A reference document on EMF health damage for 5G Mast Planning Objection comments than a readable Substack. No conjecture, just evidenced fact for those that need documented evidence to validate their position in 5G mast Planning decisons
Planning Committee Councillor Liability Concerns
Legal responsibility appraisal Radiation Research Campaigners have already successfully claimed against Brighton and Hove Council with Hutchison 3G as the interested party in the landmark legal ruling in November 2021 at the Planning Court, Queen’s Bench Division, High Court of Justice, London with The Honourable Mr Justice Holgate who overturned the local authority approval for the 5G mast to be sited close to a primary school. The ruling found that the Council “failed to address the health impacts” of the mast and was ordered to pay claimants costs of £13,340. https://rfinfo.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/Consent-Order-02.11.21.pdf
There are now two successful recent claims in the UK for Electro-sensitivity, the case EAM v East Sussex County Council (Special educational needs) features a child who suffers from Electro-sensitivity, and a social worker won ‘early ill health retirement for disabling Electro-sensitivity
“Parents have now won a 5 year legal battle against 2 local authorities to have their child accommodated in school for EHS. They won in the Upper Tribunal, thus the ruling is also precedent setting. We believe this is the first case in the world where a government body is legally mandated to make low-EMF educational provisions to accommodate a child with EHS.
The case of Yasmin Skelt vs Secretary of State (John Prescott) and Three Bridges District Council and Orange (2003), made it clear that it is not acceptable for local planners to accept an ICNIRP certificate according to a High Court Judge who highlighted “failure to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns of the claimant in his decision letter.” The First Secretary of State offered to concede the case and to pay reasonable costs. https://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=2&topic=4880
Public perception of danger is a valid planning consideration. From previous PPG8 – Paragraph 29. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. Mr Justice Moseley stated in R v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ex prate Smith “it is arguable that actual and perceived health risks are relevant to sitting of these masts.”
The following information was prepared by solicitor Jessica Learmond Criqui regarding local councillors legal responsibility in connection with harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation (“EMR”) emitted from, mobile masts, antennae, small cells and the like.
“There are essentially two ways in which personal liability could arise if you disregard and do not act on this:
(a) You sit on committees and one of them has been: (i) planning matters permitting masts and antennae to be approved; or (ii) making decisions about health, safety and wellbeing matters;
(b) misfeasance or misconduct in public office which is a criminal offence.
Before commenting briefly on these, it may be helpful to note that whereas normally councillors would be indemnified by the local authority in relation to their acts, the following are relevant circumstances where an indemnity cannot be provided to a member:
Criminal acts (of which misfeasance in public office is one)
Recklessness. A. Sitting on committees
All councillors sit on committees and you may have been involved with planning or health committees in your time as a councillor. Potential liabilities from knowledge of harm to health which are ignored include: (
EMF Evidence validation for Objection Comment against 5G Mast proposals. ElectroMagnetic Field Radiation EMF impact on Health EMF; Masts. Routers, Smart meters, 3G, 4G, 5G AI Devices, Overhead Power lines, Dirty electricity-(Carcinogenic Spikes). 5G technology is dangerous evidenced in multiple Scientific reviews. I list the EMF health damage evidence. The primary issue is what are the safe EMF exposure limits.
· The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP guidelines are disputed based on short term EMF exposures that only looked at thermal effects. Currently increased from 10W/m² to 20W/m² when all Research studies suggest it should only be 3µW/m² as a million times less. An ICNIRP as discredited with Conflict of Interest as biased Pro 5G and guidelines that can never exceed with levels well beyond any limit for 5G. In effect 5G companies unfettered to then cause health damage to society.
· Cheltenham Borough Council v Thomas TLDR: Court clarified that EMF impacts on medical implants are not automatically material considerations in planning decisions. Planning officers must exercise discretion in evaluating the relevance of EMF effects on medical devices. Judge's decision emphasized that compliance with ICNIRP guidelines does not address specific risks to medical implants. Case underscores the need for planning authorities to properly evaluate objections based on scientific evidence.
Legal Issues: The primary legal issue was whether the potential impact of EMFs on medical implants should be considered a material consideration in planning decisions. The Court of Appeal analyzed the statutory framework, including the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and emphasized the discretionary nature of planning judgments. The court clarified that while EMF impacts on medical implants could be a material consideration, it was not automatically so under the Wednesbury irrationality test. https://becivil.co.uk/case-notes/cheltenham-borough-council-v-thomas-2025-ewca-civ-259/
Legal Reasoning The Court’s legal reasoning in this case revolves around the nuanced distinction between the compulsory and discretionary evaluation of relevant information. It emphasized that while compliance with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines satisfactorily addresses general public health concerns, they deliberately do not account for the potential interference with active implantable medical devices.
· Fishersgate mast in Brighton, quashed at Judicial Review “the Council failed to address the health impacts of this particular proposal and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school and the amended proposal.” https://rfinfo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Consent-Order-02.11.21.pdf Local Authority Planning Committee Councillors have to address in their planning decisions on proposed 5G Masts to make sure residents are not exposed to EMF health damage.
· ICNIRP fails to accept responsibility or liability for their Exposure Guidelines. MHCLG to then impose those exposure Guidelines within their NPPF 114-118. Neither of which accepts responsibility or liability if those Guidelines cause EMF health damage. An ICNIR that disowns liability as only guidance yet there is 30,000 scientific papers that evidence health damage due to EMF radiation at million time less than their 20W/mtr2 at only 30µ W/mtr2.
· ICNIRP self-certification is invalid as there is no actual Authority certification. Those ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines have no certified validity.
· The ICNIRP guidelines are only for short term, (6 minutes) which are contrary to other Guidelines such as the BioInititative, aswell as the German Building Biology Guidelines as significantly a million times less at 10-30 µW/m² as opposed to ICNIRP 20W W/m
· Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G.
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)
There are flawed assumptions underlying ICNIRP Exposure Guidelines. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G.
· Six Italian Courts Have Ruled Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors 2020
On Jan. 13, 2020, Turin’s Court of Appeals confirmed a 2017 decision determining that a former Telecom Italia worker’s acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor in the ear) was caused by his mobile phone use. This is the sixth time that an Italian court has affirmed a causal link between cell phone use and brain tumors, including decisions by the High Court of Italy.
There are 305,520 signatories from 218 nations and territories as of October 11th, 2024. 215 radiation scientists from 41 countries appealed to the United Nations to halt 5G.
More than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate harm to human health from RF radiation.[10][11] Effects include:
The advice is to use the UNESCO Precautionary Principle and avoid the liability of an unproven, if not dangerous technology as demonstrated by other Countries that have called a halt to 5G. https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal · The United Nations Precautionary Principle is there to avoid catastrophic decisions being made that would cause unnecessary health hazard issues. The Asbestos catastrophe would never have happened if the Precautionary Principle had been used. Councillors need to use that Precautionary Principle. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000139578 · Roll out of 5G is an illegal experiment. It is misleading to make a Planning application for one radio mast when the 5G technology requires Planning permission for most lampposts and poles in every street to require booster array antenna. Planning applications do not address the full scope of the proposal, and omits that street by street deployment requirement. There has been no documented research evidence as to the health hazard issues associated with 3,4,5G mobile phone radiation.5G is estimated to require 400,000 extra masts for a technology that has had no Public Health safety scrutiny or on visual impact. Local Authorities allowing one mast implies Yes to all those other unmentioned masts aswell as unmentioned thousands of trees cut down for street by street 5G booster array reception. · Think Tank European Parliament. Health Impact of 5G. Study 22-07-2021 5G, along with 3G and 4G, with which it will operate in parallel for several years, may also pose threats to human health. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2021)690012 · Yasmin Skelt vs Secretary of State (John Prescott) and Three Bridges District Council and Orange (2003) High Court Judge who highlighted “failure to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns of the claimant in his decision letter https://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=2&topic=4880 · There has been no Environmental Impact Health and Safety Assessment and an override of all “normal” planning procedures to force 5G through as imposed without due diligence. That causes an indemnity and liability for all those that imposed the technology without the required Duty of care for the Public There has been no Environment Safety or Health Impact Assessment EIA conducted anywhere. The UK Government needs to halt the 5G rollout until there is an unbiased independent assessment.
Where is the Environment Impact Assessment EIA in any 5G mast planning proposals? Where is the Power Density assessment for the 5G mast? Where is the Local Authority EIA documented evaluation that the proposal meets with safe Exposure Guidelines to not cause health damage? The evidence confirms that ICNIRP EMF Guidelines are; a. outdated, b. not fit for purpose, c. does not consider non-ionising irradiation health impact, d. does not consider MiMO unmeasured pulsed focused beaming increased power densities, e. multiple research studies that prove ICNIRP relies on assumption not science, f. not only a self-selecting group, and collective “groupthink”, but also of known “conflict of interests in the telecoms industry as employed by them
· Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Dominique Belpomme, 2015
Both disorders appear to involve inflammation-related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulothalamic hypoperfusion and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability; suggesting a risk of chronic neurodegenerative disease. Finally the common co-occurrence of EHS and MCS strongly suggests a common pathological mechanism.”
“We therefore, strongly propose that whatever their proofs for their causal origins, EHS and MCS should clearly be added to the next version of the WHO international classification of diseases (ICD) on the basis on their clinical and pathological description; as has been the case for many other diseases.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/ Biomarkers are used to link laboratory determine physical ailment to EMF exposure. · Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It Dominique BelpommeMar2020 Table10; Great Britain 4%. 67million UK x 4% as 2,680,000 with EHS. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Electrohypersensitivity-as-a-Newly-Identified-and-Belpomme-Irigaray/6230d144a185e6fb1d328a35bf8d1671d9a7d2cc · A new International Classification Disease Code W90-990.8 for EMF diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes EHS and states the following: “ a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs).”
“EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.”
· Significant harm to the character and appearance of the area There is also precedent that 5G masts inappropriately positioned in residential areas causes significant visual detriment to the vernacular and a “carbuncle eyesore uglification” for all to see. A similar precedent occurred in Coventry where Planning Inspector refused the application “But a planning inspector appointed by the government sided with the council and dismissed the appeal in September. Her report concluded that "in the circumstances of this case, national and local policy support for a high quality digital communications network does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area." https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/joy-5g-mast-monstrosity-removed-25433876 · Visual detriment All Planning needs to weigh that Coventry Planning inspectorate finding that “high quality digital communications network does not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area.”. The NPPF114-118 is outweighed in a 5G mast application by visual detriment harm to the character of the area. The position of a 5G mast is out of context as visual detriment with harm to the character of the area. · Local Authorities are now realising the health issues with 5G Monopoles, and Towers in proximity to residential areas. No EMF is safe, and especially within 500mtrs-1000mtrs. The height, size and position of the Mast causes visual detriment impact as incongruous to the visual vernacular surroundings. i.e. An “eyesore”. A “carbuncle” that diminishes quality of life for all residents. Objectors block 5G mast 'monstrosity' from Derbyshire town 7/Oct/2022 “People power claimed victory as planning permission was refused for the 17-metre mast” https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/objectors-block-mast-monstrosity-derbyshire-7677303 · Local Authorities are now questioning the ICNIRP Guidelines as having failed to demonstrate that the proposal has complied with those ICNIRP Guidelines, and mast should be more than 500 mtrs away from residential areas. · United Nations; Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Infringements; Residents have the right to choose whether they are exposed to EMF, or not. Proposal for masts infringes that right. There is no right to impose health damaging EMF irradiation 24/7 on residents. Article 3; Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 12; No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
A 5G mast proposal as imposed 24/7 irradiation, infringes the Human Rights of residents to life, security of person, and as arbitrary interference in their privacy, and family life. Also consider the Aarhus convention for Local Authority 5G masts, aswell as Lidar radar Smart Traffic Managment System .
The Aarhus Convention list the three issues; The Three Pillars 1. Access to information: any citizen should have the right to get a wide and easy access to environmental information. Public authorities must provide all the information required and collect and disseminate them and in a timely and transparent manner. They can refuse to do it only under particular situations (such as national defence);
In this case for myself and the Public we are denied notification from the Local Authority of their Smart Traffic Management Systems, and any environmental Impact assessment.
2. Public participation in decision making: the public must be informed over all the relevant projects and it has to have the chance to participate during the decision-making and legislative process. Decision makers can take advantage from people's knowledge and expertise; this contribution is a strong opportunity to improve the quality of the environmental decisions, outcomes and to guarantee procedural legitimacy.
In this case for myself and the Public we are denied access to participate in the decision-making process as no Smart Traffic Management installation consultation allowed. Even the legislative process is not observed with multiple Government legislation ignored. There is no procedural legitimacy if the Local Authority fails to accept it is a Communications provider.As such several Government legislations ignored as illegitimate procedure.
3. Access to justice: the public has the right to judicial or administrative recourse procedures in case a Party violates or fails to adhere to environmental law and the convention's principles.
In this case for myself and the Public we have had to resort to the Local Authority Complaints procedure which has not addressed the issues as more an abdication of responsibility procedure. Certainly for the Public there is no ability to present any notification objection for the Environmental Impact issues caused by their Smart Traffic Management Systems..
As to further Aarhus issues the Kyiv Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers also needs to be raised as this is Public rights denied with a the Local Authority that will not allow Public consultation on EMF pollutants.
As such the Local Authority is in contravention within the UK signatories to that international agreement relevant to transport as EMF pollution. The Evidence
1 ICNIRP does not provide realistic health Guidelines as even the lowest levels of EMF cause health. Evidence Item 32. BioInitiative. EMF meter is only useful if known Health damage from multi-Scientific research evidence for the EMF Power Density BioInitiative Pdf page 94-104https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/#
https://www.radiationresearch.org/news/notes-on-parliament-hearing-in-tallinn-estonia-june-4-2019-as-regards-the-deployment-of-the-fifth-generation-5g-of-wireless-communication/ Mobile Phone Masts Parliamentary debate recorded in Hansard. 2004 The Wishaw group's experiences repay careful study. Wishaw is a small hamlet in my constituency. Let me outline what has happened in recent years. Five ladies have developed breast cancer. There is one case of prostate cancer, one of bladder cancer and one of lung cancer, and there are three cases of pre-cancerous cervical cells. One person, aged 51, who has motor neurone disease, has also had a massive tumour removed from the top of his spine. Others have developed benign lumps, and there are also cases of electro-sensitivity. We also have three cases of severe skin rashes, and many villagers suffer with sleep problems, headaches, dizziness and problems with low immune systems.
Eighteen houses surround the mast, at a range of up to 500m, and 77 per cent. of the hamlet has health-related illness, which is believed by those who live there to be the result of radiation from the mast. The outbreak of illness occurred in 2001, after seven years of exposure to the radiation emitted by the T-Mobile mast. Incidentally, there is non-scientific evidence in the village that, since the mast came down, many of those minor ailments have cleared up. Doctors will say that it could be as a result of the removal of the cause of anxiety, but it is an interesting observation. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2004-01-28/debates/2db2621c-9510-4f3f-88ae-fd96a0d7d70c/MobilePhoneMasts
An observation proved by Case study research by Oncologist Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson over 20 years later in their 2023 Case study of eight people that developed debilitating symptoms after the installation of 5G masts next to their accommodation, Item 26
4. Brighton and Hove Judicial Review Justice Holgate 2021 Evidence Item22. Recent Judicial Review has significant implications on Planning decision on 5G Monopole Masts adjacent or close to Schools and by implication residents and their children.
Brighton & Hove Fishergate Judicial Review has significant implications on Planning decision on 5G Monopole Masts adjacent or close to Schools and by implication residents and their children.
also The case, EAM v East Sussex County Council (Special educational needs) features a child who suffers electromagnetic hyper-sensitivity. Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs found that the child should be considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010, and she required an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP). I. The provision of a wired internet connection is educational provision
Authorised for issue on 18 July 2022 Edward Jacobs Upper Tribunal Judge “24. A useful starting point is with the findings on the child’s disablement. The parents did not argue that she had any intellectual or cognitive impairment that caused her difficulty in learning, so she did not satisfy section 20(2)(a). The tribunal accepted that she satisfied section 20(2)(b). By finding that she was disabled, the tribunal found that her condition prevented or hindered her making use of facilities generally provides for others of her age. Those facilities were the computers operating by wifi and the programmes running on those computers.” Full decision ua-2022-000328-hs__002_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62f3997ed3bf7f5c11330ea3/ua-2022-000328-hs__002_.pdf EAM v East Sussex County Council: [2022] UKUT 193 (AAC) full decision https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/eam-v-east-sussex-county-council-2022-ukut-193-aac
6. Six Italian Courts Have Ruled Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors 2020
On Jan. 13, 2020, Turin’s Court of Appeals confirmed a 2017 decision determining that a former Telecom Italia worker’s acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor in the ear) was caused by his mobile phone use. This is the sixth time that an Italian court has affirmed a causal link between cell phone use and brain tumors, including decisions by the High Court of Italy. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/six-italian-courts-have-ruled-that-cell-phones-cause-brain-tumors/
7. Multiple Insurance Companies exclude EMF exposure Electromagnetic Field Insurance Policy Exclusion Are The Standard Insurers rank 5G and electromagnetic radiation as a “high” risk, comparing the issue to lead and asbestos. A 2019 Report by Swiss Re Institute, a world leading provider of insurance,42 classifies 5G mobile networks as a “high”, “off-the-leash” risk stating, “Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence” and “[a]s the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.”
Multiple Investor warnings in Annual reports on EMF radiation Electromagnetic Fields are defined as a “pollutant” by insurance companies and often require special coverage as a “pollutant” in policy enhancements.
“We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.”
Marsh Insurance Agency 2014 Report Electronic Magnetic Fields Risks And Exposures And Potential Insurance Coverage In Marsh’s experience the London markets are generally mixed in their approach to EMFs. Some will not provide any cover at all if a client has even a remote exposure but will remain silent i.e. providing insurance coverage by not excluding EMF risks from current insurance policies in all other instances. Others will only remain silent and never offer positive insurance cover or will provide positive cover ex US or remain silent across the board depending on the risk. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Electronic-Magnetic-Fields-Risks-and-Exposures-and-Potential-Insurance-Coverage-10-2012.pdf
Verizon, Liberty Underwriters INC Coverage Insurance Policy Insurance B. EXCLUSIONS This insurance does not apply to loss or damage identified in any of the following or directly or indirectly caused by or resulting from any of the following: para 16. Pollution page22 The discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration or escape of pollutants. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, sound waves, microwaves, and all artificially produced ionizing or non-ionizing radiation and/or waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. https://www.verizon.com/support/pdf/device-protection-brochure-nationwide.pdf or https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/device-protection-brochure-nationwide.pdf
8. The ICNIRP guidelines are only for short term, (6 minutes) which are contrary to other Guidelines such as the BioInititative,, aswell as the German Building Biology Guidelines as significantly a million times less at 10-30 µW/m² as opposed to ICNIRP 20W W/m². Not least 6 minutes is not the exposure for residents as 24/7.
9. Think Tank European Parliament. Health Impact of 5G. Study 22-07-2021 Recent decades have experienced an unparalleled development in wireless communication technologies (mobile telephony, Wi-Fi). The imminent introduction of 5G technology across the EU is expected to bring new opportunities for citizens and businesses, through faster internet browsing, streaming and downloading, as well as through better connectivity. However, 5G, along with 3G and 4G, with which it will operate in parallel for several years, may also pose threats to human health. This STOA report aim to take stock of our present understanding of health effects of 5G. EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf
Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2021)690012
10. The International Declaration on the Human Rights of Children in the Digital Age https://www.thechildrensdeclaration.org/
Yet Governments set Planning regulations by those Guidelines or do ICNIRP accept any liability for them
21. Public perception of danger is a valid planning consideration. Planning Practice Guidance PPG8; Health Considerations. Para29; Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance
22. The case of Yasmin Skelt vs Secretary of State (John Prescott) and Three Bridges District Council and Orange (2003), made it clear that it is not acceptable for local planners to accept an ICNIRP certificate according to a High Court Judge who highlighted “failure to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns of the claimant in his decision letter.” The First Secretary of State offered to concede the case and to pay reasonable costs. https://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=2&topic=4880
24. Local councillors need to launch a full investigation as a complete review of the whole planning process for this technology taking health into consideration based on independent research demonstrating biological effects below the ICNIRP guidelines.
25. Fire hazard safety should also follow strict regulations and regular safety inspections. Public health and safety should take priority over industry profits.
26. Case Reports: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation 10/Jan/2023
“Conclusions by Oncologist Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson 5G is being rolled out without any studies showing that 5G is safe for humans and wildlife. To our knowledge, this is the first study of health outcomes in persons exposed to 5G RF radiation. Within a couple of days, a new 5G base station caused severe symptoms in two previously healthy persons that correspond to the microwave syndrome. The deployment of 5G also caused a dramatic increase in maximum (peak) microwave radiation exposure, from 9 000 μW/m2 to >2 500 000μW/m2. The symptoms quickly reversed when the couple moved to a dwelling with much lower exposure. This case is in line with scientific findings reported already 50 years ago on effects of exposure to microwave radiation and that most symptoms disappear when the exposure is discontinued. This study and previous studies show that the microwave syndrome appears at levels well below the current limits recommended by the ICNIRP.
A summary appraisal of those 8 case studies of people with induced EMF radiation health issues’; Experts Raise Public Health Fears About Microwave Syndrome From 5G Masts
Conclusions 5G is being rolled out without any studies showing that 5G is safe for humans and wildlife. To our knowledge, this is the first study of health outcomes in persons exposed to 5G RF radiation. Within a couple of days, a new 5G base station caused severe symptoms in two previously healthy persons that correspond to the microwave syndrome. The deployment of 5G also caused a dramatic increase in maximum (peak) microwave radiation exposure, from 9 000 μW/m2 to >2 500 000μW/m2. The symptoms quickly reversed when the couple moved to a dwelling with much lower exposure. This case is in line with scientific findings reported already 50 years ago on effects of exposure to microwave radiation and that most symptoms disappear when the exposure is discontinued. This study and previous studies show that the microwave syndrome appears at levels well below the current limits recommended by the ICNIRP. https://www.radiationresearch.org/news/case-report-the-microwave-syndrome-after-installation-of-5g-emphasizes-the-need-for-protection-from-radiofrequency-radiation/
In effect ICNRP radiation exposure guidelines are meaningless as they have not considered EMF health impact “well below the current limits recommended by the ICNIRP”. 27 The evidence confirms that ICNIRP EMF Guidelines are; a. outdated, b. not fit for purpose, c. does not consider non-ionising irradiation health impact, d. does not consider MIMO unmeasured pulsed focused beaming increased power densities, e. multiple research studies that prove ICNIRP relies on assumption not science, f. not only a self-selecting group, and collective “groupthink”, but also of known “conflict of interests in the telecoms industry as employed by them.
29. Dr Martin Pall evidences multiple correlated research papers with 139 Appendices to evidenced EMF radiation health impacts. Dr Martin Pall 5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! “We know that there is a massive literature, providing a high level of scientific certainty, for each of eight pathophysiological effects caused by non-thermal microwave frequency EMF exposures. This is shown in from 12 to 35 reviews on each specific effect, with each review listed in Chapter1 providing a substantial body of evidence on the existence of each effect.”
5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them Written and Compiled by Martin L. Pall, PhD Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences 1. Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects. This nervous system attack is of great concern. 2. Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that make us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system and our endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus the consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it is a travesty to ignore these findings. 3. Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially all chronic diseases. 4. Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce cancer and also mutations in germ line cells which produce mutations in future generations. 5. Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility. 6. Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levels of spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells. 7. Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and excessive calcium signalling. 8. Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15 different mechanisms during cancer causation https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/EU-EMF2018-6-11US3.pdf?fbclid=IwAR15aUqMyBw462xXgMHXbshj3iBeUDiEBvGql6KkEVE_o-e8syCkRCW_9UE A Mechanism for Health Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields. Martin Pall
30. Dr Martin Pall lecture defining the multiple research paper evidence. 5G roll out is absolutely insane! Lecture that defines the various EMF pathways via excessive Reactive Oxygen/Nitrogen Species ROS RNS, as excessive Free radicals to cause Cancers via EMF resonance. Martin Pall To The NIH: "The 5G Rollout Is Absolutely Insane”. Current US/international safety guidelines are based on only thermal (heating) effects, but many non-thermal effects occur at levels orders of magnitude lower than those allowed by these guidelines. 07/08/2018 Lowered fertility (18 different reviews). Changes in the testes, ovaries, lowered sperm count, and quality, lowered number of follicles (eggs), increased spontaneous abortion, lowered levels of each of the 3 sex hormones, lowered libido. Neurological/Neuropsychiatric effects (25 review) Insomnia, fatigue, depression, headache, lack of concentration/cognitive dysfunction, anxiety/stress, agitation, memory dysfunction. Major changes to the brain structure seen in animals. Cellular DNA damage 3 types (21 reviews) Single and Double DNA breaks, oxidized bases (8-HOdG) cause both cancer and germ-line mutation. Apoptosis, programmed cell death (13 reviews) Lead to both reproductive and neurodegenerative effects. Oxidative stress, free radical damage (19 reviews). Slide3; Endocrine (hormonal effects) (12 different reviews) Both non-steroid and steroid hormone systems affected, in some cases Electromagnetic Field radiation can produce both increased and decreased hormone activity under different conditions. Excessive intracellular calcium [CA2+]I (15 reviews) Insomnia, and generally the root of almost everything else Cancer (35 reviews) Increases initiation of carcinogenesis, tumour promotion and progression, including increased tissue invasion and metastasis. (secondary sites) Pulsed EMF radiation in most cases are much more biologically active than are non-pulsed, continuous wave EMFs (13 reviews). Because all wireless communication devices communicate via pulsations, they are potentially and I believe actually much more dangerous Slide4; There are four other probable effects with less evidence than the overwhelming evidence shown above. These are; 1. Cardiac effects via electrical control to the heart. You can get instantaneous tachycardia, chronic exposures often cause bradycardia; both cause arrhythmia, also get heart palpitations. 2. Very early onset Alzheimer’s and other dementias. We are seeing people age30 developing Alzheimer’s and even younger people developing digital dementia. 3,4. Both ADHD and autism may be caused by late prenatal and early post-natal EMF exposure. There are four mechanism that control the synapse formation in the developing brain, each of which are controlled by intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i. It follows that the excessive [Ca2+]I following EMF exposure can disrupt synapse formation, causing ADHD and autism via that mechanism. Slide5,6; There are four reasons why EMFs are much more active in children than in adults; 1. Children have higher surface to volume ratio, such that their tissues are much more exposed to EMFs. This may be particularly important in the head where thinner skulls mean brain exposure are much higher. 2. Children have very high density of stem cells which are particularly sensitive to EMFs. 3. The developing brain appears to be especially sensitive to EMFs. 4. Young tissues have much greater extracellular water content than older tissues. This leads to much deeper penetration of effects. For these reasons, Wi-Fi and cell-phones tower radiation in schools are both of special concern Slide7; Five of these effects appear to be cumulative and as they become more severe, as irreversible. The cumulative effects mean that repeated exposure to the same intensity and type of EMF produce more and more severe effects. The five are; 1. Reproduction effects. 2. Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects 3. Germ line mutation effects caused by DNA effects. 4. Cardiac effects 5. Alzheimer and other dementias.
A sixth may be autism, when exposures are primarily during the late prenatal and early post-natal Period. I am most concerned about the first three, because they each produce clear existential threats to the survival of each technologically advanced country (TAC) on earth. The reproductive effects are most clearly advanced, with sperm counts having dropped by over 50% in each TAC and reproduction dropped well below replacement levels in each TAC with a single exception. In mice, EMFs led to a drop of reproduction to zero. A reasonable estimate is that it may take something like 5 years for TACs to suffer such a catastrophic drop in human reproduction. Side8; 5G will entail using much higher frequencies and pulsations than our current microwave devices. The much higher pulsations allow 5G to carry more information. Frequency and pulsation predict that 5G will be much more active in activating the VGCCs (Voltage-gated Calcium Channels). Because the 5G millimeter wave radiation is much more absorbed by building and other materials, 5G will entail tens of millions of antennae, widely distributed making it essentially impossible to avoid high level exposures. Each of these properties predict that 5G will be vastly more dangerous than are our already existing exposure. The industry claims that 5G will largely absorbed in the outer 1mm of the body and therefore we don’t need to worry about it. However, EMFs act hundreds of times more deeply than industry claims. I can discuss how this happens it there are questions later The current plan, which has already been approved by the US Congress and FCC is to put out tens of millions of 5G antennae, irradiating every single person and other organism in the whole country without even a single biological safety test of genuine 5G radiation The 5G Rollout is Absolutely Insane
31. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation Michael Carlberg and Lennart Hardell Bradford Hill’s viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation were used on glioma risk and use of mobile or cordless phones. Conclusion; RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma Figure 1: Restricted cubic spline plot of the relationship between latency of ipsilateral mobile phone use and glioma. The Odds ratio doubles in 24 years 1.5 : 3.0 within 95% ConfidenceL. Fig 6: Number of outgoing mobile phone minutes in millions during 1999–2013 and joinpoint regression analysis of age standardized death rates per 100,000 inhabitants according to the Swedish Causes of Death Register for all ages during 1999–2013 diagnosed with D43 = tumour of unknown type in the brain or CNS. Latency 4years?
Table 6: Specificity. Estimated elevation in brain tumour risk (𝛼) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in shortest distance group 0–55mm compared to reference category ≥ 115.01mm from preferred ear to tumour center. Based on Grell et al. [44]. Covariate 𝛼 95% CI Tumour size ≤18 cm3 1.96 1.51–3.66 >18 cm3 4.09 1.90–12.0 Duration of phone use <6 years 2.02 1.31–4.28 ≥6 years 3.27 1.92–11.3 Cumulative phone use <200 hours 1.57 1.29–3.36 ≥200 hours 4.06 2.03–11.6 Cumulative number of calls <4,000 1.55 1.25–3.42 ≥4,000 3.56 2.05–9.88 http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2017/9218486.pdf
32. Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. Alasdair Philips
33. Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones. Conclusion: Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24192496/ The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? by Sir Austin Bradford Hill. 1.Strength, 2.Consistency, 3.Specificity, 4.Temporality, 5.Biological gradient, 6.Plausibility, 7.Coherence, 8.Experiment, 9.Analog. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1898525/pdf/procrsmed00196-0010.pdf
34. Correlation between Mobile Phone Ownership and the Top 184 increased Cancer registrations. Largest Increased 184 types of Cancer registrations correlate to dashed blue line of mobile phone ownership. The issue is how to prove the correlation is causation. The Bradford Hill 9 viewpoints has already been used to prove excessive mobile phone use causes Glioblastoma Multiform C71.1 C71.2 Brain tumours with Oncologists Hardell and Carlberg research submission to the WHO. There is well over 30,000 EMF Health impact studies (listed in my itemised attached) that are being ignored by Government and BigTech for profit.
The issue is how to prove the correlation is causation. The Bradford Hill 9 viewpoints has already been used to prove excessive mobile phone use causes Glioblastoma Multiform C71.1 C71.2 Brain tumours with Oncologists Hardell and Carlberg research submission to the WHO. I have all the significant research studies. However, there is well over 30,000 EMF Health impact studies (listed in my Health Evidemce itemised attached) that are being ignored by Government and BigTech for profit.
Why the 8 fold rise in some forms of Cancer registrations in 20 years?
36. There are issues of child skull irradiation from Mobile Phones. The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation
37. The INTERNATIONAL APPEAL Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. There are 302,720 signatories from 216 nations and territories as of Nov 3rd, 2022 To the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations. “We the undersigned scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens from (__) countries, urgently call for a halt to the deployment of the 5G (fifth generation) wireless network, including 5G from space satellites. 5G will massively increase exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation on top of the 2G, 3G and 4G networks for telecommunications already in place. RF radiation has been proven harmful for humans and the environment. The deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law. The 5G space appeal https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal
38. Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G and lists the Precautionary principle, Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe; require all reasonable measures to reduce exposure., and Nuremberg code 1949 that no experiments where prior knowledge of deaths will occur.
5G is at least a tenfold increase in exposure with multiple booster arrays in every street much higher frequency than 3,4G, pulsed focused beams and on most street lampposts and poles as all pervasive with no consent from those that have to be exposed.
The 5G Appeal; “We the undersigned, scientistsand doctors, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.” there are 424 signatories. http://www.5gappeal.eu/the-5g-appeal/
The 5G Appeal was prepared in 2017 by scientists and doctors who are urgently calling for the EU to halt the roll out of 5G due to serious potential health effects from this new technology. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. As of November 3, 2022, 302,720 people and organizations from 216 nations and territories have signed this Appeal, including 4,471 Medical Doctors.
The 5G Appeal is still open for endorsement for scientists (PhD, professor) or medical doctors (MD. Please contact professor em. Rainer Nyberg or assoc.. professor Lennart Hardell. The appeal was initially submitted in September 2017 to the European Commission. https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/medical-doctors https://www.5gappeal.eu/about/
39. Environmental Health Trust evidence of “serious health risk to humans, animals and the environment” from 2,3,4G; Published Scientific Research on 5G, Small Cells Wireless and Health; “Published peer reviewed science already indicates that the current wireless technologies of 2G, 3G and 4G – in use today with our cell phones, computers and wearable tech – creates (create) radiofrequency exposures which poses (pose) a serious health risk to humans, animals and the environment. Scientists are cautioning that before rolling out 5G, research on human health effects urgently needs to be done first to ensure the public and environment are protected.” https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/?fbclid=IwAR06Ha7xf5XJoFVCRbjvuERO25S0DUOQEj8mHw2IZ0mjQ9sYJCWjL1E9IZ8
40. ICNIRP self-certification is invalid as there is no actual Authority certification. Those ICNIRP EMF exposure guidelines have no certified validity. Trafford LA Planning Committee refused two 5G Masts at Urmston, and another at Timperley as having failed to demonstrate that the proposal would conform to the ICNIRP EMF Exposure Guidelines NPPF117; b) for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection; or c) for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.
The issue with self-certification is that ICNRP “disowns” any responsibility or liability for their own guidelines, as only their guidance, yet inappropriately that “disowned lack of liability” guidance as an imposed Exposure Guideline used in MHCLG NPPF 118. Who also do not accept any liability for EMF health damage. Legal Terms Impressum “ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published. The content of our website is provided to you for information only. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website.” https://www.icnirp.org/en/legal-notice.html
FAQ; Does ICNIRP issue Certificates? “No. ICNIRP doesn't issue "ICNIRP certificates" nor Certificates of ICNIRP Measurement” “ICNIRP does not issue certificates to verify the safety of any device or installation. Any such certificates and declarations are issued independently of ICNIRP” https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/certificate.html Aswell as further abdication of liability or responsibility for their Exposure guidelines; ICNIRP Legal terms Impressum; Disclaimer ICNIRP e.V. assumes no liability for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of the information provided. Liability claims relating to material or immaterial damage caused by the use or non-use of the information provided or by the use of incorrect and incomplete information are excluded. https://www.icnirp.org/en/legal-notice.html browser settings-translate page In effect an advisory panel where Governments use those guidelines as if mandatory requirement in 5G Mast proposals planning NPPF118 when that too is only advisory.
· For Planning,NPPF118 specifically misleads with regard to Objections not to make EMF Objection comment on different ICNIRP Guidelines planning grounds. There are numerous international guidelines all with the same validity. So why use a German private membership club NGO who do not accept liability for their Guidelines ICNIRP or allow any members that show dissent?
That is not a valid World Body for EMF guideline reference or indeed is used at all in many other countries with many National guidelines much lower than ICNIRP. Guidelines designed for the Industry? But not for the Public? Government NPPF Planning abuse to promote 5G telecommunications but to disregard as inconvenient any Health issues. The Public do not matter? That is why we have Councillors.
NPPF118. Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.
Any Objection on EMF grounds that requires that very flawed compromised ICNIRP Guidelines is made redundant, ignored, and dismissed yet EMF Heath damage is a lawful objection.
with comprehensive appraisals and research libraries in the first place? All ignored by pro-5G ad Planning departments mistakenly under the assumption that 5G trumps health concerns, when the reverse has been legally proven; Fishersgate Pro-5G at the detriment of Public health.
An ICNIRP “disowned liability” guidance which MHCLG in NPP114-118 insist those ICNRP Exposure guidelines are used, yet are only advisory, and with supposedly with no recourse to object on Health issues and no one actually taking responsibility or liability for those ICNRP imposed Guidelines if it causes health damage. There is no Official authority that has validated that self-certification with those ICNRIP guidelines.
ICNIRP Guidelines without official certification and no one to accept liability for them as invalid.
Not least also legally proven in the US courts Devra Davis-Childrens Defence League v FDA. my
EHT Wins in Historic Decision, Federal Court Orders FCC to Explain Why It Ignored Scientific Evidence Showing Harm from Wireless Radiation
also as court decision; United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 25, 2021 Decided August 13, 2021 No. 20-1025 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL Consolidated with 20-1138 CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, ET AL V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/chd-v-fcc-we-won-decision.pdf
What assurances are there to the Planning Committee of liability if and when people are health impacted by EMF over exposure. Recent planning refusals based on invalid self-certification include Urmiston, Timperley, Trafford as “failed to be in compliance with ICNRP Guidelines. That failure to apply ICNIRP Guidelines also includes the Fishersgate Adjudication that Health issues override NPPF114-118 use of ICNRIP unreliable guidelines.
41. Council believes a 5G mast in Timperley did not comply with ICNIRP guidelines The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would be in compliance with the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Public Exposure Guidelines. As such, the proposal would fail to comply with the provisions of paragraph 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”
How to Legally Oppose Planning for 4G & 5G Mobile Phone Masts or Cell Towers NPPF issues NPPF113; “Consumer requirement if no demand”, ”should be kept to a minimum” and to use existing masts”, “ sympathetically designed as camouflaged”, “ugly” NPPF114; 2a; Article 4 ban. Minimum distance required” 2b; EMF interference to the Human body. NPPF115; has full open and transparent consultation taken place https://smombiegate.org/how-to-legally-oppose-planning-for-4g-5g-mobile-phone-masts-or-cell-towers/
43 Unexplained 44% large rise in Cancer registrations in any 20 year period 1971-2017-my ONS MB1 charts, and 160% increase in Dementia Deaths 2010-2018. A doubling of C71.1, C71.2 frontal and temporal Lobe cancer registrations that have moved the correlation candidate of Mobile Phones to causal status. The Turin Court of Appeal 904/2019 3/12/2019 fully confirms the 2017 Court of Ivrea judgement judge Fadda: it is true that the acoustic neurinoma was caused by the working use of the mobile phone. https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Turin-Verdict-ICNIRP_Judgment-SUMMARY-of-the-Turin-Court-of-Appeal-9042019_EN-min.pdf
Update; Six Italian Courts Have Ruled Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors 2020 On Jan. 13, 2020, Turin’s Court of Appeals confirmed a 2017 decision determining that a former Telecom Italia worker’s acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor in the ear) was caused by his mobile phone use. This is the sixth time that an Italian court has affirmed a causal link between cell phone use and brain tumors, including decisions by the High Court of Italy. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/six-italian-courts-have-ruled-that-cell-phones-cause-brain-tumors/
ICNIRP Guidelines were 10W/mtr² then doubled to 20W/mtr² while independent studies as one million times less at 30µW/mtr² or 30 microW/mtrs²
45. A Dr Sarah Starkey report that lists a conflict of interests with member of AGNIR, ICNIRP, and disputes scientific accuracy, studies omitted, with evidence dismissed and ignored, aswell as Incorrect statement, while PHE entirely reliant on those bodies to validate the use of 5G.
“The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the United Kingdom and has been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world. This review describes incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and conflict of interest, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment.”
There is similar reported ICNIRP issues and conflict of interest from the members of the European Parliament Buchner and Rivasi report; The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate interests and the push for 5G Scharen Brussels June 2020. 5G Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi at EU Parliament. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ICNIRP-report-FINAL-JUNE-2020.pdf
Cell Phone Radiation Leads to Cancer, Says U.S. NTP in Final Report 2018 The NTP found what it calls “clear evidence” that two different types of cell phone signals, GSM and CDMA, increased the incidence of malignant tumors in the hearts of male rats over the course of the two-year study. Higher incidences of brain and adrenal tumors were also seen, but those associations were judged to be somewhat weaker. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-final-rf-report
46. There is a multitude of international scientists and institutes that disagree with ICNIRP exposure limits 10W/mtr² 1998 exacerbated to 20W/ mtr² 2020. Alternative Guidelines have been ignored. BioInitiative update 2022 suggests safe limits are 3µW/mtr² for children, and 30µW/mtr² for adults. Pdf1503; Thomas et al (2008) reported an increase in adult complaints of headaches and concentration difficulties with short-term cell phone use at 0.005 to 0.04 μW/cm2 exposure levels. (50µW/mtr² ) Heinrich et al (2010) reported that children and adolescents (8-17 years old) with short-term exposure to base-station level RFR experienced headache, irritation, and concentration difficulties in school. RFR levels were 0.003 - 0.02 μW/cm2. (30µW/mtr² ) Thomas et al (2010) reported that RFR levels of 0.003 - 0.02 μW/cm2 resulted in conduct and behavioral problems in children and adolescents (8-17 years old) exposed to short-term cell phone radiation in school.
Pdf70,80,1504; F. Evidence for Effects from Cell Tower-Level RFR Exposures At least five new cell tower studies with base-station level RFR at levels ranging from 0.003μW/cm2 to 0.05 uW/cm2 published since 2007 report headaches, concentration difficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents; and sleep disturbances, headaches and concentration problems in adults. This is highly consistent with studies done prior to 2007, but the ‘effect levels’ are significantly lower (dropping from the microwatt to the nanowatt range per square centimeter).
Pdf77,93,1520; A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or for children as a sensitive subpopulation (if studies are on adults, not children) yields a 300 to 600 picowatts per square centimeter precautionary action level https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ Download the report with multiple research papers updates to 2022 https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/# https://bioinitiative.org/updated-research-summaries/
Unit conversion; 0.003μW/cm2 = 30µW/mtr2 0.001μW/cm2 = 10µW/mtr2 The Institute of Building Biology and Sustainability IBN also suggests 10µW/mtr², aswell as the BioInitiative with both as a million times less than ICNIRP Exposure Guidelines
47. There has been no Environmental Impact Health and Safety Assessment and an override of all “normal” planning procedures to force 5G through as imposed without due diligence. That causes an indemnity and liability for all those that imposed the technology without the required Duty of care for the Public There has been no Environment Safety or Health Impact Assessment EIA conducted anywhere. The UK Government needs to halt the 5G rollout until there is an unbiased independent assessment.
Where is the Environment Impact Assessment EIA in any 5G mast planning proposals? Where is the Power Density assessment for the 5G mast? Where is the Local Authority EIA documented evaluation that the proposal meets with safe Exposure Guidelines to not cause health damage? The evidence confirms that ICNIRP EMF Guidelines are; a. outdated, b. not fit for purpose, c. does not consider non-ionising irradiation health impact, d. does not consider MIMO unmeasured pulsed focused beaming increased power densities, e. multiple research studies that prove ICNIRP relies on assumption not science, f. not only a self-selecting group, and collective “groupthink”, but also of known “conflict of interests in the telecoms industry as employed by them,.
Telecompowergrab. There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of RF radiation. Here we present some of the most recent. https://www.telecompowergrab.org/science.html
5th Generation (5G) Wireless Communications Fact Sheet • mmWaves have unique health impacts on the human body. Sweat ducts within our skin, the largest organ in the human body, act as antennae when in contact with mm Waves. The waves penetrate 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin tissue and are also absorbed by the surface layers of the eye’s cornea https://www.telecompowergrab.org/uploads/3/8/5/9/38599771/5g_fact_sheet_v9.pdf https://www.telecompowergrab.org/
50. Resident Observed EMF radiation from a Monopole at 300mtrs 17,0000µW/mtr² 5G Magz Explores Areas In Dundee Taking EMF Readings Video; Trifield meter test at 17.789milliW/mtr² or 17789 µW/mtr² at 100 mtrs from Cell Towers.
EMF meter is only useful if known Health damage from multi-Scientific research evidence for the EMF Power Density BioInitiative Pdf page 94-104https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/# A comparison of peer group reviewed EMF research papers to experienced 5G Monopole Meter at maximum level of 17.789mW/mtr²or 17.789milliW/mtr² or 17789 µW/mtr²
The BioInitiative research studies suggests safety guidelines no more than; 30 µW/mtr² BioInititaive Guidelines 3 µW/mtr² BioInititaive Guidelines as a 10 fold reduction for children Pdf77 Example; Yet this meter at 17789 µW/mtr² as 600 times more. 6000 times more for children 3 µW/mtr²
Anecdotal comparison between readings and BioInitiative Research paper health damage
All Power densities listed Item31,and health damage research studies Item32 apply for the Trifield meter reading at 16.971mW/mtr² or 17,000 µW/mtr² at 100 mtrs from Cell Towers. EMF meter is only useful if known Health damage from multi-Scientific research evidence for the EMF Power Density. It also requires Local Authorities to do their own assessment on proposed 5G Mast Power densities Watt/mtr², rather than rely on local anecdotal “snapshot” evidence. BioInitiative Pdf page 94-104https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/#
51. Where is all the electrical power for everyone to use an Electrical vehicle, aswell as supply for Monopoles, and Towers?
52. Video streaming: data transmission technology crucial for climate footprint “The lowest CO2 emissions are produced when HD video is streamed at home over a fibre optic connection, with only two grams of CO2 per hour of video streaming for the data centre and data transmission. A copper cable (VDSL) generates four grams per hour. UMTS data transmission (3G), however, produces 90 grams of CO2 per hour. If the transmission technology used to transmit data is 5G instead, only about five grams of CO2 are emitted per hour. The electricity used by the end device is not factored into this calculation.” https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/video-streaming-data-transmission-technology
Recent High Court Judicial Review has significant implications on Planning decision on 5G Monopole Masts adjacent or close to Schools and by implication residents and their children.
53. Brighton & Hove Fishergate Judicial Review has significant implications on Planning decision on 5G Monopole Masts adjacent or close to Schools and by implication residents and their children.
54. Fishersgate mast in Brighton, quashed at Judicial Review before Justice Holgate 02/Nov/2021 “2. The grounds for judicial review are: (i) the Council unlawfully determined that the highway safety implications of the cabinets and the concerns expressed by the Council's highways team were not a relevant consideration; ' (ii) the Council failed to address the health impacts of this particular proposal and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school and the amended proposal; and (iii) the Council failed to consider whether the facility could be sited on an existing building or structure, the Interested Party having failed to provide any evidence on that matter. 3. For these reasons the decision was unlawful and should be quashed https://rfinfo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Consent-Order-02.11.21.pdf as detailed in; https://rfinfo.co.uk/fishersgate-mast-in-brighton-quashed-at-judicial-review/
55 Visual detriment Local Authorities are now realising the health issues with 5G Monopoles, and Towers in proximity to residential areas, aswell as visual impact. No EMF is safe, and especially within 500mtrs-1000mtrs. The height, size and position of the Mast causes visual detriment impact as in congruous to the visual vernacular surroundings. i.e. An “eyesore”. A “carbuncle” that diminishes quality of life for all residents. Objectors block 5G mast 'monstrosity' from Derbyshire town 7/Oct/2022 “People power claimed victory as planning permission was refused for the 17-metre mast” https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/objectors-block-mast-monstrosity-derbyshire-7677303
56. Environmental Health Trust et. al versus the FCC, In any Exposure guidelines, The UK High Court ruling is mirrored in the U.S. with planning assessment that failed to review all relevant science on ICNIRP outdated “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,”
“In reviewing the record submitted in Environmental Health Trust et. al versus the FCC, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the FCC had failed to review all relevant science as of 2019. As the judges note, evidence supports the need for a serious examination of the record and revamping of these outdated standards,“ said Dr. Devra Davis, President of Environmental Health Trust.
58. Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radio frequency radiation: implications for 5G. http://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ICBE-EMF-paper-12940_2022_900_OnlinePDF_Patched-1.pdf The Flawed Assumptions Regarding FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limits for International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 A) Effects of RF radiation at exposures below the putative threshold SAR of 4 W/kg Flawed Assumption 1) There is a threshold exposure for any adverse health effect caused by RF radiation; in the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz it is a whole-body exposure that exceeds an SAR of 4 W/kg. Any biological effect of RF radiation above the threshold exposure is due to tissue heating. Flawed Assumption 2) RF radiation is incapable of causing DNA damage other than by heating; there is no mechanism for non-thermal DNA damage. Flawed Assumption 3) Two to seven exposures to RF radiation for up to one hour duration are sufficient to exclude adverse effects for any duration of exposure including chronic exposures. Assumption 4) No additional effects would occur from RF radiation with co-exposure to other environmental agents.
B) Factors affecting dosimetry Flawed Assumption 5) Health effects are dependent only on the SAR value; carrier wave modulations, frequency, or pulsing do not matter except as they influence the SAR.
C) Human brain cancer risk Flawed Assumption 6) The multiple human studies that find associations between exposure to cell phone RF radiation and increases in brain cancer risk are flawed because of biases in the published case-control studies, and because brain cancer rates have remained steady since the time that use of wireless communication devices became widespread.
D) Individual variations in exposure and sensitivity to RF- EMF Flawed Assumption 7) There are no differences among individuals, including children, in the absorption of RF-EMF and susceptibility to this radiation. Flawed Assumption 8) There are no differences among individuals in their sensitivity to RF radiation-induced health effects.
E) Applied safety factors for EMF-RF workers and the general population Flawed Assumption 9) A 50-fold safety factor for whole body exposure to RF radiation is adequate for protecting the general population to any health risks from RF radiation. Flawed Assumption 10) A 10-fold safety factor for whole body exposure to RF radiation is adequate for protecting workers to any health risks from RF radiation. Flawed Assumption 11) Exposure of any gram of cube-shaped tissue up to 1.6 W/kg, or 10 grams of cube-shaped tissue up to 2 W/kg, (duration not specified) will not increase the risk of that tissue to any toxic or carcinogenic effects in the general population. Flawed Assumption 12) Exposure of any gram of cube-shaped tissue up to 8 W/kg, or 10 grams of cube-shaped tissue up to 10 W/kg, (duration not specified) will not increase the risk of that tissue to any toxic or carcinogenic effects in workers.
F) Environmental exposure to RF radiation Flawed Assumption 13) There is no concern for environmental effects of RF radiation or for effects on wildlife or household pets.
G) 5G (5th generation wireless) Flawed Assumption 14) No health effects data are needed for exposures to 5G; safety is assumed because penetration is limited to the skin ("minimal body penetration").
59. Call for a Moratorium 5G Appeal
• The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) admits no 5G safety studies have been conducted or funded by the agency or telecom industry, or any future studies.
• There are similarities with the tobacco, aswell as asbestos where the evidence ignored for decades.
60. Letter to the FCC from Dr. Yael Stein MD of the Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel in Opposition to 5G Spectrum Frontiers Millimeter Wave Technology
62. Comments on the Draft Report by the California Council on Science and Technology “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters” by Daniel Hirsch1 31 January 2011
• “the cumulative whole body exposure from a Smart Meter at 3 feet appears to be approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of a cell phone, rather than two orders of magnitude lower.”
• The Daniel Hirsh charts show that Smart meters are 160 times more than a mobile phone whole body exposure. Fig4 • Figure 4. Comparison of Radio‐Frequency Levels to the Whole Body from Various Sources in μW/cm2 over time [corrected for assumed duty cycle and whole body exposure extrapolated
Biomarkers are used to laboratory determine the link between physical ailment to EMF exposure. WHO now use two new ICD codes relate to illness caused by exposure to radiofrequency radiation (W90.0) and exposure to other non-ionizing radiation (W90.8).
Two new iCD codes relate to illness caused by exposure to radiofrequency radiation (W90.0) and exposure to other non-ionizing radiation (W90.8). EHS is a physiological response to electromagnetic frequencies and is not psychosomatic! “Most doctors that specialize in treating electrosensitive patients believe that there are other underlying conditions in the patient such as metal or chemical toxicity, viruses, parasites and weak immune systems that become overstimulated when exposed to chronic wireless electricity. By removing these offenders that are inside the body and relocating the patient to live in an environment closer to nature – the patient will often recover and can eventually return to a more balanced lifestyle that combines the safe use of technology and regular ventures into nature.” https://www.electrosensitivesociety.com/ehs/
A new International Classification Code W90-90.8 for EMF diseases. What is EHS? The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes EHS and states the following: “ a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs).”
EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.” WHO Rapporteur's Report 2006 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241594127
While there are multiple causes of EHS, common precursors of EHS include:
1. physical trauma to the central nervous system, such as concussion or whiplash.
2. chemical trauma in the form of exposure to toxins including but not limited to drugs, pesticides, metals especially mercury and other neurotoxins.
3. biological trauma in for the form of lyme disease; fungal toxins; high parasite loads; etc.
4. electrical trauma in the form of multiple shocks, short-term exposure to high levels of electromagnetic pollution (electrosmog), chronic exposure to moderate or low levels of electrosmog, and lightning strikes.
5. an impaired immune system as a result of cancer treatments, biological implants, lupus or AIDs or a poorly developed immune system in the very young and elderly. https://www.electrosensitivesociety.com/ehs/
Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Dominique Belpomme, 2015 Both disorders appear to involve inflammation-related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulothalamic hypoperfusion and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability; suggesting a risk of chronic neurodegenerative disease. Finally the common co-occurrence of EHS and MCS strongly suggests a common pathological mechanism.”
“We therefore, strongly propose that whatever their proofs for their causal origins, EHS and MCS should clearly be added to the next version of the WHO international classification of diseases (ICD) on the basis on their clinical and pathological description; as has been the case for many other diseases.”
Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It Dominique BelpommeMar2020
64. With a new WHO International Classification Code W90-90.8 for EMF diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes EHS and states the following: “ a phenomenon where individuals experience adverse health effects while using or being in the vicinity of devices emanating electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields (EMFs).” “EHS is a real and sometimes a debilitating problem for the affected persons . . . Their exposures are generally several orders of magnitude under the limits in internationally accepted standards.” WHO Rapporteur's Report 2006 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241594127 EU Report; Possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/4156/ah1997_19.pdf?sequence=1
65. BioInitiative. EMF meter is only useful if known Health damage from multi-Scientific research evidence for the EMF Power Density BioInitiative Pdf page 94-104https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/#
Power Density Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities)
Reference Power Flux Density µW/mtr² Power Density Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Reference Power Density 0.000000001 µW/mtr² As low as (10-13) or 100 femtowatts/cm² Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW resonant frequencies resulted in changes in genes; problems with chromatin conformation (DNA) Belyaev, 1997 0.05 µW/mtr² 5 picowatts/cm² (10- 12) Changed growth rates in yeast cells Grundler, 1992 1 µW/mtr² 0.1 nanowatt/cm² (10-10) or 100 picowatts/cm² Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW reasonant frequencies resulted in changes in genes; problems with chromatin condensation (DNA) intensities comparable to base stations Belyaev, 1997 3.4 µW/mtr² 0.00034 uW/cm² Chronic exposure to mobile phone pulsed RF significantly reduced sperm count, Behari, 2006 5 µW/mtr² 0.0005 uW/cm² RFR decreased cell proliferation at 960 MHz GSM 217 Hz for 30-min exposure Velizarov, 1999 6 µW/mtr² 0.0006 - 0.0128 uW/cm² Fatigue, depressive tendency, sleeping disorders, concentration difficulties, cardio- vascular problems reported with exposure to GSM 900/1800 MHz cell phone signal at base station level exposures. Oberfeld, 2004 30 µW/mtr² 0.003 - 0.02 uW/cm² In children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused headache, irritation, concentration difficulties in school. Heinrich, 2010 30 µW/mtr² 0.003 to 0.05 uW/cm² In children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused conduct problems in school (behavioral problems) Thomas, 2010 50 µW/mtr² 0.005 uW/cm² In adults (30-60 yrs) chronic exposure caused sleep disturbances, (but not significantly increased across the entire population) Mohler, 2010 0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm² Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches, concentration difficulties (differences not significant, but elevated) Thomas, 2008 50 µW/mtr² 0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm² Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches, concentration difficulties (differences not significant, but elevated) Thomas, 2008 60 µW/mtr² 0.006 - 0.01 uW/cm² Chronic exposure to base station RF (whole-body) in humans showed increased stress hormones; dopamine levels substantially decreased; higher levels of adrenaline and nor-adrenaline; dose-response seen; produced chronic physiological stress in cells even after 1.5 years. Buchner, 2012 100 µW/mtr² 0.01 - 0.11 uW/cm² RFR from cell towers caused fatigue, headaches, sleeping problems Navarro, 2003 100 µW/mtr² 0.01 - 0.05 uW/cm² Adults (18-91 yrs) with short-term exposure to GSM cell phone radiation reported headache, neurological problems, sleep and concentration problems. Hutter, 2006 50 µW/mtr² 0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm² Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches, concentration difficulties (differences not significant, but elevated) Thomas, 2008 150 µW/mtr² 0.015 - 0.21 uW/cm² Adults exposed to short-term GSM 900 radiation reported changes in mental state (e.g., calmness) but limitations of study on language descriptors prevented refined word choices (stupified, zoned-out) Augner, 2009 500 µW/mtr² 0.05 - 0.1 uW/cm² RFR linked to adverse neurological, cardio symptoms and cancer risk Khurana, 2010 500 µW/mtr² 0.05 - 0.1 uW/cm² RFR related to headache, concentration and sleeping problems, fatigue Kundi, 2009 700 µW/mtr² 0.07 - 0.1 uW/cm² Sperm head abnormalities in mice exposed for 6-months to base station level RF/MW. Sperm head abnormalities occurred in 39% to 46% exposed mice (only 2% in controls) abnormalities was also found to be dose dependent. The implications of the pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head. The occurrence of sperm head observed increase occurrence of sperm head abnormalities on the reproductive health of humans living in close proximity to GSM base stations were discussed." Otitoloju, 2010 3800 µW/mtr² 0.38 uW/cm² RFR affected calcium metabolism in heart cells Schwartz, 1990 8000 µW/mtr² 0.8 - 10 uW/cm² RFR caused emotional behavior changes, free-radical damage by super-weak MWs Akoev, 2002 1300 µW/mtr² 0.13 uW/cm² RFR from 3G cell towers decreased cognition, well-being Zwamborn, 2003 1600 µW/mtr² 0.16 uW/cm² Motor function, memory and attention of school children affected (Latvia) Kolodynski, 1996 1680 µW/mtr² 0.168 - 1.053 uW/cm² Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to RFR from an 'antenna park' Magras & Zenos, 1997 2000 µW/mtr² 0.2 - 8 uW/cm² RFR caused a two-fold increase in leukemia in children Hocking, 1996 2000 µW/mtr² 0.2 - 8 uW/cm² RFR decreased survival in children with leukemia Hocking, 2000 2100 µW/mtr² 0.21 - 1.28 uW/cm² Adolescents and adults exposed only 45 min to UMTS cell phone radiation reported increases In headaches. Riddervold, 2008 5000 µW/mtr² 0.5 uW/cm² Significant degeneration of seminiferous epithelium in mice at 2.45 GHz, 30-40 min. Saunders, 1981 5000 µW/mtr² 0.5 - 1.0 uW/cm² Wi-FI level laptop exposure for 4-hr resulted in decrease in sperm viability, DNA fragmentation with sperm samples placed in petri dishes under a laptop connected via WI-FI to the internet. Avendano, 2012 10000 µW/mtr² 1.0 uW/cm² RFR induced pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier Persson, 1997 Trifield meter at 14mW/mtr² or 14,000 µW/mtr² 10000 µW/mtr² 1.0 uW/cm² RFR caused significant effect on immune function in mice Fesenko, 1999 10000 µW/mtr² 1.0 uW/cm² RFR affected function of the immune system Novoselova, 1999 10000 µW/mtr² 1.0 uW/cm² Short-term (50 min) exposure in electrosensitive patients, caused loss of well-being after GSM and especially UMTS cell phone radiation exposure Eltiti, 2007 13000 µW/mtr² 1.3 - 5.7 uW/cm² RFR associated with a doubling of leukemia in adults Dolk, 1997
12500 µW/mtr² 1.25 uW/cm² RFR exposure affected kidney development in rats (in-utero exposure) Pyrpasopoulou, 2004
15000 µW/mtr² 1.5 uW/cm² RFR reduced memory function in rats Nittby, 2007 20000 µW/mtr² 2 uW/cm² RFR induced double-strand DNA damage in rat brain cells Kesari, 2008 25000 µW/mtr² 2.5 uW/cm² RFR affected calcium concentrations in heart muscle cells Wolke, 1996 20000 µW/mtr² 2 - 4 uW/cm² Altered cell membranes; acetycholine-induced ion channel disruption D'Inzeo, 1988 40000 µW/mtr² 4 uW/cm² RFR caused changes in hippocampus (brain memory and learning) Tattersall, 2001 40000 µW/mtr² 4 - 15 uW/cm² Memory impairment, slowed motor skills and retarded learning in children Chiang, 1989 50000 µW/mtr² 5 uW/cm² RFR caused drop in NK lymphocytes (immune function decreased) Boscolo, 2001 52500 µW/mtr² 5.25 uW/cm² 20 minutes of RFR at cell tower frequencies induced cell stress response Kwee, 2001 50000 µW/mtr² 5 - 10 uW/cm² RFR caused impaired nervous system activity Dumansky, 1974 60000 µW/mtr² 6 uW/cm² RFR induced DNA damage in cells Phillips, 1998 87500 µW/mtr² 8.75 uW/cm² RFR at 900 MHz for 2-12 hours caused DNA breaks in leukemia cells Marinelli, 2004 100000 µW/mtr² 10 uW/cm² Changes in behavior (avoidance) after 0.5 hour exposure to pulsed RFR Navakatikian, 1994 100000 µW/mtr² 10 - 100 uW/cm² Increased risk in radar operators of cancer; very short latency period; dose response to exposure level of RFR reported. Richter, 2000 125000 µW/mtr² 12.5 uW/cm² RFR caused calcium efflux in cells - can affect many critical cell functions Dutta, 1989 135000 µW/mtr² 13.5 uW/cm² RFR affected human lymphocytes - induced stress response in cells Sarimov, 2004 200000 µW/mtr² 20 uW/cm² Increase in serum cortisol (a stress hormone) Mann, 1998 282000 µW/mtr² 28.2 uW/cm² RFR increased free radical production in rat cells Yurekli, 2006 375000 µW/mtr² 37.5 uW/cm² Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody producing cells Veyret, 1991 450000 µW/mtr² 45 uW/cm² Pulsed RFR affected serum testosterone levels in mice Forgacs, 2006 500000 µW/mtr² 50 uW/cm² Cell phone RFR caused a pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier in 1 hour Salford, 2003 500000 µW/mtr² 50 uW/cm² An 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and learning functions) Mann, 1996 600000 µW/mtr² 60 uW/cm² RFR caused structural changes in cells of mouse embryos Somozy, 1991 600000 µW/mtr² 60 uW/cm² Pulsed RFR affected immune function in white blood cells Stankiewicz, 2006 600000 µW/mtr² 60 uW/cm² Cortex of the brain was activated by 15 minutes of 902 MHz cell phone Lebedeva, 2000 650000 µW/mtr² 65 uW/cm² RFR affected genes related to cancer Ivaschuk, 1999 925000 µW/mtr² 92.5 uW/cm² RFR caused genetic changes in human white blood cells Belyaev, 2005 1000000 µW/mtr² 100 uW/cm² Changes in immune function Elekes, 1996 1000000 µW/mtr² 100 uW/cm² A 24.3% drop in testosterone after 6 hours of CW RFR exposure Navakatikian, 1994 1200000 µW/mtr² 120 uW/cm² A pathological leakage in the blood-brain barrier with 915 MHz cell RF Salford, 1994 5000000 µW/mtr² 500 uW/cm² Intestinal epithelial cells exposed to 2.45 GHz pulsed at 16 Hz showed changes in intercellular calcium. Somozy, 1993 5000000 µW/mtr² 500 uW/cm² A 24.6% drop in testosterone and 23.2% drop in insulin after 12 hrs of pulsed RFR exposure. Navakatikian, 1994
STANDARDS 5300000 µW/mtr² 530 - 600 uW/cm² Limit for uncontrolled public exposure to 800-900 MHz ANSI/IEEE and FCC 10000000 µW/mtr² 1000 uW/cm² PCS STANDARD for public exposure (as of September 1,1997) FCC, 1996 50000000 µW/mtr² 5000 uW/cm² PCS STANDARD for occupational exposure (as of September 1, 1997) FCC, 1996 30 µW/mtr² 0.003 uW/cm² Background RF levels in US cities and suburbs in the 1990s Mantiply, 1997 500 µW/mtr² 0.05 uW/cm² Median ambient power density in cities in Sweden (30-2000 MHz) Hamnierius, 2000 1000 µW/mtr² 0.1 - 10 uW/cm² Ambient power density within 100-200' of cell site in US (data from 2000) Sage, 2000 20000000 µW/mtr² ICNIRP2020 30 µW/mtr² BioInititaive Guidelines 3 µW/mtr² BioInititaive Guidelines 10 fold reduction for children Pdf77
BACKGROUND LEVELS Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Specific Absorption Rate SAR (Watts/Kilogram) Reference 0.000064 0.000064 - 0.000078 W/Kg Well-being and cognitive function affected in humans exposed to GSM-UMTS cell phone frequencies; RF levels similar near cell sites TNO Physics and 0.000150 0.00015 - 0.003 W/Kg Calcium ion movement in isolated frog heart tissue is increased 18% (P<.01) and by 21% (P<.05) by weak RF field modulated at 16 Hz Schwartz, 1990 0.000021 0.000021 - 0.0021 W/Kg Changes in cell cycle; cell proliferation (960 MHz GSM mobile phone) Kwee, 1997 0.000300 0.0003 - 0.06 W/Kg Neurobehavioral disorders in offspring of pregnant mice exposed in utero to cell phones - dose-response impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission onto layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal cortex. Hyperactivity and impaired memory function in offspring. Altered brain development. Aldad, 2012 0.001600 0.0016 - 0.0044 W/Kg Very low power 700 MHz CW affects excitability of hippocampus tissue, consistent with reported behavioural changes. Tattersall, 2001 0.002100 0.0021 W/Kg Heat shock protein HSP 70 is activated by very low intensity microwave exposure in human epithelial amnion cells Kwee, 2001 0.002400 0.0024 - 0.024 W/Kg Digital cell phone RFR at very low intensities causes DNA damage in human cells; both DNA damage and impairment of DNA is reported Phillips, 1998 0.002700 0.0027 W/Kg Changes in active avoidance conditioned behavioral effect is seen after one-half hour of pulsed radiofrequency radiation Navakatikian, 1994 0.003500 0.0035 W/Kg 900 MHz cell phone signal induces DNA breaks and early activation of p53 gene; short exposure of 2-12 hours leads cells to acquire greater survival chance - linked to tumor agressiveness. Marinelli, 2004 0.009500 0.0095 W/Kg MW modulated at 7 Hz produces more errors in short-term memory functioin on complex tasks (can affect cognitive processes such as attention and memory) Lass, 2002 0.001000 0.001 W/Kg 750 MHz continuous wave (CW) RFR exposure caused increase in heat shock protein (stress proteins). Equivalent to what would be induced by 3 degree C. heating of tissue (but no heating occurred) De Pomerai, 2000 0.001000 0.001 W/Kg Statistically significant change in intracellular calcium concentration in heart muscle cells exposed to RFR (900 MHz/50 Hz modulation) Wolke, 1996 0.002100 0.0021 W/Kg A significant change in cell proliferation not attributable to thermal heating. RFR induces non-thermal stress proteins (960 MHz GSM) Velizarov, 1999 0.004000 0.004 - 0.008 W/Kg 915 MHz cell phone RFR caused pathological leakage of blood-brain barrier. Worst at lower SAR levels and worse with CW compared to Frequency of pathological changes was 35% in rats exposed to pulsed radiation at 50% to continuous wave RFR. Effects observed at a specific absorption (SA) of > 1.5 joules/Kg in human tissues Persson, 1997 0.005900 0.0059 W/Kg Cell phone RFR induces glioma (brain cancer) cells to significantly increase thymidine uptake, which may be indication of more cell division Stagg, 1997 0.014000 0.014 W/Kg Sperm damage from oxidative stress and lowered melatonin levels resulted from 2-hr per day/45 days exposure to 10 GHz. Kumar, 2012 0.015000 0.015 W/Kg Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody-producing cells) Veyret, 1991 0.020000 0.02 W/Kg A single, 2-hr exposure to GSM cell phone radiation results in serious neuron damage (brain cell damage) and death in cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia of brain- even 50+ days later blood-brain barrier is still leaking albumin (P<.002) following only one cell phone exposure Salford, 2003 0.026000 0.026 W/Kg Activity of c-jun (oncogene or cancer gene) was altered in cells after 20 minutes exposure to cell phone digital TDMA signal Ivaschuk, 1997 0.031700 0.0317 W/Kg Decrease in eating and drinking behavior Ray, 1990 0.037000 0.037 W/Kg Hyperactivity caused by nitric oxide synthase inhibitor is countered by exposure to ultra-wide band pulses (600/sec) for 30 min Seaman, 1999 0.037000 0.037 - 0.040 W/Kg A 1-hr cell phone exposure causes chromatin condensation; impaired DNA repair mechanisms; last 3 days (longer than stress response) the effect reaches saturation in only one hour of exposure; electro- sensitive (ES) people have different response in formation of DNA repair foci, compared to healthy individuals; effects depend on carrier frequency (915 MHz = 0.037 W/Kg but 1947 MHz = 0.040 W/Kg) Belyaev, 2008 0.050000 0.05 W/Kg Significant increase in firing rate of neurons (350%) with pulsed 900 MHz cell phone radiation exposure (but not with CW) in avian brain cells Beason, 2002 0.090000 0.09 W/Kg 900 MHz study of mice for 7 days, 12-hr per day (whole-body) resulted in significant effect on mitochondria and genome stability Aitken, 2005 0.091000 0.091 W/Kg Wireless internet 2400 MHz, 24-hrs per day/20 weeks increased DNA damage and reduced DNA repair; levels below 802.11 g Authors say "findings raise questions about safety of radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on fertility and integrity of germ cells" (male germ cells are the reproductive cells=sperm) Atasoy, 2012 0.110000 0.11 W/Kg Increased cell death (apoptosis) and DNA fragmentation at 2.45 GHz for 35 days exposure (chronic exposure study) Kesari, 2010 0.121000 0.121 W/Kg Cardiovascular system shows significant decrease in arterial blood pressure (hypotension) after exposure to ultra-wide band pulses Lu, 1999 0.130000 0.13 - 1.4 W/Kg Lymphoma cancer rate doubled with two 1/2-hr exposures per day of cell phone radiation for 18 months (pulsed 900 MHz cell signal) Repacholi, 1997 0.140000 0.14 W/Kg Elevation of immune response to RFR exposure Elekes, 1996
0.141000 0.141 W/Kg Structural changes in testes - smaller diameter of seminiferous Dasdag, 1999 0.150000 0.15 - 0.4 W/Kg Statistically significant increase in malignant tumors in rats chronically exposed to RFR Chou, 1992 0.260000 0.26 W/Kg Harmful effects to the eye/certain drugs sensitize the eye to RFR Kues, 1992 0.280000 0.28 - 1.33 W/Kg Significant increase in reported headaches with increasing use of hand-held cell phone use (maximum tested was 60 min per day) Chia, 2000 0.300000 0.3 - 0.44 W/Kg Cell phone use results in changes in cognitive thinking/mental tasks related to memory retrieval Krause, 2000 0.300000 0.3 - 0.44 W/Kg Attention function of brain and brain responses are speeded up Preece, 1999 0.300000 0.3 - 0.46 W/Kg Cell phone RFR doubles pathological leakage of blood-brain barrier permeability at two days (P=.002) and triples permeability at four days (P=.001) at 1800 MHz GSM cell phone radiation Schirmacher, 2000 0.430000 0.43 W/Kg Significant decrease in sperm mobility; drop in sperm concentration; and decrease in seminiferous tubules at 800 MHz, 8-hr/day, 12 weeks, with mobile phone radiation level on STANDBY ONLY (in rabbits) Salama, 2008 0.500000 0.5 W/Kg 900 MHz pulsed RF affects firing rate of neurons (Lymnea stagnalis) but continuous wave had no effect Bolshakov, 1992 0.580000 0.58 - 0.75 W/Kg Decrease in brain tumors after chronic exposure to RFR at 836 MHz Adey, 1999 0.600000 0.6 - 0.9 W/Kg Mouse embryos develop fragile cranial bones from in utero 900 MHz The authors say "(O)ur results clearly show that even modest exposure (e.g., 6 min daily for 21 days" is sufficient to interfere with the normal mouse developmental process" Fragopoulou, 2009 0.600000 0.6 and 1.2 W/Kg Increase in DNA single and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells with exposure to 2450 MHz RFR Lai & Singh, 1996 0.795000 0.795 W/Kg GSM 900 MHz, 217 Hz significantly decreases ovarian development and size of ovaries, due to DNA damage and premature cell death of nurse cells and follicles in ovaries (that nourish egg cells) Panagopoulous, 2012 0.870000 0.87 W/Kg Altered human mental performance after exposure to GSM cell phone radiation (900 MHz TDMA digital cell phone signal) Hamblin, 2004 0.870000 0.87 W/Kg Change in human brainwaves; decrease in EEG potential and statistically significant change in alpha (8-13 Hz) and beta (13-22 Hz) brainwave activity in humans at 900 MHz; exposures 6/min per day for 21 days (chronic exposure) D'Costa, 2003 0.900000 0.9 W/Kg Decreased sperm count and more sperm cell death (apoptosis) after 35 days exposure, 2-hr per day Kesari, 2012 1.000000 < 1.0 W/Kg Rats exposed to mobile phone radiation on STANDBY ONLY for 11-hr 45-min plus 15-min TRANSMIT mode; 2 times per day for 21 days showed decreased number of ovarian follicles in pups born to these pregnant rats. The authors conclude "the decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries." Gul, 2009 0.400000 0.4 - 1.0 W/Kg One 6-hr exposure to 1800 MHz cell phone radiation in human sperm cells caused a significant dose response and reduced sperm motility and viability; reactive oxygen species levels were significantly increased after exposure to 1.0 W/Kg; study confirms detrimental effects of RF/MW to human sperm. The authors conclude "(T)hese findings have clear implicatiions for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive ELK-1 by 390% Weisbrot, 2003 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg Human semen degraded by exposure to cell phone frequency RF increased free-radical damage. De Iuliis, 2009 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg Motility, sperm count, sperm morphology, and viability reduced in active cell phone users (human males) in dose-dependent manner. Agarwal, 2008 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg GSM cell phone use modulates brain wave oscillations and sleep EEG Huber, 2002 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg Cell phone RFR during waking hours affects brain wave activity. (EEG patterns) during subsequent sleep Achermann, 2000 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg Cell phone use causes nitric oxide (NO) nasal vasodilation (swelling inside nasal passage) on side of head phone use Paredi, 2001 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg Increase in headache, fatigue and heating behind ear in cell phone users Sandstrom, 2001 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg Significant increase in concentration difficulties using 1800 MHz cell phone compared to 900 MHz cell phone Santini, 2001 1.000000 1.0 W/Kg Sleep patterns and brain wave activity are changed with 900 MHz cell phone radiation exposure during sleep Borbely, 1999 1.400000 1.4 W/Kg GSM cell phone exposure induced heat shock protein HSP 70 by 360% (stress response) and phosphorylation of ELK-1 by 390% Weisbrot, 2003 1.460000 1.46 W/Kg 850 MHz cell phone radiation decreases sperm motility, viability is significantly decreased; increased oxidative damage (free-radicals) significantly decreased; increased oxidative damage (free-radicals) Agarwal, 2009 1.480000 1.48 W/Kg A significant decrease in protein kinase C activity at 112 MHz with 2-hr per day for 35 days; hippocampus is site, consistent with reports that RFR negatively affects learning and memory functions Paulraj, 2004 1.000000 1.0 - 2.0 W/Kg Significant elevation in micronuclei in peripheral blood cells at 2450 MHz (8 treatments of 2-hr each) Trosic, 2002 1.500000 1.5 W/Kg GSM cell phone exposure affected gene expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells; and significantly increased HSP 70 heat shock protein production Czyz, 2004
182 Studies https://www.telecompowergrab.org/science.html I. Effects on Fetal and Newborn Development II. Effects on Young Children III. Brain Tumors IV. Parotid Gland Tumors V. Other Malignancies VI. Effects on DNA VII. Neurological/Cognitive Effects VIII. Effects on Male Fertility IX. Electromagnetic Sensitivity X. Effects on Implanted Medical Devices XI. 5G Effects XII. Miscellaneous Articles
