Author: admin

On May 1^st 2023, the residents of two towns in Massachussetts voted to new 5G cell towers on hold until the regulators provide environmental risk assessments and the FCC has addressed the 2021 Supreme Court ruling instructing them to account for non-thermal effects and EHS testimonials and adjusted their exposure guidelines (similar to ICNIRP) accordingly.

Article ‘The Defender’ Feb 2023.

Our blog on another Cease and Desist order in Massachusetts, May 2022

OUR COUNCILS have been sent very similar information as these towns in Massachusetts, their full documentation from the EHT is available here.

“5G: Hazards and Myths” presented by The Scientific Alliance for Education, March 16, 2023

Massachusetts’ decision making makes good logical sense.

We have the same bodies.

We have the same technology.

We have ICNIRP exposure guidelines which are similar to, and derived from the FCC ones defined in 1996, i.e based on a non-thermal paradigm.

Our Councils have the same obligations as these towns in MA, which is to reconcile the benefits and risks.

Our Councils have this legal obligation under planning law,  but also re-enforced under the the EECC (recital 106) despite the government not making this explicit when they transposed it. The UK government helped develop the EECC for 5G rollout and are now fudging and wriggling out of the regulation embedded within it by not informing and not resourcing councils to fulfill the regulatory function (required by EECC article 6.2)

Councils please acknowledge:                                                                                                                          

• Real life 5G mmWaves have not been tested – only 3 studies have been done on health effects of in situ 5G. SaferEMR article.
• “The current scientific database is inadequate at mm wavelengths to render a trustworthy appraisal or to reach a judgment with confidence.” James Lin, former ICNIRP.
• Polarised pulsed beam formed mm waves have different biological effects to non-polarised. The government rely on Karipidis paper to support the safety of mm waves, but this critique explains why this is not logical.
• The WHO South Africa is recommending telecoms provide maps of hotspots and are experimenting with mitigation of them in Amsterdam, but no provision whatsoever is made regarding hotspots of intensified radiation in the UK Link
• Many are knowingly suffering and cannot live in Electrosmog filled environments without headaches, brainfog, nausea, sleepless nights, and worse – many can’t leave their homes, can’t travel, can’t shop, can’t work. If the US regulators are being tasked to include their testimonials, and the science is revealing biomarkers, then OUR regulators need to include a consideration of this growing section of the population. Many are unaware that it is EMF which is contributing to their suffering
• Insects and pollinators are in rapid decline and there is research which indicates harmful effects from exposure to RFR and ICNIRP do not protect the environment.
• We have sent countless detailed reports to our Councils of multiple harmful effects being demonstrated by peer reviewed research
• Councils have received the New Hampshire Report which concludes that peer reviewed science supports a 500m setback is needed from a 4g and 5G mast for public health protection

“We have been addressing this Council for a while now on mast by mast basis. We appeal to you to address the picture as a whole. ENOUGH of skirting round these vital elements and time to properly address public and environmental protection. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The environmental risk assessment is essential. “

How to take this to the UK ?

We can continue to ask that our councils similarly stop the masts until they until they secure an environmental risk assessment using this news as backup.

If Massachusetts have balanced the risks and benefits and their conclusion is to STOP, then our councils also need to look at the same information and decide similarly. 

If our LPAs decide otherwise, they need to explain rationally why they think the benefits outweigh the risks. If they cannot do this rationally, they can be challenged legally on the rationality of their decision making.

We can remind them they are competent authorities under the EECC.

We can keep referencing the EECC, as the balancing of risk and benefit which should be happening anyway under planning law is reinforced for 5G within it. It was developed for setting out rules as 5G is rolled out. The UK government were involved in its development and now the UK government are skirting round it. The fact that the government are fudging these responsibilities needs to be known by the Councils,  and further challenged.

Even the councils knowing that there are regulation principles and procedures which have been developed and built into the EECC specifically for 5G can add pressure on the council.

Once the LPAs are properly informed, as they are by detailed and referenced objections, then accepting a blank self-certified certificate is an abhorrent abdication of responsibility and devious avoidance of regulation.

We can empathise with the Council that their reasons for applying government policy are strong, but we can emphasise that the lawful reasons for going against policy are much stronger. This example from Massachusetts really helps.

We can remind them that 1999/519/EC para 19 gives the LPAs legal argument for referencing guidelines other than ICNIRP.

We can supply them with guidelines other than ICNIRP which have included consideration of non-thermal effects and testimonials of EHS, such as:

EU Parliament, Baue Biologie Insitute, BioInitiative working group, Cyprus National Committee on Children’s Health, Austrian Medical Chambers, American Academy of Paediatrics, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, European Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Society of Doctors for the Environment, Environmental Health Trust, French National Assembly

Massachusetts website:

S.A.F.E. Helps You | Information and service projects concerning EMFs, GMO and health (safehelpsyou.org)

Extracts from attached press release:

”This is the first step in trying to protect our towns from intrusion by industry who has not complied with the court order and not proven this technology is safe.” 

“Berkshire County, MA – At the Sheffield and Great Barrington annual town meetings May 1st, 2023 residents voted in favor of the citizen’s petition Article 32 which requires the town to hold applications for 5G installations until the “FCC completes the DC Circuit court-mandated Environmental Review of the entire 800,000 to 1 million wireless telecommunication facilities roll out to the conditions as stated in the NEPA Policy Act 1969 including studies from scientists independent from industry, who have fully investigated millimetre wave 5G small cell technology safety; and that the FCC regulations have been updated to include measures that comply with the results of this review.”

“Specific concerns from the residents target the studies revealing millimetre wave frequency harm to pollinators. As agricultural communities, voters want to be convinced that their crops will not suffer if the myriad of 5G transmitters negatively affect the bees. Their warrant asks for input from scientists who are independent from the telecom industry who can give an unbiased report.”

This Karipidis paper is what the government are relying on to support their belief that 5G mm waves are safe, they used it in the AA5G case, but the critique (above) is excellent. The critique adequately supports the irrationality of relying on Karipidis.

“The 5G network is closely connected with the Smart City agenda and will enable centralized control of lots of different street infrastructure owned or managed by councils, such as street-lights, water meters and bus stops. …Without the more basic technology solutions such as 5G, smart-region solutions and value-added outcomes will struggle to be brought to fruition. … It will support a better environment for today and tomorrow by reducing the need to travel and in turn minimise carbon emissions”

Clarke Telecom in a recent planning application

This is a very revealing statement, first time seen so publicly. Are they having to bring this in to offset the progress being made resisting their SMART plans or because they know they are facing growing resistance generally and particularly from 5G mast campaigners?

“5G antennas have a different ICNIRP profile than the previous generations of radio technology and as such they need a greater clearance from existing development.” 

Clarke Telecom

What do they mean by ‘profile’ – Exclusion zone perhaps, because the phased array increases the distance that a certain power will be received (further compared to 4G isotropic beams) ?

Here is a draft letter that could be used to keep probing with your local council:

The LPAs can be directly challenged on the Auditory Effect  – ACT NOW – SEND THIS EMAIL 

Contains Auditory Effect and up to date references on the progression of recognition of EHS

The campaign is still putting pressure on Case Officers:

a) to follow the rules since GPDO changes (permitted development rules update), making sure they use Prior Approval in the correct way

b) when they fail to notify and consult about mast applications (failure to follow due process). Check if neighbours and schools near a proposed site HAVE been notified. NPPF 117a.

c) where telcos fail to justify the need, NPPF 115, (often they justify a new 5G mast by showing none in the area, whereas the existing 3-4G masts provide the Telco service perfectly well and are not shown). Make sure they have explored other sites as well (NPPF 117c)

d) to scrutinise where some Telco applications are sloppy and are failing to provide the ICNIRP compliance certificates and exclusion zones. Check the site location diagram to make sure it tallies up with the actual address.

e) pull them up on any requests that we have made of the council, even when the masts are approved

f) to take into account environmental effects (energy drain, environmental footprint, impact on insects etc)

AND we are continuing to pressure re health and the lack of technical specifications provided with the plans about the 5G beam forming and power drop off. (NPPF 117b)

Even though they keep ignoring health as not being a valid ‘material concern’ we need to keep adding the health impact argument in all objections. PHE confirmed in 2019 that health IS a factor. Furthermore, the evidence accrued since the latest 2007 case law is now exceptional – which triggers the need to consider it above and beyond one policy (NPPF 118) and as part of wider planning law issues.**

Imminent legal challenge

There is an EXCITING new imminent challenge to central governments depts being crafted by one dogged campaigner re the incomplete EECC transposition; the failure to make public health imperative and operate the health protection measures and failure to maintain our individual rights of objectors.

Interpretation of how the public health protection measures that make Recital 110 and Article 45.2(h) of the EECC relevant re: LPA obligations, can be pursued under the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018. 

As a campaign as a whole we are in  a strong position because

The government know 5G mmWave frequencies have not been tested for safety, it is expensive if not impossible to measure. Evidence being that Ofcom are still using 1998 guidelines in their 2023 site surveys, and they admit that in the guidance to the CEMFAW legislation:

“5.2 ELVs are the legal limitations on the exposure of workers to EMFs, and primarily relate to the levels of exposure to EMFs within the body. These are often impossible or difficult and expensive to measure directly. For this reason a separate set of values, known as ALs, has been produced, which can be measured more easily”

Another campaign strength is we know how they are addressing their wireless policy.

We know their policy where they have identified the downsides of a fully digitised society.

Wireless 2030 Published 10 January 2023 Policy document

“5G officially arrived in the UK in 2019, and has utilised existing 4G infrastructure, but coverage is not yet widespread. 5G will deliver higher peak data speeds, ultra-low latency (delays in data transfer) and massive network capacity, but ‘true’ 5G requires upgraded infrastructure to current 4G networks.”

“Scenario D: Seamless Citizen – Citizens and industry embrace full digitisation and demand facilitates the rollout of advanced network infrastructure throughout the UK. This new quality and ubiquity of connectivity unlocks opportunities for prosperity but is demanding of people’s data, energy and mental health.”

There is much we can make of this:

FOI: What do they mean by ‘True 5G’ ?

FOI: What are the source materials which support the statement that “ubiquity of connectivity is demanding of people’s data, energy and mental health”.

TOP PRIORITY is to emphasise the downsides the government have identified in their wireless policy document ie cost to your ENERGY and MENTAL HEALTH. 

Consider the reality of a ‘smart fully digitised society’ to raise awareness and appeal to potential objectors ….

Imagine how stressful life would be …

… if you have an electric car, trapped in a zone you have to pay to get out of, or being restricted by remote control

…your spending controlled by your vaccination status

…your movements controlled by your purchasing choices

…your location constantly monitored by facial recognition cameras on every street corner

…you are drenched in wireless radiation which causes all sorts of health conditions as your body tries to adjust to the oxidative stress which the government fully recognises the radiation causes

…the ongoing mental stress of dealing with being in queues on the phone, and talking to recorded voices rather than anyone personally 

…the stress of even less contact when trying to access medical services and of being treated medically at a distance, or left with only self checkout in shops

…the stress of traffic being controlled on smart motorways

…the stress of driverless cars 

…the stress of unpredictability of how hacked systems and system failures can randomly interrupt your life

…the stress of AI creating a world where reality and truth are all but impossible to judge ….

**The 2007 Case Law used in the IOW 5G case pre-dates the EECC co-created by the UK government specifically for the roll out of 5G. There are measures within the EECC intended to make public health imperative. 

The IOW ruling that ICNIRP policy need only be set aside to secure public health protection in exceptional circumstances could have been appealed, but the barrister felt a result would only affect an individual mast and the issues of UK central government resourcing the LPAs to perform risk reconciliation and a determination of what constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” may not be resolved in the planning court. It is the SoSfH who is responsible for the enactment of the public health protections in the EECC, and under Article 6.5 has the obligation to resource the LPAS to perform their function to reconcile the health and environmental risks. The SOSFH is now being challenged for failing to do so.