“In what appears to be an astonishing volte-face, a WHO systematic review has found reliable evidence that radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) increase the risk of cancer in animal experiments.” as reported by Gillian Jamieson in the Daily Sceptic. As well as outlining why this matters, the article gives a concise history of industry wilful blindness and regulatory strategic ignorance.
Gofundme link to support Karen and Neils efforts on UK legal challenges (see News below)
Recent blogs:
https://rfinfo.co.uk/chat-gpt-on-rfr/
SIGN UP TO NEWSLETTERUpdate on UK legal challenges
Steven Thomas vs Cheltenham. Judicial Review, High Court Cardiff. The appeal has been heard and published. The EEEC 2018 has been confirmed (p.15) as being part of adopted Law post Brexit, which means that Councils are competent authorities and must take into account the provisions of the EECC regarding Risk Assessment and latest scientific evidence.
EMAIL template for you to send to your council, building upon the outcome of this case so far:
FUNDRAISING & CASE UPDATE – 17 July 2025
Supreme Court Refuses Permission Without Giving Reasons — We Are Demanding Accountability
It is with great disappointment that we share the latest development in our legal battle to uphold public health protections and democratic accountability as the government pushes forward with the 5G rollout.
On 7 July 2025, we received an order from the UK Supreme Court refusing permission to appeal in our case, stating:
“Permission to appeal be REFUSED on the ground that the appeal is wholly devoid of merit. The panel refuses the application as the appeal is out of time and the panel are satisfied that the application is in any event without merit.”
This order was issued without any supporting reasons—despite the complexity and constitutional importance of the issues raised. This lack of explanation is deeply troubling. It contradicts principles of procedural fairness and undermines our ability to seek redress before the European Court of Human Rights, which requires a clear and reasoned domestic decision before it can consider an application.
We are formally invoking Rule 45(1) of the Supreme Court Rules to request a written explanation for the refusal. The Court is required to provide reasons when permission is denied, particularly where jurisdiction or admissibility is in question.
We are insisting on this as a matter of legal right.
We also firmly contest the panel’s claim that the appeal was out of time. Our position is that the three-year time limit for raising compatibility issues under Schedule 8, paragraph 39(5) of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 applies, as our case concerns the failure to implement and apply obligations arising under the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), which has been ongoing since 2018, when the previous directive governing public health consequences of mast and small cell siting was replaced.
Moreover, there now exists a fundamental legal conflict which we drew to the attention of the Registrar:
• In our case, Lady Justice Falk ruled that the EECC does not apply in domestic law.
• In the Steven Thomas v Cheltenham case, Lady Justice Andrews expressly recognised that the EECC forms part of the UK’s domestic legal framework.
(See: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0066)
These are two directly conflicting judgments at Court of Appeal level. That alone should have triggered Supreme Court review — not dismissal. This inconsistency raises serious concerns about the coherence and accessibility of the law. The Supreme Court is the only body capable of resolving such a constitutional inconsistency and providing the legal certainty required under both UK and retained EU law.
We will continue to:
• Challenge the refusal of permission by requesting reasons under Rule 45(1).
• Resist the imposition of costs, which we believe violates environmental law protections.
• Hold the UK legal system to account for inconsistencies in how EU law is applied.
• Prepare a potential application to the European Court of Human Rights on grounds of procedural unfairness and denial of access to justice under Article 6.
Thank you for supporting us in this critical legal and public interest fight.
We are not giving up.
Mast Applications
•Take action steps on RFinfo: UPDATED Template Letter Step2: rfinfo.co.uk/mast-objection/
•New portal for Mast planning application comments – ‘Esthers list’ August 2024
Environment
A study shows non-thermal effects below regulatory limits. A study published in Bioengineering (March 2025) by an international team involving researchers from the Sorbonne University and CNRS (France), Naresuan University (Thailand), Xavier University (USA) and the University of Surrey (UK) reveals changes in reactive oxygen species (ROS) in human cells exposed to 1.8 GHz (3G) radiofrequencies, at levels up to 100,000 times lower than current regulatory limits.
Exploring the influence of Schumann resonance and electromagnetic fields on bioelectricity and human health. Cells and proteins may have evolved to take advantage of frequencies naturally present in the Earth’s EMF, potentially enhancing cellular energy levels and affecting resting membrane potential (RMP). Thus, changes in or absence of SR may have adverse effects on the functioning of the whole organism.
Health and Research
WHO Finds Mobile Phone and WiFi Radiation Causes Cancer – this is very significant, do read.
EMF Hazards Summit 2025 – it has passed already, but good info to search.
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields
Wireless Radiation Sickness Gets a New Name — ‘EMR Syndrome’: Dr Mercola
EMR Syndrome Is Real and It’s Ruining Lives | Mercola Cellular Wisdom. This seems to be irritating AI voice, but …
A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields. Frontiers in Public Health, June 2025
The Holistic Health and Wellbeing Conference
Oliver Perceval – Radio Frequency, Radiation 3-5G, Wifi & Technology : https://vimeo.com/1073609945?ts
PASSWORD: 7HHWC2025!!
Legal and Resistance
ICBE-EMF sees “Serious Flaws”. Jan 2025 Microwave News. “There is no scientific justification for the WHO concluding there is any certainty that RF exposures do not cause cancer.”
Bring back offline access for essential services, petition. AgeUK
Make it a legal right to access certain services without a digital device. Parliament UK, petition.
Technical
Sabrina Wallace, the Global Information Grid, and Electromagnetic Warfare
MAHA, Wearables and the War for Embodied Consciousness. How “Health Freedom” Now Embraces Digital Surveillance
5G the untold story – Swedish radiation protection Foundation
