Analysis of UK Response to Parliamentary Petition on 5G Health Risks

Digital Survivor contributor NO5GNI looks at the UK Government’s response to a Parliamentary petition on 5G issued in the early hours of this morning:

The UK Government has responded to the petition requesting an independent inquiry into the health and safety risks of 5G.

Let’s examine this response in more detail.

PHE’s [Public Health England’s] main advice is that the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) should be adopted and there is no convincing evidence that exposures below the ICNIRP guideline levels cause adverse health effects.

As of February 27, 2019, 226 scientists and medical doctors (qualified as PhD, Professor or MD) have signed an appeal for an urgent moratorium on 5G technology.

This appeal has been written and signed by independent experts working in the field. It notes that research has convincingly confirmed serious health risks from RF-EMF fields from wireless technology.

It goes on to state quite plainly that the current ICNIRP ”safety guidelines” are obsolete: All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary.

The reason for the misleading guidelines is “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation …To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.”

So Public Health England is relying on the ICNIRP Guidelines and can’t find any convincing evidence of harm – even though 226 scientists and medical doctors believe that proof of harm is not only convincing but the risks are serious.

Let’s read on …

Advice from PHE includes comprehensive scientific review reports and statements on particular topics that can be viewed at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electromagnetic-fields.

This collection contains one report from 2017 (on smart meters) and the rest from 2013 or earlier. Not exactly what most people would consider to be “keeping abreast of the latest research”.

The Government continues to support research on this topic, including the ongoing Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS) and the Study of Cognition, Adolescents and Mobile Phone studies (SCAMP ) at Imperial College London.

A brief click on these links reveals that both these studies receive a combination of government and industry funding and link back again to the ICNIRP cronies.

These studies won’t be worth the paper they are written on and anyone who doesn’t know why should type “funding bias oldest trick in the book” into the nearest search engine and fill your boots.

Hardly the independent inquiry that the petition author was calling for.

PHE keeps the emerging evidence under review.

Just not the 10,000 peer-reviewed studies and calls from 226 doctors and scientists calling for an urgent moratorium.

PHE maintains precautionary advice that recognises exposures can be much higher when mobile phones are held to the head to make voice calls than in other situations. Similar advice is not considered necessary with the lower exposures that occur from mobile phone base stations and wireless networks.

What about the fact that 5G will embed mobile-phone type transmitters into just about every household item and domestic appliance?

How on earth have they established that similar advice is not necessary when 5G has never been tested for safety?

PHE’s advice is based on EMF and health evidence reviews have been prepared by scientific expert groups in the United Kingdom (UK) and around the world. The independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) published their report in the UK in 2012 and the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) published their report in 2015.

The main conclusion from the WHO reviews is that EMF exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.

This all sounds very impressive – PHE looks to AGNIR, SCENIHR, ICNIRP and WHO for their direction when it comes to safety standards.

But as respected journalist team Investigate Europe has neatly demonstrated, all these groups concentrate around 14 key individuals and considerable industry funding.

In 2018, the United States’ National Toxicology Program (NTP) released its final reports on rat and mouse studies. NTP and concluded it had found evidence linking high levels of exposure to cancers in the animals.

PHE considers the results from the NTP studies, though interesting, do not alter the balance of evidence in relation to human exposure when using mobile phone technologies. However, the results of this study highlight the continuing uncertainties in this complex area and reinforce the importance of mobile phone users following the long-standing precautionary advice, which is available at the following links:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electromagnetic-fields
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Mobile-phone-safety/Pages/Introduction.aspx

The claim that Public Health England is providing precautionary advice about mobile phone use is preposterous. The 5G EU Appeal notes the multiple international agreements requiring a precautionary approach to public health and harm.

The Precautionary Principle (UNESCO) was adopted by EU 2005: ”When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”

The whole point of the precautionary principle is that Public Health England shouldn’t be looking for convincing evidence of harm.

Does Public Health England consider that the potential for harm caused by chronic, long-term, mandatory exposure of the majority (or even all) of the UK population – including vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and children to a technology which the UK Government describes as “experimental” – is not scientifically plausible but uncertain? Or, does it consider that it is not morally unacceptable?

10,000 peer-reviewed studies. Multiple international appeals. Doctors and scientists declaring that research has convincingly confirmed serious health risks.

The bar for “scientifically plausible but uncertain” has been more than met.

Who cares?

So there we have the UK’s official government response to a petition calling for an independent inquiry into the health risks of 5G.

Who cares what the independent scientists say – our mates in the industry say it’s unnecessary.

And as for the question of whether or not it’s morally unacceptable – frankly we don’t give a damn.

You MUST read DIGITAL SURVIVOR if you want to avoid death and disease by 5g!

EDITOR’S NOTE: