosebleeds, palpitations and others.

 

  1. I have set out in Schedule 1, the biological effects at various frequencies set out in the Bioinitiative report https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

 

  1. I have set out in Schedule 2, a letter from Dr Andrew Tressider setting out some of the medical symptoms which are experienced by those who suffer from electro sensitivity.

 

  1. Accepted biological effects of EM fields include: increased childhood leukaemia, adverse effects on sperm production, pregnancy, embryo development and hormones; there are links with depression, Motor Neurone and Parkinson’s diseases, several cancers, behavioural problems and cataracts (see Schedule 2). 

 

  1. Other studies show reduced fertility, neurological damage, DNA damage, cell death (apotosis), oxidative stress and cardiac effects which are but a few of those recognised by modern scientific studies referred to below.  The studies also show significant risks to insect, plant and bird life. 

 

  1. Mechanisms include: changes in calcium influx, failure of repair of DNA breaks, blood brain barrier permeability, heat shock protein production, disruption of vital melatonin production (e.g. by blue light from screens), general sympathetic (stress) upregulation of the body and disruption of cell to cell signaling. The overall effect may be to age us all more quickly (see also Schedule 2).

 

  1. Below are some stories.  One is from a woman in Kentish Town who wrote to me last month.  She has consented to her story being circulated.  She has corresponded with PHE who has denied any liability or ability to intervene. When 5G was turned on at an antenna 6m from her house, she started suffering the following symptoms which she has not suffered before:

 

-          a persistent headache;

-          nausea;

-          high levels of anxiety;

-          palpitations;

-          a constant humming sound in her ears;

-          itching skin; and

-          other symptoms which recede when she goes into green wooded spaces.

  1. Her note is below:

Hi Jessica,

someone posted your Ham&High letter on Nextdoor, where I came across it. Many thanks for taking the time to write it!

I am now writing to you to share with you our recent personal experience with 5G.

We live in a terraced house in Kentish Town and there is a council block facing the back of it.

In May this year an earlier mobile phone mast installation on the roof of this block was “upgraded” to 5G. I was told at the time that this is the first such installation of 200 planned for Camden alone. I was also told that local engineers have no access to the control panels. In our case the infrastructure or hardware(?) is made and supplied (apparently for free) by Huawei and is being operated remotely by Huawei engineers.

Our bedroom is approx. 5-6 meters away from the public exclusion zone around the two antennas directly facing us.

My first response was to get in touch with the Camden New Journal, write to Public Health England and my MP, Keir Starmer whom I also went to see in person at his surgery. I also sent various FOI requests to the council.

Tom Foot of the CNJ initially seemed very keen to look into the issue and asked me to forward all the communication but has since gone quiet.

All the official respondents are unanimously hiding behind the ICNIRP "guidelines" (I assume you are familiar with who the ICNIRP are?) and PHE more or less confirmed that we are now guineapigs (no adverse effects anticipated, but should the evidence change they’ll let us know….).

I alerted PHE to the fact that some tenants of the council block have to walk through the exclusion zone in order to reach their flat and also told them that tree surgeons had been sent into this zone to “reshape” one of two very large trees near the antennas. PHE responded that there should be warning signs and/or cordened off areas but this is still not the case.

Various big law firms I approached hoping they might be interested in looking into this unprecedented threat to our privacy and health (and theirs!) didn’t show any interest either.

Whilst trying to alert others to this issue I also did everything I could to inform myself. An accoustimeter I purchased showed ridiculously high rf readings in our house and garden, especially at night. An emf expert has since confirmed these.

As I began to feel unwell and also utterly unsafe in our home we decided to relocate to Germany for a while and we ended up staying there for nearly three months.

Since our return we have been sleeping under an emf bed canopy and we also brought back a German system which plugs into the electricity circuit of the house and is designed to mitigate the adverse effects of the radiation. These two measures are enabling us to be in our home of twenty years at least for the time being.

As things stand I don’t have much hope that we will be allowed to return to our previous life without a 24/7 watchtower monitoring our every move and microwaving us and the wildlife in our garden in the process. The law is not on our side.

But maybe there is still a little bit of time to initiate some debate about where we seem to be going and stop this madness going any further. Who decides that we will have no choice but to live in "smart" cities and a toxic digitalised environment????

Please get in touch if you would like me to send you all the various letter exchanges or if you would like to meet up sometime.

Best wishes and thanks again for your attempts to raise awareness

  1. Below are pictures of the exclusion zones on the council building caused by the 5G antenna:

 

 

 

  1. Next is a story which I found during my research relating to a woman who had a mobile phone mast put up right outside of her house some years ago.

Home sweet home

We have a lovely home, but a mobile mast has been put up right next to it. Do we have a choice? No; none. Even though we protested and successfully objected so that our local planners refused, along came an HM Planning Inspector to tell us it wouldn’t look bad to them, and that’s all that matters. So up it went.

Now I have problems sleeping, my partner has headaches and my daughter has started having nosebleeds. Who will believe me? I know there are lots of people and families out there like ours experiencing the same, but no-one accepts what we are saying. The collusion is staggering between the industry that says we just don’t understand, police who say it will ‘all prove to be unfounded’ and the protection authorities who say there is no evidence, whatever we say and however many of us say it. Then the industry is lobbying government and asking for more de-regulation, because they are slipping behind in international competitiveness and not making as much money as they want. And the government stands by and will not even listen to MPs in the House of Commons who want proper debate, and a slow-down in this hateful race, until we know more.

My partner was then approached by O2 Airwave because he runs a business with a convenient location for a TETRA mast. He knows that the people who work for him are worried so he asked the NRPB for a current statement on safety, and whether he can tell his employees that TETRA will not affect them.

And the NRPB told him that he ‘must make his own mind up on that’, and by the way, some people say that low frequency microwaves like TETRA have been used for weapons or mind control, but there is no evidence. He didn’t ask that!

A cruel dilemma

So we put our lovely home on the market to move on. We feel we can’t risk the children living with this radiation so close. Maybe their school is protected by the planning rules, but our home isn’t.

What do we do? Protest and risk drawing attention to our house? Or keep quiet and hope no-one notices the silver monstrosity by the garden fence? If we protest and can’t sell, we can’t get away. And then we will be told that it is because we have scared people off, not because of the mast itself, because without us they would not have worried! But it is really making us unwell!!

We decided we must tell everyone who asks that the mast has been declared OK. It has a certificate that says is is operating according to the guidelines, and that the NRPB says it is probably safe. If we say that the NRPB says it is safe we could be held to account for lying.

We wrote to the local planning office to seek advice. What do we legally have to say to people buying our house? Does this fear of ours (that our symptoms are from the mast, and may be bad in the long term as well as very unpleasant all the time), count as something material to be declared about the property? The planners refused to advise us, and suggested we seek our own legal advice.

Am I getting this right? It appears that since the government has chosen not to protect us from something that they certainly know may not be harmless, we must pay to find out if we must warn prospective buyers of the danger they say probably does not exist? And if the legal advice is that we must inform prospective buyers? Isn’t that like warning them off? How extraordinary.

A family viewed our house, with happy little children. It is a lovely house, and the rooms are bright, a good size and well-proportioned. It is an ideal family home. I don’t want them to buy it. But I want to get away. I want to sleep again, and for us all to be happy and well.

Mr Blair; Mr Prescott; Mr Clark; Sir William Stewart, at the Health Protection Agency. None of you seems to care. Is my family an acceptable casualty in the cause of your politics? Forgive me if I believe down to my toes that we have lost democracy, lost our human rights and that you have abdicated all responsibility.

  1. Please see the articles below referring to health impacts in Switzerland when their 5G was switched on in 102 locations in Geneva.

https://mdsafetech.org/2019/07/20/the-first-report-of-5g-injury-from-switzerland/

 

  1. And finally, please see below the story of the fight against 5G in the US - Local Soccer Mom Versus Multi Billion 5G Industry. 

Deb Persampire, an American mother, decided to do something when she found out about the 5g rollout in her town, on her street and outside her house. Without her knowledge and apparently without regard for her safety and that of her children; her local council had instructed the installation of ‘small cell’ towers all over town.

Her story is your story, the same thing is happening in the UK. EE and Vodaphone are rolling out 5G technology which recent scientific studies have shown to be harmful to human development and function. Please view the video and share widely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M7YFI0I9kI&feature=youtu.be


C.              What do some doctors say

  1. Do see the letter from Dr Andrew Tressider who is also a trustee of the ES-UK (www.es-uk.com) at Schedule 2 and his paper at Schedule 3.  At its heart is the caution that EMFs cause illness in some people.

 

  1. It may also be helpful to point you to the European Commission's 'non-binding guidelines' on EMF.  Pages 87 – 89 covers some possible symptoms, not just those associated with over-exposure

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=14741&langId=en

  1. An extract from the above is below:

High frequency fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)

Exposure to high frequency fields below the relevant action level (AL) may cause interference with the normal functioning of active implanted medical devices or bodyworn medical devices. Any malfunction could have potentially serious consequences.

Passive medical implants that are metallic may serve as absorbing antennas resulting in local increases in RF exposure of tissues and possible injury.

The first indication of exposure to high frequency fields may be the sensation of warmth as the worker or parts of their body are heated by the field. However this may not always be the case and feeling warm is not a reliable warning signal. It is also possible to ‘hear’ pulsed fields between 300 kHz and 6 GHz, so clicking, buzzing or hissing noises may be heard by exposed workers.

Prolonged exposure of the whole body can result in a rise in body temperature.

Increased temperature of only a few degrees can lead to mental confusion, fatigue, headache and other symptoms of heat stress. High physical workloads, or working in hot and humid conditions will increase the likelihood of these effects. The severity of the symptoms also depend on the physical condition of the worker, whether they are dehydrated or not, and on the clothing they are wearing.

Partial body exposure can lead to localised heating or ‘hot spots’ in muscles or internal organs, and also cause superficial burns which appear instantly on exposure. Serious internal injury is possible without obvious burns on the skin. Strong local overexposure may cause damage to muscles and surrounding tissues in exposed limbs (medial compartment syndrome), which develops instantly or within a few days at most. In general terms, most tissues can tolerate increases in temperatures for short periods without harm, but a temperature of 41 °C for more than 30 minutes will produce damage.

A temporary lowering of sperm count is possible with exposures that cause substantial heating of the testis, and heating may increase the risk of miscarriage in early pregnancy.

The eye is known to be sensitive to heat, and very high exposure well above the ELV may cause inflammation of the sclera, iris or conjunctiva. Symptoms can include redness, pain in the eyes, sensitivity to light and pupillary constriction. Cataracts (opacities of the lens) are rare but a possible late effect of exposure, and can take weeks or months to develop following exposure. There are no reports of effects occurring years after exposure.

For higher frequency fields (around 6 GHz and above) energy absorption becomes increasingly superficial. These fields will be absorbed by the cornea of the eye, but exposures well above the ELV will be required to cause burns. The skin will also absorb these high frequency fields and at sufficiently high exposures this may result in pain and burns.

Workers may suffer electric shock or contact burns from touching working antennas or from contact with large metallic, ungrounded objects, such as cars, in the field. Similar effects may occur when an ungrounded worker touches a grounded metallic object.

These burns may be superficial or deep within the body. Metallic implants, including dental fillings and body piercings (as well as jewellery and some tattoo pigments), can concentrate the field leading to localised heating and thermal burns. High exposure of the hand may also result in nerve damage.

Case reports of overexposed workers suggest other symptoms may also be possible.

These include headaches, bowel upset, lethargy, and long-lasting feelings of ‘pins and needles’ in the exposed tissues.

Stress reactions may be associated with actual or suspected overexposure.

  1. Do also see the article of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine which is at Schedule 13.  It sets out a number of illnesses associated with long term exposure to EMFs.

 

  1. You may also want to review the site for Physicians for Safe Technology which has a whole section on 5G Telecommunications and lists numerous biological effects and impacts:

 

https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/

 

  1. The 2018 European Commission Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) regularly updates emerging risks to public and environmental health. In their 2018 European Commission Statement on Emerging Health and Environmental Issues lists e cigarettes, perflourinated compounds, plastics, nanoparticles and also includes virtual reality and electromagnetic radiation, especially 5G technologies.  They state “The lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences.” 

 

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer_en

 

  1. The report below states at page 14:

 

https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/scheer-report-emerging-concerns-2018-russell-mentioned.pdf

 

“On the horizon, a new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G wavelengths is being proposed to power the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT promises us convenient and easy lifestyles with a massive 5G interconnected telecommunications network. However, the expansion of broadband with shorter wavelength radiofrequency radiation highlights the concern that health and safety issues remain unknown. Controversy continues with regard to harm from current 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technologies. 5G technologies are far less studied for human or environmental effects” (Russell, 2018).”

 

and

“5G networks will soon be rolled out for mobile phone and smart device users. How exposure to electromagnetic fields could affect humans remains a controversial area, and studies have not yielded clear evidence of the impact on mammals, birds or insects. The lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences”

D.              The government and its agencies have washed their hands of health issues

  1. There is no doubt that 5G will have massive commercial benefits.  The connectivity of over 100 billion devices, self driving cars, nano-technology, remote medical interventions and applications which have not yet been thought about.  But, at what cost to human health?

 

  1. The Prime Minister’s position was set out in his speech to the United Nations in September, 2019. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-24-september-2019

  1. I set out his text below for ease of reference:

Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, faithful late night audience.

It is customary for the British Prime Minister to come to this United Nations and pledge to advance our values and defend our rules, the rules of a peaceful world.

From protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf, to persevering in the vital task of achieving a two-state solution to the conflict in the Middle East.  And of course I am proud to do all of these things.

But no-one can ignore a gathering force that is reshaping the future of every member of this Assembly.  There has been nothing like it in history.  When I think of the great scientific revolutions of the past - print, the steam engine, aviation, the atomic age - I think of new tools that we acquired but over which we - the human race - had the advantage, which we controlled.  That is not necessarily the case in the digital age.

You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal trainer – but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google.  And if that is true today, in future there may be nowhere to hide.  Smart cities will pullulate with sensors, all joined together by the “internet of things”, bollards communing invisibly with lamp posts, so there is always a parking space for your electric car, so that no bin goes unemptied, no street unswept, and the urban environment is as antiseptic as a Zurich pharmacy.

But this technology could also be used to keep every citizen under round-the-clock surveillance.  A future Alexa will pretend to take orders.  But this Alexa will be watching you, clucking her tongue and stamping her foot.  In the future, voice connectivity will be in every room and almost every object: your mattress will monitor your nightmares; your fridge will beep for more cheese, your front door will sweep wide the moment you approach, like some silent butler; your smart meter will go hustling - if its accord - for the cheapest electricity.

And every one of them minutely transcribing your every habit in tiny electronic shorthand, stored not in their chips or their innards - nowhere you can find it, but in some great cloud of data that lours ever more oppressively over the human race - a giant dark thundercloud waiting to burst and we have no control over how or when the precipitation will take place.  And every day that we tap on our phones or work on our ipads - as I see some of you doing now - we not only leave our indelible spoor in the ether but we are ourselves becoming a resource.  Click by click, tap by tap.

Just as the carboniferous period created the indescribable wealth - leaf by decaying leaf - of hydrocarbons, data is the crude oil of the modern economy and we are now in an environment where we don’t know who should own these new oil fields.  We don’t always know who should have the rights or the title to these gushers of cash and we don’t know who decides how to use that data. 

Can these algorithms be trusted with our lives and hopes?  Should the machines - and only the machines - decide whether or not we are eligible for a mortgage or insurance or what surgery or medicines we should receive?  Are we doomed to a cold and heartless future in which computer says yes - or computer says no with the grim finality of an emperor in the arena?  How do you plead with an algorithm? How do you get it to see the extenuating circumstances and how do we know that the machines have not been insidiously programmed to fool us or even to cheat us?

We already use all kinds of messaging services that offer instant communication at minimal cost.  The same programmes, platforms, could also be designed for real-time censorship of every conversation, with offending words automatically deleted, indeed in some countries this happens today.  Digital authoritarianism is not, alas, the stuff of dystopian fantasy but of an emerging reality.

The reason I am giving this speech today is that the UK is one of the world’s tech leaders - and I believe governments have been simply caught unawares by the unintended consequences of the internet;  a scientific breakthrough more far-reaching in its everyday psychological impact than any other invention since Gutenberg.  And when you consider how long it took for books to come into widespread circulation, the arrival of the internet is far bigger than print.  It is bigger than the atomic age - but it is like nuclear power in that it is capable of both good and harm - but of course it is not alone as new technologies seem to race towards us from the far horizon. 

We strain our eyes as they come, to make out whether they are for good or bad - friends or foes?  AI - what will it mean?  Helpful robots washing and caring for an ageing population?  or pink eyed terminators sent back from the future to cull the human race?

What will synthetic biology stand for - restoring our livers and our eyes with miracle regeneration of the tissues, like some fantastic hangover cure?  Or will it bring terrifying limbless chickens to our tables.

Will nanotechnology help us to beat disease, or will it leave tiny robots to replicate in the crevices of our cells?  It is a trope as old as literature that any scientific advance is punished by the Gods.  When Prometheus brought fire to mankind in a tube of fennel, as you may remember, that Zeus punished him by chaining him to a tartarean crag while his liver was pecked out by an eagle and every time his liver regrew the eagle came back and pecked it again and this went on for ever - a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK, if some of our parliamentarians had their way.

In fact it was standard poetic practice to curse the protos heuretes - the person responsible for any scientific or technical breakthrough.  If only they had never invented the ship, then Jason would never have sailed to Colchis and all sorts of disasters would never have happened.  And it is a deep human instinct to be wary of any kind of technical progress.

In 1829 they thought the human frame would not withstand the speeds attained by Stephenson’s rocket and there are today people today who are actually still anti-science.

A whole movement called the anti-Vaxxers, who refuse to acknowledge the evidence that vaccinations have eradicated smallpox and who by their prejudices are actually endangering the very children they want to protect.  And I totally reject this anti-scientific pessimism.

I am profoundly optimistic about the ability of new technology to serve as a liberator and remake the world wondrously and benignly, indeed in countless respects technology is already doing just that.

Today, nanotechnology - as I mentioned earlier - is revolutionising medicine by designing robots a fraction of the size of a red blood cell, capable of swimming through our bodies, dispensing medicine and attacking malignant cells like some Star Wars armada.  Neural interface technology is producing a new generation of cochlear implants, allowing the gift of hearing to people who would not otherwise be able to hear the voices of their children.

A London technology company has worked out how to help the blind to navigate more freely with nothing more than an app on their smartphones - new technologies, produced in Britain, helping the deaf to hear and the blind to see.  And we used to think that printing was something you did to run off a boarding card.

Now a British company has used 3D printing to make an engine capable of blasting a rocket into space.  In African countries, millions of people without bank accounts can now transfer money using a simple app; they can buy solar energy and leap in one transaction from no electricity to green power.  And new advances are making renewable energy ever cheaper, aiding our common struggle against climate change.

Our understanding of the natural world is being transformed by genome sequencing.  The discovery of the very essence of life itself.  The secret genetic code that animates the spirit of every living being and allows medical breakthroughs the like of which we have never known.  Treatments tailored to the precise genetic makeup of the individual.

So far, we have discovered the secrets of less than 0.3 percent of complex life on the planet.  Think what we will achieve when – and it is a matter of when – we understand 1 or 2 percent, let alone 5 or 10 percent.

But how we design the emerging technologies behind these breakthroughs – and what values inform their design –will shape the future of humanity. That is my point to you tonight my friends, my Excellencies - At stake is whether we bequeath an Orwellian world, designed for censorship, repression and control, or a world of emancipation, debate and learning, where technology threatens famine and disease, but not our freedoms.

Seven decades ago, this General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with no dissenting voices, uniting humanity for the first and perhaps only time behind one set of principles.  And our declaration - our joint declaration - upholds “freedom of opinion and expression”, the “privacy” of “home or correspondence,” and the right to “seek…and impart information and ideas”.  Unless we ensure that new technology reflects this spirit, I fear that our declaration will mean nothing and no longer hold.

So the mission of the United Kingdom and all who share our values must be to ensure that emerging technologies are designed from the outset for freedom, openness and pluralism, with the right safeguards in place to protect our peoples.  Month by month, vital decisions are being taken in academic committees, company boardrooms and industry standards groups.  They are writing the rulebooks of the future, making ethical judgements, choosing what will or will not be rendered possible.

Together, we need to ensure that new advances reflect our values by design.  There is excellent work being done in the EU, the Commonwealth, and of course the UN, which has a vital role in ensuring that no country is excluded from the wondrous benefits of this technology, and the industrial revolution it is bringing about.  But we must be still more ambitious.

We need to find the right balance between freedom and control; between innovation and regulation; between private enterprise and government oversight.  We must insist that the ethical judgements inherent in the design of new technology are transparent to all.  And we must make our voices heard more loudly in the standards bodies that write the rules.

Above all, we need to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology.

So - here’s the good news - I invite you next year to a summit in London, a wonderful city, where by the way it is not raining 94 per cent of the time, and where at one stage - when I was Mayor of London - we discovered that we had more Michelin starred restaurants even than Paris. The French somehow rapidly recovered - by a process that I wasn’t quite sure was entirely fair. But we still have by far, in the UK, by far the biggest tech sector - fintech, biotech, meditech, nanotech, green tech - every kind of tech - in London - the biggest tech sector anywhere in Europe, perhaps half a million people working in tech alone.

I hope you will come there, where we will seek to assemble the broadest possible coalition to take forward this vital task, building on all that the UK can contribute to this mission as a global leader in ethical and responsible technology.  If we master this challenge – and I have no doubt that we can – then we will not only safeguard our ideals, we will surmount the limits that once constrained humanity and conquer the perils that once ended so many lives.

Together, we can vanquish killer diseases, eliminate famine, protect the environment and transform our cities.  Success will depend, now as ever, on freedom, openness and pluralism, the formula that not only emancipates the human spirit, but releases the boundless ingenuity and inventiveness of mankind, and which, above all, the United Kingdom will strive to preserve and advance.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention.

Published 25 September 2019

  1. You may be forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister was not in favour of 5G.  But you will notice the absence of one important fact in his speech – HEALTH.  He spoke merely of “security”.

 

  1. There are many government agencies tasked with ensuring that our environment is free from harmful agents.  Those involved in the electromagnetic frequency or radiation space in the UK are set out in Schedule 4.

 

  1. You will see from these submissions that many have all washed their hands of the impact on health of 5G and leave those who suffer health consequences with no recourse or place to turn for help. 

 

  1. At present, neither the government nor its agencies are prepared to take account of the health impacts found in over 1800 scientific papers – a list and explanation of those papers are set out in the 1557 pages of the Bioinitiative report.

 

  1. The government and its agencies justify its their position by stating that they operate within the international ICNIRP guidelines which states that there is no harm from EMFs below the limits which the ICNIRP set.  The evidence to confirm that Public Health England has washed their hands in this way in Schedule 5. 

 

  1. 5G rollout is the policy of the Department of Digital, Media, Culture and Sport:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/597421/07.03.17_5G_strategy_-_for_publication.pdf 

  1. Health is not mentioned anywhere is the whole document - nor have any risk assessments been published here. One of the biggest risks is actually to the Treasury - with decreasing numbers of healthy taxpayers left in 10-15 years time perhaps, whilst in the document there are all sorts of applications of technology discussed that none of us need or want – not at the cost of our health.

 

  1. A risk assessment is legally compulsory for such a project, not just by PHE, but also by each local council whose workers are working within the public spaces of the borough and exposed to radiation. 

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg163.pdf 

 

  1. While the above link relates to The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016 in the context of medical MRI but applies to EMFs generically.  The link to the regulations are at:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/588/regulation/4/made

 

  1. Some relevant paragraphs from the regulations are set out in Schedule 6.  The regulations generally require employers to ensure that worker exposure to EMFs does not exceed certain exposure limit values (ELVs). 

 

  1. It is unknown whether a risk assessment has been carried out by any of the mobile service operators or PHE.

 

  1. Any risk assessment which should have been done is required to take account of all up to date science and not merely outdated and industry biased guidelines.  Even without the legal grounds, on a simple moral basis, if society is to be taken on a voyage, it would be nice to know that the ship was seaworthy, the captain sober, the crew alert and competent , the navigation aids effective, all relevant charts consulted, and a good lookout kept for icebergs, (even for unsinkable ships)… (we had one of those a hundred years or so ago…).

 

  1. While you, as a mobile service provider, is not expected to anticipate unforeseeable risks, you have now been told in these submissions of one serious risk and you cannot now unknow them. 

 

  1. Mobile service providers seem to have washed their hands of the health effect of their EMFs.  Some refer to the ICNIRP guidelines.  The evidence for this is at Schedule 7 which shows that Vodafone and Telefonica SA (O2) all rely on the ICNIRP guidelines.  When I wrote to BT plc (EE) and Three (3), neither responded.

 

  1. As you know already, for planning purposes, as long as a mobile service operator delivers a certificate to the local council that the frequency for their mast is within the ICNIRP guidelines, the council is prohibited from considering any grounds of objection to the siting of the mast on health grounds.  Any objection to the siting can then only be made on aesthetic grounds – “does it look good in the chosen location”.  This has denuded the public of the right to complain about masts and your products on the basis of damage to their health and that is wrong.

 

  1. For the reasons set out in these submissions I suggest that this is a targeted assault on the rights of citizens, their property and their human rights.

 

  1. I have set out in Schedule 8 some of the Parliamentary debates, mentions and discussions referring to 5G and health concerns.  You will see that all arguments stop with reference to the ICNIRP guidelines which state that there is no health harm for human interaction with frequencies below their limits so any concerns re health are misplaced.

 

  1. The backstop of the ICNIRP Guidelines seem to be the magical panacea for all concerns.

 

  1. Every government agency, some Members of Parliament, eg Keir Starmer QC and Tulip Siddip are all given the ICNIRP line and look no further (see Schedule 9).

 

  1. This total subjugation of the eyes and ears of the citizenry protection mechanism is faultless and have rendered them all deaf to the pleas of sufferers.

E.              So, what are the ICNIRP guidelines and what’s wrong with them

 

  1. There are some fundamental criticisms of these guidelines, not least of which is that these guidelines were set for short term exposure and not for long term exposure to EMF.  The guidelines are, therefore, outdated and need to be reviewed.

 

  1. There are other criticisms which state that the ICNIRP has dismissed scientific research linking cancer to those living near phone masts.  They have been criticised by a number of professionals.  Some are set out below.

 

  1. One such criticism is from the Council of Europe in 2011 as below:

 

"it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields" (The rapporteur's memorandum attached to a resolution adopted by the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in May 2011)

 

  1. Another is at:

 

https://ehtrust.org/us-scientist-criticizes-icnirps-refusal-to-reassess-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-guidelines-after-us-national-toxicology-program-studies-show-clear-evidence-of-cancer-in-experimental-animals/

 

  1. Sarah Starkey sets out a blistering, detailed and reasoned critique of the guidelines below:

 

https://www.jrseco.com/wp-content/uploads/Starkey_2016_ICNIRP.pdf

 

  1. Michael Bevington sets out a summary critique which is at Schedule 10 and a more detailed critique which is at Schedule 11.

F.              How do the UK agencies interact with the international agencies and ICNIRP

  1. Many of the people involved belong to the groups which make up the PHE, COMARE, WHO AND ICNIRP.

 

  1. PHE relies on ICNIRP.

 

  1. COMARE relies on WHO which relies on ICNIRP.

 

  1. WHO will produce its EHC which will form the basis of ICNIRP's revision - but they're mostly the same people.

 

  1. The following is a helptul interface of PHE, DHSC, ICNIRP and WHO as at October 2019.

 

  1. NRPB/HPA/PHE, the UK’s agency concerned with public health and radiation and sponsored by the Department of Health and DHSC, adopted the 1998 ICNIRP guidelines following the EU 1999 recommendation.

 

  1. The ICNIRP guidelines are based on ICNIRP’s general approach and principles, published in 2002.

 

  1. These principles include the adoption by governments of guidelines lower that ICNIRP’s short-term ones based on the heating hypothesis to protect vulnerable groups.

 

  1. NRPB/HPA/PHE have adopted precautionary advice over children, one of the vulnerable groups.

 

  1. It is reasonable to understand that in adopting certain guidelines that one accepts the principles on which these guidelines are based, otherwise there is no basis for adopting these guidelines rather than some other guidelines.

 

  1. The World Health Organization does not set guidelines. It has entrusted this role to the private self-elected group ICNIRP, spun out of another private group concerned with nuclear radiation group.

 

  1. WHO will produce a new EHC which will inform the next ICNIRP guidelines.

 

  1. ICNIRP 1998 guidelines

 

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf

 

  1. ICNIRP 2002 general approach

 

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPphilosophy.pdf

 

  1. WHO 2006 (RF) reliance on ICNIRP

 

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/

 

  1. WHO 2007 (ELF) reliance on ICNIRP

 

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/

 

  1. PHE complies with ICNIRP and adopts precautionary advice on children, 2017, 2018 [in line with ICNIRP general approach 2002]

 

http://www.mardenvillage.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PHE-RF-Advice-Summary-12-May-2017.pdf

 

  1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/574110/response/1376200/attach/3/PHE%20RF%20Advice%20Summary%2018%20Dec%202018.pdf

 

  1. PHE’s COMARE reliance on WHO, 2018 (minutes, 2.12)

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786270/COMARE_121_minutes_-_final.pdf

 

  1. Some information on the various bodies above is below:

COMMITTEE ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF RADIATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT (COMARE)

121st meeting, Thursday 22nd November 2018

Skipton House, London

2.12 The Chair informed members that there had been continued correspondence from the UK & Commonwealth EMF Action Group on several issues, including attendance at meetings as observers and interest in the formation of a working group for non-ionising radiation (NIR) issues. The Chair has discussed the working group suggestion with DHSC in regard to the committee’s work programme. While health issues associated with electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are within COMARE’s remit, the formation of a NIR working group now is not considered a productive use of the committee’s time. COMARE has received no specific requests for advice on NIR issues. The Chair reminded members that the World Health Organisation (WHO) is currently undertaking a review on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and the committee would not wish to duplicate this work. It was proposed that following publication of the WHO report, the committee could review the document and produce a statement. Members were advised that there is UK engagement with WHO through the international EMF project. Members discussed the remit of the committee for NIR work and the balance with work on ionising radiation issues. Members were content with the proposal to review the WHO report and to maintain a watching brief on NIR issues.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE

Teléphone Cetral /Exchange (+41 22) 791 21 11
direct /+4122)791

In reply please refer for: E15-445-11
Prière de rappeler la référence:

Gruppe Hans U. Jakob
Flüehli 17
CH 3150 Schwarzenburg
Switzerland

14. September 2001

Dear Sir

…

ICNIRP is an independent scientific commission of eminent scientists established by the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) to provide advice on non-ionizing radiations in the same way as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has done for ionizing radiation for over 65 years. It is an independent and separate organization. It is not "under-organization of WHO" as stated in your letter.

However, ICNIRP is one of a very large number of NGOs in official relations with WHO and it has been working with WHO on matters related to the protection of people from exposure to non-ionzing radiation.These radiations include EMF, UV, static fields and ultrasound. ICNIRP uses WHO's health risk assessments to draft guidelines on human exposure limits, which have now been accepted for guidance or mandated into law in many countries.

…

gez.
Ann Kern

Executive Director, Stustainable Development
and Healthy Environment

cc:
M. Marta Mauras, Deputy Secretary-General'Office, UN, New York
Mr.Patrizio Civili, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy,Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs

xxxx

Government response to the Stakeholder Advisory Group on extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF EMFs) (SAGE) recommendations

2009

5. The UK adopted the 1998 ICNIRP5 EMF public exposure guidelines in terms of the 1999 European Recommendation (1999/519/EC)6. The electricity industry currently complies with these guidelines on a voluntary basis.

 

13. The same NRPB 2004 publication recommended the adoption in the UK of the international (ICNIRP) guidelines based on the known science but also “that government should consider the possible need for further precautionary measures.” Precaution is mentioned because of the uncertainty in the science.

 

29. The Government recommends that the electricity industry takes appropriate action to identify any homes and schools that do not currently meet the ICNIRP requirements because of the proximity of high voltage power lines, and addresses the need for remedial actions to ensure that exposures do not exceed the relevant ICNIRP guidelines.

 

42. It is for EU Member States to determine the circumstances in which the adoption of the ICNIRP guidelines is appropriate in terms of the EU recommendation. In this regard, the UK Government considers that exposure for potentially significant periods of time might reasonably be regarded as referring to residential properties, and to properties where members of the public spend an appreciable proportion of their time. The ICNIRP guidelines are formally incorporated into the planning system for radio telecommunications but not in regard to overhead power lines, so in taking forward actions in response to the SAGE report the Government will take the opportunity to consider this matter further.

 

47. In the light of the above advice, we recommend that the electricity industry take steps to identify any existing homes and schools that do not meet the ICNIRP requirements because of the proximity of high voltage power lines and to consider what remedial actions might be taken to ensure that exposures do not exceed the relevant guidelines.

 

Summary of Advice from Public Health England on Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields

12 May 2017

Central to PHE advice 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). PHE has also issued precautionary advice to discourage the

non-essential use of mobile phones by children.

(available at eg

http://www.mardenvillage.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PHE-RF-Advice-Summary-12-May-2017.pdf)

Summary of Advice from Public Health England on Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields

[February 28 2018]

Central to PHE advice 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). PHE has also issued precautionary advice to discourage the non-essential use of mobile phones by children.

(available at eg

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/574110/response/1376200/attach/3/PHE%20RF%20Advice%20Summary%2018%20Dec%202018.pdf)

Electromagnetic fields and public health

Exposure to extremely low frequency fields

Backgrounder 322
June 2007

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/

International exposure guidelines

Health effects related to short-term, high-level exposure have been established and form the basis of two international exposure limit guidelines (ICNIRP, 1998; IEEE, 2002). At present, these bodies consider the scientific evidence related to possible health effects from long-term, low-level exposure to ELF fields insufficient to justify lowering these quantitative exposure limits.

1.                 Electromagnetic fields and public health

a)                 Base stations and wireless technologies

Backgrounder 304
May 2006

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/

Protection standards

International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005).

National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded.

 

  1. Of course, ICNIRP provides a disclaimer to its guidelines as below:

“ICNIRP undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published. The content of our website is provided to you for information only. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website.”

 

  1. This does beg the question “Who is ultimately liable”.  Here is a body which is advising the world’s governments of safety of their people and it does not accept responsibility for its work.

 

  1. Do see the Council of Europe’s article confirms its views on the dangers of EMFs which is at Schedule 12.

G.              Let’s now look at some legal aspects

Human rights

  1. The Danish Institute for Public Health and the Council for Health-Safe Telecommunications has prepared a legal document related to the broad harm from 5G as well as other wireless technologies. They state:

 

“The legal opinion is based on the rules of law in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the EU directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the EU directive on the conservation of wild birds, on the precautionary principle as well as on the Bern- and Bonn- conventions on the protection of animals and plants.”

 

  1. LEGAL OPINION – on whether it would be in contravention of human rights and environmental law to establish the 5G-system in Denmark - FINAL DANISH VERSION TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH by Christian F. Jensen attorney-at-law (L)

 

https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/5g-danish-legal-opinion-jensen-2019.pdf

Other laws and potential breaches of laws

  1. Time has not allowed me to review all potential laws which may be contravened by a roll out of 5 G, but a few below come to mind. 

 

(a)              Negligence – your company has a duty of care to the public in the tort of negligence to ensure that your products do not cause harm.  They do cause harm.  You have been told of this harm in this document and the email accompanying it.  It is harm which is reasonably foreseeable and for which your company will be liable in damages to members of the public who suffer harm, including myself and my family.

(b)              Common Assault - since it is proven that RF causes ES symptoms, then to deploy RF without consent is assault.

  1. While it is not a breach of the law as such, it should be noted here that insurance companies will not insure against harm caused by EMFs.


H.              Conclusion

  1. I have so much more that I can tell you.  But for the moment I will leave my submissions at this point. 

 

  1. If you accept the submissions in this document, I would suggest to you that we are all being used as guinea pigs in a giant experiment.  Nuremberg Code which I have set out in Schedule 15 prohibits experiments on humans without their consent.

 

http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/nurembergcode

  1. The Nuremberg Code was introduced in August 1947, after the Nuremberg trials. In these trials, Nazi doctors were convicted of the crimes committed during human experiments on concentration camp prisoners. It attempted to give clear rules about what was legal and what was not when conducting human experiments.
  2. The code consists of ten points. The first and most important is that anyone participating in an experiment must give informed consent. This means nobody can be forced to participate in human experiments. All participants must understand the potential risks.
  3. The code also gives rules for running the experiments. For example, participants can leave the experiment if they want. Doctors must stop the experiment if they realise it can harm the patient. Also, no experiment can be made where the risks outweigh the benefits that can be had from it.
  4. There is a lot of opposition to 5G around the world including a lot in the US, Australia, Switzerland and other countries.  Brussels has suspended the roll out of 5G.

 

  1. The vast majority of the population have no idea of what is coming at them and when it is too late, it will be too late to do anything about it because the hardware will be embedded into the landscape and into our lives. 

 

  1. We and our children will be sick, with the burden being borne not by the mobile phone service companies who propagate the radiation, but by the taxpayers through the NHS. 

 

  1. At what price should humanity’s advancement be permitted?  Who is to be our protector in this unequal fight? 

 

  1. Other references which may be of assistance are set out in Schedule 16.

 


 

SCHEDULE 1

EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AT VARIOUS FREQUENCIES

 

Taken from the BioInitiative Report 2012 (updated to 2019), pgs 94 – 104

https://bioinitiative.org/

 



 






SCHEDULE 2

Letter from Dr Andrew Tressider relating to Electrosensitivity

 

Dr Andrew Tresidder MBBS MRCGP (1989) Cert Med Ed, Section 12 Approved Doctor

 

Sea

Ilminster

Somerset

TA19 0SB

Andrewtresidder3@gmail.com

 

Nov 2018

 

To my Medical Colleagues, GPs, Psychiatrists, Neurologists and others:

 

Electrosensitivity – an Environmental illness, an Authentic Diagnosis, not a

Delusional Disorder

 

Summary:

 

Electrosensitivity is the symptomatic sensitivity to Electric or Magnetic Fields of any frequency, including RadioFrequency (RF or Microwave) transmissions. As a symptomatic condition, it is becoming common due to the increasing environmental pressure on human biology. The source is pollution from wireless and other EM fields. Doctors as yet rarely recognize it due to educational issues. Safety always lags technological advance. There are barriers to recognition of harms. Current UK Advisory Safety Limits are based upon the outdated and disproven myth that Non-Thermal means Non-Harmful. Society and organizations have yet to fully travel the road from ‘there isn’t a problem’, ‘there might be a problem but it’s very small’ to ‘there is a problem’. Society does not recognize humans as electromagnetic beings, as well as physical bodies needing careful nutrition to maintain health. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of people suffer, often ignored or dismissed because society doesn’t yet appreciate the issue, and doctors have no answers. Electrosensitivity is soundly supported by both biology and physics.

 

You may be being consulted by a person who has this under-recognised condition.Thank you for reading this. It provides information that you may not easily find elsewhere. Electrosensitivity (ES) is a condition first described in 1932, and is when a person’s physiology is affected by external Electromagnetic (EM) fields, giving rise to a typical spectrum of symptoms, often neurological. It is therefore an illness caused by environmental agents – essentially an environmental toxic pollutant. Electrophobia is a fear of EM fields, and is a nocebo driven response. Symptoms of fear or paranoia about any agent, circumstances, person or issues can be part of a psychiatric condition, and may be part of a delusional state which will have other features. ES is completely separate from any delusional condition and from Electrophobia.

 

ES is a condition that can arise due to continued exposure to an environment polluted by man-made EM and RF (radio-frequency) wireless signals at levels at orders of magnitude below heating effects, and is well understood in Russia. Symptoms include headaches, fatigue, disturbed sleep, tingling, pains in limbs, head or face, stabbing pains, brain-fog and impaired cognitive function, dizziness, tinnitus, nosebleeds, palpitations and others.

 

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, (now known to be partially a failure of mitochondrial function) was initially difficult to diagnose and indeed construed by some as psychological illness. I have written this briefing sheet to summarise my understanding of ES in case you wish to consider it in your differential diagnosis.

 

My qualifications for this are as follows: I trained at Guy’s Hospital, and have been a GP since 1989, seeing a wide range of Primary Care Practice. I have a special interest in Health and Well Being, both physical, psychological and emotional, and have studied this whilst working with my patients. I seek to give the best of orthodox diagnoses and treatment, and also recognise other factors that contribute to and may maintain ill health, in order to eliminate them if possible. I have a wide-ranging interest in factors that affect health. I work for NHS Somerset CCG as a GP Patient Safety Lead, where I have done a number of Investigations into Root Causes, for the University of Bristol as an Examiner and Educator and former Somerset Academy GP Lead, and am approved under the Mental Health Act as a Section 12 Doctor. I teach Doctors on Health and Self-Care on behaIf of the BMA and in Somerset Hospitals and wider afield.

 

I am also a trustee of the charity ES-UK, which post has given me access to more information and research about the condition than many clinical colleagues, and in this I have consulted scores of people (at no charge) with electrosensitivity, severe enough to impact badly upon their lives. My Experience: As a Section 12 Approved Doctor under the Mental Health Act, I have been involved in at least 400 Mental Health Act Assessments over ten years, and have good relationships with our excellent Somerset Psychiatrists. In all of the assessments I have done, though I have seen many patients with paranoia or delusional states including reference and being watched from the television and the like, I have never seen anyone with ES during an MHAA.

 

I have however, separately (i.e. not in Mental Health Act Assessment settings) seen patients whose symptoms are reliably caused by exposure to Electromagnetic fields, especially RF (Radiofrequency) transmitting echnology, but also by EM Fields and by Dirty Electricity (for an explanation see below). It is only too easy, as I know from my medical career, to make a diagnosis only from the choices within the medical framework that we have learnt

about, often years ago, especially when faced with a condition whose aetiology we cannot explain.

 

System Educational Problem: The aetiology of ES is discussed below but essentially the big problem that we all face as Clinicians, Scientists and Researchers is that the Medicine we have learnt is predominantly based on the discipline of Chemistry – not Physics. Yes, MRI Scanners and CT scans are Physics (i.e, information technology) based – however the vast majority of the narrative of pathology, physiology, anatomy, diagnostics and therapeutics is Chemistry based. Yet we are seeing in the field of IT that a Physics based understanding of technology has changed our world (yes, your phone, computer, internet use etc. has Chemistry based hardware, but the working of it is largely Physics based). And all clinicians are aware, from the history of medicine, that new insights into understanding are always occurring.

 

Actually, there is a growing awareness that the human body works on biophotons and information flows https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15947465 and electromagnetics as well as Chemistry, and that proteins in cell walls work as switching transistors. No wonder that exposure to certain frequencies of EM or RF fields at low power can have a biological effect – because this is how the cells work on microvoltage and microwattage powers (see Energy Medicine, James Oschman, 2nd ed. 2015, Elsevier).

 

And of course the first noticed symptomatic effects will be on the nervous system, especially if already compromised due to (common) sub-clinical nutritional deficiencies of Omega 3 fatty acids, B Vitamins (think pellagra as a deficiency illness), intra-cellular magnesium, zinc, manganese and others.

 

Potential Diagnostic Traps: If we as doctors cannot explain something, it’s only too easy to diagnose the problem as either psychological or delusional, and in this we may fall into error, caused by our own unfamiliarity or the progress of understanding faster than our educational system transmits to us. If one has never yet diagnosed a case, it can need an astute diagnostician to differentiate between the unfamiliar yet real effects happening in a body at unseen levels resulting in distressing symptoms which give avoidance behaviour (because that person knows that they feel unwell near certain devices), and on the other hand a patient with a true delusional state as part of a mental disorder. However, once the clinician is aware of the existence of Electrosensitivity, the differentiation becomes easy, especially after seeing the pattern of several cases, as delusional states usually have several characteristic facets to them, and do not claim a plausible (though as yet unfamiliar) Physics based explanation.

 

An unfortunate myth/mantra perpetuated in science, by Private Industry Bodies such as ICNIRP, with its own vested interests, and repeated by Regulatory Bodies including PHE (HPA), (some of whose advisers are members of ICNIRP, which is surprising, and could be construed as a conflict of interest) is that nonthermal = non-harmful (now known to be FALSE) (i.e. if it doesn’t heat you over 6 minutes) – but this completely ignores all signal effects, which have known biological consequences. If ants can die from proximity to a wifi router, mobile phone or laptop on wifi (because they lose their ability to navigate, as caused by a signal, not a thermal effect) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23977878 ), rats’ retinas be harmed by certain frequencies of LED light https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25863264

whilst our ears can detect a billionth of a watt and our eyes a single photon, then is it surprising that measurable EM or RF fields can affect some people – and some people become hypersensitive and develop nervous system symptoms to extremely weak signals?

 

Safety issues always lag technological advance, whether from new medicines, car safety (think seat belts and tyre tread), asbestos etc, and early advice about possible problems is often ignored by not believing, by discrediting or worse by blaming the messenger. (It is human nature to be conservative).

 

From research, I have learnt about the importance of sleep, posture, breathing, emotional support, nutritional correctness, and freedom from electromagnetic transmission fields amongst other areas.

 

I have seen a number of people who feel unwell in the vicinity of wireless transmitters, mobile phone masts, cordless phones, from using a mobile phone, and from active alarm sensors, amongst other things, in my practice as a GP and elsewhere. I can confirm this from experience of headaches, brain fog and word finding difficulties with prolonged exposure to RF including wifi, mobile or cordless phones.

 

A typical history of a more severe case is that after an electromagnetic insult (such as a new powerful RF (wireless) device being introduced into the person’s environment, or an electric shock), symptoms may progressively appear, in response to exposure to electromagnetic fields of various different types. These fields include using appliances such as hair-driers, vacuums or cookers, which produce high levels of electric and magnetic fields, or cordless phones, wifi routers, mobile phones and a whole range of wireless transmitting technology which produces RF (radiofrequency, or microwave) transmissions, or computers, monitors and other devices, and fluorescent lights (as opposed to the older incandescent type of bulbs). A careful history is paramount in detecting this condition, especially if aggravating and alleviating factors are described and detected, possibly helped by using field detectors (measuring devices for EM fields and wireless radiation).

 

Symptoms include headaches, fatigue, disturbed sleep, tingling, pains in limbs, head or face, stabbing pains, brain-fog and impaired cognitive function, dizziness, tinnitus, nosebleeds, palpitations and others.

 

It is clear that the primary area of disturbance is in the nervous system. It is not known why some people react to these and others do not, however it may be that heterogeneity of genetic make-up, nutritional status, and other factors predispose people to develop the condition once sensitised. Certainly general factors like lack of sleep can exacerbate the issue.

 

Mechanisms include voltage-gated calcium channel disruption, upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system, interference in the blood brain barrier and alteration of melatonin production, production of heat shock proteins, failure of DNA recombination due to the radical spin pair mechanism, and interference with intercellular microsignalling and circadian rhythms. What is certain is that it is not a nocebo effect, as animals are affected, such as ants, fruit flies and others. As we understand more about biological systems using electromagnetic signals to communicate, a whole host of biological effects will become apparent. We already know that semen quality is affected by RF

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927498 .

 

Prevalence: some people suffer from Electrosensitivity to a severe and incapacitating degree, which affects less than 1% of the population, whilst moderate may affect up to 3-5%, and mild 20-30%. Please see: The Austrian Medical Association EMF Guidelines, and “Electrosensitivity: Sources, Symptoms and Solutions” Textbook of Bioelectromagnetic and Subtle Energy Medicine, 2nd ed., 2015. http://www.esuk.

info/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/02.2-Tresidder-and-Bevington-ES-chapter-47-2015.pdf

 

Electrosensitivity is an under-recognised illness in the Western world. However, since the 1930s it has been recognised by Russia and the former Eastern Bloc countries, and also by the US in Naval Medical research https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Barrie_Trower_SA.pdf It did not exist before mains current was used. Now that many people are being exposed to radio frequency transmissions, both in and outside the home and workplace, the number of people who fall ill because of this will rise. Current sufferers, if able to obtain a correct diagnosis, are likely to be seen in retrospect as the canaries, the early messengers of problems. ES appears to be a disability caused by environmental pollution, and may be a useful warning sign for society of a problem. For an interesting view on this, with research based upon many years of government activity from the 1950s on, see Wifi, a potential Thalidomide http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/emf_117.pdf

 

The whole area may be an inconvenient truth, and sometimes it is easier to discredit the messenger than to honestly investigate forwards. It is not yet taught about at medical school or to PostGrads and therefore is unlikely to be diagnosed by most GPs or Hospital Specialists at present. In two or three years’ time, the picture is likely to be different regarding medical knowledge and expertise. This is a new area of disability that is explicitly recognised in Canada, Sweden and the USA, and is becoming more and more important.

 

Treatment is currently problematical. It is essential to minimise exposure to adverse EM fields, as well as pay attention to nutrition, sleep and other factors to ensure high levels of health. Despite this, many people steadily worsen, and become casualties of the environmental RF and EM pollution, causing a steady decline in their health, often losing their jobs, ability to enter public places, and sometimes even unable to remain in their houses. Current UK NHS medical knowledge and approaches offer little hope of any treatment or improvement, although a number of GPs and others do recognise the condition. Future hope may be found by taking a salutogenic (health oriented) approach.

 

Current and historical UK PHE (HPA) advice is based on the outdated incorrect theory that only thermal effects may cause harm, and takes no recognition of signal effects, and therefore is unhelpful. The PHE advice is based upon the flawed Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 Report, which has ‘an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest’ (see Appendix). Unfortunately, senior people in UK Scientific and Advisory bodies still trust this outdated theory, partly due to the System Educational Problems. A few authorities still consider that the condition is a psychologically mediated nocebo effect (‘we don’t know what’s going on, so the patient must wrong’) – such authorities come from the same school of thought that decided that CFS/ME was psychologically mediated. We now understand the biological basis of compromised mitochondrial function. This historical view of CFS can be replaced now we understand how mitochondrial function is implicated. http://www.ijcem.com/files/IJCEM812001.pdf .

 

 

A thorough review of up-to-date papers on Electrosensitivity appears in Bevington’s summary 'Select Studies on ES and EHS' available on the Research tag in the ES-UK websitehttp: http://www.es-uk.info/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/02.3-Selected-ES-and-EHS-Studies-2018.pdf

 

Society is aware that most mobile and smart phones now include advice to keep them away from the body (though ‘pocket hotspots’ are being popularized); it seems as though the industry may be shifting position towards acknowledging not just heating effects, but also other significant non-thermal effects.

 

Some areas of the Insurance Industry have serious concerns about the health effects, and exclude cover for EM and RF from their policies. In the USA, unusual multifocal breast cancers in young women in their 20s have been reported immediately adjacent to where their mobile phone has been kept in the bra.

 

Since symptoms from EM exposure can be delayed and cumulative, a patient's history of symptoms and exposures may be difficult to follow for someone not experienced in the types of technology now known to have biological effects.

 

Thank you for considering this diagnosis in your differential of possibilities. I hope this is of assistance to you.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Andrew Tresidder

 

Useful resources:

 

Valuable technical studies on objective physical markers and symptoms include:

 

- The Austrian Medical Association Guidelines: http://electromagnetichealth.org/wpcontent/

uploads/2012/04/EMF-Guideline.pdf

 

- Belpomme et al, 2015: Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying

electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a

unique pathological disorder. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326

 

- Belyaev et al, 2016: EUROPAEM 2016 EMF Guideline 2016 for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF-related Health Problems and Illnesses

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/27454111/

 

- Work (trans.) by the German psychiatrist and psychotherapist C Aschermann:

http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Aschermann2009.pdf

 

- Andrew Tresidder & Michael Bevington: “Electrosensitivity: Sources, Symptoms and Solutions” ch. 47 in: Textbook of Bioelectromagnetic and Subtle Energy Medicine, 2nd ed., Paul Rosch, 2015

(NB this is a 28Mb file). http://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/02.2-Tresidderand-

Bevington-ES-chapter-47-2015.pdf

 

- Dieudonné M, 2016: Does electromagnetic hypersensitivity originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a qualitative study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26369906

 

- Bevington M, 2016, a summary of papers on ES http://www.es-uk.info/wpcontent/

uploads/2018/05/Selected%20ES%20and%20EHS%20studies.pdf

 

Please see www.es-uk.info and www.powerwatch.org.uk , and also Prof. Denis Henshaw: www.electricfields.com. The Powerwatch Handbook by Alasdair & Jean Philips (Amazon) is recommended.

 

Electromagnetic Sensitivity by Michael Bevington is an excellent overview with 1828 scientific

references, available from ES-UK, BM Box ES-UK, London WC1N 3XX for £12: www.es-uk.info.

 

Professor Martin Blank’s “Overpowered” (2014) is a useful overview, including the politics, Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis, 2nd Ed, James Oschman, Elsevier 2015 is helpful

Dr Mallery-Blythe’s excellent scientific overview: “Electromagnetic Radiation, Health and Children” also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRbE4CvKA4Q&feature=youtu.be&t=25693

http://phiremedical.org/category/for-medical-doctors-scientists/

 

Prof Martin Pall’s ‘Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them’ is concerning a 90 page, seven chapter document on EMF effects, how they are produced in the body and the corruption of the international science:

http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards–dr-martin-l.-pall–eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf

 

Appendix – conflicts of interest and flawed conclusions in science

 

The ‘authoritative’ 2012 AGNIR report has been analysed in the following paper, and found to be flawed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27902455 The abstract states “The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the United Kingdom and has been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world. This review describes incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and conflict of interest, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment. The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed. This conflict of interest critically needs to be addressed for the forthcoming World Health Organisation (WHO) Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields. Decision makers, organisations and individuals require accurate information about the safety of RF electromagnetic signals if they are to be able to fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities and protect those for whom they have legal responsibility. PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields. “Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest. Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.” One

hopes that PHE may wish to reconsider the safety of the AGNIR Conclusions, as the current analysis illuminates serious conflicts of interest and errors within AGNIR’s report, and shows either 1) predetermined conclusions, 2) scientific bias, conscious or unconscious (including System Educational Problems), 3) errors in analysis and flawed conclusions, or, 4) less comfortably, that greater forces have required this result (‘Active Denial’ is a strategy used

by individuals, companies and governments to avoid responsibility). There are no other obvious explanations. PHE may have trusted the independence of AGNIR without appreciating these factors, or the System Educational Problems mentioned above.

Some studies trying to elucidate the issue (eg Kings’ College London) have reached flawed conclusions. In the otherwise excellent (from the data, method and analysis point of view) BMJ published KCL paper by Rubin in 2006 Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520326 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440612/

‘sham’ was not ‘sham’ – because in ‘sham’ mode the headset heated itself to a similar degree as when ‘active’ RF was being transmitted – of course by electricity, generating EM Fields – and the transmissions were changed to ’internal divert’ – therefore current was still passing: ‘It was possible to divert power in either variant to an internal load to provide sham RF exposure conditions with heating and low frequency magnetic fields similar to the exposure modes’. http://www.mthr.org.uk/documents/MTHRreport2012.pdf p26. Rubin states ‘For the sham

exposure, a continuous wave signal was generated to ensure that the system heated up to the same degree as the active exposures but was diverted to an internal load instead of being transmitted through the antenna; only minimal leakage of this signal occurred’. For a sensitive person, this, of course, would be an active test – no wonder the paper was unable to state that sensitive subjects had a different experience from sham – because ‘sham’ was active. (The unfortunate error was to fail to appreciate that signal effects can occur at a wide range of

power outputs with sensitive biological systems, and that low frequency magnetic fields similar to the exposure modes may also cause symptoms – as opposed to power (heating) effects which tend to diminish with decreasing power – and therefore to assume that the described ‘sham’ really was ‘sham’).

 

Any lay analysis of the results (fig 2) clearly shows that there are two distinct groups – the controls, who had few symptoms at all at any point through the study, and the sensitives, who after being near the controls at the start, had steadily increasing symptoms (far more than the controls), at all stages after the commencement of the study, until a relative decline after the transmission was switched off at 50 minutes. Rubin comments ‘Sensitive participants reported headache-like symptoms in a mean of 70.4% of calls. The next most common symptoms were skin warmth or burning (43.8% of calls), difficulty concentrating (30.0%), and dizziness (20.8%). Very few control participants reported any symptoms in relation to mobile phone signals; the highest mean frequency was for skin warmth or burning (2.9%). For headache, burning sensations, skin sensations, and eye pain we

found evidence of a main group effect—sensitive participants reported greater severity.’ Rubin’s data shows that in the sensitive group, 2 subjects were excluded due to severe symptoms at baseline, 6 withdrew at stage one (half due to severe symptoms), and 3 at stage 2. He also states ‘We also analysed the number of severe reactions seen

in each condition, with a severe reaction defined as a participant requesting that an exposure be terminated early or withdrawing from the study entirely after an exposure. Twenty-six such reactions occurred in the sensitive group (9 withdrawals; 17 early terminations), and none occurred in the control group’. This is helpful evidence to support the fact that sensitive subjects really do develop symptoms to the point that they have to withdraw –

whereas controls do not.

 

Unfortunately, the conclusion included the sweeping assertion that there is no biological basis - an assertion made in a paper with only 19 references - and no analysis of or reference to the thousands of papers documenting biological evidence on animals and humans available even in 2005, and in opposition to understanding of voltagegated calcium channels effects, amongst other mechanisms. It is most unfortunate that because the authors (mainly psychologists, with no biologists) did not appreciate that the supposed ‘sham’ (with current passing in a device strapped to the head and transmission happening ‘internally’) was not sham at all, but active, it was assumed that only psychological mechanisms were involved. The paper’s conclusion is ‘No evidence was found to indicate that people with self reported sensitivity to mobile phone signals are able to detect such signals or that they react to them with increased symptom severity. As sham exposure was sufficient to trigger severe symptoms in some participants, psychological factors may have an important role in causing this condition’. This conclusion of course fits with the then prevailing chemistry narrative of medicine rather than an informational physics perspective as explained by Oschman in Energy Medicine, Elsevier, 2000

 

If one reinterprets the data in this light, and includes a less narrow literature search of relevant human and animal studies (e.g. see the 1828 references in Bevington’s 2013 book), the data in Rubin’s 2006 paper is truly excellent support of the fact that Electrosensitivity exists. Rubin could be congratulated upon this research, if the erroneous conclusions made in 2006 were now reframed to the diametrically opposite point of view. A new conclusion might state: ‘Evidence was found to indicate that people with self reported sensitivity to mobile phone signals at even very low levels are able to detect such signals or that they react to them with increased symptom severity from either active transmission or biologically active internal divert. As even the lower level of exposure originally thought to be sham exposure was sufficient to trigger severe symptoms in all sensitive participants, this is important evidence that some subjects are sensitive to field strengths dramatically below SAR limits set by ICNIRP, and therefore that reliance upon thermal safety limits alone is invalid. This study disproves the fiction that “non-thermal” equals “non-harmful” ’. (The Insurance industry also has these reservations)

 

Possible Ways Forward

 

Fortunately, Engineers are problem solvers, and can create wonderful solutions. RF and wifi everywhere has been designed on the parameters of good connectivity , and the mistaken presumption that only thermal limits are relevant for safety.

 

Ask engineers to design sleep mode as a default for routers, cordless phones etc, and other applications, ask them to research biological modulation to bring harmony into signal, ask them to ensure that peoples’ sleeping space is a signal free haven and sanctuary for the organism to recover and rest – and ensure human health – then engineers will always find effective solutions. 

 

Ask the health scientists to acknowledge the issue and to look carefully at how to help susceptible people with high quality nutrition, careful serial supplementation to address (among others) B vitamin and zinc and magnesium deficiencies which are widespread, to look at the human software system and how to strengthen and support it, and to ensure white spots of low or no signal for susceptible people to function in, – and they will find answers

 

EM Pollution and Electromagnetic Stress – General Advice Sheet

This advice is ahead of its time. It is written with the benefit of experiencing many cases of electrosensitivity. This is a contested area, as ‘Safety ALWAYS lags technological advances’ (think tyre tread, seat-belts, asbestos, lead in petrol etc.). The reader is asked to research for themselves.

 

Human health is a delicate balance. It can be adversely affected by interfering factors such as chemical pollution, smoke, pollens, moulds, the food we eat, what we drink, lack of sleep, lack of fresh air, lack of sunlight, lack of fresh water and so on. Electromagnetic pollution is another factor which affects the body. Our bodies were developed in an environment free from man-made EM signals (which are up to 1018 stronger than background), whilst the body uses minute micro-currents for cellular function.

 

Symptoms may be none, or include tiredness, poor quality sleep, irritability, heart palpitations,

headaches and a feeling of pressure in the head, speech and thinking disturbance, brain fog, dizziness, tinnitus, vertigo, tinglings and odd sensations in the limbs, joint pains, rashes and others.

 

Electromagnetic problems are caused by:

 

1. Field effects from cables and appliances (e.g. lights, hairdryers, washing machines, cookers, bedside radios etc.).

2. Signal effects from microwave transmitting technology (e.g. microwave ovens, mobile phone masts, cordless phones, mobile phones, WiFi, wireless routers, Wii devices, laptop computers, wireless printers, alarm sensors, iPads, Blackberries, baby alarms, utility smart meters, wireless central heating controls, and a car’s Bluetooth devices.

 

3. ‘Dirty electricity’ also damages health.

The key solution is to minimize your exposure in the home, especially during sleep time:

Switch off wifi routers and cordless phone base stations and any other devices whenever you can – remember the signal is designed to go through walls and throughout the house.

Put iPads, phones and other wireless devices onto airplane mode.

Instead of WiFi, consider a DLAN wired router system for computer internet via the ring main.

Consider changing alarm sensors to passive only (rather than active which use microwaves).

Think about refusing offers of wireless central heating controls and wireless smart meters.

The Council of Europe recommends a Precautionary approach, although current UK Public Health England advice is based on heating effects of transmissions only, not the observed signal effects. The World Health Organization’s IARC says that wireless technologies are a Class 2b possible carcinogen.

 

Accepted biological effects of EM fields include: increased childhood leukaemia, adverse effects on sperm production, pregnancy, embryo development and hormones; there are links with depression, Motor Neurone and Parkinson’s diseases, several cancers, behavioural problems and cataracts.

 

Mechanisms include: changes in calcium influx, failure of repair of DNA breaks, blood brain barrier permeability, heat shock protein production, disruption of vital melatonin production (e.g. by blue light from screens), general sympathetic (stress) upregulation of the body and disruption of cell to cell signaling. The overall effect may be to age us all more quickly…

Industry pressure may hinder discussion or reporting, or ridicule the ‘Canaries in the Coal Mine’ who are the early ES sufferers. Please do not take this on trust: research and make up your own mind! read…

‘The Powerwatch Handbook’ by Alasdair Phillips, ‘Overpowered’ by Martin Blank, and ‘Energy Medicine’ by James Oschman

 

 

 

 

 


SCHEDULE 3

Andrew Tressider’s paper

 

Culture, Technology and Radiofrequency Effects Sep 2019 Andrew Tresidder

Technology can be wonderful and bring great benefits. The story of the last 5000 years is of incremental technological advances, success, and the progressive empowerment of humans with the opportunity to raise human consciousness. We have seen the clearing of forests for agriculture with iron tools, then the wheel, next straight roads to communicate with Rome, aqueducts and bridges. Further revolutions (periods of rapid evolution) have followed. In the Middle Ages, literacy and the printing press, then agricultural, industrial, power generation (wood, coal, oil and electricity), transport (railways then roads on land, ships on sea and air travel), electricity, communication, all allowing communication and personal travel, and the projection of power and will. Recent advances in information technology have allowed amazing leaps forward, and a world wide web, that parallels the invisible web of conscious -ness that permeates everything (according to modern physics – Jude Currivan). Great!

All these human advances allow better, more fulfilled lives for many.  It seems as though mankind has mastered external use of the elements of earth, fire, air and water. If the purpose of technological advance is purely to have more comfortable lives, then technology has served us well, despite setbacks. However, if the purpose is to serve the fulfillment of personal potential – that is, the growth of human consciousness, then we may be missing a trick. The Roman Emperors knew how to control the restless million inhabitants of Rome – by diverting them with panem et circenses – a free corn supply for bread, and circuses. Perhaps our modern equivalent is plenty of plenty of food and comfort, and 24 hour screen time…

There are three important aspects of problems that apply to Radiofrequency and Electromagnetic (RF or microwave) Field technology:

1 Safety always lags technology.

We see this time and again – on the first day of a public railway in Britain, the Liverpool and Manchester, MP William Huskisson was run down by a train. Improvements in safety stopped trains travelling towards each other on the same stretch of track, then signaling became more sophisticated, and so on. The highest rate of road fatalities per mile travelled was in the 1920s – lack of driving skills, unsafe cars, and poor road surfaces all contributed to this. Resistance to safety always comes from the industries – the railways had to be cajoled by the Railway Inspectorate (HMRI), and on roads in the 1960s the introduction of safety belts was resisted by libertarians, anxious to allow people the right to exit a motor car via the front windscreen – and by the manufacturers, because of cost. However, unit costs of safety always reduce with increased production.

2 Safety limits are set – but by whom, and for whose benefit?

Current EMF safety limits in much of the Western world are based on the assumption that only thermal (heating, power) effects are hazardous to health. Safety limits set by the body ICNIRP are six minute thermal effects only – if the source heats biological tissue by over 1 degree Celsius within six minutes, there is deemed to be a problem. If it takes 7 minutes, 60 minutes or six hours, then this is not covered by the safety limits. However, biological systems react to extremely low power signals – our eyes can react to a single photon with a cascade of biochemical reactions, whilst our ears can detect a billionth of a watt when in silence - these are neither power nor thermal effects. Living systems are affected by signal at a power many orders of magnitude below thermal effects. The adverse effects are Signal, not Power – which invalidates thermal safety limits. Mechanisms include effects on the voltage gated calcium channels amongst others, and affect fertility and many other systems, thousands of research papers show the adverse effects on biology. Many governments have chosen to follow ICNIRP, which favours industrial output, rather than biological limits - that protect human health, bees, insects, and nature, despite thousands of scientific studies showing harm at levels well below thermal.

Non-thermal does NOT equal non-harmful. Furthermore, parts of the insurance industry describe EM and RF fields as ‘pollutants’ and decline to provide indemnity cover. Swiss Re warned in 2013 of the potential High Impact of unforeseen risks of electromagnetic fields on a 10 year view https://media.swissre.com/documents/SONAR_+Emerging_risk_insights_from_Swiss_Re.pdf What does this say? Also, exposures are often ‘talked down’ as part of a ‘spin’ approach – e.g. one company claims that its smart meters only transmit for six seconds a day - the truth in this case is that their meters transmit 14000 times a day for a few microseconds – maybe 6 seconds in total - but we know that 14000 blood curdling screams do not average out as silence.

3 Sadly, society can be led astray, even into danger.

Many people use devices, whether mobile phones, pads, tablets, home Wi-Fi, smart meters and so on, on the basis that “they wouldn’t let us use them if they weren’t safe, would they?” – and the technology IS wonderful in providing information and connection. Many of us, especially the young, are addicted to our devices and treat them as comfort blankets – in fact some of the algorithms in the software are designed to hook our attention. Once the hazards of any new technology become apparent, there is always a slow movement from denial (there isn’t a problem, there isn’t a problem) and “there are a few mad people who say there’s a problem” to grudging acceptance “there’s only a small problem and it’s completely under control” to “Houston, we have a problem” – that is realisation of the major significance of the issue. We’ve seen this with tobacco, asbestos, lead in petrol, radiation in pregnancy and other issues, all advised as SAFE by the industries involved, and sometimes by health advisers. It is so much easier to blame the messenger than listen to the message. But as they say in the airline industry – safety may be expensive, but the cost of a mid-air collision… Also, cui bono? Is the rollout of every piece of new tech to the long-term health benefit of the purchaser and society – or more for the profit of the tech developers….How can continuous irradiation of living spaces and vehicles, felt as symptoms and impaired cognitive function by some, be health-giving?

In summary

  1. Technological advances can be wonderful and (sometimes) bring great benefits.
  2. Safety always lags technology. Those who profit frequently resist the safety costs
  3. Current safety limits are six minute thermal only – this does not respect biology, and is based on the falsehood that non-thermal equals non-harmful
  4. Harms are often not initially apparent, and are then denied – often using vociferous active denial, by those who have vested interests, whether financial or from a belief system. There can be a wanton (hopeful) and groundless presumption of no harm.
  5. Technology should be used wisely and serve, not master, human development.
  6. Science tells us there is a problem, but regulators and industry are not yet listening

 

The future is potentially hopeful – but ONLY if harms are recognised and mitigated – and consumers survive the technology! Some worry about incremental fertility failure, because a girl’s oocytes can be damaged by RF from laptops etc, and mitochondria (the ‘power houses’ of the cell) affected, whilst we know that sperm quality is degraded by RF.

Where next for humanity?  Will humanity go where it needs – to help every individual develop their consciousness, awareness and connection, or just travel where it wants to, captivated and dazzled by desire and appetites? Will continued rollout of technology cause us to lose our pollinators and insects, and our own human health (health being harmony of mind, body and spirit, including connection to soul)? Will vested interests and clever lobbyists drown out or subvert common sense and wisdom? Will we continue Active Denial both at personal and institutional levels, or will we wake up to the issue, listen to those who are affected adversely, and learn the ways of health – as well as reducing invisible pollution levels?

Resources regarding health effects of electromagnetic fields, especially Radiofrequency (microwave) radiation

EHTrust.org - https://ehtrust.org/science/research-on-wireless-health-effects/ www.es-uk.info has a great deal of useful material and advice http://phiremedical.org has excellent info, Dr Mallery-Blythe on: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7tOWNeoVyQ4w-QBGnq930OwesqVlbJki and http://youtu.be/sNFdZVeXw7M www.es-uk.info  www.electricsense.com is informative. http://electromagneticman.co.uk/index.php/case-studies/electrosensitivity-sufferers  Consider   www.powerwatch.org.uk http://www.radiationresearch.org    Prof Pall's latest indictment of the ARPANSA, ICNIRP, FCC approach seems spot on:https://stopsmartmeters.com.au/2019/03/22/emeritus-professor-martin-pall-slams-arpansa-response/ 5G Martin Pall https://youtu.be/bsaB7ewFsN0?list=PL7tOWNeoVyQ4w-QBGnq930OwesqVlbJki&t=1416 non ionising radiation strategy group meeting november 5 on youtube 2018http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988521/krakows_bold_step_to_curb_electromagnetic_pollution_reflects_growing_evidence_of_harm.html www.emfields-solutions.com www.electric-fields.com (Prof Denis Henshaw, Bristol, a pioneer in awareness of the issue) Energy Medicine by James Oschman, 2015 Elsevier is useful, http://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/02.2-Tresidder-and-Bevington-ES-chapter-47-2015.pdf  http://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/01.2-GP-letter-to-doctors-and-psychiatrists-8-pages-Nov.2017.pdf     https://www.electricsense.com/is-5g-dangerous/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EytG0se9hCE&list=PLEAowARbUhT2kYSYdbIgqYQ4XhMtKNVve&index=5

 


SCHEDULE 4

Agencies involved

 

 

UK

Dept. of Health and Social Care (DHSC)

Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for England, Chief Medical Advisor to the UK government and Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC)

Public Health England (PHE)

Parliamentary Health and Social Care Select Committee

Parliamentary Science & Technology Select Committee

Advisory Group on Non-Ironising Radiation (AGNIR) disbanded by PHE in May 2017 and its responsibilities transferred to COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

International

World Health Organisation

EU Commission

Council of Europe

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)

UN

 

SCHEDULE 5

Public Health England’s responses to health concerns of 5G

 

  1. Correspondence with one person referred to as MS for the purposes of this note

 

From: Phe.Complaints [mailto:Phe.Complaints@phe.gov.uk]
Sent: 12 July 2019 13:31
To: MS
Cc: Phe.Complaints <Phe.Complaints@phe.gov.uk>
Subject: OFFICIAL: Your complaint to Public Health England

OFFICIAL

Dear MS

Complaint reference:


Thank you for your emails to Public Health England (PHE) dated 12 June and 18 June 2019.

You have complained that Dr Simon Mann, Head of Radiation Dosimetry within the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards directorate at PHE, has made a statement in respect of 5G technology which is “demonstrably dishonest”.  You have said that Dr Mann stated that “as far as PHE are aware, 5G is safe.”  You have asked what published, peer-reviewed research Dr Mann can be referencing to support this statement.

You have not specified which BBC news programme contained this appearance by Dr Mann.  He recently made a contribution to a segment about the health implications of 5G on BBC Points West.  Dr Mann stated, “We are fairly confident that it can be regarded as safe.” 

Dr Mann’s contribution to the BBC Points West segment was restricted to a single sentence.  His full comments to the programme makers were heavily edited and the brief statement he did make clearly did not purport to contain or represent the full and considered PHE position on non-ionising radiation.   The full broadcast of the BBC Points West segment can be found at the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/df8yp7khb6rdz3i/5G_240619_for%20dropbox_exarchive-h264.mov?dl=0

Public Health England (PHE) advises the UK Government on the public health aspects of exposure to radio waves, including those associated with 5G and other radio transmitters in the environment.

Our position on this topic is covered in the attached briefing note, and the official guidance on mobile phone masts, also covering the topic of 5G, can be accessed using the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health

Central to PHE’s advice 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). This position is underpinned by various formal reviews of the scientific evidence suggesting that exposure to radio waves below ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects, as explained in the aforementioned webpage.

 

PHE strongly refutes your allegation of dishonesty on the part of Dr Mann.  PHE expects all of it staff to adhere to its Code of Conduct and to “conduct ourselves openly and transparently, with integrity, impartiality and honesty – we shall never deceive or knowingly mislead others including customers, the public, colleagues, the Department of Health, Ministers or Parliament.”  We have unequivocal confidence in the integrity of Dr Mann.

The contents of this email represent PHE’s initial response to your complaint.  If you are dissatisfied with this response, you can ask to have your complaint reviewed independently by a member of the PHE management team.  You must write to us within 20 working days if that is your wish. 

Your sincerely

 

David Dewar

Complaints Officer

Public Accountability Unit

Public Health England

Wellington House

133 – 155 Waterloo Road

London
SE1 8UG

 

From: MS
Sent: 18 June 2019 11:53
To: Phe.Complaints <Phe.Complaints@phe.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: OFFICIAL: Your email to Public Health England

Dear David

A Recent BBC news programme a person reporting to be from PHE, Simon Mann stated that as far as PHE are aware, 5G is safe. This is demonstrably a dishonest statement and Mann should be aware of this as no safety testing or data is available to show it is safe. The same dishonest regurgitation of that information is currently used by others referring to PHE as their source.  What published peer reviewed research is Mann referencing to support what is demonstrably dishonest reporting of 5G. Intent to harm the Citizen is a crime, testing experimental technology on the Citizen is also in breach of the Nuremberg code all Public servants should be aware of that.

MS

 

From: MS
Sent: 12 June 2019 14:15
To: PHE.enquiries <PHE.Enquiries@PHE.gov.uk>
Subject: Complaint

I require your complaint procedure so I can take issue with dishonest information coming from individuals at PHE.

Yours Sincerely.

MS

We do not pay public servants to misinform the public.

 

PHE BRIEFING NOTE SENT TO MS WITH ABOVE EMAIL

Public Health England – Information on mobile telecommunications technology

 

Mobile telecommunications technology has developed through several generations and there are now many 2G, 3G and 4G base stations installed throughout the environment providing services to users of mobile phones and other devices. Over the decades since the networks were first introduced there has been a general trend towards increasing numbers of smaller transmitters that individually provide services to smaller geographical areas and which have reducing radiated powers. Against this background, many measurements have been made and these continue to show that exposures of the general public to radio waves are well within the international health-related guideline levels that are used in the UK. These guidelines are from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and underpin health protection policies at UK and European levels.

 

In relation to the implementation of 5G user devices and networks, this technology is at an early stage and reflects the latest evolution in mobile communications technology. Current technical standards that draw on the ICNIRP guidelines will apply to the products that are developed and the UK network operators are already committed to complying with the ICNIRP guidelines.

 

With the increase in the volume of information being transferred, more spectrum is being made available and the highest frequencies being discussed for future use by 5G are around ten times higher than those used by current network technologies, up to a few tens of GHz. Their use is not new, and they have been used for point-topoint microwave links and some other types of transmitters that have been present in the environment for many years. ICNIRP guidelines apply up to 300 GHz, well beyond the maximum (few tens of GHz) frequencies under discussion for 5G.

 

Exposure to radio waves is not new and health-related research has been conducted on this topic over several decades. In particular, a large amount of new scientific evidence has emerged over the past few years through dedicated national and international research programmes that have addressed concerns about rapidly proliferating wireless technologies.

 

The main focus of recent research studies has been on exposure to the types of radio signals used by current communications technologies and at the frequencies they use, up to a few GHz. Fewer studies have been carried out at higher frequencies but the biophysical mechanisms that govern the interaction between radio waves and body tissues are well understood at higher frequencies and are the basis of the present ICNIRP restrictions. The main change in using higher frequencies is that there is less penetration of radio waves into body tissues and absorption of the radio energy, and any consequent heating, becomes more confined to the body surface.

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.

 

Further information

 

Public Health England’s (PHE’s) Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE) takes the lead on public health matters associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, or radio waves, used in telecommunications.

 

A summary of PHE advice on radio waves can be accessed in the following link:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electromagnetic-fields#radio-waves

 

PHE is committed to monitoring the evidence applicable to this and other radio technologies, and to revising its advice, should that be necessary.

 

B.                ANOTHER PERSON’S EXPERIENCE OF PHE WHEN THEY RAISED HEALTH CONCERNS REFERRED TO AS B FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SCHEDULE

 

From: emf.enquiries <emf.enquiries@phe.gov.uk>

Subject: RE: OFFICIAL: Involuntary prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation

Date: 12 June 2019 at 10:10:16 BST

To: B

Cc: PHE.enquiries <PHE.Enquiries@PHE.gov.uk>

OFFICIAL 

Dear B,

 Thank you for your latest e-mail.

 In the situation you describe with the tree surgeons, ICNIRP occupational exposure guidelines would apply and the general public guidelines are more stringent than those for workers.

 

Also, companies have agreed safety practices and employees are expected to be provided with information and training about any potential risks.

We would be happy to advise the tree surgeon company about occupational exposure guidelines if they contact us.

Best Regards

 

Darren Addison

Electromagnetic Fields Group

Public Health England

Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards

Chilton, Didcot

Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ 

United Kingdom 

Web site: www.gov.uk/phe

Protecting and improving the nation’s health

 

 Please consider the environment before printing this email

 

From: B 
Sent: 07 June 2019 10:51
To: emf.enquiries <emf.enquiries@phe.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL: Involuntary prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation

Dear Darren Addison,

many thanks for your reply.

 I am sorry to have to tell you that you are wrong in your assumption that members of the public cannot unknowingly enter areas close to the antennae where exposure may exceed the relevant guidelines.

A week ago two tree surgeons were sent to “reshape” one of two very large trees which are located either site of one of the base stations. (As you might know, trees and 5G are incompatible).

The tree surgeons were totally unaware of the fact that they were working in close proximity to a live antennae and that the top of the tree they were working on is in a public exclusion zone.

You will also see from the information I have sent you see that there is an open access deck for the residents to reach their flats which is within the public exclusion zone. There are no warning signs anywhere.

 

Best Regards

B

 

 

  

On 6 Jun 2019, at 13:59, emf.enquiries <emf.enquiries@phe.gov.uk> wrote:

OFFICIAL 

Dear B, 

PHE does not offer an individual assessment service in these types of situations, as the levels fall well below guideline limits. We have provided you with PHE’s advice on the subject, which includes information on exposures in the vicinity of mobile phone masts, and on exclusion zones. 

As suggested previously, if you remain concerned, the operator of the mast should be able to provide you with assurances that your home is not in the public reference level exclusion zone, as they are obliged to comply with the guidelines through planning guidance, and health and safety legislation. Compliance with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines is achieved by careful location of antennas, access restrictions and/or barriers and signage as necessary. Members of the public cannot unknowingly enter areas close to the antennas where exposure may exceed the relevant guidelines. 

Best Regards,

 

Darren Addison

Electromagnetic Fields Group

Public Health England

Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards

Chilton, Didcot

Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ 

United Kingdom  

Web site: www.gov.uk/phe

Protecting and improving the nation’s health

 

 Please consider the environment before printing this email

 

From: B 
Sent: 05 June 2019 13:54
To: emf.enquiries <emf.enquiries@phe.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL: Involuntary prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation

Dear Darren Addison,

Many thanks you for your quick response. 

I have just visited the ICNRIP website in order to find out site specific information about what the exclusion zone mean in practise.

 

This is the message I found there:

For specific local exposure appraisal, please contact the radiation protection agency of your country. 

Is that not you? 

Best Regards

B

 

On 5 Jun 2019, at 09:24, emf.enquiries <emf.enquiries@phe.gov.uk> wrote:

OFFICIAL 

Dear B,

Thank you for your follow-up e-mail.

The exclusion zones around the base station are there to ensure that members of the public and workers are not exposed above the respective ICNIRP general public and occupational guidelines. Please note the exclusion zones vary with height as well as distance from the antenna, as explained in the earlier PHE advice link we sent you. 

The strength of the radio waves from base-station antennas falls off very quickly with increasing distance. So, radiofrequency fields at ground level and in places normally accessible to the public are many times below guideline levels. 

If you think areas of your home are within an exclusion zone, you could check with the operator of the mast to make sure this is not the case, as per in my original reply.  Please note that PHE has an advisory role and is not a regulator. Control of exposures at telecommunications sites is exercised through health and safety legislation, and through planning legislation. 

Relating to the medical problems that you are experiencing, we urge you to contact your GP who is best placed to consider your current health problems and can arrange appropriate treatment if needed. Likewise, we recommend the other resident with medical concerns also speaks to their GP. 

Regarding your other comments, PHE acknowledges the difficulty in development of exposure protection guidance, which is that the interpretation of studies of potential health effects is a matter of judgement, and there is a spectrum of opinion within the scientific community and elsewhere. In formulating its advice, PHE aims to draw out a consensus position based on the totality of the scientific evidence through a process of systematic, critical and impartial review of the published literature. This is the approach adopted by officially mandated authoritative organisations such as, ICNIRP and WHO and I hope this provides the assurances sought. 

Best Regards,

 

Darren Addison

 

Electromagnetic Fields Group

Public Health England

Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards

Chilton, Didcot

Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ 

United Kingdom 

 

Web site: www.gov.uk/phe

Protecting and improving the nation’s health

 

 Please consider the environment before printing this email

 

From: B 
Sent: 04 June 2019 00:22
To: necl.team <necl.team@phe.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL: Involuntary prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation

 

Dear Darren Addison,

Many thanks for your prompt reply. 

Further to the answers you have given me I would now like you to clarify the following specific questions: 

1. Regarding the plan I sent you showing the ICNIRP exclusion zones protruding into our garden at No. 54 Falkland Road (a more accurate updated version is attached below):

    What do these exclusion zones mean for us day to day? Is it safe for us residents and any visitors we have to go into this exclusion zone? Can we spend prolonged periods of time in there? 

2. You say that PHE does not anticipate any adverse health effects from the new 5G technology but will review this advice should the science change.

   Does this mean that PHE is adopting a wait and see attitude regarding the effects on health of this new technology? Are we and our neighbours part of a human trial? 

3. Not only is 5G a new technology in a test phase, so is the Huawei equipment. Is PHE happy for foreign companies testing their equipment on the UK population? 

4. If we decide to sell or rent out our house will someone at PHE guarantee the safety of a prospective buyer or tenant and their families? 

5. Is PHE aware of the fact that the ICNIRP is a self appointed and self regulating industry-led private organisation registered in Germany not a publicly appointed and accountable body?

6. Is PHE aware of the fact that the ICRNIP guidelines on mobile phone mast safety were established in the 1990s and are solely based on the belief that only acute thermal effects of low intensity non-ionising radiation are harmful?  

7. Is PHE aware of the fact that the telecommunications industry has conducted ZERO independent research into the effect on human and wildlife health by prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and has NOT pledged any money to research this topic in future? 

8. Is PHE aware of the wealth of independent research showing the harmful effects of prolonged exposure to previously lower levels of radiofrequency radiation when there was only 2, 3 and 4G? 

(I would be very happy to send you information regarding this if you don’t have it). 

8. Is PHE aware of the fact that the WHO has classified radiofrequency electro magnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2b) as early as 2011? 

In conclusion I would like to point out the following: 

PHE's apparent laissez faire attitude to telecommunication companies exposing large numbers of the UK population to a new and never tested technology is akin to forcing the same people to take a new drug that has not undergone ANY medical trials without asking for their consent. 

And unless you live in areas so far unaffected by 5G, you, the employees of PHE will not be exempt from being exposed to these experiments yourselves. 

I would also like to share with you the fact that for days now I have had a persistent headache, nausea, high levels of anxiety, palpitations, a constant humming sound in my ears, itching skin and other symptoms which recede when I go into green wooded spaces. Of course it might all be in the mind but I’ve just spoken to a friend who reported many of the same symptoms and had attributed them to her Leukemia as she had never heard of 5G. 

I look forward to hearing from you soon 

Best Regards

 

B

 

Dear B,

 Public Health England (PHE) advises the UK Government on the public health aspects of exposure to radio waves, including those from mobile phone base stations and other radio transmitters in the environment, of which the 5th Generation (5G) of mobile telecommunications technology will be one of them.

 PHE's advice on this subject is available in the following link:

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health

 Central to PHE’s advice 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). This position is underpinned by various formal reviews of the scientific evidence suggesting that exposure to radio waves below ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects, as explained in the attached PHE RF advice summary document. I am also attaching our 5G lines, which I hope is helpful.

The key point is that the mobile phone network operators are committed to ensuring that all sites comply with the guidelines of ICNIRP, which form the basis for PHE advice.

See below for the mobile phone network operators code of best practice on mobile network development in England.

http://www.mobileuk.org/codes-of-practice.html

If you are still concerned, can I suggest that you contact the mobile phone network operator responsible for the mast and request assurances that the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines will be complied with in the area where your property is located.

We recognise there are concerns about the rollout of 5G; however, PHE’s view is that no negative effects on public health are anticipated and that the higher frequencies being considered are already covered by current exposure guidelines. That said, we continue to monitor the science and would have no hesitation to review our advice if it became necessary to do so.

It is not possible to comment on the readings you quote from your meter, other than to say some caution needs to be exercised as such measurements are quite complicated to make and interpret.

PHE has no regulatory powers on planning aspects of mobile sites.

Best Regards

 

Darren Addison

 

From: B> 
Sent: 30 May 2019 09:50

Dear Sir or Madam,

we have been living in close proximity to a Huawei mobile phone base station on Camden Council owned XXX for some time now.

Two weeks ago the old Huawei antennae were replaced with new 5G compatible Huawei infrastructure and I was told that 5G will go live in early June.

You might be aware that Bruxelles and Geneva have halted the 5G rollout because of health concerns. 

Alerted by this fact to the possible risks associated with this new and so far untested 5G technology and following some research into the existing mobile network technology I purchased a radio frequency acoustimeter and have been measuring the exposure in our bedroom which directly faces the antennae.

On the consecutive days I did the measuring the exposure levels at nighttime were considerably higher than during the day, I attach a short film of the readings taken on May 28th just before midnight (the readings last night were even higher).

 

I have been trying to find out from our Camden Council which licences have been granted and when but have not had a reply yet. I therefore do not know whether we have been exposed to these high levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation for days, weeks, months or even years whilst being asleep.

The reason for writing to you now is to alert you to these local exposure levels and also to ask you for your reassurance that our health and that of all our neighbours (many of them children) has not and won’t in future be compromised and endagered by the antennae installation on Willingham Close and other existing and planned installations in our neighbourhood. 

Please also provide us with the appropriate independent long term studies, confirming that there are no risks associated with involuntary prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. 

In addition to the film I attach a map I made using the Broadband UK installation drawings (please note the exclusion zones overlapping buildings, gardens and a playground), a photo of the installation and a link to a recent article in the Lancet calling for an urgent assessment of the impact of planetary electromagnetic pollution. 

If you need any further information please don’t hesitate to contact me. 

Best regards

 

B

 


SCHEDULE 6

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

 

 


SCHEDULE 7

THIS PAGE IS BLANK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


SCHEDULE 8

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

 

Parliament debate - Health-related effects of electromagnetic fields and 5G Parliament Debate

https://youtu.be/9F-hrA9AmSI

The transcript is at:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-06-25/debates/7D18471E-627A-41C4-B338-11F278CEA9B7/ElectromagneticFieldsHealthEffects

Parliament’s Science and Technology Select Committee - Here is the clip from S&T committee when they questioned the Chief Medical Officer about 5G in June. FFwd to 10.17am on the playback

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b5b62411-6bc2-4e88-af13-bd6ea8086610


The response to Ms Fellows' 2nd 5G question https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-09-27.291574.h


5g health hazards B4237 : 2 Written Answers

Written Answers - Department of Health and Social Care: 5G: Health Hazards (2 Oct 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-09-24.290392.h&s=5G+Health+Hazards
Marion Fellows: To ask the Secretary of State for *Health* and Social
Care, which organisations his Department consulted on the effect of 5G
towers on public *health*.

Written Answers - Department of Health and Social Care: 5G: Health Hazards (2 Oct 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-09-27.291574.h&s=5G+Health+Hazards
Sarah Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for *Health* and Social
Care, what recent assessment he has made of the level of risk to
*health* posed by 5G connectivity.

B4237 speaker:Amber Rudd : 1 Commons debate
===========================================

Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister: Engagements (2 Oct 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-10-02a.1215.2&s=speaker%3A24795#g1223.4
Amber Rudd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his role today. I
remember when my right hon. Friend resigned from the Cabinet because of
his disagreements with Brexit policy—a route I subsequently became
familiar with—but does his experience not remind him that there are
honourable, different opinions across this House about how we leave the
European Union and about how we interpret the will of...

SCHEDULE 9

CORRESPONDENCE WITH MPS KEIR STARMER QC AND TULIP SIDDIQ

A.               Correspondence with Keir Starmer QC

This is the correspondence between the lady from Kentish Town (“B”) and Mr Starmer QC.


  1. Correspondence with Tulip Siddiq MP

 

Email from individual who will be referred to as L.

 

Dear Tulip Siddiq,

 

As my MP I would like to object this proposal (see attached).

 

I live in XXX.

 

It is the fact that the mast company wants to put in a rooftop near 3 schools YYY and the activity nursery attached to XYY itself.

 

This mast is proposed in a built up area with many residents affected.  

 

I have been diagnosed with Electrical Hypersensitivity.  In fact it is on my medical notes.  

 

Can you assure me that this mobile mast will not harm me or others?

 

I fear that it will be detrimental to my health.

 

I shall object to it strongly and urge others to do so.

 

There has been a moratorium on 5G in places such as Totnes, Frome and Salisbury.

 

Brussels recently called a halt to its roll out until further research has been done.

 

We must have a moratorium on 5G in Camden.

 

I am considering taking legal action on Camden unless they can prove to me that 5G does not cause any harm to anyone.

 

I am attending a conference on Radiation Health on Saturday the 28th to obtain much more information.

 

The response from Tulip Siddiq’s office is below:

 

Many thanks for your email raising your concerns about 5G - I am more than happy to share my thoughts with you on this subject and appreciate you getting in touch.

I believe it is vital that we listen to scientific evidence on this subject. I am aware however of the health debate which has surrounded the introduction of 5G in the UK and understand concerns regarding the installation of new infrastructure in our towns and cities.

Public Health England (PHE) have published advice on the health effects of 5G. PHE follows the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). According to PHE, 5G is within their radiofrequency guidelines and has concluded that there is ‘no evidence of any adverse health effects below the restrictions in the guidelines’. 

I understand your concern on this matter however and the Government must consider new evidence if and when it arises. 

May I ask whether you have already been in touch with your local councillors? For cases of planning permission, it is often useful to contact them as they have responsibility for granting or rejecting applications. If you have already, I would be more than happy to make representations on your behalf.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me and highlighting this issue. Please feel free to contact me should you have any further issues.

Best wishes,

Office of Tulip Siddiq 
Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Kilburn

 

 

 

 


SCHEDULE 10

MICHAEL BEVINGTON’S SUMMARY CRITIQUE OF ICNIRP GUIDELINES

 

MOBILE PHONES

High Frequency

Mr Bevington’s critique is a criticism of the information contained in the ICNIRP article below:

https://www.icnirp.org/en/applications/mobile-phones/index.html

Mr Bevington’s views:

HF effects on the body and health implications

HF fields have the ability to penetrate into the body (the higher the frequency, the lower the depth of penetration), with the effect of this being a temperature rise in body tissue.

Wrong: the effect of this is both a temperature rise in body tissue and numerous proven non-thermal effects.

The body can accommodate a small increase in heat, in a similar way that excess body heat is dissipated when performing sporting activity. This is because the human body has a strong ability to regulate its internal temperature. However, above a certain level (referred to as the threshold) depending on the duration of exposure, HF exposure and the accompanying temperature rise can provoke serious health effects, such as heatstroke and tissue damage (burns).

Acute and long-term effects of HF exposure from the use of mobile phones have been studied extensively without showing any conclusive evidence of adverse health effects.

Wrong: there a numerous long-term effects of HF exposure from the use of mobile phones which show conclusively without any doubt at all that HF can cause electrosensitivity symptoms and cancers.

Among all of this research, the risk of tumors in close proximity to the ear where the phone is held, e.g. brain tumors, has been the focus of numerous epidemiological studies. A few of these epidemiological studies have reported a slight increase in risk of some brain tumors for the small group of long-term and heavy mobile phone users (read more). These findings may be explained by reporting biases and weaknesses identified in the studies.

Wrong: These findings cannot all be explained by reporting biases and weaknesses but have been shown to be fully robust studies and convinced IARC in 2011 to classify RF as a 2B human carcinogen by a vote of 29 to 2. Since 2011 other studies have confirmed these findings.

Several studies have not reported any increase in brain tumors with mobile phone use.

[Not important: negative studies prove nothing. The fact that this sentence has been added indicates how weak the ICNIRP claims were.]

Also, experimental studies on animals and cells have failed to confirm the findings of the epidemiological studies,

Wrong – absolute rubbish and a deliberate lie. The animal NTP and Ramazzini studies both confirmed that RF causes cancer.

and there is no biophysical mechanism that could explain carcinogenicity at such low exposure levels.

Wrong: established and proven biophysical mechanisms include oxidative stress, free radicals, DNA breaks, VGCCs, gene expression etc.

In addition, the increased risk observed in some of the epidemiological studies is inconsistent with the stable frequency of occurrence of these tumors in the population.

Wrong: The Philips study showed significant increase in brain tumours. The ones which have not were skewed by design, such as the Australian one which omitted all cases over 60 years, which accounts for some 80% (I think) of such cancers.

That is an important consideration, given the widespread and significant increase in the use of mobile phones in the general population during the last few decades.

Wrong: it cannot be an important consideration since it is invalid.

A considerable amount of research has also been conducted on the relationship between HF fields and other outcomes such as headaches, concentration difficulty, sleep quality, cognitive function, cardiovascular effects, etc. To date, this research has not shown any such health effects.

Wrong: utter rubbish. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies confirming such effects.

The only consistently observed finding is a small effect on brain activity measured by electroencephalography (EEG).

Wrong: this is not the only effect – see above.

The biological implication of these small changes is, however, unclear.

Then why say so, apart from trying to dupe the reader? Most scientists see this effect as consistent with all the other neurological and cardiovascular effects.

For example, they have not been shown to affect sleep quality or be associated with any other adverse effects.

Wrong, as explained above. Sleep disturbance is one of the most established adverse effects, and usually comes top or in the top three effects of studies of residents close to base stations in comparison with people living further away.

The overall evaluation of all the research on HF fields as emitted by mobile phones leads to the conclusion that HF exposure below the thermal threshold is unlikely to be associated with adverse health effects.

Wrong: utter rubbish. It was known that RF causes adverse health effects in 1932 and nothing has proved this wrong subsequently but instead thousands of studies have confirmed that RF can cause many adverse effects.

See my Selected Studies for some references:
http://www.es-uk.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Selected%20ES%20and%20EHS%20studies.pdf

 

Protection

To avoid health hazards from HF exposure emitted by mobile phones, the temperature rise in the body must be restricted.

Wrong, in that non-thermal effects must also be restricted. There is no evidence whatsoever from any scientist at all that the proven and established adverse effects from RF exposure can be generated by a temperature rise.

This can be achieved by limiting the absorption of HF energy, expressed in terms of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). In its guidelines ICNIRP recommends distinct SAR values applying to whole-body exposure, which is typical from base stations and for the head, and other locations in the body that are relevant for exposures from mobile phones.

ICNIRP follows up the HF related scientific research and any new information relevant to health.

Misleading: ICNIRP may follow up research but typically cherry-picks the, say, 20% of studies failing to find an effect but dismisses the 80% which find an effect.

A revision of the current ICNIRP guidelines on RF used as related to mobile phones is underway. The public consultation of the draft guidelines is over. The comments are being analyzed and the draft guidelines continued. For timely information on publication, please register to the newsletter.

Key point: the ICNIRP keeps to a single minority viewpoint, that the only adverse effect is heating and that this is short-term, against the majority viewpoint that there are proven numerous effects which are not overtly related to heat and can be cumulative, meaning that there are also long-term effects.

It was discovered in 1948 that RF causes cancer. In 1953 the US decided to follow Herman Schwan’s mistaken and invalidated hypothesis that the only adverse effect is heating. In contrast the USSR and Poland accepted non-thermal effects by the time of their guidelines in 1959. Now up to half the world follows non-thermal guidelines and the rest (ie US, UK etc) follow ICNIRP’s thermal short-term guidelines which the EU Parliament voted in 2009 were by then obsolete.


 

SCHEDULE 11

MICHAEL BEVINGTON’S DETAILED CRITIQUE

 

SERIOUS FLAWS IN THE WHO’S AND ICNIRP’S CLAIMS ON 5G AND RF WIRELESS RADIATION

The claims by the WHO and ICNIRP that 5G and RF wireless radiation are safe are seriously flawed and represent a minority viewpoint.

Instead, politicians, regulators and medical doctors should follow the majority viewpoint scientists.

A. The WHO and ICNIRP: minority and outdated thermal viewpoint

The self-appointed groups of the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) support an erroneous, invalidated and outdated heating hypothesis. They form a small cartel of people holding a minority scientific viewpoint which favours the wireless industry. Their rejection of the majority-scientific viewpoint has been described by the experts in this field as ‘unscientific’ and ‘corruption’.

B. Majority viewpoint accepts non-thermal effects

In contrast the vast majority of the relevant expert scientists in eastern countries since the 1950s have accepted that the scientific evidence has long shown adverse effects from RF wireless radiation at non-thermal levels. This has also been the case for the vast majority of scientists in western countries since 2008. Thus the consensus among the majority of scientists is that RF wireless radiation at non-thermal levels has adverse effects which are not protected by WHO or ICNIRP’s minority rejection of the scientific consensus.

The vast majority of scientists also accept, in addition to the proven adverse effects, the therapeutic uses of non-thermal wireless radiation now commonly applied in numerous hospital procedures, none of which can occur according to the WHO and ICNIRP minority who still reject non-thermal effects.

C. 2G, 3G and 4G already proved harmful

To suggest that 5G has been proved safe would be clearly against the vast majority of the scientific evidence on 2G, 3G and 4G radiation, which is the same as used for the current initial rollout of 5G.

D. No tests on 5G so far, so impossible to claim as safe

It is wrong to state that 5G is safe. There have been no tests on 5G’s safety so far, although existing evidence already proves that its type of radiation is unsafe.

E. Millimetre waves known to be dangerous and used as weapons

Future 5G systems will use millimetre waves. Millimetre waves have been proved to be unsafe in many ways. They are also used as offensive weapons in electronic warfare and even in crowd control where they have not been banned on safety grounds.

F. The dangers of RF wireless radiation were described in 1932 with cancer shown in 1953

It has long been known that radio frequency (RF) wireless radiation is dangerous. The symptoms of low-level RF exposure, often described as specific symptoms of electrosensitivity, were first recorded in 1932, the year that such RF harm was also confirmed as non-thermal. Cancer was discovered as caused by RF wireless radiation in 1953. Safety guidelines were then adopted: in the USA in 1953 based on Schwan’s mistaken heating hypothesis, and in the USSR in 1959 based on non-thermal effects. Now up to about half the world follows Russia with non-thermal guidelines, while the USA and the UK still follow Schwan’s mistaken heating claim from 1953.

G. Cancer and genotoxic DNA damage confirmed in 2004 by EU study

In 1994 DNA damage from microwaves was shown within the current ICNIRP heating guidelines of 10,000,000 μW/m2, leading to a call for their replacement. In contrast current international non-thermal guidelines typically range from 0.1 to 100 μW/m2. This DNA damage was confirmed by the seven-nation REFLEX research study funded by the European Union in 2004. It showed that the health effects in the form of genotoxic DNA damage (micronuclei DNA strand breaks) are similar or greater for 24-hour exposure to an ordinary GSM 1800 MHz mobile phone at SAR 1.3 W/kg (i.e. within the UK safety limit of 2.0 W/kg and the FCC’s of 1.6 W/kg), compared with 0.5 Gy gamma-rays or exposure to 60 CT scans. The findings of this government-backed study well illustrate that wireless radiation of the type already used and planned for 5G is unsafe.

H. International long-term non-thermal safety guidelines should be used, not ICNIRP’s short-term (6 or 30 minutes average) obsolete guidelines

All forms of electromagnetic (EM) radiation can be unsafe. This is the reason why international safety groups and safety guidelines exist. (i) Long-term biological guidelines include: Bioinitiative 2012, EUROPAEM EMF Guidelines 2016, IGNIR 2018, and Seletun 2010. These international guidelines typically adopt values for public safety levels ranging from 0.1 to 100 μW/m2. These are up to 100 million times lower than ICNIRP’s obsolete short-term heating guidelines.

(ii) ICNIRP’s 1998 obsolete short-term heating guidelines still permit power density in the range of 10,000,000 μW/m2. This was based on Schwan’s 100,000,000 μW/m2 of 1953, and was adopted in 1982 by ANSI C95.1-1982 for the heat absorbed by the body, and now set at 0.08 W/kg averaged over 0.1 hour (6 minutes) for the whole body, as the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).

I. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) online factsheet entitled “Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones” is outdated, inaccurate and does not protect human health or wildlife. (i) It is out of date, since it was published in 2014 and states that it will be replaced by 2016 by the WHO’s risk assessment, although this has not yet (September 2019) been published. (ii) It is factually incorrect in numerous aspects. (iii) It omits established confirmation of RF as a cause of electrosensitivity (ES) and cancer among many other proven adverse outcomes. (iv) It confirms the published views by leading world experts in this field that the WHO is ‘unscientific’, that it does not protect health from the established harm of RF wireless radiation and 5G, and that its major conflicts of interest in its support for the wireless industry ‘seriously undermine’ its credibility (see references at end). (v) It was not peer-reviewed.

(vi) It makes no reference to 5G.

J. The WHO lacks medical physicians experienced in diagnosing and treating real electrosensitivity

This WHO factsheet on mobile phones is a non-peer-reviewed opinion piece which does not give its author. It was probably approved by the leader of the WHO EMF Project who is a trained electrical engineer, not a medical physician with experience in diagnosing real electrical sensitivity (ES) as expected for assessing the established health risks from EM radiation. The WHO has shown itself unable to deal scientifically with these issues because (i) it is dependent on its parent body, the United Nations, with its predominant interests in trade and commercial development rather than health, (ii) it has been legally subservient in matters of radiation since 1959 to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) whose role is to exploit radiation as much as possible, (iii) it still adheres to Schwan’s 1953 mistaken heating hypothesis against the majority-viewpoint scientists,

(iv) and it lacks any of the majority-viewpoint scientific experts,

(vi) as explicitly addressed by The EMF Call of 2018, initiated by leading scientists in this area specifically to tackle this recognised problem, that the WHO is now regarded as ‘unscientific’ in its approach to the established dangers of RF wireless radiation including 5G, and that the WHO is now regarded as failing to provide guidelines which are protective of human health.

K. The UK government also lacks advice from majority-viewpoint scientists

The [UK] government claims (‘Mobile phone base stations: radio waves and health’, update May 16 2019) that it depends on its ‘independent expert groups’. This online document is also not peer-reviewed. It relies significantly on the invalidated AGNIR 2012 Report, which leading scientists have asserted should have been retracted long ago. (i) The invalidated AGNIR 2012 Report, like the WHO’s opinions, was also not peer-reviewed. (ii) It has been shown to be ‘unsafe’ in that it ignored up to 80% of studies showing adverse health effects and cherry-picked the few which failed to find an effect. (iii) It was a blatant example of conflict of interests, since it depended on contributions and views of the government’s own employees and thus was not an independent review. (iv) Its committee was composed of people holding a single and invalidated viewpoint based on Schwan’s heating mistake of 1953, all part of the minority-viewpoint cartel controlling PHE, AGNIR, SCENIHR, ICNIRP and the WHO EMF Project, all of which support the wireless radiation industry.

L. UK government’s very poor record on the proven harm from RF wireless radiation, and failing under the Health & Social Care Act 2012

The UK government has a very poor record on this issue of the established and proven harm from RF wireless radiation. (i) In the 2019 Westminster Hall debate MPs stated that they sought to help their constituents who were injured by the current high levels of EM exposure in the UK. They complained that the UK government refused to acknowledge this issue and instead acted like a ‘brick wall’ when it came to accepting the science and mitigating RF harm.

(ii) The complaints to the PHSO by over 80 UK citizens seriously harmed by the failure of the government’s Public Health England (PHE) to acknowledge the established science on the dangers of RF wireless radiation began in 2013 but they have still to be resolved. The government wrongly believes it has the right to deny or ignore the majority-viewpoint scientific evidence and therefore PHE does not have to admit or even state, for instance, that EM exposure including RF wireless radiation and 5G is a 2B or 2A human carcinogen according to the WHO’s IARC. (iii) Denials of harm from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) still refer to the notorious AGNIR 2012 report, even though this has been shown to be unscientific, unsafe, and the product of conflicts of interest, as explained above. (iv) The DHSC claims to review studies on health damage from EM exposures, but the DHSC’s COMARE also admits that it has its delegated responsibility for this to the unelected private minority-viewpoint group ICNIRP, part of the cartel supporting the wireless industry. (v) The DHSC has no means of engaging with the majority-viewpoint scientists in this area. In 2017 it abandoned its AGNIR committee, set up as a front in 1990 to reduce criticism of its unscientific approach. Its COMARE committee, a similar front to cover up the evidence of cancer clusters near reactors, decided in 2019 to abandon its plan to form a subcommittee on non-ionising radiation.

(vi) The DHSC and PHE believe that they can control RF wireless radiation through Health & Safety legislation under HSE and planning controls under NPPF, but neither is based on the proven non-thermal harm for RF radiation and thus they can never be protective of health.

(vii) Therefore the Secretary of State through the DHSC and PHE appears to be failing in his legal responsibility under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (11.2A.3.a,b) for ‘the protection of the public from ionising and non-ionising radiation, a matter in which the HSE has a function’, since the cases of harm from 5G trials already being seen in the UK could not occur if this responsibility were being properly fulfilled.

M. The EU has a poor record on acting on the proven harm from RF wireless radiation

Nicole Scholz’s European Parliament Briefing “Mobile phones and health: Where do we stand?” of March 2019 was not peer-reviewed and should be rejected as scientific evidence. It is unscientific in several key ways. (i) It upholds SCENIHR 2015, despite this being part of the discredited minority-viewpoint cartel, as explained above. (ii) It still holds to the long-invalidated heating hypothesis based on Schwan’s 1953 mistake, and thus rejects the European Environment Agency’s Recommendation to adopt a Precautionary Approach. This Precautionary Approach would require a moratorium on 5G and more stringent safety guidelines for the general public, including pregnant women, children, the elderly, the sick, people sensitive to EM radiation and people with chronic immune conditions. A Precautionary Approach has legal status in the EU, but this Briefing adopts a contrary and thus apparently illegal approach. (iii) It fails to recognise the European Parliament’s vote of 2009 by 522 to 16 that governments should reject the WHO ICNIRP’s short-term heating guidelines as ‘obsolete’ and replace them with biological long-term guidelines. (iv) It fails to recognise the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly vote of 2011 calling on member states to recognise the urgent needs of people sensitised to EM exposures and create ‘white zones’ appropriate for them (see IGNIR’s EQZ). (v) The latest review of surveys estimates that 3.6% of the population (27 million people in Europe) are sensitised to EMFs and RF wireless radiation like 5G, and 1.2% (9 million) are severely affected. The scientifically proven and well established condition of all such people relates to the implementation of the Equality Act 2010 as regards 5G and other wireless radiation. (vi) The EU Briefing’s concern for the safety of wireless radiation is valid given that the correct level of protection from man-made wireless radiation is essential to the future existence of human beings and wild-life in Europe, since 5G like other RF radiation has established teratogenic, toxigenic and fertility effects impacting the future of all life in Europe. Some leading experts predict a rise in autism to 50% of boys within decades if RF continues to grow exponentially, along with continued plummeting fertility and further wildlife loss.

N. The need to adopt the majority-viewpoint scientific position, not the minority one (i) The WHO, AGNIR and EU documents refer only to non-peer-reviewed invalidated claims by the minority-viewpoint cartel supporting the wireless industry. These comprise some 20-30 individuals, none of whom is a medical physician with experience in diagnosing and treating real sensitivity to RF radiation. (ii) In contrast, the majority viewpoint, accepting the established proof of ES and cancer as caused by RF wireless radiation and EM fields or their role as a co-carcinogen, is represented by some 240 involved scientists who have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. These are thus a majority over the industry cartel of some 240 to 30. (iii) Similarly some 200 involved scientist have signed the EU 5G Appeal to halt 5G, and the Stop 5G on Earth and in Space: International Appeal has over 150,000 signatures.

O. Proof exists of 5G harm but not proof of its supposed safety

(i) There is not a single peer-reviewed study proving that RF wireless radiation like 5G is safe. Nor can there be, since RF wireless radiation and thus 5G has long been established as harmful. (ii) In contrast, the majority-viewpoint scientists, accepting non-thermal adverse effects, can refer to thousands of peer-reviewed studies establishing their concerns (see, for instance, Selected Studies on ES and EHS). (iii) The WHO’s IARC classified EM x-ray and gamma rays as a class 1 human carcinogen (1999), EM ELF as a class 2B human carcinogen (2001), EM visible blue light at night as a class 2A human carcinogen (2007), and EM RF wireless radiation as a class 2B human carcinogen (2011). (iv) The IARC’s 2B human carcinogen classification was for non-thermal effects, since the increased brain tumours on which this was based were all from mobile phones which are designed so as not to heat the human body.

(v) The US $30 million National Toxicology Program study, requested by the FDA to see if cellphones cause cancer, found ‘clear evidence’ (its top rating) that they do cause cancer. This study, together with the Ramazzani study confirming its findings and showing clear evidence of cancer from exposures similar to mobile phone masts, provides ‘sufficient animal evidence’, together with known mechanisms like VGCCs, oxidative stress, gene expression, DNA damage perhaps through repair restriction, free radicals etc, to already meet the requirements of IARC’s class 1 certain human carcinogen for RF and 5G wireless radiation exposures, according to the majority of scientists. Thus these studies require that RF should be reclassified as a class 1.

(vi) This would mean that the issue of RF wireless radiation and 5G safety has already been answered in such a way that governments urgently have to reduce RF exposure to safe levels.

 

(vii) In the light of the NTP and Ramazzini studies finding ‘clear evidence’ of cancer, the IARC now regards the reassessment of RF wireless radiation as a high priority.

(vii) As noted above, the WHO and UK government are far behind in advising citizens of the established science on the dangers of 5G and similar RF wireless radiation. In the UK more authoritative and up-to-date sources of relevant, reliable, majority-viewpoint evidence include: ES-UK, IGNIR, PHIRE, Powerwatch, SSITA, Radiation Research Trust, Wifiinschools etc. (viiii) There are hundreds of internet sites, most giving much more accurate and up-to-date scientific information than is available from the WHO’s outdated, inaccurate and misleading opinions, dated 2014 on mobile phones and 2005 on EHS. See e.g. Electrosensitivity.co: Links.

P. 5G, military warfare and military protection for civilians who can afford it

(i) Millimetre waves, planned for 5G, are already in widespread use for military warfare and in some civilian crowd control. This confirms that this type of 5G radiation can cause adverse reactions in the ordinary population and especially those sensitive to it, something which even the wireless industry cannot deny.

(ii) The beam-forming properties of 5G are an especial concern when these combine in intersecting beams or are directed into super-sensitive biological organs such as the eyes.

(iii) The location of 5G transmitters on lamp-posts outside bedroom windows where people sleep is also a major concern, both for down- and up-streaming. (iv) Many people who have been sensitised to RF wireless radiation have to use the same protective netting and materials developed by the military for protecting their own troops from electromagnetic assault. People in the UK today are living in tents or cars in remote areas to escape the harm caused by EMFs and RF wireless radiation like 5G because they cannot afford this costly protective shielding or the relocation of their homes to areas less intensely irradiated.

(v) The number of people harmed by EMFs and RF wireless radiation appears to be constantly growing, with contacts to the charity Electrosensitivity UK increasing by 10% per year for over a decade. Some reports of bioeffects to both humans and wildlife during initial 5G trials including within the UK suggest that 5G has the capacity to be significantly more damaging to life than even 3G and 4G.

Q. Illegality of 5G and similar RF wireless radiation when deployed against people without safety testing and without their informed consent

The legality of 5G and similar RF wireless radiation is under growing scrutiny now that effects such as sensitivity to EM exposure and cancer have been proven in numerous scientific studies and are accepted by the majority-viewpoint scientists. (i) The unsafe nature of RF wireless radiation for 3G and 4G and such as used in the initial 5G roll-out has been recognised in UK courts since 2012 and sensitivity to it has been diagnosed by some NHS GPs and hospital consultants since 2013. (ii) The first legal cases against 5G deployment have succeeded in countries like Australia in 2018-19, and many others are planned there and worldwide. (iii) There is concern that the lack of prior safety testing and the lack of informed consent for the in situ health testing of the novel phased-array and beam-forming features of 5G mean that its deployment contravenes the Nuremberg Code. (iv) Some countries have banned 5G because of its lack of proven safety, as have some towns in the UK.

(v) The UK government admits that environmental radiation levels are likely to increase with the introduction of 5G.

(v) Although members of the minority-viewpoint cartel supporting the wireless industry, as explained above, prefer to make generalised assumptions implying the safety of 5G and similar RF wireless radiation, while also calling for more research, most refuse to state that it is safe. Thus the UK government has been very careful to admit uncertainty by stating that there is no proof that 5G or similar RF wireless radiation is safe, only that they have failed to find ‘consistent’ or ‘convincing’ evidence of harm. These latter two terms are unsatisfactory both as not being scientifically explicit, and in contradicting the established science which has proved that effects of RF wireless radiation include sensitivity symptoms and cancers.

R. Latest scientific evidence on human beings and wildlife: moratorium on 5G required

The growing interest in the safety of 5G and similar RF wireless radiation led to two major scientific international conferences in London in September 2019, where experts from America and Europe explained the latest science and research.

(i) This showed convincingly and consistently, based on established and proven scientific evidence, that RF wireless radiation is a serious threat to all human beings and also the natural living world. (ii) In contrast, it appears that the WHO, ICNIRP and most governments have not yet conducted effective Environmental Risk Assessments before infrastructure projects like 3G, 4G or 5G, since there are now hundreds of studies showing harm to wildlife from RF wireless radiation. The exception is the EU Environmental Protection Agency which has called for the Precautionary Principle (PP) to be applied, meaning a moratorium on further developments such as 5G since the PP is enshrined in EU legislation.

(iii) Studies show that near phone masts insect wildlife can cease to reproduce within five generations. During the last decade insect numbers have declined by 70-80% in the UK and it has been confirmed that bees especially are affected by RF wireless radiation.

S. Equal access and protection for children and adults harmed by RF wireless radiation

The UK Government is aware of people for whom 5G is not safe and who are sensitive to RF wireless radiation, since UK courts have recognised the condition since 2012 and the UK government states that it follows the WHO and ICNIRP. (i) In 2002 the ICNIRP stated that governments must protect such people by adopting non-thermal safety guidelines below its own short-term and heating guidelines. The fact that the UK Government has not yet implemented the ICNIRP’s requirement in this respect shows that the safety of 5G, like that of 3G and 4G, remains a very big issue among the many people affected by this radiation in the UK. (ii) The UK government rejected making wireless smart meters compulsory partly on health safety grounds on November 29 2011. (iii) The NHS endorses the chief medical officers’ warning that children under 16 should not use mobile phones except for essential purposes. Children absorb ten times more RF radiation in their bones than adults. Since wireless radiation has cumulative effects, children are especially vulnerable when faced with lifetime exposures. Some countries warn women not to use mobile phones during pregnancy and near babies.

(iv) UK first tier tribunals have accepted since 2012 that children and adults can have real EHS and thus are unable in severe cases to attend schools and workplaces with Wifi and mobile phones. Tribunals have compensated adults with ESA, PIPs, early retirement, etc.

(v) A UK government-sponsored survey found that 4.0% (2,680,000 people in the UK) are sensitive to RF wireless radiation and EM fields, and 1.8% (1,206,000) are severely affected, while another survey estimated 0.65% (435,000) are denied full access to work or education because of their sensitivity to EMFs and RF wireless radiation, like 5G. (vi) The WHO in 2005 confirmed that the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) can be disabling, putting EHS within the scope of the Equality Act 2010. Since 2005, when the WHO made its most recent non-peer-reviewed comments on EHS, real pathological EHS has been confirmed by many more studies as proven, following its discovery in 1932, and as caused by EM exposure. Its identification as an environmental intolerance is now possible through objective markers including 3d fMRI scans, cerebral blood perfusion scans, and testing for genetic haplotypes up to ten times more common in people with this environmental intolerance.

T. The need to ban or limit RF wireless radiation, implement EM hygienic campaigns, and warn citizens

Other countries have

(i) banned Wifi and mobile phones in schools for safety reasons, such as France,

(ii) launched EM hygienic campaigns, such as Berkeley CA, Cyprus and Italy,

(iii) rejected ICNIRP’s short-term heating guidelines, such as China, India, the USSR and some European states, covering a third to half the world’s population.

The safety of 5G is a rapidly growing issue, with the BBC apparently repeating a report warning about 5G dangers four times on a single day in June 2019 and the UK media reporting recently that thousands in Switzerland demonstrated against 5G dangers.

V. Phonegate: the need to check the safety of mobile phones and to warn the public

5G’s established and proven lack of safety, together with the wireless industry’s denials and refusal to accept the majority established scientific evidence, is corroborated by the Phonegate scandal, similar to the Dieselgate or Emissionsgate scandal. (i) This Phonegate scandal concerns the sale of mobile phones with actual radiation emissions exceeding levels reported in their accompanying documentation. This apparent deception means that some mobile phones fail to comply with even ICNIRP’s 1998 short-term heating guidelines, let alone international long-term biological guidelines. (ii) ANFR’s testing in France in 2015 found that 90% of mobiles tested exceeded ICNIRP’s guidelines when used next to the body. Some models were subsequently withdrawn from sale. (iii) In the USA testing by the Chicago Tribune in 2019 also found radiation levels allegedly exceeding FCC guidelines, leading to an investigation by the FCC and class action lawsuits against Apple and Samsung. (iv) It is not clear why similar models of mobile phones on sale in the UK do not yet seem to have been subjected to investigation and action by trading standards officers or PHE. Nor is it clear why the public has not been warned by trading standards or PHE of the danger that, if they have purchased abroad a mobile implicated in the Phonegate scandal, their mobile may be emitting excessive radiation.

(v) 5G phones will apparently be likely to contravene not only long-term biological safety guidelines but even existing ICNIRP short-term heating guidelines, unless these latter guidelines are relaxed, or attempts made to adapt the phones so that they stop transmitting if the antenna is held too close to the body. This means that it is vital that the radiation levels of 5G mobile phones should be investigated carefully and impartially if users are to be kept safe.

Franz Adlkofer: "How the Mobile Communication Industry Deals with Science as Illustrated by ICNIRP versus NTP" (Pandora Foundation, October 26 2018) Claire Edwards: "BBC Fake News on 5G Decoded: Health Impacts Denied Despite Overwhelming Scientific Evidence" (Global Research, August 25 2019)

Investigate Europe: "The 5G mass experiment: Big promises, unknown risks" (January 13 2019)

Investigate Europe: "How much is safe? Radiation authorities rely on controversial group for safety advice" (March 14 2019)

Jerry Flynn: "Champions of the “Thermal Effects Only” Dogma For EMFs" (2019)

Hardell L: “World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack (Review)” (Int J Oncology, 2017)

Lennart Hardell: "ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed" (June 25 2019)

Simon Hodges: "How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal" (Community Operating System, September 12 2019)

Antoinette Janssen: "ICNIRP guidelines are fraudulent" (Mutterland, July 30 2019)

Antoinette Janssen: "ICNIRP" (Mutterland, June 2 2019)

JRS eco wireless: "Problems with official ICNIRP exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation" (2019)

Dariusz Leszczynski: "ICNIRP’s public consultation of the draft of the RF guidelines is just a gimmick" (BRHP, July 25 2019)

Miller AB et al.: “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices” (Front Public Health, 2019)

Joel M. Moskowitz: "ICNIRP's Revised RF Exposure Limits Will Ignore Expert Opinions of Most EMF Scientists" (Saferemr, June 26 2019)

Pall ML: “Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action” (Rev Environ Health, 2015)

Martin Pall: “5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them” (2019, 90 pages)

Martin Pall: “Eight Repeatedly Documented Findings Each Show that EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and Are, Therefore Fraudulent: The Consequences for Both Microwave Frequency Exposures and Also 5G” (Second Edition, May 23 2019. 28 pages)

Martin Pall: “Twelve Questions” (2019)

Redmayne M: “International policy and advisory response regarding children's exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF)” (Electromagn Biol Med., 2015)

Sage C et al.: “Comments on SCENIHR: Opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, Bioelectromagnetics 36:480-484 (2015)” (Bioelectromagnetics, 2015)

Olga Sheean: “World Health Organization: Setting the Standard for a World of Harm” (2017)

Louis Slesin: “WHO Watch: Mike Repacholi and the EMF Charade” (Microwave News, 2005)

Starkey SJ: “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation” (Rev Environ Health, 2016)

Webster PC: “Federal Wi-Fi safety report is deeply flawed, say experts” (CMAJ, 2014)

Michael Bevington

October 2 2019

 

 


SCHEDULE 12

COUNCIL OF EUROPE’S ARTICLE ON DANGERS OF EMFS

 

 

 


SCHEDULE 13

THIS SCHEDULE IS BLANK


SCHEDULE 14

THIS SCHEDULE IS BLANK

 

 


 

SCHEDULE 15

Nuremberg Code

https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code

The origin of the Nuremberg Code began in pre–World War II German politics, particularly during the 1930s and 1940s. The pre-war German Medical Association was considered to be a progressive yet democratic association with great concerns for public health, one example being the legislation of compulsory health insurance for German workers. However, starting in the mid-1920s, German physicians, usually proponents of racial hygiene, were accused by the public and the medical society of unethical medical practices. The use of racial hygiene was supported by the German government in order to create an Aryan "master race", and to exterminate those who did not fit into their criteria. Racial hygiene extremists merged with National Socialism to promote the use of biology to accomplish their goals of racial purity, a core concept in the Nazi ideology. Physicians were attracted to the scientific ideology and aided in the establishment of National Socialist Physicians' League in 1929 to "purify the German medical community of 'Jewish Bolshevism'." Criticism was becoming prevalent; Alfons Stauder, member of the Reich Health Office, claimed that the "dubious experiments have no therapeutic purpose", and Fredrich von Muller, physician and the president of the Deutsche Akademie, joined the criticism.[1]

In response to the criticism of unethical human experimentation, the Reich government issued "Guidelines for New Therapy and Human Experimentation" in Weimar, Germany. The guidelines were based on beneficence and non-maleficence, but also stressed legal doctrine of informed consent. The guidelines clearly distinguished the difference between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research. For therapeutic purposes, the guidelines allowed administration without consent only in dire situations, but for non-therapeutic purposes any administration without consent was strictly forbidden. However, the guidelines from Weimar were negated by Adolf Hitler. By 1942, the Nazi party included more than 38,000 German physicians, who helped carry out medical programs such as the Sterilization Law.[2]

After World War II, a series of trials were held to hold members of the Nazi party responsible for a multitude of war crimes. The trials were approved by President Harry Truman on May 2, 1945 and were led by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. They began on November 20, 1945 in Nuremberg, Germany, in what became known as the Nuremberg trials. In one of the trials, which became known as the "Doctors' Trial", German physicians responsible for conducting unethical medical procedures on humans during the war were tried. They focused on physicians who conducted inhumane and unethical human experiments in concentration camps, in addition to those who were involved in over 3,500,000 sterilizations of German citizens.[3][4]

Several of the accused argued that their experiments differed little from those used before the war, and that there was no law that differentiated between legal and illegal experiments. This worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, who worked with the prosecution during the trial. In April 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes outlining six points for legitimate medial research.[5]

On August 20, 1947, the judges delivered their verdict against Karl Brandt and 22 others.[6] The verdict reiterated the memorandum's points and, in response to expert medical advisers for the prosecution, revised the original six points to ten. The ten points became known as the "Nuremberg Code", which includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants. It is thought to have been mainly based on the Hippocratic Oath, which was interpreted as endorsing the experimental approach to medicine while protecting the patient.[7]

b)                 The ten points of the Nuremberg Code

The ten points of the code were given in the section of the verdict entitled "Permissable Medical Experiments":[5]

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment..
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

c)                 Authorship

The Nuremberg Code was initially ignored, but gained much greater significance about 20 years after it was written. As a result, there were substantial rival claims for the creation of the Code. Some claimed that Harold Sebring, one of the three U.S. judges who presided over the Doctors' Trial, was the author. Leo Alexander, MD and Andrew Ivy, MD, the prosecution's chief medical expert witnesses, were also each identified as authors. In his letter to Maurice H. Pappworth, an English physician and the author of the book Human Guinea Pigs, Andrew Ivy claimed sole authorship of the Code. Leo Alexander, approximately 30 years after the trial, also claimed sole authorship.[8] However, after careful reading of the transcript of the Doctors' Trial, background documents, and the final judgements, it is more accepted that the authorship was shared and the Code grew out of the trial itself.[9]

d)                 Significance

The Nuremberg Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association. The Western world initially dismissed the Nuremberg Code as a "code for barbarians" and not for civilized physicians and investigators. Additionally, the final judgement did not specify whether the Nuremberg Code should be applied to cases such as political prisoners, convicted felons, and healthy volunteers. The lack of clarity, the brutality of the unethical medical experiments, and the uncompromising language of the Nuremberg Code created an image that the Code was designed for singularly egregious transgressions.[10]

However, the Code is considered to be the most important document in the history of clinical research ethics, which had a massive influence on global human rights. The Nuremberg Code and the related Declaration of Helsinki are the basis for the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46,[11][12] which are the regulations issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for the ethical treatment of human subjects, and are used in Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). In addition, the idea of informed consent has been universally accepted and now constitutes Article 7 of the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also served as the basis for International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the World Health Organization.[8]

 

 


SCHEDULE 16

OTHER REFERENCES

 

http://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c1889a_5ba4d04320c241bd965907b7addb7e98.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNcaWa85khAk9YO9Z2J3nAFmVw9eMTHw/view

https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Mobile-phones-and-health-is-5G-being-rolled-out-too-fast

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.xml?format=INT

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2019-06-25b.294.0

Abstract from the 2nd Reference above, published in May 2019:

"ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines. Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses. The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting r other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that “safety guidelines” should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety. Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these "safety guidelines"."

 

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/local-news/glastonbury-council-opposes-5g-roll-2998413
Article under ‘News’ within link below 5Gappeal.eu/. Glastonbury Council have halted roll-out 5G on safety concerns following Brussels lead. Many countries are protesting and some have been successful in halting.

http://www.5gappeal.eu/

Lead by Professor Hardell Phd from Sweden. Signatures from 253 scientist and doctors to date, asking for 5G to be halted as the science is showing biological affects including DNA Strand breaks with existing radiation levels. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/727833/BT_Group_-_180212Mobile_annex_5FINAL.pdf

Scroll to Page 7 of this paper. It is from BT to DCMS (government body) stating their proposal in Annexe 5. On this page it states the estimated increase of all existing Macro Cells along with Millions of Small Cells with their proposed sites. No other Government release informs us of the numbers that I have found to date. Small Cells are mentioned but not precise amounts.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0032/POST-PB-0032.pdf

Parliamentary paper outlining their intentions. Pay attention to Health Section. They Quote WHO but not accurately as the IARC/Who have classification EMF 2B Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans.

ICNIRP who use data from 1996 on affects of heating only. No Risk Assessment was carried out on 4G and the same for 5G which uses MM Waves and not used thus far for mobile connection. ICNIRP are a ‘Captured’ agency of thirteen and ignoring the science presented to them in ten’s thousands peer reviewed studies. Using the basis of thermal heating only as their guide. There was a $25 Million study commissioned by FDA (US equivalent body) which ran for a decade on Toxins called National Toxicology Programme. Two years of this were for affects from cell phone radiation. The results were peer reviewed and sent to FDA showing positive/possible results for three types cancers shown In Rats/Mice. The FDA took three days to conclude that the results could not be used as they were not specific to humans. They commissioned and approved the testing standards but did not like the results. All testing for Human Pharmaceutical products by the FDA are on animals.

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm624809.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FdaUpdates+%28FDA+Updates%29

Statement from Jeffrey Shuren on NTP findings. None of this is mentioned under Health in the Parliamentary paper 32 above.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254861/

Comments from Professor Leonard Hardell about the response from FDA and other ‘controlled’ Agencies. 

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/opinion-jessica-learmond-criqui-we-must-suspend-5g-roll-out-1-6204140

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/ham-high-letters-citizens-assemblies-waste-collections-brexit-and-5g-1-6228757

Martin Pall https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c1889a_5ba4d04320c241bd965907b7addb7e98.pdf

Joel Moskowitz https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsaB7ewFsN0&list=PL7tOWNeoVyQ4w-QBGnq930OwesqVlbJki&index=4&t=0s

The above is a video of the lecture below by Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University which lecture was given on 5 November, 2018.

He is a published and widely cited scientist on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and speaks internationally on this topic. He is particularly expert in how wireless radiation impacts the electrical systems in our bodies. 

He has published 7 studies showing there exists exquisite sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the voltage sensor in each cell, such that the force impacting our cells at the voltage sensor has massive impact on the biology on the cells of our bodies.

He says in the lecture that the current safety guidelines for EMFs are 7.2m times too high.  One of the impacts is that the forces exerted by EMFs on our cells create free radicals which attack our DNA.  Developing brains in children are more sensitive to adult brains and may experience more damage.

The EMFs affect our collective brain function and reproductive function and the EMFs may impact our gene pool because mutations could occur.  5G will cause an ecological disaster among plants and animals and he warns that whole ecosystems could collapse.

He says that the industry states that microwaves won't penetrate the human body beyond 1cm.  But that is not wholly true.  While the electrical parts of the 5G microwaves may be absorbed, the magnetic parts will not and will put forces on the electrically charged groups of cells in our bodies.

He concludes by stating that the FCC and Congress in the US has approved the roll out of 5G without one singular biological safety test which is "absolute insanity".

https://healthimpactnews.com/2017/new-5g-cell-towers-and-smart-meters-to-increase-microwave-radiation-invade-privacy/

 

If you are interested in the impact of 5G microwaves on the human skin and the possible uses of this infrastructure against the public in future, do read the articles below:

 

https://washingtonsblog.com/2017/03/internet-things-cause-cancer.html

 

http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/the-internet-of-things-poses-human-health-risks-scientists-question-the-safety-of-untested-5g-technology-at-international-conference-779643.htm#.WMM-9FE3jzM.twitter

 

https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/

https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/

Tests of MMWs on animals show rare forms of heart and brain tumours, DNA damage, damage to the eyes and immune system, thermal injuries to the eyes with thermal effects reaching below the eye’s surface, damage to cell growth rate and even bacterial resistance (https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X15003988, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667804, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7897988, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11855293, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-016-7538-0).

Lloyds and Swiss Re refusing cover for 5G illnesses

https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20070603/ISSUE03/100022051/insurers-exclude-risks-associated-with-electromagnetic-radiation

https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/telecom-insurance-companies-warn-liability-risk-go-key-issues/

https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20070603/ISSUE03/100022051/insurers-exclude-risks-associated-with-electromagnetic-radiation

https://youtu.be/gX79M3VNn-Q

 

https://healthmeans.com/group/f2ce6d04-ae83-4aaa-b6c7-425559e13f4f