Pittsfield board of health submit Cease and Desist order to Verizon

This forms a strong precedent case, especially since it is lodged by the equivalent of a UK District Council. The nearest we have to health effects being regarded as reaching a ‘threshold of evidence’, and forming grounds for refusal, is the Mendip Council committee planning meeting in April 2022.

On April 6, 2022, the Pittsfield, Massachusetts Board of Health voted to send a cease and desist order to shut down a Verizon cell tower if Verizon does not respond with meaningful action regarding a cell tower . The Board took action after families living in the neighborhood of Shacktown near the tower on 877 South Street Pittsfield MA reported wireless radiation-related health issues soon after the tower became operational in 2020. 

https://ehtrust.org/cease-and-desist-order-against-verizon-cell-tower-by-board-of-health-pittsfield-ma/

EMERGENCY ORDER

REQUIRING THAT PITTSFIELD CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, AND FARLEY WHITE SOUTH STREET, LLC, SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PITTSFIELD BOARD OF HEALTH SHOULD NOT ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ABATING A NUISANCE AT 877 SOUTH STREET ARISING FROM THE OPERATION OF A VERIZON WIRELESS CELL TOWER THEREON AND CONSTITUTING IMMEDIATE ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE AND ABATEMENT IF NO HEARING IS REQUESTED

Whereas, soon after the facility was activated and began transmitting, the City started to receive reports of illness and negative health symptoms from residents living nearby the facility, and in particular, from residents living in the so-called “Shacktown” neighborhood. The negative health symptoms the affected residents have reported include complaints of headaches, sleep problems, heart palpitations, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), dizziness, nausea, skin rashes, and memory and cognitive problems, among other medical complaints.

etc.

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Pittsfield-Health-Board-Cell-Tower-Order-to-Verizon-April-11-2022-FINAL-REDACTED.pdf?fbclid=IwAR12BmsSlcYL_auGa2dXLC3qkOXztO1GV3zWuLNEdqByFAKz_ox-mSSHGvs

Verizon counter files:

https://ehtrust.org/verizon-files-legal-action-against-pittsfield-board-of-health-for-cell-tower-emergency-order/

Latest News

Articles 2022:

June 2022

Brilliant World EHS Day Video. 16th June 2022. 1hr of 2min testimonials from EHS sufferers.

59 year old social worker wins ‘early ill health retirement’ for disabling ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) – Phire Medical

Cell Tower Turned Off by Court After Farmer Complained that Its Radiation was Damaging His Cows’ Health 

For the birds. SafeTechInt.

Radwin Jet – industry video showing smart beam forming antenna, 2.5mins

Prohibit 5G technology in the UK. Petition: On the basis of the European Parliamentary Research Service’s latest study of the health impact of 5G, I would like the Government to prohibit 5G technology in the UK. This should include the installation and operation of 5G masts.

3 videos of experts talking about impacts of RFR and 5G on human health, insects die-offs and carbon emissions. 

The UN, Technology Addiction, and The Eruption of Deep-Sea Mining. SafeTechInt.

Digitalising Wilmslow: 5G Assault on Health and Environment without informed consent. SafeTech Int.

What Does 5G Sound Like? Expert Investigation

EHS Refugees: 52mins

May 2022

How realistic are claims about the benefits of using digital technologies for GHG emissions mitigation?

Stop 5G EU citizen initiative: stay connected but protected

Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress – Swiss study

EHT: 5g is not-so-green and could increase energy use, University of Sussex business school report

“5G will prompt Energy Consumption to Grow by staggering 160% in 10 years”

Call for an immediate moratorium on 5G satellites mega-constellations worldwide until the environmental adverse effects are resolved.

STOA Health impact of 5G – European Parliament

EHT publishes a study on website about excessive radiation levels in Columbia, S.C.

Why 5G Is Dangerous for Planes — and People – great interview Tachover/Bigtree

5G Cell Towers Cause Massive Insect Decline on the Greek island of Samos

Blog posts 2022:

Introduction of Radar on National Highways’ Smart Motorways


Letter to National Highways

Dear National Highways

The problem of tragic increases in fatalities on Smart Motorways has been an unfortunate reality on the Smart Motorways with the removal of the hard shoulder and changes to the highway code. I have been following the government’s ongoing strategy to try to rectify the problem of increased accidents on parts of the smart motorways. 

I have become aware that as part of that strategy National Highways intend to install Radar Technology on “smart” motorways. NH say that it is an effort to “help drivers feel safe.” https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work/smart-motorways-evidence-stocktake/stopped-vehicle-detection-upgrades/

Making people “feel” safe is not the same as people “being safe”. 

There are reasons to think that radar isn’t quite the right approach. Radar is a source of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) and it is proven occupationally unsafe.  https://www.naturalhealthresearch.org/radiation-exposure-associated-with-cancer-in-military-personnel/ 

Not only that their a privacy implications and implications for the environment.

I would like to ask, has a proper risk assessment been conducted? 

People on motorways and who have broken down in vehicles are likely to be exposed to radar RFR for long periods of time, with commuters and long distance travellers possibly daily for extended periods. Has all of this potential radiation been scientifically measured and the resulting assessment of the health risks and pertinent data published so the public can see NR are taking a responsible approach? 

This should be a priority, considering NH have come under fire and have faced legal action, even been accused of corporate manslaughter in recent years because of the number of deaths on Smart Motorways owing to changes that include removal of the hard shoulder. What worries me, and it’s something the public take seriously, is the fact that National Highways could not be found guilty, because they did not have a “duty of care” to motorists. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-60214759

In relation to the roll out of radar, what government or corporate body has a duty of care to motorists to ensure their safety really is being protected? Which MPs or MP has a duty of care to the public to protect their health interests?

Does the aforementioned lack of a “duty of care” apply specifically in the case of Highways England/National Highway regarding the publicised hard shoulder accidents that landed the agency in court, or is it also applicable to the deployment of radar technology? 

If so, how can National Highways be trusted to have the public’s health at heart, if in reality it appears not liable if anything goes extremely wrong, which we know it can? 

A lot can go wrong – especially if relevant risk assessments have not been carried out – by deploying radar on our highways.

We hear that the use of radio-frequencies is “nothing new”. 

Radar specifically has been used since World War II. However, not for commercial telecommunications or widespread deployment for use in public spaces such as schools, public squares, city streets or even motorways until now, with 5G and proposed radar motorway technologies. Previously radar was only used in some occupational and military settings.

These technologies are more useful for directing driverless vehicles and IoT. Is the radar going to be used additionally for driverless vehicles to extend its purposes, or is the radar proposal in this case specifically for existing “road safety” applications?

With 5G deployments there are rightfully significant safety concerns leading some countries such as Switzerland and Belgium to override ICNIRP RFR exposure guidelines (which inform the UK, US and Europe’s official stance on 5G and public exposure levels). 

Switzerland and Belgium have already imposed precautionary measures as part of risk management. We have enacted no such provisions in the UK and the 5G technologies still raise many safety questions. Radar and 5G systems both use millimetre waves, and these evidently pose a risk to human health, affecting individual health to different degrees. What is certain about RFR and millimetre waves is that they change cells and influence health. Millimetre waves penetrate the skin, and have been used to scan the body in security technologies, while pulsed electromagnetic fields penetrate deeper into the body. There is scope for both to cause damage, especially with prolonged exposure.

With regards millimetre waves, “At 42 GHz effects on human blood cells depended on the dose radiation and on the “individual peculiarities of donors of the blood cells” (study from 1998, provided in link). Research on physiological effects of millimeter-waves on skin, and its impact on the physiology of the whole human body, is urgently needed.”

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2019/05/31/leszczynski-brief-opinion-on-5g-and-health/

There is key information on millimetre waves here: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/08/5g-wireless-technology-millimeter-wave.html “Thermal (or heating) effects occur when the power density of the waves is above 5–10 mW/cm2. Such high-intensity MMWs act on human skin and the cornea in a dose-dependent manner—beginning with heat sensation followed by pain and physical damage at higher exposures. Temperature elevation can impact the growth, morphology and metabolism of cells, induce production of free radicals, and damage DNA.”

Millimetre waves and electromagnetic fields are causing electro-sensitivity, resulting in physical and mental discomfort to the afflicted. “In 2011 the Council of Europe addressed the issue of Electro-hypersensitivity in Resolution 1815. It decreed that ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) zones should be set up so that Electrohypersensitive people could have a tolerable environment in which to live and recuperate.” 

In recognition of the electrosensitive, will there be designated areas where motorists afflicted with the condition will be free from being exposed to RFR? The electrosensitive continue to be discriminated against forcing many seek legal advice and bring their cases to court. An appeal in 2020 saw a claimant successfully win an “Appeal for Universal Credit on the grounds of Electrohypersensitivity. She submitted widely collated medical evidence and had the support of her GP and Neurologist.” https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Press-Release-3-Feb-2020.pdf

Making motorways zones of increased and prolonged electromagnetic exposures is a health issue, both an occupational one and . RFR is a health issue leading to discrimination against the electrosensitive. Do National Highways have a commitment to be keeping all people safe, including the electrosensitive?

A paper called “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices” can be accessed here which explains and shows why National Highways should have a duty to mitigate public exposures to RFR forms radar, stimuli like millimetre waves, and other RFR: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701402/

Risk management is key. A good business assesses the risks before making any decision, and matters of public health are very serious in this regard. There are many potential risks with millimetre waves. 

National Highways should reconsider deploying radar and other millimetre wave technology, especially as “few studies have examined prolonged exposure to low-intensity MMWs, and no research…has focused on exposure to MMWs combined with other radiofrequency radiation.” 

With regard to radar/millimetre waves affecting the environment it is known millimetre waves affect microbes such as bacteria. In a study ”MMW affected Escherichia coli and many other bacteria, mainly depressing their growth and changing properties and activity. These effects were non-thermal and depended on different factors. The significant cellular targets for MMW effects could be water, cell plasma membrane, and genome….The consequences of MMW interaction with bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics….These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.” https://www.saferemr.com/2017/08/5g-wireless-technology-millimeter-wave.html

In sum, the peer-reviewed research demonstrates that short-term exposure to low-intensity millimeter wave (MMW) radiation not only affects human cells, it may result in the growth of multi-drug resistant bacteria harmful to humans.” 

Clearly there are biological effects from millimetre wave exposures worthy of concern, and as radar is being proposed by National Highways to help people “feel safe”, that doesn’t sound the same to everyone. 

“Feeling safe” is a term in this context that would not be applicable to electrosensitive people because NH are actually creating an obstacle to travel, with radar and millimetre waves, which 5G smart motorways use. Electro-sensitivity is a growing health condition, around even before 5G. https://www.es-uk.info

Lloyds of London in their risk assessment of RFR considered RFR a pollutant like asbestos. Exposures to RFR are causing health issues including chronic diseases. This is happening, has been happening for a long time, and is likely to increase because densification of telecommunications infrastructure and resultant electro-smog are increasing.

Consequently Lloyds will not insure against harm from RFR. That is how sure they are, after looking at the available scientific evidence back in 2010, showing that RFR exposure will potentially be the cause of major public health issues. https://assets.lloyds.com/assets/pdf-emf-final-november-2010/1/pdf-emf-final-november-2010.pdf in 2011 the World Health Organisation gave RFR exposure carcinogenic status.

Lloyds recognised there are thermal and biological effects in its examination of the scinetific literature. In Europe and at home the problem of using ICNIRP’s exposure guidelines to evaluate health risks from RFR comprehensively and in a balanced way is recognised. ICNIRP focus on thermal effects, which is not sufficient. If National Highways are using ICNIRP guidelines to gauge the risks to human health, this would be wholly inadequate.

The general consensus is, if thermal and biological effects are to have equal relevance in any discussion about health and RFR,  that “for really independent scientific advice we cannot rely on ICNIRP.” https://lennarthardellenglish.wordpress.com/2020/07/20/icnirp-guidelines-conflicts-of-interest-and-eu/

ICNIRP guidelines focus on specific thermal effects and not biological or non-thermal effects arising from RFR exposures. Thus a large body of supporting science becomes ignored, which isn’t helpful in helping governments act on the RFR health risk. Governments making any meaningful decisions about public health in this regard should be taking into account all of the known risk factors and evidence

With asbestos, and smoking the whole science, including that which was unfortunately suppressed, was finally acknowledged proving each a significant health hazard after years of industry marketing and public relations had claimed the opposite. Currently ICNIRP guidelines are an obstacle, in the UK, to the science of RFR’s non-thermal effects becoming widely recognised by the public. History seems to be repeating itself and the full science needs to be acknowledged.

ICNIRP guidelines can be said to have had a devastating effect on public health and continue to do so through misapplication and abuse. This is widely recognised and has been legally acted upon because people are already suffering ill health as a result. 

This is a situation that many scientists knew would come, and the situation Lloyds of London predicted by paying attention to them, and it is only a matter of time that RFR will be widely recognised for what is, an unacceptable carcinogenic environmental contaminant.

Already a clear scientific consensus exists to solidify the argument that current findings are worrisome. Further investigation of the health effects of 5G in particular is necessary. Some of 5G studies concerning signal propagation and health effects are already yielding concerning findings, which warrants precautionary measures by policy makers. 

ICNIRP’s guidelines are inadequate in addressing the public health risks of RFR and governments should not persist in using them as mandatory prescriptions for safety. They were never meant to be.

In 2008 Paolo Vecchia, chairman of ICNIRP at the time, stated the guidelines are not  “Mandatory prescriptions for safety” or “The “last word” on the issue” or are “Defensive walls for Industry or others”. Yet that is largely how we see them being used and applied by industry and governments. https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/021145_vecchia.pdf

Reputable Legal teams see these guidelines are being abused to support an unimpeded roll out of 5G in ways that can potentially harm the public and cause irreversible effects. Governments are facing legal action on a global scale over the 5G roll out and safety issues with measurable success: Please see: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/seeking-justice/legal/chd-v-federal-communication-commission-fcc/  and  https://actionagainst5g.org  and. https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Turin-Verdict-ICNIRP_Judgment-SUMMARY-of-the-Turin-Court-of-Appeal-9042019_EN-min.pdf 

I hope that National Highways realise unimpeded roll out of 5G or radar will potentially harm the public. ICNIRP guidelines are “mandatory prescription for safety” and I’d like to see National Highways take account of the biological harm that 5G and radar can cause. ICNIRP guidelines are exclusively and stringently employed by UKHSA today to advise the UK government about thermal effects of RFR and unfortunately by focusing on thermal effects exclusively we see the “harmful effects at lower non-thermal intensities” having little meaning for policy makers.

Please can you offer assurance RFR risks on our highways will be comprehensively addressed and a report made available?

It is important that governments and industry do not continue to neglect the existence of electro-sensitivity symptoms and recognise ES as a functional disability arising from RF. In Sweden “electro-sensitivity or microwave syndrome, is not discriminated against. It is more common than we thought and through being misdiagnosed or “denied”, can only harm the victims further. Lennart Hardell, an oncologist from the Research Foundation Environment & Cancer and Mona Nilsson from the Radiation Protection Foundation have shown from their study of a 5G apartment roof installation in 2022 that 5G RF emissions caused residents to suffer microwave syndrome (a.k.a. Electrohypersensitivity or EHS) from a significant increase in microwave radiation. https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2022/02/22/forsta-studien-av-effekter-av-5g-stralning-pa-manniska-visar-att-5g-orsakar-mikrovagssyndromet/

Already pulsed electromagnetic frequencies in our environment from wireless equipment and telecommunications installations relaying data via an ever increasing network of transmitters is producing powerful and unpredictable propagations of energy contributing to what scientists have come to call “electrosmog”. With 5G and radar we can expect “unpredictable propagation patterns that could result in unacceptable levels of human exposure to electromagnetic radiation.” The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER), which provides scientific advice to the European Commission, have said this aspect of 5G will, “present us with a real problem as far as health is concerned…” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf

It is Oncologist Lennart Hardell’s professional view as a renowned oncologist studying the effects of 5G and pulsed electromagnetic fields that, “the issue on RF radiation risks is ongoing and in fact increasing despite decades of research showing adverse effects on human health, plants, insects and birds.” https://multerland.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/lost_opportunities_for_cancer-prevention_historical_evidence_hardell_carlberg.pdf

It is important policy makers recognise the carcinogenicity of RFR. As James Lin, former ICNIRP board member says ““The time is right for the The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to upgrade its previous epidemiology based classification of RF exposure to higher levels in terms of the carcinogenicity of RF radiation for humans.“ https://ehtrust.org/science/whoiarc-position-on-wireless-and-health/

I hope National Highways can appreciate why there is so much public concern over RFR exposures and over the continued roll out of technologies, like 5G and the proposed radar that is meant to save lives, but can be shown to be harm health, and have the opposite effect of what National Highways are perceived to be doing. It might make people “feel” safe, but can radar really be called safe?

RFR is clearly a health concern and for some who are very sensitive a form disability that is set to increase if measures aren’t taken to mitigate harm from RFR.

You can access studies about the vast number of known biological effects here: https://www.5gfrequencyfreefairbanks.org.

23,000+ studies are linked here: www.EMF-portal.org.

Over  4000+ studies can be found here: http://www.bioinitiative.org

Clearly no-one can say there is a lack of data, and a realistic response to safeguarding public health is urgently required, on our highways and beyond.

RF emissions are endangering public health but also the environment. 

To call RFR an environmental pollutant would be accurate because, it is not natural electromagnetic energy as we’d expect to find in nature, it is modulated and pulsed energy, and still many of the effects haven’t been studied but enough certainly have to warrant extreme caution, especially if you are claiming to use them to make people “feel safe”.

The World Health Organisation, who have monitored the health effects of man-made pulsed electromagnetic fields have recognised the potential of this 2B category carcinogen to cause harm.  

RFR can cause varying biological changes through brief or sustained exposures as studies show.

We are increasingly seeing symptoms of illness from RFR, generally recognised as electro-sensitivty, the impacts of which the government should acknowledge and actively mitigate. 

Radar technology is a phased array technology sending out powerful electronically modulated pulsed radio-frequencies, and 5G is essentially the same technology, using beam-forming and phased arrays and generating modulated electromagnetic fields in new propagations and configurations. The complex interacting factors of this new technology and their implications for health as a progressing mix of old and new RF technology remain a priority to study and address. 

Already we have seen reports showing concerns over safety around 5G and citizen safety at airports.

Recently “The 10 biggest US airlines have warned that the impending switch-on of 5G mobile phone services will cause “major disruption” to flights.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60036831 British airways and “Air India, Japan-based ANA, Japan Airlines, and Korean Air.” All followed suit. https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-19/why-airlines-including-ba-and-emirates-are-cancelling-us-flights-over-5g-fears Concern is over 5G interfering with C band radar navigation having implications for passenger safety and British airways remain so concerned that the situation is “under constant review.” Does it make sense to increase the possibilities of radar interference even more by installing it on motorways? “There is a major risk that 5G telecommunications systems in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band will cause harmful interference to radar altimeters on all types of civil aircraft.”

Is installing radar on highways really the best solution for National Highways to keep people “safe”, especially on roads near airports or near residential areas? Radar is one of the reasons radiation at airports is so high. Why do we have to make the highways high in radiation also?

It is known that flocks of birds and swarms of insects as well as atmospheric conditions and environmental structures including trees, buildings and infrastructure can interfere with radar. https://www.pagerpower.com/news/radar-interference-2/ 

National Highways have said “We may need to cut back some vegetation to ensure the radar units can see the road, but we will keep this to a minimum and we don’t expect to have to remove any mature trees.”

“Don’t expect” does not mean “won’t”. 

I hope National Highways will consider the evidence of harm from RFR and never be in a position to chop down trees. This will harm ecosystems. National Highways should consider that to put in place infrastructure that can harm humans and the environment, and contradict many of the government’s environmental policies doesn’t seem like an effective way to keep people safe. It is more likely to have wider repercussions.

National Highways should be aware that RFR studies have found “in plants reduced growth, increased infection and physiological and morphological changes” (Balodis et al. 1996, Haggerty 2010, Waldmann-Selsam et al. 2016, Havas and Symington 2016, Vian et al. 2016, Halgamuge 2017). Plants and fauna are imperilled by increased RFR.

It is my understanding that stopped vehicle detection radar has “high-resolution radar sensors scan 360° and can detect stopped vehicles across multiple lanes, despite poor weather and lighting.” Also “The system monitors traffic in real-time” which requires low latency high frequency RF signals. https://navtechradar.com/explore/stopped-vehicle-detection/ Both 5G and radar are phased array technologies. 5G comprises MIMO and Massive MIMO propagation of signals incorporating millimetre wave into the existing mixture of frequencies. The interactions of MM wave and other frequencies can be unpredictable and has an uncertain impact on health, though certain biological impacts are known.

If you are exposing travellers of all ages to increased RFR can you please give me a breakdown of the corresponding risk management for each age range with regards RFR exposure and the reasoning behind your mitigation measures? Please can these findings be made accessible to the public for reference?

Because millimetre wave technologies are controversial one expects you must have assessed the risks sufficiently to protect citizens’ health from RFR exposures, and other possible effects, to be able to deem public exposure to it “safe”. 

In deploying radar/millimetre waves/5G National Highways must be aware that use of millimetre waves for widespread deployments and continuous exposures are not adequately studied in context, in terms of assessing human safety for adults, children, elderly people or pregnant women and babies, all of whom will be travelling on your motorways. 

What is your data on long term exposures to millimetre waves of the kind being used on highways? What measures are you taking to keep people safe?

Millimetre waves can create biological effects which don’t fall into the remit of aforementioned ICNIRP guidelines which measure only thermal effects. So this is very concerning, to think that much health data isn’t being considered because of ICNIRP’s narrow criteria of measuring only thermal effects. ICNIRP’s guidelines, to my understanding, do not cover millimetre wave propagations in light of the novel propagation technologies and novel measurement systems required to gauge exposures. 

What guarantees will you be providing to citizens that their health is being protected in terms of thermal and non-thermal effects? 

Beyond the concern over health for humans from infrastructure using radar technology under the umbrella term “5G roll out”, there has been persistent concerns about the impacts on wildlife and the environment.

With regards radar, 5G and milimetre waves, here is the issue of vegetation attenuation: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/p/R-REC-P.833-10-202109-I!!PDF-E.pdf Concerning exposures of trees and vegetation to sustained RFR A Dutch study has revealed “After a few months, trees exposed to the radiation displayed a “metallic lustre appearance, a discolouration of the leaves that appeared to result in the disappearance of the outer cell layer of the leaves”. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/science/could-wi-fi-radiation-be-killing-trees

Again these are non-thermal effects from RFR that ICNIRP guidelines exclude in their criteria, but are very apparent as are the biological effects on humans and animals from RFR.

Scientists know RFR can have damaging effects on birds eggs, nesting, breeding, roosting. Smaller animals and humans are more vulnerable, in different ways as this article explains scientifically: https://citizensfor5gawareness.org/2020/01/03/effects-of-wireless-radiation-on-birds-and-other-wildlife/

RFR exposure studies show “in birds, aggressive behavior, impaired reproduction and interference with migration (Southern 1975, Larkin and Sutherland 1977, Balmori 2004, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, Everaert and Bauwens 2007, Fernie et al. 2010, Engels et al. 2015, Wiltschko et al. 2015). In honey bees, aggressive behaviour, reduced learning, reduced productivity, swarming and abandoning hives (Harst et al. 2006, Pattezhy 2009, Warnke 2009, Favre 2011, Kumar et al. 2011, Sahib 2011, Shepherd et al. 2019). In rodents, increased cancer risk in three long-term studies (Chou et al 1992, NTP 2018, Falcioni et al. 2019);

To protect wildlife and the Highway environment from millimetre waves and other RFR, how they will be propagated, and how the propagations are being measured? What guarantees can National Highways give that our wildlife is being protected from excessive radiation that disrupts normal functioning of animals and fauna?

Insects are particularly vulnerable to RFR and pulsed electromagnetic fields that are produced by radar/millimetre waves: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3 Such frequencies “lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating. The studied insects that are smaller than 1 cm show a peak in absorption at frequencies (above 6 GHz)”.

An extensive set of scientific literature on the effects of RFR on insects can accessed from this article: https://thepulse.one/2021/12/31/5g-other-wireless-radiation-is-destroying-bees/

The non-thermal effects of pulsed RF are equally as important if not more so than measuring the thermal effects, and as such, no consensus about 5G being safe has been reached. 5G uses the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz band the same as aircraft radar systems, with which it can interfere. We are seeing a mixture of military technologies being ethics washed as safe and we need the facts about what people are bing exposed to. National Highways cannot call radar and the interaction of multiple sources and emissions of RFR constituting a safe environment for all.

The benefits do not outweigh the risks on a full inspection. A full risk assessment is necessary, made available for public perusal. If National Highways does not have a duty of care, as was suggested in recent legal action, how can it be trusted to keep people safe? Promoting radar and 5G and increasing millimetre waves on the highways represents a health hazard endangering lives, and causing damage to the environment, and further National Highways is prepared to cut down trees to assist radar and signal propagation, which will result in birds, insects, and other animals being behaviourally affected, and assist in species decline.

It is not correct to say the roll out is safe, it is far from safe, and scientifically speaking the precautionary principle is a necessary means for policy makers to intervene. There is a full moral imperative to do so, and that should be clear, especially when the science is far from clear about the safety of 5G.

It is easy to make people feel safe, as National Highways wants to do, but it is even more important that they are in fact safe.

I hope you can answer questions I have raised and make effective plans, in light of the irrefutable evidence RFR is a contaminant and health hazard, to truly make people and the local environment safer.

I hope I have presented my concerns clearly. If anything isn’t clear I am happy to help or provide more information.

I have already written to the government about RFR pollution and you can read that letter here for more information: https://safetechinternational.org/open-letter-to-uk-parliament/

Yours sincerely,

Sean Carney

Save Our Landlines

OUR ANALOGUE COPPER LANDLINE TELEPHONES PROVIDE RELIABLE, HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE VOICE SERVICE.

Help us maintain full access to our well-established and vital landline network.  


Telecom companies are planning to pull the plug on our essential landlines in favour of less-regulated, less reliable and more expensive wireless phones or Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol (VOIP). They lack a sensible plan to keep people safely and reliably connected. British Telecom (BT), for example, have already been moving customers from landlines to internet connections, although they have temporarily postponed the rollout after escalating complaints from concerned customers.

BT to end landline phones sparking fears for millions of vulnerable and elderly people:  “Around six percent of households – roughly 1.5million homes – do not have access to the Internet, according to watchdog                    Ofcom.” https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/bt-end-landline-phones-sparking-25544885

Dismantling landlines will cost us our safety, health, jobs, and cut off critical emergency communications access to millions of people. We must defend our landlines from unscrupulous telecom companies and governments. If you want to keep your choice to have a reliable landline in your home or business, you need to act now:

Please sign this Call to Action, contact your MP and spread the word to friends and family. 

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-our-landlines-help-us-maintain-full-access

Re-investing in our copper telephone landline network will be beneficial to Public Health, Security and Ecology as it serves as a necessary, reliable and safe alternative to power-grid dependent, energy-hungry communications systems like VOIP and mobile phone services. There is no longer any question whether wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation – used in mobile phone communications and wireless devices – is harmful to humans and wildlife. Commonly identified health consequences of short and longer term exposures include: insomnia, headaches, cancer, autism, and other serious and life changing ailments.

Tens of thousands of scientific papers (linked herein) have cited connections to the role of EMFs in a multitude of adverse health effects, including depression, infertility, cancer, damage to DNA/gene expression, oxidative stress, pregnancy complications, melatonin production, neurological disorders, immune dysfunction, Alzheimers/dementia, leukaemia, and many, many more.


Over 1,600 scientific papers can be found here: https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp

Another 4000+ studies can be found here: http://www.bioinitiative.org

And another 23,840 studies also linked here: www.EMF-portal.org

Finally, here is a recent compilation of the vast number of known biological effects: https://www.5gfrequencyfreefairbanks.org

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations

Lennart Hardell, Tarmo Koppel.  Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden. 

Reviews on Environmental Health. Mar 2, 2022. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0169.

Abstract

A previously healthy worker developed symptoms assigned to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) after moving to an office with exposure to high levels of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs). These symptoms consisted of e.g. headache, arthralgia, tinnitus, dizziness, memory loss, fatique, insomnia, transitory cardiovascular abnormalities, and skin lesions. Most of the symptoms were alleviated after 2 weeks sick leave.

The highest radiofrequency (RF) field level at the working place was 1.72 V/m (7,852 μW/m2). Maximum value for extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF) from electric power at 50 Hz was measured to 285 nT (mean 241 nT). For electric train ELF-EMF at 16.7 Hz was measured to 383 nT (mean 76 nT). Exposure to EMFs at the working place could be the cause for developing EHS related symptoms. The association was strengthened by the symptom reduction outside the working place.

Conclusions

This investigation established three possible reasons for developing health symptoms associated with the EMF exposure, including the following.

  1. The working room was right below the mobile phone base station antenna, located on the roof of the building. The close proximity to these antennas caused significantly high RF radiation exposure in the working area.
  2. The working room is also positioned close to lower radiofrequency transmitter (TETRA emergency services), located on the neighboring roof of the same building.
  3. The working room was positioned within 20 m from the electric train railroad. 16 Hz magnetic field from the railroad power cable was on some instances the highest ELF MF component in the room, exceeding even the power grid 50 Hz MFs. Also, railroad power cable induced a fluctuating magnetic field in the office due to the coming and passing electric trains. As trains come and go, this introduces a change in the electric power supplied by the railroad electric cable. Consequently the magnetic field also changes in great amplitude.

In conclusion, there are at least three types of electromagnetic fields present in the working room, which cause a long term exposure to the workers. Exposure to multiple source electromagnetic fields could be the cause for developing EHS related symptoms. However, the person had been exposed to ELF-EMF also at other locations in the building, so exposure to RF-EMF seems to be the most probable cause to her developed health problems.

Open access paper: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0169/html

5G ARTICLE RAISES THOUSANDS OF RESPONSES IN 24 HOURS

Online Daily Mail Readers concerned about surveillance, health risks, data mining and increased electrical consumption of 5G.

The world’s most read online newspaper, the Daily Mail, ran an article on 9th February 2022 about the plan to install new 5G devices on road signs, bus shelters and  traffic lights. The UK government has announced it wants to bypass Councils to make it easier for telecoms companies to put antenna on public infrastructure. 

“Phone users need to be closer to so-called 5G ‘cell sites’ in order to receive good signal – as the mobile network, though quicker, has a smaller range. Firms are able to create mini phone masts around towns and cities by installing the kit into street furniture, such as road signs and CCTV poles.

But the process of identifying places to put them has so far proved ‘difficult and time consuming’ – and has held up the roll-out.” 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10491923/Britains-5G-boom-set-boosted-new-kit.html

The first 106 comments reveal:

  • Objections to 5G being given priority over lacking 4G coverage 
  • Objections about the energy consumption 
  • Lack of risk assessment or safety reports 
  • 25% of the comments concerned known health implications: cancer, headaches and others 
  • Objections to data mining and implied surveillance 

Here are three of the comments posted:

“Total surveillance of everything, everyone and everywhere. This investment is not so that you can download a film or game a bit quicker. We don’t need it – but THEY DO.” 193 likes, 20 dislikes.

“Lots of children at an American school were getting ill.. all of a sudden headache..nausea.. generally not feeling well as soon as the 5G antenna was installed on the roof of the school.. it was removed the problems went away.” 249 likes, 42 dislikes.

“5G needs 3x more electricity that 4G. So much for the government’s climate change goals” 217 likes, 26 dislikes.

The responses indicate a substantial disapproval of 5G, that people are not fooled by industry’s claims of ‘public benefit’ and object to giving more powers to the tech industry and disempowering their own representatives, and are incensed that £4 million of their taxpayers money is being directed towards boosting tech industry profits.

The most popular comment with 349 likes, seven times more than the 49 dislikes, was “This 5G isn’t for OUR benefit”

note: this is not about so called 5G mmWave sites. Smart city nodes and zones are based in the WiFi spectrum currently, but the issue of densification clearly increases chronic levels of pulse modulated electro smog, and increased data gathering feeds potential surveillance regimes.

https://www.telensa.com/solutions/

New Hampshire 5G Commission concludes that the evidence fully justifies a 500m setback for cell towers

23.01.2022 Testimony on cell tower setbacks in New Hampshire: no Federal accountability on cell tower radiation 

08.02.2022: Massachusetts Town Threatens Verizon With Cease-and-Desist Order Over Cell Tower

The New Hampshire HB522 Commission on 5G was convened through bipartisan legislation that was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. This is the first legislation passed in the United States calling for the formation of a commission to explore the health effects of 5G.

The 13 Commission members had backgrounds that included physics, toxicology, electromagnetics, epidemiology, biostatistics, occupational health, medicine, public health policy, business, and law.

The overarching conclusion is, again, that wireless radiation is harmful, and supports 500m as being a realistic protective distance for radiation.

This is not a scientific issue, it is a political issue. The peer-reviewed science is quite clear about the risks about radiation exposure. Technology can be used to significantly lower radiation exposure, but that would come at a cost to the industry

  • The Commission met over a period of a year and all but one of the 9 experts that came to speak to the Commission were unpaid. 
  • The evidence is clear about the health risks of exposure to radiation – cell phone radiation is indeed harmful, especially its placement. There is a continually growing body of evidence demonstrating that exposure to cell phone type radiation is harmful.
  • There are things that can be done to be protected against this radiation but we have to acknowledge that it’s a problem first. For example – within a week of installation many firefighters developed unusual symptoms of headaches fatigue insomnia memory loss confusion nausea and weakness and after a time firefighters in stations with adjacent cell towers were found to have forgotten CPR or became lost responding to a fire in the city where they grew up. 
  • A study was done in Belo Horizonte, Brazil over a 10-year period, 1996-2006, looking at deaths from cancer and the closer individuals were to a cell tower the higher the mortality rate. It was a large sample of 856 towers, so the evidence cannot be dismissed.
  • Many many other studies support 500 meters as being realistic for protection against radiation. 
  • 10 years later, in the 2020 summary list of science showing effects was updated and based on around a thousand studies, 73% of all of those studied showed a neurological effect because of RFR radio frequency exposure, 65% had genetic problems. 91% of the research (whether funded by industry or not funded by industry) show that there are significant problems with this technology. 
  • If the radiation is harmless how come no insurance company, not even Lloyd’s of London, will insure you for that ? Implementing setbacks costs money, it being cheaper to piggyback urban infrastructure rather than service a fresh more rural site, and so denial of the biological effects still suits the industry purse.

Brazilian study referred to: Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil

Dr. Kent Chamberlin presents on the New Hampshire 5G Commission Findings and Wireless Safety 60mins

NH Commission Setback Justification 20mins

22.12.2020 Childrens Health Defense: Landmark Study Highlights Health Threats of 5G on People + Planet

Extracts from presentation: August 2021

“I am Kent Chamberlain professor and chair emeritus in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Hampshire. I served on the commission along with other experts in the scientific community and I’ve been active in public outreach since the commission submitted its final report in November 2020.”

The commission recommends that a reasonable setback distance for wireless telecommunications facilities be no less than 1,640 feet or 500 meters

“Before I joined this the commission I was a professor and chair of the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Hampshire and as such my bias, if anything, is FOR technology. I’ve seen the great things that technology can do. I thought that we would find that there were no concerns, we would be done and then we would be able to go home and declare victory. However, that wasn’t the case, we looked through the peer-reviewed journals, we talked to experts, and we came to the conclusion that THIS IS a concern and people need to know about it and we need to address it.”

Kent Chamberlin

The 13 commission members’ backgrounds including physics toxicology electro-magnetics and epidemiology. They listened to 9 experts. The only expert that was paid was somebody paid for by the telecommunications industry and they the only person to say that cell phone radiation was not a problem.

The overarching conclusion is that wireless radiation is harmful. This table is from the 10 year study in Belo Horizonte, Brazil: 

What is safe for one person might not be safe for another – those who are electro-sensitive can experience symptoms of radiation exposure at distances greater than 1640 feet (500m) from a cell tower, which means that the proposed setback may not ensure a reasonable exposure level for electrosensitive people. Electrosensitivity is real and it is recognized by the Americans with disabilities act and medicare there are also indications that the number of people with electrosensitivity is increasing along with increasing levels of background radiation.

(https://rfinfo.co.uk/california-appellate-court-holds-that-wi-fi-sickness-is-a-disability/)

 

We took two basic approaches: 

Approach 1: was to look at the adverse health effects as a function of the distance people live from a cell tower. By tracing adverse health effects in this way we can get a pretty good sense of where exposure risk becomes reasonable. There have been at least 10 studies. 

Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20662418/

Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21741680/

Approach 2: to determine the set back, the first step is to identify the lowest power density in the laboratory that is shown to produce adverse health effects and there are many studies that have done this and so there’s a reasonable consensus about what the radiation levels are where adverse effects begin to occur.

Low exposure levels are associated with bioeffects and adverse health effects at cell tower rfr exposure levels

https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

The second step is to identify the distance from a typical cell tower where that lowest level of radiation occurs. At that distance most people should not experience adverse health effects. Determining a setback distance using these two approaches provides us with a reasonability check. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314197160_A_Technical_Approach_to_the_Evaluation_of_Radiofrequency_Radiation_Emissions_from_Mobile_Telephony_Base_Stations

Fortunately the two approaches give very similar results so we’re confident that the setback the commission recommends is a good one.

Take-Aways from the New Hampshire HB522 Commission on 5G Final Report:

https://www.lee.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif771/f/uploads/cell_tower_info.pdf

Further notes from the presentation:

We are concerned about the placement of cell towers, there is a clear and growing body of evidence demonstrating that exposure to cell phone type radiation is harmful. 

What’s meant by cell phone radiation is basically digital radiation in general, so all of the devices that you have, and these devices only have been around for perhaps 20 years, send digital information ‘zeros and ones’ and this digital radiation is of greater concern because of its pulsed nature.

You get little spikes of energy when exposed to signals, and the way a biochemist recently described those bursts of energy as ‘like a jackhammer on your cells’.

Your cells are basically electromagnetic in nature, your brain is very electromagnetic in nature so when you have this digital type radiation it’s more harmful to you physically than the more familiar radiation from 30 years ago like FM radio and AM radio stations. They were of concern but not as much concern as with cell phone type radiation.

The other difference between different digital devices is the amount of power that is given.

To give you a sense of the relative risk of the various devices:

  • Bluetooth is 100 milliwatts, that’s a concern 
  • Smart meters are of great concern because they’re transmitting almost continuously and they have a pretty high power output close to 1watt.
  • Cell phones themselves are very strong radiators from 0.6 watts or 600 milliwatts up to 3 watts it’s a fair amount of power.
  • Cell towers can go from 10 to 50 watts so those are very strong radiators, they’re radiating digital information and they’re radiating pretty much continuously as opposed to your cell phone that radiates only occasionally, so that’s why we’re particularly concerned about cell towers and their placement.
11,000 pp of evidence in EHT vs FCC case. 13.08.2021: Federal court orders FCC to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation

https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

Events 2022

I am happy to come and give talks to your community about this topic, and the wider picture that it now clearly engenders.

Bio: I have been a sole practitioner Architect for about 20 years, and in the course of this have appreciated that buildings should be healthy as well as functional, beautiful, light …

This is where my interest started, in mitigating and communicating the effect in buildings of the unseen electromagnetic environment. Nowadays the exposure is many times more intense and chronic.

I am simply a messenger, studying the evidence, government agendas and industry ambitions, and then pulling the pieces together.

We are at a crossroads. Microwave Telco systems are the pinch point and back bone. The issues are: Surveillance/Digital ID, Public Health, Environmental Health.

query@rfinfo.co.uk

I have a screen, laptop and projector, I just ask for travel cost/donations. The talk is about 1.25hrs +Q&A.

Example talk on Resources page, top.

Upcoming 2022:

Assembly Rooms, Glastonbury: 12th June 2022, 9-5pm

https://theshineseminars.org

Essex, westcliffe: POSTPONED July 2022 TBC

Recently:

Battle, Hastings, E.Sussex: Friday 11.00. Event dates: 20-22 May 2022

Upper Hook Field, Netherfield Road, Battle TN33 9QB

Cuckfield, E.Sussex: 28th April 19.30-21.00

Pembrokeshire, Wales: April 2022

Southend on Sea: 8th March 2022

Steyning, Sussex: Sat 5th March 2022

Ventnor, Isle of Wight: weekend February 5-6th

East Sussex, Oxted. Tuesday February 22nd.

Ditchling, Sussex. 18.01.2022

Coolham, Horsham. Mon 13th Dec 2021

Fishersgate mast in Brighton, quashed at Judicial Review

We now have the recognition that Local Planning Authorities need to address the health impacts of 5G mast proposals further, without blindly accepting self certified ICNIRP certificates without proper circumstantial scrutiny. Thank you to all those who donated, without your donations this could not have happened, it is a shame that we have to go to these lengths to get our Local Authorities to do their jobs properly. Costs of £13k were awarded against Brighton and Hove City council (BHCC) in this instance.

BHCC conceded on all 3 grounds in the Judicial Review Challenge including:

“the Council failed to address the health impacts of this particular proposal and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school and the amended proposal” 

The High Court of Justice issued the Consent Order on 4th November 2021.

The ground says “for this particular proposal”. The mast was 27m from a school and no properly evaluated exclusion zones were provided (normally up to 50m). If you have an equivalent situation or a mast very close to homes with children then the parallel with the case could be argued tightly. But you could also use the precedent to argue that health affects within 500m should be addressed.

The planners and councillors do say they are not scientists and can be overwhelmed by the “science/evidence”. The government have placed liability and the duty to weigh evidence in their lap, at the same time as having one policy (118) which on the face of it tells them they cannot do that. This double bind affects all of us, unless councils properly take into account other material planning considerations, as they should, alongside other policy.

One or two studies can help them more than sending the 1000’s available. The latest Spanish paper (LOPEZ et al 2021) is extremely relevant, also the JD Pearce paper:

What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid

Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers

link to Comment on a Mast

Councils need to know that they could face a Judicial Review if they don’t address the information and evidence you present them. Keep asking where the exclusion zones fall and don’t accept any decision where you suspect there is a residence within the zone. If health impacts need to be assessed by a school then by deduction one could argue that equally children need to be protected at home and information you present about health impacts should be addressed. If there are homes very close to the mast which house children, you could point this out and then link to the Brighton precedent. (ref planning app no. BH2021/016)