When I first began campaigning against 5G, I was interviewed by Richie Allen. I had seen Marks videos and asked Richie to interview him, I told Mark that I had done so.

Mark went on to have many more interviews but for some reason wanted nothing to do with the 5G campaign, he was only interested in getting people to join his political party, SUN.

Never the less I had already changed the 5G leaflets to include his political party, expecting his approval meant that he would help the campaign too, even if it just meant mentioning it on FB let alone in interviews.

He never did.

I contacted a EMF research group to ask about Gateshead and the 5G connection.

I was informed that they had offered to go to Gateshead after talking to Mark, that they had offered to test the lamp posts and the people who had been affected, all free of charge.

This was offered several times and was refused by Mark. They did NOT beg him as he has lied during a debate, why would anyone have to beg to test a lampost? Its not exactly owned by him or in his house! They asked him twice.

They informed him that the equipment that he was using was not sufficient.

Some people offered to help Mark with his campaign against 5G and he declined.

Others mentioned that it would be a good idea to keep a log and test intermittently, he declined.

I then put the research group into contact with a  a local from Gateshead, this woman had also supported Mark and even got him several interviews and they were able to pinpoint the  same areas that Mark tested. There was no 5G coming from the lamp posts.

This leads me to the conclusion that Mark and his brother, Graham,  who has been on my FB friend list under a false name of Ben Travis for some time, are not to be trusted.

In a recent debate with me he claimed that the EMF research group called BEMRI do not know what they are talking about yet the group holds one of the scientists who has put his name to a petition calling for a moratorium on 5G, along with other scientists.

Steele is happy to quote this fact in interviews even though he claims they do not know about 5G.

He claims that BEMRI are likened to Cancer Research in a debate, this is known NLP tactics, by deflecting away from the question and putting the idea in peoples mind ( people who are aware of the scam of Cancer Research) that BEMRI is also a con. This group have been involved in public awareness of the dangers of EMF and RF for nearly 60 years.

He also claims that I do not know anything about 5G but is happy to add my website to his for further information.

His arguments that Gateshead are transmitting 5G are lies, used to get people to join his political group that has NO chance of stopping 5G, it would take 3 years to even get a seat and that would be far too late.They have openly stated that 5G will be rolled out over the next 2 years!

Stop following false leaders.

This man added my Interviews via YT to his website, these were Interviews conducted BEFORE I realised what he was really about. He added these just recently, even AFTER we had debated the issues in which I had called him out, so why add them afterwards?

He called me a stalker in that debate, why? Because I had posed questions in a chat box in which he was repeating his lies about Gateshead, a public interview that asks for questions in a chat box.

Ask yourself, how is it possible for the lies about Gateshead lamposts to go mainstream on his say so? It is called Cointelpro.

We have a campaign that anyone can join and help to highlight 5G in your own community. A campaign that this man has known about since its start but who refused to even mention it, why? Because he wants you to do nothing and leave it to him and his brother to ‘ Save Us Now’. No, Its long past expecting politicians to save you, save yourself and others by joining a real fightback.https://www.vigiliae.org/5g-mass-action-campaign/https://www.vigiliae.org/5g-mass-action-campaign/

Ask Steele how is it possible that he and his brother have mobile phones with just one digit at the end different?

Government issues.

Ask the Steele brothers how they managed to get their products sold on an Israeli Homeland Security Website.

Has also got his product being sold in the UK Defence Supply Chain, as we can see here, he also has his product being sold on the Israeli Homeland security website.
UK Defence Supply has other organisations linked to it, as seen by their website, one of which is InnovateUK, who are the organisation funded by the Dept of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to push the 5G agenda.
They awarded the so called 5G test bed competition to various companies and councils and they also funded the Uk-Israeli Hub technology Conference in Israel in January 2018, they have also been given an award for Smart technology.

Does Public Health England  speak for the best interests of the public?

The simple answer is no and one look at the history of this executive body is proof of that, yet, we are asked to accept that they have the populations health in their hands when it comes to 5G and the dangerous effects of Electromagnetic fields and Radio frequencies.

PHE was created as an “operationally autonomous executive agency” of the Department of Health on 1 April 2013, when responsibility for public health passed to local authorities. Its function is to “protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities” by providing government, local government, the NHS, public health professionals, and the public with “evidence-based professional, scientific and delivery expertise and advice

In 2012,the Health and Social Care Act was granted Royal assent and passed into law.

On April 1 2013,  the Health and Social Care Act came into force, and the NHS in England underwent  the most radical transformation in its history. Public Health England was created on the 1st April 2013.

Under the old system the purse strings of the huge NHS budget were held by 152 bodies known as primary care trusts (PCTs), who commissioned services from hospitals and other providers from within the NHS. These PCTs have now been abolished, and are succeeded by 211 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). These CCGs, which are run as boards, will have responsibility for planning and designing health care within their region, including whether to commission services from within the NHS or from commercial providers. And it is this increased role for competition in the NHS that has sparked the most widespread and vocal opposition.

Opening services up to competition with the private sector.

  • Unleashing market forces that  undermined core NHS services and put patients at risk (Anyone in need of seeing different departments is no longer seen by a  ‘NHS team’ but is now forced to see a mish-mash of different providers who don’t often talk to each other).

Forcing a new  commissioning structure that will eventually result in the complete privatisation of most NHS services. which helped;

  • Enable many more large commercial companies to pick off contracts and cherry pick the profitable parts of the NHS”.
  • Parceling  up many parts of the NHS and selling  them off to the highest bidder.

This was  a radical overhaul of who decides what health services to buy, or commission, using the NHS budget and, crucially, who they commission those services from.

The British Medical Journal found that more than a third of GPs with decision-making powers on CCG boards have financial interests in private care providers who could potentially be commissioned by their CCG.https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2043

The reforms have engendered so much opposition that they have spawned a new political party: the National Health Action Party. Co-led by former doctor and independent Member of Parliament Richard Taylor and clinical oncologist Clive Peedell, the party aims not only to repeal the current government’s policies, but also to roll back over two decades of government policy that it says has been too in thrall to neoliberal, market-centric ideology.

Duncan Selbie is the Chief Executive of Public Health England,earning £220,000. Prior to this he was Director General for programmes and performance for the Dept of Health.

In PHE, over 199 people were paid more than £100,000, with 41 further part time employees earning such enormous salaries on a pro rata basis.https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/6648/attachments/original/1470150096/The_Nanny_State_Rich_List.pdf?1470150096

PHE has been embroiled in a series of controversies about the quality and credibility of advice it has issued on topics including fracking, NHS health checks, and the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, raising concerns about both its competence and its supposed independence . It has recently been in the firing line again, accused of bowing to political pressure by initially agreeing not to publish its review of measures to reduce sugar consumption.

So they created a sugar tax.

The health benefits of the sugar tax will be miniscule (estimates suggest  fewer than five calories per person per day), however, it will take £520 million from taxpayers’ pockets  And, of course, it will hit those on low incomes the hardest.
Besides, slapping new taxes on businesses has the knock on effect of harming employment prospects: the sugar tax could lead to over 5500 fewer jobs.

(Since the Health and Social Care Act of 2012, many councils have their very own Director of Public Health and a whole department dedicated to this vital role.)

Last year £901 million of the cash earmarked for front-line services  was used to buy care from private and other non-NHS providers, according to the Financial Times.

Research by the Health Foundation showed £800 million was spent on purchasing the same kind of care from NHS trusts.

PHE claim to  have strict processes for managing patient data  yet in January  2018,Public Health England (PHE) has come under fire after handing over data on nearly 180,000 lung cancer patients to a firm affiliated with tobacco companies.

The information was sent to US consulting firm William E Wecker Associates after it issued a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to PHE.https://www.digitalhealth.net/2018/01/public-health-england-cancer-patient-data/


Fracking and other criticisms

To the astonishment of MPs and environmental groups alike, Public Health England’s priority on its formation was not to tackle one of the big bêtes noires of public health but to weigh-in on the debate over the government’s plans to encourage large scale extraction, or fracking, of shale oil and gas in the UK.

 In 2013, PHE drafted a Press release claiming that Fracking was NOT a public health risk despite evidence to the contrary. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shale-gas-extraction-emissions-are-a-low-risk-to-public-health

This article shows how PHE whitewashed the potential health risks. http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/musings/2014/20140506-phe_shale_gas-ecologist.html

PHE also bullied  GP,s and care homes to continue using Tamiflu last year, even though it had been downgraded.  http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/prescribing/health-chiefs-ignore-gpc-demands-over-tamiflu-in-care-homes/20033763.article

In 2016 PHE issued papers stating that Fluoride in water was safe and beneficial,https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2016/04/13/water-fluoridation-what-it-is-and-how-it-helps-dental-health/  

Many other countries have either banned it or have claimed that it should be stopped. http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm

PHE can only succeed if it is clear beyond doubt that its public statements and policy positions are not influenced by Government policy or political considerations. That does NOT appear to be the case as evidence received by MPs found that staff working at PHE felt they did not have freedom to contradict Government policy. This is a report from 2014, it seems little has changed. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/concern-over-phes-lack-of-voice-30042160.html

The following report is from SSITA on the Public Health England claims that Wi-Fi in schools is safe.

SSITA Comments on the Key points from PHE:
There is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to RF signals from Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population.
For science to find evidence “consistent”, or not,the studies being compared need to be investigating exactly the same conditions, species/strain/sex, prior exposures and methodologies. The statement above is misleading because it implies that the reader can dismiss concerns of harm because identical studies have failed to give the same results. In reality, many studies have found damage or adverse effects in humans/human cells or other animals from Wi-Fi/2.4G
Hz wireless signals.
Ten studies listed in the link here: http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html  have found increased oxidative stress in animal or human cells from Wi-Fi/2.4GHz signals.
Increased oxidative stress is known to lead to damage of proteins, lipid membranes and nucleic acids and increases the risk of cancer. Five studies in the link above found adverse effects of Wi-Fi/2.4GHz on fertility or reproductive success.

Two studies found changes in human electrical brain activity as a result of exposure to Wi-Fi/2.4GHz signals and two found abnormal human heart rates in some people. These studies, backed up by many more carried out on mobile phones and other radiofrequency (RF) signals, are enough to raise serious concerns about the safety of Wi-Fi for use in schools.

However, even if a scientifically accurate definition of the word “consistent” is used, SSITA believes that we neither need nor should wait for totally “consistent” evidence. We are never likely to get such “consistent” evidence as people, the technologies and our use of them are so varied.
Complete consistency is not required for action to be taken:
European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle 2nd February 2000
The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and
preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen.”
The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk to human, animal and plant health.
According to the Commission the precautionary principle may be invoked when a phenomenon, product or
process may have a dangerous effect, identified by a scientific and objective evaluation, specifically if this evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty.
The precautionary principle may only be invoked when the three preliminary conditions are met:
identification of potentially adverse effects;
These have been well identified and recorded in the literature. There are many thousands of peer- reviewed studies in the scientific literature demonstrating both biological effects, adverse health effects and adverse effects on concentration, memory and behaviour due to RF exposure.
There are more positive studies showing effects than negative ones showing no effects – and, anyway,one negative one does not cancel a positive one – the different results just show the variability in the data and suggest issues with methodology.
The‘Safe Schools 2012’ (Medical and Scientific Experts Call for Safe Technologies in schools;http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/safeschools2012.pdf  published by www.wifiinschools.org.uk gives a useful over-view of the assessments of many relevant organisations and experts from around the world.
evaluation of the scientific data available;
The two BioInitiative Reports give a great deal of useful detail. Many scientific and medical organisations are expressing concerns in writing about biological and adverse effects on well-being from modern wireless devices.
The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as a Group 2B “possible human carcinogen” in 2011.
Public Health England (PHE) has commented: “Among all of these [IARC] classifications are many widespread and familiar substances/situations, including coffee and pickled vegetables (Group 2B), shift working that involves circadian disruption (Group 2A) and alcohol (Group 1).
This is a disingenuous comment from PHE.
The only other 2B agent that our exposure to is regularly ignored in most countries are elevated levels of mains electricity (ELF) magnetic fields(EMFs) that were classified as 2B by IARC in 2002.
“Coffee is also classed as 2B”. Yes it is, but that is with regard to drinking lots of strong coffee per day and most children don’t drink coffee before their late teenage years. Nor do we force children to drink coffee at school or eat pickled vegetables throughout every school day (and against the expressed wishes of their parents).
Our exposure to most other 2B agents is already restricted as they are known to be toxic in other ways than as a
It should be remembered that ionising radiation and human papillomavirus (HPV) a re examples of Group 1 (proven human carcinogens) that are effectively undetectable by us in our everyday lives and produce no immediate effects in most people – yet are accepted as known causes of cancer.
the extent of scientific uncertainty.
It is important to remember that the Precautionary Principle (PP) specifically and only applies when the data and evaluation are NOT certain. If they become “consistent” then other due processes take over to usually require prevention by law. The PP is applied at an earlier stage to prevent unnecessary harm.
The precautionary principle shall be informed by three specific principles:
• the fullest possible scientific evaluation, the determination, as far as possible, of the degree of scientific uncertainty;
• a risk evaluation and an evaluation of the potential consequences of inaction;
• the participation of all interested parties in the study of precautionary measures, once the results of the scientific evaluation and/or the risk evaluation are available.
In addition, the general principles of risk management remain applicable when the precautionary principle is invoked.
These are the following five principles :
• proportionality between the measures taken and the chosen level of protection; SSITA believes that Information Technology is important in modern schooling, especially at secondary level and also in the higher classes in primary schools. For most applications SSITA supports the use of fixed desktop, hardwired PC computers with a good quality ergonomic keyboard and mouse, with a flat-screen display and a hard-wired (Ethernet or fibre optic) network
connection. These are ‘Earthed’ and do not use wireless and expose the user to minimal (but not non-existent) electromagnetic fields.
There is a place for occasional use of non-wireless laptops but the EMF exposures (from touchpad,etc) are higher and the keyboard is much less ergonomic and more likely to lead to repetitive strain injury (RSI) problems in later years (small light finger and wrist movements).
Tablets and Smart Phones should not be used as both result in much higher electromagnetic field (EMF) and RF exposure to the children.
SSITA  believes that this approach would be both proportionate and protective at very little difference in cost.
•  non-discrimination in application of the measures;
• consistency of the measures with similar measures already taken in similar situations or using similar approaches;
• examination of the benefits and costs of action or lack of action; Although a hard-wired installation is slightly more
expensive to install, ongoing maintenance and replacements would be significantly cheaper.
SSITA  believes that lack of precautionary action will lead to long-term harm to the physical and mental wellbeing of the children exposed on a daily basis to Wi-Fi, Tablet computers and the like.
• review of the measures in the light of scientific developments
The burden of proof
In most cases, European consumers and the associations which represent them must demonstrate the danger associated with a procedure or a product placed on the market, except for medicines, pesticides and food additives.
However, in the case of an action being taken under the precautionary principle, the producer,manufacturer or importer may be required to prove the absence of danger.
K. Dane Snowden, Vice President, External & State affairs of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association (CTIA) formally stated in 2012 at a Californian hearing:
Let me be very clear. The Industry has NOT said once, ONCE, that cell phones are safe”.
The signals from Wi-Fi are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts), in both the computerand the mast (or router) and resulting exposures should be well within internationally-accepted guidelines.
The signals are within ICNIRP Guidelines – but SSITA and many others dispute the relevance of guidance primarily based on heating effects (Specific Absorption Rate or SAR) over 6 minutes when there are many good, peer-reviewed, scientific studies showing evidence of harm, especially to well-being,thousands of times lower than the ICNIRP Guidance values.
Moreover, it does not matter if the signals are low power, if they are enough to cause biological damage and adverse effects, as they have been found to do (http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html).
The frequencies used are broadly the same as those from other RF applications.
This is true, but most humans were not generally exposed to significant levels of signals at these frequencies before the last 30 years. Levels in this part of the radio-frequency spectrum have increased  by at least 1,000,000,000,000,000-fold in the last 100 years and by about 1,000,000-fold in the last 30 years alone.
Many studies have been carried out on insects, birds, other animals and plants that are showing adverse effects. These are not psychosomatic.
Based on current knowledge, RF exposures from Wi-Fi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.
This is a ridiculously ignorant statement by PHE who have not even formally assessed and published exposure from iPads and other wireless tablet computers. For their assessment of exposures Peyman,et al, only measured laptop PCs and Wi-Fi/wLAN Access Points – and showed that the typical levels in the classroom were significantly higher than those found 100 metres away from a mobile phone mast while standing in the main beam. They measured the
levels at 0.5 and 1 metre away from the laptop PCs.
Most children use a laptop closer than 0.5 metres (about 0.3 m or 30 cm is more common).
Tablets are often held in the hand (or on a lap) with the hands actually touching the device close to its internal antennas. Even when on a table the child is usually very close to the screen – more like 20cm.
As power increases approximately with the square of the distance to the source, this would represent an approximate 4-fold increase in the levels measured by Peyman, et al, at 50 cm from laptop PCs.
Although SSITA  believes that SAR is not the best metric (signal strength in volts per metre is better for pulsing signals like Wi-Fi), let us examine the published SAR values of mobile phones and iPads:
Taking all 432 mobile phones listed on www.sarvalues.com we find a range of maximum SAR values of 0.12 to 1.59 W/kg, with an average of 0.8 W/kg (in10 g of tissue).
Taking 11 modern smart phones on www.sardatabase.com we get a range (in 10g of tissue) of 0.35 to 0.8 W/kg, with an average maximum SAR of 0.42 W/kg.
The Apple/FCC official SAR for an iPad3 on Wi-Fi is 0.39-0.51 W/kg in 10 g of tissue (and unlike mobile phones this more than doubles to 1.19 W/kg in 1g of tissue due to the way the iPad is used).
So, the max Wi-Fi SARs from iPads are very similar to those from modern mobile phones.
The UK Chief Medical Officers and Department of Health currently advise all children and young people under the age of 16 to use mobile phones for essential purposes only. The SAR values above suggest that this advice should also apply to wireless tablet computers.
But that is only a small part of the issue. All modern phones employ Adaptive Power Control (APC).
This lowers their power when they have a good connection to a base station.
GSM handsets have a 1000:1 range of control and typically operate betwe en 10 and 100 times lower than their maximum.
Modern 3G/UMTS handsets have a 50,000,000:1 range o f power control and typically work at around one-thousandth of their maximum power. So their average SAR exposure is a tiny fraction of their maximum SAR value.
HOWEVER, iPads, other tablets and most laptops do not have any implementation of APC on Wi-Fi –so they work at their full power all the time when on Wi-Fi.
There are gaps between data bursts, especially when not downloading lots of data, but the microwave data-bursts are always at full power.
There is a proximity sensor on the back of iPads that Apple claims senses when it is used on a lap and decreases the transmit power to avoid breaking the SAR regulations. However, this does not work when the iPad is used on a table and a child’s face is close to the screen.
SSITA believes that it is this constant hammering effect of RF radiation bursts that is particularly interfering with the user’s wellbeing. There are wLAN Access Points available from some upmarket suppliers (like CISCO) that can implement APC for Wi-Fi, but even if these are installed they cannot use APC with most tablets (including iPads) and laptop PCs currently in use in schools. That would require a substantial new investment and no use of iPads.
On the basis of current scientific information, exposures from Wi-Fi equipment satisfy international guidelines.
There is no consistent evidence of health effects from RF exposures below guideline levels and no reason why schools and others should not use Wi-Fi equipment.
SSITA strongly refutes the views expressed in this statement.There are good reasons why schools should not use W
i-Fi equipment. Schools should not use Wi-Fi because they have a legal duty to safeguard children by preventing the impairment of children’s health and development. Scientific studies have found that Wi-Fi/2.4GHz wireless signals can increase oxidative stress (which damages cells), damage DNA (which may lead to mutations, cell death or
cancers), increase the proliferation of human leukaemia cells, alter human brain activity (and thus likely to affect brain development) and damage male and female fertility.
An obvious response to the evidence of damage from RF signals published in the scientific literature,would be to investigate further with biological tests the extent to which Wi-Fi signals are causing biological damage and under what conditions these effects occur.
Even though PHE/HPA advise schools throughout the UK with confidence that there is no reason why Wi-Fi should not be used in schools, they have yet to publish any of their own biological or health studies into the possible effects
of Wi-Fi. We also note that the Government funding of the Peyman et al study specifically excluded any investigations into possible adverse health effects (including on well-being).
Surely schools should be questioning why PHE/HPA have carried out no biological or health studies into the effects of Wi-Fi since they announced in 2007 that they would be thoroughly investigating the safety of Wi-Fi for use in schools.
All the investigation did was to measure signal levels and to state that these were below ICNIRP Guidance values.
This response has been prepared for SSITA by SSITA members:
Alasdair Philips (www.powerwatch.org.uk)
Dr Sarah Starkey, Neuroscientist
Diana Hanson (National Co-ordinator:SSITA,www.ssita.org.uk)

It is apparent that  PHE actions and reports are not based on facts, which in turn undermine the credibility of Public Health England. All its members should be thoroughly scrutinised for conflicts of Interest and no importance should be placed on its statements, having been shown to ignore crucial investigations and research in favour of toeing the political line of Government, it is clear that they are indeed a cause of Public ill health in many instances.This is especially true of new technologies.


Small cell towers have appeared on the busy high street in my town, they are approx 100 metres apart and number about 10.
I have written this freedom of information (FoI) request to the council and the highways dept for Info on them, should anyone see towers popping up, I suggest you do the same. It is your neighbourhood after all!

Under the FOI Act, I would like to find out the following information.

Re-The cell towers on Queens Road in Hastings.

Are these cell towers experimental ?

What is their purpose?

What is their link to 5G testing?

Were the public informed of the implementation?

If so, when?

Are they connected to a central management system?

Do they have a wireless data connection?

Do they have a wireless remote control?

Do they have sensors that enable smart city connectivity?

If they do not have smart city applications capabilities, are there plans to create them in the future?

Given that cell towers have a wireless link to the base station which can be up to 6 miles away and can capacitate 5000 cells towers, where is the base station for the area?

Who was given the contract?

If testing has already begun, when was this? if not, when will it be forthcoming?

Has there been any studies on the impact of public health of these towers?

Can you provide me with Information that shows when these cell towers Infrastructure were agreed upon and by whom.

A letter written by Ingrid Dickinson, a member of Bemri.

On 14 Jun 2018, at 10:55, Ingrid Dickenson  wrote:

Dear All

I think we should `all’ be aware of what’s coming for Londoners! I have participated in the Mayor’s consultation process and raised the subject of 5G as a health hazard but the aggressive stance of the 5G/AI industry coupled with the Mayor’s complete ignorance of the health consequences and eagerness to make London the `test bed’ has triumphed. The health effects of the 5G/AI roll-out have not been considered which means that the Mayor’s consultation process is based on incomplete and missing evidence, thereby `informed’ decision making was impossible.

Just listen again to Tom Wheeler’s aggressive stance on and his complete dismissal of `waiting’ for standards and testing . It seems that the Mayor and the UK government agree with him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5AYRWvjiVg

It really is alarming how we are being railroaded into a future which leaves us powerless, controlled and soon unable to breathe. Forget Climate Change ! 5G with its 60GHz backhaul signal will directly affect the Oxygen molecules in our air and the body’s ability to produce Vit D. It will have a devastating effect on Nature and all wildlife and soon we will experience the `Silent Spring’!

THERE HAS BEEN NO PRIOR TESTING regarding these effects, now also highlighted by wildlife experts ! Isn’t it the public’s right to demand proper testing `before’ such a massive roll-out of the AI/5G system begins ? Are the 180 International Scientists and experts in the field of health who signed the appeal for prior testing not worth listening too? WHERE ARE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS and what are `their Experts’ doing other than follow whatever government/industry demands ? Is there no concern amongst them ?

The Mayor makes it very clear inhttps://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/supporting-londons-sectors/smart-london/smarter-london-together

We see London’s future as a global test-bed city for innovation where the best ideas – eg from the AI sector – are developed here with the highest standards for privacy and security, and spread around the world.

This sentence alone is totally misleading! I refer to the recent `Panorama’ program where Fiona Philips demonstrated how the `smart’ system can easily be hacked. Where baby alarms and security cameras can be watched `remotely’ by unknown third parties. Children can be watched in their beds as well as couples in their homes. It was demonstrated that `someone’ in Poland watched an elderly couple through their `security’ camera in their home for FIVE hours. So much for privacy and security !

Has `Public Health England’ conducted `any’ trials re the safety of the smart system when we already know about the health effects of smart meters from International `Health Experts’, disregarded by PHE? Given PHE’s stance on Wi-Fi in school there is little hope that PHE is in any position to conduct proper safety trials before the Mayor unleashes his Frequency Armageddon on all Londoners.

Are we all going to stand by or are we going to speak up and demand prior testing? Those of us who have children/grandchildren owe it to them to speak up!

Ingrid Dickenson
Bio-Electromagnetic Research Initiative

This is the Scariest 3-1/2 minutes you will hear ALL…

Using fiber-optic sensors, the smart concrete slabs are capable of gathering information about the environment, as well as ongoing activities taking place on the surface.

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), has partnered with Integrated Roadways to test such revolutionary systems.

The CDOT recently awarded the startup with a $2.75 million contract to develop and test smart pavements in the state. The five-year project includes the following companies: Kiewit Infrastructure Co., Cisco Systems, WSP Global and Wichita Concrete Pipe.


Audi of America has announced the expansion of its Traffic Light Information (TLI) to two more cities—Phoenix, Arizona and areas of Kansas City, Kansas. With the addition of the two cities, more than 2,250 intersections across U.S. can communicate with Audi vehicles.

Many drivers have experienced the frustration of waiting at an intersection for the traffic light to turn green and when it finally does, the car in front of you remains stopped because the driver is  checking their cell phone or fumbling with the car’s infotainment system. With so many distracted drivers on the road today, this happens all too frequently. Audi is working to address this problem.

Audi of America has announced the expansion of its  Traffic Light Information (TLI) to two more cities—Phoenix, Arizona and areas of Kansas City, Kansas. With the addition of the two cities, more than 2,250 intersections across U.S. can communicate with Audi vehicles. The technology is known as Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I).

The pilot was first launched in 2016. Audi, in collaboration with Traffic Technology Services, first debuted its Traffic Light Information system in Las Vegas. With the addition of Phoenix and Kansas City, 10 major U.S. cities now use the service.

Enabled cities include: Dallas and Houston, Palo Alto and Arcadia, California; Portland, Oregon and Denver, Las Vegas and Washington, D.C.

“Audi continues to be an industry leader in connectivity and mobility solutions,” said Scott Keogh, president, Audi of America. “Not only do V2I technologies like Traffic Light Information help to reduce driver stress, they are also essential infrastructure developments as we continue toward an automated future.”

Traffic Light Information is a Audi connect PRIME feature available on select 2017 and 2018 models, enables the car to communicate with the infrastructure in certain cities and metropolitan areas across the U.S.

How it Works

When a TLI equipped Audi models approaches a connected traffic light, it receives real-time signal information from the traffic management system that monitors traffic lights via an on-board 4G LTE data connection. When the light is red, the TLI feature will display the time remaining until the signal changes to green in the instrument cluster in front of the driver or in the head-up display (if equipped). This “time-to-green” information helps reduce anxiety by letting the driver know approximately how much time remains before the light changes.

For future iterations of V2I technology, Audi’s TLI could include integration within the vehicle’s start/stop function, Green Light Optimized Speed Advisory (GLOSA), optimized navigation routing, and other predictive services. All of these services are designed to help reduce congestion and enhance mobility on crowded roadways.

In addition to Audi’s technology, in the future, smart traffic signals can reduce traffic woes in cities. By using AI and information from connected or autonomous cars to detect where there is a heavy concentration of vehicles, traffic signals can alter their pattern to ease congestion—making traffic flow in cities much more efficient.


According to a report in ‘ UKNew Tech News’ in 2016, smart meter technology is necessary for smart cities to evolve. This was reported   by Claire Maugham who is director of policy and communications at Smart Energy GB, the body responsible for communicating to the public about the smart meter rollout across Great Britain. https://www.uktech.news/tech-city-voices/smart-cities-will-need-smart-energy-20160615

This has also been stated in a Government report in 2012 for the Department of Energy and Climate, entitled ‘ Smart Metering Implementation Programme.’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/68973/7348-first-ann-prog-rpt-rollout-smart-meters.pdf

In section 1.8 It states, ‘Smart meters in homes and businesses will sit at the interface between energy supply and demand, helping to modernise the energy industry. Smart meters are a critical part of the platform for the development of a smart grid and demand-side measures.’

So we can see how Important it is for Govt and Industry to implement Smart meters as a necessity to implement the Smart grid/city  roll out.

The benefits of Smart meters are being addressed in the above document as:

1.9 Taking into account the quantifiable costs and benefits to Great Britain from the roll-out of smart metering, a dual fuel household could on average see bill savings of £25 per annum by 2020, rising to £40 by 2030. For small and non-domestic sites, bill savings are expected to be approximately £190 per annum by 2020, rising to over £200 by 2030.

  • Smart meters will for the first time put consumers in control of their energy use, helping them to adopt energy efficiency measures that can help save money.

There are already Energy Monitoring devices that can be purchased, some for as little as £25 which can be attached to wiring to monitor your energy use. 

  • Smart meters will provide accurate energy consumption information bringing an end to estimated billing.

£20 Billion costs to end estimated bills? 

The roll-out of smart meters will play an important role in Britain’s transition to a low-carbon economy and help us meet some of the long-term challenges we face in ensuring an affordable, secure and sustainable energy supply.

According to researchers,the communications industry could use 20% of all the world’s electricity by 2025, hampering attempts to meet climate change targets and straining grids as demand by power-hungry server farms storing digital data from billions of smartphones, tablets and internet-connected devices grows exponentially.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320225452_Total_Consumer_Power_Consumption_Forecast

The Smart Grid and Smart Cities that they are so eager to roll out will require massive amounts of data centres which will drain the energy supply. https://data-economy.com/data-centres-world-will-consume-1-5-earths-power-2025/

Britain’s foremost data centre expert and a visiting professor at the University of Leeds, says the amount of energy used by data centres is doubling every four years – despite the innovations in hardware that massively increase their capacity to store data. As a result, analysts forecast that data centres will consume roughly treble the amount of electricity in the next decade.https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-data-centres-to-consume-three-times-as-much-energy-in-next-decade-experts-warn-a6830086.html

Smart meters  will facilitate the Smart Grid, which in turn  will involve massive amounts of electricity, so far from helping to sustain the energy supply, it will be helping to drain it in the near future. What will be the consequences of a limited energy supply? Electricity Quotas, so in pushing for the roll out of Smart meters, to enable a Smart City/grid,the Govt and Industry will be adding to the draining of our energy.

Having Smart meters  will allow them to remotely cut off anyone who has fulfilled their quota or even switch of whole neighbourhoods who have fulfilled their area quotas. Hmm… this is not looking like such a good idea after all, is it?

1.7 For energy suppliers, access to more accurate data, accompanied by improved industry-wide data management systems, will release efficiency savings that should flow through to consumers who will receive a better service at reduced cost.

Hardly a better service If we have to endure Electricity black outs and Quotas!

So far, we have seen that they will not save money as they will  pass on the vast costs to the consumer, when enough people have them installed, obviously! Let us be honest, they are not going to hit the public with higher prices in the midst of trying to roll out this scam, now are they!?

They do not save energy at all, they facilitate the draining of the energy supply in the future, with massive amounts of energy needed to operate data centres, creating possible energy blackouts and quotas.

And they are not required to allow us to keep a check on our consumption as there are already devices on the market that are cheap and can fulfil that task.

What about Health Risks?

6.10 Smart meters use radio waves to allow remote readings to be taken from gas and electricity meters. Radio waves are very common in the environment and are used in radio and television broadcasts, wireless computer networks, pagers, radar, cordless and mobile phones. Smart meters are covered by UK and EU product safety legislation, which requires manufacturers to ensure that any product placed on the market is safe. Manufacturers comply with the legislation by assessing and, if necessary, testing equipment according to agreed EU standards. The standards follow guidelines drawn up by the independent International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

There are thousands of peer reviewed studies that show the dangers of radio waves, many of which can be found on this  website.The guidelines by the ICNIRP were first set back in the 80,s (before the roll out of existing technology)rejecting any studies that shown the dangers on Non Ionizing Radiation, not surprising when the man who was responsible, Dr Rapocholi, was a known Industry insider. 

No surprise either that the threshold between the two groups of radiation was decided amongst physicists and engineers with no input from the medical profession.

Despite the enormous body of evidence and proof that exists showing the damage from NIR, Govts and Industry  refuse to accept the evidence.

70% of tests carried out by Non Industry studies have shown ‘adverse  affects’  from NIR whilst Industry led studies have shown the exact opposite  with 70% claiming ‘No adverse affects’.

It does not take a genius to work out -which group would stand to lose financially?  Which group had no financial involvements?  Who should we trust? 

There are no safe levels and our exposure is 20,000 times greater than it was in the 80,s.

Cordless phones, Wi-fi and Smart meters operate on the 2.4GHz frequency which is the frequency that water molecules vibrate on their axis and of course our bodies are 70% water. 

According to studies, 3% of the population are severely sensitive to EMF, 35% are moderately sensitive and 80% are suffering health problems which has been magnified greatly with the introduction of Smart meters.

Smart meters produce 500 to 8000 times more radiation than a mobile phone and they are on constantly.

We are electromagnetic beings, and we are affected by electricity in our environment.  The increasing saturation of wireless radiation (cell towers, cell and cordless phones, wi-fi and smart meters) pollutes our air and living environmentshttp://emfsafetynetwork.org/safety-precautions/electrical-sensitivity/

What about Security?

The lack of security in the smart utilities raises the prospect of a single line of malicious code cutting power to a home or even causing a catastrophic overload leading to exploding meters or house fires, according to Netanel Rubin, co-founder of the security firm Vaultra.

If a hacker took control of a smart meter they would be able to know “exactly when and how much electricity you’re using”.  An attacker could also see whether a home had any expensive electronics.

“He can do billing fraud, setting your bill to whatever he likes … The scary thing is if you think about the power they have over your electricity. He will have power over all of your smart devices connected to the electricity. This will have more severe consequences: imagine you woke up to find you’d been robbed by a burglar who didn’t have to break in“But even if you don’t have smart devices, you are still at risk. An attacker who controls the meter also controls the meter’s software, allowing him to cause it to literally explode.”

In 2009 Puerto Rican smart meters were hacked en masse, leading to widespread billing fraud.https://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/04/fbi-smart-meter-hacks-likely-to-spread/

Worse still, all the meters from one utility use the same hardcoded credentials. Access to one meter means access to ALL!


What about Safety?

In some smaller houses, ‘Smart’ Meters will be located in very close proximity to where people spend a lot of their time – including areas where they sleep. 

The EMF Safety Network  this year reported fires, explosions and burned-out appliances due to ‘Smart’ Meter installations in Australia, Canada and the US.

But with the fact that the UK’s 53mn electricity and gas meters are usually located indoors rather than on exterior walls, the risks with fires here are far more serious.

So despite the fact that they are health risks, fire risks, security risks and have the potential to facilitate the draining of the  the energy supply, whilst costing the consumer excessive  financial costs, the Govt is still trying to force the public to accept them, so much so that they have resorted to ridiculously pathetic media stories.

It is no surprise that the South Wales Evening Post resorted to these features in order to push the ‘Smart Agenda’. They were one of the six areas given a Government grant to push the Smart City/5G Agenda.

Smart meter propaganda 3

Smart meter propaganda 2

Smart meter propaganda 1

Smart meter propaganda 4

To claim that the public are ‘ drawn to bad news’ and that this is the reason why some are wary of smart meters, which they claim are fears that are  unfounded, is pure psychological propaganda. To then go on to produce a competition/questioner with the pushing of this technology and a £500 prize for the winner, is beyond pathetic.

It should be noted that despite the amount of harassment or propaganda that Govts with the aid of the media, are willing to go to, or the underhand levels they are willing to sink to, in order to get this Smart-Control-Surveillance grid off the ground, it is NOT compulsory!

Only by refusing Smart meters can we halt the rolling out  of dangerous, unhealthy and costly technologies which include AI, VR and 5G, technologies  that do not favour us in the short or long term.

Refuse Smart meters, put an end to this madness. 

Links to the Govt publication must include the following;© Crown copyright 2012 Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Crown. This publication (excluding logos) may be re-used free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reused accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.






Benefits of earthing the body, and hazards if it’s enveloped in high electric fields.

Grounding the body appropriately, especially at night, can prove beneficial for health, but most important is sleeping in a minimal electric field. Within a strong electromagnetic field, as created by electrical pollution can cause red blood cells to clump [Rouleaux] which reduce the amount of oxygen reaching the brain. When the body is grounded by direct contact with the natural earth surface for a certain time, the clumps disperse and the circulation improves.

Two experiments during 2010 at the private Dove Clinic near Winchester illustrate the concept with a client who suffered severe electromagnetic and chemical sensitivity. Fortunately two years later she fully recovered after moving from the polluted areas and taking necessary precautions.

The clinic was first checked out for electromagnetic pollution which proved satisfactory. The client was tested for red blood cell clumping before and after exposure: first to a laptop computer running in battery mode (non-wireless), and four weeks later to a DECT (cordless) phone base station, which emits microwave radiation 24/7. Exposure to the laptop caused a degree of red cell clumping but a few minutes of exposure to the phone base station caused a significant clumping. In fact, a body tingling occurred the moment it was switched on. Only after the client sat and walked bare foot in the clinic garden for around two hours did tests show a return to almost normal. In fact, a tingling sensation occurred immediately it was switched on.

Among people interviewed who grounded their body “directly” to earth, some reported favourable results. In one instance a person suffering chronic back pain had sleepless nights and after grounding the pain had vanished, and someone suffering advanced cancer slept more comfortably. Unfortunately, more people reported having no relief from their ailments after grounding, and a few complained of adverse effects and could be due to sleeping or spending some time within an electric field or implementing a poor grounding protocol.

Some people who found it alleviated symptoms initially, it didn’t last very long – a classic placebo scenario. Other researchers discovered grounding had decreased the time needed to go to sleep and made it easier to go back to sleep, enabled deeper sleep, improved the ability to dream and meant that individuals woke up refreshed instead of exhausted. The main factor appears to be keeping the body voltage below the range of nerve cell electrical activity (0.03-0.09 volts).

People sometimes use a volt meter to try and demonstrate this so called “body voltage” disappears like magic when grounded. However, checking the client’s grounded body for the presence of AC electric fields whilst they are holding the electrode of the grounded volt meter is an invalid exercise. At the moment the body is grounded it is at the same earthed potential as a grounded voltmeter and simply shows a shorted circuit. Importantly, when the body is earthed whilst shrouded in high electrical fields, those fields flow constantly flow from the body [seeking earth] like water from a running tap and only create added stress to the body.

Where our body, a 70% bag of highly conductive salty water is constantly bombarded with electro-magnetic waves, it acts like a battery or capacitor continually being charged and discharged, rather like a garden water butt which is filled and overflowing, is used up and filled with the next rain.

These days we are often totally submerged in electromagnetic pollution, and just as we wear waterproof clothing, electro-sensitive people can wear clothing made from a special fabric that helps deflect at least some EM pollution from vulnerable parts of the body, especially the head area!

Test Equipment

The “field volt meter” measures an airborne voltage quite unlike the volt meter [multimeter] used to measure voltage from a fixed circuit. A field volt meter is not grounded and measures only airborne fields, including those close to conductive surfaces and close to the body. It registers the voltage present in its normal surroundings and pinpoint hot spots. Incidentally, the meter used to monitor electrostatic fields is called a “field mill”. The multimeter is a useful instrument but as with every test instrument has limited capabilities. A magnetometer measures magnetic fields and RF meters the power density produced from high frequencies such as microwave/radio transmissions.

Using the appropriate test equipment, a body can show higher voltage readings when it’s grounded via the earthed mains and lower one when the body is disconnected from it. The mains earth carries induced low and high frequency signals from internal and external sources such as electrical equipment and radiation from microwave communications. For grounding purposes it is best to use double insulated cable from the grounding sheet directly to earth. The wire is like a screened TV aerial cable [which blocks out unwanted signals] but far more robust, essential, and is expensive. The ground must have a low electrical resistance as in areas with dry, rocky or sandy soil the ground has a high resistance.

If a high resistance resistor [as normal] is fitted in the plug of the aforementioned grounding sheet, the resistance between body and earth is increased. The long wired earth circuit is the worst case scenario. Two bare feet on Mother Earth works better.


A link on this subject:

Virnich MH & Schauer M: “Caution, Grounding Pads and Sheets: Being Grounded Is Not Equal to Zero-Field Exposure” (de-Der Elektro- und Gebaudentechniker, 2005, trans. Gustavs K 2009) (http://buildingbiology.ca/wd/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FINAL_ACHTUNG_ABSCHIRMDECKE_WEB.pdf

Downloaded from bmjopen.bmj.com

ABSTRACT Objectives: We performed a re-analysis of the data from Navarro et al (2003) in which health symptoms related to microwave exposure from mobile phone base stations (BSs) were explored, including data obtained in a retrospective inquiry about fear of exposure from BSs. Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: La Ñora (Murcia), Spain. Participants: Participants with known illness in 2003 were subsequently disregarded: 88 participants instead of 101 (in 2003) were analysed. Since weather circumstances can influence exposure, we restricted data to measurements made under similar weather conditions.

Outcomes and methods: A statistical method indifferent to the assumption of normality was employed: namely, binary logistic regression for modelling a binary response (eg, suffering fatigue (1) or not (0)), and so exposure was introduced as a predictor variable. This analysis was carried out on a regular basis and bootstrapping (95% percentile method) was used to provide more accurate CIs.

Results: The symptoms most related to exposure were lack of appetite (OR=1.58, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.03); lack of concentration (OR=1.54, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.89); irritability (OR=1.51, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.85); and trouble sleeping (OR=1.49, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.84). Changes in –2 log likelihood showed similar results. Concerns about the BSs were strongly related with trouble sleeping (OR =3.12, 95% CI 1.10 to 8.86).

The exposure variable remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. The bootstrapped values were similar to asymptotic CIs. Conclusions: This study confirms our preliminary results. We observed that the incidence of most of the symptoms was related to exposure levels— independently of the demographic variables and some possible risk factors. Concerns about adverse effects from exposure, despite being strongly related with sleep disturbances, do not influence the direct association between exposure and sleep.

The health risk due to exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) continues to be discussed today.

The study that led to this debate was initiated after verification that the US embassy in Moscow was being subjected to such radiation from 1953 to May 1975.

Recently, a review of that episode reopened the debate about the potential harmfulness of RF EMFs.

The increasing number of base stations (BSs) on masts and buildings has increased public awareness. This issue has prompted scientific research to establish to what extent low-intensity EMFs may affect the health of humans and other organisms.

Furthermore, the term electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been recently introduced in discussions attributing symptoms to exposure to EMFs.

A review of this topic  in 2010 found that 8 of the 10 studies evaluated through PubMed had reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances <500 m from BSs.

None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting health.

Thus, the need emerges to revaluate our pioneering work in this field in order to add new procedures and data.

Few articles have addressed the possible association between microwave sickness and microwave exposure from Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) BSs since the publication of our first study.

Chronologically, Santini et al and Gadzicka et al reported differences in the distance dependent prevalence of symptoms such as headache, impaired concentration and Strengths and limitations of this study ▪ We used a robust statistical analysis with a highly homogeneous sample in a homogeneous environment. ▪ A participation bias cannot be ruled out.

The late query about concerns (as a possible confounder) may render the results less valid. ▪ We observed that the incidence of most of the symptoms was related to exposure levels. Gómez-Perretta C, Navarro EA, Segura J, et al. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003836. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003836 1 Open Access Research Downloaded from bmjopen.bmj.com on December 31, 2013 – Published by group.bmj.com irritability.

A later Austrian study showed a positive association between the measured electrical field (GSM 900/ 1800) in bedrooms and headaches, cold hands and feet and difficulties in concentration.

An Egyptian study showed a prevalence of neurological symptoms, such as headache, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbances among participants directly exposed to GSM signals from BSs. The symptoms reported by all the above cited authors belong to those attributed to the microwave syndrome.

However, one article using personal monitored data from GSM-UMTS frequency bands found no statistical association in adults. More recently, the same authors observed no association in children, contradictory results in children and adolescents, and concluded that the few observed significant associations were not causal but rather occurred by chance.

Blettner et al reported in phase 1 of their study more health problems closer to BSs, but in phase 2 they concluded that measured EMF emissions were not related to adverse health effects.

Other researchers focused their work on the possible existence of participants with sensitivity to GSM or UMTS signals according to psychological, cognitive or autonomic assessment. These researchers used short term exposure (only 30–50 min) under laboratory conditions and revealed a large disparity between participants.

Recently, a study measuring several biological stress markers found that RF EMF emitted by mobile phone BSs from 5.2 to 2126.8 μW/m2 increased cortisol and salivary α-amylase, while IgA concentration was not significantly modified. The Selbitz study in 2010 described a significant dose–response relationship in symptoms related with sleep, mood, joints, infections, skin condition, as well as neurological, cardiovascular, visual and auditory systems and the gastrointestinal tract.

The existence of short-term physiological effects of EMF on sleep quality was not evident in the work of Danker-Hopfe et al; however, it was stated that the presence of BSs per se (not the EMF) may have a negative impact on sleep quality.

A Polish study in 2012 did not show a correlation between electrical field strength and frequency of subjective symptoms; however, it showed a correlation between subjective symptoms and the distance to BSs.

A study carried out in Egypt revealed that exposure to EMF emitted either from mobile phones or BSs had significant effects on the pituitary–adrenal axis. More recently, work developed in Iran indicated that symptoms such as nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbance, memory loss and lowering of libido were statistically significant in people living near BSs (<300 m distances) compared with those living far from the BSs (>300 m).

In our cross-sectional analysis, of  symptoms showed statistically significant higher scores in the group with the maximum exposure level. The symptoms are included in the microwave syndrome.

It also reported statistically significant correlation coefficients between the measured electrical field and  of symptoms.

A review recently established several conditions for epidemiological studies to be eligible for introduction in general analysis: eligible studies must quantify exposure using objective measures (such as distance to the nearest BS, spot or personal exposure measurements in a specific frequency range); possible confounders must be considered and the selection of the study population must be clearly free of bias in terms of exposure and outcomes.

Accordingly, in this reanalysis of our previous study, possible confounders were included in addition to the specific RF EMF measurements made in 2001 (covering the specific range between 900 and 1800 MHz).

Therefore, we coanalysed the effects of other variables such as sociodemographic data and the use of electronic devices. Concern about being damaged by radiation from antennas was also analysed. The new statistical approach tested the possible influences of other variables, such as demographic data and the use of electronic devices.

Moreover, since some concerns have been raised about possible health consequences caused by the emitted microwaves, we analysed whether these symptoms might be related to fear of exposure.

As some participants refused to allow measurements in their homes, we analysed whether symptom status or subjective distance to the BS could be a bias of participation in the study.

Interestingly, this period was free of other sources of RF such as WIFI or UMTS or the massive use of mobile phones, enabling a specific study of GSM technology.

Finally, the suitability of the size of the sample was analysed.

METHODS Study design We chose a small urban area with mixed rural characteristics: low levels of environmental pollution (more agricultural than industrial); no major differences in socioeconomic characteristics throughout the region (excluding large cities); similar ethnicity (white Caucasian) and language (Spanish) and with mobile phone communication operative for at least 2 years.

La Ñora was chosen because it had the features of a small city, and was located near the capital (Murcia) in a rural environment without any particular health or environmental problems. Consequently, La Ñora was representative of small urban areas in eastern Spain with fewer than 20 000 inhabitants—such rural areas accounting for 19.8% of the population and 35.9% of the territory in Spain.

Two BS masts, each about 30 m height, were sited at different positions to provide GSM-900-1800 coverage.

The GSM 900 BS was positioned not before 1997 while the GSM 1800 BS was built in December 1999.

Data regarding the main demographic characteristics of the sample and their use of electronic devices was collected through a Spanish-language questionnaire.

All  Gómez-Perretta C, Navarro EA, Segura J, et al. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003836. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003836 Open Access Downloaded from bmjopen.bmj.com on December 31, 2013 – Published by group.bmj.com of the participants were of the same ethnic origin, shared similar family income levels and general standard of living, and were born in La Ñora or nearby.

All the residents in the study were living in the village before the erection of both BSs. All of the residents were at home for more than 8 h a day for at least 6 days a week and normally slept at home. The core of the questionnaire was a symptom checklist for estimating the frequency of  health-related symptoms attributed to microwave sickness. These symptoms were fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disorders, depressive tendency, dizziness, concentration difficulties, memory loss, skin lesions, visual and hearing deficiencies, walking difficulties and cardiovascular problems.

The frequency was quantified as never suffer = 0, sometimes = 1, often = 2 and very often =3.


The percentage of residents who reported electrical transformers less than 10 m from their home was 21.6%, while 42% reported high-voltage power lines less than 100 m from home. Finally, 40% of residents reported a TV transmitter within a radius of around 4 km.

The questionnaire included a statement that its purpose was health research and that the data gathered would be confidential. Some 215 questionnaires were randomly distributed through 17 streets representing practically the entire village. The houses were selected using a street map of the village. In total, 150 questionnaires were collected with the remainder being uncollected because nobody was at home (31) or there was a refusal by the householder to complete the questionnaire (34).

During 2001, 101 RF EMF measurements in bedrooms were made. The other (49) residents who refused admittance for taking the measurements (16) were not at home for the scheduled measurement appointment (10) or had serious health problems (23). However, some changes are now being introduced in this reanalysis. Thirteen of the participants included in the original study have now been eliminated: 2 participants were eliminated (one regarding alcohol abuse and another regarding pregnancy) to increase the requirement on health criteria and 11 participants were eliminated to increase the homogeneity of the RF EMFs measurements because there was a change (it was raining) in the usual dry weather conditions when the respective broadband measurements were registered. The reanalysis of the dataset, which is the main focus of this paper, was finally performed with 88 participants (45 women and 43 men) instead of the 101 analysed in 2001. Concerns about microwave exposure Sixty-six of the 88 participants were reached by telephone in February 2012 and asked two questions: A. Were you worried about the masts (BSs) when they were erected? B. Did you believe their radiation (BSs) could damage your health? In all cases, those who were worried about the masts were concerned about health consequences. Twentyseven participants (40.9%) responded ‘no’ and 39 (59.1%) responded ‘yes’. Responses were analysed relative to age (analysis of variance (ANOVA) test), sex (λ statistic) and subjective distance to BS (Somers’ D statistic).

Demographic data and the percentage of users of personal computers and mobile phones were analysed. The
mean age was 42 and 17 years (SD±17. 61, interval 15–81). Women totalled 51.1% (mean age=45.08 years,
SD=17.98; interval=15–81) and 48.9% were men (mean age = 39.12 years, SD=16.88; interval=15–75). A total of
13.6% participants regularly used computers and 23.9%used mobile phones.
No differences related with age and use of mobile phones or computers were found between the sexes.
The univariate logistic regression indicated that age was inversely associated with irritability (OR=0.97, 95%
CI 0.95 to 0.99) and that the oldest had the greatest difficulties hearing (OR=1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06) and
walking (OR=1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). However,gender clearly did not influence the outcome of any
dependent variable. Use of mobile phones was linked with lack of appetite and vertigo, while worry about the
radiation from BSs was associated with trouble sleeping(table 1). However, concern about radiation from BSs
was unrelated to age (ANOVA test), sex (λ statistic) or subjective distance to BS (Somers’ D statistic).
Most of the symptoms were related with GSM exposure especially fatigue, irritability, lack of appetite,
trouble sleeping, depression and lack of concentration.

Change in– log likelihood showed similar results(table 2). Figure 1 shows the distribution of EMF measurements
throughout the sample.ROC curves for each of the logistic regression models (GSM exposure vs each symptom) oscillated between0 .65 and 0.87 (table 3). Headaches (0.84), nausea (0.86), appetite (0.87) and vascular problems (0.85) showed the highest values, while memory (0.67), skin (0.67) and visual disturbances (0.65) showed the lowest

The Hosmer and Lemeshow test indicated that most analyses showed no significant p values. The exceptions
were fatigue (0.003), depression (0.003) and vertigo (0.03). In the majority of the cases, the models
predicted better specificity than sensitivity. Only in the case of headaches and sleep disorder, did sensitivity
prevail over specificity (table 3—classification table). In the extreme case, skin and vascular problems showed
null or minimum sensitivity and 100% specificity.
Nagelkerke pseudo R2 showed acceptable coefficients with the exception of the symptoms related with vertigo
and skin problems (table 3).Threshold cut-off values of GSM for sleep, attention, irritability and memory are also shown (table 3). The remaining cut-off values were not considered since sensitivity or specificity was reported at below 0.50%.


This new study partially confirms our preliminary results about microwave sickness resulting from exposure to emissions from GSM mobile phone BSs. Fatigue, irritability, lack of appetite, sleep troubles, depression and lack of concentration were especially related with GSM exposure.
These results were independent of the main sociodemographic variables, other EMF exposures and anxiety
about being irradiated. Nevertheless, we confirm that apprehension about modern technology could predict
some symptoms, especially those related with sleep problems.
Our results agree with those who claimed that by distorting perceptions of risk, disproportionate precaution might
paradoxically lead to illness that would not otherwise occur.

However, health changes related with GSM exposure seem to occur in a manner unrelated with those fears.
Finally, exposure was very low during the period and also very low in comparison with Spanish recommendations
and international guidelines. file:///E:/MEDICAL/2013_subjective_symptoms_related_to_gsm_radiation_from_mobile_phone_base_stations1.pdf