UK Activists: Rebuttal of “Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health”
By Karen Churchill, with Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International
Informed activists worldwide have been alarmed and dismayed by claims being presented to decision-makers about the 5G network, including misguidance concerning safety, for example, unfounded implications that all individuals are protected by current guidelines, and that theoretical “safety guidelines” are applicable to all frequencies.
Here, UK activists rebut the unsubstantiated 2-page “Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health” by Building Mobile Britian, supplied with application HS/TL/23/00533 Hastings in July 2023, and also submitted in Richmond. The link to the Hastings proceeding is here.
“Building Mobile Britain is a campaign that supports the mobile industry’s collaboration with national and local government, regulators, industry, consumers and citizens to overcome the challenges to expanding mobile networks, whilst also developing innovative services for customers.”
Are decision-makers negligent in accepting without question pro-industry marketing materials as evidence of health and safety? Why are nations not heeding independent health experts with the expertise and responsibility to protect health and the environment? Where does the liability land if decisions are made on the basis of false and misleading information and inaccurate assumptions?
Images of sections of the “Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health” (blue) by Building Mobile Britain are followed by commentary.
(Unsubstantiated) “Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health”
5G Briefing Note (safetechinternational.org)
Applications?
There is no evidence that this proposal would support connected cars or the internet of things and so these applications should be discounted from a benefit/risk analysis of the proposal. Even if they were to be considered, the risks of the applications need to be fully presented.
For example, “connected cars” can easily be hacked by foreign and central sources in multiple ways, e.g. through the audio equipment and the technologies have not been sufficiently tested for vulnerabilities.
https://hackernoon.com/how-to-hack-self-driving-cars-vulnerabilities-in-autonomous-vehicles-jh3r37cz
“In 2011, Chevy Malibu was the first remote intrusion that attackers were able to gain control of. The hackers “manipulated the radio of the vehicle using a Bluetooth stack weakness and inserted the malware codes by syncing their mobile phones with the radio” (Attack on Self-Driving Cars and Their Countermeasures: A Survey). Once successfully inserted, the code can send messages to the ECU of the car and lock the brakes. “
The sanctity of organic reality should be preserved and there are laws in place to do so.
There is no evidence that the residents in the vicinity of this mast are demanding or requiring virtual reality applications.
Virtual reality with the necessary proliferation of this technology threatens organic life via multiple means. The whole life cycle of the infrastructure is not carbon or net zero, silicon chips cannot be made with renewables, the mining for minerals is causing untold suffering, and there are direct harmful effects on fauna and flora.
Environmental Impacts?
Theoretical radiofrequency exposure guidelines (derived from military uses) have not taken into account protection of the nature environment, worldwide.
Please add the following content into your risk/benefit analysis.
Juxtaposed Combinations and “Hotspots”?
Not all the frequencies being used have been tested in combination and yet already the WHO are reporting that mitigation of hotspots (areas of excessive RF) is necessary and is being tested in Holland where indoor plants in an apartment in line of sight of 5G mast have been observed to recover if the hotspot is mitigated.
WHO IEMF project leader James Lech is suggesting maps of potential/possible hotpots are provided with any proposed new and upgraded site.
https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/2022-who-optical-radiation-emf-project-report-iac-za/
In the UK and elsewhere there is very little, if any, awareness of “hotspots,” the main message being promoted is “5G is safe” which is an unreasoned and inaccurate summary.
The type of 5G emitted from this proposal has not been clarified. Without the full specification it is impossible to tell which applications will be supported by this mast.
The Code of Practice states that the justification of need of a proposal should be evidenced.
“Standardised and high-quality approach to planning applications, and the notification procedure: provide standardised supporting documentation for planning applications (where appropriate) within the context of national and local requirements. Ensure planning submissions are of high-quality and provide the necessary evidence to support the application (as per the NPPF).” – Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England
This section about “use” is invalid as the three “uses” operate separate frequency bands, it is not in evidence with the proposal which of these frequencies will be facilitated by this proposed mast.
It is misleading to claim benefits of “5G” and not be specific about the applications this specific/particular proposal is capable of supporting. Nor its relevance to the surrounding population within the claimed range of the signal.
The high-demand applications of the future need to be named specifically otherwise the benefit/ risk analysis cannot be complete. As does the ‘need’ with the range of this particular base station.
Are 5G Signals ‘Safe’?
(Unsubstantiated) Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health:
5G Briefing Note (safetechinternational.org)
This is misleading, the authorities are not named for the implied ‘consensus of reviews’ so the sources cannot be verified.
There is a vast international and independent consensus by authoritative sources that the guideline does not provide protection for all people nor in all circumstances, as referenced here:
World Health Organization – International EMF Project – International Advisory Committee (IAC) – 11th anniversary of the International Optical Radiation and 26th anniversary of EMF Project meeting, South Africa National Report 2022 (figshare.com) “Page 38/44”
In particular ex-ICNIRP member James Lin is definitive in his knowledge that ICNIRP guidelines are not protective.
First and foremost, anyone with metal or medical implants are specifically excluded in the ICNIRP guidelines. ICNIRP are clear that the effect of RFR on the cells surrounding the metal is unpredictable and so they cannot set a safety guideline for this group.
“ICBE-EMF is an international organisation of experts whose scientifically supported consensus is that ICNIRP guidelines are not protective.”
Home – International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (icbe-emf.org)
Including Children?
As Professor Tom Butler (University of College Cork Ireland) noted in his report, On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Non-Ionizing Radio Frequency Radiation: The Case of Digital Technologies in the Home, Classroom and Society, “Children’s health and well-being is under significant threat from everyday digital technologies, as the past 15 years have seen the proliferation of microwave non-ionizing radio frequency radiation (RFR) devices and related communication systems in the home, school and society. The safety standards for such devices—smartphones, tablets etc.—and the systems that serve them, were based on the proven thermal effects of microwave radiation in adults, not children.”
Safety Testing?
The testing to establish guidelines for wireless devices are performed on SAM an adult-sized male model, not appropriate to real to life situations of exposure from multiple sources to a child’s head.
(Unsubstantiated) Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health:
5G Briefing Note (safetechinternational.org)
“The government and telecoms rely on the “Karipidis et al” science review paper to make claims that science supports 5G safety.
However, the “Weller et al” critique effectively shreds the review to piece. It is scientifically disingenuous for Telecoms and governments to rely on Karipdis to tout 5G safety.
Weller et al explains Karipidis excludes important findings from sound research, minimises the fact that no studies have investigated specific 5G frequencies and modulations, misquotes source science, and makes misstatements and missclassifications.
“The Karipidis review is at best a superficial analysis of a restricted set of available publications investigating exposures to radio frequencies in the >6 GHz range. “
“A literature search identified a significant number of relevant papers (at least 70 experimental papers and 16 epidemiological papers available from PubMed and ODEB) were missing from the Karipidis collection. These papers cover all major themes presented by Karipidis and more, with the majority showing statistically significant effects. By restricting the paper selection criteria, the balance of evidence can be skewed. A lack of transparency regarding papers found and ultimately discarded by Karipidis means that selection bias cannot be excluded.
Also missing from the Karipidis review is an analysis of potential publication and funding biases, which would allow the reader to assess how such influences affect study outcomes. ” – Source
Please refer to the link below for a full and detailed analysis of why the ICNIRP guidelines definitively do not cover all exposures and all frequencies.
The industry has implied that the scope of safety guidelines can be extended to encompass new frequencies as well as juxtapositions of exposures. The commentary of the Karipidis paper clarifies in great detail the false basis of the claim that current guidelines protect all people.
“Examination of the Karipidis 5G health review reveals many errors in classification and analysis. Some are minor, and although indicating a lack of diligence, they have no substantial implications for the outcomes identified in the papers reviewed. Of much greater concern are the number of misstatements, misclassifications, and exclusions of important findings from sound research. The Karipidis review is at best a superficial analysis of a restricted set of available publications investigating exposures to radio frequencies in the >6 GHz range. “
“A literature search identified a significant number of relevant papers (at least 70 experimental papers and 16 epidemiological papers available from PubMed and ODEB) were missing from the Karipidis collection. These papers cover all major themes presented by Karipidis and more, with the majority showing statistically significant effects. By restricting the paper selection criteria, the balance of evidence can be skewed. A lack of transparency regarding papers found and ultimately discarded by Karipidis means that selection bias cannot be excluded.
Also missing from the Karipidis review is an analysis of potential publication and funding biases, which would allow the reader to assess how such influences affect study outcomes. ” – Source
More Incorrect Assumptions Driving International Exploitation of the Electromagnetic Spectrum
(Unsubstantiated) Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health:
5G Briefing Note (safetechinternational.org)
ICNIRP guidelines were published in 2020. In 2023 four papers of 5G in situ research have been published. All studies show definitive harms to residents living in the close vicinity, all the residents studied developed microwave sickness.
- Development of the Microwave Syndrome in Two Men Shortly after Installation of 5G on the Roof above their Office (anncaserep.com)
- Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation
- Radiofrequency radiation from nearby base stations gives high levels in an apartment in Stockholm, Sweden: A case report
- Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden
This research should be factored into the planning Case Officer’s risk analysis as the European Electronics Communications Code requires precaution to be applied, and recent science be taken into account via Article 45 2h) and paragraph 19 of the 1999/519/EC recommendations.
Information on new research and details of individual studies can be found in the EMF-Portal web database maintained by the RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
Please see all scientific references in the ICBE-EMF 14 assumptions paper and the three 2023 studies and see practically non-existent research on 5G in situ.
- “519 out of 38000 publications on EMF fields studies are on 5G
- 14 out of these 519 are on health/biological effects of 5G
- 4 out of 14 actually use transmission characteristics of real-life transmission of 5G
- & the biologic and health effects associated with exposure to 5G radiation depend on the carrier frequency, beamformed, pulsed polarised mimo etc
All of the 4 studies listed above demonstrating harm were released since ICNIRP published its 2020 guidelines. (Hardell and Nilsson, 2023; Chu et al., 2023; Pustake et al., 2022; Perov et al., 2022). “
Which “European Commission” is Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health referencing? Without a reference this claim cannot be verified,
Please see the KARIPIDIS critique for multiple reasons why this claim is false.
Public Health England have been replaced by UKHSA so these statements although equivalent to UKHSA statements, should be discounted from the risk benefit analysis of this proposal.
The Court of Turin has ruled that acoustic neuroma was caused by mobile phone.
A statement made in 2012 about exposures is not relevant to the exposure levels being experienced by children in 2023.
The 2020 submission “A Review of the Health Risks of Radiofrequency Radiation Employed in 5G Technology and the Implications for UK Policymaking” by Professor Thomas Butler states, ” This short critical review explores the findings of extant research on the health risks posed by 5G technologies that emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR)1. It also provides evidence that the processes by which policy decisions have been made concerning the protection of public health may be significantly flawed, as the overwhelming body of scientific evidence appears to have been ignored by relevant government departments and agencies in arriving at decisions about the introduction of 5G. This lacuna comes about due to the over-reliance on expert opinion from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an NGO whose members have traditionally had close ties to industry. It is significant that the UK government and its agencies neither sought nor obtained independent scientific advice on a matter of importance to public health.
Consequently, it failed in its duty to identify, assess, and mitigate the risks posed by RFR-based technologies before their introduction, specifically 5G networking and related technologies, thereby protecting public health.”
Exposure Levels?
(Unsubstantiated) “Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health”
5G Briefing Note (safetechinternational.org)
It is not clear which frequency will be transmitted from this mast, so this section is irrelevant in the appraisal of this mast.
This section is general and meaningless to an accurate assessment of risk from this proposal.
There is no evidence that residents in the immediate area of this proposal are expecting and demanding higher data rates.
There are difficulties of measuring 5G beamed radiation as the beams are narrow, Ofcom are still measuring against 1998 guidelines, It is expensive and difficult to make the calculations necessary for the 2020 guideline limits adjusted for 5G.
This claim should be supported by a full risk analysis. It is illogical to predict a change in exposure level form 4G to 5G from an un-named previous transition. This generalised claim is totally misleading and should be discounted from the risk/benefit analysis.
Higher frequency 5G millimeter waves cannot travel far and will need small cell placed in close proximity.
Conclusion
Overall, this report from “Mobile Telecoms” is grossly misleading in regard to both what specific applications and benefits will be provided by this proposal and to the consensus amongst independent international organisations about health effects.
There are many guidelines other than ICNIRP (including Building Biology and the BioInitiative Report) which are more reflective of the harms seen in lab and epidemiological studies. The New Hampshire Commission Report summarises these findings and recommends a 500 meter setback based on the current state of the science.
Industry claims, for example the implication that both bananas and cell towers emit create similar exposures and therefore are both safe, are increasingly being challenged by public sentiment committed to holding humanity accountable for technology morally aligned with higher values, and devoid of domination, exploitation, short sightedness, and greed.
For example, in the United Kingdom, in February 2023, the “Action Against 5G Court Case” was brought by First Claimant and Second Claimant Vicky Angell & Karen Churchill at the Royal Courts of Justice on Strand, London because the U.K. Government has failed in its duty to inform the public about the risks of wireless radiation. A successful court action was also brought against the FCC in the United States challenging the reliance on 1996 exposure guidelines which have never been tested. The court remand remains unresolved.
UK activist Karen Churchill noted, “I am appalled that planners ignore detailed, logical, important information which invalidates statements made by Telecoms to justify proposals; regulation is a sham.”
The industry is controlling the narrative. (Remember tobacco?)
As independent experts and the public continue to challenge unfounded claims and incorrect assumptions, the balance of power moves towards truth and integrity. Kent Chamberlain echoes the sentiment, “The science is in.”
Sign-up to receive current EMF NEWS and most recent BLOGS