157439
The Weekly Sceptic Live The Weekly Sceptic Live The Weekly Sceptic Live
  • Log in
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

5G Has Its Day in Court

by Gillian Jamieson
14 February 2023 9:00 AM

A few days ago, I spent a day and a half in Court 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice, listening to a Judicial Review in which Michael Mansfield KC challenged the Government for its “failure to give adequate information to the public about the risks of 5G and to explain the absence of a process for investigation of any adverse health effects”. These  failures are deemed to be in breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity as stated in Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I was fascinated by Mr. Mansfield’s take on these issues. Those of us who have concerns about the adverse health effects of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) such as 5G usually argue that the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) safety exposure guidelines relied upon by Government to protect our health are woefully inadequate because they only recognise the heating of tissue as potentially harmful and because many thousands of well-conducted studies have shown harm below the heating threshold.

However Mr. Mansfield pointed out that ICNIRP does not say that RFR is safe. In Appendix B of the 2020 safety exposure guidelines adverse health effects are considered. In most cases it is stated that insufficient, high quality research has been done or that results of studies conflict and that therefore the adverse health effect in question has not been substantiated. This is very different to stating that RFR will not cause this adverse effect or that it is safe. Mr. Mansfield had also provided the judge with a screenshot of an ICNIRP webpage, which stated that health harms were “unlikely”.

This lack of clarity is reflected in the imprecise language used in U.K. Government documents. For example, in its guidance for reducing exposure we read, “excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged”; or on its webpage on 5G and health the Government optimistically tells us that “there should be no consequences for public health” and then says vaguely, “it is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure”. But what is “excessive use” or a “small increase”? The public needs to know.

Indeed, the main thrust of the case put forward by Mr. Mansfield was that the Government has a duty to inform the public of the full spectrum of risk from RFR, whether or not the risk is substantiated or proven. This information must be full and clear so that each individual can make an informed choice about his or her level of exposure, if this is even possible. Providing access to information via a website is insufficient. Later on, the Government mentioned in its defence that the ICNIRP website is accessible, but how many of the public have even heard of ICNIRP?

As we will see, because the Government denies any causal link between RFR and ill-health there is no process for reporting, investigating or monitoring possible symptoms from exposure. Mr Mansfield stated that there is a need for environmental impact assessments.  It is not enough to measure radiation from masts,  but their impact on people must be assessed. The situation has become more urgent with the advent of 5G and new technologies.

Although the Government claims that the new higher frequencies to be used by 5G are covered by ICNIRP, Mr. Mansfield argued that 5G was a game changer because it ratchets up exposure. When the higher frequencies are allocated, small antennae will need to be placed on every third lamppost. This will involve the use of targeted beams and pulsation.

It is acknowledged that little research on this combination of new technology and various frequencies has been carried out. Considering that this radiation will be everywhere and will be emitting all the time, it is negligent to ignore the risks. Those who do not consent to accepting these risks will not be able to avoid them.

Mr. Mansfield spoke for around five hours on the first day to a full courtroom with around 70 members of the public present, while many more supported outside. On the second day we heard the Government’s defence, but not before it had been firmly reprimanded by the judge for not following basic procedures as regards submitting supplementary documents.

The Government’s position became clear when Judge Stacey asked its representatives to state what they thought the obligation of the Government was as regards informing the public of the potential health risks of RFR. They answered that the Government needed to say nothing, because there were no health risks from RFR or 5G. The judge restated Mr. Mansfield’s opinion that the Government should inform the public that there are different opinions as to the risk, to which the reply was that the Government had no obligation to provide commentary on different opinions. When the judge asked about the recommended investigative process, the Government replied that there was no failure in process because it had established there was no risk with the help of international bodies such as ICNIRP.

At this point I’d like to refer to another earlier revelation from Mr. Mansfield about ICNIRP’s guidelines. It turns out that they do not apply to those with metal implants, nor to those with devices such as pacemakers, nor to those affected by medical treatment using radio-frequency radiation (page 2). This is left to doctors to manage. Do the affected people know this? Are doctors well enough informed to advise their patients?

Mr. Mansfield summing up, noted that it was misleading to say there was no risk from RFR and stated that the Government had misinterpreted the ICNIRP guidelines. It was the Government which had made a choice to promote 5G and this choice brought with it a responsibility to be fully transparent with the public about all the risks. It is wrong to state that there is no risk, just because that risk cannot be fully proven due to inadequate research. The public needs to know about possible risks, not just proven risks, as well as the location of these risks. The WHO has admitted: “Given that the 5G technology is currently at an early stage of deployment, the extent of any change in exposure to radiofrequency fields is still under investigation.” Again, the public needs to know about the experimental nature of the 5G rollout.

Judgment is awaited from the Administrative Court in due course.

Tags: 5GJudicial ReviewThe Science

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Journalist Receives $100,000 From Bank For Promoting Climate Alarmism

Next Post

I Was on the NHS Covid Frontline But Quit When I Saw the Harm We Were Doing

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

38 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

 

DONATE

PODCAST

Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About the Attack on Kellie-Jay Keen by Trans Rights Activists, the BBC’s Perverse Insistence on Calling a Rapist “Her” and the Brutal Cancellation of Alfie Brown

by Will Jones
28 March 2023
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editors Picks

Britain’s Backlash Against LTNs: Fed-Up Residents Torch Road Blocks Hours After They Were Installed

28 March 2023
by Will Jones

In Defence of Andrew Bridgen’s Speech to Parliament on the Risks vs Benefits of Covid Vaccination

28 March 2023
by Norman Fenton, Clare Craig, Martin Neil, Jonathan Engler and Mr Law

The Great Food Reset Has Begun

28 March 2023
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

28 March 2023
by Will Jones

The Dumb Chain of Events that Brought Face Mask Tyranny to the West

28 March 2023
by Eugyppius

In Defence of Andrew Bridgen’s Speech to Parliament on the Risks vs Benefits of Covid Vaccination

30

The Dumb Chain of Events that Brought Face Mask Tyranny to the West

25

The Bad Science Behind Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ Anti-Car Crusade

26

News Round-Up

35

Britain’s Backlash Against LTNs: Fed-Up Residents Torch Road Blocks Hours After They Were Installed

15

In Defence of Andrew Bridgen’s Speech to Parliament on the Risks vs Benefits of Covid Vaccination

28 March 2023
by Norman Fenton, Clare Craig, Martin Neil, Jonathan Engler and Mr Law

The Dumb Chain of Events that Brought Face Mask Tyranny to the West

28 March 2023
by Eugyppius

The Bad Science Behind Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ Anti-Car Crusade

28 March 2023
by Ben Pile

Mainstream Media’s New Obsession: Labelling Criticism of 15-Minute Cities ‘Conspiracy Theories’

27 March 2023
by Rebekah Barnett

Almost Everything Is “Institutionally Racist”

27 March 2023
by Noah Carl

POSTS BY DATE

February 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728  
« Jan   Mar »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Already have an account?
Please click here to login Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment