|CC:||WRAGG, William <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org|
Dear Simon Mann,
I am writing to you in your role as Head of Physical Dosimetry at Public Health England with the gravest concerns about the health risks posed by 5G RF radiation. I have written at length to the British Parliament about these concerns, both in a letter to all MPs and in subsequent emails sent to specific MPs. I will forward six of the most relevant of these emails together with the pdf of a document titled ‘5G Risk: The Scientific Perspective’ written by Dr Martin Pall.
The following is taken from my response to Seema Kennedy’s letters, ref. PO-1178233 and PO-1177761, relating to public concerns about 5G health effects:
SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘Exposures of radio waves to the public are well within the international health related guideline levels that are used in the UK. These guidelines are from the ICNIRP and underpin health protection policies at UK and European levels.’
RESPONSE: The ICNIRP guidelines have been internationally discredited by a large number of highly qualified scientists. From ‘The EMF Call’ scientists’ appeal to the UN and WHO (https://www.emfcall.org/): ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health.’
‘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”.
Background: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). 1. These guidelines are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP
(For your reference, these are the two previous Scientists’ Appeals:
2015: The ‘EMF Appeal’ was sent to the UN, WHO, UNEP and all UN member states, requesting a lowering of current EMF guidelines and standards, stating that current standards are not biologically protective. The 206 signatories of the appeal all had peer reviewed, published scientific papers (over two thousand papers collectively) on the biological effects of EMFs. https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal.
2017: the ‘5G Appeal’, this time addressed to the European Commission, warning of ‘potential serious health effects of 5G‘ and recommending a moratorium.
SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘Exposure to radio waves is not new, and health-related research has been conducted on this topic for over several decades. In particular, a large amount of new scientific evidence has emerged over the past few years through dedicated national and international research programmes that have addressed concerns about fast development of wireless technologies.’
RESPONSE: Published in The Lancet, December 2018, ‘Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact’. From the text: This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels’: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext
Please could PHE forward me, or my local MP William Wragg, the specific references for the scientific research relating to: ‘a large amount of new scientific evidence has emerged over the past few years through dedicated national and international research programmes that have addressed concerns about fast development of wireless technologies’.
SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘The focus of recent research has been on exposure to the types of radio signals used by current communications technologies and at the frequencies they use, up to a few GHz. Fewer studies have been carried out at higher frequencies, but the biophysical mechanisms that govern the interaction between radio waves and body tissues are well understood at higher frequencies and are the basis of the present ICNIRP restrictions’.
RESPONSE: ‘Fewer studies have been carried out at higher frequencies,’… then how is it even possible that the British population is being exposed to higher frequencies?
Declassified 1977 CIA article on millimetre radio wave biological effects: https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/biological-effects-of-millimeter-wavelengths.-zalyubovskaya-declassif-by-cia-1977-biol-eff-mm-waves.pdf . The opening paragraph: ‘Morphological, functional and chemical studies conducted in humans and animals revealed that millimetre waves caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the skin and internal organs. Qualitative and quantative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the processes of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism. The degree of unfavourable effect of millimetre waves depended on the duration of the radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.‘
Please could PHE forward me, or my local MP William Wragg, specific references for a) the ‘fewer studies’ that have been carried out on higher frequencies b) the scientific research which demonstrates the well understood ‘biophysical mechanisms that govern the interaction between radio waves and body tissues’.
SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘The main change in using higher frequencies is that there is less penetration of radio waves into body tissues, and absorption of the radio energy and any consequent heating become more confined to the body surface.’
RESPONSE: PACE (Planetary Association for Clean Energy): ‘The idea that the human body can tolerate 5G radiation is based on the faulty assumption that shallow absorption by the skin is harmless. … when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. Shallow penetration of millimetre waves also poses a unique danger to the eyes and skin, as well as to very small creatures.’
Jeremy Naydler, 5G phased array RF radiation: ‘… because instead of the radiation decaying when it is absorbed into living tissue, it can be re-radiated within the body. The moving charges streaming into the body effectively become antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the organism.‘
Leading expert on RF radiation health effects, Dr Martin Pall (Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University, BA degree in Physics, Phi Beta Kappa, with honours, Johns Hopkins University; PhD in Biochemistry & Genetics, Caltech), writing about 5G frequencies: ‘What this means is that the impacts on the outer one to two inches of our bodies will be massive. Because of this we can expect humans to suffer from:
1. Very large increases in blindness from each of the four major causes of blindness: cataracts, macular degeneration, glaucoma and retinal detachment. Each of these involves excessive calcium levels in different parts of the eye and 3 of them also involve excessive voltage-gated calcium activity. I conclude that each of them is likely to be massively elevated by 5G.
2. Large increases in hearing loss and tinnitus, leading in many cases to deafness.
3. Very large increases in male infertility, as well as universal drops in sperm count.
4. Very substantial numbers of melanoma skin cancer and leukemia and possibly other types of cancer. EMFs appear to be particularly active in causing cancer in children and consequently children are at special risk from 5G.
5. Impacts on the peripheral nervous system leading to near universal neuropathic pain and peripheral neuropathy.
6. Large increases in thyroid dysfunction, because of the location of the thyroid gland near the surface of the body.
7. Impacts on the immune system cells, possibly leading to autoimmune diseases and other deficiencies.
8. Impacts on the erythrocytes (red blood cells), leading to stacking of the erythrocytes into rouleaux (long chains) and also cell lysis, leading to very low oxygen in the tissues and lowered nutrients transport to the tissues.
Because plants and animals are affected as much as we are, but much larger parts of them are highly exposed to the 5G radiation, the impacts on insects (including bees and other pollinators), birds, small mammals and almost all plants will be much more severe than the effects of humans.’
RESPONSE: This answer seriously belies the truth. 5G antennae are to be ubiquitously deployed across the streets and roads of Britain within yards of people’s homes. 5G frequencies are not just a raising of 4G frequencies but are radiated through the system called ‘phased array’. Jeremy Naydler: ‘In the phased array, groups of antennas are co-ordinated to radiate pulses in a specific direction and in a specified time sequence. This allows a concentrated beam of radio waves to be exactly aimed at designated targets, to enable signals to be sent or received. Because the beams are concentrated in this way, this adds to their power, which means they are able more easily to penetrate buildings. But it also means that any living creature that gets in the way of such a concentrated beam will be subjected to a powerful dose of extremely high frequency radiant electricity.’
As I did not receive a response to my requests for specific research study references, please could your department provide me with references for the following research programmes/studies:
1. ‘Please could PHE forward me, or my local MP William Wragg, the specific references for the scientific research relating to: ‘a large amount of new scientific evidence has emerged over the past few years through dedicated national and international research programmes that have addressed concerns about fast development of wireless technologies’.
2. ‘Please could PHE forward me, or my local MP William Wragg, specific references for a) the ‘fewer studies’ that have been carried out on higher frequencies b) the scientific research which demonstrates the well understood ‘biophysical mechanisms that govern the interaction between radio waves and body tissues’.’
I would also appreciate a response from Public Health England addressing the issues raised above and as raised in the six emails that are being forwarded to you on the heels of this one.
This email will be forwarded to the Science and Technology Committee members and also the members of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Thank you for your time.