The new group, Extinction Rebellion, is another incarnation of Climate Camp and Reclaim the Power. They make money by selling “activist courses” to innocent people. They are astroturfers – fake grass roots and their style comes from the Tavistock Institute or Common Purpose leadership training. (google them if you do not know what they are)

These are the controllers who steer real activists into illegal activities so that they get arrested, a police record and never get a decent job again.
I am serious.
AVOID THEM.

There is no such thing as workshops on civil disobedience. That is conning people out of good money! I asked a promoter of Extinction Rebellion why they needed training. She told me that it is so that everyone knows what to do and can act safely.

Under the Reclaim the Power branding these people have been very disruptive to the anti fracking movement for 5 years.
It started at Balcombe Protection Camp when they created a distraction camp about a mile away from the main camp at the gates of Cuadrilla’s drill site. At first we were very welcoming to them but things went a bit sour when they demanded food supplies from us, which we gave willingly. Then they suddenly and without warning invaded our camp in such numbers that we were overwhelmed and even prevented from going about out normal routine.
Caroline Lucas attended with her son and several friends. She was arrested that day for staging a sit-in in the gateway.

This screenshot from the video shows me waiting in my car to get back into camp. I was towing the water bowser on a trailer and had refilled it. The crowd had no access to water until I was permitted to get back to the kitchen which was close to the gates at the other side of the huge crowd which the massive police presence had cordoned off.

Fran at Balcombe in car waiting to get through with bowser.png

Curious, later that day, I drove down to the Reclaim the Power satellite camp to visit and witnessed their kitchen with signs up showing CHARGES FOR FOOD. That was pretty galling considering that the supplies we gave them were all donations from good-hearted local people. Here at the satellite camp they were being used to create meals that were then making a profit. I was pretty offended but did not engage anyone there in conversation.
I wandered on and found workshops underway on activism and legal observing.
Further afield there was a training event under the title of “direct action”.

I noticed that almost all the attendees at this camp were young university students, taking the whole thing very seriously. There was an unusually tense atmosphere.
Suddenly I was approached by two men who identified themselves as “the tranquillity team”.
They insisted that I was not welcome and escorted me rapidly to my car and out of the gate.
They did not say why.
I had not spoken to a soul there.
On my way out I observed a known police undercover, George Brown (probably a fake name) smirking to himself from the entrance of their information tent. This man had tried to form a relationship with me on several occasions at previous activist events. I had rebuffed him politely but he began a character assassination smear campaign against me which persists to this day. He is well known among anti-frackers for bullying people, especially women until they leave our camps in tears. His efforts to discourage me failed miserably and made me more determined if anything.

Sam Williams also visited that pop-up camp together with Commonly Known as Dom (a famous London activist).
They had a very similar reception, which he filmed:

The events at the Reclaim the Power temporary campsite concerned me greatly.
I have been an activist all my adult life and I had never before seen “courses” being set up and run like that.
My spidey sense was thoroughly triggered.
I realised that this group was set up to rob real activism of personnel and funds.
They have been the bane of our collective existence ever since because people fall for it, part with their personal data and cash believing that they are taking part in something “green” and “good” for the planet.

Reclaim the Power went on to attend and cause massive police coverage at every anti fracking camp ever since.
They advertised their attendance with big splashes, in advance, on Facebook and Twitter.
The police and courts then used those posts as evidence that the ENTIRE anti-fracking movement intends to commit acts of domestic terrorism. This has resulted in a number of successful exclusion injunctions being brought by oil and gas companies threatening violators with imprisonment and/or confiscation of personal wealth or property to offset their court costs. These injunctions would require the drilling companies to conduct prosecutions and so far, they have not deterred any actions at the gates by anti-fracking activists.

https://drillordrop.com/2018/07/11/breaking-judge-grants-cuadrilla-injunction-over-lancs-fracking-site-to-2020/

The only way to “train” for activism is to get out to a camp or event of your choosing and just DO IT.
Remain completely autonomous in your actions and NEVER let anyone tell you what to believe or do.
Trust your gut feelings at all times.
Never give your real name or address, email or phone number to anyone until you are completely sure about them.

Real activism avoids breaking the law or at least, avoids being caught doing so.
Avoid telling anyone of your plans.

Civil disobedience or rebellion is unashamed and indefensible sabotage by large numbers of people.
Do not attend such events in public places where facial recognition or surveillance on a huge scale operates.

It should be noted, at this point, that the first public meeting of Extinction Rebellion took place in Parliament Square, London on Oct 31st 2018.
Surely everyone knows that is the most heavily policed part of London?
They have armed police there and the security is, of course, top of the range.
George Monbiot, columnist at the Guardian, was one of the speakers at the Declaration of Extinction Rebellion event.
That alone should send a red flag flying but no, he was cheered along by the adoring crowd who seemed oblivious of his brazen adherence to the United Nations Agendas 21 & 2030 in everything he writes.

Who would have the funds to organise droves of people, divided into regions, with printed multi-coloured flags, websites, meetings and workshops set up and organised in such a short space of time?
The answer is fairly obvious!
It was not the usual NGOs like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth.
It was probably large wealthy NGOs such as Soros’ Open Society and the strange British “charity”, Common Purpose.
They train potential leaders, whose main objective is to lead the opposition into supporting the long term objectives of the United Nations Agendas 21 and 2030. which you can read about here:

https://steemit.com/life/@francesleader/agenda-2030-no-escape

Politics is replete with “green” thinking individuals, across the political spectrum and at all levels from local to national.
They are actively working to promote the UN agendas at all levels of governance in the entire world.
The Green Party is particularly noticeable for this.
Now, do not get me wrong. I know that the Green Party has many members who are genuine, good people desperate to do something positive for the environment but, unfortunately, they do not seem to have realised that the entire Green movement, worldwide is controlled and infiltrated.

Do not forget that

THEODORE HERZL.png

The Green Party also wholeheartedly believe all the statements made by UN International Panel on Climate Change, even though the models and data have been proven to be falsified or actually faked repeatedly .

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

They ignore and deny the existence of geo-engineering.
Even though the history of it has been documented thoroughly by researchers such as Jim Lee of ClimateViewer.com. His website Weather Modification History provides irrefutable evidence from old newspaper cuttings and studies that date back to the 19th century. It is fascinating.

https://weathermodificationhistory.com

Many NGOs and politicians deny that vital information about the climate has been omitted from the peer reviewed studies and they repeat the mantra that 97% of climate scientists are in agreement with their findings.
That is not possible.
No science is settled – ever.
In fact, to say that “the science is settled” would be the most unscientific statement one could make.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjPK59pJ7KI&fbclid=IwAR1TJcQ6-ijFH4yFghPTstEY6oLGkAg1MYz5czV5Y_viUiz2yBjeDgLmn70

Well well well. George Barda of Extinction Rebellion uses exactly the same defence duo as……

Yeah you guessed ,the Government.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/3584.html

https://twitter.com/brickcourt/status/955761797222584320

Image may contain: text
No automatic alt text available.

 

 

Letter to the Editor – Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence

Authors’ Comment on “Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor”, Alasdair Philips, Denis L. Henshaw, Graham Lamburn, and Michael J. O’Carroll

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Letter to the Editor (3 pages), Article ID 2170208, Volume 2018 (2018)

Published 25 June 2018

Abstract

Full-Text PDF

Full-Text HTML

Full-Text ePUB

Full-Text XML

Linked References

Citations to this Article

How to Cite this Article

Supplementary Materials

Views 573

Citations 1

ePub 0

PDF 21

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Volume 2018, Article ID 7910754, 10 pages

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7910754

Research Article

Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor

Alasdair Philips

,1,2 Denis L. Henshaw,1,3 Graham Lamburn,2 and Michael J. O’Carroll4

1Children with Cancer UK, 51 Great Ormond Street, London, WC1N 3JQ, UK

2Powerwatch, Cambridgeshire, UK

3Professor Emeritus, University of Bristol, UK

4Professor Emeritus, Vice–Chancellor’s Office, University of Sunderland, UK

Correspondence should be addressed to Alasdair Philips; alasdair.philips@childrenwithcancer.org.uk

Received 19 December 2017; Revised 14 March 2018; Accepted 21 March 2018; Published 24 June 2018

Academic Editor: Evelyn O. Talbott

Copyright © 2018 Alasdair Philips et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective. To investigate detailed trends in malignant brain tumour incidence over a recent time period. Methods. UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) data covering 81,135 ICD10 C71 brain tumours diagnosed in England (1995–2015) were used to calculate incidence rates (ASR) per 100k person–years, age–standardised to the European Standard Population (ESP–2013). Results. We report a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR rise in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) across all ages. The ASR for GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0, with annual case numbers rising from 983 to 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hidden in the overall data by a reduced incidence of lower-grade tumours. Conclusions. The rise is of importance for clinical resources and brain tumour aetiology. The rise cannot be fully accounted for by promotion of lower–grade tumours, random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques as it affects specific areas of the brain and only one type of brain tumour. Despite the large variation in case numbers by age, the percentage rise is similar across the age groups, which suggests widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible. This article reports incidence data trends and does not provide additional evidence for the role of any particular risk factor.

1. Introduction

The causes of brain tumours in adults remain largely unknown [1]. In 2011, the World Health Organisation (WHO) prioritised the monitoring of detailed brain tumour incidence trends through population–based cancer registries [2]. This article reports recent changes in malignant brain tumour incidence in England that include age, sex, morphology and tumour location.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data

The International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD–O) is a dual classification, with coding systems for both topography and morphology [3]. The relevant topology codes are listed in Table 1, along with the number of tumours diagnosed in 1995 and 2015.

Table 1: ONS WHO ICD10 brain tumour data for England.

There are 102 different ICD–O–3.1 morphology codes used in the data set, though many have few cases. The morphology code describes the cell type and its biological activity / tumour behaviour.

WHO last updated their classifications in 2016, but their changes have minimal impact on our analysis of the data [4, 5]. Malignant brain neoplasms without histology are recorded as ICD–10 D43 (D43.0 & D43.2 supratentorial).

We used anonymised individual–level national cancer registration case data from the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) for all 81,135 ICD10–C71 category primary malignant brain tumours diagnosed in England for the years from 1995 to 2015, plus 8,008 ICD10–D43 supratentorial malignant tumours without histology/morphology data from 1998–2015. The initial data is supplied by the National Cancer Registration Service (NCRS). The ONS then apply further validation checks and the UK Department of Health use the ONS data to inform policy making. The ONS state their cancer data are generally within 2% of the correct values [6]. Until about 2005, some cases in the oldest age–groups will not have been recorded in the cancer registries. Since 2005 this error is likely to be small.

Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), the most common and most malignant primary tumour of the brain, is associated with one of the worst five–year survival rates among all human cancers, with an average survival from diagnosis of only about 1 year. This ensures that few cases will be unrecorded in the ONS database and we show that their number of GBM tumours is similar to NHS hospital inpatient numbers. The data include the year of diagnosis, age at diagnosis, sex of patient, primary site and morphology code. National population estimates of age and gender by calendar year were also obtained from ONS data [7] and age–specific incidence rates per 100,000 person–years and for a wide variety of tumour types were calculated in 5-year age group bins for males and females separately.

Some published incidence analyses have used different criteria as to which glioma and astrocytoma should be considered malignant. WHO considers Grades I to IV as biologically malignant even if they have not been graded histologically malignant. We have taken the WHO/IARC morphology behaviour codes /3, /6 and /9 as being histologically malignant which means that Grade I and II tumours are classed as low–grade malignancies.

We are not aware of any specific bias in the ONS data. There is a slight data–lag in cancer registry data, which are regularly checked and updated if necessary, but are generally stable after 3 to 5 years. Our ONS data extract is dated July 2017.

Brodbelt et al. (2015) [8] reported an analysis of treatment and survival for 10,743 GBM cases in England over the period 2007–2011, which had an overall median survival of only 6.1 months, rising to 14.9 months with maximal treatment. Brodbelt et.al.’s GBM case total from English hospital data is only 0.5% higher that our ONS GBM total of 10,687 cases for the same time period; this suggests that a very complete UK cancer diagnosis and registration system is now in place. In contrast, Ostrom et al. (2015) [9] reporting on USA SEER brain tumour data provide a scatter–plot that shows a median complete registration and histological confirmation level of only about 65%, with the best examples returning less than 75% full completion in 2012.

2.2. Confounding

We had a large number of categories and sub–categories in the data. It was necessary to combine some of these to increase the resolving power. We ran analyses separately for each site (C71.0 to C71.9), for each main type of tumour, and for tumour grade (I to IV). It was immediately obvious that the most significant change was in the incidence of GBM in frontal and temporal lobes. The obvious potential confounders would be the C71.8 (overlapping) and C71.9 (unspecified) categories due to better imaging techniques and we discuss this later.

2.3. Standardisation

Incidence rates rise dramatically with age and standardisation is necessary as population age profiles are changing with time. We calculated age–standardised incidence rates (ASR) per 100k person–years to the current recommended European Standard Population (ESP–2013), as it best represents the reality of the case burden on society [10]. Adjusting European cancer incidence to the World Standard Population is not helpful as the age-spectra are so different.

Table 2 lists the morphology codes with the highest case numbers, totalling 80354 tumours. Included in our analyses are an additional 781 cases in 78 other categories,

each with fewer than 100 cases over the 21 years. A full listing of all the cases in the data set is provided in the Supplementary File [S1].

Table 2: ICD-O-3 morphology codes with more than 100 cases between 1995-2015 inclusive. (A full listing of all the morphology codes and cases is present in the Supplementary file).

We needed to group data to improve resolution and reduce random data noise. We examined infant and child neoplasms separately, but did not find any statistically significant time–trends. Three age-groups seemed reasonable. We chose a child, teenage and young-adult group (0-29), a main middle-age group (30-54) and an older age group (over 55 years of age). These reasonably split the population into three roughly equal (20, 18 and 16 million) groups of people. The case totals in the three groups were about 9.5k, 19.5k and 52k respectively. We tested moving the cut-point boundaries by 5 years in both directions and it made little difference to the overall results.

2.4. Analysis

The cases were analysed by morphology, topology, sex, age, age–specific and age–standardised incidence. The Annual Average Percentage Change (AAPC) and corresponding 95% CI and p–values were calculated using Stata SE12.1 (StataCorp). A linear model on the log of the age–standardised rates, which tests for a constant rate of change (), best fitted the data. See Supplementary File sections S2 and S3.

2.5. Background

In a major 2013 review article, Hiroko Ohgaki and Paul Kleihues [11] wrote “Glioblastoma is the most frequent and malignant brain tumor. The vast majority of glioblastomas (~90%) develop rapidly de novo in elderly patients, without clinical or histologic evidence of a less malignant precursor lesion (primary glioblastomas). Secondary glioblastomas progress from low-grade diffuse astrocytoma or anaplastic astrocytoma. They manifest in younger patients, have a lesser degree of necrosis, are preferentially located in the frontal lobe, and carry a significantly better prognosis.”

Overall primary malignant brain tumour ASRs are only rising slowly and are often considered fairly static. Figure 1 shows the age–standardised trends from 1971 to 2015. From the 1970s to about 2000 there was a fairly steady rise in recorded overall incidence, however since then the rise has slowed, though clinicians have been reporting a rise in high-grade, aggressive tumours.

Figure 1: Age–standardised overall trends from 1971 to 2015 using data in ONS MB1 series, including a smaller number of supratentorial neoplasms without histology or morphology data coded D43.0 & D43.2. The data table for this figure is in the SI file as [S4].

Overall adult survival for all malignant brain tumours after diagnosis during 2006–2010 was about 35% for one year and 15% for five years, falling to about 3% for aggressive grades–III and IV tumours. ONS data show age-standardised death rates from malignant brain tumours (C71) have increased by 7% between 2001 and 2015, showing that improvements in treatment alone are inadequate and that there is a need to find ways of preventing brain cancer [12].

3. Results

Comparing new case numbers in 2015 with 1995 shows an extra 1548 aggressive GBM tumour cases annually. Figure 2 and Table 3 show that up to about 2004 the

overall rise in GBM incidence (Annual Average Percentage Change (AAPC) 5.2%, 95% CI 3.7–6.6, p < 0·00003) could be mostly compensated for by the fall in incidence of all lower grade astrocytoma and “glioma, malignant, NOS, ICD10–93803”. This leaves a fairly steady rise in the GBM ASR from 2004 to 2015 (AAPC 2.2%, 95% CI 1.4–3.0, p < 0.0001).

Table 3: ICD10-C71 and (D43.0 + D43.2) cases and age-standardised (ESP-2013) incidence rates.

Figure 2: Age–standardised incidence rates for all C71 glioma cases diagnosed between 1995 and 2015 analysed by type and year (Data in Table 3). Grouping details: (1) = 94403–94433 (2) = 93843, 94003–94303 (3) = 93803 (4) = 93813, 93823, 93903–93943, 94503–94733.

Ohgaki and Kleihues [11] reported that most secondary GBMs are found in younger middle-age people and most primary GBMs are in over 60s. We tested our (30–54) and (>54) age group data, splitting the total GBM into de novo and promoted tumours. We estimated the maximum possible number of promoted tumours using the change in the grades II and III diffuse and anaplastic astrocytomas. The results are shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b). These are discussed later.

Figure 3: Age–standardised rates for two age groups. The possible split between de novo and secondary promoted GBMs is based on incidence change of Grades II and III diffuse and anaplastic astrocytoma.

We found a large decrease of ASR over time for Grade–II diffuse astrocytoma, a slight rise in ASR for WHO Grade–III anaplastic astrocytoma (94013; 2832 cases). There was little change in rates of anaplastic oligodendroglioma (94513; 1339 cases), anaplastic ependymoma (93923; 313 cases) Grade–II oligodendroglioma (94503; 2671cases), embryonal, or ependymal tumours.

Figure 4 shows the relative increase in age-specific GBM incidence between the averaged periods (1995–1999) and (2011–2015) for 5–year age–groups. This 1.5-fold change is remarkably similar across the age–groups, suggesting a universal factor.

Figure 4: Relative change in GBM age–specific incidence rates (ASpR) averaged over two five-year periods 1995-1999 and 2011-2015 in 5-year age bands and gender.

Figure 5 shows ASR GBM rates for frontal lobe, temporal lobe, unspecified & overlapping (C71.8 & C71.9) and ‘all other brain regions’. Most of the rise is in the frontal and temporal lobes, and most of the cases are in people over 55 years of age, with a highly statistically significant overall AAPC of 7.6% (see Table 4). There was an extra rise in frontal and temporal GBM incidence between 2006 and 2008, which coincided with a slight reduction in the GBM ASR in overlapping and unspecified regions and may be due to improved imaging.

Table 4: Age standardised incidence rates to ESP-2013 (/100k people).

Figure 5: Frontal and temporal lobe GBM age–standardised incidence rates by tumour site and year (data table in the SI as [S6]).

4. Discussion

Using sufficiently high–quality data, we present a clearer picture of the changing pattern in incidence of brain tumour types than any previously published. We report a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR rise in GBM across all ages and throughout the 21 years (1995–2015), which is of importance both for clinical resources and brain tumour aetiology.

Dobes et al. (2011) [13] reported a significant increase in malignant tumour incidence from 2000 to 2008 in the ≥65–year age group. In a second article they noted an increasing incidence of GBM (APC, 3.0; 95% CI, 0.5–5.6) in patients in the same age group, especially in temporal and frontal lobes [14]. De Vocht et al. (2011) [15] reported a rise in temporal lobe tumour incidence in ONS data, but dismissed its significance. In a 2016 paper he claimed no increase in GBM incidence, but later published a major correction to the paper that shows an increase [16].

Zada et al. (2012) [17] using USA SEER data for 1992–2006 reported a rising trend in frontal and temporal lobe tumours, the majority of which were GBM, with a decreased incidence of tumours across all other anatomical sub–sites. Ho et al. (2014) [18] reported a 2.2–fold increase in glioblastoma incidence in the Netherlands over the period 1989–2010 (APC 3.1, p<0.001).

There were no material classification changes over the analysis period that might explain our findings [19], though multidisciplinary team working was strengthened (2005 onwards) and better imaging has resulted in improved diagnosis along with a more complete registration of brain tumours in the elderly. We analysed our data in 5-year age group categories to look for evidence of improved diagnosis; the data do suggest diagnosis and registration have improved in people aged over 70. However, at earlier ages the incidence rate of ‘all’ glioma (and all C71) registrations have remained almost constant, whereas the rates for lower–grade tumours fell until about 2006 and have since remained fairly static as the rate for GBM has risen steadily.

Most GBM cases seem to originate without any known genetic predisposition. GBMs from promoted lower–grade gliomas usually have different molecular genetic markers from de novo GBMs [20]. The 2016 revision of the WHO classification of CNS tumours [3, 4] highlights the need for recording molecular genetic markers and divides glioblastomas into two main groups. The IDH–wildtype mostly corresponds to clinically defined primary or de novo glioblastoma and accounts for about 90% of cases. The remaining 10% are IDH–mutant cases, which usually arise in younger patients and mostly correspond to secondary or promoted lower–grade diffuse glioma [11, 21]. Figures 3(a) and 3(b) support the conclusion of Ohgaki and Kleihues [11] that promoted (secondary) tumours mainly occur in younger people and that de novo GBMs dominate in the over-54 age group. It is important that this pattern is monitored using modern genetic techniques.

GBM tumours are almost always fatal and are not likely to have been undiagnosed in the time-frame of our data. It is possible that some elderly cases were not fully classified, but then they should have been recorded as ICD10–D43. However, as D43 rates have remained very constant over this time period (see Figure 1), this is unlikely to have been a significant confounder.

4.1. Possible Causal Factors

We cite examples of some possible causal factors that have been discussed in the literature that could contribute changes in GBM incidence. In an important 2014 “state of science” review of glioma epidemiology, Ostrom et al. [22] list and discuss a number of potential factors that have been associated with glioma incidence, some of which we list below.

Ionising radiation, especially from X-rays used in CT scans, has the most supportive evidence as a causal factor. Due to the easy availability of CT imaging and relative

lack and higher cost of MRI imaging in UK NHS hospitals, CT scans are often used, especially for initial investigations. Their use over the period 1995-2013 is shown in the Supplementary File S6. Given the time-frame of the trend that we have identified, we suggest that CT imaging X-ray exposures should be further investigated for both the promotion and initiation of the rising incidence of GBM tumours that we have identified.

Preston et al. (2007) [23] concluded that radiation–associated cancer persists throughout life regardless of age at exposure and that glioma incidence shows a statistically significant dose response. Our oldest age group also experienced atmospheric atomic bomb testing fallout and some association with ingested and inhaled radionuclides should not be dismissed as a possible factor. England was in one of the highest exposed regions for atmospheric testing fallout as determined by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report [24]. Further information is given in Supplementary File S7. If only some of the population were susceptible and received a significant dose, any resulting extra cancers would show up in the ONS data.

The European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects by Andersen et al. (2017) [25] found suggestive evidence of an association between traffic-related air pollution and malignant brain tumours.

There is increasing evidence literature that many cancers including glioma have a metabolic driver due to mitochondrial dysfunction resulting in downstream genetic changes in the nucleus [26–28].

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) judged both power–frequency ELF (2002) [29] and radio–frequency RF (2011) [30] electromagnetic fields as Group 2B ‘possible human carcinogens’. Villeneuve et al. (2002) [31] concluded that occupational (ELF) magnetic field exposure increases the risk of GBM with an OR = 5.36 (95% CI: 1.2 – 24.8). Hardell and Carlberg (2015) [32] have reported an increase in high–grade glioma associated with mobile phone use. The multi-country Interphone study [33] collected data from 2000 to 2003 and included few people over 55 years of age and would have been unable to resolve any association involving older–aged people. Volkow et al. (2011) [34] found that, in healthy participants and compared with no exposure, a 50-minute cell phone exposure produced a statistically significant increase in brain glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole regions closest to the handset.

5. Conclusions

(1)We show a linear, large and highly statistically significant increase in primary GBM tumours over 21 years from 1995–2015, especially in frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. This has aetiological and resource implications.(2)Although most of the cases are in the group over 54 years of age, the age–standardised AAPC rise is strongly statistically significant in all our three main analysis age groups.(3)The rise in age–standardised incidence cannot be fully accounted for by improved diagnosis, as it affects specific areas of the brain and just one type of brain tumour that is generally fatal. We suggest that widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible, although these results do not provide additional evidence for the role of any particular risk factor.(4)Our results highlight an urgent need for funding more research into the initiation and promotion of GBM tumours. This should include the use of CT imaging for diagnosis and also modern lifestyle factors that may affect tumour metabolism.

Data Availability

The data were obtained from the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS), who are the legal owners of the data. Some data are publicly available in the ONS annual MB1 data series, which are freely downloadable from the ONS website, but this article uses the latest updated data, plus ICD–O–3 morphology codes, extracted under personal researcher contract from the ONS database in July 2017. ONS Data Guardian approval was required for the supply, control and use of the data. A nominal charge is made by the ONS for such data extraction. We are not permitted to supply the raw ONS extracted data to anyone else. Other researchers can obtain the latest data directly from the ONS in a similar manner. The authors provide some extra tables and figures in the Supplementary File downloadable from the journal website.

Conflicts of Interest

Alasdair Philips: Independent Engineer and Scientist. (a) Trustee of Children with Cancer UK (unpaid); (b) On a voluntary unpaid basis, has run Powerwatch for 25 years (a small UK NGO providing free information on possible health associations with EMF/RF exposure); (c) Technical Director and shareholder of EMFields Solutions Ltd., who design and sell EMF/RF measuring instruments and protective shielding items; (d) Shareholder of Sensory Perspective Ltd.; (e) Occasional voluntary advisor to the Radiation Research Trust (Registered Charity). Denis L. Henshaw: (a) Scientific Director of Children with Cancer UK (honorarium basis); (b) Shareholder of Track Analysis Systems Ltd., a company offering radon measurement services; (c) Voluntary scientific advisor for Electrosensitivity UK (Registered Charity). Michael J. O’Carroll: (a) Chairman of Rural England against Overhead Line Transmission group; (b) Occasional advisor to the Radiation Research Trust. Graham Lamburn: (a) Acts as voluntary unpaid ‘Technical Manager’ for Powerwatch.

Authors’ Contributions

Alasdair Philips and Graham Lamburn conceived the study and first–drafted most of the manuscript with significant input from Denis L. Henshaw and Michael J. O’Carroll. Graham Lamburn organised the data obtained from the UK ONS and wrote the database analysis scripts. All authors had full access to the results of all analyses and have provided strategic input over several years of following the ONS brain tumour data. All authors have approved the final manuscript. Alasdair Philips is the guarantor for the ONS data.

Funding

This research received no funding from any external agency or body. The ONS data extracts were paid for personally by Alasdair Philips. Administration costs were paid for personally by the authors.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Professor Geoffrey Pilkington and Professor Annie Sasco for their invaluable comments on early drafts of this paper. We thank the ONS for providing the data and Michael Carlberg, MSc for advice regarding statistical analysis.

Supplementary Materials

S1. Table of data morphology coding and the case numbers used in the study. S2. GBM case numbers and age-specific incidence rate data used in the study. S3. Sample STATA data and DO script. S4. Data table for Figure 1. S5. Data table for

Figure 5. S6. CT and MRI use in the UK NHS. S7. Some notes on atomic bomb testing and other nuclear fallout in England. (Supplementary Materials)

References

M. L. Bondy, M. E. Scheurer, B. Malmer et al., “Brain tumor epidemiology: Consensus from the Brain Tumor Epidemiology Consortium,” Cancer, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 1953–1968, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

E. Van Deventer, E. Van Rongen, and R. Saunders, “WHO research agenda for radiofrequency fields,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 417–421, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

“IARC – International Classification of Diseases of Oncology – ICD-O-3,” http://codes.iarc.fr/abouticdo.php.

D. N. Louis, A. Perry, G. Reifenberger et al., “The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary,” Acta Neuropathologica, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 803–820, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

D. N. Louis, H. Ohgaki, O. D. Wiestler et al., “WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. 4th (rev),” in IARC, ISBN–10 9283244923, 2016. View at Google Scholar

UK Office for National Statistics, “Cancer Statistics: Registrations Series MB1,” 2017, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancerregistrationstatisticsengland/2015#data-quality.

UK Office for National Statistics, “Population Estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,” 2017, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates.

A. Brodbelt, D. Greenberg, T. Winters, M. Williams, S. Vernon, and V. P. Collins, “Glioblastoma in England: 2007–2011,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 533–542, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

Q. T. Ostrom, H. Gittleman, J. Fulop et al., “CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the united states in 2008-2012,” Neuro-Oncology, vol. 17, Supplement 4, pp. iv1–iv62, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

European Union, “European Standard Population,” http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/KS-RA-13-028.

H. Ohgaki and P. Kleihues, “The definition of primary and secondary glioblastoma,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 764–772, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

UK Office for National Statistics, “<1971–1994 8290769_tcm77–395904.xls>,” downloaded from the ONS, 26th September, and for 1995–2013 data, Table 13 in https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/cancerregistrationstatisticscancerregistrationstatisticsengland/2015/cancerregistrations2015final22.05.2017.xls downloaded from the ONS, 10th July 2017.

M. Dobes, V. G. Khurana, and B. Shadbolt, “Increasing incidence of glioblastoma multiforme and meningioma, and decreasing incidence of Schwannoma (2000–2008): findings of a multicenter Australian study,” Surgical Neurology International, vol. 2, no. 176, pp. 1–7, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

M. Dobes, B. Shadbolt, V. G. Khurana et al., “A multicenter study of primary brain tumor incidence in Australia (2000-2008),” Neuro-Oncology, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 783–790, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

F. De Vocht, “Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls,” Environment International, vol. 97, pp. 100–107, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

F. De Vocht, “Corrigendum to “Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls. [Environ. Int. (2016), 97, 100-107],” Environment International, vol. 101, pp. 201-202, 2017, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017301241. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

G. Zada, A. E. Bond, Y.-P. Wang, S. L. Giannotta, and D. Deapen, “Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992–2006,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 77, no. 3-4, pp. 518–524, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

V. K. Y. Ho, J. C. Reijneveld, R. H. Enting et al., “Changing incidence and improved survival of gliomas,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 50, no. 13, pp. 2309–2318, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

Clinical Coding toolbox, “UK Health and Social Care Information Centre,” 2015, https://web.archive.org/web/20160723115526/http://systems.hscic.gov.uk:80/data/clinicalcoding/codingadvice/toolbox.

G. P. Dunn, M. L. Rinne, and J. Wykosky, “Emerging insights into the molecular and cellular basis of glioblastoma,” Genes & Development, vol. 26, pp. 756–784, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

H. Ohgaki and P. Kleihues, “Genetic alterations and signaling pathways in the evolution of gliomas,” Cancer Science, vol. 100, no. 12, pp. 2235–2241, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

Q. T. Ostrom, L. Bauchet, F. G. Davis et al., “The epidemiology of glioma in adults: A state of the science review,” Neuro-Oncology, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 896–913, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

D. L. Preston, E. Ron, S. Tokuoka et al., “Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors:1958–1998,” Radiation Research, vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 1–64, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, United Nations, New York, NY, USA, 2000.

Z. J. Andersen, M. Pedersen, G. Weinmayr et al., “Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and incidence of brain tumor: the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE),” Neuro-Oncology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 420–432, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

T. N. Seyfried, “Cancer as a mitochondrial metabolic disease,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 3, 43 pages, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

M. G. Abdelwahab, K. E. Fenton, M. C. Preul et al., “The ketogenic diet is an effective adjuvant to radiation therapy for the treatment of malignant glioma,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 5, Article ID e36197, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

T. N. Seyfried, R. E. Flores, A. M. Poff, and D. P. D’Agostino, “Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 515–527, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

IARC, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Non–Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low–Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields, vol. 80, 2002.

IARC, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, NonIonizing Radiation, Part 2:

Agnew, K. C. Johnson et al., “Brain cancer and occupational exposure to magnetic fields among men: Results from a Canadian population-based case-control study,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 210–217, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

L. Hardell and M. Carlberg, “Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma—analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009,” Pathophysiology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

C. Wild, IARC Report to the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) on the Interphone Study, WHO, IARC, Lyon, France, 03 October 2011.

N. D. Volkow, D. Tomasi, G.-J. Wang et al., “Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 305, no. 8, pp. 808–813, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

Letter to the Editor

 

What Can You Do? Inform yourself.

More than five decades of research by the world’s renowned and dedicated scientists and medics provide clear evidence of damage inflicted upon biological systems by electromagnetic fields. Do your own research using keywords.

The medical profession, schools, the media and other organisations are forced to follow government guidelines which claim ‘no harm’ in spite of the evidence. SAR ratings are a ploy to protect vested interests and have no clinical value. Consider the alarming rise in cancer and brain tumours which goes unquestioned with an apparent unwillingness to examine the wider causes. Why? Simply follow the money! For what reason is Cancer UK in denial over EMF pollution that cause cancer!

As the technology becomes more addictive, the public can be easily controlled, particularly through social media; for the young this level of control and compliance is becoming the norm. Things can be made safer only if the public demand it and resist the constant pressure to incorporate technology into every aspect of their lives. Do we need to stop and re-evaluate our relationship with this life threatening technology? The first step to improving your health and well- being is reducing your exposure to radiation. Try turning your mobile/ devices off to see how your life improves. Replace Wi-Fi and cordless phones with Ethernet cable and non- wireless routers. Withdraw your consent to SMART meters (link below). This is a democratic legal right and yes, one can refuse to have these meters installed.

Screening offers some protection, but be sceptical about EMF protection devices claiming to neutralise electromagnetic fields or harmonise the body. Also beware of scams using nonsensical pseudo-science in literature in order to trick sufferers of EMF pollution or other health issues into purchasing useless gadgets. In one third of cases the perceived short-term benefits are likely due to the well known placebo effect – or power of the mind.

More information. www.bemri.org Bio Electromagnetic Research Initiative –

stopsmartmeters.org.uk/ – powerwatch.org.uk/

Is Electromagnetic pollution making you ill?

More than five decades of research have linked electromagnetic pollution [EMP] to many health conditions. Microwaves, [RF] penetrate our body damaging cells and DNA. Electromagnetic frequencies [EMF’s] deplete immune systems and can bring about cancer, brain tumours and childhood leukaemia. More and more people experience sleeping difficulties, headaches, chronic fatigue, and other allergies. Additional symptoms include muscular complaints aches/weakness, irritability, nose bleeds, nausea, dizziness, flu like symptoms, tinnitus type noise, depression, sensitivity to chemical products, blurred vision, burning, itchy or tingly red skin, short-term memory loss, heart attacks, strokes, autoimmune diseases, and inability to concentrate. Behavioural problems in children are increasing and this technology is now recognised as an addiction.

Electromagnetic pollution continues rising above levels quite unimaginable, even twenty years ago. They follow a pattern linked to ever increasing cases of cancers, brain tumours, autism, childhood leukaemia and Alzheimer’s. The sudden rise among children aged below 15 years who suffer brain tumours is alarming news. The young have thinner sculls and tumours may take a while to grow.

Electromagnetic pollution affects all biological systems. Insects and some bird species numbers are declining and caused by a range of pollutants, electro and chemical. During experiments at Silwood Park Campus of Imperial Collage London, bees leaving a hive became disorientated after a DECT base station was placed about 1 metre from the hive and switched on for 5 minutes and when switched off, the bees returned to normal activity soon after. In Germany, a research team subjected bees to these signals over a longer period, found the hive abandoned and the bees never returned.

Electromagnetic Pollution within the Home [EMP]

Communities protest over the growing number of mobile base station antennas mounted close to residential properties and schools, but are seemingly unaware that a Wi-Fi router or cordless phone within their own home emit a high degree of radiation, most often far greater than those entering from external communication masts.

Wi-Fi also called Wireless LAN [wLan] Wi-Fi acts like a mobile phone mast pulsing microwaves 24/7 and not simply power levels from one device, but the cumulative radiation emitted from all units in the home, classroom or workplace. It includes transmissions from nearby cell phone masts, TETRA, Wi-Fi and radiation penetrating the building from neighbour’s devices.

IPAD’s, tablets, Wii and Xbox emits a high degree of radiation, is often placed on the lap dangerously close to the body. Babies and young children mostly at risk from any form of pollution, especially electro-pollution! Children have little choice, adults make it. The choice of wireless over Ethernet suggests everyone is affected.

Schools ban Wi-Fi The French Government and other countries have banned mobile phones in some schools and public buildings. Russia consistently set better safety standards over many years and are most concerned about EMF pollution. Some UK schools have outlawed phones, and prudently should now prohibit WI-FI.

Digital Enhanced Cordless Phone. [DECT] These produce powerful microwave radiation from their base units, 24/7, even when not being used. DECT signals can travel into adjacent buildings and gardens and often physically detected by those sensitive to this damaging radiation. Even if one is unable to feel it, our body is cumulatively responding to this radiation the same as one can have cancerous cells or other defects in the body without being immediately aware.

Wireless baby monitors. Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications is the standard used for many baby monitors and can emit radio frequency fields of 6 volts/per metre. [Twice as strong as found 100 metres away from a mobile phone mast] For comparison, the maximum recommended 2002 Salzburg indoor level for GSM is just 0.02 volts per metre. Baby monitors are not safe when placed 1 metre from the child as some suppliers claim. Digital technology, due to its ‘pulsed’ nature becomes more harmful at lower levels of power than the older analogue technology.

Energy-saving CFL bulbs & fluorescent tubes. The EU ban on incandescent lamps may leave hundreds of thousands of vulnerable sick and disabled people in the UK unable to safely use electric light in their homes. Light sensitivity can arise from a range of health conditions, including the genetic disorder Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP), the auto-immune disease lupus, forms of eczema and dermatitis, photosensitivity, ME, electro-sensitivity and many more. Some common symptoms are severe stinging, burning and itching of the skin, along with red rash. CFLs each contain mercury and when broken present a health hazard. Vast numbers will be dumped on landfill sites risking contamination of future water supplies.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is on the increase and some victims are also electrosensitive. [All biological systems are electro–chemical]. Sufferers may experience excruciating pain and sleep deprivation and unable to escape to a safe haven or have to endure family and friends failing to understand their condition and often believe the GP’s regular diagnosis, “It’s all in the mind’ who perhaps decide to pass the patient on to a psychiatrist. Neither receives training along these lines of investigation and drugs are the last thing sufferers need. Suicides are on the increase for these reasons.

Wireless Smart Meters. The plan is to replace electric and gas meters in all homes and business in the UK with smart meters under pretext they save energy and money. Costs in the USA and Australia increased after meters were installed, and people soon reported having headaches, insomnia, nausea, and dizziness, glaucoma, and heart palpitations.

As with other EMF sources, transmissions from wireless smart meters operating 24/7 can cause serious health issues. Apparently, the UK role out is estimated to cost over £12 billion and the consumer, as always, picks up the tab. Smart Meters are not compulsory [2018] and those already fitted will need replacing probably around 2020. Smart Meters also invade our privacy and are easily switched off remotely by the utility, hacked, [as with computers] or via other wirelessly linked devices. A route ripe for terrorists and hackers with little way to protect ourselves.

Courtesy of BEMRI – New-Awareness-1

During a court case in 1998, Dr McKinley, a senior scientist with the National Radiological Protection Board, explained that their data on tissue conductivity had been supplied to them by Microwave Consultants Ltd, which is on the payroll of a cell phone company. It transpired that virtually none of the NRPB documents is peer reviewed and that Dr McKinley himself had not authored any experimental studies; in fact he admitted he had no expertise in biology.

The industry also tries to control the science by controlling the interpretation of findings and how they are presented – if they ever are – to the general public. Many corporations have their own “team” who travel to all meetings, and whose job it is to create negative “spin” on presentations that point to possible harm or suggest caution.

Not only are the science labs, government offices and science interest groups associated with cell-phone science becoming puppets of the phone industry, but the media are so heavily influenced by the phone companies that it is becoming increasingly difficult to disseminate impartial information and comments, even though they may be of long term benefit to the industry, and are vital for public health.

The auction of 3G licences to the mobile phone companies brought in £22.5 billion plus an annual income then of around 15 billion to the UK exchequer. These figures will be dwarfed by the sale of 4G and 5G licences. No wonder when commercial interests are at stake there seem to be outright denial of relevant, honest scientific data.

SAFETY LEVELS: When it comes to asking about safety, concerning any communication device or installation not one single independent consultant is able to give an answer. If anyone asks whether a certain level of electromagnetic pollution is safe they are usually quoted a UK safety limit laid down by the NRPB/HPA/PHE. In fact evidence from many medical and scientific bodies shows that no one can be sure there is a safe level. Countless studies have clearly demonstrated that biological systems can be impaired even by extremely low levels of radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation power density increases weekly as more people use electronic equipment. We are bombarded with an accumulation of radiation from satellites, power supplies, radar, broadcast antennas, – in fact all electrical systems and appliances. More people are becoming electro-sensitive and most are unaware of what is really attacking their body. Doctors are generally in the dark about the effects of EMF pollution, partly because they follow government guidelines and receive no training on these issues although the BMC must be aware of the problem as it was discussed in the UK medical journal.

At the moment there really is no cure for the problem apart from avoidance, though there is the opportunity to develop systems that can be of true benefit to us all in terms of health and performance if the electronics and telecommunications industries could be persuaded to listen, unfortunately money rules!

You pick up the mobile/cordless phone once, twice, ten times a day – or only a few times a month. But, each and every time, you’re gambling that this time’ won’t be the occasion when the radiation causes irreparable damage to your brain. It only takes a seemingly small damage trauma at a very small location to result in tissue damage, DNA damage, or chromosome mutations. Adults and children need to overcome the addiction now ruling ones lives and damaging health.

A report in May 2002 New Scientist informed us of a development of a weapon using intense electromagnet fields producing effects “ranging from disruption of short-term memory to total loss of control of voluntary bodily functions”. We already have this kind of weapon in the mobile phone and other wireless devices.

SCIENCE – Scientists have discovered that microwave radiation from mobile phone transmissions affect the brain in a process known as heat shock – an effect similar to heating the brain but with no actual rise in temperature. Heat shock causes the body to release proteins, which can damage or kill brain cells. Geneticist Dr David De Pomerai told how tests showed exposure for an hour to mobile phone radiation can double the heat shock proteins in cells. Dr Alan Preece of Bristol University revealed the same radiation caused vessels to dilate, thus creating a rush of blood to the head. Other studies have found that microwaves also weaken the blood brain barrier, which protects the brain against blood stream infections. Other research shows that they have specific effects on brain cells and brain function that can lead to brain degenerative diseases, cancer and weakening of the immune system.

It has been found that many lymphocytic leukaemia sufferers live close to power lines, underground mains cables and transformers, or spend long periods of time close to equipment that emits this kind of radiation. Myeloid cancer cases appear to be clustered around radio and TV masts. Such findings suggest that 50 Hz and RF frequencies [which include mobile phone frequencies] may affect living systems in various ways. The power levels from mobile signals are also known to increase after rain has fallen and during periods of low cloud. Some who suffer tinnitus and live close to mobile phone masts have found their condition is noticeably worst during this kind of weather.

Health risks arise from digital cordless [DECT] telephones. The base unit that cradles the handset and functions as transmitter and receiver produces an electrical field that is actually greater than that of a mobile phone. Since it radiates even when the phone is not being used, it is like using a mobile phone non-stop. These phones should never be put in bedrooms or close to where people sit. Better still dump them, along with baby alarms, which also emit dangerous EMF radiation. As the very young are more vulnerable, cots and beds should always be placed well away from electrical wiring and appliances, and from metal objects such as radiators, which act like antennas for microwave and other radiation.

Other high-risk devices that emit microwave radiation include WiFi, WLan, WIMAX, wireless interactive whiteboards, and burglar alarms using microwave detectors. Operating WLan systems in schools is equivalent to having a mobile phone mast permanently emitting life-threatening pulsed microwaves within the classroom.

Tests carried out the NRPB [National Radiological Protection Board – afterwards called Health Protection Agency [HPA] and now renamed Public Health England [Note the word protection is removed] revealed that ultraviolet beams from projectors used with electronic whiteboards in most schools could damage the eyes. The viewers peripheral retina can be over-exposed even when they are not looking directly at the projector’s apparent light source, or damaged if they look into the beam from a few yards away just for twenty seconds. Other radiation effects noted in schools include short- term memory loss, headaches, nosebleeds, hyperactivity, and lack of concentration.

Suspicion that electrical fields cause respiratory illness dates back to the 1950s, when it was found that placing asthmatics in areas with low electrical fields got rid of their symptoms. A new study by scientists at Imperial Collage London suggests that electrical fields from computers, televisions and other everyday items make people more prone to asthma, influenza and other respiratory diseases.

This research provides additional academic backing for campaigner’ s demands for precautionary measures to be taken against the thickening electro-smog we are exposed to from sources such as mobile phones and their masts, WiFi systems and household electrical devices. As the amount of electro-smog has multiplied many times over in recent years, science has increasingly shown it can cause a wide range of ailments, from respiratory diseases to difficulties in concentrating, from sleeplessness to cancer including many more illnesses.

Scientists have found that the electrical fields given off by a wide variety of household items, including computers, televisions, cookers, energy saving lamps and wiring, can charge minuscule particles in the air such as viruses, bacteria, allergens and highly toxic pollutants. Because many of these are so tiny – less than 80 times the thickness of the human hair – they often remain airborne almost indefinitely and so are can be readily inhaled. If they carry increased electrical charge they are more likely to stick to the tissue of the lungs and respiratory tract and to human skin, thereby increasing risk of infection and impact on the body.

The higher the electrical field and particle charge, the greater the danger, as particles with greater charge can hit the tissue with greater speed. As they crash land they become deformed, which makes them more firmly stuck and harder to remove.

Electrostatic charges, such as those given off by clothing and sheets made from synthetic materials, add to the problem. Research has also shown that high electrical fields greatly reduce concentrations of charged molecular oxygen, which is readily absorbed by the body, enhances biological functions and can kill harmful microbes.

TETRA [Terrestrial Trunk Radio Systems] is a microwave frequency now used by our police force and other bodies throughout the UK. The frequency of 17.6 Hz emits pulses occurring 17.6 times per second that match brain frequencies, and it is believed that this can penetrate deep into the brain, damaging cell communication. An article in the Daily Telegraph disclosed that six people at a police station at North Walsham, Norfolk, including a Chief Inspector, other officers and civilian workers, blamed their health problems on a TETRA communications system.

Chief Inspector Strong and his staff believe that bouts of dizziness and severe headaches began when a new TETRA transmitter was installed. About 25 other people living nearby also complained of similar symptoms and others of repeated nosebleeds, especially among children, along with disturbed sleep and skin problems. The officers, who had been referred to the Force’s doctor, were warned not to discuss this publicly and are apparently forbidden to speak out. One month previously the family of a police motorcyclist, who had died of cancer of the oesophagus, said he had complained of headaches when he began to use his TETRA handset, and was convinced it was to blame for his condition.

POLICY – The cell-phone industry controls the policy arm of the cell-phone science by being a major contributor of research funds, and by making sure that its personnel are placed on safety standard committees and even the World Health Organisation’s EMF study projects. Thus, all the relevant policy bodies are led by cell-phone personnel and consultants, or have a majority of them on their staffs. This is even true of scientific organisations. The Bio-electromagnetic Society [BEMS] which should be made up of independent scientists has a large contingent of members who work for the cell phone companies or are paid consultants.

In the UK the HPA is funded roughly half from the industries it represents and half from the Government, thus all of its associates have a financial interest in recommending the product, even if it may prove to be unsafe. Every single spokesperson on safety issues is linked in one way or another with the communications industry.

BAD SCIENCE – To avoid liability and promote public favour, all corporations can utilise “bad science” under the guise of objective and reliable science in order to convince public and courts in toxic lawsuits claiming their scientific “research” is reliable and do not endanger public health. In doing so, they avoid paying compensation, decrease liability and increase profits. Science is for hire with express purpose of reaching a “conclusion” and supporting an industry or corporate regulatory or litigation objective. Law and PR firms are set up for the sole purpose of contacting scientists to generate false data, challenge regulations or create spin that supports industry and organisations faced with liability suits. The bulk of scientists are  employed by or receive payment from industry and governments.

Courtesy of BEMRI New Awareness 1

Limits to Electronic Growth: the Internet’s Demands and Solutions to Help It Last Longer
by Katie Singer
The Internet is the largest thing that humanity has built.
 Every online activity (every text message, email, Facebook post, Google search, Amazon purchase, photo exchange, software download, video, smart appliance message, GPS search) requires energy intensive infrastructure. The Internet’s infrastructure includes access networks (cell sites) and data storage centers, which require electricity and water.
Manufacturing every electronic device requires electricity, water and minerals mined under abusive conditions. The world now has more cell phones than toilets or toothbrushes. Per person, electronics users generate 73 pounds of e- waste per year.
 All this—and yet, the Internet’s energy demands, greenhouse gas emissions and waste have kept largely invisible and unknown.
Most people consider Internet access a necessity. If that’s true, then every municipality,
service provider, manufacturer, school, business, household and individual is now challenged
to become informed about the Internet’s impact on climate change, biodiversity and human
health—and to participate in reducing it.
As Bill Torbert, Boston College management professor emeritus says, “If you’re not aware that you’re part of the problem, you can’t be part of the solution.”

Recently we found out the news via Ann Marie Carey that Mark Steele had been contacted by Bemri, Bio Electromagnetic experts with 60 + years of experience in EMF research. Their kind offer to come to Gateshead for free, and measure RFs coming from the street lights, to test for any possible anomalies that could be 5G was rejected by Mark. Im sure I was not the only one shocked by this news.
Having been previously involved in getting Mark some interviews with a couple of well respected alternative media news sites Windows on the World Mark Alexander Scott and BCfm Politics Show with Tony Gosling, I was gutted to hear that Mark had not only declined their offer to meet up, but had accused them of not knowing anything about 5G.
Living about 10 mins from Gateshead myself, I offered to meet one of the guys from Bemri, and take him to the places where Mark got his EMF readings in the 700Mhz range. Bemri used specialist sensitive equipment, including a log par directional meter and many other measuring devices. The RF readings were similar to Marks, but it was noted that there were huge mobile masts in each of the locations, which would have affected the readings. Also did Mark film his videos of EMF readings with a smart phone? Again this would interfere with the readings. He refuses to answer that question when I asked but he did call me ‘desperate’ for assuming so. Bemri obtained many readings, some with a smart phone switched on close to the meter. And yes, with the smart phone on, readings were in the 700Mhz range, similar to Marks.

During the visit to Gateshead, there were no anomalies picked up by the EMF equipment and a conclusion was made that no 5G signals were picked up, only 4G. The lamp posts were acknowledged to be emitting these RFs.
Annie and myself were very grateful to Bemri for taking the time to test the lights in Gateshead, and Stockport was found to have similar results from their antenna’d LED lamp posts too.
I have spoken to Mark Steele after Bemri’s visit and listened to his response. He still believes these people do not know what 5G is, and questions their expertise.
I, on the other hand question Marks choices he has made, in the fight to stop 5G. At no point during his interviews, did Mark choose to mention Annie’s FB group or her campaign resources. She had asked him to and he said he would, but he didn’t. Why would you do that to a fellow campaigner? It makes no sense. I would have thought that was a golden opportunity to let audiences of the shows know how they could get active on the street, handing out leaflets, making people aware of the 5G issue etc. Instead Mark used the platform to ask people to join his political party. A party that has 3 years to try getting to parliament to stop 5G, when 5G has a proposed roll out date of 2020. I joined this party a while back, but received no email newsletters.
I’ve stated facts here about the Gateshead 5G lamps visit by Bemri, and I’ve given only a small fraction of my opinion on Mark Steele. People will make up their own minds on him.

http://www.bemri.org/

Revealed: Network Rail’s new £800m scheme to remove all ‘leaf fall’ trees

Exclusive: five-year ‘enhanced clearance’ programme targets trees along 20,000 miles of track to avoid delays, according to an internal document

Engineers cut down trees beside the West Coast Main Line, Northamptonshire.
 Engineers cut down trees beside the West Coast Main Line, Northamptonshire. Photograph: Colin Underhill/Alamy Stock Photo

Network Rail is to target all “leaf fall” trees for removal alongside its tracks in a new £800m five-year programme of “enhanced clearance”, according to an internal document seen by the Guardian.

The policy document for 2019-24 emerged as the environment secretary, Michael Gove, summoned the chief executive of Network Rail for talks over their approach to environmental management following revelations about tree felling across the country by the Guardian.

After discussions with Network Rail, Jo Johnson, the rail minister, set up a review into vegetation management . He called for all tree felling to be suspended during the current nesting season – March to August.

Johnson said: “This review will look at all aspects of this issue, including, for instance, whether Network Rail has the capacity and capability to control vegetation in a way that minimises harm to wildlife, and whether staff need more training to help with tree identification and identifying approaches that would be better than felling.”

The leaked document seen by the Guardian sets out a new programme which appears to go further than any current environmental management. It involves an “enhanced level of clearance” of trees and vegetation from the railway banks along 20,000 miles of lines in the UK, in an attempt to deal with costly delays to services.

The document says Network Rail has to manage the risk from 13 million trees within falling distance of its tracks. If they removed 2% of the trees a year over the five-year period, more than 1 million trees could be felled.

“Network Rail is responsible for any damage that they may cause unless it can be robustly demonstrated that it has taken reasonable steps to reduce the risk of that damage occurring,” the document states.

Network Rail said in a statement that it was constantly balancing the needs of the environment against passenger health and safety.

Key species of tree to be targeted for removal are those which the company says are high risk due to the amount and size of leaves they produce. They include sycamore, poplar, horse and sweet chestnut, ash and lime.

Network Rail bosses say in the document they need to reduce the risk of leaves and trees falling on to the lines, improve performance and safety and cut the hundreds of millions of pounds it pays in compensation – called schedule 8 payments – for delays.

Entitled Lineside Asset Management Control Period 6 (CP6), the policy involves the “removal of all leaf fall species” within falling distance of the track, “intensive intervention” on vegetation in close proximity to the railway and the removal of emergent lower level growth at the earliest stage.

The boundary for management of scrub, grasses, trees and shrubs will also increase from five metres either side of the railway – which has been the policy for the last five years – to a minimum of 6.5m.

The document concludes that the initial level of investment – £41,000 per mile of track for the enhanced clearance – will result in “a far better performing, safer railway”.

Grasses and scrubland alongside Britain’s railway lines are made up of more than 1,600 species of plants, including 900 varieties known of as “railway species” that are exclusive to the trackside.

Senior politicians have been in discussions with the publicly owned company over the scale of its vegetation clearance after the Guardian revealed last week millions of trees are at risk.

Gove invited Mark Carne, chief executive of Network Rail, for talks at his office on Wednesday.

Details of the new planned trackside clearances come as a petition calling on Network Rail to “stop chopping down millions of trees” attracted more than 60,000 signatures.

The scale of felling taking place in the five years to the end of 2018 is not known. Network Rail has not responded to requests to provide the Guardian with an aerial map highlighting “problem” trees earmarked for felling, or reveal how many have been removed in the last year.

A freedom of information response revealed that 30,000 trees were felled by Network Rail or their contractors on the west coast mainline between Euston and Carlisle in the 12 months between February 2016 and February 2017.

Network Rail said there were no plans to replace any of the trees in its FOI response.

Network Rail says in the document it will adhere to environmental legislation which requires it to restrict practices at certain locations or certain times of the year. It says the risks to poor performance and safety from trees includes obstruction of the line, causing delays and putting staff and passengers at risk.

Between March 2016 and March 2017 there were 720 incidents with trees, according to the document. Of these 233 trees were struck by trains. “The likelihood of a tree failure causing an accident is high,” the document states.

The company says the impact from falling leaves in the autumn of 2015 involved four signals passed at danger, 91 wrong side failures and 61 station overruns due to poor rail adhesion attributed to leaf fall contamination.

These incidents, it says, cost Network Rail between £100m and £150m.

Network Rail says in the document that trees and vegetation can have a positive benefit in terms of lineside ecology where desirable flora and fauna has been identified and sustainable management plans have been put into place. It also states the company will “manage the vegetation to comply with legal requirements to protect the environment.”

A spokesperson for Network Rail said it was constantly balancing the needs of the environment with passenger safety and welcomed Johnson’s review.

“Last year we recorded over 400 incidents of trains colliding with fallen trees and another 1,000 where they caused delays to services, costing the industry over £100m. As a result, we have well thought-out standards and policies in place that have been developed over many years with the help of experts that we believe strike the right balance and maintains a safe and biodiverse line side.

“Most of the time when putting those standards and policies into action we get it right, but sometimes we don’t.”

Sara Lom, chief executive of the Tree Council, which works closely with Network Rail, has not seen the new policy document. She said: “We are Network Rail’s critical friend. When things go wrong, as they sometimes do, we tell them.”

She said the charity was carrying out trials with the company this autumn to look at different ways to manage vegetation apart from tree felling. “Alternatives to removal could be coppicing or pollarding or hedging,” she said. “That is better for wildlife, and better for people in the local community.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/09/revealed-network-rails-new-800m-scheme-to-remove-all-leaf-fall-trees?CMP=share_btn_fb 

1
BCM SSITA
London. WC1 3XX
Tel: 0121 704 9988
Dear Head Teachers, Governors and Local Authorities,below you will find responses from  SSITA (Safe Schools Technology Alliance)to the statements made by Public Health England, about the safety of Wi-Fi technology for use in schools. As employers, you are responsible for providing a safe school environment; the responses below can be considered alongside the advice given to you by Public Health England (PHE). We also realise that all schools have a legal duty to safeguard children by preventing any impairment to their health and development. We believe that the information below will usefully assist you when fulfilling these legal requirements.
SSITA Comments on the Key points from PHE:
(these are in red underlined text below)
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
carcinogen.
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)

The Law Society’s Inaugural Lecture on the Future of Law
Tuesday 8th May 2018
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court

Excerpt from the lecture ; https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/chc-speech-future-of-law-lecture-may-2018-1.pdf  

We have recently seen the impact that digital disclosure of mobile phone records has had on rape prosecutions.One change in behaviour is already having a big impact on the eradication of contested criminal cases. Most people carry their smartphones on their person at all times with their GPS location switched on. They do this voluntarily, but if the legislators were, for example, to require citizens to carry phones at all time, it would be even more difficult to avoid detection.With or without such a rule, as the location of all persons is continuously uploaded to the cloud, there will anyway be far fewer identity issues in criminal cases.
The same judge just months before upheld  an earlier ruling on a case brought by MP Tom Watson, represented by Liberty, who claimed that the Government was breaking the law by collecting individuals’ internet activity and phone records and letting public bodies grant themselves access to these personal details, where there was no suspicion of serious crime and no independent signoff.

Mark Steele is the Chief Technology Officer at a company called Reevu, he is a weapons sights system and signal processing systems expert.

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 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.

Others are entitled to draw their own conclusions.