5G Judicial Review: People vs. Government
Britain is sick.
Whether it is cancer, neurodegenerative disease, heart disease, chronic and medically 'unexplained' conditions, or any other physiological and mental health condition, the population is clearly ailing (even without the effects of a global pandemic), and things seem to be going from bad to worse.
'1 in 2 people will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime'
Source: National Health Service
'The average male in the UK can expect 16.5 years of life with poor health.
For females, it is 20.9 years'
Source: Times Magazine 28/01/2023
As well as the human cost of illness, the general and progressive deterioration in our health has many other profound consequences, not least economically. For example, the Government is concerned at the withdrawal of people of working age from the labour force, due to long-term sickness, among other factors.
House of Lords report, 20th December 2022
The chart below, from the Office of National Statistics, shows the clear trend in the incidence of long-term ill health, mentioned in the Lords' report, which was clearly underway well before the pandemic started.
If people become economically inactive, due to a long-term health condition, then it follows that their contribution to the economy is likely to be severely impacted. They will pay reduced, or even no, tax. They may have to rely on state benefits. Their spending power is likely to be dramatically affected. Their requirement for healthcare is likely to increase, which will only serve to increase pressure on an NHS already at crisis point.
Source:
ONS
There are, of course, many factors behind our nation's worsening health, which are well-known, and widely reported in the media. We are told that rising rates of illness are because 'we are all living longer', and so, naturally, we experience more illnesses as we age (and often people develop 'comorbidities - i.e. they are living with more than one disease at a time). In fact though, it has been reported that the rise in life expectancy in the UK is stalling, and that it is actually falling in some areas (for which, 'austerity' is often put down as the cause).
Another Lords' report, 'Ageing: Science, Technology and Healthy Living', as well as discussing life expectancy and mortality trends, also contains an interesting section that looks at 'lifestyle and environmental influences on healthy aging' (see Chapter 4).
We are often urged to take preventative measures to improve our health; for example, to stop smoking, exercise regularly, eat healthily, drink lots of water, and limit alcohol consumption. In addition, environmental factors impacting our health are described in this report, including air pollution, and the quality of the built environment (i.e. our housing).
However, there is another environmental factor at play - partly under our individual control, but largely not - which is very rarely discussed in the media. It is often seen as being fringe (or 'pseudo') science by sceptics, despite an extensive, and ever-expanding, scientific and medical literature, which says that it poses a clear and present danger to our health, and also to biodiversity and bio-abundance.
If we want to improve the health of the general population, and in doing so reduce the burden placed on a dangerously overstretched health service (and limit the economic and social costs of an increasingly sick population), then it would surely be irresponsible to dismiss a known risk factor, and fail to act in order to protect the population. Yet, that is exactly what is happening, right before our eyes.
The Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Controversy
We are constantly immersed in electromagnetic radiation (EMR, often also known as Electromagnetic Fields - EMFs) from a variety of natural, and artificial, sources. Artificial EMR, which is non-ionising (meaning that it has insufficient energy to remove an electron from an atom or molecule), is emitted by electrical equipment, wiring and power cables, and, of course, wireless technologies, such as WiFi, mobile phones and masts, tv and radio transmitters, radar, 'smart', devices in the home, and even gadgets that are worn on our bodies (such as smart watches, and fitness trackers).
Everyone knows that ionising radiation is, or can be, harmful. Not everyone knows that non-ionising radiation (NIR) can also be harmful. However, scientists argue over if, when, and how, this harm occurs, concerning wireless technologies that are being operated within national, or international, limits.
In essence, this argument boils down into two, mutually-exclusive, scientific viewpoints, held by equally divergent organisations and groups.
Organisations, such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organisation, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and associated national groups and committees, which suggest that the only 'substantiated' issues relate to thermal effects (i.e. heating). They set their recommended limits to protect against thermal effects only (albeit including 'safety factors' for public and occupational exposures).
Organisations such as the newly-established International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), and scientific initiatives such as the BioInitiative Report, which maintain that harmful non-thermal (non-heating) effects have been established, and that the current radiation limits provided by ICNIRP (and the FCC in the United States) are insufficient to protect health, as they are set far too high to prevent biological harm. IGNIR (International Guidelines on Non-Ionising Radiation) has proposed its own radiation limits.
It is true to say that the interests of the wireless and tech industries are best served by the thermally-based limits that are set by ICNIRP and the FCC. Substantially lower limits, as are proposed by ICBE-EMF, IGNIR, and others, would severely restrict, if not actually curtail, the rollout of wireless technologies such as 5G. This is illustrated by industry lobbying calling for the international 'harmonization' of EMF limits, using ICNIRP's Guidelines as the basis.
It is also true to say that a number of countries have implemented substantially lower limits than those that are provided by ICNIRP and the FCC. In 2021, the GSMA, a trade body for the mobile industry, said that (emphasis added):
'Globally, 137 countries apply the international limit (ICNIRP 1998 or ICNIRP 2020), 10 follow the FCC 1996 limits, and 37 have other limits'
The UK is not one of the countries that has adopted limits lower than ICNIRP's. As a consequence of this, and also of changes of planning and communications legislation which make it far easier for telecoms companies to install their infrastructure, the latest generation of mobile communications - 5G - is being rolled out rapidly in the UK, despite often facing substantial opposition.
In 2011, the whole of the radiofrequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes microwaves and millimetre waves,was classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organisation (WHO). In 2019, an IARC expert committee recommended a 'high priority' re-evaluation of RF radiation, due to recent major study findings, and the pending release of further results.
For example, a major federal toxicology study of 2G and 3G mobile phone radiation, conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the U.S., found that it caused tumours in some of the test animals, and also resulted in DNA damage. A peer review of the results found that there was 'clear evidence' that the radiation causes cancer.
A concurrent study in Italy, conducted by the Ramazzini Institute, exposed the test animals to simulated mobile mast signals, and found 'statistically significant' evidence of a link between the radiation and cancer.
The idea that is disseminated by the wireless industry, and by other interested parties, that the radiation emitted by mobile phones, mobile masts, and so on, is safe, a) because it is non-ionising, and b) because we have conservative radiation limits, is increasingly being challenged, both by independent experts, and also, increasingly, in the courts.
Also, the independence of ICNIRP from vested interests, and its competence to recommend protective radiation exposure levels, has been repeatedly called into question, and doubts have even been expressed by a former member of ICNIRP's Commission. Despite this, the wireless industry is pressing for global limits to be 'harmonized', so that all countries adhere to ICNIRP's limits.
What's the problem with 5G?
For mobile communications to work, there have to be both transmitters and receivers. Most people now have a mobile phone, which both receives and sends voice calls and data. Mobile phones are served by mobile phone masts and other cellular infrastructure, which also operate as transmitters and receivers, although on a much larger scale, and serving many devices simultaneously. These phone masts come in a variety of sizes and configurations, and they serve both the existing mobile technologies (2G, 3G and 4G), as well as the latest technology, 5G.
5G is a collective term for a group of technologies and a number of RF Radiation frequencies, some of them not having been widely used in UK mobile telecommunications before. These include 'beamforming', 'beamsteering' / 'beam switching', and Massive MIMO. The technical details are complex, but the 'selling point' of 5G is much easier to understand: it will enable much more data to be transmitted than the older technologies allow, and much more quickly.
All mobile communications operate in the radiofrequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. More specifically, 2G, 3G, and 4G devices and infrastructure send and receive pulsed microwave radiation. As well as microwaves, 5G will also operate using millimetre wave radiation (mmWaves), which is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that has not previously been used for mobile communications in this country. Ofcom expects 5G mmWaves to be rolled out from 2024 in the UK, initially at frequencies of 26 GHz and 40 GHz.
IARC's possible carcinogen classification is relevant to all wireless technologies that emit RF radiation, including 5G. Also, the NTP and Ramazzini Institute results indicate that wireless technologies may represent a general health risk to the population, both from the devices themselves, and also from the radiation-emitting infrastructure that supports them. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other scientific studies which indicate that the RF radiation from wireless technologies causes biological harm.
Problems associated with the chronic exposure of the population to what has been dubbed 'electrosmog' are already evident, while the scientific debate is still ongoing, and consensus seems to be a distant possibility. For example, a growing number of individuals are developing electromagnetic hypersensitivity, whereby sensitivity to EMFs can become chronic, incapacitating, and often life-changing. Also, there is concerning evidence showing that exposure to RF radiation impairs fertility.
With 5G, the uncertainty concerning possible health effects, and the wider environmental impact, is taken to a whole new level. Even a number of the more industry-friendly scientists have conceded that we are lacking good quality scientific studies examining the biological effects of 5G mmWaves on humans, and there are already early indications of harm. Also, 5G will, for the first time, involve the deployment of many 'small cells', as well as the addition of new mobile masts, in order to use millimeter-wave frequencies, which haven't been widely used in the UK before.
Because these mmWaves are of a higher frequency than even microwaves, and because they are less able to penetrate solid objects and foliage, the addition of many small cells will be 'needed' in order to cover a particular area. This means that the mobile phone masts, rather than being placed some distance from where people live, as is often the case at present, will instead be located very close to houses, schools, pubs, shops, and other places where people spend time. And in great numbers. This is called 'densification', and this process is already well underway, with masts, monopoles, and even small cells, springing up around the country.
One of the biggest issues with this, as well as the potential biological effects over time, is that people are given virtually no say over radiation-emitting equipment which can be installed on their doorsteps with little or no consultation, and subject to few, if any, planning constraints. The Government is fully committed to the rollout of 5G (and, later, 6G), and in fact it is actively collaborating with the wireless industry in order to make it happen. Local democracy, at least so far as the rollout of 5G is concerned, is increasingly being removed, and wireless infrastructure is being imposed on communities - even when many people don't want it.
Another major issue with 5G is the effect that the new technologies, including the new mmWave frequencies, may have on particularly vulnerable individuals, who, like everyone else, are given very little say in the matter. These include pregnant women, infants and young children, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, the elderly, and those who are already sick (or who are predisposed to illness).
There is an obvious need for a precautionary approach to be taken when it comes to rolling out a new technology that will affect the entire population, but that isn't happening. Eric van Rongen, current Vice Chair, and former Chair, of ICNIRP, probably put it best in the quote at the top of this article. We can consider 5G to be a public health experiment, because the rollout is proceeding despite credible scientific concerns over its safety, and because we don't yet have good quality science on the biological effects of exposing the population, and other species (including our pets), to microwave and mmWave radiation from 5G masts, and densely-packed small cell transmitters.
Every single one of us is a 'lab rat' in this 5G experiment - whether we want to be or not.
What can be done?
On 6th and 7th February 2023, a judicial review on the Government's rollout of 5G will take place, at the Royal Courts of Justice, in The Strand, London, commencing at 9.30am (see below).
The legal challenge, initially refused, but subsequently allowed to continue, is being brought on the following grounds:
The case against the UK Government is being led by Michael Mansfield K.C., and he is supported by many dedicated people, both inside, and outside, the legal profession, as well as by the organisation Action Against 5G, and supporters of the crowdfunding campaign. If you'd also like to support this cause, you can do so via these links, and you can also follow the progress of the case through Facebook and Twitter updates.
If we ignore the warnings of harm to human health, and potential ecological damage to animals and plants, from 5G, then we are all responsible for what happens next.
Links for more information on the health effects of EMFs
Microwave News
https://www.microwavenews.com/
Physicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE)
EM Radiation Research Trust
https://www.radiationresearch.org/
Environmental Health Trust
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Powerwatch
https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/
Create Healthy Homes
https://createhealthyhomes.com/
Comments
Post a Comment