Where in UK will be 5G free and safe for those who are EMF sensitive?

Emma Gomez made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Public Health England

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear Public Health England,

Where are the areas you have set up where there will be no 5G?

For those who are vulnerable to EMF such as EMF sensitive persons. Where can people who are EMF sensitive be able to live and work free from harm?

Where will there be NO 5G roll out in the UK for those of us who can not be close to this technology as it is extremly harmful to those who are EMF sensitive?

Over 247 EMF scientists have told you that the safety levels have been set much too high in the UK they have made an appeal to stop the 5g roll out as adequate risk assesments tests have not been done to proove it is safe. please read this appeal from top levle scientists and medical proffesionals. https://www.emfscientist.org

How can I stop the 5G roll out so that I can live in peace and with good health in the UK as it is clearly extremly unsafe as EMF sensitivity is a real disorder and there can be no denying that by public health england.
As our MEPs do not wish to be used as an experiment and do not want 5G and BRUSSELS HAVE BANNED IT ... what will it take for you to follow the same precautionary principles as is the law and ban 5G?

Are UK population being put into danger purposefully by public health England? As the evidence is clear that there is clearly an safety issue with 5G if many other countries have decided to ban it.

Please remind me what is the purpose of Public Health England?

Yours faithfully,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

OFFICIAL
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

FOI, Public Health England

3 Atodiad

OFFICIAL
Dear Emma

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

Kind regards,
FOI Team

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

you say
" PHE’s view is that the overall evidence suggests the UK population is not placed at risk by the
radio waves produced by 5G technologies providing the exposure levels comply with
recommended guidelines – this is explained in the RF Advice Summary and 5G documents
included with this reply. "

However, these guidelines that you speak of do not include constant exposure levels and therefore are not adequate guidelines. As 5G is at constant exposure the precautionary principle needs to be adhered to and new guidelines need to be established and the 5g rollout needs to be ceased immediately.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

1 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,

The equality act 2010 requires public authorities to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people to avoid disadvantage and is clear that reasonable adjustment includes the provision of information in an accessible format. Public authorities are also under a duty to promote equality. Please ensure it is easy to see exactly which part of the guidelines you are referring to and where you have done your due diligence to know and fully understand.
The health of the nation has been entrusted to you and therefore you must act diligently to ensure the guidelines you are relying so heavily on are actually sufficient,

We need to see that you have studied the guidelines. What would make you trust them where many other countries do not? This in itself is cause for concern.

You must show your evidence that supports these guidelines.

Therefore please show exactly where in the guidelines you see evidence in the form of actual tests performed for safety levels at continuous exposure on the biology of a cell on the DNA of a human being and on a child.

You must make this accessible to those who are unable to find them. Like myself and a multitude of others.

I have researched the guidelines and as yet have not found anything that refers to safety tests done for the following. If they exist please make them accessible. Tests at constant exposure over a period of 1 year.

A thermal test done on a child.
A thermal test done on an elderly adult.
A thermal test done on an average size female and male.
I have found a thermal test done on A 100kg dummy without DNA. At short exposure time.
Please show me the tests in your guidelines that you are referring to that have been done on a child-size dummy or for an average size human being dummy. Can you agree that if you do not find these that thermal tests that your guidelines rely so heavily upon are insufficient?
The guidelines you are referring to do not include any tests done on a human being at continuous long term exposure to 5G level EMR. If they do then please show them to us here?
If No biological tests have been done that show safety what so ever are available then the guidelines are insufficient.
it is your duty of care to ensure these tests are done prior to experimenting on the public. To experiment on the public where there is no proof of safety is a breach of trust on the part of Public Health England.

Show me the evidence. I
f there is no evidence then show me where there will be no EMF exposure in the UK so that I can make myself safe from harm from exposure to EMF.

Yours sincerely,

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

Dear FOI,

In what capacity do Public Health England recognise Electro Magnetic Sensitivity as a medical condition? Whereas the medical profession do recognise this condition.
Whereas th ICNIRP guidelines Public health England follow do not provide adequate PROTECTION for those with EMS.
Whereas symptoms of the condition become non existant or almost non existant in areas free from artificial EMF omitted from phone masts such as 2g 3g 4g 5g.
What are the steps that Public Health England are doing to protect those with Electro Magnetic Sensitivity from EMF omitted from 2g 3g 4g 5g?
In what capacity is Public health England following the laws regarding the equality act as regards protecting those with Electro Magnetic Sensitivity as well as the rest of the UK POPULATION in its performance of its duty to ensure the safety of ALL the people of the United Kingdom?
It has shown increasingly that the current guidelines DO NOT PROTECT those with EMS which is increasing by the day what is Public Health Englands' policy regarding protecting those with EMS.
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,

Am I right in reflecting back to you that PHE does not consider that EMF has any poor effect on human health?
Whereas cancer in children has increased dramatically worldwide and in the UK. What is the massive increase in cancer in children in the last 2 decades caused by, Have you any understanding of the increase in childhood cancer?
What is it that PHE is neglecting in all of its duties, knowledge and guidelines that it is allowing this increase to happen?
In some countries, Phone masts have been taken down due to many children developing rare cancer in the vicinity of a phone mast at constant exposure.
Perhaps you are not reading the numerous papers that show serious health effects that are available in the public domain such as the lancet. Here is one of them for your perusal.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpl...
As the Planetary Health Alliance moves forward after a productive second annual meeting, a discussion on the rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic fields would now be apt. The most notable is the blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects. However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection1 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,2 which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous. Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists,3 electrical activity in the brain,4 and systemic immune responses.5 Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage6, 7 and cancer risk.8 Laboratory studies, including large rodent studies by the US National Toxicology Program9 and Ramazzini Institute of Italy,10 confirm these biological and health effects in vivo. As we address the threats to human health from the changing environmental conditions due to human activity,11 the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation needs to be included in this discussion.
Due to the exponential increase in the use of wireless personal communication devices (eg, mobile or cordless phones and WiFi or Bluetooth-enabled devices) and the infrastructure facilitating them, levels of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation around the 1 GHz frequency band, which is mostly used for modern wireless communications, have increased from extremely low natural levels by about 1018 times (figure). Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is also used for radar, security scanners, smart meters, and medical equipment (MRI, diathermy, and radiofrequency ablation). It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century, and levels will surge considerably again, as technologies like the Internet of Things and 5G add millions more radiofrequency transmitters around us.
Figure thumbnail gr1
FigureTypical maximum daily exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from man-made and natural power flux densities in comparison with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection safety guidelines1
Show full caption
View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)
Unprecedented human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from conception until death has been occurring in the past two decades. Evidence of its effects on the CNS, including altered neurodevelopment14 and increased risk of some neurodegenerative diseases,15 is a major concern considering the steady increase in their incidence. Evidence exists for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioural disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices,14 and experimental evidence, such as the Yale finding, shows that prenatal exposure could cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behaviour.16 These findings deserve urgent attention.
At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world's largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation.
Evidence also exists of the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on flora and fauna. For example, the reported global reduction in bees and other insects is plausibly linked to the increased radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in the environment.17 Honeybees are among the species that use magnetoreception, which is sensitive to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, for navigation.
Man-made electromagnetic fields range from extremely low frequency (associated with electricity supplies and electrical appliances) to low, medium, high, and extremely high frequency (mostly associated with wireless communication). The potential effects of these anthropogenic electromagnetic fields on natural electromagnetic fields, such as the Schumann Resonance that controls the weather and climate, have not been properly studied. Similarly, we do not adequately understand the effects of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on other natural and man-made atmospheric components or the ionosphere. It has been widely claimed that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, being non-ionising radiation, does not possess enough photon energy to cause DNA damage. This has now been proven wrong experimentally.18, 19 Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage apparently through oxidative stress,7 similar to near-UV radiation, which was also long thought to be harmless.
At a time when environmental health scientists tackle serious global issues such as climate change and chemical toxicants in public health, there is an urgent need to address so-called electrosmog. A genuine evidence-based approach to the risk assessment and regulation of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields will help the health of us all, as well as that of our planetary home. Some government health authorities have recently taken steps to reduce public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation by regulating use of wireless devices by children and recommending preferential use of wired communication devices in general, but this ought to be a coordinated international effort.
We declare no competing interests. We thank Alasdair Philips for assistance with the figure and Victor Leach and Steve Weller for assistance with the ORSAA Database, which has enabled our overview of the scientific evidence in this area of research.
References
1.International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz).
Health Phys. 1998; 74: 494-522
View in Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IEEE C95.7-2014—IEEE recommended practice for radio frequency safety programs, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.
IEEE Standards Association, 2014
https://standards.ieee.org/standard/C95_...
Date accessed: November 6, 2018
View in Article
Google Scholar
3.Volkow ND Tomasi D Wang GJ et al.
Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism.
JAMA. 2011; 305: 808-813
View in Article
Scopus (159)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
4.Schmid MR Loughran SP Regel SJ et al.
Sleep EEG alterations: effects of different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields.
J Sleep Res. 2012; 21: 50-58
View in Article
Scopus (45)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
5.Kimata H
Microwave radiation from cellular phones increases allergen-specific IgE production.
Allergy. 2005; 60: 838-839
View in Article
Scopus (8)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
6.Zothansiama Zosangzuali M Lalramdinpuii M Jagetia GC
Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations.
Electromagn Biol Med. 2017; 36: 295-305
View in Article
Scopus (11)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
7.Bandara P Weller S
Biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation—time for a paradigm shift in regulation of public exposure.
Radiat Protect Australas. 2017; 34: 2-6
View in Article
Google Scholar
8.Carlberg M Hardell L
Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the bradford hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation.
Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017: 9218486
View in Article
Scopus (21)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
9.Cell phone radio frequency radiation. National Toxicology Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2018
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/...
Date accessed: November 8, 2018
View in Article
Google Scholar
10.Falcioni L Bua L Tibaldi E et al.
Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emission.
Environ Res. 2018; 165: 496-503
View in Article
Scopus (21)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
11.Myers SS
Planetary health: protecting human health on a rapidly changing planet.
Lancet. 2018; 390: 2860-2868
View in Article
Scopus (15)
PubMed
Summary
Full Text
Full Text PDF
Google Scholar
12.Philips A Lamburn G
Natural and human-activity-generated electromagnetic fields on Earth.
Childhood Cancer. 2012; (London; April 24–26, 2012.)
View in Article
Google Scholar
13.Raines JK
NASA-CR-166661. Electromagnetic field interactions with the human body: observed effects and theories. NASA Technical Reports Server.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi....
Date: 1981
Date accessed: October 10, 2018
View in Article
Google Scholar
14.Divan HA Kheifets L Obel C Olsen J
Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children.
Epidemiology. 2008; 19: 523-529
View in Article
Scopus (110)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
15.Zhang X Huang WJ Chen WW
Microwaves and Alzheimer's disease.
Exp Ther Med. 2016; 12: 1969-1972
View in Article
Scopus (2)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
16.Aldad TS Gan G Gao XB Taylor HS
Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice.
Sci Rep. 2012; 2: 312
View in Article
Scopus (68)
PubMed
Crossref
Google Scholar
17.Taye RR Deka MK Rahman A Bathari M
Effect of electromagnetic radiation of cell phone tower on foraging behaviour of Asiatic honey bee, Apis cerana F. (Hymenoptera: Apidae).
J Entomol Zool Stud. 2017; 5: 1527-1529
View in Article
Google Scholar
18.Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, et al. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society Annual Conference; Raleigh, NC, USA; Sept 9–13, 2017.
View in Article
Google Scholar
19.Ruediger HW
Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Pathophysiology. 2009; 16: 89-102
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

Phe.Complaints, Public Health England

2 Atodiad

OFFICIAL

Dear Ms Gomez,

 

I write with reference to your recent correspondence with the Freedom of
Information (FOI) team at Public Health England (PHE) regarding your
outstanding concerns about the safety of 5G for those with electromagnetic
fields (EMF) sensitivity.

 

Circumstances

 

You contacted the Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Team in October 2018 and
raised concerns about the effects of 5G and EMFs. Your correspondence was
passed to the PHE Enquiries Team  and a response was sent to you in
November 2018. You contacted the Public Health England (PHE) Press Office
in January 2019 and raised further concerns about the effects of EMFs.
These concerns were addressed by the PHE Enquiries Team on 8 January 2019.
They sent you information about PHE’s approach including the evidence
base, research findings, briefing notes, links to relevant PHE research
articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, information about the EMF
team and PHE’s wider remit. The EMF Team also responded directly to a
follow up question 10 January 2019.

 

In addition to the above correspondence you have submitted sixteen
Statutory Access requests between 10 October 2018 and 29 November 2019.
These are detailed below together with the date that the requests were
responded to:

 

 1. 683 – 10/10/2018 – 5G Risk to health – replied 6/11/2018
 2. 997 – 24/12/2018 – 5G Risk to health – Case closed 21/01/2019 as no
clarification received
 3. 1034 – 25/12/2018 – Internal Review of 683 – replied 30/1/2019
 4. 1039 – 02/01/2019 – 5G radiation levels are not safe – replied
30/01/2019
 5. 1040 – 7/1/2019 – Safety levels of EMF radiation human foetus in the
first 100 days – replied 04/02/2019
 6. 1057 – 7/1/2019 - COMARE highest level of EMF radiation safe for human
foetus to sustain – replied 4/2/2019
 7. 1000 linked to 1105 – 22/1/2019 - Equality Act and internal review of
5G risk to health – 22/03/2019
 8. 1180 linked to 997 – 21/1/2019 - Safety levels of EMF radiation human
foetus in the first 100 days - replied 18/2/2019
 9. 054 – 09/04/2019 – Risk assessment for 5G – replied 10/5/2019
10. 055 – 09/04/2019 - Safety in UK for those who are EMF sensitive - 
replied 10/5/2019
11. 188 linked to 054 – 22/5/2019 – Risk assessment for 5G – replied
17/06/2019
12. 249 linked to 055 – 07/06/2019 - Safety in UK for those who are EMF
sensitive – replied 3/7/2019
13. 703 linked to 249 and 055 – 12/10/19 -  Safety in UK for those who are
EMF sensitive – replied 8/11/2019
14. 731 linked to 703 – 18/10/2019 - Safety in UK for those who are EMF
sensitive – 15/11/2019
15. 877 linked to 731 – 1/11/2019 – Questions regarding EMF sensitivity –
replied 29/11/2019
16. 823 linked to 703 – 9/11/2019 - Safety in UK for those who are EMF
sensitive

 

You stated that the responses issued to you failed to address your
specific questions and did not include information from recent studies.

 

Findings

 

Having looked at all the circumstances, it would be helpful to clarify
PHE’s remit. PHE is an executive agency of the Department of Health and
Social Care and a distinct delivery organisation with operational autonomy
to advise and support government, local authorities and the NHS in a
professionally independent manner. We are responsible for encouraging
discussions, advising government and supporting action by local
government, the NHS and other people and organisations, leading the
national health protection service, and preparing for public health
emergencies, sharing our information and expertise with local authorities,
industry and the NHS, to help them make improvements in the public’s
health and researching, collecting and analysing data to improve our
understanding of health and provide answers to public health problems.

 

You asked PHE a selection of questions about the safety of and health
effects resulting from exposure to EMFs particularly in relation to 5G
exposure. It has answered your requests as fully as possible citing the
available evidence and by doing this it has fulfilled its responsibilities
as detailed above. Whilst I appreciate your strength of feeling around the
inaccuracies surrounding PHE’s conclusions, It is not in the public
interest to continue to engage on these same matters. Similarly, your
requests to the FOI team have been responded to in a timely manner after
consultation with the relevant departments within PHE. Please see the
outstanding request below:

 

FOI request 823

 

PHE has supplied the information it holds in relation to the safety of
EMFs in accordance with Section 16 of the FOI Act – Duty to provide advice
and assistance to individuals making requests for information. The studies
and research papers referenced in the attached PHE guidance represent the
collective judgement of the Expert Groups of the totality of the current
evidence surrounding EMFs. PHE recognises the concerns surrounding the
potential health effects of 5G and remain committed to monitoring the
evidence applicable to this and other radio technologies. Our experts
continue to review our advice on an ongoing basis. All precautions in
place for monitoring 4G technologies are applicable for safeguarding
against potential 5G technology risks.

 

From your line of questioning it is evident that you dispute PHE’s
position and the evidence on which this is based. You are entitled to your
view but it is counter-productive for both parties to continue to engage
in communication about information which is largely in the public domain
and on which we cannot reach a consensus as to its efficacy.  We have
fully complied with our obligations to furnish you with information that
falls within the scope of your requests.

 

Referral process

 

FOI correspondence

 

Please note that you have the right to an independent review by the
Information Commissioner’s Office at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.

 

Whilst I appreciate your strength of feeling about the blood test results
you have received and your belief that these do not address or reflect
your clinical symptoms, your on-going concerns need to be discussed
directly with your Practitioner as PHE is unable to offer you clinical
advice.  It is not in the public interest to continue to engage on these
same matters.

 

Complaints referral

 

Your concerns have now been fully investigated and we are not able to take
them forward in the way you have requested. As such, you can refer your
complaint to your MP for escalation to the Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman to review the case. You can contact the Ombudsman
through her website at [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk or by writing to the
following address:

 

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Millbank Tower

Millbank

London SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0345 015 4033

Email: [2][email address]

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Melissa

 

Melissa McMahon

Complaints Manager

Public Health England

[3][email address] 

[4]www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on [5]Twitter @PHE_uk            

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Phe.Complaints,

You state that PHE are responsible for encouraging
discussions, advising government and supporting action by local
government, the NHS and other people and organisations leading the
national health protection service, and preparing for public health
emergencies, sharing our information and expertise with local authorities,
industry and the NHS, to help them make improvements in the public’s
health and researching, collecting and analysing data to improve our
understanding of health and provide answers to public health problems.

I believe this is not a true statement, I see no evidence for it. There is in fact evidence to the contrary that PHE is not serving the public interest.

In 2000, Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency, headed the government's inquiry into the safety of mobile phone masts and health. He felt the scientific research was sufficient to apply a precautionary approach when siting masts near schools.
Show me how did PHE take this advice seriously in alignment with your above statement?

The following is taken from the following website and explains that UK government are aware of the risks and are not taking the advice of its own true advisors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/pa...
Wi-Fi: A warning signal
Wi Fi systems are now in 70 per cent of secondary schools
Britain is in the grip of a Wi-Fi revolution with offices, homes and classrooms going wireless - but there is concern the technology could carry health risks.
The Government insists Wi-Fi is safe, but a Panorama investigation shows that radio frequency radiation levels in some schools are up to three times the level found in the main beam of intensity from mobile phone masts.

There have been no studies on the health effects of Wi-Fi equipment, but thousands on mobile phones and masts.

The radiation Wi-Fi emits is similar to that from mobile phone masts. It is an unavoidable by-product of going wireless.

In the last 18 months another two million of us in the UK have begun using Wi-Fi.

Entire cities have become what are known as wireless hotspots.

Precautionary approach

In 2000, Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency, headed the government's inquiry into the safety of mobile phone masts and health. He felt the scientific research was sufficient to apply a precautionary approach when siting masts near schools.

I am asking schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing Wi-Fi networks now and this will make them think twice or three times before they do it
Philip Parkin, Professional Association of Teachers

During that same year, the government sold off the 3G licences for £22.5bn.
Sir William recalls: "We recommended, because we were sensitive about children... that masts should not necessarily impact directly on areas where children were exposed, like playgrounds and that."

But what about Wi-Fi? The technology is similar to mobile phone masts and in use in 70 per cent of secondary schools and 50 per cent of primary schools.

Panorama visited a school in Norwich, with more than 1,000 pupils, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of Wi-Fi in the classroom.

Readings taken for the programme showed the height of signal strength to be three times higher in the school classroom using Wi-Fi than the main beam of radiation intensity from a mobile phone mast.

The findings are particularly significant because children's skulls are thinner and still forming and tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults.

Safety limits

The readings were well beneath the government's safety limits - as much as 600 times below - but some scientists suspect the whole basis of our safety limits may be wrong.

Panorama spoke to a number of scientists who questioned the safety limits and were concerned about the possible health effects of such radiation.

"If you look in the literature, you have a large number of various effects like chromosome damage, you have impact on the concentration capacity and decrease in short term memory, increases in the number of cancer incidences," said Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

Another scientist, Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from Salzburg is now calling for Wi-Fi to be removed from schools.

He said: "If you go into the data you can see a very very clear picture - it is like a puzzle and everything fits together from DNA break ups to the animal studies and up to the epidemiological evidence; that shows for example increased symptoms as well as increased cancer rates."

The clear advice from Sir William Stewart to the government on mobile phone masts was that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it.

Norwich
Norwich city centre is blanketed with a Wi-Fi hotspot
Yet the levels tested in the classroom from Wi-Fi were much higher - three times the highest level of the mast.
Panorama contacted 50 schools at random - and found only one had been warned of possible health effects.

Philip Parkin, general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers said: "I think schools and parents will be very worried about it...

"I am asking schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing Wi-Fi networks now and this will make them think twice or three times before they do it.

"I think the precautionary approach doesn't seem to have worked because it is being rolled out so rapidly...

"It's a bit like King Canute. We can't stop the tide and I am afraid if schools are told that there is a serious health implication for having these networks in schools, it is going to be a very serious matter to say to schools, you have to switch them off."

Low power

At Washington state university, Professor Henry Lai, a biologist respected by both sides of the argument says he has found health effects at similar levels of radiation to Wi-Fi.

He estimates that of the two to three thousand studies carried out over the last 30 years, there is a 50-50 split - half finding an effect with the other half finding no effect at all.

But the Health Protection Agency has said Wi-Fi devices are of very low power - much lower than mobile phones.

The Government says there is no risk and is backed up by the World Health Organisation which is robust in its language saying there are "no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure".

The scientist responsible for WHO's position is Dr Mike Repacholi, who headed up the health organisation's research programme into radiofrequency radiation.
He was also the founder of the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

He said the statement of "no adverse health effects" was based on the weight of evidence.

In order for a health effect to be established, it must mean it has been repeated in a number of laboratories using very good study techniques. The findings of any published studies had been put in the mix before reaching a conclusion, he said.

"It is called a weight of evidence approach - and if that weight of evidence is not for there being an effect or not being an effect that is the only way you can tell whether there really is an adverse health effect," he said.

IS PHE IGNORING 50% OF THE SCIENCE AND PURPOSEFULLY NOT ADHERING TO THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH AGAINST THE ADVICE OF ITS OWN ADVISOR? IF SO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE SHOULD ONE WISH TO TAKE THE GOVERNMENT TO COURT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST ONE's PERSON?

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Dear FOI,

Dear Phe.Complaints,

You state that PHE are responsible for encouraging
discussions, advising government and supporting action by local
government, the NHS and other people and organisations leading the
national health protection service, and preparing for public health
emergencies, sharing our information and expertise with local authorities,
industry and the NHS, to help them make improvements in the public’s
health and researching, collecting and analysing data to improve our
understanding of health and provide answers to public health problems.

I believe this is not a true statement, I see no evidence for it. There is in fact evidence to the contrary that PHE is not serving the public interest.

In 2000, Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency, headed the government's inquiry into the safety of mobile phone masts and health. He felt the scientific research was sufficient to apply a precautionary approach when siting masts near schools.
Show me how did PHE take this advice seriously in alignment with your above statement?

The following is taken from the following website and explains that UK government are aware of the risks and are not taking the advice of its own true advisors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/pa...
Wi-Fi: A warning signal
Wi Fi systems are now in 70 per cent of secondary schools
Britain is in the grip of a Wi-Fi revolution with offices, homes and classrooms going wireless - but there is concern the technology could carry health risks.
The Government insists Wi-Fi is safe, but a Panorama investigation shows that radio frequency radiation levels in some schools are up to three times the level found in the main beam of intensity from mobile phone masts.

There have been no studies on the health effects of Wi-Fi equipment, but thousands on mobile phones and masts.

The radiation Wi-Fi emits is similar to that from mobile phone masts. It is an unavoidable by-product of going wireless.

In the last 18 months another two million of us in the UK have begun using Wi-Fi.

Entire cities have become what are known as wireless hotspots.

Precautionary approach

In 2000, Sir William Stewart, now chairman of the Health Protection Agency, headed the government's inquiry into the safety of mobile phone masts and health. He felt the scientific research was sufficient to apply a precautionary approach when siting masts near schools.

I am asking schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing Wi-Fi networks now and this will make them think twice or three times before they do it
Philip Parkin, Professional Association of Teachers

During that same year, the government sold off the 3G licences for £22.5bn.
Sir William recalls: "We recommended, because we were sensitive about children... that masts should not necessarily impact directly on areas where children were exposed, like playgrounds and that."

But what about Wi-Fi? The technology is similar to mobile phone masts and in use in 70 per cent of secondary schools and 50 per cent of primary schools.

Panorama visited a school in Norwich, with more than 1,000 pupils, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast with that of Wi-Fi in the classroom.

Readings taken for the programme showed the height of signal strength to be three times higher in the school classroom using Wi-Fi than the main beam of radiation intensity from a mobile phone mast.

The findings are particularly significant because children's skulls are thinner and still forming and tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults.

Safety limits

The readings were well beneath the government's safety limits - as much as 600 times below - but some scientists suspect the whole basis of our safety limits may be wrong.

Panorama spoke to a number of scientists who questioned the safety limits and were concerned about the possible health effects of such radiation.

"If you look in the literature, you have a large number of various effects like chromosome damage, you have impact on the concentration capacity and decrease in short term memory, increases in the number of cancer incidences," said Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

Another scientist, Dr Gerd Oberfeld, from Salzburg is now calling for Wi-Fi to be removed from schools.

He said: "If you go into the data you can see a very very clear picture - it is like a puzzle and everything fits together from DNA break ups to the animal studies and up to the epidemiological evidence; that shows for example increased symptoms as well as increased cancer rates."

The clear advice from Sir William Stewart to the government on mobile phone masts was that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it.

Norwich
Norwich city centre is blanketed with a Wi-Fi hotspot
Yet the levels tested in the classroom from Wi-Fi were much higher - three times the highest level of the mast.
Panorama contacted 50 schools at random - and found only one had been warned of possible health effects.

Philip Parkin, general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers said: "I think schools and parents will be very worried about it...

"I am asking schools to consider very seriously whether they should be installing Wi-Fi networks now and this will make them think twice or three times before they do it.

"I think the precautionary approach doesn't seem to have worked because it is being rolled out so rapidly...

"It's a bit like King Canute. We can't stop the tide and I am afraid if schools are told that there is a serious health implication for having these networks in schools, it is going to be a very serious matter to say to schools, you have to switch them off."

Low power

At Washington state university, Professor Henry Lai, a biologist respected by both sides of the argument says he has found health effects at similar levels of radiation to Wi-Fi.

He estimates that of the two to three thousand studies carried out over the last 30 years, there is a 50-50 split - half finding an effect with the other half finding no effect at all.

But the Health Protection Agency has said Wi-Fi devices are of very low power - much lower than mobile phones.

The Government says there is no risk and is backed up by the World Health Organisation which is robust in its language saying there are "no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure".

The scientist responsible for WHO's position is Dr Mike Repacholi, who headed up the health organisation's research programme into radiofrequency radiation.
He was also the founder of the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

He said the statement of "no adverse health effects" was based on the weight of evidence.

In order for a health effect to be established, it must mean it has been repeated in a number of laboratories using very good study techniques. The findings of any published studies had been put in the mix before reaching a conclusion, he said.

"It is called a weight of evidence approach - and if that weight of evidence is not for there being an effect or not being an effect that is the only way you can tell whether there really is an adverse health effect," he said.

IS PHE IGNORING 50% OF THE SCIENCE AND PURPOSEFULLY NOT ADHERING TO THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH AGAINST THE ADVICE OF ITS OWN ADVISOR? IF SO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE SHOULD ONE WISH TO TAKE THE GOVERNMENT TO COURT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST ONE's PERSON?

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Dear FOI,

Who is funding PHE?
Are any of PHE Englands own members funded by the telecoms industry or any industry associated with the rollout of 5g?
PHE are taking advice from industry-funded WHO. WHO is therefore not a reliable source of information. also, PHE is taking advice from Mike Repacholi industry-funded ex. President-Founder of ICNIRP. ICNIRP is not independent if its members are funded by the industry.

Just months after leaving his post as the head of the EMF project at the World Health Organization (WHO), Mike Repacholi is now in business as an industry consultant. The Connecticut Light and Power Co. (CL&P), a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities, and the United Illuminating Co. (UI) have hired Repacholi to help steer the Connecticut Siting Council away from a strict EMF exposure standard.

The following taken from this website

Please read the contents of this website report: : https://microwavenews.com/CT.html
Industry Support for WHO EMF Project

Imagine, a Belgian magazine is reporting in its November/December issue that the WHO EMF project has been receiving even more industry money than has been previously disclosed. In a cover story, titled "Mobile Telephony: We're All Guinea Pigs!," David Leloup revealed that the GSM Association (GSMA) recently increased its annual payment to €150,000 ($165,000). Before 2005, the GSMA contributed €50,000 ($55,000) a year.

This is in addition to the $150,000 a year, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) gives the EMF project each year. (MMF's Mike Milligan confirmed this to Microwave News in 2003.) Previously, Motorola gave Repacholi $50,000 a year; but the company now funnels its payments through the MMF.

Leloup estimates that these two mobile phone trade associations made up more than 40% of the EMF project's 2005-2006 budget.

The total contribution from the wireless industry is no doubt higher, however. Other groups have also been sending money to Repacholi. For instance, the FGF, the German wireless industry group, has been giving the project about €15,000 ($16,500) a year, according to Gerd Friedrich, the director of the FGF.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Dear FOI,
For the public to see what you are basing your radiations upon and for public record I have copied the following from this website please go there for part 2 of this informing report.

PHE know that there is detrimental health effects with EMF and are choosing to ignore them. WHY? It is clear that PHE is not acting in the public best interest.

http://www.omega-news.info/repacholi_and...
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE
ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS

Thursday, 31 August 2000.

Note: this is an uncorrected copy of the Transcript of Dr Michael Repacholi's appearance at the Australian Senate Inquiry into cellphone and health standards.

Dr. REPACHOLI

I am here representing the International Electromagnetic Field Project of the World Health Organisation. I have made a special visit to Australia this time because Australia is a supporter of the international EMF project at WHO, and a very good supporter. I appreciate that very much. The reason I have come is to say what we are trying to do at WHO. WHO, as you know, normally deals with developing countries and diseases that occur in these countries.

However, this technology of mobile telephones has been growing so rapidly that it is now going straight into developing countries as well. They are missing the landline systems and going straight into mobile telecommunications so if there is any health problem then it is a global problem and we need to deal with it as soon as possible.

I established at WHO a program that would go through a series of logical steps to resolve this issue. The steps-and I will give a short presentation on this-are really to review the literature, identify the gaps in knowledge that we need filled so that we can make good health risk assessments, coordinate research world wide to ensure that those gaps are filled and then set up formal task forces, which WHO does for many physical, chemical and biological agents as a routine, to establish what the health effects are so that we use the normal criteria that WHO has for determining health effects of any physical, biological or chemical agent. I think that is the only reasonable way-in my view, anyway-to resolve this problem. I know that the public has tremendous concerns, and I empathise with those concerns, because the technology has been propagated into people's working and living environments without very much consultation. It is when such base stations are placed in schools, parents would ask, 'Are there any health effects?' and if we are in a period of debate about the science then that is not very reassuring for parents.

So what we have tried to do within this project is complete initial reviews, and a lot of the research that we found was necessary is taking time. It takes time to do this research; it cannot be done very quickly. And so we are in this research period that we hope will last probably about three years. Then we will be able to set up our formal health risk assessment committees and we will be publishing the results, and the project will conclude at WHO. It is a time-limited project; it is due to end in 2005. Maybe the best thing I could do is to give you my presentation.

SEN. ALLISON (CHAIR)

This is the presentation you have given us copies of?

Dr. REPACHOLI

Yes. [Overhead transparencies were then shown]

Dr. REPACHOLI

So we have at WHO the International EMF project, and it has already been going for some five years. It is a project that has a large number of international partners. All the international agencies that have any responsibility for non-ionising radiations are involved in this project, including organisations like the United Nations Environment Program; the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which is the NGO that is formally recognised by WHO to deal with non-ionising radiations; the International Labour Office to deal with worker related concerns; the International Electrotechnical Commission to provide the technological input; the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is a WHO specialised agency that just does research and evaluation of carcinogens to determine whether any physical, chemical or biological agent is carcinogenic; NATO, which obviously has a military concern about exposure to their personnel; the International Telecommunications Union; and the European Commission. We currently have over 45 countries-national representatives-involved in the project, and we have specialised collaborating centres in the United States, UK, Japan, Sweden and Germany.

This provides essentially a schematic overview of what we are trying to do within the project. International reviews are conducted. As I said, they provide health status reports-what we know from the information we have available-and also identify research that is still necessary. We are currently coordinating we estimate approximately $100 million worth of research world wide. These are research organisations that have asked WHO what research is necessary so that WHO can make better health risk assessments. In this case, the Australian government, through its electromagnetic field project, has approached WHO and identified a number of projects that are currently ongoing. We are collecting a database of information and then we will go through the review and health risk assessment processes that will finally, hopefully, lead to standards.

We are also looking at the environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields. We have already held an international conference on this and we are currently writing up a review article that will summarise all of the information. It relates primarily to major development projects that emit large amounts of electromagnetic fields into the environment. We want to know what non-human impacts occur. We have the paper written and it is currently going through a review.process. It will be published and it will be available, for example, to organisations that need to do environmental impact statements for these major development projects.

We have a large information and training program. We have facts sheets on most things in 14 different languages so that people can look at these things in their own language and get the information they need.

We also have a standards procedure that I would like to say more about today because I know that the review is primarily addressing the Australian standard and what should be done about that. This standards harmonisation project has reviewed standards world wide and is providing working groups that will develop the framework for a global standard so that, once we have the framework, the health risk assessment process can come into the global standards. We also have a risk perception communication program through which we try to better understand public concerns about the issue and how scientists, government and the public can communicate better on it. We will produce documents that provide information about that. It is a fairly comprehensive program.

I will not go through this information because you have it in your notes, but it essentially outlines what I have just explained: the series of logical steps that we are going through to try to resolve this issue in the best possible way. We have conducted our reviews and we are currently promoting research. We have research coordination committees to identify what research is ongoing and what we still need so that we can promote what is needed in order to maximise available resources.

I would like to pause briefly to indicate that there are big differences between what is considered to be a biological effect that is found through scientific study and what is considered to be a health effect. First of all, WHO has a definition of health, as you might expect. It is defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. We consider wellbeing within our program-so people who consider themselves to be under some psychosocial stress because of electromagnetic fields are considered within the program.

Biological effects that are produced in scientific studies are generally measurable responses to EMF. For example, a biological effect could be a very small rise in temperature which has no significance to the body. It could be any one of a number of things that are easily compensated for within the body. In our Canberra environment, you go out into the cold and the body compensates. The body is responding to what is effectively a hostile environment all the time.

A health effect is a biological effect that produces a consequence which is outside the body's normal range of physiological compensation and is thus detrimental to the health or wellbeing of the person. This is something that the committees within WHO look at to find out whether there is a true health effect that could be produced by this biological effect. Obviously, you can do limited experimentation on humans. Short-term effects can be determined and that is expected to be coming up under the British program following the Stewart committee inquiry.

There will be substantial funding to get volunteers within the laboratory and find out exactly what occurs with exposure to telecommunication fields. With this criteria, we work through.

People probably have difficulty in understanding that it is not any one study that can produce a definitive result-it has to be replicated independently. These are criteria that WHO uses before it can accept a result. I will mention my own study because of the concerns that that has raised. So it has to be replicated independently and has to be shown to be good science, and that is very important. There are a lot of studies in this area which are very poor science and we can identify those relatively easily.

When we look at the evidence, though, we have to look at the strength of the evidence, because you can never prove that something does not happen-you cannot prove a negative.

You cannot say that there is no health effect possible. But, by the number of studies that are produced, you can produce a weight of evidence which indicates overwhelmingly that there is no effect or that there is an effect and that is what we have to realise when we develop the database on which standards are written. The health risk assessments are set up under WHO task groups which are identified by the executive director of WHO.

Let me briefly say something about my mouse study, which has given grief around the world.

I should give a little background to this, because it is important that this study was actually an add-on study to another long-term study that was produced, or that was being funded, on the 50 Hz fields. We had a very elaborate set-up for the 50 Hz exposures. Then we were approached by Telstra, which said, 'The model looks good and we would like to find out if there are any effects to this model of mouse which could occur from telecommunications frequency fields.' I was actually given a golden opportunity. I was told, 'Go and find the most sensitive model that you can possibly get to look at the incidence of cancer from a physical agent such as this.' The ???pim1 mouse is a transgenic strain of mouse where extra cancer genes are put into the DNA to make them predisposed to the cancer that you want. Transgenic animals are becoming very popular in science because if you want, for example, to look at asthma or some other ailment, you can insert the appropriate genes into the DNA to make it predisposed to get asthma and then you can expose it to whatever other physical or chemical agent you are going to be exposing them to.

These animals are extremely sensitive. Twenty per cent of these animals in this case were going to get lymphoma, which in fact was what we found, but we also found, of course, that if you expose them to GSM signals this doubled the incidence of cancer. There have been a number of criticisms of the study, that it did not go for long enough. We only did 18 months, and the reason for doing 18 months was because we did not want to have the diseases that occur with age. In the last six months you get all sorts of age related diseases occurring, which can confuse the results, so we wanted to have a look at 18 months when they were relatively healthy, and we could just concentrate on what we wanted to do.

The subsequent studies, however, are using now the two-year period, which is a national toxicological program-type assay with a full two years to look and see what happens over that period. And people criticise the 18 months because, while the cancers were increasing, so were the number of cancers in the controls, but there was a doubling here of the incidence, and they feel that maybe the controls would have caught up with the exposed group at the end of two years. I do not believe that myself. I think a real difference had occurred, but we have just got to await the results. The problem is that we only looked at one exposure, and to give a result credibility you like to see that increasing exposure will increase the effect. The dose response is something where, when you look at toxicology, you want to see that increasing the dose of chemical, for example, increases the effect: you get higher incidences of the cancer or whatever.

My study was not able to test that because it only had one point.

Senator HARRIS

Chair, can we ask questions as we go, or would you prefer not to?

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

I would normally prefer not to, but it depends. Dr Repacholi, how much longer do you expect to be with that presentation because we are all getting a bit anxious to ask you questions.

Dr. REPACHOLI

Yes, I understand. I have only got about 11 slides or something like that.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Okay, if you can perhaps try and not repeat what is already here because we have got it in front of us and can read it.

Dr. REPACHOLI

Sure, I understand. I am trying to just use this as a memory jolt. The study that is being held in Adelaide now is under a standard procedure that has been used for testing carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It is using the US national toxicology program-type protocols. So there are other difficulties. Obviously, it is a difficulty extrapolating mice to humans because of the different RF absorptions, and humans do not have these genetic changes.

The mechanisms to account for this are very difficult because I have no idea what has produced this effect, and we spent a long time looking at this before we finally finished our publication because we thought we had done something terribly wrong because it seemed that the result was quite dramatic. We knew that we had not overheated the animals, but we did not know what else could have occurred, so that delayed the study-plus a few journals felt that it was too hot to handle so we got a few rejections on the publication.

I will just mention, as you probably know, that under the EMF projects at WHO IARC is going to conduct a huge mobile telephone study that will be done in probably 14, maybe more, countries where there will be 3,000 cases of brain tumour compared with 3,000 controls. This will be a huge, very sensitive study, and there is an Australian component of the study funded by the Australian government. The beauty of this study is that they are all working under the same protocol so we can pool the results and come up with a very sensitive result.

Uncertainty is something that the public and many others are unable to deal with very well. I do not want to labour this, but uncertainty exists. You will notice in the papers that I gave to the committee there is a publication from WHO, a backgrounded document, plus an article that we sent to Science about the precautionary principle. These things are looking at uncertainty and how it can be dealt with.

Normally, uncertainty is dealt with in a science based way by using safety factors that incorporate reductions in the exposure levels to account for the uncertainties and unforeseens.

We know that we have some uncertainty still. There are some results in the EMF area that we want to follow up, but we do know that if there is an effect it is going to be quite a subtle effect.

There are 5,000 to 6,000 publications now in this area that relate to EMF, and especially mobile telecommunications.

We have embarked on a standards harmonisation project. WHO does not develop standards, but it goes through its NGO, which is ICNIRP in this project. We have got the major standard setting countries in every country in the world involved in this project for standards harmonisation. The benefits are obvious. It increases public confidence. It reduces debate and fears. People are protected to the same high level and obviously with our globalisation of trade we would expect that there would be benefits to health care by having standards.

As for precaution, we know and understand that there is a growing movement to adopt precautionary approaches to manage health risks with scientific uncertainty. I have recently spent about an hour with the minister of health in Belgium. She was asking what she could do about precautionary measures. I will indicate what was the outcome from that.

WHO does not normally advise national authorities to set policies to go beyond established knowledge. We set health risk assessments based on the knowledge that we know. However, there was a ministerial conference in London recently and we were asked to look at the need to rigorously apply the precautionary principle in assessing risks and to adopt more preventive, proactive approaches to hazards. WHO has not caught up with that. The EMF project is certainly right in the middle of this and we feel that we want to provide some leadership in WHO for this.

The European Commission has provided a document on this, but I will not go into it. It has certain criteria for using the precautionary principle. If you use those criteria, the precautionary principle as it is should not be applied to EMF; but it does not mean to say that you cannot have precautionary measures, it is just that you cannot invoke an established principle like the precautionary principle.

What are the recommendations to member states? There is the need to address the health issue, which should be done through mandatory, science based standards. There is a need to address public concerns. We suggest that this should be through a separate policy of voluntary precautionary measures. Unfortunately, a few countries are now introducing additional ad hoc safety factors into the science based standards as a precautionary measure. This undermines hundreds of millions of dollars worth of science that went into developing the standards, for no apparent benefit to health.

These voluntary measures can be through increased research, encouragement of manufacturers to keep exposures to minimum needed for the technology, better risk communication, targeting audiences with honest and accurate information, public involvement in decision making, and the sighting of facilities to minimise public exposure and concerns.

People would generally be happy with those sorts of measures because it has their involvement and they do not feel taken out of the equation.

I have just summarised our most recent fact sheet into which I will not go. I will just say a couple of things that need to be said. There have been a number of reviews and none have indicated that there are health consequences from exposure to either the mobile phones or their base stations. There are gaps in knowledge where we are conducting research, and this research is going through. We recommend that governments have a role to play in setting health based standards and introducing additional precautionary measures, as they feel fit.

Individuals can be encouraged to take their own precautions if they have concerns about children. There was a lot of press following the Stewart inquiry about children being more sensitive. If people feel that this is the case-and there is no evidence for that, but it is a possibility-then hands-free kits or limiting times of calls are good ways to reduce exposures.

The one message I would really like to convey though is that motorists should be strongly discouraged from using mobile phones while driving. There is no doubt that-

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

They get brain tumours, do they?

Dr. REPACHOLI

No, they are wobbling all over the road. Maybe I can leave it there. Thanks very much.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Can I kick off by referring to the comment you made a moment ago that the standards that you are promoting for harmonisation are based on science. What precisely was the science that set those standards up in the first place? Can you give the committee examples of the sorts of studies that led to those standards?

Dr. REPACHOLI

There were studies that were done on primates. These tend to be very expensive studies, but primates have, essentially, very similar characteristics to humans. It is as far as you can go without actually exposing humans to radiofrequency fields. The basis of modern standards now are the studies that were done on-

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Can you give us a reference for those studies? Were they based on heat generated from-

Dr. REPACHOLI

Yes, there is no doubt they are heat based standards.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Who conducted the studies?

Dr. REPACHOLI

There were a number of studies done, predominantly in the United States.

There is John D'Andrea.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

In what year were they done?

Dr. REPACHOLI

They were done some time ago.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Can you be precise?

Dr. REPACHOLI

These were behavioural studies where they found that the primates had a change in behaviour or they were unable to do tasks as well as they should have.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

So were they in the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s?

Dr. REPACHOLI

No, most of those studies were done in the late 1970s and 1980s. There have been follow-up studies done, as you probably know, by Henry Lai. He is finding behavioural changes at levels which are at the lower end of what has been found before. The studies are essentially based on changes in behaviour or tasks in mazes where, for example, animals are put into a radial arm maze and food pellets are put at the end of each. Then you can train them to go around and pick up all the pellets quickly. In time they become very accurate or the timing can be done fairly precisely. Then you expose them and find out if they do it in the same time. They can forget that they have already been down a maze and they will go down that maze twice and so take a longer time to find the food pellets.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

So that behavioural study in the 1970s determined the current proposal in terms of exposure. Why did it take so long? Why didn't Australia adopt that back in the 1970s if that was so pivotal to setting standards?

Dr. REPACHOLI

They did not think of standards. Most countries did not think of standards. It was mostly the Soviet Union and the US that dealt with standards. Most European countries, until recently, did not look at standards for this area. The standards were introduced primarily because of the introduction of radar. In fact, as the stories of-

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Dr Repacholi, what I am trying to get at is this: what we understand to be the case is that Australian standards are likely to be relaxed, and they are to be relaxed in line with your recommendations for harmonisation. What I think the committee needs to understand is why it is that Australian standards should be relaxed to this harmonisation level. Another aspect of this is why the World Health Organisation should play a role. I am sure we can understand why the industry would want harmonisation, but why should that be of concern to the World Health Organisation?

Dr. REPACHOLI

There are two questions there. I was involved in the early attempts to develop an Australian standard. The standard was developed primarily on the international standard at the time and follows the international standard except in one region, called the microwave region. There was so much discontent about this that the level ended up being a negotiated level. It was not based on the science. Everything was based on the science up to that point, but the last part was not based on the science-it was negotiated between the unions and the government at the time.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Is the new standard based on science?

Dr. REPACHOLI

Australia does not have a standard at the moment.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

The proposed new standard which would harmonise us with the United States and other countries.

Dr. REPACHOLI

Yes, because the shape of the standard relates to the absorption of energy.

You assume that a certain amount of energy is absorbed and will produce an effect.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

But what is the science that tells you what the effect is at that point? What I am trying to get at is: what informs the current proposal in terms of the science, precisely?

Dr. REPACHOLI

The studies that have been done have indicated that an SAR of four watt per kilogram

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Which studies are these?

Dr. REPACHOLI

These are all the animal studies, the ones that wer??

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

From the seventies?

Dr. REPACHOLI

The seventies and eighties, yes. These are the early studies on primates. It was indicated that four watt per kilogram seemed to be a threshold, above which there were changes in behaviour.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Unusual behaviour?

Dr. REPACHOLI

Yes. Below that, there did not seem to be any, unless the environmental temperatures were high and then that four watt per kilogram came down to one watt per kilogram.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Given the sort of research work that has happened since the seventies, that seems to me to be rather imprecise and not terribly scientific, especially in terms of biological responses. It does not sound very sophisticated.

Dr. REPACHOLI

The problem is that behavioural changes are quite variable between peopl?3/4different people behave differently. It can be partly that. It is also the imprecision of the studies and imprecision in the dosimetry-knowing that you have, in fact, given four watt per kilogram to the animal and not 3.8 or whatever. There is a certain amount of imprecision there. This is why safety factors are incorporated: because of that imprecision and the variabilities that occur. Essentially, that threshold was noted some time ago. There was a factor of 10 reduction in the SAR to produce the occupational level and a factor of 50 reduction for general public levels. When you have a constant SAR over the spectrum, that dictates the shape of the curve. In other words, if you are going to get a constant 0.4 or 0.08 watt per kilogram, then you need to be exposed to certain levels before you get that absorption. That is what dictates the shape of the international curv?3/4it is just the absorption. But what happened was that this part of the curve was just straightened out and it did not follow the science because, in fact, to produce this level, you need even lower absorption and you do not get the standard 0.08 watt per kilogram at that point.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

All of this is based on animal studies, behavioural studies with primates?

Dr. REPACHOLI

Yes, but you can extrapolate absorption of energy to humans because there has been a lot of work done on the dosimetry of mice, rats, guinea pigs, humans and monkeys.

You can use that data to extrapolate what the absorption would be in animals from the monkey studies.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

It would be useful for the committee to have the progress, if you like, of what you are talking about with the SAR and so on that actually leads you to the view that this is the right standard as opposed to some other standard. Given that Australia is facing a relaxation in its standards, this is a critical question.

Dr. REPACHOLI

It is not actually a relaxation, it is just a correction back to the science.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Nonetheless, it is a relaxat ion, is it not?

Dr. REPACHOLI

There is a confusion in the Australian standard at the moment. It says that the standard is 0.08, but in fact it is not. The limits that came out were not 0.08. Down here it is about 0.01. If you stick to the basic standard it will not be a relaxation. If you stick to the limits that were identified to get that, then yes, it will seem like a relaxation.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Can I ask you about the production of the fact sheets? What you have said to us tonight is that there remains quite a lot of uncertainty. Certainly you have identified a lot of work that still needs to be done in terms of the research. Don't you think it is a little premature to be producing fact sheets for people? The suggestion here is that part of the problem for the World Health Organisation is uncertainty. Is that a reasonable position to take?

Dr. REPACHOLI

We do not think there is a big uncertainty. We have a very large volume of literature and we can say something from that literature. There are thousands of studies, and these are what are reviewed. We have to be able to say something. We cannot wait until the end and think, 'Okay, now our database is full', and then make some recommendations. So these are interim recommendations as we go along. They are produced by an international advisory committee which is composed of all the international organisations that I mentioned at the start of the presentation, plus the 45 national representatives that come along, and they review all of these studies. What we did was do our international review first and then collect all the information that we could, and then that goes through a review process through the international advisory committee. The latest fact sheet actually went to our director-general. She is personally interested in the EMF and so she signed it off-begrudgingly in some points, but she feels the process has been followed and this is what the international consensus is and so that is what WHO produces. But she is somewhat worried about EMF as well.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Can I just ask you about your own study on mice? This is to be replicated, and thank you for explaining some of the method changes. Will you at any point in time be able to precisely replicate the previous study? That is, if you go from 18 months to two years, will you stop at the 18-month point and see whether in every respect the methodology is the same so that it can be a true replication?

Dr. REPACHOLI

I guess in those studies a true replication, and in this case they are using better dosimetry. We have mice, for example, just able to run around in the cages, which is what people normally do, which meant that the variation in the amount of the radio frequency field they absorbed varied quite a lot from 0.01 to four watts per kilogram in this case, which is not very helpful for development of standards. So the new studies are going to be putting the mice into tubes, holding them during the exposure, they have got a fixed orientation to the field, and then the RF absorption is well-known and precise. That is one change. They are also going to do the dose response by exposing the mice to different levels of RF-although we did, I think, incredibly good pathology because we had it checked at three levels, including going to the US National Cancer Institute and having them check our pathology.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Can I interrupt there? Isn't the point of replication to use precisely the same methodology? Isn't that the problem with so much research, that it is not replicated and you need to do that replication in order to verify whether your first results have any validity or not? How can you change the methodology and still call it replication?

Dr. REPACHOLI

We tend to call it confirmation of a result. The reason is that in initial studies they may have done something that is not particularly helpful or there is a better way of doing it. If the result is a true result it should still occur in the animal. There is no reason to expect that you are still exposing the animal to radiofrequency fields using the same pulsing regimes, maybe different times, different orientations, but if there is going to be an effect it should still occur. We were very careful in reviewing the follow-up study in Adelaide, and there is another study being done in Europe, to make sure that, yes, what was done in the original study is going to either be confirmed or not confirmed in these studies. I feel confident in that; and I want that myself because it is my result and I want to make sure that they do it right. If there is any deviation from that, then it is going to be criticised, so they are going to waste millions of dollars and then end up being criticised for something that they should have done.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

What is the cost of that study?

Dr. REPACHOLI

The one in Adelaide is just over a million Australian dollars. The one in Europe is about-

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

That million dollars comes from this government's $4.5 million?

Dr. REPACHOLI

Yes.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

What stage is it at at present?

Dr. REPACHOLI

They are probably two-thirds of the way through the exposures now.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

What time period is that?

Dr. REPACHOLI

They should be finished the study at the end of next year.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

So you are already at the 18-month point?

Dr. REPACHOLI

Not quite-they are about 15 months through at the moment.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Are there any preliminary observations?

Dr. REPACHOLI

It is a blinded study, so the people doing the study do not know which group are exposed and which are not exposed. Only an independent person is able to say, at the end when all the statistical analyses are done, that this one was exposed and this one was not, because you have got to take out biases. I know people criticise scientists for not coming up with preliminary results, but, in many cases, preliminary results have come out and they have said, 'Wow, we have found a big effect,' and then at the end of the study there was no effect, it all washed out. So scientists generally want to have their results peer reviewed and published.ECITA 12 SENATE-References before they announce them. That is quite standard in science. It is only in EMF that this has tended to sway away from the norm. It has been unfortunate, because a lot of people have come out with these preliminary results, there has been a lot of media and a lot of concern, and then there was nothing at the end.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Telstra funded the last study. Do they also have any money in this project, or not?

Dr. REPACHOLI

Probably the Australian government leaned on them to put some money into it, but it all came from the government.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

What is the total value of the study?

Dr. REPACHOLI

I honestly do not know what the Australian government did, but I think they did want a contribution from industry as well. I am not privy to that information.

Sen. MARK BISHOP

Could you track back to the earlier discussion you were having with Senator Allison about the establishment of the Australian standard and could you put on the record for us how it was established, what it sought to achieve, your criticism of it and your view on the adequacy or otherwise of the current interim standard? I was intrigued by that discussion.

Dr. REPACHOLI

The original standard came out in the 1980s, when I was not back in Australia-I was in Canada at the time. Then I was asked to chair an Australian standards committee on radiofrequency field under WorkSafe. We used this as a basis, and this was where I found out what the history of that standard was. I tried at that stage to bring it back to a more solid, scientific basis, but was unsuccessful. Then there was the Standards Australia effort where we joined with New Zealand to try to develop a joint standard.

Sen. MARK BISHOP

Why do you assert that the original standard set was-and is- deficient in some respect?

Dr. REPACHOLI

It is not deficient from my viewpoint, but it does not follow the science. It partly follows the science in the absorption curve. As you increase the frequency, the absorption changes and, at this point, it departs from the normal absorption curve, which is well known and well established in science. The shape of the standard should follow the normal absorption curve for human beings. The negotiated point is the only point of departure from the science.

Sen. MARK BISHOP

What in your view are the consequences or effects of departing from what science suggests the standard should be?

Dr. REPACHOLI

There is no effect on health. It is just that, from my viewpoint, I would like to see something that is science based and take away the subjectivity or the various opinions of people. Healt h is not negotiable; it should be based on something that is substantiated so that you know what level of protection you are providing to people. That is one of my criticisms of increasing safety factors, for example. In this case, safety factors are incorporated maybe for base stations but not for mobile phones that cause a thousand times more exposure. If you are protecting against health effects, why would you address just one source of exposure and not airport radars or radio and television transmitters? As a person working in a technical health agency, I want to protect people's health against a physical agent. I am not protecting them against a base station; I am protecting them against radiofrequency fields. I encourage people to adopt a standard that looks at the protection of health.

Sen. MARK BISHOP

Is the current Australian interim standard linked to the science? Has the debate you are speaking about been resolved?

Dr. REPACHOLI

No. The Standards Association does not have a standard now, so there is no interim standard. I understand that the regulatory authority for mobile telecommunications is using the ICNERP standard as an interim standard because there is no Australian standard and they must have something to go on in the meantime.

Sen. MARK BISHOP

What is the ICNERP standard?

Dr. REPACHOLI

It is the international standard, which is science based. They use WHO's health risk assessments to derive the standard. Let me give some examples. It is a complex issue. For example, the Russians have standards that are about a thousand times below international standards. We are encouraging them to look at the whole of the literature, not just the Russian literature, in developing their standards. I was in Moscow recently and I asked whether these standards were being complied with. They said they were. But the question then is: how come anyone is using a mobile phone, because if you use a mobile phone you exceed the Russian standard by about 100 times.

Sen. ALLISON (Chair)

Is that not the case in Australia too? Do we test the mobile phones that are used here?

Dr. REPACHOLI

I have had assurances that they comply, but I would like to see testing of mobile phones. If you have a standard, you should determine compliance with it. I do not trust the manufacturers to say, 'Yes, we're doing it.' The problem at the moment is that there is no standard protocol for measuremen?3/4you know, what size phantom and what the characteristics are of the measurement that you should take to determine compliance with this. That standard will be out at the end of this year. So there will be a standardised procedure and manufacturers should be made to show exactly what SAR they have for that phone under this standard procedure; that is not unreasonable. They should be made to comply with the standards.

I was also going to give an example here. A lot of the eastern European standards tended to be paper tigers in that they came out with a standard which, for the public, sounded very protective. But, in fact, they could not operate any technology with the standards that they had because, if they did any measurements, they would find that the standards were exceeded. So are you protecting health or are you using it as a political statement? I am sorry, I do not like political statements, but I like health statements. I like people to be protected to a known level, so that if you are going to increase the level of protection, which from WHO's view point is absolutely okay, why wouldn't you, if you have a chemical, say, 'This dose is okay but, if countries lower the dose, it will be more protective'? You know that chemicals may not have a cut-off. It is like ionising radiation. Any dose of ionising radiation is going to cause some harm, so what you have to do is minimise the harm and maximise the benefits. It is a trade-off. In this case, though, we have a threshold below which we do not find any effects but above which we do, and we want to make sure that we eliminate those effects. This is the basis for a health base standar?3/4to get well down, 50 times below the level at which health effects are starting to be seen. Most technologies are actually 1,000 or 10,000 times below. I mean, the base stations are some 10,000 times below the international standards, and still they get singled out. I know there is pressure by people, but the pressure is really because the base stations are ugly-looking things. They are in people's living environments-probably by schools-and people do not want anything happening to their children, which is absolutely right, so they pick on a technology. They do not worry about the paging transmitters, because the paging transmitters are much smaller, but they emit much higher levels than base stations. I just want to make sure that we protect health, and that is my primary concern in trying to follow the science. I think science does a good job, by and large, when it is given a chance.

CONTINUED:

[PART 2] [REPACHOLI RESUME] [MAIN PAGE-PL] [JUNK SCIENCE]

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

FOI, Public Health England

OFFICIAL
Dear Emma 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.

Kind Regards,

FOI Team
Public Accountability Unit
Public Health England
[Public Health England request email]
www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Phe.Complaints, Public Health England

2 Atodiad

OFFICIAL

 

Dear Emma Gomez

 

Thank you for your further email of 6 February to the Public Health
England (PHE) Complaints Team.  The reference for your complaint is
COM/20/022.

 

PHE will look into the concerns you have raised.  We aim to provide a
response as soon as possible and certainly within 4 weeks.

 

If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your complaint, you will be
given referral rights and contact details for the Parliamentary Health
Service Ombudsman.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Ellie

Complaints - Public Health England

[1]www.gov.uk.phe  Follow us on Twitter
[2]cid:image001.png@01D47065.E888E340 [3]@PHE_uk   

 

Protecting and improving the nation’s health

 

[4]cid:image002.png@01D47065.E888E340

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Public Health England

1 Atodiad

Dear Emma Gomez,

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

Kind regards,

FOI Team
Public Accountability Unit
Public Health England
[Public Health England request email]
www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

The NTP study found "clear evidence of cancer" in rats exposed to two years of wireless cell phone radiofrequency radiation. IT IS CLEAR THAT HARM IS BEING INFLICTED ON THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. Therefore Why do you not follow the precautionary principle or prevent further harm being caused to the population of the united kingdom?
Childhood cancer is seriously increasing enough to do whatever it takes to prevent it.
SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT IT? IT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY TO IGNORE THESE STUDIES I FIND ALL OF YOU WHO WORK WITHIN PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND TO BE IN BREACH OF THE NUREMBERG CODE.
Peer-reviewed studies have been done showing there is good cause to adopt the precautionary and preventative approach so why are PHE ignoring these studies and blindly following the outdated guidelines of ICNIRP.
Dr. Annie Sasco: National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone Radiation
PLEASE READ HER PAPERS AND PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO OF HER SPEAKING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N4cTm72...

Yours sincerely,

Emma Gomez

Phe.Complaints, Public Health England

2 Atodiad

OFFICIAL

 

Dear Emma Gomez

 

Re: Complaint COM/20/022 linked to EIR/FOI Requests – 054, 055, 188, 249,
703, 731, 823, 877, 1094, 1096, 1183, 1184 and 1243

 

I write with reference to your recent correspondence with the Complaints
team at Public Health England (PHE) dated 6 February and for your emails
to the Freedom of Information (FOI) team regarding your ongoing concerns
about the safety of 5G for those with electromagnetic fields (EMF)
sensitivity, the most recent dated 5 March. Your recent request for
information has been handled under the Environmental Information
Regulations (EIR).

 

I have now had the opportunity to review your complaint and your FOI and
EIR requests and set out our position below.

 

EIR request 731 received 18 October 2019 and closed 15 November 2019

 

As advised on our previous message below, PHE has supplied the information
it holds in relation to the safety of EMFs in accordance with Section 16
of the FOI Act – Duty to provide advice and assistance to individuals
making requests for information. The studies and research papers
referenced in the previously attached PHE guidance represent the
collective judgement of the Expert Groups of the totality of the current
evidence surrounding EMFs. PHE recognises the concerns surrounding the
potential health effects of 5G and remains committed to monitoring the
evidence applicable to this and other radio technologies. Our experts
continue to review our advice on an ongoing basis. All precautions in
place for monitoring 4G technologies are applicable for safeguarding
against potential 5G technology risks.

 

From your line of questioning it is evident that you dispute PHE’s
position and the evidence on which this is based. You are entitled to your
view but it is not productive to continue to engage in communication
concerning information on which you dispute its efficacy.  We have fully
complied with our obligations to supply you with information that falls
within the scope of your requests.

 

 

EIR requests 1183 and 1184

 

We will respond to the above further requests from you.  However, Section
14 of the FOI act and regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR allow public authorities
to classify requests as vexatious and/or repeated. In such circumstances a
public authority is not obliged to comply with the request. 

 

PHE has received a high volume of correspondence from you on the same
matter.

 

Please refer to the table below summarising the EIR/FOI requests received
from you from 1 April 2019 – 5 March 2020:

 

Case ref # Date received Date closed Requester Summary
10/04/ab/54 10 Apr 2019 10 May 2019 Emma Gomez EIR Request
10/04/ab/55 10 Apr 2019 10 May 2019 Emma Gomez EIR Request
22/05/ab/188 22 May 2019 17 Jun 2019 Emma Gomez EIR Request
07/06/fb/249 7 Jun 2019 3 Jul 2019 Emma Gomez EIR Request
12/10/fb/703 12 Oct 2019 8 Nov 2019 Emma Gomez EIR Request
18/10/fb/731 18 Oct 2019 15 Nov 2019 Emma Gomez EIR Request
09/11/fb/823 9 Nov 2019 6 Dec 2019 Emma Gomez EIR Request
01/11/fb/877 1 Nov 2019 22 Nov 2019 Emma Gomez FOI Request
07/02/rp/1094 7 Feb 2020 5 Mar 2020 Emma Gomez FOI Request
07/02/rp/1096 7 Feb 2020 6 Mar 2020 Emma Gomez FOI / EIR Request
21/02/ds/1183 21 Feb 2020 To be sent Emma Gomez EIR Request
22/02/ds/1184 22 Feb 2020 To be sent Emma Gomez EIR Request
05/03/rp/1243 5 Mar 2020 6 Mar 2020 Emma Gomez EIR Request

 

Having carefully reviewed the correspondence records we have determined
that this volume of correspondence has exceeded the acceptable threshold
as set out by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Factors we have
taken into consideration in reaching this decision include:

 

•           submission of new requests before we have had the opportunity
to address your earlier enquiries;

•           submission of repeated identical questions on the same matter;

•           submission of further clarifications following receipt of each
response;

•           Lack of engagement with PHE’s requirements for processing
correspondence.

 

All of the above have caused a disproportionate or unjustified level of
disruption to the teams involved in important public health work.
Addressing repeated correspondence on this matter places an unnecessary
burden on already stretched resources and deviates from PHE’s ability to
provide a correspondence service.

 

PHE has decided to refuse further FOI requests from you under section 14
of the Act and any further EIR requests under regulation 12(4)(b) as
‘manifestly unreasonable’  for the reasons set out within this response. 

 

PHE considers that it would be manifestly unreasonable (within the meaning
of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR). This exception is contingent on PHE’s
assessment of the public interest factors. We have set these out within
this letter.

 

Factors supporting release include:

 

•           the public interest in transparency and PHE’s commitment to be
open and transparent;

•           disclosing information to present a full picture to enable
wider public scrutiny;

•           participation in public decision making through wider
consultation.

 

Factors supporting non-disclosure:

 

•           are too burdensome to deal with;

•           disrupt a public authority’s ability to perform its core
functions;

•           aimed at disrupting the public authority’s performance.

 

On balance therefore, it is our view that the public interest in
maintaining the exception in regulation 12(4)(b) outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.

 

Moreover, we must bring this correspondence to an end as it is not a good
use of public funded resources to continue to address your continued
correspondence on this matter.

 

While we will respond to your most recent EIR requests 1183 and 1184,
thereafter we will not address further FOI or EIR requests from you
although PHE shall meet its statutory access obligations in addressing
reasonable requests on other matters. PHE will review its decision to not
respond to further correspondence on the same matter in 6 months’ time.

 

Complaints referral

 

Your concerns have now been fully investigated and we are not able to
provide the redress you request.   Should you remain dissatisfied, you may
refer your complaint to your MP for escalation to the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman to review the case. You can contact the Ombudsman
through her website at www.ombudsman.org.uk or by writing to the following
address:

 

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

Millbank Tower

 

Millbank

 

London SW1P 4QP

 

This now completes our internal reviews of your requests.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Ellie

Enquiries - Public Health England

[1]www.gov.uk.phe  Follow us on Twitter
[2]cid:image001.png@01D47065.E888E340 [3]@PHE_uk   

 

Protecting and improving the nation’s health

 

[4]cid:image002.png@01D47065.E888E340

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Yasmin Gibbs anodiad ()

Thank you Emma Gomez for such a thorough inquiry into a topic that so many of us are extremely concerned about.
FOI: Why have you not shared information regarding the original request re WHERE WILL THERE BE NO 5G?

Gadawodd Bartholomeus Lakeman (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Reading PHE Audit on itself, it appears that PHE does have strong links with the telecoms industry:
PHE Chair Advisory Board Prof- Julia Goodfellow her husband Peter Goodfellow is an advisory Board member to the Gates Foundation.
After infectious diseases and NHS; PHE’s top spending is on its digital expertise and capability. PHE service mission is particularly focused on “Using ICT and digital products better”: The NHS Health Check digital project: For every health project PHE facilitates the use of a mobile App.

PHE is in charge of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to deliver future health protection, and through PHE’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE): They are meant to research existing and emerging environmental hazards and environmental effects, and provide advice and new evidence to all levels of Government. Yet despite that EMF/EMR/5G is for many people and the nature a major health threat, in its 168-page Audit; nothing is mentioned about EMF/EMR/5G

PHE’s main funding is from Vaccines and counter-measures (£424.6m) Porton Biopharma Ltd is on the premises of Porton Down a biosecurity laboratory for the military; who are focussed on surveillance and so in 5G.
From this Audit; one can derive that PHE has an invested interest in the increment use of EMF and 5G, and that they exclude research articles which hinders this interest.