On May 1st 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.
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
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.