6th September 2024
Sent Via Email from Eileen O’Connor, Director EM Radiation Research Trust
For the Attention of: Lauren at the United Kingdom Health Security Agency
Cc. Brian Stein CBE Chairman EM Radiation Research Trust, UK Health Security Agency North West, Wes Steeting MP Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Sarah Jones MP Minister of State for Industry, Cllr. Richard Kemp CBE Mayor of Liverpool, Cllr. June Burns Mayor of Sefton, Cllr. Karen Cavanagh, Cllr. Carol Richards, Cllr. Peter Harvey, Bill Esterson MP, Kim Johnson MP, Cllr. Jane Corbett, Michelle Beard Headteacher Millstead Primary School, Paul O’Brien, Chair of Governors Millstead Primary school
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent
Dear Lauren,
That which is not rebutted in law is not denied
Further to the EM Radiation Research Trust letter of response to the UKHSA sent on 4th September. I would like to add that you provided a link to the UKHSA guidance, and paragraph 5 states the following:
With some of the larger and more powerful base stations, there can be regions around the antennas within which the guideline levels can be exceeded. Operators identify the extent of any such regions and prevent access to them by the public.
In the interests of public safety, please can you advise where these zones reside to ensure that the children of the school are not exposed to harmful levels of radiation?
The UKHSA guidance, paragraph 3 claims the following:
Independent expert groups in the UK and at International levels have examined the accumulated body of research evidence. Their conclusions support the view that health effects are unlikely to occur if exposures are below international guideline levels.
However, what you fail to recognise is that both the ICNIRP 1998 and 2020 Guidelines categorically state that there is a risk to certain individuals below the threshold levels:
2020 Guidelines:
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
“However, some exposure scenarios are defined as outside the scope of these guidelines. Medical procedures may utilize EMFs, and metallic implants may alter or perturb EMFs in the body, which in turn can affect the body both directly (via direct interaction between field and tissue) and indirectly (via an intermediate conducting object)”
1998 Guidelines:
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
“Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, and cochlear implants. Interference with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels. Advice on avoiding these problems is beyond the scope of the present document but is available elsewhere (UNEP/WHO/IRPA1993). These guidelines will be periodically revised and updated as advances are made in identifying the adverse health effects of time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic field.”
There was a recent High Court ruling this year in Thomas vs Cheltenham Borough Council, whereby the judge ruled in Mr Thomas’s favour in that there was a risk to this group of people below the threshold limits and that this needed to be taken into account by the authority:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/663a735283075d3d98341c7b
Please advise why the UKHSA are ignoring this, particularly if there may be vulnerable children at the school who make use of such implants or have metal in their body?
I would also like to draw your attention to an important presentation by Dr Sarah Starkey. This presentation highlights the fact that official advisory groups offering advice to the Government are offering incorrect, false, inaccurate, and misleading scientific information and advice. She states that many of the official advisory bodies are interrelated. ICNIRP members account for about half of the WHO EMF Project, they are present in AGNIR, Public Health England, SCENIHR and other advisory groups. Dr Starkey calls the validity of the International Guidelines into question.
Official advice on radiofrequency radiation, risk assessment and adverse effects 2018. Background required knowledge level: Low – PHIRE
Perhaps your independent experts are also not aware of the worldwide list of peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around mobile phone base stations, as of end May 2020. Out of 33 studies, 32 (or 97%) report health problems. Compiled by Dr Karl Muller.
I look forward to receiving a response to the EM Radiation Research Trust letter sent to your department on 4th September. Link to letter: https://www.radiationresearch.org/news/response-to-uk-health-security-agency-from-the-em-radiation-research-trust-calling-for-a-full-investigation-into-the-phone-mast-near-millstead-school-following-the-deaths-of-the-two-children/
Also, please include additional information contained within this letter sent via email today on 6th September 2024.
All questions, including the request for your full name and position, must be fully addressed within 20 working days as required by law.
Without prejudice,
Eileen O’Connor
Charity Director for the EM Radiation Research Trust
The EM Radiation Research Trust is an educational organisation funded by donations. An independent Charity Registered No. 1106304 © The EM Radiation Research Trust 2003-2004
Letter of Response to the UK HSA Sent 6th September 2024 PDF: EM Radiation Research Trust additional response sent to UK Health Security Agency
The EM Radiation Research Trust call for immediate investigation into phone mast near Millstead Primary School following the deaths of two children
First Letter Sent 16th July 2024 https://www.radiationresearch.org/uncategorised/the-em-radiation-research-trust-call-for-immediate-investigation-into-phone-mast-near-millstead-primary-school-following-the-deaths-of-two-children/