Most recent correspondence with William Wragg:
Thank you for your emails. Please see my written parliamentary questions, which I tabled after our meeting:
I will be following this up with further work, as the answers are vague.
these answers demonstrate the intrinsic problem we face. They contain blatant lies, whichever level they’re arising from. This isn’t a case of ‘the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing’… the left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing but it’s denying it because it’s way too inconvenient to acknowledge it. ‘A considerable amount of research has been carried out on radio waves and we anticipate no negative effects on public health.’ You know William, radio frequency hazards were known as far back as the 1950s.
‘As 5G continues to develop, the Government is committed to working with Public Health England’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE) in order to monitor available evidence and will take action if necessary.’ This is nothing more than a placatory sentence… and if push comes to shove it translates as: we’ll monitor available evidence so that if at some point the government is at risk of being in anyway incriminated, or if and when it looks as though the NHS is going to be brought to its knees by RF radiation related illnesses, we’ll take action and announce that ”some new research is showing blah blah blah, it transpires that Radiofrequency radiation blah blah blah…”
Officialdom’s answers represent the ‘closed system’, not the facts. It’s a massively difficult situation to negotiate. The media are obviously playing a pivotal role in spinning a blanket of deception.
Perhaps you are beginning to see what we’re up against with lies and deceptions in practically every direction we turn. I’m listening to the scientists who have both integrity and their finger on the scientific pulse, not the ‘officials’ who are inevitably obedient servants in trickle down of the ‘closed system’.
What’s going on behind the various propaganda screens, and I’m sorry to say this to you, but including the government’s, is utterly shocking.
Is it okay to share your questions and their answers?
I really bless you for this William. Thank you, on behalf of everyone, for raising it.
My kindest regards
Our second reply:
Dear Mr Wragg,
thank you for forwarding your two parliament questions relating to 5G technology together with their answers:
(Your first question/answer: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 5G: Health Hazards176372
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment his Department has made about the safety of 5G with respect to human health.
A Answered by: Margot James Answered on: 16 October 2018
‘ … A considerable amount of research has been carried out on radio waves and we anticipate no negative effects on public health.
The Government expects that existing UK technical standards will be adhered to throughout the development and deployment of 5G products and networks. These standards draw on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which takes into account the well-researched effects of radio waves. … ‘
Your second question/answer: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 5G: Health Hazards176373
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, how many representations his Department has received on the health risks of 5G technology.
A Answered by: Margot James Answered on: 16 October 2018
‘… The Department has had a number of open consultations, and calls for evidence over the past year, for the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review, as well as relating to the 5G Programme. Across these, and with departmental correspondence, we have received 34 representations on the potential health risks of 5G technology.
A considerable amount of research has been carried out on radio waves and we anticipate no negative effects on public health. … ‘)
With regard to the content of these answers, I refer you to the 2017 Scientists’ 5G Appeal to the EU:
‘Scientists and doctors warn of potential serious health effects of 5G’
‘We the undersigned scientists and 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. Harmful effects of RF-EMF exposure are already proven.
…Over 230 scientists from more than 40 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices already before the additional 5G roll-out. They refer to the fact that ”numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.’
In view of the fact that scientists from many countries are raising serious concerns, based on research findings, regarding not only high level 5G radiation but radiofrequency radiation levels prior to 5G and even to 4G, please could you ask Margot James, or someone else from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport :
1. To provide a specific breakdown of the ‘considerable amount of research’ via which the government ‘anticipate no negative effects on public health’, including details of funding and whether or not the research is peer reviewed.
2. To provide a specific breakdown of the ‘well researched effects of radio waves’ which the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is basing its standards on, including details of funding and whether or not the research is peer reviewed.
3. To provide a specific breakdown of the ’34 representations on the potential health risks of 5G technology’ referred to, the conclusions drawn and the reasons given for arriving at those particular conclusions.
This might seem a lot to ask, but when taking into account the serious nature of the warnings given by a large body of informed scientists regarding the potential dangers of 5G RF radiation, it becomes clear that the physical safety of millions of British men, women and children, not to mention animals, birds, insects and plants, potentially rests on ascertaining the truth within the dichotomy between the government’s scientific perspective and that of the many scientists warning of the dangers.
Thank you for your time. I await a response.
Very best wishes,