Letter To Local Council on 5G
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.