On 7th July 2024, 2pm outside the Guildhall BA1 1JG, there will be a ‘Rally for Sanity’ to express widespread public rejection of this pilot – without risk assessment or public consultation.
What is the pilot scheme really for ? Do we really need it ?
Bathnes are denying our right to be protected and have abandoned public consultation, both are unlawful.
The Council are planning an 18month trial of smart city 5G hardware in Bath. ONE WORD is a pilot which will be led by mobile telecoms company Telet, in partnership with B&NES Council.
The pilot aims to improve connectivity and boost the local economy as a result of providing a new cutting-edge mobile network directly in the historic centre of the City of Bath by installing a network of around 20 small cell radio units …
Here is the Planning application, made by the Council to the Council (Business & Skills Team BANES)
Telegram group link: https://t.me/rallyforsanity_Bath_Fri_June_28
The decision date is due on 10th July 2024.
These trials are nation-wide, and so objectors from around the UK are welcome.
Your opinion matters. Please EMAIL the dept to express your objection development_management@bathnes.gov.uk
EVENT FLYER:
A legal challenge is also being launched against Bathnes (BANES) for denying our right to be protected and for abandoning public consultation.
The legal grounds link with an ongoing challenge against the government about their failure to empower local authorities to fulfil their risk reconciliation obligations. Please see: Gofundme page for JR Appeal: EECC and Objectors Rights
Peer Reviewed science and review papers:
EHCP results and support for EHS: UK based organisation: phiremedical.org
Research shows that trees, plants, pollinators and wildlife are harmed by wireless radiation. EHTrust.
Phiremedical consensus statement. UK 2020
‘Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health’ Prof Martin Pall
RFR effects summaries 2022 Bioinitiative report
Health Concerns of 5G and Setting Suitable Restrictions 2023. Michael Bevington reported on 5G adverse health effects ‘in situ’ studies, and concludes: ‘5G, like some other technologies, was deployed ahead of actual health studies. Health evidence, including six case reports of 2023, now shows that 0.06 μW/m2 (0.005 V/m) is a suitable interim non-thermal restriction and needs to be set by public regulators.’
The UK government cite the Karapidis paper entitled ‘5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz’ to justify the safety of 5G frequencies above 6Ghz, however this critique ‘Comment on “5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz” by Karipidis et al.’ reveals the illogicality of doing so, as there are deep flaws in the reporting within the paper and there is a lacuna of adequate research.
The critique concludes:
‘The Karipidis review seemingly equates risk management with the need to confirm evidence of harm. The point at which harm becomes a public issue is far too late, given the size of the population being exposed without formal consent. We consider that risks to humans and the environment identified in past epidemiological studies, as well as unknown risks yet to be identified, warrant the application of a precautionary approach. We find the Karipidis review to be both inadequate and incomplete, sending the wrong messages regarding safety assessment and public health.’
This ORSAA table of epidemiological studies reveals a significant numbers of studies showing harms from higher frequency 5G:
‘Epidemiological studies investigating occupational exposure to radar at frequencies above 6 GHz’
