5G Risk to health

Emma Gomez made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Public Health England

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear Public Health England,

Please would you clarify why you have been in favour of 5G knowing that it is highly detrimental to human health as well as for animal and wildlife health.

What research have you done to back up your decision to want to allow this to roll out knowing it is bad for human health.

You must know the effects on human health as you are Public Health England and it is public knowledge that 5G is dangerous. There has been a great deal of research into this technology that shows how bad it is for human health.
What are you sending out to local councils to ensure they are aware of the health risks also?

I look forwards to your detailed reply which will be placed on social media.

Yours faithfully,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

Dear Ms Gomez,

We acknowledge receipt of your email and request for information, which will be treated as a request for information under statutory access legislation.

Please note that requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) will receive a response within 20 working days from the day following the date of receipt of your request.

If the request is for your personal data (i.e. a Subject Access Request) under the Data Protection Act, then we will respond  within one month of the receipt of the request.

Public Accountability Unit
Public Health England
[Public Health England request email]
Tel: 020 8327 6920 
www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Emma Gomez anodiad ()

I would like this request to be sent also to Duncan Selbie and all others within public health England who made the decision to go ahead with 5G and a list of their names for the public to be able to recognise those who are to be responsible for the decision. IF you would please also share the research you have used about the safety levels for humans. How did those who conducted the research come to the conclusion about what is a safe and an unsafe level of radio waves over long term continuous use.
How do I opt out from being bombarded by these dangerous frequencies?
The following is taken from this website. https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dange...
The idea behind 5G is to use untapped bandwidth of the extremely high-frequency millimeter wave (MMW), between 30GHz and 300GHz, in addition to some lower and mid-range frequencies.

High-frequency MMWs travel a short distance. Furthermore, they don’t travel well through buildings and tend to be absorbed by rain and plants, leading to signal interference. Thus, the necessary infrastructure would require many smaller, barely noticable cell towers situated closer together, with more input and output ports than there are on the much larger, easier to see 4G towers. This would likely result in wireless antennas every few feet, on every lamp post and utility pole in your neighbourhood.

Here are some numbers to put things into perspective: as of 2015, there were 308,000 wireless antennas on cell towers and buildings. That’s double the 2002 number. Yet 5G would require exponentially more, smaller ones, placed much closer together, with each emitting bursts of radiofrequency radiation (RFR)–granted, at levels much lower than that of today’s 4G cell towers–that will be much harder to avoid because these towers will be ubiquitous. If we could see the RFR, it would look like a smog that’s everywhere, all the time.
First, it’s important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.

Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:

DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer)
oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing)
disruption of cell metabolism
increased blood-brain barrier permeability
melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks)
disruption of brain glucose metabolism
generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases)
As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners. The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people’s homes and workplaces–basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It’s no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.

Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin.
This letter
https://ehtrust.org/letter-fcc-dr-yael-s...
to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it’s generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer’s dimensions. But MMW’s violate this condition.

Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin’s upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G’s increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology

Furthermore, MMWs may cause our pain receptors to flare up in recognition of the waves as damaging stimuli. Consider that the US Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the Active Denial System, in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it’s burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. And the telecommunications industry wants to fill our atmosphere with MMWs?
Other distressing research

Unfortunately, innocent animals have already been the victims of testing to see MMW’s effects on living cells. Extrapolating the results from animal testing to humans isn’t straightforward, but the results nonetheless raise some serious red flags. Perhaps most significantly, a US National Toxicology Program study noted that male rats exposed to RFR for nine hours a day over two years developed rare forms of tumours in the brain and heart, and rats of both sexes developed DNA damage.

The researchers noted that the increased risk to the rats was relatively small; but if these findings translate to humans, the widespread increase in cellphone use could have a significant impact on populations. Thus the NTP study served to renew the debate about the potential harmful effects of cellphones on human health. Not only that, it caused a significant shift in the American Cancer Society’s understanding of radiation and cancer, and sparked them to state that our ignorance of RFR’s impact on human health could be compared to our previous obliviousness to the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Other animal research worldwide illustrates how microwave radiation in general and MMW’s in particular can damage the eyes and immune system, cell growth rate, even bacterial resistance. An experiment at the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University showed that 60GHz millimeter-wave antennas produce thermal injuries in rabbit eyes, with thermal effects reaching below the eye’s surface. This study, meanwhile, suggests low-level MMW’s caused lens opacity–a precursor to cataracts–in rats’ eyes. A Chinese study demonstrated that eight hours’ of microwave radiation damaged rabbits’ lens epithelial cells. A Pakistani study concluded that exposure to mobile phone EMF prevented chicken embryo retinal cells from properly differentiating.

This Russian study revealed that exposing healthy mice to low-intensity, extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation severely compromised their immune systems. And a 2016 Armenian study concluded that low-intensity MMW’s not only depressed the growth of E. coli and other bacteria, but also changed certain properties and activity levels of the cells. The same Armenian study noted that MMW interaction with bacteria could lead to antibiotic resistance–distressing news, considering immunity to bacteria is already compromised due to the overuse of antibiotics.

Again, if these findings translate to humans, our rampant cellphone use would likely cause profound, adverse health effects; an increase in MMW’s as more bandwidth is introduced could further complicate the matter. But what’s also important to note here is that 5G technologies will not only have a profound impact on human health, but on the health of all living organisms it touches, including plants, as we shall see.

5G harms the planet, too

Equally disturbing, 5G technology puts environmental health at risk in a number of ways. First, MMWs may pose a serious threat to plant health. This 2010 study showed that the leaves of aspen seedlings exposed to RFR exhibited symptoms of necrosis, while another Armenian study suggested low-intensity MMW’s cause “peroxidase isoenzyme spectrum changes”–basically a stress response that damages cells–in wheat shoots. Plant irradiation is bad news for the planet’s flora, but it’s bad news for us, too: it could contaminate our food supply.

Second, the 5G infrastructure would pose a threat to our planet’s atmosphere. Network implementation will require the deployment of many, short-lifespan satellites via suborbital rockets propelled by hydrocarbon rocket engines. According to this 2010 California study, launching too many of these babies will vomit enough black carbon into the atmosphere to pollute global atmospheric conditions, affecting distribution of ozone and temperature. Worse, solid-state rocket exhaust contains chlorine, an ozone-destroying chemical. How can any government seriously concerned about climate change allow for this?

Third, 5G will potentially threaten natural ecosystems. According to several reports over the last two decades–some of which are summarized here–low-level, non-ionizing microwave radiation affects bird and bee health. It drives birds from their nests and causes plume deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death. And bee populations suffer from reduced egg-laying abilities of queen bees and smaller colony sizes. More evidence of ecosystem disruption comes from this 2012 meta-study, which indicates that 593 of 919 research studies suggest that RFR adversely affects plants, animals and humans.

It bears repeating: 5G is bad news for all living creatures and the planet we share.

Beware the propaganda deluge

Despite being fully aware of all these unsettling results, threats and concerns, the US corporatocracy continues to maintain a gung-ho attitude about 5G. The Mobile Now Act was passed in 2016, and many US states have since gone ahead with 5G plans. The telecom industry’s biggest players have basically co-opted government powers to enforce their 5G agenda, with companies like AT&T and Qualcomm having begun live testing. And despite research showing serious threats to humans and the planet, the FCC Chairman announced intentions to open low-, mid- and high-frequency spectrums, without even mentioning a single word about the dangers.

They’re going to sell this to us as ‘faster browsing speeds’ – but the truth is, you’ll barely even notice the difference. They’re going to call anyone who protests against 5G a ‘Luddite’ or ‘technophobe’. But why such a willingness to embrace another new technology – even though it carries serious risks and brings spurious benefits? Why not heed the lessons learned from killer products like asbestos, tobacco and leaded gasoline?

Because a tiny percentage of people will gain an awful lot of money, is one reason. And because companies and governments will be given unprecedented amounts of power over civilians is the other.

All isn’t doom and gloom, though. At least one US politician is maintaining some level-headedness: in October, California Governor Jerry Brown stopped legislation that would have allowed the telecom industry to inundate the state with mini-towers. Brown’s bold actions have permitted localities a say in where and how many cell towers are placed.

The state of Hawaii has stopped 5G and smart meters by collectively threatening to charge every person who installed such meters with liability for any health problems residents may suffer. Moreover, 180 scientists have started a petition to warn of 5G potential health effects. Maybe these actions will afford more time for additional studies and data collection. Just as importantly, maybe they’ll cause other politicians and figureheads to reflect on what they’ve been pushing for.

Take action

In the meantime, we as individuals must do everything we can to protect ourselves. Here’s what you can do:

Understand EMFs and their behaviours
Use EMF metres to measure, mark and avoid hotspots
Whenever possible, limit your exposure: use an anti-radiation headset or speaker mode while talking on a cellphone.
Refuse to use 5G phones and devices. Full stop. And discourage those you know from doing so.
Refuse to buy anything ‘smart’ – ‘smart’ appliances, ‘smart’ heaters, etc.
Carry shungite crystals to protect from radiation
Buy an EMF protective shield for all your electronic devices
No matter what, do NOT get a smart meter – these put high levels of 5G radiation right in your home
Join the growing numbers of dissenters. Get active with them here.
Do as the Hawaiians have done and threaten smart meter and 5G tech installers with liability. You can learn how to do that here.
Spread the word! Please share this article with everyone you know
Even if the policy drivers and governments aren’t doing their due diligence, at least we can say we’re doing ours.

Sources

http://www.cellphonecancer.com/the-loomi...

https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-r...

http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/35...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ce...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/maj...

http://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national...

Gadawodd Emma Gomez anodiad ()

Gadawodd Emma Gomez anodiad ()

Declaration from over 180 scientists to stop the roll out of 5 g because of its implications to human health. What are you going to do Public Health England?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QN...

Gadawodd Emma Gomez anodiad ()

Please copy and paste this plus write to your MPs and MEPs This is an URGENT call out from the scientific community. We need to act now to stop the roll out. https://www.5gexposed.com/wp-content/upl...

FOI, Public Health England

3 Atodiad

Dear Ms Gomez,

Please find attached Public Health England's response.

Kind regards,
FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI, Public Health England

The levels of Microwave EMF considered safe in each country are very different although human beings are biologically the same everywhere. Why is there a discrepancy? What makes your safety guidelines the accurate guideline to follow? Do you have independent research and tests performed independently from those gaining financially from 5G? Cigarettes were considered safe by UK government and look how wrong they were? Please clarify the means by which you decided upon THE MUCH HIGHER LEVELS THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO SAY IS SAFE? Please show me your Risk assessment for the health of the general population. You appear to be saying EMF sensitivity is not real... however, if this were the case thousands of people would not find relief living away from EMF technology. What are the levels considered safe for EMF / Microwave before it has an effect on human DNA chromosomes? This is a non-thermal test.
I have a right to work travel and live in a safe environment, however, thousands of scientists and medical practitioners do not consider that I will be in a safe environment living in the UK with 5G because of its effects on my sweat glands the water in my body and the effects on my DNA. This means I will not be able to go to work, and may have to leave the UK whilst you continue to roll out 5G will you compensate me for this?
Why will No insurance company insure 5G.... my understanding is because of the considerable risk to health, therefore I question your authority on the matter of my safety and all uk citizens.
Which tests have been performed by you and your agents relating the effects on the DNA of humans?
Have you received the following appeal from scientists? What have you chosen to do with the appeal? What will you choose to do now I've sent it to you? https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal/

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Dear FOI, Public Health England.

You must do your due diligence and research into the dangers related to EMF mm-wave radiation and can not allow 5G to be rolled out. Please stop this rollout immediately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Ij2Evl...
Please respond directly regarding this video. What will you do regarding this information?
There is plenty of evidence regarding 5G EMF radiation. It is a pollutant and dangerous for the health of the human population.
Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

Dear Ms Gomez,

Thank you for your email. Please could you clarify your request for information?

Kind regards,

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Public Health England

Dear Ms Gomez,

Thank you for your email. Please could you clarify your request?

Kind regards,

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

Public Health England

Here is just one study of many that states that the exposure levels indicated as safe are too high.

Health Phys. 2018 Sep 21. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000930. [Epub ahead of print]
Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose.

Neufeld E1, Kuster N1,2.
Author information
Abstract
Extreme broadband wireless devices operating above 10 GHz may transmit data in bursts of a few milliseconds to seconds. Even though the time- and area-averaged power density values remain within the acceptable safety limits for continuous exposure, these bursts may lead to short temperature spikes in the skin of exposed people. In this paper, a novel analytical approach to pulsed heating is developed and applied to assess the peak-to-average temperature ratio as a function of the pulse fraction α (relative to the averaging time [INCREMENT]T; it corresponds to the inverse of the peak-to-average ratio). This has been analyzed for two different perfusion-related thermal time constants (τ1 = 100 s and 500 s) corresponding to plane-wave and localized exposures. To allow for peak temperatures that considerably exceed the 1 K increase, the CEM43 tissue damage model, with an experimental-data-based damage threshold for human skin of 600 min, is used to allow large temperature oscillations that remain below the level at which tissue damage occurs. To stay consistent with the current safety guidelines, safety factors of 10 for occupational exposure and 50 for the general public were applied. The model assumptions and limitations (e.g., employed thermal and tissue damage models, homogeneous skin, consideration of localized exposure by a modified time constant) are discussed in detail. The results demonstrate that the maximum averaging time, based on the assumption of a thermal time constant of 100 s, is 240 s if the maximum local temperature increase for continuous-wave exposure is limited to 1 K and α ≥ 0.1. For a very low peak-to-average ratio of 100 (α ≥ 0.01), it decreases to only 30 s. The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3024...

This is just one of many papers
What do you intend to do now you have read this report sourced from pub med?
Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Gadawodd Emma Gomez anodiad ()

Here is another study and explanation of the effect of 5G on the sweat ducts. Please let me know what you will do with this information now you have it? Please stop the 5g rollout immediately as you will be responsible for the harm of millions of people if you do not do everything in your power to stop the 5g rollout. in the uk. https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phon...

Dear Public Health England,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Public Health England's handling of my FOI request '5G Risk to health'.

No names of those involved in the decision to assume that 5G is safe in the UK has been made public. As councils and MPs are relying heavily on the advice of Public Health England and its agents it is important that your information is correct. The rollout of 5G may cause considerable harm to citizens of the UK as well as foreigners that come to the UK as well as wildlife including all insects livestock and animals in the UK and according to the Nuremberg trials laws of war it is my belief that Public Health England, if they do not cease the 5G rollout, may be corrupt and willing to risk the wellbeing of humanity at large and therefore may be guilty of crimes against humanity that is possibly mass genocide. It would therefore be a crime at this time for all UK citizens to pay tax at this time to UK government until a thorough investigation is done into the possible health effects of 5G with all the new scientific evidence that has come about and must now be included in your safety and risk assessments.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...

Yours faithfully,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

Dear Ms Gomez,

Thank you for your email. Please find the link below which may be of use on how to access information from a public body:

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/off...

Kind regards,

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI, public health England

Please, can you tell me what is the highest level of EMF that is safe for a human foetus to sustain within the first 100 days from conception?

please provide the study for this as i have not been able to find it.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

We acknowledge receipt of your email and request for information, which will be treated as a request for information under statutory access legislation.

Please note that requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) will receive a response within 20 working days from the day following the date of receipt of your request.

If the request is for your personal data (i.e. a Subject Access Request) under the Data Protection Act, then we will respond within 40 calendar days.

Public Accountability Unit
Public Health England
[Public Health England request email]
Tel: 020 8327 6920 
www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Public Health England

Dear Ms Gomez,

As we have not received clarification regarding the below request, we are now closing this case.

Kind regards,

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

My request for clarification was written in one question.
as follows:
What is un clear about the question? Do you have an answer?

Dear FOI, public health England

Please, can you tell me what is the highest level of EMF that is safe for a human foetus to sustain within the first 100 days from conception?

please provide the study for this as i have not been able to find it.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

2 Atodiad

Dear Ms Gomez,

Please find attached Public Health England's response to your request.

Kind regards,

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

Public Health England

Under the Equality Act 2010 section 20 please make this request easily accessible by those in the public who have difficulty understanding and reading large documents. This can be done. by making reference to the exact line within the INCRP guidelines where your answer can be found and the exact parts of which research paper that you are referring to regarding fetal exposure?

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Dear FOI,

Specifically, the safety guidelines you speak of have used these studies with regard to EMF exposure via a mobile phone. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/com...
Here are just one of the studies that your guidelines links to which state clearly that there is DNA damage to the embryo.
Therefore current guidelines are NOT SAFE

Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Cardiovascular Development of Chick Embryo.
Ye W1,2, Wang F1, Zhang W1, Fang N1, Zhao W1, Wang J2.
Author information
Abstract
The biological effects on cardiovascular development of chicken embryos were examined after radiation exposure using mobile phone (900 MHz; specific absorption rate˜1.07 W/kg) intermittently 3 h per day during incubation. Samples were selected by morphological and histological methods. The results showed the rate of embryonic mortality and cardiac deformity increased significantly in exposed group (P < 0.05). No any histological pathological changes were observed on Day 5-7 (D5-D7) of incubation. A higher distribution of lipid droplets was unexpectedly present in myocardial tissue from the exposure groups on D10-D13. Soon afterwards, myofilament disruption, atrioventricular valve focal necrosis, mitochondria vacuolization and atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) decrease appeared on D15-D21 of incubation. Comet assay data showed the haemocyte mean tail in the exposed group was significantly larger than that of the control (P < 0.01). The arterial vascular wall of exposed group was thicker (P < 0.05) than that of the control on D13, which was reversed to normal in later stages. Our findings suggest that long-term exposure of MPR may induce myocardium pathological changes, DNA damage and increased mortality; however, there was little effect on vascular development.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Gomez

Please find attached Public Health England's response.

Kind regards
FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Public Health England

2 Atodiad

OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Gomez,

Please find attached Public Health England's response to your request.

Kind regards,

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Public Health England

1 Atodiad

OFFICIAL

Dear Ms Gomez,

Apologies for the delay in response.

Please find attached Public Health England's response.

Thanks

FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir