5G, Wi-Fi, Wireless RF/EMF Radiation - NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL’S Councillors, employees & all public servants who are “exploring” a 5G Rural Connected Communities bid to deploy 5G.

Alisa Keane made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Newry, Mourne and Down District Council

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 llwyddiannus.

1 October 2019 

Marie Ward 

Doing business as Chief Executive Officer 

NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL 

Newry Office - Monaghan Row, Newry

Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent; Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principle

5G, Wi-Fi, Wireless RF/EMF Radiation - NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL’S Councillors, employees & all public servants who are “exploring” a 5G Rural 
Connected Communities bid to deploy 5G within rural COUNCIL area(s).

NOTICE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

Dear Marie Ward

WHEREAS the NEWRY, MOURNE & DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL is a CORPORATION.
As in Part 1 Section 1 (2) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apni/1972...

WHEREAS of February 2015, Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” Exclusion 32, (PDF page 7 below) Includes: 5G, mobile phones, mobile modems, tablets, Wi-Fi access points/routers, smart meters, radar, cell towers [mobile phone masts] etc. CFC Underwriting Limited is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter.  https://www.scribd.com/document/26161083...

WHEREAS on the 18 February 2015, CFC Underwriting LTD (UK agent for Lloyd’s of London) stated, “the Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure...” ** Non-ionizing radiation is another name for wireless RF/EMF radiation also known as WiFi, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, etc. 
https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/electroma...

WHEREAS Children have been shown to absorb more wireless RF/EMF radiation than adults. For example, “a five year old can absorb sixty percent more electromagnetic radiation than an adult and exposures in bone marrow can be up to ten times greater. Overall, they are more likely to suffer greater biological effects from EMR exposure because: - Children’s thinner skulls, and smaller bones allow greater absorption into bone and deeper tissues; - Children’s brains (especially neonates) can have higher water content and so absorb more radiation; - Children are smaller; -Children have more vulnerable developing systems (e.g. neurological/reproductive); - Children have a longer time ahead for latent effects to manifest; - Children have more stem cells. Brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the leading cause of cancer deaths in children - both are associated with EMR exposure… There is evidence that genetic damage caused by exposure within current guidelines may not only damage the exposed child, but also their offspring” http://phiremedical.org/vulnerability-in...

WHEREAS 1 November 2018 - the U.S. Government’s National Toxicology Program released the final report on their $25+ million large-scale animal study- the peer review panel found ‘Clear Evidence’ of cancer for heart Schwannoma in animals exposed to RF and ‘some evidence’ of several other cancers including glioma.  The five (5) categories of evidence of carcinogenic activity are used in the NTP Technical Report series to summarize the strength of evidence observed in each experiment: The two highest categories for positive results are “Clear Evidence” and “Some Evidence”. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/pubs/l...

WHEREAS “Our conclusion on RF [wireless] radiation carcinogenicity is the following based on human epidemiology and supported by animal results in the NTP reports: Glioma, clear evidence; meningioma, equivocal evidence; vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma), clear evidence; pituitary tumor (adenoma), equivocal evidence; thyroid cancer, some evidence; malignant lymphoma, equivocal evidence; skin (cutaneous tissue), equivocal evidence; multi‑site carcinogen, clear evidence.

Based on the [WHO's] IARC preamble to the monographs, RF radiation should be classified as Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.”
-International Journal of Oncology, Volume 54 Issue 1; 2018/2019; Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg, 
https://www.spandidos-publications.com/1...

WHEREAS Again in 2018 Italy's Ramazzini Institute found Schwannomas again even though they used lower intensity far-field radiation like that produced by base stations/cell towers. Researchers with the renowned Ramazzini Institute (RI) announce that the large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower/mobile phone mast radiation radiation developed cancer.  
http://phiremedical.org/tag/5g/ and https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-anima...

WHEREAS Together these multiple forms of evidence elevate the carcinogenic status of wireless RF/EMF radiation but the World Health Organisation’s IARC have not yet reconvened to reclassify it. Experts are calling for wireless RF/EMF radiation - also known as non-ionising radiation now to be a Group 1 “Known Human Carcinogen” like tobacco, asbestos or x-rays. http://phiremedical.org/tag/5g/

WHEREAS “This animal evidence, together with the extensive human evidence, coupled with the rising incidence of brain cancers in young people in the US, conclusively confirms that radio frequency radiation is a Category 1 Human Carcinogen,” said Dr Anthony Miller, a World Health

WHEREAS the HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE NI does not hold any documents, scientific studies and reports that outline the safe level of non-ionizing electromagnetic RF radiation exposure to pregnant women and the foetus.

The HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE NI does not hold any documents, scientific studies and reports in which it is stated “Wifi is safe”. Royanne Hall, HSENI FOI 22 January 2018. 

WHEREAS ‘EMFs and Miscarriages: The Evidence Mounts At Least 7 Studies Now Show an Association’ Magnetic fields at levels commonly found in homes, offices and the urban environment have once again been found to increase the risk of pregnancy loss. The latest study —from Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA— shows that power-frequency fields can triple the risk of miscarriages.


“This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” De-Kun Li, the lead author of the Kaiser study, told Microwave News. These findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women,” Li urges. There are now at least seven studies linking miscarriages to prenatal exposure to electromagnetic fields, according to Li. https://microwavenews.com/news-center/de...

WHEREAS: ‘Miscarry risks from radiation exposure: Radiation typical of cell phones and Wi-Fi linked to high rate of miscarriages” was on the Front page San Francisco Chronicle, 18 December 2017.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/artic...

WHEREAS in December 2016 ‘Reviews on Environmental Health’ published UK neuroscientist Dr Sarah J. Starkey’s ‘Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation’ Abstract: “The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the United Kingdom and has been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world. This review describes incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and conflict of interest, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment. The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed. […] Decision makers, organisations and individuals require accurate information about the safety of RF electromagnetic signals if they are to be able to fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities and protect those for whom they have legal responsibility.” 
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/...

WHEREAS in May 2017 the UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) was disbanded. This disbandment followed the publishing of ‘Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation’ (2016) that AGNIR’s latest assessment of the science on the health impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs)—the type emitted by modern wireless technologies including WiFi contained in the AGNIR report 2012—was inaccurate and subject to conflicts of interest.

WHEREAS the UK government, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND and other public health agencies dismiss any questions of the safety of wireless technologies/wireless RF/EMF radiation by referencing the UK's AGNIR report 2012.

WHEREAS the AGNIR 2012 report omitted significant relevant research and evidence of health effects available at the time including the World Health Organisation's IARC classification 'Possible Human Carcinogen' 2B.

WHEREAS their currently is no mechanisms to retract an inaccurate government report such as the AGNIR 2012 report (and which government advice based on it) to be retracted and mechanisms put in place whereby incorrect government information can be corrected or removed, as can occur for peer-reviewed published scientific papers.

WHEREAS The denial of the existence of adverse effects of RF fields below ICNIRP guidelines in the AGNIR report conclusions is not supported by the scientific evidence.
Studies have, as described as examples in this review, reported damage to male reproductive health, proteins and cellular membranes, increased oxidative stress, cell death and genotoxicity, altered electrical brain activity and cognition, increased behavioural problems in children and risks of some cancers. For future official RF reports, it is important to check that conclusions accurately reflect available evidence before decisions which impact on public health are made based on the executive summary and overall conclusions. […]

Individuals and organisations who/that have made decisions about the often compulsory exposures of others to wireless RF communication signals may be unaware of the physical harm that they may have caused, and may still be causing, because they have not been accurately informed of the risks. This has been a safeguarding failure and the health of some children or adults may have been damaged as a result.

To prevent further possible harm, restrictions on exposures are required, particularly for children, pregnant women and individuals with medical conditions. All children in schools and care environments need protection from the potential harmful effects of RF exposures and not, as is now often the case, a compulsory use of wireless devices in the classroom. Children may unjustly face losing their human right to an education if they do not want to absorb RF fields every day at school and no alternative environments are available. Attention also needs to be given to the provision of safe working environments for employees and safe public spaces, particularly where exposures are involuntary.

PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields. Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and
misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest.

Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/...

WHEREAS International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is a private organisation, an industry loyal Non Government Organisation (NGO), based in Germany. “ICNIRP selects its own members and its source of funding is not declared. New expert members of ICNIRP can only be elected by members of ICNIRP…

“Many of ICNIRP members have ties to the industry that is dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines. The [ICNIRP] guidelines are of huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecoms/IT and power industry. Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines “do not cover cancer and other long-term or non-thermal health effects.”

“Thus, using the significantly higher [voluntary] guideline by ICNIRP gives a ‘green card’ to roll out the wireless digital technology thereby not considering non-thermal health effects from RF radiation. Numerous health hazards are disregarded such as cancer, effects on neurotransmitters and neuroprotection, blood-brain-barrier, cognition, psychological addiction, sleep, behavioural problems and sperm quality.” Lennart Hardell in International Journal of Oncology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...

WHERAS the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), “LEGAL TERMS: Disclaimer: ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published. The content of our website is provided to you for information only. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website.”
https://www.icnirp.org/en/legal-notice.h...

WHEREAS ‘How ICNIRP, AGNIR, PHE [PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND] and a 30 year old political decision created and then covered up a global public health scandal’: "Basically we can understand Dr Starkey’s report in two ways. Firstly as an examination as to WHY AGNIR and the HPA(PHE) were prompted to COVER UP EVIDENCE OF RF/EMF HEALTH HAZARDS and secondly the methodologies of exclusion they employed as to HOW this COVER UP was EXECUTED.

As to why a cover up was required, then this directly arose from the conflict of interests that the rapporteur on the EU 2011 report highlighted and suggested to be an area of important focus... we can see that there were very close connections between ICNIRP, AGNIR and the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency which later became Public Health England.

In the AGNIR committee of 2012 three members were also members of ICNIRP and 6 members were also members of the UK Health Protection Agency and the Department of Health. One of the HPA members was also a member of ICNIRP. By 2016 we see there were no less than 6 members of ICNIRP and 8 members of PHE and the department of health. Of those 8 PHE members, three of them were also members of ICNIRP. One should note that A.J. Swerdlow was chair of both AGNIR and ICNIRP. The same A.J.Swerdlow and his wife who owned shares in Cable and Wireless Worldwide, Cable and Wireless Communications and BT.

This obvious conflict of interests between these 3 inter-related organisations is completely unacceptable. Neither the HPA (the former incarnation of PHE) nor AGNIR could ever take an objective view of peer reviewed scientific evidence presented to them because they all strictly adhere to ICNIRP’s thermal only paradigm in the first place. It would be impossible for the PHE members to acknowledge any evidence presented to them that contradicted this fundamental assumption as that would necessarily involve them having to resign from their prestigious positions as committee members of both AGNIR and/or ICNIRP and admit that they have been wrong all along. Those members of PHE who were also members of ICNIRP and AGNIR would have a huge influence on the rest of PHE who would completely defer to the ICNIRP and AGNIR members on these issues as they would be deemed to be the ‘experts’ who sat on such prestigious committees. It would be virtually impossible to even try and disagree with them even in the unlikely event that any members of PHE managed to find either the morals or courage to do so in the first place.

Dr Starkey comments on the nature of this conflict of interests in her analysis...

In this respect PHE’s role as a public health agency: is very much a case of the wolves guarding the sheep. They cannot acknowledge the dangers of low level radiation exposure without trashing their reputations. In such a case, any such admission would make their membership of all 3 bodies completely untenable. There was no way that such radical radiation extremists were ever going to allow their decisions to be called into question. It was always guaranteed that such ideologically entrenched career scientists are compelled to dismiss all scientific evidence that contradicted their views by whatever means necessary. To add insult to injury the HPA even went as far as theatrically staging a warm reception and welcome of their own report and falsely represented it as a study that was ‘independent’ of them, thereby concealing their conflicts of interest in order to suggest that they were taking an objective view of the report.” https://communityoperatingsystem.wordpre...

WHEREAS the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified wireless radiation (RF/EMF) as a Group 2B ‘Possible Human Carcinogen’ from 2011 onwards, based on scientific evidence that linked wireless exposure with increased risks of brain or head tumours, damage to DNA and other types of genotoxicity, increased oxidative stress and evidence from animal studies.

WHEREAS The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) IARC 2B ‘Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans’ classification includes wireless RF/EMF radiation from any transmitting source in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device. This includes mobile phones, smart meters, mobile phone mast, tablet computers/iPads, Wi-Fi devices, etc.  https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/electroma...

WHEREAS The World Health Organisation’s IARC full published report (monograph) ‘The evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans’. Vol 102 outlines that children absorb wireless (RF/EMF) radiation DEEPER into their bodies than adults and also states that the classification includes exposure to all radiofrequency radiation [RF] and not just mobile phones. 
https://publications.iarc.fr/126

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [UK] is a member state and is a funder and participates in the Governing Council of the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, you are required to provide the following:

“Newry, Mourne and Down District Council is currently exploring the [5G] Rural 
Connected Communities bid and may apply through the Full Fibre Northern 
Ireland (FFNI) Consortium with other Councils.” Ruth Rooney, Freedom of Information response, 23 September 2019. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL, CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT - Applying for the 5G Rural Connected Communities Project. The DCMS 5G Programme Rural Connected Communities grant funding competition is open for applications. 5G Rural Connected Communities Project. The Rural Connected Communities (RCC) competition will fund up to 10 5G research and development projects to run over the course of two years.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/applying-for...

“5G Testbeds and Trials Programme: Rural Connected Communities. Overview and Application Guidance “The Rural Connected Communities project (RCC) will support the overall strategy for improving mobile coverage and driving successful 5G implementation in the UK by: Improving the case for investment in rural network deployment by testing new
commercial and technical solutions for more efficient deployment of advanced
network infrastructure including 5G…’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

1. The full names and job titles of the NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL employees who are also public servants and involved in “exploring” and/or working on a potential 5G Rural Connected Communities bid for the deployment of 5G in as of yet to be named rural area(s) of the COUNCIL and thus would decrease property values and increase the exposure of those living in rural 5G test bed area(s) to wireless non ionizing electromagnetic (RF) radiation classified by the World Health Organisation as a 2B “Possible Human Carcinogen” and which underwriters such as Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, non ionising electromagnetic radiation, etc.

2. The full names of NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL Councillors who are servants of the public holding a public office and involved in “exploring” and/or working on a potential 5G Rural Connected Communities bid for the deployment of 5G in as of yet to be named rural area(s) of the COUNCIL and thus would decrease property values and increase the exposure of those living in rural 5G test bed area(s) to wireless non ionizing electromagnetic (RF) radiation classified by the World Health Organisation as a 2B “Possible Human Carcinogen” and which underwriters such as Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, non ionising electromagnetic radiation, etc.

3. All risk assessments held by the NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL including, but not limited to biological health and environmental risk assessments of the current proposed “5G” frequencies -700Mhz and 3.6-3.8 Ghz- and which are classified by the World Health Organisation as a 2B “Possible Human Carcinogen” and which underwriters such as Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, non ionising electromagnetic radiation, etc.

I do not consent to receiving a single sentence/paragraph response for items 1- 3. I require each item to have its own response and/or attachments. Please number your responses 1-3.

I do not consent to receiving incomplete, unnecessary, incorrect, misleading or untruthful information or representations within Freedom of Information responses. This includes but is not limited to the AGNIR 2012 report and any government department and/or agency advice and/or statements, links, etc. based on the AGNIR 2012 report which contains “incorrect and misleading statements from within the report, omissions and conflict of interest , which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment. The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available” and “the AGNIR report conclusions is not supported by the scientific evidence.”

I do not consent to the names and titles of public servants including but not limited to employees, directors, councillors and agents of the NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL being redacted. The information claimed/requested in this FOI is of public interest. The NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL exists for one purpose only - to give services to the public and has no other purpose. This is not a gift or altruistic service - it is a public service is paid for by the people through public money, such as rates.

I have the reasonable expectation that you, Marie Ward, acting as a public servant in the public office of Chief Executive Officer of NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL will honour and adhere to your position of Trust, the Seven Principles of public life, your Duty of Care, the laws, the statutory legislation, regulations and protocols that govern public servants and all those who offer a public service. The 7 principles of public life are: Honesty; Openness; Leadership; Integrity; Accountability; Objectivity and Selflessness. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

I demand that as a servant of the public holding a public office you take note of and act on the information supplied and claimed within this FOI and read in full “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation [AGNIR]”, Sarah J. Starkey (2016) Reviews on Environmental Health 31(4): 493-503. www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.20...

I don not consent to being referred to as “Ms Keane” or any other variant, my name is Alisa Keane. Thank you.

This will be used as evidence.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity, 
 

by Alisa Keane

All rights reserved

Trainor, Suzanne, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council

Dear Alisa Keane,

 

Thank you for your email received 2/10/2019 and your request for
information therein.

 

You have requested from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council names and
job titles of Newry Mourne Down Council’s  Councillors, employees & all
public servants who are “exploring” a 5G Rural Connected Communities bid
to deploy 5G. and information relating to risk assessments.

 

I confirm your request will be processed as a request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  Accordingly, you will receive the information you
have requested within 20 working days of the date of receipt of your
request by the Council unless the Council does not hold the information or
there is a reason to withhold all or part of the information requested. 
Council will write to you in any event. 

 

I hope to respond to you no later than 30/10/2019.

 

For further information in relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000
I would refer you to the Information Commissioner's Office website,
www.ico.org.uk

 

If you wish to discuss the above please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Kind Regards

 

Suzanne Trainor

Information Officer

Comhairle Ceantair an Iúir Mhúrn agus an Dúin

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council

Downshire Civic Centre

Ardglass Road

Downpatrick

BT30 6GQ

 

Council: 0300 013 2233

Planning: 0300 200 7830  Ext:2104

 

www.newrymournedown

 

This e-mail, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the
above named. As this e-mail may contain confidential or legally privileged
information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named,
or the person responsible for delivering the message to the above named,
delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately. The contents
of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, nor used by, anyone other than the
above named. We will not accept any liability (in negligence or otherwise)
arising from any third party acting, or refraining from acting, on such
information. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in such
messages are not given or endorsed by the Council, unless otherwise
indicated in writing by an authorised representative independent of such
messages. Please note that we cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. The
Council undertakes monitoring of both incoming and outgoing e-mails. You
should therefore be aware that if you send an e-mail to a person within
the Council it may be subject to any monitoring deemed necessary by the
organisation. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose
this e-mail (or any response to it) under UK Data Protection and Freedom
of Information legislation, unless the information in it is covered by an
exemption.

Trainor, Suzanne, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council

Dear Alisa Keane,

Thank you for your email received  02/10/2019  and your request for
information therein.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 you have requested  names and
job-titles of Newry Mourne Down Councillors, employees & all public
servants who are “exploring “ a 5G Rural Connected Communities bid to
deploy 5G, and information relating  to risk assessments. I confirm your
request has now been processed as a request under the terms of the Act
and, accordingly, please see Council's response below.  

 

 1. The full names and job titles of the NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT
COUNCIL employees who are also public servants and involved in
“exploring” and/or working on a potential 5G Rural Connected
Communities bid for the deployment of 5G in as of  yet to be named
rural area(s) of the COUNCIL and thus would decrease property values
and increase the exposure of those living in rural 5G test bed area(s)
to wireless non ionizing electromagnetic (RF) radiation classified by
the World Health Organisation as a 2B “Possible Human Carcinogen” and
which underwriters such as Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability
coverage for claims directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting
from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, non ionising
electromagnetic radiation, etc.

 

Michael Forster – Business Intelligence Officer reporting to Jonathan
McGilly, Assistant Director of Enterprise, Employment and Regeneration.

 

 2. The full names of NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT COUNCIL Councillors
who are servants of the public holding a public office and involved in
“exploring” and/or working on a potential 5G Rural Connected
Communities bid for the deployment of 5G in as of  yet to be named
rural area(s) of the COUNCIL and thus would decrease property values
and increase the exposure of those living in rural 5G test bed area(s)
to wireless non ionizing electromagnetic (RF) radiation classified by
the World Health Organisation as a 2B “Possible Human Carcinogen” and
which underwriters such as Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability
coverage for claims directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting
from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, non ionising
electromagnetic radiation, etc.

 

The names of Council’s Elected Members are publicly available on Council’s
website at [1]www.newrymournedown.org

No working group or task group has been set up on the topic of 5G and
therefore no one Councillor is any more involved with this work area than
another. No recorded information held .

 

 3. All risk assessments held by the NEWRY, MOURNE AND DOWN DISTRICT
COUNCIL including, but not limited to biological health and
environmental risk assessments of the current proposed “5G”
frequencies -700Mhz and 3.6-3.8 Ghz- and which are classified by the
World Health Organisation as a 2B “Possible Human Carcinogen” and
which underwriters such as Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability
coverage for claims directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting
from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, non ionising
electromagnetic radiation, etc.

 

Newry Mourne Down Council hold no information relevant to this part of
your request.

 

If you wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to contact me
directly.

I trust this is of assistance.  However, should you be unhappy with our
response in this matter you may request an Internal Review of our response
by 16/12/2019. You can contact Edel Cosgrove Head of Compliance
([email address]) in that regard. In the event you are unhappy
with the outcome of any Internal Review conducted by the Council you may
apply to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a review of our
response. Please note that the ICO generally expects Internal Reviews to
be completed prior to reviewing the decisions of public bodies.  For
further information in relation to Freedom of Information I would direct
you to the website of the Information Commissioner at: [2]www.ico.org.uk.

 

Regards

 

Suzanne Trainor

Information Officer

Comhairle Ceantair an Iúir Mhúrn agus an Dúin

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council

Downshire Civic Centre

Ardglass Road

Downpatrick

BT30 6GQ

 

Council: 0300 013 2233

Planning: 0300 200 7830  Ext:2104

 

www.newrymournedown

 

This e-mail, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the
above named. As this e-mail may contain confidential or legally privileged
information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named,
or the person responsible for delivering the message to the above named,
delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately. The contents
of this e-mail may not be disclosed to, nor used by, anyone other than the
above named. We will not accept any liability (in negligence or otherwise)
arising from any third party acting, or refraining from acting, on such
information. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in such
messages are not given or endorsed by the Council, unless otherwise
indicated in writing by an authorised representative independent of such
messages. Please note that we cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. The
Council undertakes monitoring of both incoming and outgoing e-mails. You
should therefore be aware that if you send an e-mail to a person within
the Council it may be subject to any monitoring deemed necessary by the
organisation. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose
this e-mail (or any response to it) under UK Data Protection and Freedom
of Information legislation, unless the information in it is covered by an
exemption.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.newrymournedown.org/
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/