Leaps of Consciousness

EMF

Submission letter objecting to the installation of a 5G mobile phone mast. The application to install the mast was refused.

Executive Summary

Non-ionising radiation from masts and mobile phones causes harm at both high and low radiation levels.

Council Policies and Procedures:

  • Ignore all the evidence of harm caused to their residents yet protect their own workers with sophisticated devices.
  • Admit that even if harm is caused, it’s not enough to stop installing a mast.

    There’s a risk that Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused.

    • Topics: Cause for Concern – Evidence and Risk

    Topic Cause for Concern Evidence Risk
    1 Safety The safety of all mobile phone generations from 1G to 5G has never been proved. However, there is much evidence it causes harm. Mobile phones cause harm.
    2 Council Policies The current Council Policies and procedures purport to show that EMF is safe, but:
  • Rely on ICNIRP’s tests that are demonstrably not fit for the purpose.
  • Admit that even if harm is caused it’s not enough to stop installing a mast.

    		•
  • ICNIRP’s tests are flawed as shown below.
  • Paragraph 11 from the Officer’s Report for application 2013/2499 below.
    		• Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused
    3 Safety Limits Russian limits are 1,000 times lower than ICNIRPs. The Russians observed biological effects at very low doses. Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused
    4 EMF Weapons The US Navy, Army and Air Force use EMF weapons to incapacitate. Jeanne Manning & Dr Nick Begich’s book: Angels Don't Play This HAARP has extensive sources and references. Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused
    5 Non-ionising EMF radiation is not safe On 31st May 2011, The World Health Organisation declared mobile phones a 2B carcinogen –

    Press Release No. 208

    		Mobile phones cause cancer: On 13th January 2020, the Turin Court of Appeal ruled mobile phone use caused an acoustic neurinoma (904/2019) Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused
    6 Insurance Insurers refuse to provide indemnity cover for harm caused by non-ionising radiation. Underwriters refuse to indemnify the telecoms industry for harm caused by non-ionising radiation. Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused
    7 ICNIRP certificate ICNIRP tests are not fit for purpose.

    ICNIRP is not independent - it is privately owned.

    Its tests haven’t changed since 1998:

  • despite the increasing speeds.
  • it uses continuous non-pulsed waves, and not the pulsed signals now used by digital phones.
  • it ignores vulnerable users: e.g. children’s heads that are much smaller.
  • It ignores long-term exposure: tests are limited to 6 minutes.
  • only tests for local temperature differences.
  • it ignores non-thermal effects which occur at many orders of magnitude lower: DNA damage, cancers, immune system, cell growth rates, bacterial resistance, effects on the heart, eyes and skin etc.
  • it ignores effects on plant and animal life.
    		•  This information is easily validated via independent sources: e.g.

  • Bioinitiative Report: shows: genetic effects, Neurological effects, immune system effects, childhood cancer, oxidative damage etc
  • Powerwatch: Database of 1,000+ Peer-reviewed Papers Showing Harmful Effects Across Multiple Categories.
  • A mobile phone placed in a beehive slowed honey production and the queen stopped laying eggs.
    		•  Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused
    8 Exclusion Zones Where are the Exclusion Zone drawings similar to the ICNIRP ones for 2019/3381?

    This shows 2 exclusion zones around the mast:

  • blue – ‘no occupational entry at any time’
  • red – ‘no entry at any time unless the antenna is isolated & NARDA Alert is in use.’

    • Narda makes EMF safety equipment to ‘protect employees from electromagnetic radiation.’

    NardaAlert is one of their products.

    The council protects its own workers but not its residents.

    		 What greater evidence is required that EMF causes harm?

    Creating two exclusion zones with either ‘no occupational entry at any time’ or ‘no entry at any time unless the antenna is isolated & NARDA Alert is in use.’

    Both the red and blue exclusion zones overlap parking spaces which would be used by the public.

    How many similar masts are already in use and where?

    		 Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused
    9 Council Officer Report

    Where is the council officer’s report like the one for 2013/2499 which, in paragraph 11, states:

    “As such neither the perception of health risks nor any risks that may actually be identified are considered sufficiently material to warrant refusal of a visually acceptable replacement mast.”

    		The council’s overriding concern is not the safety of the technology to people, animals or nature but obeying rules on ‘visual acceptance’. Councillors and Council employees will be personally liable for harm caused