Dear Ms ..
thank you for the several emails that you have sent regarding 5G
As a local authority we take all our scientific medical advice from Public Health England and the Government’s Medical adviser which is then implemented locally.
should there be any advice / instructions issued by PHE and / or the Government re 5G we will act accordingly
Dear Councillor McGee,
thank you for your response. I fully understand that Stockport Council acts on the advice of PHE, which is the reason I am writing to the Council. My emails outline why the advice from Public Health England relating to 5G RF radiation does not represent the scientific facts… and actually endangers the entire British population. PHE references the ICNIRP guidelines to support its assurances of the safety of 5G. As I’ve already mentioned, these guidelines, created by a group of 13 self-appointed people, have been internationally discredited: ‘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”.
Why are these warnings, which are being given by some of the world’s most qualified scientists, not being acted upon?
With regard to 5G, 244 highly qualified scientists, approximately a third of whom are professors, have signed the 2017 ‘5G Appeal’, addressed to the EU (http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/): ‘The 5G Appeal was prepared in 2017 by scientists and doctors who are urgently calling for the EU to halt the roll out of 5G due to serious potential health effects from this new technology.‘ These 244 highly credentialed scientists and doctors would neither waste there time nor risk their professional reputations raising the alarm about 5G if they didn’t have informed concerns about ‘serious potential health effects’.
Due to structural issues, a council has concerns about whether or not a viaduct is safe for trains to travel across. A group of 13 people, some of whom are structural engineers, some of whom are not, declare it safe. On becoming aware of the situation, 244 highly qualified structural engineers, all familiar with the structural issues relating to the viaduct, raise the alarm. They point out that the structural assessment from the group of 13 is seriously inadequate, that the viaduct is not safe, and that allowing trains to cross it could endanger lives. Assuming no vested interest, whose advice would the council take?
How this translates:
13 ICNIRP members:
‘However, it is the opinion of ICNIRP that the scientific literature published since the 1998 guidelines has provided no evidence of any adverse effects below the basic restrictions and does not necessitate an immediate revision of its guidance on limiting exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields.’ (The viaduct is safe)
244 ‘5G Appeal’ scientists and doctors:
‘The 5G Appeal was prepared in 2017 by scientists and doctors who are urgently calling for the EU to halt the roll out of 5G due to serious potential health effects from this new technology. 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. … 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.
The current ICNIRP ”safety guidelines” are obsolete. … Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermines the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation… ‘ (The viaduct is not safe)
A great responsibility to protect the people of Stockport rests on your shoulders. You have been sent information about 5G that should seriously concern you. Ignoring the information, which clearly represents credible science, and unquestioningly defaulting to PHE’s advice, which conveniently excludes this science, is not acceptable.
I consider it my human and moral duty to do everything within my power to inform the British Parliament and my local Council, Stockport Council, about the serious harm which 5G could inflict on the many people these official bodies represent. With the greatest respect, it is for this reason I will continue to write to you.