⚠️ RRT Challenges Colchester Council Over Misleading 5G Report
In the interest of transparency and public awareness
Colchester Council Considers Matter Closed, While RRT Maintains Key Evidential Questions Remain Unanswered
📄 Key Documents (for reference)
- Colchester City Council commissioned report (Intelligens Consulting):
👉 https://cbccrmdata.blob.core.windows.net/noteattachment/CBC-null-5G-deployment-concerns-report-20260409%20Intelligens%20Consulting%20for%20Colchester%20City%20Council.pdf - EM Radiation Research Trust response to Colchester City Council (17 April 2026):
👉 📄 Download Full Letter (PDF):
All Council statements are summarised from written correspondence dated 14 April 2026
🟦 1. Independence of the Intelligens Consulting Report
🏛️ Council Position
The Council states that Intelligens Consulting were engaged to provide an independent, evidence-based assessment of 5G deployment.
The report author is the Managing Partner of Intelligens Consulting, a UK-based telecoms, digital infrastructure and technology advisory firm with over 30 years’ experience in the sector.
The firm advises central and devolved governments, regulators, the United Nations, investors, local authorities, and private sector operators on telecoms strategy, infrastructure deployment, and digital transformation.
The firm’s work spans both public and private sector clients, including local authority digital infrastructure strategy, procurement, business case development, and advising operators and investors on market entry and deployment.
The Council states that for the Colchester commission:
- • the report was an independent, evidence-based assessment
- • it draws on Ofcom, UKHSA, and ICNIRP frameworks
- • the consultancy has no commercial interest in deployment or suppliers
- • no conflicts of interest were declared
The Council describes the role of the consultancy as assessing the technical, regulatory and public health context to support the Council’s response to correspondence and FOI requests.
RRT Response
The RRT notes that independence is asserted on the basis of professional separation from direct commercial supply interests.
However, the RRT maintains that independence claims should also address broader structural and sector-based advisory dependencies within the telecommunications and digital infrastructure consultancy environment.
The RRT requests clarification on how independence was assessed in relation to regulatory alignment, sector positioning, and the absence of alternative scientific frameworks outside ICNIRP-based guidance.
🟦 2. Regulatory Frameworks and Evidence Base
🏛️ Council Position
The Council states that the report is based on established UK regulatory guidance, including:
- • ICNIRP
- • UKHSA
- • Ofcom
These frameworks are described as forming the basis for an evidence-based assessment of the technical, regulatory and public health context relevant to 5G deployment.
RRT Response
The RRT notes reliance on ICNIRP, UKHSA, and Ofcom as primary sources of assurance.
The RRT maintains that while these bodies are formally recognised within UK regulatory practice, their outputs do not constitute a comprehensive independent review of the full peer reviewed scientific literature on long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including non-thermal biological effects reported under chronic exposure conditions.
The RRT requests clarification of the evidence base and methodology used to determine how such literature was evaluated within exposure guideline development.
🟦 3. Report Revision and Stakeholder Representation
🏛️ Council Position
Following concerns raised by the Radiation Research Trust, Intelligens Consulting reviewed and revised the report to improve tone and terminology.
The Council confirms the following changes were made:
- • removal or softening of potentially loaded terms
- • reframing of absolute statements in line with scientific consensus and national guidance
- • revision of stakeholder descriptions to avoid adversarial framing
- • anchoring of health and safety references in ICNIRP, UKHSA, and Ofcom guidance
- • maintenance of the report’s substantive conclusions
The Council states that these changes were made to reduce the risk of misinterpretation or challenge on tone, without changing the substance of the report.
RRT Response
The RRT acknowledges that revisions were made to tone and terminology.
However, the Trust maintains that concerns regarding stakeholder representation and the framing of legitimate public health advocacy require further clarification, particularly where terminology may influence public interpretation of scientific and policy debate.
🟦 4. Formal Outstanding Questions
🏛️ Council Position
The Council considers that the actions taken in revising the report resolve the concerns raised.
RRT Position
The RRT considers that the substantive evidential and methodological concerns remain unresolved.
The RRT requests clarification on the following:
1. The evidence base and methodology used to determine that ICNIRP-based exposure limits account for both short and long term non-thermal biological effects.
2. Whether any independent health risk assessment was undertaken outside ICNIRP-aligned frameworks.
3. The criteria used to determine independence of commissioned consultants.
4. Whether vulnerable groups, including children and medically vulnerable individuals, were explicitly considered within the evidential basis.
The RRT maintains that public health policy requires transparent engagement with the full peer reviewed scientific literature and that legitimate scientific and policy scrutiny should not be framed in terms that risk delegitimising lawful public interest activity.
📄 5. Document Status
This page forms part of an ongoing public record of engagement between the Radiation Research Trust and Colchester City Council regarding wireless infrastructure and public health assessment frameworks.
Publication Note
This material is published for transparency and public interest purposes. Personal contact details have been removed where appropriate.
Video Update – 7 April 2026
Watch the latest video by Council Watch on the Intelligens Consulting report and our ongoing correspondence with Colchester City Council:
Scrutiny – Did Council commission a biased report? Carinna questions!
Council Watch (Colchester & Countrywide!)
👉 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsDuI_1fxhM
This video outlines our original letter of 16 March 2026, for which we are still awaiting a substantive response from the Council.
Following continued concern and the lack of response to date, we have today submitted a formal follow-up letter requesting an update and further clarification on the issues raised, including the independence and accuracy of the report and its references to the EM Radiation Research Trust.
Follow-up Letter to Colchester City Council Regarding Intelligens Consulting Report
We have now issued a formal follow-up letter to Colchester City Council regarding the Intelligens Consulting report and its references to the EM Radiation Research Trust.
The report remains publicly accessible on the Council’s website, and we have requested clarification on how the Council intends to address or correct these references. We have also raised wider questions regarding independence, transparency, and the use of evidence in public decision-making.
👉 Download the latest letter (PDF)
Initial Correspondence – Concerns Over Misrepresentation in Colchester Council 5G Report (16 March 2026)
Sent via Email – 16th March 2026
From: Eileen O’Connor, Director, EM Radiation Research Trust
A publicly funded report has misrepresented the EM Radiation Research Trust (RRT) as an “activist group,” stating: “Some activist groups, such as Action Against 5G and the EM Radiation Research Trust, have influenced local discourse in Colchester. These groups raise concerns about certificate errors, cancer claims, or a lack of ‘independent’ testing.”
The description within the report implies that the EM Radiation Research Trust spreads misinformation and promotes “fake news,” despite our decades of evidence-based advocacy, independent scientific collaborations, and commitment to precautionary public health policies. We are taking action to set the record straight and ensure that public officials and the wider community understand the charity’s legitimate work.
The EM Radiation Research Trust, a registered UK charity since 2003 (No. 1106304), has sent an open letter to Colchester City Council regarding this report, prepared by Intelligens Consulting and authored by Iqbal Singh Bedi.
Confidentiality Notice vs Public Access – Defending Our Reputation
The report “5G Environmental Consulting – Intelligens Consulting for Colchester City Council” contains a confidentiality notice indicating it was intended solely for the use of Colchester City Council.
Report Details
• Title: 5G Environmental Consulting – Intelligens Consulting for Colchester City Council
• Prepared for: Colchester City Council
• Prepared by: Intelligens Consulting
• Date: July 2025
• PDF Link: https://cbccrmdata.blob.core.windows.net/noteattachment/CBC-null-5G-environmental-consulting-Intelligens%20Consulting%20for%20Colchester%20City%20Council%20-%20Issue%202.pdf
However, the Council has published the report online, making it publicly accessible. Sharing and analysing the document is therefore justified in the interests of public transparency, accountability, and defending the reputation of the EM Radiation Research Trust.
The EM Radiation Research Trust takes its integrity and evidence-based work extremely seriously. We remain committed to scrutinising public documents and raising awareness of misleading claims while remaining fully compliant with legal and ethical standards.
The EM Radiation Research Trust letter, sent to the Chief Executive, Council Leader, Cabinet Members, and other councillors, calls on the Council to:
♦ Review the report’s language concerning organisations raising public health concerns.
♦ Issue a formal clarification confirming that the EM Radiation Research Trust is a registered UK charity engaged in scientific and public health advocacy.
♦ Ensure future public-facing materials accurately reflect the charity’s status, work, and reliance on peer-reviewed evidence.
The Council has acknowledged receipt of the letter and indicated that their Monitoring Officer, Andrew Weavers, will respond.
We are publishing the full letter here to ensure transparency and to inform the public, campaigners, and decision-makers about the critical importance of accurate, evidence-based reporting on electromagnetic field safety.
📄 Read the full open letter:
📢 Call to Action
We urge supporters, campaigners, and members of the public to:
♦ Read the full open letter – councillors, planning officers, MPs, and other public officials should be aware of it.
♦ Share the letter with your local councillors, MPs, and decision-makers to ensure they understand their legal duties toward public health, the precautionary principle, and responsibilities under UK planning law.
♦ Help protect accurate public information – misrepresenting independent charities like RRT risks misleading the public and decision-makers about genuine health risks from wireless technologies.
Why This Matters
🙏 Thanks to Colchester Council Watch for highlighting key concerns in the commissioned 5G report. Watch their video: “Shocking Evidence Ignored? Council’s 5G ‘Independent’ Report – Carinna Challenges…” – particularly around 13 minutes where the EM Radiation Research Trust (RRT) is referenced: Watch here.
Publicly funded reports must be accurate, transparent, and grounded in evidence, especially when public health is at stake. Misrepresenting independent charities, scientific papers, doctors, and scientists not only misleads decision-makers but also puts communities and vulnerable groups at serious risk.
.