The letter sent to the Prime Minister on 5G risks is available to read below and as a PDF: 5G letter to Prime Minister. The blog page link or PDF can be sent to MPs, councillors, headteachers, health organisations, university chancellors, family, friends… in fact, to everybody you can think of.

Nb. I’m well aware that I have quoted Elon Musk in regard to artificial intelligence but haven’t gone into his SpaceX company’s involvement with the space satellites. This is not contradictory or deceptive, it’s simply because, within the ‘informational pecking order’ of the letter, I had to focus on what I considered to be the most crucially salient points.

28 February 2019

Dear Prime Minister,

I realise that that my timing is very unfortunate because Brexit and the recent events within parliament are obviously at the forefront of every politician’s mind. In spite of this, I am impelled to write to you regarding an issue which is of the profoundest gravity. The forthcoming deployment of 5G antennae. Letters have been sent to the Cabinet ministers, Jeremy Corbyn, members of the Shadow Cabinet, the Leader of The House of Commons, the Leader and Deputy Leader of The House of Lords and the Queen.

‘ONLY IGNORANCE IS INVINCIBLE’ (Len Deighton)

The unhindered rolling out of 5G technology depends on an almost invincible, collective ignorance of the facts. The aim of this letter is to pierce through the invincibility of this ignorance.

FASTER DOWNLOAD SPEEDS… AND?

”Faster download speeds!”; ”Faster download speeds!”; ”Faster download speeds!” … ”and?”. What follows is an account of the colossal ”and” that’s missing from the current 5G narrative.  It comprises a collation and distillation of vitally important information, garnered mainly from science and technology experts, which proffers insight into the gravely serious situation we are clearly facing with the deploying of 5G.

5G… HUMAN PROGRESS OR A HEINOUS AND RECKLESS CRIME?

Quick overview:

  1. Unlike the electrical industry, the motor industry, the pharmaceutical industry and other major industries, the mobile phone industry has never been held to regulatory safety standards. In line with this, there has been no regulatory safety testing on 5G radiofrequency radiation. 5G is completely untested for safety.
  2. Hundreds of thousands of 5G antennae are to be deployed on the streets and roads of Britain. Antennae will be positioned within yards of people’s homes, gardens and businesses, emitting phased array, pulsed, millimetre wave frequencies. The pulsing will be particularly harmful. Direct exposure will be unavoidable. 5G will compound, not replace, 2G, 3G and 4G.
  3. Over 200 international scientists and doctors have signed an appeal sent to the European Commission headed: ‘Scientists and doctors warn of potential serious health effects of 5G’ (http://www.5gappeal.eu/ scientistsand-doctors-warn- of-potential-serious-health- effects-of-5g/). It reads, ‘We recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry…RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.‘ The appeal has been disregarded. Highly credentialed scientists and doctors would neither waste their time nor risk their professional reputations creating an appeal that warns of ‘potential serious health effects of 5G’ and recommends a moratorium, if they didn’t have informed concerns about the potentially serious health effects of 5G frequencies.
  4. The ongoing argument about whether radiofrequencies do or don’t cause harm is based on a cleverly upheld fabrication, not on the facts. For well over six decades science has demonstrated that RF radiation causes a range of serious, negative health effects. This has been purposefully played down.
  5. 5G frequencies are exponentially higher than 4G frequencies and will oscillate at an escalation tens of billions times higher than the naturally occurring electromagnetic frequencies of both the planetary electromagnetic field and the myriad of diverse life forms, including humans, which inhabit the earth. Such an extreme distortion is potentially catastrophic.
  6. the 5G interconnected ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT), with an estimated 75.44 billion smart devices installed by 2025. Joshua Corman: ”As we bring more connectivity and software into our homes, we’re inviting the devil into our homes. If it’s software, it’s hackable. If it’s connected, it’s exposed. The many things you use to keep the bad guys out of your house can be diverted to let them into your house and as our home appliances are more connected, or exposed, we’re inviting more and more risk.”
  7. 5G interconnected artificial intelligence (AI). Elon Musk: ”I have exposure to the most cutting edge AI and I think people should be really concerned about it. AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization in the way that car accidents, aeroplane crashes, faulty drugs or bad food were not. They were harmful to a set of individuals but not to society as a whole.”
  8. 5G antennae will overtly violate ten of our basic human rights as laid down in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
  9. Many of the minds involved in creating and developing 5G technology are, without question, brilliant, and the 5G brainchild they’re birthing into the world represents a pinnacle of scientific and technological achievement. However, the hidden reality, the caveat to end all caveats, is that 5G adds up to a technological paradigm which, rather than serving people, has the potential to either relatively or totally destroy them. In simple terms, granting viability to 5G technology will, quite literally, imperil the viability of human beings.
  10. If the British Government cannot provide independent, peer reviewed, indubitable, scientific evidence that 5G frequencies cause no biological risk to the British people, especially considering the independent scientists’ warnings and recommendation to the EU, the deployment of 5G must not go ahead. If the government sanctions the deployment of 5G without this evidence and in denial of the warnings of ‘potential serious health effects’, it will, unarguably, be perpetrating a heinous and reckless crime against the British Population.

TECHNOLOGY IS AS GOOD AS THE HANDS IT’S IN

Before I continue, the point must be made that the content of this email is not in any way taking issue with technological advancement. It is obvious that technology ‘in the right hands’ has the potential to increasingly transform our world for the better and to bring advances and benefits which are as yet unimagined. This email is about technology which is ‘in the wrong hands’ and which is capable of transforming our world for the worse and creating unthinkable levels of harm, i.e. 5G technology.

(Throughout the email, the bold emphasis and underlining are my own.)

5G ANTENNAE

The forthcoming deployment of hundreds of thousands of 5G antennae onto British streets and roads is barely being registered on the consensual map, yet it poses a threat to the millions of people living in Britain. These antennae will emit intense, phased array, pulsed, millimetre wave frequencies within yards of our homes, schools and places of work. 5G frequencies will not only be exponentially higher than the current 4G levels but will be used in concomitance with the existing 2G, 3G and 4G technology, thus compounding, not replacing, the already harmful frequential cocktail. Exposure will be mandatory and relentless.

THREE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS’ APPEALS

Many scientists from around the world have been warning world health authorities about the health risks radiofrequency radiation levels pose (even before the 5G ‘upgrade’ is implemented). Their urgent warnings have been rendered impotent by a wall of intransigent bureaucracy which has failed to pay heed and take appropriate action.

This is the 2015 appeal to the UN, WHO, UNEP and all UN member states, regarding the known dangers of radiofrequency radiation (https:// emfscientist.org/), and the subsequent 2017 5G Appeal to the European Commission (https://www.5gappeal.eu/) which reads: We recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry…RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.’. ‘The EMF Call’, November 2018, is the most recent appeal (https://www.emfcall.org/the- emf-call/) It begins: ‘Scientists and NGOs Call for

Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)’ ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health. (ICNIRP: International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection).

Here is a vocal warning, given in 2015 by one of the EMF Appeal signatories and author of the book ‘Overpowered’, the late Dr Martin Blank, Department of Physiology and Bio-physics, Colombia University: I’m here with disturbing news about our favourite gadgets, cell phones, tablets, Wi-Fi etc. Putting it bluntly, they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely… I am here to tell you that we have created something that is harming us and it is getting out of control. … Wireless utility meters and cell phones are blanketing our neighbourhoods with radiation. …radiation from our telecommunication technology is damaging the DNA in our cells.

It is clear to many biologists that this accounts for the rising cancer rates.

Future generations, our children, are at risk. … Although we are in the midst of a great technological transformation, the time to deal with the biological and health effects is long overdue. … To protect our children, ourselves and our eco-system, we must reduce exposure by establishing more protective guidelines.’

THE MOBILE PHONE INDUSTRY SCIENCE

George Carlo PhD, former Chairman, International Association for the Wireless

Telecommunications Industry (CTIA) Wireless Technology Research Program (WTR) :  Severe and potentially deadly diseases have been associated with the use of wireless technology for at least two decades, yet the truth about the risks has never emerged in mainstream media outlets due to the telecommunications industry being one step ahead of the ‘game’.’

The mobile phone industry has never been held to the regulatory safety standards that the motor industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the electrical industry, and most other industries are forced to comply with. Robert C Kane PhD, Motorola Senior Research Scientist, who worked in the telecommunications industry for a total of thirty years, from his 2001 book, ‘Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette – a Historical and Scientific Perspective‘: ‘…the manufacturers of portable and mobile transmitting communication devices then lobbied the IEEE/ANSI standard setting committee. The industry convinced the committee to exempt portable hand-held communications devices from the safe exposure limits of the safety standard’. George Carlo PhD: ”Ordinarily, in a regulatory context, new technologies would be tested extensively before they reached the market place in order to make sure they didn’t present any danger to consumers. In the case of cell phones and the wireless industry as a whole, this crucial stage was bypassed”. In line with this, there has been no safety testing whatsoever carried out on 5G frequencies.

In June, 2016, Tom Wheeler, then FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Chair and former senior lobbyist CTIA, declared, ”…we do not believe that we should spend the next couple of years studying what 5G should be or how it should operate. Turning innovators loose is far preferable to expecting committees and regulators to define the future. We won’t wait for standards…”, the unspoken corollary being? George Carlo PhD: ”Had there been premarket testing, mobile phones would never have made it into the market place.  Joel M Moskowitz PhD, Director, Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley:  ‘‘Some of the claims that were being made about health effects were so severe that had there been pre-market testing, cell phones would never have made it into the market place.”

Robert C Kane PhD:  ‘Never in human history has there been such a practice as we now encounter with the marketing and distributing of products hostile to the human biological system by an industry with foreknowledge of those effects. … The telecommunications industry would never have grown to the global force, with the virtually unlimited power that we know it to have today, if it accepted the scientific research. So the industry did as has been done throughout history. The industry developed a “belief” system. The  wonderful thing about a “belief” system is that it doesn’t require any scientific findings. And any contrary findings that do develop are easily dismissed as being unbelievable.

The British media are virtually silent about the true implications of 5G. They are reporting a one sided, ”faster download speeds!” perspective which omits any coverage of the potentially serious harm the deploying of 5G will impose on the British people. It is imperative we listen to the expertise and concerns of highly qualified, independent scientists regarding 5G technology and that we don’t fall into the trap of dismissing their warnings as ‘unbelievable’ simply because the media are promulgating a corporately contrived belief system which excludes the scientific findings.

THE GOVERNMENT SCIENCE

Dr Devra Davis, epidemiologist and toxicologist, from her book ‘Disconnect – the Truth About Cell Phone Radiation’: ‘After all, I reasoned, cell phones must be safe. Some of those complaining about health problems had the intense passion about the matter that one tends to dismiss as not credible. If there were really any serious problems, I reasoned, the governments of the world would not blithely underwrite the global spread of this technology. Having spent the past six years learning what some have known for four decades, I now understand I was mistaken.

My local MP, William Wragg, recently posed a written question to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, asking what assessment his department has made about the safety of 5G with respect to human health:  5G: Health Hazards:Written question – 176372 (https://www.parliament.uk/ business/ publications/written- questions-answers-statements/ written-question/ Commons/2018- 10-08/176372/)

In the answer, given by Margot James, is the sentence‘A considerable amount of research has been carried out on radio waves and we anticipate no negative effects on public health.’ She also writes, ‘These standards draw on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNERP), which takes into account the well-researched effects of radio waves.’:

Some government sources of information on RF radiation:

HPA (now Public Health England):

2012 AGNIR (Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation) report ‘Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields’. If you read it, perhaps take time to compare the data with the conclusions (https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/ 333080/ RCE-20_Health_Effects_ RF_Electromagnetic_fields.pdf).

HPA response to the 2012 AGNIR report on the health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-health-effects/healthprotection-agency-response-to-the-2012-agnir-report-on-the-health-effectsfrom-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields).

Public Health England:

Mobile phone base stations: radio waves and health – 10th July 2013 (https:// www.gov.uk/government/ publications/mobile-phone- base-stations-radiowaves-and- health/mobile-phone-base- stations-radio-waves-and- health).

Smart meters: radio waves and health – updated 28th June 2017 (https:// www.gov.uk/government/ publications/smart-meters- radio-waves-and-health/ smart- meters-radio-waves-and-health).

ICNIRP (international Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection):

ICNIRP Guidelines (100 kHz ti 300 GHz) 11th July 2018 (https://www.icnirp.org/ cms/ upload/consultation_upload/ ICNIRP_RF_Guidelines_PCD_Appendix_A_2018_07_11.pdf).

SCENIHR (The European Commission’s ‘Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks’):

SCENIHR 2015 report ‘Opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to magnetic Fields’ https://ec.europa.eu/ health/scientific_committees/ emerging/ docs/scenihr_o_041. pdf).

In assessing the potential health risks of 5G, the government has, according to Margot James, sourced information on RF radiation effects from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) safety guidelines which claim that:  1. There are no proven health effects from current levels of radiofrequency radiation.  2. There are no health effects other than thermal effects. From these positions, the government concludes that radiofrequency radiation, including 5G RF radiation, poses no perceived threat to health. I would contend that this is totally incorrect and that it has been scientifically proven, repeatedly, that radiofrequency radiation well below ICNIRP guidelines, and related to non-thermal effects, can inflict biological harm. A large body of research, going back at least as far as the 1950s, has shown that RF radiation causes negative biological effects. From the introduction to Robert C Kane’s book: ‘…what you will find here is a commentary that presents a litany of past research studies, hundreds of research studies from the 1950s through the mid-1990s. But don’t be misled. These older studies are equally alarming in their findings of radiation exposure, DNA damage, chromosome damage, tissue damage, radiation absorption, cataract formation, tumour formation, memory loss, motor skills degradation, and more. There are many more studies, hundreds that might have been added.

THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE

Dr Devra Davis: ‘‘Sometimes you can set up a study so that it’s designed to fail …or you can feign replication of an experiment that shows harm by strategically introducing variables designed to negate the findings of the original experiment…  or you can simply choose to exclude any ‘inconvenient’ research findings… then, by these means, you can glibly deny harm.

ICNERP:

FROM ‘THE EMF CALL’ APPEAL:  ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health.’ (ICNERP GUIDELINES, JULY 2018 https://www.icnirp.org/ cms/upload/consultation_ upload/ ICNIRP_RF_Guidelines_ PCD_Appendix_A_2018_07_11.pdf):

‘In order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization and all governments not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines. They are not protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific pretext that they are “protective”.

Background: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). 1. These guidelines are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP guidelines. 2. The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment.

ICNIRP guidelines only protect against acute thermal effects from very short and intense exposure. The guidelines do not protect against harmful effects from low-intensity and long-term exposure, such as cancer, reproductive harm, or effects on the nervous system, although these effects are convincingly shown to appear from chronic exposure at intensities below ICNIRP limits.’

DR NEIL CHERRY, (Associate Professor of environmental health, Lincoln University, NZ) published papers and articles (http://www. neilcherry.nz/ document- downloads.html)

FROM HIS 2002 PAPER, ‘CRITICISM OF THE HEALTH ASSESSMENT IN THE ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR RADIOFREQUENCY AND MICROWAVE RADIATION’  (100KHz – 300GHz):

‘It is simply not scientifically credible to claim that there are no established non-thermal effects and hence it is wrong to adopt a guideline such as the ICNIRP guideline as a public exposure standardThe ICNIRP assessment is grossly biased by selectively choosing studies, consistently misrepresenting the results, the significance of results, the implications of the results of cellular experiments, animal experiments and human studies. … There is compelling and consistent evidence of cancer, especially leukaemia and brain cancer. There is very strong evidence, from multiple, independent studies, …  that radio frequency and microwave radiation is a genotoxic carcinogen. Therefore it causes cellular mutations, and increased rates of cancer and Apoptosis in exposed populations, with no safe threshold level. This is backed up by a massive body of epidemiological studies.’

SCENIHR:

TWO DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE 2015 EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S

‘SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON EMERGING AND NEWLY IDENTIFIED HEALTH RISKS’ (SCENIHR) REPORT (link to the report in the government science list above):

  1. 5G: GREAT RISK FOR EU, U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL HEALTH! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm .Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF). Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them’ written by Dr Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University.  BA degree in Physics, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors, Johns Hopkins University; PhD in Biochemistry & Genetics, Caltech (https://europaem.eu/ attachments/article/ 130/2018- 04_EU-EMF2018-5US.pdf). This is an exerpt from the report:

‘The document that follows was, in its original form, sent to many of the authorities of the European Union, in conjunction with other documents sent to the same people by a group of European scientists. … There is a vast literature, both in the review literature and in the primary literature studies, that disagrees strongly with the SCENIHR (European commission, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) positions and are completely ignored by SCENIHR. In a few cases, such 45 studies are cited and very briefly discussed by SCENIHR but then they have no impact on the assessments that SCENIHR makes in the SCENIHR 2015 document [73]. The situation here is similar to an organization that has two sets of books, the fake books that are used in public and then a genuine set of books that includes all of the data that are too inconvenient to be included in the fake set of books.’… ‘What is clear is that SCENIHR is wittingly or unwittingly serving as a propagandist for the industry and in that process, SCENIHR has no difficulty in putting forth seven devious, individually important falsehoods.’

 … ‘SummaryWe know that there is a massive literature, providing a high level of scientific certainty, for each of eight pathophysiological effects caused by non-thermal microwave frequency EMF exposures….

  • Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects. This nervous system attack is of great concern.
  • Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that make us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system and our endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus the consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it is a travesty to ignore these findings.
  • Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially all chronic diseases.
  • Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce cancer and also mutations in germ line cells which produce mutations in future generations.
  • Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.
  • Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levels of spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells.
  • Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and excessive calcium signalling.
  • Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15 different mechanisms during cancer causation.

There is also a substantial literature showing that EMFs also cause other effects including life threatening cardiac effects (Chapter 3). In addition substantial evidence suggests EMF causation of very early onset dementias,including Alzheimer’s, digital and other types of dementias (Chapter 3); and there is evidence that EMF exposures in utero and shortly after birth can cause ADHD and autism (Chapter 5).

The European Commission has done nothing to protect European citizens from the very serious health hazards and the U.S. FDA, EPA and National Cancer Institute have done nothing to protect U.S. citizens. The U.S. FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has been worse than that, acting in wanton disregard for our health.’

Please read this again:

‘The European Commission has done nothing to protect European citizens from the very serious health hazards and the U.S. FDA, EPA and National Cancer Institute have done nothing to protect U.S. citizens. The U.S. FCC has been worse than that, acting in wanton disregard for our health.’

  1. ‘COMPLAINT TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION concerning the 2015 SCENIHR opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields’, created by The International Electromagnetic Fields Alliance, IEMFA (http://www.iemfa.org/ wp-content/pdf/Complaint-to- the-EuropeanCommission- SCENIHR-2015-08-31.pdf): ‘The European Commission has once again failed in setting up an expert group on the health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields that meets its own principles of “of excellence, independence and impartiality, and transparence” (COMMISSION DECISION of 5 August 2008).

The experts behind the report blatantly fail in their main mission: to identify “potential health risks”. There is evidence that clearly, convincingly and increasingly establishes that there are many potential negative health effects and health hazards: brain tumours, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, damage on foetuses and stress related diseases … The SCENIHR report ignores the scientific evidence of health risks from levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields that practically everybody is increasingly exposed to, including small children, in most countries in Europe today.’

RF radiation effects on nature:

There is a large body of independent research showing negative effects of RF radiation on life forms throughout natureHere’s a very short list to demonstrate:

Translated German report: ‘Birds, Bees and Mankind – Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’ – Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies‘ (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/ 7521097894.pdf?fbclid=

IwAR1175srGrsJ66nBRUJ4hjGPnNxa d1-C_YcGoA4VxQXUPXAMfL3KfptHis).

The Bioinitiative Report Conclusions (http://www. bioinitiative.org/conclusions/ ) which begin: ‘Overall, these 1800 or so new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9), carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function…’.

Of particular concern is the effect of RF radiation on the physical body’s microorganisms, which outnumber human cells by 10 to 1. Research increasingly shows that the microbiome, comprised of trillions of micro-organisms, plays a vitally important role in both the maintenance and the degradation of health. This is a study, from the Journal of Microbiology, involving the cultured skin bacteria Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus epidermidis: ‘The response of human bacteria to static magnetic field and radiofrequency electromagnetic field’(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12275-017-7208-7 ). From the report: ‘The bacterial isolates of skin microbiota from 4 subjects with different cell phone usage history also showed inconsistent growth responses. These findings led us to hypothesize that cell phone level RFEMF disrupts human skin microbiota‘. The implications of these findings are extremely serious.

NCBI: EU (ESF) co-financed fruit fly study: ‘Mobile-phone radiation-induced perturbation of gene-expression profiling, redox equilibrium and sporadicapoptosis control in the ovary of Drosophila  melanogaster‘ (htt ps:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC5406167/).

Environmental Health Perspectives, vol 111 no. 7: ‘Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones‘ (https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC1241519/pdf/ ehp0111-000881. pdf).

Researchgate: ‘Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations‘ (https://www. researchgate.net/publication/ 306435017_Radiofrequency_ radiation_injures_trees_ around_mobile_phone_base_ stations).

NCBI: ‘Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants‘ (https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/27650031?dopt= Abstract).

Oxford Academic: ‘Exposure to 915 MHz radiation induces micronuclei in Vicia faba root tips‘ (https://academic.oup. com/mutage/article/31/2/187/ 2622776).

Bio Electro Magnetics: ‘Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station‘ (https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1002/BEM.21890).

FREQUENCIES

Kevin Mottus, Outreach Director of the CA Brain Tumour Association, speaking about 5G: ”We are literally microwave radiating our population and we’re wondering why there’s so much cancer and chronic illness. … We already know the lower frequencies cause cancer and neurological problems. We expect this to be much worse, much quicker. We are literally experimenting with people’s lives. .. We need to start pushing back and stop allowing them to use us literally like rats in an experiment. … 56 billion dollars to roll out 5G (in the US), zero money to look at the health effects.”

The frequencies of mobile phone technology:

2G operates between .825 – .960GHz

3G operates between 1.800 – 1.990GHz

4G operates between 2.620 – 2.690 GHz

5G (the first wave) operates between 24.25 – 27.5GHz at the upper frequency level of a combination of two other levels of frequency, the middle being 3.4 – 3.8GHz and the lower range  .7 GHz. The FCC has already opened up the

64GHz to 71GHz frequency bands for 5G.

The frequencies of average human brains:

From Delta to Gamma, 0 – 100HZ (this can escalate to 400Hz in an epileptic’s brain).

The frequency of the planetary electromagnetic field, the ‘electromagnetic home’ which all biological lifeforms have evolved in synchronization with:

Schumann resonance 7.83Hz (fundamental) fluctuating between 3Hz and 60Hz.

The higher range electromagnetic frequencies the first wave of 5G will pulse through the planetary electromagnetic field and into our bodies at very close range:

24,250,000,000Hz – 27,500,000,000Hz. These are tens of billions of times higher than the natural planetary and human frequencies.

‘I SING THE BODY ELECTRIC’ (Walt Whitman)

All life pulsates in time to the Earth and our artificial fields cause abnormal reactions in all organisms. Increasing electro-pollution could set in motion irreversible changes leading to our extinction.’ The late Dr Robert Becker, researcher and author of ‘The Body Electric’.

Our physical bodies, from the realm of sub-atomic particles right up to the agglomerated, walking, talking human being, operate through electrical/ electromagnetic activity, therefore physics and bio-physics are fundamentally implicated in their ability to function. In certain contexts, physical benefit can be derived from the application of highly specific, targeted, short term, radiofrequency exposure. This, however, is very different from the situation we are currently facing in which our physical bodies are to be permanently immersed in an inescapable cacophony of intense 5G (plus 2G, 3G and 4G) frequencies. It is not difficult to rationalize, through even a rudimentary understanding of physics, that this cacophonous, unabated bombardment of frequencies so extremely foreign to the body’s inherent frequencies will, almost certainly, evoke unnatural entrainment and/or interfere with the predetermined electrical balances and functions within the cells, the mitochondria and the DNA. Such deviation or dysregulation could be biologically (especially cumulatively) catastrophic.

LLOYDS OF LONDON

If, for whatever reason, you are unconvinced by the science, perhaps Lloyds of London’s financial interests might speak louder: ‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.’ From an article written by journalists Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie: One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. In our reporting for this story, we found not a single insurance company that would sell a product-liability policy that covered mobile phone radiation.

INDUSTRY ANNUAL REPORTS

From Verizon Communications Inc., United States Securities and Exchange

Commission Form 10-K, Annual Report, fiscal year ended December 31st 2014: ‘We are subject to a significant amount of legislation which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements. Our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action  lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters …  In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.’ AT&T annual report 2014: ‘As we deploy newer technologies, especially in the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees who use such technologies.

5G – HUMAN PROGRESS

The introduction of 5G is being heralded as, and widely understood to be, a major step in human progress. Throughout the media tech entrepreneurs, academic/industrial technophiles and government representatives wax eloquent about the wonderful technological future 5G will open up to humans whilst Birmingham boasts the accolade of winning ‘the 5G battle’ for the privilege to be the first UK city with 5G coverage. So, let us objectify this next step in human progress.

To enable this progress, not only will millions of close proximity, 5G phased array antennae be deployed world-wide, but upwards of twelve thousand satellites are to be installed in space to radiate 5G frequencies down onto every square inch of the planet. Dr Martin Pall, on some of the 5G frequency effects ‘We can expect humans to suffer from massive increases in blindness, from cataracts, macular degeneration and retinal detachment. Large increase in hearing loss, very large increase in male infertility. Melanoma skin cancer; peripheral nervous system impacts with neuropathic pain. Impacts on immune cells; impacts on red blood cells leading to very low oxygen in the tissues and impaired transport of nutrients in the tissues. The impact on insects, including bees and other pollinators, on birds, small mammals, almost all the plants, will be even more severe than the impact on humans’.

The antennae are just the beginning… then, facilitated by the low latency, ever increasing interconnectedness of 5G, come the Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The Internet of things:

The prospect of an interconnected, informational ‘Internet of Things’ is being touted as something that will, in its growing ‘smartness’, transform our lives, businesses and homes by bestowing increasing numbers of smart benefits. Here’s what some tech-savvies have to say about this prospect. The following is from Joshua Corman’s Ted Talk in which he likens swimming with apex predators (sharks) to swimming in the technological ocean: ”I made another call to Dr Charlie Miller… he had hacked two automobiles at the largest hacker conference in the world known as DEFCON (together with Chris Valasek). … These things should really bother you. They could deploy airbags without a crash… and almost certainly cause one. They could turn the steering without your consent. And for their final act, they disabled the brakes. … As we bring more connectivity and software into our homes, we’re inviting the devil into our homes. If it’s software, it’s hackable. If it’s connected, it’s exposed..… and what’s to be done? I honestly don’t know, I worry about the future. I hate to say this, but sharks patrol these waters and we’re already behind. The difference is, when you go to the beach and you see sharks, you can choose to stay on dry land, but in this swarming Internet of Things we’re almost out of dry land. We’re adrift in the Internet of Things and the blood is in the water.”

Bryan Lunduke speaking at the ‘Open Internet of Things Summit & Embedded Linux Conference’:  The reality is, no matter how secure you make these (Internet of Things) devices, it doesn’t matter, they will be compromised. There is no way to secure them, it simply is not possible. … If you give a global consciousness, the Internet of Things, complete access and control to your security system, your front door lock, all the lighting in your house, your oven, your toaster, your internet frigging enabled crockpot, it can destroy you completely, literally.”

Rose Barker, risk management consultant and expert on identity theft: ”I don’t own a smart fridge and I hope that I’m never forced to. When you’re considering buying a new device, please weigh the costs and benefits. Ask yourself, is it really worth it to have a smart phone fridge app to see your grocery list if you could lose your most vulnerable possession… and that is your identity?”

5G technology will generate enormous profits by selling detailed data about us which will be constantly collected, via close range antennae, from our smart homes and our smart lives, because 5G is, amongst other things, a monitoring system. Almost fifty years ago, in his 1970 book, ‘Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technetronic Era’, the late Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, ‘The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. … Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen.

UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12:  ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. It is ‘imposed interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.’

Artificial intelligence (AI):

This is a complex and controversial subject. James Barrat’s ‘Our Final Invention – Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era‘, and Richard Dooling’s ‘Rapture for the Geeks – When AI Outsmarts IQ’, are two highly readable and informative books on artificial intelligence. The titles, in and of themselves, are profoundly meaningful. In James Barrat’s introduction he writes: ‘Our species is going to mortally struggle with this problem. This book explores the plausibility of losing control of our future to machines that won’t necessarily hate us, but that will develop unexpected behaviours as they attain high levels of the most unpredictable power and force in the universe (intelligence), levels that we ourselves cannot realize, and behaviours that probably won’t be compatible with our survival.‘. Here are some more perspectives from AI’s intellectual vanguard:

Elon Musk: ”I have exposure to the most cutting edge AI and I think people should be really concerned about it. AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization in the way that car accidents, aeroplane crashes, faulty drugs or bad food were not. They were harmful to a set of individuals but not to society as a whole. AI scares the hell out of me, it’s capable of vastly more than almost anyone knows.

Vernor Vinge: ”Once we create smarter than human intelligence, artificial superintelligence, all bets are off, I don’t think we’ll be able to control it. I don’t think many people think we’ll be able to control it

The late Prof. Stephen Hawking: ”“The real risk with AI isn’t malice but competence. A superintelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours, we’re in trouble. You’re probably not an evil ant-hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green energy project and there’s an anthill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. Let’s not place humanity in the position of those ants.”  –  “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”

Sam Harris: ”I’m going to describe how the gains we make in artificial intelligence could ultimately destroy us, and in fact, I think it’s very difficult to see how they won’t destroy us”.

Jay Tuck: ”Survival is an issue for artificial intelligence. It needs to exist to be able to do the things it wants to according to its programmes. So it lays, like, insect eggs, backups and computer programmes all over the world, thousands and thousands of them, so that if we destroy part of it, it’s still alive. My job to you is the wake up call to make you aware of the problem. Your job is to figure out how we’re going to stop this before it kills us.”

Geordie RoseAI in the work place: ”Imagine, for 10 dollars I could build a machine like a little robot that had fingers and eyes and all that, and it would do your job better than you, no matter what it is, and I could sell that to your employer for say 15 dollars, instead of having to pay you 100,000 dollars a year. Now, imagine that was true for every single job, because that’s what we’re talking about here … we are right on the verge of that transition now.”

Peter Haas: ”You see, right now, there are people, doctors, judges, accountants who are getting information from an AI system and treating it as if it is information from a trusted colleague. it’s this trust that bothers me, not because AI gets it wrong, AI researchers pride themselves in accuracy on results. It’s how badly it gets it wrong when it makes a mistake that has me worried. These systems do not fail gracefully.”

A quick summary of risks involved in providing faster download speeds, driverless cars, ‘smart’ interconnectedness and artificial intelligence:

  1. 5G antennae…  ‘We can expect humans to suffer from massive increases in blindness, from cataracts, macular degeneration and retinal detachment.

Large increase in hearing loss, very large increase in male infertility. Melanoma skin cancer; peripheral nervous system impacts with neuropathic pain. Impacts on immune cells; impacts on red blood cells leading to very low oxygen in the tissues and impaired transport of nutrients in the tissues. The impact on insects, including bees and other pollinators, on birds, small mammals, almost all the plants, will be even more severe than the impact on humans.’

  1. 5G interconnected Internet of Things… ”The reality is, no matter how secure you make these (Internet of Things) devices, it doesn’t matter, they will be compromised. There is no way to secure them, it simply is not possible. … If you give a global consciousness, the Internet of Things, complete access and control to your security system, your front door lock, all the lighting in your house, your oven, your toaster, you internet frigging enabled crockpot, it can destroy you completely, literally.”
  2. 5G interconnected artificial Intelligence… ‘Our species is going to mortally struggle with this problem.’; ‘AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization’; “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”; ”These systems do not fail gracefully”.

Dr Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park)…  ”Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

TRUE HUMAN PROGRESS should not rob people of their basic human rights or allow them to become the collateral damage of the exploits of unconscionable profiteering. TRUE HUMAN PROGRESS should not corrupt the entire electromagnetic field of the earth in ways which are unequivocally known to be injurious to life… and completely disregard the science which clearly warns of the dangers. TRUE HUMAN PROGRESS should not technologically intrude upon and monitor people’s lives and homes or render them permanently vulnerable to cyber-attack. TRUE HUMAN PROGRESS should not usurp and imperil people with selfreplicating artificial intelligence which is described by many leading AI experts as an existential threat. There are descriptions for such things but ‘human progress’ is not one of them. 

THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST OF 5G PROPAGANDA

The shrouding of the truth in all-encompassing propaganda/spin is absolutely pivotal to the ‘5G Future’, as is the marketing of its ‘smarter’ lifestyle.

PR (public relations)… orchestrating 5G information in the media. A few fundamental tactics:

  1. Eulogize/avoid. Avidly eulogize about the benefits of 5G technology whilst carefully avoiding the subject of potential risks. If the issue of risks rears its head, call on the chosen experts…
  2. Chosen experts. Strategically call on favourably biased experts who can pontificate on favourably biased perspectives and extinguish any unfavourable perspectives. If someone left of field questions the veracity of these chosen experts, dismiss or discredit them…
  3. Dismiss/discredit. Blithely dismiss or attempt to discredit anyone who candidly opposes the official narrative and/or speaks the inconvenient truth. This may or may not include sarcasm, ridicule or the word ‘conspiracy’.
  4. Obfuscation. Muddy the waters to create confusion or ambiguity.
  5. Simplify/complexify. Either overly simplify or unnecessarily complexify an issue in order to detract and deceive.
  6. Plausibility. Sound convincingly plausible about what you want the public to believe whilst smudging the facts or blatantly lying.

Advertising agencies… Freud’s unplanned progeny:

The fundamental modus operandi of advertising is to powerfully influence people by bombarding them with concepts and messages that have been devised and produced in line with the human psyche’s desires, dreams, wants and needs, as well as its fears. Influencing minds also involves omitting information which is counter to the advertiser’s aims. For example, in the case of the long term advertising of cigarettes, the omission was obviously mouth, throat, tracheal and lung cancer together with heart and circulatory disease.

Large scale advertising, which has already served the mobile/smart phone industry admirably in globalizing and advancing its technology, will be superlatively designed and perfectly timed to kick in the instant the 5G product market is ready to open upIn the meantime, upbeat ‘teasers’ are emerging to whet people’s appetites (https://www. youtube.com/watch?v= xfQ8tsEXjMI).

Concealing the unthinkable:

This is an insidious, overarching implementation of propaganda that calls on many tactics. Propaganda creates an ‘inclusive’ milieu which shapes people’s perception of events and of the world. It simultaneously instates ‘exclusive’ parameters beyond which even the bravest journalists know not to venture. ‘Concealing the unthinkable’ weaves between the two. With regard to 5G, it is unthinkable that the British government is prepared to expose the British population to an invasive, pervasive technology that’s untested for safety. This is compounded by the fact that assurances from the government implying RF radiation causes no harm are not only strongly contested by highly qualified scientists but contradicted by decades of research proving harm.  It is unthinkable that the unwitting British population is being kept in a state of propaganda induced ignorance and is fundamentally clueless and questionless about the actual facts of 5G (apart, of course, from ”faster download speeds!…and possibly ”driverless cars”), thus the deployment of this extremely hazardous  technology is forging ahead unquestioned and unimpeded. This demonstrates how effectively ‘concealing the unthinkable’ is being achieved in relation to 5G.

Astroturf methods:

The internet is an incredible tool, but navigating it in search of factual information can be highly problematic. To add to the difficulty, ‘astroturf methods’, which few people are currently aware of, are now being widely used. Astroturf is a form of special interests propaganda that involves creating or seizing opportunities to infiltrate the internet with influential information. This can make ascertaining the genuine truth about 5G extremely challenging.

Sharyl Attkisson, journalist, current affairs presenter and author of the book ‘Stonewalled’: ”But what if all isn’t as it seems? What if the reality you found was false, a carefully constructed narrative by unseen special interests designed to manipulate your opinion, a Truman Show-esque alternate reality all around you? Complacency in the news media combined with incredibly powerful propaganda and publicity forces mean we sometimes get little of the truth. Special interests have unlimited time and money to figure out new ways to spin us while cloaking their role. Surreptitious ‘astroturf methods’ are now more important to these interests than traditional lobbying… .

Astroturf is when political, commercial or other special interests, disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook pages and twitter accounts, publish ads and letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. The whole point of astroturf is to try to give the impression there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not. They attack news organizations that publish stories they don’t like, whistle blowers who tell the truth, politicians who dare to ask the tough questions, and journalists who have the audacity to report all of it.  Sometimes, astroturfers simply shove, intentionally, so much confusing and conflicting information into the mix that you’re left to throw up your hands and disregard all of it, including the truth. Drown out a link between a medicine and a harmful side effect by throwing a bunch of conflicting, paid for studies, surveys and experts into the mix, confusing the truth beyond recognition.

And then there’s Wikipedia, astroturf’s dream come true. Billed as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The reality can’t be more different. Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests. They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda. They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity. Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages and ‘poof’, sometimes within a matter of seconds you’ll find your edit is reversed.”

The cleverest 5G propaganda ploy of all:

Perhaps the cleverest 5G propaganda ploy of all is to have incrementally created dependence on, and addiction to, the very means by which you can optimally propagandize people… their screens. Infiltrate an engendered climate of entitlement to faster download speeds, whilst keeping mute about risks, and the job’s done.

5G propaganda has many faces and operates on many levels, but the bottom line is that it’s being implemented across the board to market a technology that poses ‘unthinkable’ risks of harm whilst simultaneously concealing these risks in every way possible.

A NOTE ON HUMANS

In all of this we might ask the question, what makes humans thrive? What do most humans seek in life? Do they seek to be sick or cancerous from radiofrequency radiation poisoning? To live out each day in a hackable, exposed Internet of Things in which everyone and everything is vulnerable and monitored? To be increasingly engaged in more and more screen-bound, nonhuman connections carried at faster and faster speeds? To be superseded by AI technologies which could potentially rob them of not only their livelihood but their life? This is the future which the 5G trajectory is primed to carry the human race along… without either its informedawareness or its informed consent.

There were two world wars last century which brought devastation and loss of life on a massive scale, yet by the time most of us were born, there was no evidence of these horrors. Humans had valiantly managed, as they always do, to ”pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again” with the insuppressible hope that ‘springs eternal’. In the wake of such protracted and resounding atrocities, this was remarkable, and testament to the strength, resilience, creativity and enterprise the human spirit is capable of. Humans are worthy of a better world, they are deserving of progressive technology which is as safe as possible and which will improve and optimise their lives in all the ways that can be achieved. They absolutely do not deserve the imposition of a series of dehumanising, deleterious, technological inventions which, whatever the 5G propaganda currently promises, are going to change their lives for the worse.

Humans are worth more than this… much, much more.

RATIONALIZING THE DEPLOYMENT OF 5G ANTENNAE

Many highly qualified scientists have been actively warning world health authorities that RF radiation from mobile phone/wireless technology is physically harmful and asking for more protective guidelines to be implemented. Instead of this being acknowledged and acted upon in order to protect people, the radio frequencies that are already known to be causing harm are about to be exponentially amplified via millions of close proximity, 5G antennae plus upwards of 12,000 thousand 5G space satellites. The infiltration of these alarmingly intense and harmful frequencies is going to saturate and corrupt the entire planetary electromagnetic field to a degree which not only defies reason but begs serious, targeted questions.

Specific questions must be asked of the government and also the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport regarding the purported harmlessness of 5G antennae which the words ‘we anticipate no negative effects on public health’ imply. The physical safety of millions of British men, women and children, not to mention animals, birds, insects, trees and plants, rests on exposing, and acting on, the truth within the dichotomy between the government’s scientific stance claiming no harm and the perspective of a large scientific consensus warning of the risk of serious harm. Bear in mind that, as with cigarette smoking, RF radiation effects have been shown to be largely (as well as lethally) cumulative, thus remaining hidden in latent forms for many years. This must be taken into account.

BUREAUCRACY VS HUMANS

Bureaucracy serves as one of the greatest players in the 5G scenario. It has already methodically rejected, and perhaps even concealed, the scientific facts of RF radiation health risks and is now, in its cold, faceless, collective utilitarianism, on course to put every life form on earth in a position of potential jeopardy by allowing the telecommunications industry to impose a risk of harm that is unparalleled in the entirety of recorded history.

So, what’s to be done? Are bureaucrats simply going to inertly and unquestioningly comply by ”just following orders” within the disparate departments involved in the bureaucratic trickledown of this appalling imposition? Are those of us who are privy to the facts simply going to allow this inhuman force to continue by cowing under its, and the telecommunications industry’s, massively inflated authority? Are we, as regular, decent people, simply going to relinquish our inviolable human rights and let the frequencies of this technology attack our eyes, ears, skin, nervous system, brain, endocrine system, reproductive organs, heart, cells, DNA … and worse still, those of our children? Or are we going to wake up to the horrendous reality of what’s taking place and do something, in some sort of human solidarity, to address it?

IN YOUR POSITION AS PRIME MINISTER

I am looking to you to protect the well-being and the human rights of the British people; to realise that propaganda abounds on many levels and the truth about 5G RF radiation effects is only to be found amongst independent scientists with no vested interests; to take the warnings of these scientists very seriously; to ask the voices of government who ‘anticipate no negative effects on public health’ if they can provide indubitable scientific evidence, approved by a trustworthy, independent, scientific consensus, that 5G technology is safe; in the absence of such evidence, to call for a moratorium on 5G so that independent, integrious scientific studies can be carried out to ascertain 5G health effects…  including  the long term, potentially lethal, cumulative effects.

TO REITERATE

IF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROVIDE INDEPENDENT, PEER

REVIEWED, INDUBITABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT 5G FREQUENCIES

POSE NO BIOLOGICAL RISK TO THE BRITISH POPULATION, ESPECIALLY

CONSIDERING THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS’ 5G APPEAL TO THE EU,

THE DEPLOYMENT OF 5G MUST NOT GO AHEAD. IF THE GOVERNMENT

SANCTIONS THE DEPLOYMENT OF 5G WITHOUT THIS EVIDENCE  AND IN

DENIAL OF THE SCIENTISTS’ WARNINGS OF ‘POTENTIAL SERIOUS

HEALTH EFFECTS’, IT WILL, UNARGUABLY, BE PERPETRATING A

HEINOUS AND RECKLESS CRIME AGAINST THE BRITISH POPULATION.

THE BIGGEST ASSAULT ON THE HUMAN RACE EVER SEEN

The neurosurgeon and researcher, Dr Jack Kruse, recently warned, ”5G is going to be the biggest assault on the human race that we’ve ever seen”. World expert on RF radiation health effects, Dr Martin Pall, has described potential 5G health effects as ”chilling”. These two men are not conspiracy theorists or wielders of hyperbole, they are scientists firmly grounded in the science of 5G.

TO FINISH

The 5G future is just one of many possible futures the minds of humans could innovate. It has been devised by an unrepresentative, extremely small minority of individuals who are now foisting it upon the entire world. The future they’ve set out to create amounts to a full-scale aberration that is underpinned by their own, not humanity’s, interests and it is glaringly obvious, under even the slightest scrutiny, that the risks posed by this 5G future astronomically outweigh the benefits.

This is a gravely serious situation. Those sanctioning and supporting the roll-out of 5G antennae must be held entirely… and I mean entirely… accountable. The deploying of 5G technology is not only an economic or a political matter, it is a humanitarian one.

Dr Martin Pall ends his document on 5G risks with this message: ‘Let me close, as follows. There have been certain points in our history where people have stood up to strong destructive forces against what often appeared to be insurmountable odds. Those people are THE most honoured people in our history. The people who failed to do so are among the most despised people in our history. I am not at all sure we will have historians to record us 100 years from now or even 30 years from now, given the direction in which we are heading, but if we do, rest assured that these are the standards by which you will be judged.

Thank you for your time.

Your sincerely,

Jane Gregory

https://parentsandconcernedcitizensagainst5g.com/letter-sent-to-prime-minister-5g-risks/?fbclid=IwAR0AnPvduYTw9U60O60k9D4Fl9gzngql5Pg9twLJXKi8BGy_F0khCR0tXmM

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/541367/response/1302290/attach/3/1039%20EIR%20COMARE%205G%20radiation%20levels.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1&fbclid=IwAR0ov5EEW91fDPhHSIo5hp2QrvrCc5ChfXNxoY7Ev79TpBqfBX-774Ws1gg

Questions asked:

What actions have you taken regarding the appeal sent to you by scientists
regarding 5G?
Do you have experts in the field of EMF radiation and the effects on actual human tissue?
If so Where and what did your experts study and what are the qualifications of your
experts regarding EMF exposure? What are the studies that you have used that
would show the exposure levels for 5G are safe? What are the risk assessments that
you have performed regarding 5G on the general public? Are any of your studies
based on actual biological exposure? If so what were your findings? If not then how
do you know it is safe?
What will you now do with all the above studies and references to studies above?

The following answer was sent back




Another FOI request

CC: For the attention of the Chief Executive and other Board Directors.

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT FOR ‘SMART’ METER INSTALLATION, NOTICE OF LIABILITY AND REQUEST FOR ‘SMART’ METER REMOVAL

To you and all other parties, be advised that I withdraw my consent for both the installation and use of any and all ‘Smart’ Meters or any other surveillance and activity monitoring device, or devices, at my place of residence as noted herein.

Seeing as you have already installed one, I hereby request that it is removed by xxxxxx and replaced with an analogue meter. If it is not removed by xxxx on xxxxx, I will stop my direct debit and all payment to your company will desist. I also request that an analogue meter is installed by xxxxx at xxxx.

Installation and use of any surveillance and activity monitoring device that sends and receives communications technology is hereby refused and prohibited. Consent is legally required for installation of any surveillance device and any device that will collect and transmit private and personal data to undisclosed and unauthorised parties for undisclosed and unauthorised purposes. This consent is hereby withdrawn. Authorisation for sharing of personal and private information may only be given by the originator and subject of that information. That authorisation is hereby withdrawn and refused with regard to the advised property.

‘Smart’ Meters violate many of my human rights, such as those laid out by the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol, Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture/degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 12 – (right to marry and to found a family).

‘Smart’ Meters cause endangerment to residents through many factors and my reasons for denying consent for installation include:
1. Wireless ‘Smart’ Meters, when activated, emit intense, pulsed bursts of non-ionising, RF microwave radiation. More than 5,000 studies have shown that non-ionising microwave radiation/RF EMF is harmful to humans, animals and plants.
2. On 31st May 2011, the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorised RF EMFs as a possible CARCINOGEN (Class 2b) – the same as lead, DDT, chloroform & methylmercury.
3. On 6th May 2011, the Council of Europe issued a report titled “Potential dangers of EMFs and their effect on the environment” in which they called for an IMMEDIATE reduction in exposure to EMFs by children. The Council advocates a precautionary principle be applied to wireless emissions to prevent public health disaster akin to “tobacco, leaded petrol and asbestos”. ‘Smart’ Meters will increase – not decrease – the EMF exposure to members of a household and their neighbours.
4. As demonstrated by Daniel Hirsch, Senior Nuclear Policy Lecturer at UCSC, ‘Smart’ Meters can expose the body to 160x to 800x times as much microwave radiation as mobile phones. ‘Smart’ Meters can emit intense pulses of radiation in excess of 190,000 times every day.
5. Human, animal and cell culture studies indicate long-term systemic health effects from RF microwave radiation, including hormone disruption, DNA damage, leakage of blood-brain- barrier, sperm count reduction & damage, sleep disorders, learning difficulties, attention deficit & hyperactivity disorders, dementia and cancer including leukemia and brain glioma (tumours). There is concern that pregnant women & children are particularly vulnerable.
6. The ICNIRP safety standards which the UK Government and HPA continue to use, fail to recognise the non-thermal, biological effects of microwave radiation. These standards were voted obsolete by the European Parliament, 522 to 16 votes – yet still remain in use in the UK.
7. As highlighted by Dr. David Carpenter (Director of the Institute of Health and Environment – University of Albany – and former head of the New York Department of Public Health), there is evidence that exposure to RF radiation increases the risk of cancer, increases damage to the nervous system, causes electro-sensitivity, has adverse reproductive effects and a variety of other effects on different organ systems. He has stated on record that there is “no justification for the statement that ‘Smart’ Meters have no adverse health effects”.
8. European surveys have shown at least 1 in 20 people are moderately or severely sensitive to RF EMF radiation, experiencing a broad range of debilitating symptoms. The number of sufferers is rising rapidly. This is problematic and in some cases life-changing for sufferers, and will place further pressure on the National Health Service as well as impacting business productivity.
9. In January 2011, the American Association of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has called for the complete removal of ‘Smart’ Meters and a return to safe analogue due to scientific and medical studies repeatedly showing health risks from exposure to microwaves emitted from wireless devices.
10. In March 2012, Dr Andrew Goldsworthy’s research warned that Water ‘Smart’ Meters, via their strong RF microwave emissions, can severely reduce water quality, leading to increased toxicity of poisons present in the body. 11. ‘Smart’ Meters monitor household activity and occupancy in violation of my rights to privacy and domestic security.
12. ‘Smart” Meters identify individual electrical devices inside the home and record when they are operated causing invasion of privacy.
13. They transmit wireless signals which may be intercepted by unauthorised and unknown parties. Those signals can be used to monitor behavior and occupancy and they can be used by criminals to aid criminal activity against the occupants.
14. Data about occupant’s daily habits and activities are collected, recorded and stored in permanent databases which are accessed by parties not authorized or invited to know and share that private data by those whose activities were recorded.
15. Those with access to the ‘Smart’ Meter databases can review a permanent history of household activities complete with calendar and time-of-day metrics to gain a highly invasive and detailed view of the lives of the occupants.
16. Those databases may be shared with, or fall into the hands of criminals, blackmailers, corrupt law enforcement, private hackers of wireless transmissions, power company employees, and other unidentified parties who may act against the interests of the occupants under metered surveillance.
17. It may be possible with analysis of certain ‘Smart’ Meter data for unauthorized and distant parties to determine medical conditions, sexual activities, and physical locations of persons within the home, vacancy patterns and personal information and habits of the occupants.
18. Energy/utility companies and Government agencies do not have the lawful right to monitor, manage and control my utility usage. Profiling and monitoring of my energy and utility usage is a gross invasion of privacy and will be susceptible to misuse in the wrong hands.
19. A one year study in Toronto, Canada, showed the energy/utility bills have gone up in 80% of cases, many by more than 50%.
20. The UK Government has said ‘Smart’ Meters will cost more than £11billion for estimated savings of just £25 per home/year – and that saving will only possible if customers have at least two ‘Smart’ Meters and succeed in changing their own behaviour to create the savings. Not only will there be a need for this £11billion to be clawed back, in part, through my energy/utility bills, but many new ‘Smart’ Meters only have a 10 year lifespan before requiring replacement – which is a shorter lifespan than current analogue meters. They will potentially require more regular servicing too.
21. Wireless transmissions of my personal energy usage, with information about the devices I use, when I use them and what I am doing with them at any given moment, will be available to your organisation and any potential hackers.
22. Smart meters can be hacked, have been hacked and will continue to be hacked. By deploying millions of ‘Smart’ Meters with the same software, firmware and hardware, they become a highly-concentrated, strategic target for any malicious hackers and will endanger the community if an attacker, for example, can switch the power on and off from remote en masse. This makes ‘Smart’ Meters dangerous and a liability to the bill-payers who would have to ultimately pay for any damage through higher bills. The FBI has warned that ‘Smart’ Meters hacking real and is “likely to spread”.
23. Ethical hackers in Germany have shown how easy it is to unlawfully access data from ‘Smart’ Meters and to remotely control them. This is a risk to me, my family and our entire energy grid. Former CIA Director James Woolsey has called ‘Smart’ Grid a “really, really stupid idea”.
24. In a wireless ‘Smart’ Grid, my entire home will become a node on the Internet. This means my home and device usage will suddenly become available to hackers, who can use the data to analyse when certain people are at home, e.g. young children.
25. In the US, this data has been sold by energy companies to 3rd parties, e.g. police, corporate marketing departments and insurance companies. ‘Smart’ Meters represent pieces of invasive surveillance equipment within my home. I may have nothing to hide but I believe that I have the right to defend my privacy and my right to decide how I use my utilities which you provide to me as a service.
26. Smart’ Meters will make it far easier to disconnect customers remotely – a particular concern in light of the hacking threats, especially to ‘Smart’ Water Meters.
27. In North America, ‘Smart’ Meters have been shown to explode, cause fires, and can interfere with sensitive electrical devices such as heart pacemakers.
28. Smart meters are not protected from EMP attacks, large EMP or localized EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulses).
29. Disabling the receiver will not prevent other forms of “hacks”. For example, a malicious attacker could confuse the internal CPU, reset it, change random memory locations, change the KWH reading, force a power disconnect, or completely disable a ‘Smart’ Meter with a simple coil of wire and a small battery. This can’t happen with a mechanical meter. It is well known that a wide EMP can take out car computers; ‘Smart’ Meters will make that possible on the city wide electric infrastructure.
30. A thief or burglar could use the same EMP or hacking methods to turn off the house power even if the electrical switch box is locked.
31. Scientists have widely refuted claims that ‘Smart’ Meters are ‘green’. There is a significant (and growing) body of work showing ‘Smart’ Meters actually harm nature and our environment.
32. ‘Smart’ Meters, in tandem with In-Home-Display units, are likely to consume far more energy than the old analogue meters do.
33. The Council of Europe’s May 2011 report on RF microwave radiation indicated that hundreds of studies have identified significant impacts of sustained RF microwave radiation on our natural environment, including: stress reactions and genetic problems in plants, trees, animals and insects, problems in migratory animals like birds and bees, birth defects in calves and fertility problems in herds.
34. Tree deaths, plant die-offs and bee colony collapse disorder cases have also been reported shortly after Smart Meter installation/activation in the United States.

I am exercising my lawful right to forbid, refuse and deny consent for the installation and use of any monitoring, eavesdropping, and surveillance devices on my property, my place of residence and my place of occupancy. That applies to and includes ‘Smart’ Meters and surveillance and activity monitoring devices of any and all kinds. Be advised that since one is already installed, I request that it is removed by xxxxxxxx and replaced with an analogue meter by xxxxxx at xxxx.

Once the ‘Smart’ Meter is removed, any further attempts to install any such device directed at me, other occupants, my property or residence will constitute trespass, stalking, wiretapping and unlawful surveillance and endangerment of health and safety, all prohibited and punishable by law through criminal and civil complaints.

All persons, government agencies and private organisations responsible for installing or continuing to operate monitoring devices directed at or recording my activities, which I have not specifically authorised in writing, will be fully liable for any violations, intrusions, harm or negative consequences caused or made possible by those devices.

This is legal notice. Since a ‘Smart’ Meter has already been installed, I request that it is removed by xxxxxxxxxxxxx, by which time the liabilities listed above may not be denied or avoided by parties named and implied in this notice. Civil Servant immunities and protections do not apply to the installation of ‘Smart’ Meters due to the criminal violations they represent.
I reserve the right to amend this notice and complaint at any time. This is not a complete list of concerns since this technology is new and new information is being found every day. Concerns listed here are not in any particular order.

Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. All rights reserved.

SIGNED:

NAME:

DATE:

ADDRESS:

Further to your communication in which your purpose is to encourage Smart meter acceptance, I would like to decline on the following grounds.

There are numerous studies that show us that wireless signals emitted from ‘smart’ meters are a possible human carcinogen and that similar radiofrequency signals have been reported to have adverse health effects in a large number of scientific studies, including damage to fertility, foetal development, brain development and increased cell death.  Possible adverse health effects ought to be mentioned in all ‘smart’ meter adverts.

https://www.vigiliae.org/peer-reviewed-scientific-studies-on-emf-related-subjects/

An expert in smart meter microwave transmission power has published new research showing that, contrary to the official government narrative, the radiation emitted from smart meters directly interferes with normal heart function.

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

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

Smart meters produce 140 to 800 times more radiation than a mobile phone and they are on constantly.

They also emit 14,000 short bursts of intense microwave radiation a day causing health problems.

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

So I refuse on health grounds.

There are also concerns about smart meter safety, as there have been reports of the devices suddenly exploding and catching on fire.

This is why groups like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine are calling on a total recall of all smart meters until their true effects have been properly studied. The public needs to know the risks before smart meters become so ubiquitous that turning back is no longer and option.

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

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

They also enable hackers to be able to find out when a home is empty and what appliances they have, making theft easier. Also enabling them to switch devices off and on which is a danger.

So I refuse on safety grounds

Another study out of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences has identified some other serious problems with smart meters – mainly that many of them overcharge customers.

More than half of the smart meters tested as part of an experiment were found to be riddled with computational and energy use errors. In some cases, false readings clocked in as high as 582 percent beyond actual usage. Right behind this were meters that had false readings of 581, 566, and 475 percent higher than the amount of energy that was actually used.

In theory, such figures could lead to some customers being charged as much as six times more than they should be for electricity usage – meaning massive profits for the utility companies pushing these things.Smart meters enable the company to monitor consumers daily lives and have access to private and personal behaviour which could be sold onto third parties for commercial gain.

So I refuse on extortion grounds

Estimated cost of rolling out smart meters has gone from £11bn to nearer £20bn

This would wipe out all the savings households were promised they would make

If the £9bn cost is passed on in full, it would add £300 on to every bill by 2030http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-5442371/The-9bn-extra-cost-smart-meters.html 

Smart Meters read ‘Apparent’ power, they can be remotely stopped  from reading real power to read apparent power, which means you could be charged for 8-9 watts when you have used only 1.8 watts, real power is the energy used by equipment whilst apparent power is the energy used by internal transformers etc

So I refuse on extra financial cost grounds

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

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

In fact they will have the opposite effect

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

So I refuse on energy saving grounds.

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

  • I trust this explains my full reasons for refusing your ‘Not so Smart’ meter 
The international biomedical research community has made it quite clear that radio-frequency radiation, and specifically cellular radio-frequency radiation, can harm people in an enormous number of ways.
Just recently the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiation to brain cancer (glioma) which is usually fatal, and to a nerve cancer (schwannoma) that can be fatal.
This report of a study by the NIH was released 1st November 2018. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm
In the study, they clearly claim that “ These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.
“5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde.
That is, the scientific evidence suggests that we must treat radio-frequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, not only as dangerous to health generally, but also as a CARCINOGEN that is dangerous to life itself.
Here is a link to thousands of independent studies on the dangers. https://www.vigiliae.org/peer-reviewed-scientific-studies-on-emf-related-subjects/ 
We therefor wish to invoke the “Precautionary Principle ” approach to 5G technology and Infrastructure.
Which holds that society does NOT need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology, if the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for the delaying of deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impact.
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.
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.

It is a report by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields.

The new report by the BioInitiative Working Group 2012 says that evidence for risks to health has substantially increased since 2007 from electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation). The Report reviews over 1800 new scientific studies.  http://www.bioinitiative.org/

The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as a Group 2B “possible human carcinogen” in 2011.
the extent of scientific uncertainty.
It is clear that the inconsistent evidence of the data and evaluation are creating an uncertainty of the dangers.
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
• 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;
• review of the measures in the light of scientific developments
(This is basically the bones of the letter that we need to write)

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

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

Dear All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Ingrid Dickenson
Bio-Electromagnetic Research Initiative
www.bemri.org

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

To Hastings Borough Council

The international biomedical research community has made it quite clear that radio-frequency radiation, and specifically cellular radio-frequency radiation, can harm people in an enormous number of ways.  Most recently the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiation to brain cancer (glioma) which is usually fatal, and to a nerve cancer (schwannoma) that can be fatal.  That is, the scientific evidence suggests that we must treat radio-frequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, not only as dangerous to health generally, but also as a CARCINOGEN that is dangerous to life itself.So, when a small cell tower is placed “up close and personal” to people, those people must be regarded as under “assault” by a carcinogen. And, there are laws against assault. Further, since that assault can result in death, those people must be considered as under “assault with a deadly weapon”.  That is also against the law.  Furthermore, if any of those people die as the result of that assault, that is “murder”.  Murder is also against the law. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

So, it seems fair to ask this question:   Was the 2003 Communications Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/7?fbclid=IwAR3tq7t6Msi87-I51DBZRtYE3Y-RbcMQbKsqc8bP4XlU84T9jzOZmjLbnqs so powerful that it overrides the laws against assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder? I doubt very much that the authors of the Communications Act, in their zeal to promote the rapid expansion of cellular technology without prior testing for safety, intended to convey a right to the telecommunications industry to assault, and even kill, people.

So, can we take the “Precautionary Principle ” approach to 5G technology?

Which holds that society does NOT need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology, if the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for the delaying of deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impact.

The National Infrastructure Commission has claimed that in order to facilitate 5G technology the UK would need to place small cell towers every 100/300 metres.

If Hastings council officials want to protect the public from harm, they need to rally their legal might to resist ALL EFFORTS to install small cell towers in the area, not just because that is the right thing to do, but also because such installation violates multiple existing laws that are reasonably believed to be preeminent.

I would be proud to see Hastings take the lead in making this argument against the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which has proved to be an unjust law.


If you don’t believe that cellular radiation is harmful

If you reject the above line of reasoning because you don’t believe that cellular radiation is harmful, then I ask you to consider these questions:

  • On which sources of information are you relying for assurances of safety?  Do those sources have extensive backgrounds in the biological effects of radio-frequency radiation?  Are those sources free from vested interests in cellular communications or other wireless technologies?
  • Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization?  That organization linked radio-frequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, to cancer back in 2011?
  • Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institutes of Health?  The NTP confirmed the link of radio-frequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, to cancer in 2016 and to DNA damage more broadly in 2017?    These findings are the result of the largest study ($25 million) that the NTP has ever conducted of any toxin.
  • Have you read some of the scientific research literature that connects radio-frequency radiation to biological effects and that has been funded by impartial sources?

If your answer to the last question above is “No”, I hope that you will explore at least some of the vast biomedical research literature available.

Also, for an excellent online overview of the impact of wireless technology on health, please see the web site of the Environmental Health Trust (https://ehtrust.org/).  This organization is led by Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H. who has had a distinguished career of public service in support of public health.  Dr. Davis was a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was named a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007.

The BioInitiative Report updated in 2012, prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, reviewed 1800 studies and conclude,“EMF and RFR are preventable toxic exposures. We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from multi-generational adverse health consequences by reducing both ELF and RFR exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce unnecessary EMF exposures will lower disease burden and rates of premature death.”

It is the councils responsibility to protect the residents of Hastings, the council  needs to critically consider the potential impact of the 5th generation wireless infrastructure on the health and safety of the residents of Hastings  before proceeding to deploy this infrastructure.

The International EMF Scientist Appeal is evidence of growing concern among EMF experts world-wide. This Appeal is currently signed by 225 scientists in 41 nations of the world. All of them have conducted EMF studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that reported biological and adverse health effects caused by human-made sources of EMF. The combination of these reported findings lends credibility to the Appeal’s strong recommendation for review of the current EMF exposure guidelines set by the FCC, as these guidelines are considered to be obsolete and inadequate to protect human health and the environment. https://www.jrseco.com//wp-content/uploads/2017-08_EU_5G_Appeal_10_August_2017.pdf?c=cf13ce20305c

I therefore request that HBC  prohibit local  “small cell” wireless antennas , including equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new “poles, structures, or non-pole structures,” including those within the public right-of-way and buildings. 

Not all Hastings residents  want their homes, neighborhoods, towns, and rural country-sides to be polluted with RFR. Telecom deployment serves the unbounded profit motive of telecom corporations. What is in the best public interest is to avoid unnecessary RFR exposures.

 

 

 

Govts around the world in a race for 5G and smart technology are in a race for death!
Being pushed as the next generation from 3/4th generation technology with better connectivity and faster speeds is misleading and skirts over important issues.
The sales hype from politicians and Industry insiders who rely on those hooked on wi-fi technology are complicit in bringing a dangerous technology regardless of its effects on our health, our environment, our children and our eco system.

Do we really put all of these second to technology?

No, this is not just the next generation on from what we have been used to which is 3/4th generation, this technology is a thousand times more dangerous.

3/4th generation technology uses between 1/5 Ghz, whilst 5th generation uses frequencies of anything from 5 to 100,s.

Whats the difference you may ask, well, 5Ghz is 5 billion electro magnetic waves hitting the body PER SECOND, whilst frequencies of 24-90 will mean up to tens of billions more.

And because the waves are shorter distance travelling and higher intensity, they would require small cell towers every 100 to 300 metres EVERYWHERE! That includes utilising lamposts and other structures also.

And guess who the financial costs will ultimately fall upon?
Also the waves will be pulsed which the body is not able to cope with well, so many health problems will ensue.

The pulsed waves will affect our skin,eyes,reproductive organs,studies even show they cook mens sperm!

We are not stupid, we know that despite the safety studies claimed back in the 80,s by the American ICNIRP that this is not harmful radiation,( headed by Dr Rapocholi, who was a known Industry Insider who ignored any studies that differed from the Industry claims) that non ionizing or non thermal radiation is very harmful,thats why there are cancer clusters round cell towers, thats why there are cancer levels sky rocketing and thats why we have tens of thousands of studies that prove the case of many health problems, especially for young children.(see my website at www.vigiliae.org for over 10,000 studies).

So 40 yrs down the line with healths problems from this radiation ignored, even though the World Health Organisation admitted that it was a possible stage 2 carcinogenic, they want to bombard us with thousands times more even deadlier waves all in the name of progress!

Experts in the UK, like Prof William Webb, ex director of Ofcom, have stated that it is no panacea for connectivity issues and wi-fi expert Nick Hunn claimed that money should have been spent on improving 4G and that the large investments will not muster the services that justify the vast expenditure.

Unless of course you consider a driverless car as progress, which will have to rely on powerful radar and sensor systems on the outside spewing out radaition up to 250 meters,multiply by hundreds of thousands of cars!.

Not suprising that this system can be also used as a massive surveillance system too as the CIA has its venture capital company In-Q-tel financing all the software and hardware companies creating this technology.

Do we really need the ability to see the milk go off in our IoTs fridge whilst on the other side of town?

Its not progress,its not smart, its stupid!

Upgrading safety studies,up to date with independent non Industry related facts is smart, making schools hard wired for the sake of our children is smart, having a technology that uses millimetre waves, the same that is used to disperse rioters in USA or fend of wild boars that threatened the winter olympics is just dumb! And highly dangerous!

Letter to Zoning Committee on Their Responsibility to Protect Public Rights and Not Hide Behind Federal Laws That Can Harm Us

This Letter by Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff was written to the Montgomery County Zoning Committee. Dr. Kostoff strongly admonishes the County to protect public rights EVEN WHEN THESE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW – in this case, with Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The arguments presented are compelling and should be brought before every public official making decisions relating to the deployment of 4G/5G “small” cells.

Read More