AS SOME OF YOU WILL KNOW, WE RECENTLY SENT A TWENTY FOUR PAGE LETTER OUTLINING THE RISKS OF 5G TO THE PRIME MINISTER, JEREMY CORBYN, THE CABINET AND MEMBERS OF THE SHADOW CABINET. AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE LETTER HAS NOW BEEN SENT TO EVERY OTHER MP (OVER 600). (THE UPDATED LETTER IS PRINTED IN SMALLER FONT SIZE, REDUCING IT TO 18 PAGES, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE POSTAGE COSTS).
PROTOCOL DICTATES THAT MPs CAN ONLY RESPOND TO THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS’ ISSUES, WHICH MEANS THAT BECAUSE THE LETTER IS NOT FROM A CONSTITUENT, THEY MIGHT JUST THROW THE VITALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION IT CONTAINS STRAIGHT INTO THE BIN. THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO ACT VERY QUICKLY. PLEASE FORWARD IT TO YOUR LOCAL MP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, EITHER BY COPYING, PASTING AND EMAILING THE ACCOMPANYING EMAIL TEMPLATE BELOW, OR WRITING AN EMAIL OF YOUR OWN USING THE LETTER LINK OR A PDF ATTACHMENT. THANK YOU.
Click on the list of MPs below. Find your local MP and click on their name. This will bring you to the page with their details. Click on their email address or copy and paste it to your personal email account. Copy and paste the email template onto the email. The subject is ‘Potential serious risks of 5G’. Put your name at the bottom, as well as your address and/or postcode to confirm that you are their constituent. Then send.
It is also important for people to contact their local councils and Public Health England:
Find your local council: https://www.gov.uk/find-local-council
Contact details for Committe on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE): https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/committee-on-medical-aspects-of-radiation-in-the-environment-comare#contact
Email Template to Send to Your MP
Dear (name of MP)
an 18 page letter has been sent to every British MP, including you. The letter outlines the very serious risks associated with the implementation of 5G technology, risks that are being kept well hidden from the public. A pdf copy of the letter is available here:
What many people don’t know is that 5G radio frequencies (RF), which will incorporate exponentially higher and more intense frequencies than 4G, are TOTALLY UNTESTED FOR SAFETY. What many people also don’t know is that over 200 highly qualified scientists and doctors have appealed to the EU warning of the ‘potential serious health effects’ of 5G and requesting a moratorium (halt) on the 5G roll out so that crucial safety testing can be carried out before people are exposed to its frequencies. The appeal states: ‘RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment’. The appeal is obviously being disregarded.
5G antennae are primed to be deployed across the streets and roads of Britain within yards of our homes, schools and places of work. It is imperative Parliament takes action to stop this deployment until independent research into the potential dangers has been comprehensively undertaken. At this point, the government must become accountable to the facts relating to the known risks of mobile phone non-ionizing RF radiation, rather than defaulting to the shamefully misrepresentative ICNIRP guidelines it is currently… and conveniently… using to justify the rolling out of potentially hazardous 5G antennae. Continuing to deny the well documented risks and to reference the seriously flawed ICNIRP guidelines represents an erroneous and risk laden perspective that the government must cease from acting upon.
I refer you to the following appeal: October 2018, ‘The EMF Call’
(https://www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/), which reads: ‘Scientists and NGOs Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)’ ‘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”.’
I await your prompt reply.