On 7th July 2024, 2pm outside the Guildhall BA1 1JG, there will be a ‘Rally for Sanity’ to express widespread public rejection of this pilot – without risk assessment or public consultation.
What is the pilot scheme really for ? Do we really need it ?
Bathnes are denying our right to be protected and have abandoned public consultation, both are unlawful.
The Council are planning an 18month trial of smart city 5G hardware in Bath. ONE WORD is a pilot which will be led by mobile telecoms company Telet, in partnership with B&NES Council.
The pilot aims to improve connectivity and boost the local economy as a result of providing a new cutting-edge mobile network directly in the historic centre of the City of Bath by installing a network of around 20 small cell radio units …
The BATHNES legal department have been presented a notice informing them of the obligations to consult and assess the health impacts under the EECC and have been asked to instate these procedures which were absent in the forward Executive plan and were not activated in the application for a ‘certificate of lawfulness’. Please see the correspondence with BATHNES council so far in this file:
Here is the Planning application, made by the Council to the Council (Business & Skills Team BANES)
Issue Notes for the ONE WORD 5G Mobile Network Pilot Project (WL):
Telegram group link: https://t.me/rallyforsanity_Bath_Fri_June_28
The decision date is due on 10th July 2024.
These trials are nation-wide, and so objectors from around the UK are welcome.
Your opinion matters. Please EMAIL the dept to express your objection development_management@bathnes.gov.uk
paul_roper@bathnes.gov.uk and samantha_mason@bathnes.gov.uk
If you would like to register your disinterest as a tourist to Bath in coming to the city because of the trials, please download this form, and then sign it (along with others who feel the same) and return it to query@rfinfo.co.uk, or come along on and sign at the Rally:
EVENT FLYER:
The legal grounds for public consultation under the EECC presented to BATHNES link with an ongoing challenge against the government about the Department of Health and Department of Levelling up joint failure to empower local authorities to fulfil their risk reconciliation obligations. Please see: Gofundme page for JR Appeal: EECC and Objectors Rights
Peer Reviewed science and review papers:
Here are 3 important webinars about environmental effects:
This critique paper from Nature.com thoroughly debunks the claims made in the paper used by the government and Telecoms to support their claim that 5G is safe.
Health Concerns of 5G and Setting Suitable Restrictions 2023. Michael Bevington reported on 5G adverse health effects ‘in situ’ studies, and concludes: ‘5G, like some other technologies, was deployed ahead of actual health studies. Health evidence, including six case reports of 2023, now shows that 0.06 μW/m2 (0.005 V/m) is a suitable interim non-thermal restriction and needs to be set by public regulators.’
The UK government cite the Karapidis paper entitled ‘5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz’ to justify the safety of 5G frequencies above 6Ghz, however this critique ‘Comment on “5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz” by Karipidis et al.’ reveals the illogicality of doing so, as there are deep flaws in the reporting within the paper and there is a lacuna of adequate research.
The critique concludes: ‘The Karipidis review seemingly equates risk management with the need to confirm evidence of harm. The point at which harm becomes a public issue is far too late, given the size of the population being exposed without formal consent. We consider that risks to humans and the environment identified in past epidemiological studies, as well as unknown risks yet to be identified, warrant the application of a precautionary approach. We find the Karipidis review to be both inadequate and incomplete, sending the wrong messages regarding safety assessment and public health.’
Here are three webinar recordings of lectures presented at the Royal Society of Medicine in London last summer.
https://icbe-emf.org/activities/webinar-june-14-2023
We recommend all recommend all three recordings on the page.
In webinar 1 David Gee gives a very useful context of the history of environmental toxinson text of the history of environmental toxins & Dr Erica Mallery Blythe logically and clearly presents scientific argument and medical evidence as to why the ICNIRP guidelines are not protective.
In webinar 2 Dr Kent Chamberlain demonstrates why at least a 500m setback from masts is justified by current science.
In webinar 3 Professor Lin, who is an ex-ICNIRP member, shares his reasoning why ICNIRP guidelines cannot be relied upon to protect public health, especially of children.
This ICBE paper is a detailed paper on the state of the science and ICNIRP’s false assumptions about safety. ICBE-EMF: Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G
This Hensinger paper explains the biological reality of EHS (electro hypersensitivity). The retired Administrative Judge’s conclusion from section 3.1 of the paper covers the ‘Violation of the constitution: Unprotected exposure to radiation without applying the precautionary principle’.
This Press Release from PHIRE medical is important re the recognitions of EHS: ‘Parents have now won a 5 year legal battle against 2 local authorities to have their child accommodated in school for EHS. They won in the Upper Tribunal, thus the ruling is also precedent setting. We believe this is the first case in the world where a government body is legally mandated to make low-EMF educational provisions to accommodate a child with EHS‘
Phiremedical consensus statement of UK and International Medical and Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR). UK 2020.
Research shows that trees, plants, pollinators and wildlife are harmed by wireless radiation. EHTrust.
‘Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health’ Prof Martin Pall
RFR effects summaries 2022 Bioinitiative report
This ORSAA table of epidemiological studies reveals a significant numbers of studies showing harms from higher frequency 5G:
‘Epidemiological studies investigating occupational exposure to radar at frequencies above 6 GHz’
I object to the ‘experiment’ of installing 5G masts across our city I have not been consulted about it just as I was not consulted about blocking off various roads in the city to which I also strongly object. Neither ‘trial’ is necessary but just causes problems.