Health and Social Wellbeing
Professor Kent Chamberlin, David Gee and Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe spoke at a public meeting organised at Wimbledon Arts Space in June.
The latest evidence fully justifies a 500m setback distance from a mast (both from epidemiological and lab studies). This 500m setback is ten times further than the estimated exclusion zone recommended by ICNIRP, the details of which have not been provided with this application. Which is it? 50m according to ICNIRP guidelines versus 500m which peer reviewed science supports. An even further setback distance is required to protect those suffering from electro-hypersensitivity (EHS).
Mendip council voted against a mast on health grounds. Here is my discussion on this: https://rfinfo.co.uk/mendip-council-health-impact-based-mast-refusal/. It was a useful meeting because one councillor, a physics teacher very clearly expressed reasons why in his view there are no health concerns about non-ionising radiation. His contribution allowed us to explore the issue further and provided a basis to question ourselves. The discussion explores his points one by one.
It may surprising to some that this not a fringe concern, as of 11th January 2023 424 scientists and medical doctors have signed an appeal calling for the EU to halt the roll out of 5G due to serious potential health effects. “5G will substantially increase exposure to radio-frequency 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.”
The only study to date on biological effects conducted on 5G masts reported in February 2022 that it caused “microwave sickness” in a couple when it was installed above their apartment (it replaced a 4G mast and they were not aware of this change).
This is also why in August 2021 the FCC was found to have not kept up with the latest evidence and ordered to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation. The FCC standards are based on ICNIRP guidelines just like ours in the UK. It highlights incompatible use:
“Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radio-frequency radiation, this has important implications for 5G. The paper demonstrates how the U.S. Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP) have ignored or inappropriately dismissed hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at exposures below the threshold dose claimed by these agencies, which was used to establish human exposure limits.”
Independently conducted weighted meta-studies (looking at quality of methodology, interpretation of findings, conflicts of interest, extent of peer review) repeatedly show there is harm.
A judgement in 2017 found that an employee’s acoustic neuroma was caused by use of mobile phone as part of his work. In December 2019, in The Turin Court of Appeal, the employer INAIL appealed the 2017 judgement. The appeal court upheld the initial judgement. It’s worth reading this professionally translated verdict. It has huge implications because it shows how the court recognised clear conflicts of interest in bodies which are setting our chosen safeguards (ICNIRP) and gives you a flavour of the rigour in arriving at the verdict.
The largest study on the effects of non-ionising RF radiation on health was done over 14 years at a cost of $30M and showed harm. A separate study by the Ramazzini Institute mirrored these results
The NTP and Ramazzini studies are the most comprehensive animal studies with regard to cancer and exposure to mobile phone and base station signals that have been conducted to date. The scientific quality and standard of laboratory techniques are high, especially in the NTP study. Both applied strict guidelines in good laboratory practice (GLP) throughout the experimental procedure, and advanced procedures in pathology and statistics. Please see the summary in the BERENIS (the authority in Switzerland on non-ionising radiation) newsletter.
5G is an uninsurable technology when it comes to health effects and data security. Lloyds of London nor Swiss RE will insure it. What insurance policy does any Council have in place against health and environmental harm caused by a technology for which there have been no long-term independent health or environmental impact studies? After all, this is a technology which is being rolled out without due diligence. In this report entitled ‘How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation’, two journalists checked this situation (20min read).