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.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The government actively promotes something produced by a handful of large corporations, forces it on the public and claims it has no adverse effects on our health because the experts they’ve chosen to listen to say so.
Now where have I seen this before…
A perfect example of government and their elite supporters of the contempt they hold for the general public. Not even a consideration, just a dismissal.
Government lies? Well that is a shock. I wonder who receives all the kickbacks and graft for the setup of 5G?
Some claim that the 5G network is connected to routers injected via the quacksines. Might be true and would not surprise me. No idea if valid, but that would be a ‘hack’ into your body that would be reasonably covert.
The reason that 5G implementations need a big network of small cells is due to the fact that almost everything attenuates higher frequency radio transmissions, including air.
Literature on 5G is clear that as far as humans are concerned the signals do not penetrate further than the top layer of skin at the sort of power levels to be used for commercial installations, so any effects on the brain are likely to be in the mind.
Further to that, because of the signal attenuation, the antennas used will be highly directional so that the maximum power is generated in the direction it needs (ie towards adjacent cells) rather than spreading it about in all directions. They have to be in the open air (at the top of a pole) for efficiency, as walls of buildings will stop transmission.
However I can reassure those of you who are worried, that a foil lining inside you hat is impenetrable.
5G may or may not be a problem from a electronic radiation perspective?
It will be a problem from a surveillance perspective – potentially optically, certainly electronically.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
i.e. Never assume that the Govt does anything benevolent (especially after the recent “for your safety” and “safe and effective” mantras) on your behalf.
And the transmissions are less powerful than 4G et al.
There is very little literature on 5G. About “signals do not penetrate further than the top layer of skin”, the skin is not just an outer protective coating for the body. It is a major organ and this study shows potential major harm: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300331 Then there is the tricky matter of eye damage.
From the study “The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still unclear.”
I suggest that solar radiation is far more harmful. It has clear causative effect for a range of cancers and tissue damage.
Recent case study showing harm from 5g from eminent oncologist: https://www.anncaserep.com/open-access/development-of-the-microwave-syndrome-in-two-men-shortly-after-9589.pdf
It shows anecdotal evidence. It is hardly a rigorous scientific study.
A) A vast body of scientific research by eg Cancer Research UK, The UK Heath Safety Agency, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) mentioned here and the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has found no evidence of genuine health concerns regarding 5G.
B) There is not a single human activity which is 100% and permanently safe, including getting out of bed in the morning.
C) The ultimate expression of extreme risk aversion being promoted here known as the Precautionary Principle – ban things just in case / because you cannot prove that they are permanently safe (an impossible task in any case) – is a recipe not just for a lack of technological and social progress but rapid decline.
As we are witnessing in the UK.
D) There is not a single mention in this article of the massive benefits in terms of telecommunication and IT reliability and efficiency that 5G offers up.
And if there is one thing we have surely learned from similar (in this case proposed) state-led suppressive programmes such as enforced COVID measures (lockdowns, business and school closures, mask mandates etc) and Net Zero impositions is that a lack of rigorous cost / benefit analysis leads to both economic and liberty-destroying catastrophes.
We need to move out of the current age of fear and regression into one of optimism and progress.
I’m happy to accept your views at face value, and I agree with your closing sentiment, but…
There has been a very clear and obvious breach of trust between government and citizens, and this breach continue to expand, the closer we get to Agenda 2030 and the ‘Great Reset’ and its ilk. They are ‘doing stuff’ that really matters and adversely affects the daily lives of the citizens, acts of corruption and folly, without any consultation, without mandate, and often without any stated justification, or a justification that is built on lies and untruth.
As with fracking, there will be a hard core of people who claim that this or that new technology will kill us all, but actually, the Precautionary Principle is there for a reason. It says ‘yes, all well and good. We want the benefit, but what are the harms.’. When the government uses the excuse that they didn’t inform us of the negative, ‘because there aren’t any’, should make anyones sceptic gland twitch.
I would love to be able to trust my government, just like I would love to trust my doctor, but both of them have an awful long way to get back to the line, and there are few signs of a concerted effort to bring truth, respect and honesty back to our relationship.
I have a generally much more quizzical and critical attitude towards the government and state in comparison to private organisations because the former claim a monopolistic right to make use of coercive power (from enforced taxation through fines and imprisonment up to killing via police or military means).
In general I believe we should move beyond the inherently sectarian and oppressive nation-state governmental model towards one of peaceful and cooperative administrations (ie the of the type that operate at every other level of society). The multi-party liberal democratic model in place in eg the UK and US is a step in the right direction, tyrannies such as the Russian Federation and China the exact opposite one.
Beyond that we should not develop attitudes of mistrust towards any bodies or organisations (or indeed individuals) and instead take a case by case and evidence based approach.
In other words the fact that I strongly disagreed with the UK political establishment and most arms of the media over the draconian COVID measures doesn’t mean that I should now assume they will be wrong on everything, eg in their strong condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In any case all that is something of a by-the-by, I am afraid you have got things somewhat upside down here:
It is private companies that are overwhelmingly driving 5G implementation (and I would certainly rule out Chinese involvement due to the close integration their businesses have with the CCP), and the British state that is being called upon to overrule them and ban it.
In other words the fundamental basis of this article and the relevant court case is part of the same tyrannical, eco and ultra-health agenda that is causing so much damage to the economy and liberty in Britain;
Again COVID lockdown measures, Net Zero bans on fracking plus ever-increasing suppression of useful and efficient fossil-fuel power stations, internal combustion engine cars, gas central heating etc etc.
That is why I am surprised that this anti-5G / ultra-health agenda is being promoted on what is a generally libertarian site (though no more so than I am about the widespread support for the totalitarian Putin regime and its brutally oppressive foreign policy).
Fair points, but I don’t see too much difference between an authoritarian government planning to ban the use of something without justification, against an authoritarian government planning to make something compulsory without justification, (as they tried with Covid vaccines and boosters, and no doubt will do so again with ‘the next thing’…).
I return to my point that until we see honesty, respect and truth returning to be the foundation of the governments relationship with citizens, we would be wise not to use blind faith to evaluate their plans and actions ‘case-by-case’. There is an undeniable direction of travel on everything that Western Governments are doing, and as citizens we have the obligation (but not always the power) to stop them and ask what’s going on. That’s what is happening with 5G.
A final comment about Putin. Putin is not a wedge issue. Many people I know are against Putin, but at the same time realise that the war in Ukraine is nothing like what it seems via the media. The actions of NATO and of the USA in particular are every bit as reprehensible as anything Putin has done, which kind of emphasises the point I am making about truth, honesty and respect for the citizen.
“Fair points, but I don’t see too much difference between an authoritarian government planning to ban the use of something without justification, against an authoritarian government planning to make something compulsory without justification, (as they tried with Covid vaccines and boosters, and no doubt will do so again with ‘the next thing’…).”
That is precisely the point I have been making about this proposed state-led ban on 5G in the UK, all based on the flimsiest of ultra-health / Precautionary Principle excuses.
“I return to my point that until we see honesty, respect and truth returning to be the foundation of the governments relationship with citizens, we would be wise not to use blind faith to evaluate their plans and actions ‘case-by-case’”
Far from blind faith I used the expression ‘on an evidence-based approach’.
One entirely lacking in this attempt to ban yet another massively useful form of modern technology thus placing the UK in a highly unfavourable economic position both domestically and internationally.
“There is an undeniable direction of travel on everything that Western Governments are doing, and as citizens we have the obligation (but not always the power) to stop them and ask what’s going on.”
The inherently authoritarian and poverty-promoting Green / Net Zero / Ultra-Health direction that Western Governments, especially in the UK, are travelling in is one supported and shared by the vast majority of the population. Not surprising, as children have been indoctrinated into this quasi-religion at school for decades now.
“That’s what is happening with 5G.”
Only in the sense being promoted in this article, ie avoid any form of cost-benefit analyses about any processes under scrutiny and simply ban, ban, ban (like with fracking etc).
And again it is primarily private companies that are driving the 5G roll-out and in articles and agendas such as this the state is being called upon to suppress them (not the other way round).
“A final comment about Putin. Putin is not a wedge issue. Many people I know are against Putin, but at the same time realise that the war in Ukraine is nothing like what it seems via the media. The actions of NATO and of the USA in particular are every bit as reprehensible as anything Putin has done, which kind of emphasises the point I am making about truth, honesty and respect for the citizen”
I never personalise things, beyond that the actions of the Putin regime with regards to Ukraine (the sole focus of my foreign policy comments above) have been astronomically more reprehensible, dishonest and disrespectful (including towards its own citizens) than those of the US and NATO, which have been acting to assist in a purely defensive project throughout .
I personally don’t support the use of armed force in any circumstances, but also realise that in the current geo-political and military setup of the world a brutal war was of course inevitable when President Putin decided to send hundreds of thousands of troops into a neighbouring independent and democratic country in an attempt to subdue and conquer it / place it under his own regime’s tyrannical rule.
You are clearly a thinking person, but what about looking at the effects of RFR yourself. Try phirehealth.org, ehtrust.org and for research saferemr.com
Thank you for the suggested sites, the second one is particularly revealing:
Environmental Health Trust
Science to Protect Health and Environment
OUR MISSION
We are a scientific think tank with a mission to safeguard human health and the environment by empowering people with state-of-the-art information.
This is an excellent underlining of the strong interrelationship between the Green and ultra-health ideologies and agendas I have been emphasising.
Both are fundamentally misanthropic, illiberal, hugely economically damaging (ironically toward health as well) and part of exactly the same trend that led to universal house arrest, business / school closures and enforced mask wearing using a flu-like illness as the excuse, as well as Net Zero ultra restrictions and controls (eg the ban on what would be economically massively beneficial, fracking);
If any substance or modern techno-industrial industrial activity can be perceived to carry any level of risk whatsoever (even on the flimsiest or zero evidence of the precautionary principle), and with no attempt at a cost / benefit analysis, use the full force of the state, law, police and judiciary to suppress them and the human beings involved.
The trouble is that because of decades of indoctrination into this fundamentally fearful worldview (one largely a consequence of the decline of organised Christianity leading to a loss of belief in the possession of an eternal soul) the vast majority of people are eagerly holding out their wrists for the handcuffs.
As the widespread support for this latest Ban! Suppress! Control! 5G campaign, even on a nominally libertarian platform, demonstrates.
“Principle is there for a reason. It says ‘yes, all well and good. We want the benefit, but what are the harms.”
No it doesn’t. That is not the Precautionary Principle at all!
It does not rely on evidence of absence of harms, but on proof of safety. That is impossible.
The EC’s own safety committee determined that there was no evidence that Glycophosphate weed killer caused harm to Humans, but it has been banned because nobody could prove it was safe.
I’d no more believe the UK government than I would a repeatedly convicted paedophile who says that, this time, he really was taking the little boy to see some puppies.
A fine post Neil.
I would agree that during Covid, the term Precautionary Principle was overused. I think it was wrongly used to bring in jabs that were not needed and turned out to be harmful. A correct approach would have been to give people correct information about the risks of Covid (excess deaths normal in 2020), so that they could do their own risk assessment and make their own choices. In the case of RFR or 5G, the Govt. have hidden the facts eg. IARC has classed it as a possible carcinogen in 2011 and thousands of studies have shown harm. We need more and better studies, but find conflicting results in studies so far, does not mean that RFR is safe. In fact conflicts of interest play an important role. Only about 33% of telecoms-linked studies find harm, but with independent studies that rises to 66%. So the bottom line is: give the public full and clear information and the possibility of reducing their risk, through reducing exposure (not really possible with 5G).
if these idiots are so worried about public health and Government failure to protect it, where was their legal action against lockdowns, masks and experimental pseudo-vaccines; where their legal action against Net Zero and climate alarmism?
So they are fakes.
5G transmits on the UHF frequency like TV and other mobile phone systems. This has been the case for decades. We have all survived.
Actually, their legal action started well before Covid. You don’t know their views about that. I can tell you though that phone masts and other RFR have caused deaths from illnesses such as motor neurone disease and cancer, but because RFR is not down as a possible cause, these links have not been investigated and monitored sufficiently. Check out these websites for information on research. ehtrust.org saferemr.com
Take “5G” out of this paragraph and replace with your words of choice…
“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.”
Some candidate replacements: lockdown; compulsory masking; mandating the jabs; mix-and-match jabbing based in availability; …
They’re all risk free apparently… Why on earth were we fussing?
It’s nice to see the Government, whatever that may be these days, being challenged on this matter.
It’s such a shame though that eminent “Human Rights ” Lawyers disappeared entirely during the “pandemic”, lockdowns, State threats of mandatory jabs for health/care home workers etc. etc. Maybe they’re coming out from behind their sofas now…
As per this matter, the elephant in the room re the mRNA jabs and the safety of vaccines generally throughout their damned existence, Governmental responses always are “There is no need for any inquiry – because they’re safe. So there”.
(Apologies to Michael Mansfield KC if happens to be a covid sceptic).
They were never human rights lawyers: the only people whose rights they ever pretended to care about were the barbarian invaders.
I contrast the blind faith shown in the Government and the WHO over its handing of Covid and the distrust of the opinion of both over 5G.
I should make it clear I am talking about the general public, not people on here who have a valid objection to the Government’s cavalier attitude over health and safety.
The difference in my case is that Covid and the vaccines were a panic response to something new to science. EM radiation is a well researched topic over many years and irrational t=fears are being bolstered whilst ignoring the fact that it is known how to deploy the technology safely.
What we’ve experienced over the last 3 years has been the opposite of a “panic response”.
Exactly. What we have experienced these last three years was carefully planned and orchestrated.
Pretty much all of the UK governments responses to what was known in March 2020 to be a trivial threat to the vast majority has resulted in massive harm being done to the health of the population, whether physical health, psychological health or even spiritual health.
Anybody who thinks they can be trusted over 5G is a fool.
It’s clear that the Government and it Labour partners hate us.
They hate the English.
They hate the Scots.
They hate the Welsh.
They hate the Irish, North and South
*****
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
………
TPTB have made up their minds. That’s all we need to know.
Dear Mr. Jamieson.
I work as hardware engineer in company which makes 5G radios (transmitter/receiver combo) and I’d like to understand more about the cited review of radio safety. From reading it I did not find any information what frequencies were tested, while the frequency is absolutely critical for understanding the risk associated with the RF radiation.
Also I failed to understand what type of physiological damage was detected in animals.
Most of 5G system operated in the same frequencies as earlier technologies, which is between 1.5 and 4 GHz. This is correspondent to wave length of 7.5-20cm. This wavelength is extremely unlikely to do anything in the body on a cell level.
Some radio use frequency up to 39GHz, with wavelength of ~0.7 cm. Such frequency, if you take higher subharmonics can interact with a single cell, but like all higher frequencies have significant attenuation during transmission, and significant reflection, when hits any object (both things increase as square function of frequency)
So deep penetration of dangerous energy amounts are extremely unlikely.
About 5G technologies:
There are few ways to increase the transmission rate
1) Make antenna with more transmission elements (it will cause higher radiation density)
2) More intense packing of data (This is software change mostly)
3) Use higher frequencies (they carry more energy, but also attenuate proportionally faster)
If you have any more technical questions: I’ll try to help.
I work part time as a designer and part in the group, which performs different types of testing including safety testing, so I might be able to find more detailed information.
Dmitry
P.S.
Do not involve me in legalistic part of the question – I know nothing on the subject, but as by education I am a biomedical engineer I can dig up some medical information.
P.P.S
From my experience the ultrasonic waves, the risks at those wavelengths should be thermal only, but thermal damage on boundary between tissues can be extensive.
So the depth of penetration is a critical question.
I am not Mr. Jamieson, but I can clarify a couple of things. In the UK 5G will be using the 24GHz and 40GHZ frequencies along with other new technology (MIMO etc.) There have been very few studies combining the use of these new technologies and the higher frequencies. Here is an overview from a medical perspective: https://jech.bmj.com/content/75/6/562.full?ijkey=GCk7F51Chz7Wz6o&keytype=ref and here is research on mmWaves: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/08/5g-wireless-technology-millimeter-wave.html and here is a study on mmWaves and skin: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300331
I personally participated in development of 40 GHz technology – see my previous post: most likely the wave will not penetrate through the skin, and even will not go into all layers or derma.
24 GHz uses technologies identical to 40 GHz except of course the transmitter details.
MIMO is 1) in my previous post, which stands for multi-user input, multi-user output (we are working on such radio now) – it has higher energy density, but it using standard frequencies with sort of known effects.
See my own comment to my post.
I’d like to add to my post that I am reading right now the 2018 ICNIRP guidelines on RF safety (and screen their references)/
Apparently at the above-mentioned frequencies the risk is thermal only.
But there is NO DATA on long term risks, also the limits for short term exposure are not per say arbitrary, but extremely imprecise. The differences between reported measurements of body temperature elevation due to RF heating is up to 12 times.
Why the organization suggested that the average number is sufficient is unclear.
Going to the extreme case (as COVID simulation demonstrated) is not reasonable approach, but apparently more additional work is needed
Summarizing: the government failed to provide the answers in the hearing because none really knows them, but the authorities hate to admit any knowledge gaps.
Right?
We published recently two articles in scientific journals on persons that developed the microwave syndrome after installation of 5G base stations on the roofs of their houses. After leaving the apartments to other places with no 5G their symptoms disappeared. This may be regarded as a provocation study. See also 5Gappeal.eu.
Our articles are free to download:
Hardell L, Nilsson M. Annals of Case Reports 2023:8:112
Nilsson M, Hardell L. Annals of Clinical Case Reports 2023: 8: 2378
Thanks for this!