This guest post from NO5GNI provides further evidence that 5G is being unleashed on an unsuspecting public without any consideration of the technology’s adverse effects on public health.
No risk assessments, no insurance
The UK Government Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) yesterday made the surprising admission that “5G is an experimental technology” while simultaneously admitting that it has undertaken no risk or impact assessments on health or vulnerable groups – and that it has no commercial insurance cover for any claims which that arise out of this mass experiment.
The Department’s website reveals that it is responsible for “leading the digital revolution” and “driving an ambitious digital communications agenda” for the whole of the UK, including the devolved regions.
The DCMS considers that “the government’s primary role will be to create a policy and regulatory environment which will ensure the right conditions for the development and support the deployment of 5G networks”. It has commissioned £1bn worth of projects under its 5G Trials and Testbeds Programme to this effect.
Freedom of Information response
The statement was made in response to a Freedom of Information enquiry asking “what equality impact assessments have been carried out and what equality impact assessments does the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport plan to carry out as regards installation of proposed and existing 5G telecommunications infrastructure in Northern Ireland?”
The DCMS’s full response states:
The department does not have any information within scope. For additional information 5G is an experimental technology that is expected to provide faster and more reliable connectivity that will support larger data requirements, lower latency and more connections. 5G is not anticipated to affect any vulnerable groups more than others.
The response to a similar question pertaining to risk assessments states:
The department does not have any information within scope of your request. Please note that the department’s Testbeds and Trials programme does not have any projects in Northern Ireland.
In short, the UK government has spent over £1bn to “explore the benefits and challenges” of “an experimental technology” without allocating a single penny to check whether it’s safe. Judging by the lack of risk assessment or impact assessment, the thought hasn’t even crossed their mind.
It is perhaps unsurprising considering that the government’s primary role will be to create a policy and regulatory environment which will ensure the right conditions for the development and support the deployment of 5G networks.
For those of us who were under the illusion that the government’s primary role was to keep people safe; or to protect vulnerable groups, or to act in the public interest, this is quite a revelation.
Refusal to engage with public health concerns
Public Health England has repeatedly refused to engage with concerns from the public, and independent doctors and scientists who are raising serious concerns with regard to the safety of 5G.
More than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries have joined forces to call for an urgent halt to 5G plans because of safety worries.
Concerns relate to the massive increase in exposure to harmful radiation that will come from so many new masts; and the fact that there will be nowhere to hide, including for groups which are known to be more vulnerable such as pregnant women and children.
Public health crisis of an unprecedented scale
Further concerns focus on the millimetre-wave frequency used by 5G which interacts with the sweat glands on skin causing a range of symptoms including arrhythmias, heart rate variability, bacterial affects, antibiotic resistance, immune system affects, chromatin affects, teratogenic effects, altered gene expression and cataracts.
It is clear that by failing to consider these serious implications at this stage, the UK government is setting the country up for a public health crisis of an unprecedented scale; and is also setting itself up for a massive liability.
The Department states that it “self insures as per managing public money policy.”
Perhaps the next question should be for the Department for Finance as to whether they consider such a cavalier attitude to risk is a good use of public money.