Spread the word far and wide.

To Hastings Borough Council

The international biomedical research community has made it quite clear that radiofrequency radiation, and specifically cellular radiofrequency 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 radiofrequency 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:  Is the 1996 Telecommunications Act 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 1996 Telecommunications 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.

The National Infrastructure Commision 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 radiofrequency 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 radiofrequency 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 radiofrequency 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 radiofrequency 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 5 th 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.

Ann Carey

 

 

2 Comments

  1. Hello Annie

    A very interesting article, can this letter be used in other boroughs? and how would it be implemented i.e. who are the main recipients?

  2. Its a warning shot for now, must be followed up with a notice of liability, someone has created one that may be ok but I have to get someone who knows the law to look at it. I will send you a copy soon.Anyone can use it and just change the name of the council, its just stuff from several other letters already written and Ive put bits together.

Post your comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>