|To:||WRAGG, William <email@example.com>, Jeremy.firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com|
Subject: ‘Your Letter’
thank you for your letter, which arrived today and which I very much appreciate.
You mention the Government response to your question on 5G health effects: ‘I understand that some research has been carried out on radio waves and the Government does not anticipate any negative effects’. This is basically an unsupported, generalised dismissal that doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Having spent days reading through research papers on RMF/RF radiation health effects (no fun, but the cellular biology’s utterly fascinating), I came across this superb and comprehensive paper today. It’s written by Dr Sarah Starkey, a signatory of all three Scientists’ appeals to the UN, WHO and EU, and contains a wealth of relevant information. I only wish I’d found it sooner: https://cdn.website-editor.net/2479f24c54de4c7598d60987e3d81157/files/uploaded/Early_Years_Inquiry_EY10062.pdf
Please can you forward the paper to your Westminster researcher. It will aid expediency as it gives links to many research studies.
Here are some excerpts:
‘The scientists responsible for the inaccurate AGNIR report who are employed by PHE or the Department of Health (DH) continue in their roles and still advise on the safety of wireless signals. In my view, the evidence points to these employees having broken their employment Code of Conduct187 and they should be removed from their roles.’
‘So many policy decisions by UK Governments, local authorities, by schools, businesses etc have been made based on the factually incorrect information provided by PHE and AGNIR (regarding the safety of radiofrequency signals). Accurate evidence on the safety of wireless technologies is not currently being used effectively in policy-making. In my view the incorrect conclusions, conclusions omitted and inaccurate statements were not accidental mistakes; evidence was covered-up. Perhaps the misinformation was to protect ICNIRP guidelines (by ICNIRP members in AGNIR), or to protect the current and future proliferation of wireless technologies, or because once decisions have been made based on misinformation, it is very difficult to admit to the evidence’
‘Accurate information about the safety of wireless technologies cannot be disseminated or accessed whilst the scientists responsible in the DH, PHE or its advisory bodies produce, promote and base advice on inaccurate and factually incorrect information. Conflicts of interest associated with membership of ICNIRP need to be addressed. Current advice is not evidence based and the public have been let down by misinformation and a lack of precautionary actions.’
The loop that’s operating is the Government’s persistent default to the ICNIRP guidelines which, as the Scientists’ EMF Call appeal warns, are inadequate and endanger public health. This default means that the Government is not referencing the vast body of research which repeatedly demonstrates that EMF/RF radiation causes a variety of harmful biological effects.
Dr Martin Pall, ”I think we’re already very far along in terms of the reproductive and neuropsychiatric effects and probably also the germline mutation effects. These produce existential threats to our survival”.
This is a story of biological complexity, of latency, and of the biological resilience inherent within nature to withstand a certain level of biological abuse… but only so much… and only as determined by genetic predisposition. Currently, we might not see many people dying of brain cancer, ‘though some long term, heavy mobile phone users already are, but we do see more and more people coping with lethargy, brain fog, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, heart palpitations, autoimmune conditions, alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. The devil’s in the details… and the Government is not doing a good job on finding out about the details, it’s just defaulting to the scientifically discredited ICNIRP guideines. The point is, the health of the entire British population is at stake if parliament messes up… which the science indicates it’s bang on course to do. Parliament has a massive duty of care in this situation.
You mention your constituents who have poor physical communication infrastructure. The solutions to this problem do not have to include 5G.
You also mention the risks which tend to accompany technological advancement and also that 5G radiation will be unavoidable. Another point about risks is that, as I stated in my letter, the risks which accompany 5G astronomically outweigh the benefits. Such extreme levels of risk cannot, from any angle, be justified. In common parlance, it’s a ‘no brainer’.
Thanks again, William,