Spread the word far and wide.
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.
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.
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)