Insurance

Insurance companies are RISK ANALYSTS. That is what they do. Schools, councils, offices – no-one can get insurance policies that cover personal injury arising from exposure to microwave radiation from sources of WiFi or extended use of mobile phones and bluetooth headsets. What do they know about the hazard of RFR exposure that no-one is telling Head teachers and Councillors ?

– Employers/Schools have a prima facie Duty of Care to protect their subjects 

– A County or Local Council has obligations as an employer and a public body to mitigate biological hazards

A Risk Management approach must be adopted when the weight of evidence is compelling:

  • radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is a proven Biological Trigger 
  • this causes a Biological Effect, which is identified as a Hazard
  • therefore Risk Management is required
  • exposure to the hazard must be minimized, and safe alternatives used 

The ICNIRP and PHE guidelines do not provide safety assurances which can be relied upon for liability purposes. They require contextual evaluation of risk, taking into account all available evidence.

Previous Chairman for ICNIRP Paolo Vecchia presented at the EM Radiation Research Trust conference in September 2008. In his presentation, he made it very clear that: “the ICNIRP guidelines are neither mandatory prescriptions for safety, the ‘last word’ on the issue nor are they defensive walls for Industry or others.”

Slides in the 5min video are 10sec each, click fwd to skip.

Swiss Re Emerging Risks Report (May 2019)

https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019/SONAR2019-off-the-leash.html

“To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence… Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker.”

Lloyds of London has defined a general exclusion clause to be used at the discretion of their underwriters. Exclusion Clause 32 states:

“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure.” Endorsement Change sent out by the Maxum Indemnity Company. CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s as of Feb. 7, 2015. 

Article: why do wireless companies warn their shareholders of the risk, and not us ?

https://theodora-scarato.medium.com/if-5g-is-so-safe-then-why-do-wireless-companies-warn-their-shareholders-but-not-consumers-23171885cabc

Martin Pall on 5G lack of risk assessment