Did you know that regulatory guidelines for EMF exposure do not cover those with metallic implants?

by
Metal implants and EMFs including 5G

The impact of EMFs on metal implants and metal objects, such as hip replacements, dental fillings, braces, eye glasses and jewellery

An article compiled by a Bristol Stop 5G Campaigner.

When the BBC and mainstream media ridicule people who have health concerns about 5G, are they aware how seriously lacking regulations and safeguards are for people with metal implants? Does Bristol City Council know that relying on ICNIRP guidelines when considering 4G/5G mast applications (as per the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 116 [1] ) means that the recommended ICNIRP[2] exposure levels offer no protection at all for people with metallic implants? As we shall see, this information alone should nullify the NPPF 116 directive, as the Council’s responsibilities and obligations to protect public health should be activated by this.

We have given Bristol City Council a mechanism to activate risk analysis and accountability of telecoms companies for effects on people with metal implants, but they have failed to use it. We need to keep pressing them to abandon reliance on ICNIRP and challenge them to overturn the paragraph 116 directive.

Whilst councils are unable to refuse 5G masts on health grounds, as directed by central government, and governments refuse to regulate EMFs, wireless equipment manufacturers are getting away with being extremely vague in their guidelines for customers. For example, even though mobile phone companies may inform their customers in the small print section that, “eyeglasses, earrings, metal implants or placing a cell phone in a pocket next to a keyring can increase consumers cell phone exposures” [3], the language they use is unspecific and not easy to understand.

There is plenty of published research that indicates that metal in or near the body can significantly increase radiation absorption. Metals act as conductors of RF (radio frequency, includes mobile phone signals) energy, and according to the Environmental Health Trust, the outcomes from this cannot easily be predicted. Examples of conductive metal objects are not just metal implants such as hip replacements, but also metal frames of glasses, braces, orthodontics, dental fillings, jewellery and even underwired bras. The EHT states:  “Increased SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) levels in the brain from implanted metal is a serious concern that regulatory agencies have not addressed”[4]

“Metallic implants amplify high frequency (HF)-EMF 100 – 700 fold[s] nearby and exceed the safety levels. If dental metals (crowns, fillings, bridges, Ti implants) are implanted in the upper jaw, HF-EMF is enhanced in the cranial nerves and brain. The presence of dental metals may increase the risk for HF-EMF-induced brain cancers several fold and should be acknowledged as [a] confounding variable in future studies exploring brain cancer risk in dependence of HF-EMF exposure”[5]

Numerous scientific reports also show that dental fillings leak into the body when the person is in close contact with wireless radiation. This is of particular concern where people have amalgam fillings, which contain mercury. Even small levels of mercury in the body can be extremely toxic.

Moreover, this is a serious concern in pregnant women, where leakage of mercury fillings can damage the health of the foetus: “As a strong association between exposure to electromagnetic fields and mercury level has been found in our previous studies, our findings can lead us to this conclusion that maternal exposure to electromagnetic fields in mothers with dental amalgam fillings may cause elevated levels of mercury and trigger the increase in autism rates.” Mortazavi, Gh, et al. from their study: “Increased release of mercury from dental amalgam fillings due to maternal exposure to electromagnetic fields as a possible mechanism for the high rates of autism in the offspring: introducing a hypothesis.”[6]

Titanium too is used in surgical implants and dental work.  In  2015 Pubmed, the biomedical and life sciences journal archive, published an article on aspects of toxicity regarding titanium nanoparticles:  “[…]from the developmental point of view, there is a raising concern in the exposure to TiO2 NPs during critical windows, in the pregnancy or the lactation period, and the fact that human mothers, women and men in fertile age and last but not least children, may be exposed to high cumulative doses.”[7]

As things currently stand, it seems as if these serious health concerns are not affecting just a tiny minority of the population – indeed, it appears that just about everyone in our society will find themselves in that ‘minority’ who are affected!

 

References

[1] Paragraph 116, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) –  Local Authorities should not set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.

[2] ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

[3]https://ehtrust.org–/wirelessbraces-earrings-hip-replacements-metal-can-increase-wireless-radiation-absorption-body/

[4]   Ibid.

[5]http://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/titanium-exposure-and-human-health/

[6] Journal of Biomedical Physics & Engineering 6.1 (2016): 41.

[7]  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25960011/ Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: some aspects of toxicity/focus on the development

Ofcom Consultation – Deadline 12 June

by

“URGENT ACTION REQUIRED”
There is an open consultation Closing Date June 12th!!!
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf

OFcom are proposing Telecoms self certify against ICNIRP guidelines being changed from “best business practice” to a requirement by Law.  We need to inform our councillors we do not want this and lobby them to object to the consultation.

Please would you  email  your councillors with the email below.   “Dear Councillor” below….putting their name in!

The email includes a request to them for  a follow up zoom or telephone call to discuss the points you have sent them and to discuss the  rebuttal document you attach to the email which has references to the science backing up why the ICNIRP guidelines are inadequate.

Don’t take lockdown as a reason for them not to engage with you, this is an open consultation with a fixed closing date on June 12th,  and they have to engage with you on this.

When you send this, attach the Ofcom-rebuttal-June2012.pdf which you can download here.

Dear Councillor xxx,

I am writing to you regarding this consultation which closes on June 12th.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/limiting-exposure-to-emf

Please would you oppose this until the following questions and issues are addressed.
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you by phone or zoom.

  • The ICNIRP guidelines have been ruled in the Turin court case to not adequately incorporate the results from the NTP and Ramazzini studies which show biological harm and cancerous affects. There are 2 cases being brought against the government which will address this issue, (one led by Michael Mansfield QC see actionagainst5.org ) Therefore, we do not want adherence to ICNIRP set in law.
  • Why is there no independent audit process of frequencies, power levels ?
  • The proposal requires Telecoms to self-certify their compliance, and only to keep records of that compliance. They are not requiring any audit or checking process at the time of turning on the equipment, this is not adequate to ensure public safety.
  • The proposal suggests it’s the last company on a  shared mast to make sure overall emissions from the mast do not exceed the guidelines. The systems by which this is managed are not defined.
  • Who is checking interference patterns in the environment? The consultation does not reveal any commitment to a programme of testing. Do we need an “electrosmog authority” like we have  a “rivers authority”?
  • Ofcom receive money for sale of bandwidth and they are responsible for overseeing adherence to ICNIRP guidelines. This is a conflict of interest.

I have attached a document with more detailed objections.

Thanks,
xxx”

——–END OF EMAIL———————–

Thank you for taking action on this, this is important! If you have any questions, please join the Bristol,Campaign Zoom call on Wednesday for more guidance or if not possible, please reply to this newsletter.

N.B. You can also respond to the Ofcom Consultation as an individual in your own right.

Legal Case Against 5G Led by Michael Mansfield QC

by
Legal action against 5G

UK campaigners are bringing a historic legal case against the UK Government. They are challenging the irresponsibility of continuing to allow unacceptable levels of exposure to electro-magnetic radiation that will not protect us from known harm, and takes no account of the cumulative effects of the unseen hazardous electro-smog from multiple sources.

Michael Mansfield QC is leading the legal team and is one of the most venerated barristers of our time. He has led legal teams in high profile cases of civil liberty and miscarriages of justice and has represented the families of Grenfell Tower, Lockerbie, the Ballymurphy Massacre and Stephen Lawrence.

He was recently described as “the king of human rights work” by The Legal 500 and as a Leading Silk in civil liberties and human rights.

The actionagainst5g.org website gives further information about the case and will be posting updates on their blog.

The CrowdJustice fundraiser page went live on 23 May to accept financial pledges to support this case which aims to bring the issue of 5G in the UK to judicial review. The outcome of this case, will of course, greatly influence not just us in the UK, but people worldwide.

The initial target of £50,000 was raised within 5 days and now fundraising has started for the stretch target of £150,000. Please donate and like and share the Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posts as far and wide as you can…

If you write your own social media posts about the case, please include the hashtag #5gjusticeuk

Please give generously to support this important case and share the CrowdJustice fundraiser page near and far. Thank you!

Protecting Our Immune Systems from Proven Harmful Effects from EMFs Including 5G

by

A growing number of people in the UK and internationally are increasingly frustrated that our governments (both central and local) are almost universally ignoring the enormous amount of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research that has identified the biological mechanisms through which exposure to EMF radiation causes damage to living cells and organisms; humans (especially children due to their thinner skulls), animals, insects (including bees and pollinators) and plant life.

Particularly, in these times of a serious global health crisis, we need to know that our government is acting responsibly to keep its citizens healthy with properly functioning immune systems. Surely it is not unreasonable to demand that any factors that have an adverse (or even a potentially adverse) impact on a healthy functioning immune response should be eliminated where possible or at least reduced?

EMF radiation exposure and now the planned increase in the spectrum of frequencies that we will be exposed to from 5G are a particular health concern. This is why local and regional campaigning groups over the last year have been calling for a stop to the roll out of this untested new technology until science demonstrates how it can be delivered safely.

There is a wealth of scientific knowledge backing up campaigners’ cause for concern. These are not fringe scientists who are raising the alarm. As an example, there are over 250 international EMF scientists who have signed a petition to the UN asking for the rollout to be stopped on health grounds – see EMF Scientist Appeal.

 

Below is a brief summary of some of the science:

From Physicians for Safe Technology

Can Radio Frequency Radiation Alter the Neuroendocrine and Immune System? 

Researchers are learning about the complex effects of non-ionizing radiation on the neuroendocrine and immune systems. Some research has shown adverse effects on the thyroid function, immune system functioning and DNA repair within immune systems. Glucose metabolism in the brain can be affected acutely.  Cell membrane effects with alteration of calcium channels and creation of reactive oxygen species may be one reasonable mechanism as this appears to be a common toxic molecular response in many other studies which can have many physiologic effects.

Quoting from a recent article from WHAT ARE 5G AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS?:

“There is much research linking wireless radiation with oxidative stress and adverse impacts on immune function (See, 1, 2, 3).  Professor Klaus Buchner, physicist in Germany and Member of European Parliament states, “There is clear scientific evidence that the spreading of viruses is accelerated by electromagnetic radiation.” Key points:

“Ronald N. Kostoff, Research Affiliate, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, explains in his recent monograph that radio-frequency radiation typically acts in combination, one increasing the impacts of the other rendering the immune system “…unable to counteract exposure to viruses as nature intended.”

 

Additional references relating to the effect of EMFs on the immune system

1) Miller, A. B., Sears, M., Morgan L. Davis, D., Hardell, L. et al. (2019). Risks to health and well-being from radio-frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and other wireless devices. Frontiers in public health, 7, 223.
2) Szmigielski, S. (2013). Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Science of the total environment, 454, 393-400.
3) Johansson, O. (2009). Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields—A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment. Pathophysiology, 16(2-3), 157-177.

4) Risks to Health and Well-Being from Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices

 

What can you do to protect yourself and your loved ones?

  1. Limit your exposure to EMFs, particularly during lockdown when you may be tempted to spend longer than usual on your phone or on the internet – see our guidelines for yourself and your children.
  1. Share this information with your friends and community
  1. Demand that 4G and 5G radiation is reduced/eliminated as much as possible – at least for the duration of the current global health crisis. See our Take Action section for ways to do this.

International Stop 5G Webinar Panel Presentation

by

Watch this excellent presentation put together by the team at Stop 5G International for the Global Protest Day on 25 April 2020

Topics of International Significance in Efforts to Stop 5G

Please join us as we explore together challenges related to satellites, the internet’s footprint, impacts on wildlife, privacy and cyber security risks, the relationship between sciences and environmental hazards, and discuss legal actions currently underway.

(Please try to watch and share this Webinar on a hard-wired internet connection as wireless technologies consume far more energy than safe, fast, reliable and secure wired connections.)

Panelists:

Cece Doucette, Technology Safety Educator, will be moderating the panel and open with a brief overview of 5G.

Julian Gresser (Bio)

Olle Johansson (Bio)

Dr. Timothy Schoechle, Ph.D., International expert in computer and communications engineering technology and policy: Risks of Wireless: Loss of local control, privacy and surveillance, public health and safety, energy waste

Christian F. Jensen, Attorney-at-law, seasoned practitioner in the field of human rights and environmental law and GDPR among other things. 5G Legal Opinion and the Danish Initiatives

Elizabeth Kelley (Bio)

Katie Singer (Bio)

David Gee (Bio)

 

Some highlights of the presentation by a campaigner in Bradford on Avon.

Let us know your highlights in the comments below.

Somerset Scrutiny Meeting on 5G

by
Somerset Scrutiny Meeting 5G

Following on from Devon County Council’s 5G Scrutiny meetings, Somerset County Council’s Scrutiny council met at Shire Hall in Taunton on 11 March.

This is the full video recording of the meeting filmed by Devon campaigner John Kitson:

N.B. An annotated version is currently being prepared which has detailed rebuttals of the claims made by the industry and PHE speakers.

This is what “Somerset Live” has to say about it:

“Somerset residents lock horns with experts over how safe 5G would be for humans and the natural world”

Notice that “Somerset Live” calls someone who works for BT, a nurse and the director of mobile UK “experts”

 

Here’s some commentaries by some of the Somerset campaigners:

I am glad John Kitson (5Gawareness.com) filmed it so we will be able to watch the speakers when he puts it up on his website. I think the councillors’ questions to the telco’s and Somerset PHE were excellent and showed they had been listening to our presentations. The councillors were aware that the telco’s presentations made no reference to health. It appeared that whenever the local Somerset PHE officer had a difficult question, she said we would have to take it up with central PHE rather than her answering it.

I think nearly all the scrutiny councillors wanted to take it to a Task and Finish Group, which is the outcome we wanted. The fact that the speakers met beforehand and divided up all the subject areas so that each speaker was talking about one specific area really made a difference. It appeared organised, coherent and a powerful testimony about the varied dangers from 5G and the rest!
Charlie

 

Wednesday 11th March 2020 – Somerset County Council Scrutiny Meeting with BT, Mobile UK and the County’s representative from PHE in attendance. Eleven of us spoke in favour of stopping 5G.

County councillors were treated to a range of well-informed 3-minute presentations from us of the dangers of 5G and existing 4G. We covered health, cyber security, wildlife, ICNIRP, insurance, etc etc. And thanks to the preparation work done by others (Louise and Karen), we got a very sympathetic response from the councillors. They are listening.

In contrast, councillors expressed disappointment with BT and others. They felt fobbed off with either poor answers or no answers. The best that the telcos could offer is lower latency and the possibility for millions of emergency calls to be made. The councillors criticised the telcos for not addressing the health concerns or impacts on biodiversity.

One councillor in particular referred to his worry about field mice, which was touching, and made the point that, even if we do not suffer cancers or health problems ourselves, we have a bigger problem if biodiversity is damaged and we have no food. The councillors were repeatedly told that there is no new evidence that there are any health effects or disruption to wildlife.

The telcos dismissed bee colony collapse disorder as having anything to do with phones [i.e. healthy bees mysteriously vanishing, leaving the queen and food]. In their opinion, the phenomenon pre-dates mobile phones. We were unable to point out that the phenomenon we are referring to was first identified by the US environment agencies in 2006 when some beekeepers lost nearly 90% of their hives. (We have since written to the committee with this information.) Councillors were told in no uncertain terms, however, that if the cider apple harvest were to fail in Somerset due to the loss of pollinators, there would be a riot! That message got home.

The councillors asked the telcos about ICNIRP and the heating issue. They were told that ICNIRP has looked at 25,000 science papers, that ICNIRP is a multi-disciplinary body which includes biologists [? who?]. The telcos also referred to power densities being measured at phone masts, and showed how they decline with distance [inverse square law] and are well-within the guidelines, but at no point did the telcos reference the polarised variable pulsing of the signals – which is actually the trigger for the biological harm.

On childhood cancers, the PHE representative said that the proportion had gone up because other causes of death had declined. She also muddled the statistics by quoting back at us figures that included children aged 1-18. We had cited the children’s cancer charity who base their statistics on ages 1-14. To include the older group 14-18 means that those have passed their driving tests are among those statistics – so no wonder there are other causes of death.

She mentioned electro-sensitivity. She said that PHE do not doubt that the symptoms are real. She said that what is in dispute is the cause.

She also tried to maintain that there is a constant review of the science, even though she could only refer to the last published AGNIR report in 2012, which one councillor pointed out is out of date. The best that she could quote since then is the 2015 SCENIR report which found no connection between phones and cancer. [This report also pre-dates the NTP findings of clear evidence of cancer in 2018.] There were no other published reports that she was able to mention. [PHE does not accept NTP.] So much for up to date reviews…

It seems likely that the Scrutiny Committee will decide to proceed to a Task & Finish Group which will give us an opportunity to provide the committee with more in-depth information. Everyone did brilliantly, given that 3 minutes is a challenging discipline. And there was fantastic support from so many who came from far and wide, Bristol, Glastonbury and other places. The atmosphere was electric [forgive pun] and they were definitely on the back foot, with the councillors clearly sympathetic to our campaign. Onward and upward…

Lucy

 

N.B. We are collating the various 3-minute talks given by the Somerset campaigners. Please Contact us if you would like to have a copy for use or as inspiration for Scrutiny meetings with your local council.

Devon County Council Spotlight Review of 5G: Some Positive News

by
5G Scrutiny Committee at Devon County-Hall

In November last year, Devon County Council were the first county in the UK to bring 5G to their Scrutiny Committee. The County Council’s Corporate Infrastructure and Regulatory Services Scrutiny Committee began investigating 5G as part of a spotlight review. People across Devon were asked for their views on 5G, as the council launched a “call for evidence” on the technology. The Devon campaign group also compiled a dossier of experts in the field which was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee as part of the review. Members of the public were then invited to meet the council for discussions. Campaigner Lucy Wyatt reports back on the day:

A week or so ago (18th Feb 2020) groups of us went down to Devon to participate in a Devon County Spotlight Review of 5G. Essentially there were several sessions throughout the day in which we could join in round table discussions on the 5G issues of cyber security, wildlife and health. Each table had a facilitator and a councillor present who asked us each in turn our view. The cynics among us could easily have dismissed it all as a PR exercise, all very Delphi technique except that….

… as our session progressed, it became apparent that something amazing is starting to happen in Devon.

Thanks to all the hard work of the Devon group (and they have been tireless in their persistence since the summer, regularly attending council meetings), several councillors indicated to us that they are now becoming really quite concerned. One councillor in particular who had been really quite difficult months earlier, has now indicated to Stop5G Devon that he is “with them in more ways than one”. Once these councillors wake up they cannot unwake.

This is a fight for democracy and freedom. As a result of our experiences with Devon County Council, my proposal is that we don’t ask for bans or moratoriums or precautionary principle or anything specific in our discussions with Councils. We ask them to work out what we should do, together as a community. They are our community representatives. These people are our best allies. They are our bulwark against tyranny from central government. They are our protection. It only needs one major county to start to question and take up the baton….

Our role is to wake them up. Ask the questions, sow the seeds, raise the doubt, present the evidence.

The message needs to be simple. And thus more effective. The simple message is that

exposure to Radio Frequency ElectroMagnetic Radiation damages DNA in all living cells 

and it doesn’t make any difference what the technology that is being used, or what the frequency is – 5G/4G any G. Anything that is exposed to a polarised, variable pulse can be damaged. It isn’t a smooth sine wave. Biological harm at below thermal levels.

The sources of that damage are anything wireless/wifi – phones, whiteboards in schools, towers, antennas, pulsed arrays, microwaves – at all parts of the non-ionising spectrum. There are then the manifestations of that exposure which are the cancers, the loss of fertility, the early on-set of dementia, the brain fog, the nosebleeds, the ADHD, the electro-sensitivity. And it affects people, children, birds, bees, trees – all living organisms.

We are already seeing the consequences of decades of exposure – which is the stalling of life expectancy in humans. It stalled in 2017 [viz the Marmot Review – published on 25th Feb 2020]. And even decline in some parts of the UK, with widening health inequalities – not surprising given that densely packed urban areas with lower incomes have more mast exposure. As well as the catastrophic disappearances of birds and insects as the electro smog expands and we get better signals on our phones.

PHE are desperately clinging to ICNIRP because the claim that harm is only from heating allows them to ignore biological harm. But ICNIRP is a house built on sand – undermined most recently by the Italian Court of Appeal in Turin in January 2020 which rejected its evidence because of conflicts of interest. We need people to understand that ICNIRP is being discredited in Europe. It has no medical authority anyway. It is just a matter of time…

 

Lucy Wyatt

www.fastt.org.uk

 

 

Stop 5G Global Protest Day

by
UK Global 5G Protest Day 25.1.20

On 25 January, 2020 was the first Global 5G Protest Day. It was organised by a small group who set up a new website for the purpose. The day was a great success with 270 events in 36 countries – so a huge thank you to the organisers at Stop5G International for the inspiration and the co-ordination.

Some UK photos can be found here and Ireland here.

The next global protest day will be 25-26 April, 2020. Let’s ramp it up!

Protests in the UK included:

London
Bristol
Bath
Brighton
Jersey
Derby
Exeter
Torquay
Dorking
Eastbourne
Isle of Man
Isle of Wight
Moray
Edinburgh
Cardiff
Reading
Worthing

and in Ireland:

Dublin
Monaghan
Co. Sligo

5G Appeals Presented by Campaigners to No. 10 Downing Street

by

Anti-5G campaigners presenting the 5G Space Appeal and 5G Appeal to No. 10 Downing Street yesterday (22nd January 2020)

Presenting 5G Space Appeal at Downing Street

As of 23 January 2020, the 5G Space Appeal has been signed by 194,913 doctors, scientists, environmentalists , bee keepers and citizens from 204 nations. Let’s keep on campaigning and create a ground swell of resistance that the Government cannot ignore!

And thank you to the nearly 250 scientists from 42 nations who signed the 5G Appeal which has been given to the UN. All of these scientists have peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields used for wireless communications. These scientists have criticised the World Health Organisation for not fulfilling its role to protect people.

Campaigner Chris Newton expresses concern over the increase in exposure to (non-ionising) radiation that occurs with the introduction of 5G wireless technology. It includes millimeter wave frequencies (microwaves) that are not well understood and also lower frequency 700 MHz waves that penetrate more deeply into the body.

The biological effects of pulsing millimeter wave radiation includes activating the calcium channels in cell membranes  which causes DNA damages amongst other things. He urges that the plethora of biological effects is why we must invoke the Precautionary Principle – particularly in the light of damage to young people and resultant fertility problems likely to surface many years later. If the 5G rollou continues, we will get increasing densification of mobile signals which will be catastrophic.

https://pcsage.co.uk