11/06/2019 ‘I imagine that’s Gigahertz’
Dear Norman Lamb
just to say… I did not intend writing again, at least for a while, but deem it necessary. If you are tired of reading my correspondences, I can only say that I am probably considerably more tired from repeatedly trying to organize meaning and syntax in emails of such a disturbing order. I am not an expert in the fields of either science or technology, my involvement is acutely human and revolves around the avoidance of the serious potential harm 5G could cause to humans and to the natural world.
The following was sent to me yesterday afternoon in an email from Danielle Nash, Clerk to the Science and Technology Committee:
Nonetheless the (Science and Technology) Committee has received several pieces of correspondence raising health concerns about 5G. Therefore it decided to put these concerns to the Chief Medical Officer to the UK Government when she appeared before the Committee last week (question 52):
(Chair) Stephen Metcalfe: ”Is there sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the roll-out does not present a public health risk?”
Dame Sally Davies: ”Yes, I think there is at this time.”
Dame Sally thinks there is? Then I can only assume she hasn’t encountered the large body of science which points to 5G posing an enormous public health risk… and which clearly overrides the British Parliament’s demonstrably weak stance claiming that 5G poses no public health risk. Has Dame Sally seen the Reflex Study, the National Toxicology Programme Study? Has she seen the EMF Appeal signed by 206 scientists, all with published, peer reviewed papers on the subject of EMF biological effects (over 2,000 papers collectively)… or the subsequent Scientists’ ‘5G Appeal’, warning of ‘Potential Serious Harm of 5G’, or the Scientists’ ‘The EMF Call’ appeal’ discrediting the ICNIRP guidelines? How about the bioinitiative report? The Freiburg Appeal? Dr Martin Pall’s report ‘5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health!’ etc. etc.
It can take ten, twenty or even thirty years for tumours and other health conditions to emerge from their latency. RF radiation harm is cumulative in most people. British demographic statistics have not yet coalesced into comprehensive, specific research on RF radiation effects. Specificity is crucial e.g. what are the specifics on the doubling of the incidence of the aggressive brain tumour, Glioblastoma, since 1995? Does it correlate with wireless phone use or some other environmental factor? Whilst we wait for answers from such specifically directed research, scientific methodology is clearly demonstrating that RF radiation causes negative health effects, not least, single and double strand DNA damage, chromosome aberration and the fact that current standards are not adequately protective.
Dame Sally Davies: ”I know the Government has accepted that we should adopt the international commission on non-ionising radiation protection guidelines…”
From ‘The EMF Call’, signed by some of the world’s leading experts on the biological effects of EMFs: ‘In order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization and all governments not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines. They are not protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific pretext that they are “protective” ‘.
Dr Neil Cherry, (Associate Professor of environmental health, Lincoln University, NZ) from his 2002 PAPER, ‘Criticism of the health assessment in the ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency and microwave radiation (100KHz – 300GHz):
‘It is simply not scientifically credible to claim that there are no established non-thermal effects and hence it is wrong to adopt a guideline such as the ICNIRP guideline as a public exposure standard. … The ICNIRP assessment is grossly biased by selectively choosing studies, consistently misrepresenting the results, the significance of results, the implications of the results of cellular experiments, animal experiments and human studies. … There is compelling and consistent evidence of cancer, especially leukaemia and brain cancer.
Dame Sally Davies: ‘‘I know the Government has accepted that we should adopt the international commission on non-ionising radiation protection guidelines for limiting exposure, which apply to under 300 GHz—I imagine that is gigahertz. Actually, 5G will be only a few tens of gigahertz”
Yes, you imagine correctly, Dame Sally, it is gigahertz… and 5G will be only a few tens of gigahertz? No worry then… what are all these international bio-physicists making such a fuss about?
Chair: ”Thank you, that is suitably clear.”
Suitably clear about what? That prior to the meeting, Prof. Dame Sally Davies was perhaps told that some luddites are panicking about health risks. That she was then put in the horribly awkward position of being handed a couple of placatory sentences she was required to utter in answer to Stephen Metcalfe’s question on 5G health risks? In view of the fact that Dame Sally verbally struggled with the word ‘ionizing’ before speaking what was possibly the least scientifically credible sentence in parliamentary history (‘though maybe not), I think we should be not only cynical but extremely concerned.
I am currently watching yesterday’s Science and Technology Committee meeting on the UK telecommunications infrastructure. I can only tolerate it in bite sized pieces because I am finding it difficult to listen to the voice of reason being so meticulously and intelligently applied to rationalising the details of an out-and-out aberration. Fundamental to this aberration will be the all-encompassing superimposition of a massively distorting electromagnetic 5G grid that will oscillate at levels tens of billions times higher than the planet’s, and all its life forms’, age-old ‘homeostatic’ frequencies. That this is being rationalised as ‘progress’, not as an indefensible technological travesty, is bewildering. I am also observing that a lot of attention is being given to data risks and protection but not to human risks and protection… apart, of course, from Stephen Metcalfe and Prof. Dame Sally Davies.
There are better technological avenues, particularly with fibre-optics, which can be taken:
From the comprehensive 2018 report, ‘Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks’ written by Timothy Schoechle PhD, Senior Research Fellow, National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy:
‘The unstated industry motive is to force subscribers into more profitable wireless networks. The claims about obsolescence and the supposed need to “step toward to the 21st century” are a self-serving, false narrative put forward by monopolistic corporations and their political lackeys.’
‘Wireless access has been artificially inflated by regulatory disparity. Present technology and a market trajectory of dependence on wireless are unsustainable as a long-term solution for many reasons, including: • Not efficient (energy or materials) • Not sufficient (economically or in performance) • Not self-sufficient (energy or materials) • Not sustainable (economically, in energy, environmentally, socially) • Vulnerable (hacking) • Growing health concerns’
‘Wired infrastructure is inherently more future-proof, more reliable, more sustainable, more energy-efficient, and more essential to many other services. Wireless networks and services are inherently more complex, more costly, more unstable, and more constrained.’
If the British public knew that a. 5G is being deployed without a single safety test. b. Over 200 scientists versed in the biological effects of EMFs are warning of ‘potential serious health effects of 5G’ and recommending a moratorium. Also, that children are even more at risk than adults, do you think they’d agree to its deployment? Absolutely not.
Despite the power and force of the telecommunications industry and the vast amount of revenue involved, the safety of the British people must be parliament’s first priority. I in no way want to make a drama out of this, but some heroic action is urgently required from the Members of the British Parliament, whose grave responsibility for the ‘potential serious health effects of 5G’ currently appears to be eluding them… either that, or they are deliberately avoiding the issue.
I’ll end with sincere thanks to my local MP, William Wragg, who is an exception, and whose genuine concern is deeply appreciated.
With good wishes,