Memorandum of Liability

Sections I-V are referred from the Notice of Potential Liability letter to schools. This letter outlines the duty of care and liability issues related to exposure of children to wireless radiation in schools.

Section I. The Scientific Basis for Heightened Vigilance with Children 

A substantial body of peer-reviewed scientific studies and clinical medical evidence builds a prima facie legal case of heightened vigilance and fiduciary responsibility of school administrators, school boards, parents, and government officials toward children in schools. In law, a prima facie case establishes a fact or raises a presumption of validity, unless it is disproved or rebutted after considering all current peer-reviewed evidence. 

  • Biological effects of RFR on children. Children are biologically vulnerable in salient respects. The biological effects from RFR exposure have been studied for decades. A number of serious illnesses and a range of chronic symptoms are closely associated with RFR exposure for a growing percentage of people. Building biologists, certified professionals who are called in to measure and mitigate RFR exposure (among other hazards), report that in many cases, when the sources of RFR are mitigated or removed, these adverse symptoms are relieved, and in some instances, completely disappear. A UK 2020 Consensus Statement declaring that microwave radiation from such devices causes harm has been signed by 3,500 medical and scientific experts. [1] The available scientific literature and clinical medical record are more than sufficient to establish a basic duty of care toward children regarding harms that are clearly foreseeable and preventable; in other words, the primary legal case. 
  • Why are children more vulnerable to RFR than adults? The scientific literature offers four principal explanations. (1) Children possess a high density of stem cells that are sensitive to RFR, rendering them especially susceptible to constant exposure. (2) Children have high levels of extracellular water throughout their bodies that is more easily penetrated by RFR. (3) Radiation penetrates deeper and more intensely into children’s brains due to their thinner skulls and unique physiology, and developing brains are more sensitive to synaptic interference from RFR. (4) The volume-to-surface ratio in children’s brains render them more easily exposed and vulnerable to RFR. 
  • What are the observed primary biological effects of RFR over-exposure? The principal factors cited by leading researchers include: Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)/oxidative stress, inflammation, DNA/mitochondrial damage, hyper-glycemia, impaired resilience, impaired immunity, gene induction, epigenetic changes, suppression of NRF#2 production and interruption, and adverse effects on calcium levels. The co-morbidity of each of these factors, and the cumulative effects on impaired systemic resilience has not been well studied. Further research is required before exposing children and teachers in school environments to continuous RFR. 
  • What illnesses in children are most closely linked with exposure to RFR? The most common illness reported from exposure to RFR is Electromagnetic Hyper-Sensitivity, (EHS). EHS is a recognized illness by the World Health Organization, and is legally recognized in Sweden and Denmark.  Other reported medical impacts include neuropsychiatric (behavioural) effects (i.e. anxiety, depression, brain fog, nausea and cognitive impairment), autism and ADHD, childhood leukaemia, brain tumours, sudden cardiac arrest, diabetes and prenatal effects. [2] The available data are stronger with some illnesses than others, although sufficient, even if inconclusive, to justify precaution and further inquiry. 



Section II. School Administrator’s Duty of Care 

The duty of school administrators to parents and children arises from national policies and obligations to deliver safe and supportive learning environments, as well as the general law of fiduciaries. 

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 3 embodies a fundamental human right. “… the right to freedom from bodily harm is second only to the right to life and is equally based on the right which all people have a level of basic respect and dignity as human beings,” (Hoffman & Rowe 2010). To refuse to remove an agent that causes bodily harm is in breach of Human Rights and would be unlawful.
  • The European Convention on Human Rights, as given force by the UK Human Rights Act, upholds the right to respect for private and family life.
  • The Children Act 1989: schools have a duty of care towards their pupils, traditionally referred to as ‘in loco parentis’, and as such are required by law to safeguard the interests of children entrusted to their care.  They must seek consent for exposure to known pollutants (of which RFR is counted, under the EPA1990, and PPCA1999) and should not disregard parental dissent.  To refuse to remove a harmful agent can constitute a tort.

‘The child’s physical safety is entrusted to the school and to the teacher, who thus become legally liable for the child’s safetyLegally, while not bound by parental responsibility, teachers must behave as any reasonable parent would do in promoting the welfare and safety of children in their care.

Part XII (1) teachers have a duty of care towards their pupils, traditionally referred to as ‘in loco parentis’. ‘The child’s physical safety is entrusted to the school and to the teacher, who thus become legally liable for the child’s safety.

Part III (17) places a legal obligation on Local Authorities / Schools to protect children in their area against significant harm / and or abuse / or the risk of. The Children Act stands apart from other legislation in so much as the risk of harm does not have to be proven or to have taken place but could be a likelihood or perceived risk.

  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Articles 3, 24. Schools are obliged to respect the rights of the child, which includes health and privacy.
  • There is a contract between the school and parents under which according to the Supply of Goods and Services Actwhich governs the schools, you must act with ‘reasonable skill and care’. Regarding this you must pay due regard to the disclaimer of Public Health England and consider all available and credible scientific evidence pertaining to the dangers of proposed uses of wireless technologies.

What is a School Administrator’s fiduciary Duty to Deliver Safe Learning Environments?

The fiduciary duty of school administrators can be analysed into distinct and separate duties, with corresponding legally recognized rights of parents, children, and teachers. 

  • Duty of heightened vigilance and precaution. School administrators have a duty of heightened vigilance, especially when they are well informed of the foreseeable risks and preventable harms.
  • Duty to be informed. From this basic responsibility derives the further duty of inquiry to investigate, to learn more, and to become better informed. 
  • Duty to inform and warn parents. Administrators have a legal obligation as fiduciaries to warn parents and caretakers of all feasible risks. 
  • Duty to secure informed consent. Administrators have a fiduciary obligation to secure informed consent from parents to permit their children to be wirelessly irradiated while in school. 
  • Duty to demand indemnification and insurance or reinsurance. Administrators have a responsibility to require wireless providers to present proof of insurance to support contractual indemnification and compensation for RFR-related harms. Administrators must ensure that the liability of RFR contamination does not fall upon their own schools, and that parents and children do not bear personal medical and other costs. 
  • Duty to protect disabled and special needs children. Administrators have a fiduciary and statutory duty to protect especially vulnerable children, including those who are disabled, have special educational needs, are suffering from EHS, belong to minority communities, or are economically disadvantaged. The latter two classes of children especially will likely have no viable means of escaping RFR exposure.
  • Duty to be informed of no standard. Administrators must act protectively, recognizing that the present PHE (Public Health England) guidelines, which relate back to the FCC and ICNIRP thermal standard, do not reflect the scientific evidence of biological effects from RFR exposure. As a matter of law, compliance with a government guideline does not necessarily provide a shield against tort liability. 
  • Duty to monitor and measure exposure levels. Administrators have an obligation to monitor the environments they are pledged to protect by regularly measuring RFR levels in schools and providing relevant risk assessments.
  • Liability for retaliation against parents. Administrators must inform themselves of the legal liabilities they face for any attempts to retaliate against parents who express concerns over the exposure of their children to RFR contamination. 
  • Children’s and parents’ right to know. Parents have a right to know if schools are exposing their children to serious health risks to which they have not consented. The right to be free from RFR contamination is basic and constitutional, and touches directly the right of all citizens, in this instance our children, to enjoy and not be deprived of good health, life, and liberty. 

Section III. Strong National, European and International Policy to Safeguard Learning Environments 

The manufacturers and distributors of wireless technologies in the UK currently follow Ofcom exposure guidelines, which are based on safety criteria defined by the ICNIRP. These only accommodate short term exposure (6min/30min) and only recognise the thermal effects of non ionising radiation.  Furthermore, this is a standard which these corporations and bodies themselves have designed, ignoring the evidence of harms to human health and the environment.

Fortunately, a growing number of international court decisions recognize that the policy of one federal / national agency (the FCC or PHE) or one international body (the ICNIRP) must pay deference to, and be harmonized with, other important Codes and Acts. This body of law has direct bearing on the critical decision of school administrators to permit the introduction of RFR-emitting products into school environments. 

  • National policies for safe learning environments. There are strong Acts and policies in place in the UK which have been established to ensure safe learning environments in schools for children. These cannot be arbitrarily swept aside simply to uniquely follow PHE guidelines, which favour the wireless industry. In fact, they necessitate an alternative and safe solution. Introducing wireless technologies in schools, heedless of the consequences, is directly in conflict with other policies, laws and programmes. 
  • The Equality Act 2010 offers a shield for school administrators, school boards, teachers, and parents to prevent and to abate RFR contamination from wireless technologies. It requires reasonable accommodation when an actual injury, or when an immediate threat of injury has occurred to a disabled person. RFR-related illnesses and conditions, whether based on special (EHS) sensitivities or pre-existing conditions aggravated by RFR exposure, could qualify as recognized disabilities in a court of law. Endangerment of people with disabilities is recognized as a civil rights violation, comparable to similar discriminations based on race, age, and sex. 
  • Trade Unions: most unions in the UK and elsewhere ask that employers should not use class 1, 2A or 2B cancer agents where an alternative is available. For internet and data access, it is easy to provide wired or cable connections. [1]

A private institution is not governed by the Trade Union, but its behaviour should be corroborative in regard to the standards and rights promoted by the Union.

  • Data privacy and security.  Wireless technology is now recognized to be so inherently insecure and vulnerable to hacking and other intrusions that the problem has been elevated to a national security concern, and several task forces have provided detailed recommendations on the high vulnerability to the nation of cyber-insecurity. Protection of the privacy and security of databases concerning children and their parents must be a high priority of school administrators. This issue is not generally disclosed by purveyors of wireless products and technologies. 
  • The Prevention Principle and Precautionary Principle in EU Law: The prevention principle in the EU Treaty is there to deal with known, largely uncontested, scientifically based evidence of harm (eg smoking/lung cancer, post 1964)Where the evidence of harm, in this case from EMR, is established by the majority of independent peer reviewed studies the Prevention Principle must lawfully be applied by minimizing exposure wherever it is possible by using a hardwired system. Failure to do is Tameside Unreasonable in Public Law.

The use of the Precautionary Principle is enshrined in European law that will continue past Brexit. The Council of Europe, and the European Environment Agency have recommended its use based on past experience, including failure to act on hazards.

The Precautionary Principle is defined as follows: “When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”(

  • Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011)  The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment: “Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people.”
  • The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an industry body who were consulted when existing exposure limits were set decades ago now acknowledges that the limits are not protective and the public should take precautionary measures whilst public policy catches up with the science.  
  • HSE at Work Act 1974: “places duties on people in control of premises (landlords, tenants etc), both to ensure that people can use the premises without risks to their health or safety and to control exposure to radiation, and any “noxious or offensive substances” from being released into the atmosphere and that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment must be conducted “before you do work which presents a risk of injury or ill health.” 
  • Public Health Act 1936: Nuisance and inevitable injury. In most situations there is no cause for inevitable injury where alternatives are available. Parliament does not permit such infringement and so it must be avoided.


Section IV. Potential Criminal and Civil Liability of Wireless Purveyors 

The controversies over the health risks of RFR contamination must be viewed in the context of the long history of litigation over other public health injuries, where courts and juries have recognized huge damage awards to victims. These include damage from for example: lead in drinking water and lead paint, asbestos, Roundup, mould, special allergies, tobacco and cell phone cancer.  As the issues arising from chronic exposure to RFR are often common in cases around the world, precedents are being established in other countries that courts in the UK are likely to note and apply. These precedents are transforming the administrative landscape and establishing civil and even criminal liability for knowing (and wilful) exposure of children to RFR risks. 

Reaching a Legal Tipping Point 

As science moves inexorably toward a better understanding of the role of non-ionizing radiation and magnetic field exposure on biological systems, and the blanket of regulatory protection around the wireless industry begins to fray, school administrators and school boards will risk being caught in the undertow. 

  • Absence of a science-based RFR standard.  In the UK, Public Health England guidance says that there is no need to consider health issues or concerns as long as wireless radiation levels in a school are below the ICNIRP guidelines. 

The principal source upon which PHE is relying is the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP’s recommended standard has been deemed inadmissible by two Italian courts that have held the studies on which it is based lack scientific credibility and are fatally flawed due to conflicts of interest. There is widespread evidence that large numbers of people in the UK and around the world, including children, are being seriously harmed,[1] despite statements by the wireless purveyors that they are in compliance with the ICNIRP and the FCC’s standard.

The FCC in America is giving the wireless industry carte blanche to operate under an outdated thermal standard that ignores biological harm from both peak and cumulative exposures and is unsupported by the scientific and medical evidence. 

However, PHE advice is only guidance. It does not give ‘carte blanche’ for wireless systems to be installed anywhere and everywhere with a total disregard for legitimate public health concerns. The ICNIRP further assert that their guidance should NOT be used as a defensive wall by industry and decision takers.

The law requires that Government guidelines be interpreted in the light of all legislation. In the case of installation of wireless systems in schools PHE guidance must not be relied upon solely (PHE 2019) so Risk Assessments must include the Human Rights Act, EU precautionary principle, the Children Act, Public Health Act, EPA and CEMFAW regs.  

PHE take no responsibility for their guidance, they do not assess the evidence themselves.

  • Environmental Health Trust/Children’s Health Defense v. FCC. The case was heard in Jan 2021, and in August 2021 the Federal court ordered the FCC to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation.

In August 2021 the court concluded that the FCC had failed to consider the non thermal, non-cancer, evidence regarding adverse health effects of wireless technology when it decided that its 1996 radiofrequency emission guidelines protect the public’s health. The Court ruled“The case be remanded to the commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation…”

The UKHSA adopts the advice of the FCC via the ICNIRP, and therefore their guidance also falls short of being fully protective. We can determine from this judgement that schools that have relied on this guidance may be in immediate legal jeopardy.

  • The regulatory compliance defence. Given the patent deficiencies of the present Guidelines, the legal question is whether purveyors of wireless technologies, or school administrators, can rely on compliance with those guidelines as a defence to tort actions, claiming damages. 

PHE guidance cannot form a sole defence for a school’s position; they must consider all the evidence.

The Public Health England (PHE) opinion is that There is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to RF signals from wi-fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population … and no reason why schools and others should not use wi-fi equipment.”

Notwithstanding, PHE updated their advice about mobile devices on 4th February 2020:

“The international guidelines recommended by Public Health England (PHE) provide protection for the population as a whole; however, uncertainties in the science suggest some additional level of precaution is warranted, particularly for sources such as mobile phones where simple measures can be taken to reduce exposure.”

Beyond this their advice is unqualified; they do not carry out their own evaluation but refer back to the ICNIRP guidelines for short term exposure and thermal effects.  

These guidelines are not mandatory. All public bodies are required to carry out their own risk assessments and meet the requirements of Health & Safety using their own methods, and with reference to their particular context. The health impact of WiFi will also depend upon its use in context.

The PHE position fails to recognise idiopathic, non-linear biological reactions to long term environmental electromagnetic exposure. In this regard it is fraudulent and misleading.

Given the requirement of any statutory obligation to apply weight to the evidence and research whilst carrying out a Risk Assessment, Schools must consider peer reviewed research detailing biological harm at 1/100th ICNIRP exposure levels and take note that even these levels are higher than those set by other official science review bodies.

Public Health England solicitors DLA Piper state:

The Guidance [on PHE website] is not maintained and revised by PHE for the explicit purpose of any other body undertaking any other statutory function. If in any other context regard is had to the Guidance, that is entirely a matter for the discretion of the relevant body and it must determine what weight to place on the Guidance given the clear indication as to the sources from which the advice and recommendations in the Guidance are derived. Equally, that body must determine what other evidence from your clients or other members of the public or interestedparties to consider in making any decision.”

If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the guidance with illegality”. 8 August 2019

The above statement from the solicitors to PHE unequivocally asserts that public bodies, including schools, should balance PHE’s guidance with other sources of evidence i.e. that they should indeed question that guidance.

Radio-frequency radiation can be defined in law as producing pollution or waste that negatively affects human health

According to the definitions from the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990), the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (PPCA 1999), and the EU Directive on Industrial Emissions (2010/75/EU), radio-frequency radiation (RFR) emitted from devices, masts and antennae can be shown to produce pollution or waste of a kind directly dangerous to human health. The laws specifically reference ‘organ toxicity’, listing as examples of this cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity. 

A document produced by an EU entity (EUROPAEM 2016), has provided evidence that these are all (non-thermal) health effects of RFR. [2] Thus, broadcast Wireless or Wi-Fi can be shown to create pollution/industrial waste, at the very least, to the standard that warrants investigation under the EPA 1990 and therefore that the installation of WiFi without restriction or control in school rooms and boarding houses is not sustainable given the nuisance control obligations that arise from the aforementioned legislation.

The present FCC/ICNIRP thermal standard itself recognizes and condones a penetration of the skin at levels of 8.1 millimeters (at 6 GHz). There is strong scientific and medical evidence that a penetration of the skin at this level entails adverse health effects, including impaired immunity, especially for children. Under many state laws, parents have a legal right to protect their children from an assault, whether it is officially sanctioned or not. It is only a matter of time, perhaps as a result of the forthcoming FDA action, when medical science and law will come together in an intelligent and compassionate way. 

The above shows that the emissions from WiFi will constitute a statutory nuisance emanating from a pollutant producing waste harmful to human health. If the situation is not suitably risk assessed and remedied by removing and mitigating the source wherever possible and practical then a formal statutory nuisance complaint may be issued against the school.

  • Insurance Cover for Liability: The school should check its liability cover as re-insurance companies will not insure against harm caused by electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The ICNIRP and PHE guidelines do not provide safety assurances which can be relied upon for liability purposes.

For example, Lloyds of London has defined a general exclusion clause 32 to be used at the discretion of their underwriters. 

  • Child endangerment. Additionally, most laws define child endangerment as wilfully exposing a child to unjustifiable pain, suffering, or danger. A person can be charged for subjecting the child to an unreasonable risk of harm, even if the child never suffers actual physical harm. 

The Winning Case 

Given the evidence and the progress of lawsuits and government rulings elsewhere in the world it can be reasonably predicted that UK courts may eventually rule to protect children in schools from dangerous RFR exposure. The defendants will be school administrators who have allowed increasing amounts of wireless technology to be employed in the classroom with full knowledge of the special vulnerabilities and disabilities of more and more children to RFR exposure. Defendants will have ignored the written warnings of physicians with special expertise in clinical electromagnetics, in the face of compelling evidence provided by certified building biologists of dangerous levels of radiation exposure.[3] They will have brushed aside the objections of parents to forcing their children to be so exposed. The unhealthy impacts of invasive, continuous, cumulative exposure will be decisive. 

A jury will reasonably conclude: a) the harms were foreseeable and preventable; b) a formal request by parents for a reasonable accommodation was served upon the school administrators, school boards, and local councils, and; c) a school administrator’s decision to ignore a request for reasonable accommodation was made with full knowledge, recklessly and wilfully, indifferent to the safety of children within his or her care. A case for punitive damages, along with legal fees and costs under the law, is strong. 




Section V. Tragic Choices vs. False Choices: Reconciling Sound Business with Conscience 

This Memorandum and the RF Safe Schools project rely on the premise that school administrators, teachers, staff, parents and students are natural allies. Together they share an opportunity to collaborate creatively in innovating the 21st Century Resilient Classroom. Indeed, to take the same logic to the next step, it is not inconceivable that the more imaginative and socially conscious telecom companies will themselves decide to innovate safer solutions that will contribute significantly to this fundamental goal. 

The 21st Century Resilient Classroom does not demand a tragic choice between children’s and teachers’ safety and security, versus wireless access to the Internet. It is a false choice based on narrow thinking. The plain economic benefits to schools of implementing safe learning environments (happy children, attracting better teachers, reducing sick leave, etc.) and avoiding significant, uninsurable liability, far exceed the subsidies being offered by the Department of Education, and other financial enticements by the wireless purveyors. Simply by hard-nosed business calculation, the protective course makes practical sense. 

Link to the scientific studies

USA partner organisation: