We contend that the Council should be advised that not only is there is NO legal requirement to support 5G technology, but it is also the duty and responsibility of the Council to conduct a full safety investigation and risk assessment before approving 5G applications.
Why is 5G Bad?
- Long term it exposes children and adults to untested frequencies of 5G electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
- The ICNIRP certificate does not consider long-term biological effects.
- EMR from mobile masts and Wi-Fi damages children’s health and can result in memory damage, attention deficit, and delayed motor skills.
- Swiss Re Group, the reinsurance company, rates 5G as a “high impact” liability risk, because of its biological effects and potential claims for health impairment.
- Wireless carriers told U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal that they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on the safety of 5G technologies.
- Campaigners in Brighton and Hove have blocked a 5G mast close to a primary school. The Council “failed to address the health impacts” of the mast and was ordered to pay claimants costs of £13,340.
- There is now a legal responsibility to investigate possible effects on health. 5G technology cannot simply be assumed to be safe.
- Councils should safeguard our health as per section 2B of the National Health Service Act 2006. They are not doing this by allowing 5G masts.
- Two UK legal cases were won, one for an electro-hypersensitive (EHS) child classed as disabled and needing an ECHP, and for a social worker who won ‘early ill health retirement’ for disabling EHS, which stopped her being able to work. News – Phire Medical
- Council’s Public Liability insurance is unlikely to provide cover for adverse health effects caused by 5G masts authorised by the Council.
- Science has shown that negative non-thermal biological effects occur due to very low EMR levels, much lower than the current safety limits set by ICNIRP. These are being ignored by the mobile and broadband industry.
- 100’s of scientists worldwide have asked for a halt to 5G, until risks have been investigated.
- 5G rollout in the UK is a violation of Human Rights, and without safety testing, it violates over 15 international agreements, treaties and recommendations.
- Both the ICNIRP 1998 and 2020 Guidelines advice on metallic implants is beyond the scope of the guidelines.
- A Recent High Court case Thomas vs Cheltenham Borough Councilruled that there was a potential risk to people with medical implants below the ICNIRP limits and that this needs to be taken into account by the authority.
- The 2020 ICNIRP guidelines do not provide a restriction to account for “microwave hearing.”
- Parts of Liverpool in the UK are currently being exposed to unlicensed 60Ghz frequencies. We are not aware of any studies showing long-term safety (longer than 24 hours) of exposure to 60 GHz frequencies?
- Swedish Radiation Foundation published seven case reports on people who developed microwave syndrome within a short time after being exposed to 5G base stations close to their dwellings. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38889394/
- In 2011 the WHO/IARC classified Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as a class 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans) The same classification as DDT and lead in Petrol. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
- Paolo Vecchia, ICNIRP Chair from 2004 until 2012 said, “The ICNIRP guidelines are neither mandatory prescriptions for safety, the ‘last word’ on the issue nor are they defensive walls for Industry or others.”
We ask if Council officials and the UKHSA will stand by reassurances of safety regarding exposure to 5G and the Internet of Things within the millimeter range (including within the ICNIRP guidelines) so much so that you will accept liability if anyone with metal or medical implants, those with electrosensitivity or children with their inherent vulnerabilities suffer harm – including, but not limited to, loss of life.
| Name | Address | Signature |