United Kingdom: EMF/RF/5G Resistance & Recent Progress, Part 1 of 3
By Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International with Karen Churchill “We are the ones writing and reporting the true story”
“And then the people said ‘NO’. The End” –Courtney and Amelia Gilardi, Pittsfield, MA from the Oct. Safe Tech International event Celebrating Local Successes and Actions
Recent International Developments
Although the mainstream media in the U.S. has failed to provide coverage, several significant decisions have recently been made in different countries regarding inadequate safety protections for wireless technologies and infrastructure. For example:
A German court found that property owners can be liable for health impacts from base station antennas on their property. “As even official bodies such as the European Parliament’s Research Service (STOA) point out that the electromagnetic radiation limit values are too high by at least a factor of 10, the owner takes a liability when entering into an agreement with a mobile phone system operator in this regard.” – Source
A court in France has found in favour of a farmer who claimed that a 4G antenna was damaging his cows’ health, and has ordered for the antenna to be switched off for two months. “Philippe Molhérat, the mayor of Mazeyrat-d’Allier, who had previously authorised the antenna’s installation, testified in favour of the farmer. He said that he feared “a catastrophe on a human level” and that his “concerns” were growing for the 1,500 inhabitants of his village.” – Source
The Court of Turin ruled in February 2020 that ICNIRP should not be relied upon for meaningful guidelines due to bias. Court of Turin Ruling: ICNIRP refuses to acknowledge the robust body of peer reviewed research demonstrating harmful bio-effects from manmade radio frequency electromagnetic radiation. ICNIRP produces ‘guidelines’ which are based largely on theory and do not take into account independent experimental evidence. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Turin-Verdict-ICNIRP_Judgment-SUMMARY-of-the-Turin-Court-of-Appeal-9042019_EN-min.pdf
Spotlight: United Kingdom
In addition to a legal case against 5G, there are a number of recent historical developments in the UK:
- A mast (tower) application in Frome was denied on the basis of health concerns
- A child was awarded an education health plan on the basis of EHS
- A social worker was awarded disability on the basis of EHS
Background: ICNIRP and Public Health England are Bedfellows
As noted by the Environmental Health Trust, “ICNIRP (the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is an ‘invite only’ club with longstanding industry ties that is accountable to no one. ICNIRP is short for the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP is an invite only, small group of just 14 members that has no oversight. It was founded by scientist Michael Repacholi who was funneling industry money though a hospital to fund his EMF activities and is now an industry consultant. Repacholi remains an ICNIRP Emeritus Member.”
Public Health England began operating on 2013 to protect and improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities.
Although regulators and industry have not addressed mounting health and environmental issues, campaigners (activists) worldwide have been achieving significant successes.
Spotlight on UK: “Councils Must Consider Other Sources of Evidence About the Known Hazards and Apply the Precautionary Principle”
The UK’s Karen Churchill explains, “A UK 5G Mast was refused on health grounds. Government policy constrains planners with a specifically worded policy that they must not refuse a mast application on the basis of health concerns. But after committed consistent campaigning, the statutory obligation to reconcile the risks at the local level was established in the South West of the UK.
The local Planning Board in Mendip Council set aside national policy and voted that there is insufficient proof of 5G safety and refused to grant planning permission for a 5G mast in Frome, Somerset. 73 masts have been refused in the City of Bristol on the basis of visual appearance (aesthetics) since late 2020.
Could planners be playing safe and strictly applying policy, whilst secretly applying the precautionary principle, as thousands of objections about health impacts have been submitted in Bristol? Visual amenity is a minimal concern in the objections.”
Stop5G.co.UK: ICNIPR is No Longer ‘Carte Blanche’ for Telecom
According to the UK advocacy group Stop5g.co.UK
“When campaigners write to Councillors, MPs, or Schools they find more often than not that the standard response is that they are following PHE guidelines. The PHE guidelines defer to the ICNIRP recommended exposure levels for non-ionising radiation (NIR).
This is incredibly frustrating since the guidelines are not fit for purpose, but there is still a brick wall defending them.”
The ICNIRP guidelines were set in 1998 and based on short term tests on radiation from a single mobile phone.
They are irrelevant to today’s patterns of exposure (multiple devices, interference patterns, hotspots, continuous exposure), and still ignore non-thermal, direct biological effects at levels way below those stated.
The majority (up to 70%) of independent peer reviewed studies show evidence of harm from wireless exposure, even at low power levels, and especially to children.
PHE also fail to put their 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts) advice into any context such as cm2 or m2 for it to be actually used.
As can be seen in the BioInitiative 2012 Colour Charts which summarise over 60 studies that report biological effects and adverse health effects relevant for cell towers, wi-fi, ‘smart’ wireless utility meters, wireless laptops, baby monitors, cell phones and cordless phones. Every one of these studies reports one of the effects listed below at exposure levels below the Public Health England, and therefore ICNIRPs, guidelines. [ ]
In 2004 Public Health England adopted the ICNIRP guidelines as the basis for their own guidance, but for which they take no responsibility. Their only duty under 2A of the Public Health Act is to forward any draft revised guidance to the Health and Safety Executive HSE for consideration.
Public Health England guidance only conveys information from the ICNIRP about impacts on health from non-ionising radiation, which can be used to assess a hazard at thermal levels. Their guidance is presented solely as a reference point for the User or Public Body, who are advised to also take into account other submissions made to them by the public, or other bodies.
PHE does not review or take into account itself all the available scientific evidence or research on issues covered by the guidance but rely solely on reviews by the ICNIRP.
The Guidance [on PHE website] is not maintained or revised by PHE for the explicit purpose of any other body undertaking any other statutory function. That body must determine what other evidence to consider in making any decision. (Public Health Act 2A)
The PHE guidelines are NOT Law.
The only Regulation in the UK that is defined by the ICNIRP levels is the Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016.
This means that councils, when considering other effects from long term exposure to RFR (radio frequency radiation) on say the environment and vulnerable groups, must consider other sources of evidence about the known hazards, and apply the EU Precautionary Principle.” – https://stop5g.co.uk/public-health-england-phe/.
PHE and ICNIRP vs. European Electronics Communications Code, Reconciling Risk
Karen Churchill reiterates, “The PHE guidelines are NOT Law. The public and the Planning Departments are being misled by national planning policy which includes statements “that they must not set health safeguards other than ICNIRP.
There is a statutory requirement to risk reconcile in the European Electronics Communications Code, which requires that public health be made imperative and requires the application of precaution. This Law supersedes Policy and the yet this truth is being suppressed.”
(Note that health and environmental advocates in the U.S. have a similar challenge due to section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 being invoked, as explained by Physicians for Safe Technology. Attorney Andrew Campanelli of Anti-Cell Tower Lawyers has been successfully instructing communities in “How to Control the Placement of Cell Towers, Small Cells and Das Nodes” in accordance with FCC requirements.]
Karen Churchill, World Council for Health: Action Against 5G
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/karen-churchill-action-against-5g/ (16 minutes), with written transcript
“Call For Govt Action on Dangers of 5G” by Sean Carney
“The good news is, we can change this, but only if we act together and acknowledge the scandal, promote this video’s message, and pursue a solution, holding the government to account for protectionism, mismanaging public health and reimagining legislation to favour an unimpeded roll out of wireless 5G that hasn’t been proven safe for humans, wildlife, or the environment.” – Sean Carney
In Part 2 of 3, we will look at the UK, by the numbers
Sign-up to receive current EMF NEWS and most recent BLOGS