Open Letter To UK Parliament On The Insane Law Changes For 5G Rollout

Published on March 17, 2022

Written by Sean Carney

Campaigner for 5G safety transparency and truth, Sean Carney, has issued a timely warning of the risks posed by the UK Government’s ill-considered plans to alter the law to push through untested, unsafe 5G mass rollout. Principia Scientific International shares Sean’s open letter in full below.

Dear Lords, Ladies, and Members of Parliament,

A new study has been published that adds to the wealth of science indicating the serious potential health effects of 5G. This is a significant event considering 5G has never been proven safe. It is the first study to demonstrate 5G causes harm specifically. However, existing scientific evidence has long indicated 5G could cause harm.

It still stands that proof exists of 5G’s potential to harm and there is no proof of its safety. Deeply flawed guidelines followed by the government might suggest otherwise. This letter will explain why government must invoke the precautionary principle and place a moratorium on 5G.

The flawed exposure guidelines that Public Health England derives from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, focus on thermal effects only. These guidelines are unfortunately being followed to the letter by Public Health England (PHE) which advises the UK government about 5G. Fundamental problems regarding these guidelines need to be urgently addressed.

Public Health England is now the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), but for the purposes of this letter I refer to PHE (Public Health England). UKHSA are consistent in following the same guidelines, so the urgent issues have not changed.

This matter is urgent because the government is poised to change planning laws based on acceptance of the ICNIRP’s flawed guidelines, which are also WHO’s flawed guidelines and those followed largely by the European Parliament and European Commission.

These law changes will favour the telecoms industry allowing them to prevent the public to challenge proposed infrastructure changes. Problematically the comprehensive science pointing to harm is being side-lined because of the politicised subject of 5G and the inherent scientific inadequacies within the ICNIRP’s guidelines. It is deeply concerning as the government that adheres to these guidelines prepares to roll out of 5G believing it safe (when that hasn’t been proven)

Please give this matter urgent attention because public health is at risk, and people are also being discriminated against in public consultations which goes against any concept of diversity and this also has an impact on public health, and as I’ll show is related to ICNIRP influencing health policy. I make all the relevant documents available through links for your attention.

The aforementioned study on the health effects of 5G is a Swedish scientific study by Lennart Hardell and Mona Nilsson, published by the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation on 22 February 2022. It shows the “health consequences for a man and a woman who received a 5G base station directly above the apartment, only 5 meters above the bedroom.”

The findings of that study with regards the health implications make for urgent reading and can be accessed here:

According to the study “In addition to showing that 5G causes the microwave syndrome fairly immediately, the case study also shows that 5G leads to a massive increase in radiation in our environment.” The Swedish version of the study can be downloaded here:

Will the government take this study seriously? With reference to existing “safety measures” existing PHE (Public Health England) guidelines are based on ICNIRP guidelines. ICNIRP’s guidelines of 1998 were updated with minor changes in 2020 to account for 5G exposures. However, they still prove an inadequate basis for rolling out the 5G technology. Their industry-friendly guidelines prove attractive to those who argue for the 5G roll out.

In his examination of ICNIRP’s 2020 guidelines (that are supposed to be up-to-date in order to protect us) physicist Dr. Leendert Vriens makes it clear “substantive scientific information cannot be found in ICNIRP 2020.” He asserts that, “In view of the great financial interests of the telecom industry and governments, it is obvious to conclude that the orders of magnitude too high ICNIRP 2020 guidelines are only intended to prevent any obstruction to the roll-out of wireless communication applications in general and of 5G in particular.”

Please see here:

Vriens’ paper points out numerous conspicuous omissions in the ICNIRP guidelines and he notes, as many scientists have that, “the harmful effects of non-thermal biological effects have not been included in the determination of the guidelines.” That is a critical omission if you are setting comprehensive and meaningful safety guidelines.

As it appears to be the case the safety guidelines from ICNIRP are withholding certain research/findings why hasn’t the roll out of 5G been halted until comprehensive safety data has been made available? The problem of ICNIRP’s inadequate guidelines impacts how the government and its agencies deal with the issue of public health, it has a knock on effect. Presently, the public are under threat because 5G appears to be being rolled out under false pretences.

In the UK Ofcom is responsible for authorising use of the radio spectrum. In the 2022 consultation document titled “Enabling spectrum sharing in the upper 6 GHz band” Ofcom wants to authorise indoor use of the upper 6GHz band. Its concerns are largely about addressing interference, ensuring cross-compatibility, and the expansion of services.

Further in the document, Ofcom, which follows PHE and therefore adheres to ICNIRP guidelines states that it believes that if the proposals are granted there are not likely to be any “relevant adverse effects”. It must mean adverse effects in line with ICNIRP’s presentation of the science, which as we have discovered, is incomplete.

We know why Ofcom would make such a statement, as it follows the inappropriate guidelines of ICNIRP. Further, Ofcom states its proposals regarding the uptake of 6GHz band are “not unduly discriminatory against particular persons…” In following ICNIRP’s guidelines Ofcom does not recognise harm from the upper 6GHz band and does not recognise a growing health issue called “Electrosensitivity (sometimes called Microwave syndrome)”.

“The ICNIRP is not allowed to admit to electrosensitivity and similar harm” states Electro-sensitivity UK in an Ofcom consultation response form titled “Proposal to apply Code powers to Digital Infrastructure”. This is true, as for some reason the condition is not widely accepted, scientifically, which is to say ICNIRP doesn’t accept it, and neither do any subscribers to ICNIRP’s guidelines, like WHO, or PHE.

It would be inconvenient to do so, as the 5G myth of safety rests on the acceptance of the technology being safe, which is not proven. Overwhelming evidence exists in favour of it being harmful. Microwave syndrome (also known as electrosensitivity and EMI – Electromagnetic illness) is the subject of the aforementioned Hardell study on 5G harm. It is becoming the condition experienced by humans through unhealthy exposures to man-made electromagnetic fields, which potentially becomes a chronic condition, or disease, as different studies show.

Electrosensitivity is a condition or “functional disability” not as yet recognised by the medical establishment in the UK, (but it is scientifically recognised in Sweden, so no-one pretends they don’t exist). This matter, however, should not detract from a wealth of evidence that shows us man-made electromagnetic fields harm our health, and that 5G hasn’t been proven safe. (I will revisit the issue of electrosensitivity in due course.)

The denial of harm and the rejection of inconvenient science that challenges the smooth roll out of 5G in the UK is rooted in the UK government’s ICNIRP adherence. ICNIRP sets guidelines that PHE and Ofcom base public consultations/advice around and this evolves into policy in line with what ICNIRP says. ICNIRP therefore has a lot of power, and dictates the fate of millions of people, because an untested, potentially very harmful technology is being irresponsibly rolled out.

The outcome of consultations airing concerns about 5G safety and the implications for health has not surprisingly been in favour of industry-friendly ICNIRP’s guidelines and science over genuine, widespread health concerns, even from a plethora of scientists, from physicists to biologists, who are essentially being censored because their work inconveniently contradicts the prevailing narrative that 5G-is-safe-because-ICNIRP-says-so.

In the same way Ofcom is censoring based on ICNIRP’s scientific prejudices, which is a worrying prospect with regards health diversity. Electrosensitivity is being excluded from consideration in all assessments of 5G safety. Using their own words I believe they are being “unduly discriminatory against other persons” (though Ofcom claims the contrary, because it doesn’t consider electrosensitivity to really exist, like ICNIRP) and echoes the ICNIRP’s stance as it endeavours deliver dangerous 5G to the consumer unimpeded.

For Ofcom, consumers are real people. Yet Ofcom are being discriminatory of persons. ICNIRP has influenced that prejudice.

Electrosensitivity UK, whose “aim is to provide unbiased and balanced information to help those who have become sensitive to mobile and cordless phones, their masts, wifi, and a multitude of common everyday electrical appliances” have come to the same conclusion. They have stated “Ofcom’s claim that “the effect of our proposal is not likely to be to the detriment of any protected group within society” is patently wrong”.

Ofcom responded “that it has no health expertise and therefore follows advice from PHE. PHE follows, and advises the UK government to follow the ICNIRP.” See the consultation response form here: See here:,other%20life%20forms%20are%20electrosensitive%20and%20some%20hypersensitive

The World Health Organisation (WHO) adheres to ICNIRP (and IEEE) exposure guidelines and recommends that consumers find ways to reduce their EMF exposures. Might they become electrosensitive people while governments continually increase them? WHO also denies electrosensitivity exists. Even when transmitter density is creating greater population exposures to higher levels of radio frequency electromagnetic fields. But ICNIRP and WHO maintain a careful bias to industry’s needs, judging by extensive conflicts of interest, which I will come to shortly.

In 2011 The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF EMF as a Group 2B carcinogen. This was based on an increased risk for glioma. That is a brain cancer and it was associated with wireless phone use. That was in 2011. It is now 2022.

The density of transmitters now extends to much publicised off-earth satellites that will beam 5G to earth, and with small cell transmitters distributed every few metres as well as more base stations for essentially blanket coverage as has been proposed, this saturation level will mean virtually inescapable, intrusive and dangerously concentrated exposures. And we must not forget, 5G has not been proven safe.

The two people in Hardell’s earlier 5G study couldn’t really “limit their exposure” when having a 5G base station above their apartment where they live. That represents a significant exposure. Inescapable bombardment of electromagnetic pollution is being created and the prospect of having a base station, or small cell transmitter outside ones residence increases by the day now, especially when the government wants to change laws to enable it to be done without delay.

At a cellular level we are all contending with a variety of man-made electromagnetic fields. 5G-beaming satellites and proposed small cell transmitters on street furniture as well as the existing base stations and proposed infrastructure that ever encroaches on human habitations, is promised by an uninhibited roll out of the technology. This represents an intensification and density of microwave pollution that is clearly a health risk and unprecedented in the history of humankind.

WHO’s health advice on microwave exposures echoes ICNIRP guidelines which do not protect the public. ICNIRP have NGO status but that doesn’t mean they offer an independent interpretation of the evidence for harm relating to published science on health and electromagnetic fields pertinent to wireless technologies. They are steering the narrative of 5G in the favour of telecoms industry interests and it is apparent health isn’t their primary concern because their science is patchy, and clearly is unacceptably biased. It puts public health at risk.

The potential for harm from microwave emissions from wireless devices and supporting infrastructure has vastly increased since the WHO’s IARC classification in 2011. Many scientists would support the revision of the IARC’s classification of Group 2B Possible Carcinogen to Carcinogen. According to Hardell, picking up on the WHO IARC classification that was made 11 years ago, “RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen”. See here:

Hardell, as many scientists has issues with ICNIRP’s guidelines. He states: “Microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization.

ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation.” And the conclusion is sounding familiar now, as he says “The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.’ And this is also the case in the UK, for the very same reasons.

In the 2018 study on microwave exposures from base stations by Hardell called “Radiofrequency radiation from nearby base stations gives high levels in an apartment in Stockholm, Sweden: A case report” the dangers of base stations on or near habitations is highlighted, particularly in the bedrooms “…used by children, since they seem to be more vulnerable to adverse health effects than grown-ups.” Please see here:

So far, the government has not invoked the precautionary principle and the science supporting that route has been rightly described as “taking a back seat to politics”. It is being suppressed by ICNIRP and telecoms interests.

One of the main reasons science is “taking a back seat to politics” is increasingly being pointed out by scientists and health organisations that see how government policy on 5G is based on PHE’s (Public Health England) adherence to ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure levels of electromagnetic fields.

ICNIRP’s reach and seamless adherence makes it seem like there is a scientific consensus in their favour, but it is more like a strategy to control the roll out of 5G with the least inconvenience. Public health doesn’t appear to be the priority.

In a document titled “Health Impact of 5G” by the European Parliament it is noted that, “The harmful effects of non-thermal biological interaction of RF-EMF with human and animal tissues have not been included in the determination of the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines (ICNIRP 2020a), despite the huge amount of available scientific publications demonstrating the harmfulness or potential harmfulness of those effects.”

This should cause alarm bells to ring for anyone considering 5G might be safe and those believing ICNIRP’s guidelines are reliable and comprehensive. Again it has clearly been pointed out there are significant omissions in ICNIRP’s guidelines and now we can take the European Parliament’s word for it. See here:

Scientists have long regarded ICNIRP guidelines as offering insufficient data. They are especially concerned because these guidelines are being used to justify the roll out of 5G while the weight of science pointing to harm from wireless technologies is being strangely ignored.

ICNIRP are noted for their unelected status, for being far from independent and are known to be firmly in favour of what industry needs. ICNIRP are not balancing the science or providing trustworthy definitions of what is safe in terms of exposures to electromagnetic fields. They provide guidelines that have been highly criticised because they do not take into account a range of important exposure factors. And by extension, these failings, like a domino effect, extend to other agencies following ICNIRP’s flawed line.

Had ICNIRP included the inconvenient exposure factors that are absent in their recommendations, such as known non-thermal health effects, the telecoms industry would have a very difficult time convincing any government about rolling out 5G. Please see:

The types of damage that are possible from 5G and other wireless emissions have been studied. But ICNIRP focuses on a narrow vector and fails to warn policy makers about some vital factors. ICNIRP says the “general public would not be suitably trained to mitigate harm” and in defining what is appropriate exposure for the public maintains “a conservative approach”, which if you examine their guidelines amounts to ICNIRP focusing specifically on thermal effects.

As scientists have noted, “Only thermal (heating) effects are acknowledged [in ICNIRP’s exposure guidelines] and therefore form the basis for the guidelines.” This is a side-effect of its imbalanced view of the available science. It thus appears to present us with skewed science and this can be seen to be putting public safety at risk.

It stands that, “ICNIRP is not representative of the scientific community since it does not include representatives from scientists that agree there is evidence of harmful effects at levels well below ICNIRPs limits although these scientists are in majority in the scientific community.”

Shouldn’t the health risks pertaining to possible harm by experimental 5G and other established wireless emissions be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest? This is clearly not the case. The UK government adheres to the ICNIRP guidelines and ploughs ahead with a roll out of 5G based on ICNIRP’s inadequate scientific conclusions that are repeated in Public Health England’s advice on 5G, radio waves and health, which is the basis for UK government policy.

It is this seamless distortion of the science that determines the possible impact on public health. This is hugely concerning. ICNIRP should not have such power over UK or global health. See PHE exposure information pertaining to 5G here: See ICNIRP’s guidelines here:

Inadequate official safety data on the range of exposures necessary to guarantee public safety issue a pervasive issue and has fuelled a recent court case in the US. This action saw the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), a deregulated government agency and arm of industry, challenged by the Children’s Health Defence. In conclusion the court stated “…the FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment…The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”

Please see: The FCC echoes the prevailing attitude of ICNIRP, because its handling of the science amounts to the same failure.

Anyone who knows about the Children’s Health Defense’s victory in addressing vital health concerns over the 5G roll out should be immensely concerned about the safety guidelines PHE is adhering to. If you compare the FCC’s guidelines with ICNIRP guidelines you will discover from both, as scientists and lawyers have brought to attention, that the margin for harming the public health is considerable. ICNIRP guidelines from 1998 – 2020 have consistently not taken into account some very significant factors.

There is major taboo in discussing the safety of 5G, and is another omission in the science data of ICNIRP. No-one knows what 5G’s millimetre waves will do. Straight away here is another reason the precautionary principle should be urgently invoked.

Millimetre waves are a characteristic of the 5G technology (but were not used in previous generations of wi-fi, like 4G), and have a conspicuous lack of scientific study that can determine their safety as pertaining to their use for consumer level wireless technologies. Their safety for such an application has not been clarified scientifically.

A large part of the problem is millimetre waves haven’t been sufficiently studied operating in conjunction with other frequencies, and 5G is incorporating millimetre waves in conjunction with other frequencies. This is a crucial omission in the push to roll out 5G because we are currently being bombarded with many different man-made wireless frequencies.

This is being called electro-smog. Millimetre waves are being shoe-horned into the frequency mix with 5G and this is one very good reason the precautionary principle is being suggested across the scientific community, and by concerned campaigners following the science and safety issues closely.

Current health assurances and scientific studies don’t indicate millimetre waves are safe of wireless technology applications as described. This is clearly an urgent issue. It is not an issue that ICNIRP guidelines address specifically, and this is another reason why the UK government is ill-advised to move forward with 5G.

Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc an Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry in Helsinki, and a member of the expert committee at World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), acknowledges that the potential health effects of the 5G technology amount to a “combination of health effects of the 3G and 4G technologies, supplemented with the health effects caused by millimetre waves exposures.”

Please see: .

This means we are exposed to many different types of wireless pollution and to this 5G will be added with millimetre waves. It means too that the public is being subject to an experimental technology, not a proven one, and this is sets a dangerous precedent for public safety policies concerning wireless emissions.

Some scientists have studied millimetre waves.The Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (2010; 31(12):1400–1411) presented a brief review entitled “Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane.” The article reviews certain dangers and exposure levels and “attempts to critically analyze the likelihood of such acute effects as burn and eye damage, as well as potential long-term effects, including cancer.”

Since then other studies have appeared, like this one observing the “peculiar effects” of millimetre wave exposures on tumour development: .

Joel M. Moskowitz PhD, a researcher on the faculty of the School of Public Health at the University of California has confirmed “…few studies have examined prolonged exposure to low-intensity MMWs, and no research that I am aware of has focused on exposure to MMWs combined with other radiofrequency radiation.”

Why is the government ploughing head long into unknown territory putting human health at risk? Is it serving the public interest or focusing on the outcomes for the telecoms industry? We see the government desperately trying to fast track new laws to facilitate uninhibited roll out of 5G and its infrastructure, which will fundamentally affect the rights of the public. This too happened in America.

Moskowitz observes the “wireless industry has been pushing controversial legislation at the state and federal level to expedite the deployment of this technology. The legislation would block the rights of local governments and their citizens to control the installation of cellular antennas.” See:

The failure of the ICNIRP and thus the PHE guidelines is largely the product of conflicts of interest, telecoms deregulation, and government support and collusion with agencies that fiddle the guidelines to ensure maximum profits while closing the legal routes where the public can hold the parties responsible for any adverse effects or intervene in planning proposals/roll outs. The position of the government is poised to change laws for the telecoms industry here who want to roll out inadequately researched 5G and millimetre waves technologies.

This leaves public health incredibly vulnerable to the dictates of corporations and sets a disquieting precedent for others to follow. Human rights are being impacted in such a drive, as is public health. Is that the type of democratic culture government is keen to create? Can it be said to be upholding democratic principles when we can see so much deception is happening over 5G?

There is hope, but more needs to be done to expose the problems. Fortunately, the aforementioned case in the US brought by the Children’s Health Defense picked up on the inadequacies of the safety guidelines and exposed the corruption at hand with indefatigable commitment to public health, something which the government and its agencies were reluctant to address.

I feel it is a parallel situation here and the shortcomings of the ICNIRP guidelines urgently need to be addressed and likely discarded in favour of correctly focused, comprehensive independent scientific study and re-evaluation of our current situation. This would necessitate the roll out of 5G being halted until adequate safety data exists so that the safety of 5G is scientifically proven beyond a doubt.

It is outrageous that at this stage in the push to roll out 5G the study highlighted at the start of this letter was the first study on 5G specifically, published this year, that demonstrates 5G has real potential to cause widespread harm if unchecked. This huge gap in the contemporary data is worrisome and regardless the government still recklessly steams ahead to roll out the technology.

The government appears to ignore, because it has been advised to do so, the sheer number of peer-reviewed scientific studies showing wireless technology even at small exposures causes biological harm. I am seriously concerned that despite the peer-reviewed scientific evidence at hand the government wants to change laws to roll 5G out faster. As I have said, this behaviour benefits the telecoms industry while putting the public at heightened risks.

I am aghast at the way the technology is being promoted and the concerns stated are purely aesthetic infrastructure concerns, and concerns over “the blue bar blues” which are given as reasons to be changing laws that currently safeguard the public and give them rights to legally challenge the installations of infrastructure. This all amounts to unacceptable subterfuge on the part of the government. Please see the government press release here: Please see: .

I am dismayed at the press release also because it is pure marketing of the 5G technology that still hasn’t been proven safe. To this day the government is promoting 5G even when evidence of harm is known, but the safety proof is completely absent and centres around inadequate safety guidelines easily challenged on account of the exposure factors omitted from them, as in the case of the FCC’s inadequate guidelines in America and the ICNIRP’s similarly flawed guidance for Europe and the UK.

One might conclude the sensitive safety issue is the reason why government moves to fast-track its proposed “new barrier-busting laws.”

For me, and I expect others too, in light of the recent behaviour of the government in collusion with corporate interests to control the issue of public health and push questionable yet highly profitable “solutions” into existence, the worrying changes of law alluded to in the press release sounds more like an emergency powers act.

That was the methodology used to fast-track new vaccines which helped accelerate the bringing to market of what turns out to be a DNA altering agent with countless adverse effects. 5G can be said to a DNA altering agent that can potentially cause adverse effects.

To growing numbers of people it must seem the government has a hampered and cynical view of human health if it isn’t going to learn from the mistakes it has made when co-marketing recent immunity-destructive “vaccines” as necessary for “the greater good.” The documented conflicts of interest at work, the censorship, smearing of off-agenda concerns, the deception and the changes of laws certainly appear to be the same types of cynically desperate mechanisms at work when it comes to establishing the safety of 5G.

For years the legal case around the safety of 5G has been building, through a barrage of smearing tactics to force the technology into acceptance. The act of debating 5G and its health implications has been tarnished all too often with the highly abused labelling of concerns as amounting to “conspiracy theories.”

It’s a poisonous trigger term that has been strategically applied to make 5G concerns taboo, but the science pointing to potential harm is not theoretical, nor is the censoring of it from the American and European exposure guidelines. We are even coming to realise 5G is being implemented by stealth.

It was not so long ago that the Newcastle County Court ruled in favour of Mark Steele, a health campaigner highly knowledgeable about the scientifically proven health effects of wireless technologies. In a landmark case revealing the science pointing to harm, which the mainstream did not cover, except locally, Steele was being accused by Gateshead council of making fraudulent claims about their implementation of 5G without public knowledge.

After Steele presented his evidence the court established that the 5G danger is not a “conspiracy” (please see: The judge was very clear in his statement about the affair, he said “The public have a right to know.” From what I have discussed about the shortcomings if ICNIRP guidelines, which influence UK policies about 5G, you should now be able to understand how destructive the label of conspiracy theory is to situations like this where there is evidence the safety of 5G is something that should be discussed and debated to challenge the existing shortcomings of government policies that can be shown to be inadequate and are effectively in violation of public health.

The skeleton argument in Steel’s case can be viewed here: . A public document pack of Steel’s case can be found here: .

In light of the government’s recent handling of public health matters, and I might add, demonstrable bias towards the science that favours profitable outcomes at the expense of public health, I am compelled to ask, as the government still seeks unfettered ways to roll out 5G that could precipitate another unprecedented health crisis:

* What safety testing and cutting-edge science are the bases for the government’s roll out and law changes pertinent to 5G, which will employ millimetre waves for the first time?

* How did your consultations arrive at the conclusion that the 5G roll out can be safe, especially when it will employ millimetre waves for the first time?

* Where is the safety evidence people can refer to that clearly shows you are taking the public safety issue seriously when it will employ millimetre waves for the first time?

* Has your government informed the public what millimetre waves are, what they mean to biological systems and especially what this increase in density of transmitters and infrastructure means for the health of developing babies and growing children who are more vulnerable to EMF damage than adults?

* Can you prove that 5G will not harm the environment, deplete bee populations and harm birds and other wildlife, when 5G is employing millimetre waves for the first time?

There is a legacy of harm with each generation of wireless technologies. 4,000+ studies can be found here that leave us in no doubt safety issues around wireless technology emissions and 5G are not to be taken lightly: . There is an enormous body of evidence available to you including another 1,600 papers for your attention: . They all show peer-reviewed scientific studies of EMF (electromagnetic fields) and their impacts on health.

We shouldn’t be that surprised man-made electromagnetic fields are affecting public health. We are attuned to naturally occurring electromagnetic spectra, which have pre-existed the modulated emanations coming from man-made wireless devices. Electromagnetic fields known collectively as the Schumann resonance which are generated from solar, weather and earth energies govern our mental and physical health and well-being as well as bodily processes as our cells are tuned to its rhythm of 7.83 hz.

By contrast wireless radiation in the MHz and GHz is many times the frequency of the earth, and the outcome of this is the continued disturbance of the immune system and DNA damage. 5G is in the frequency of 24-86 Ghz which means it can potentially cause oxygen deprivation to our cells’ mitochondria, as oxygen molecules oscillate at 60 Ghz.

Recently professing associations between viral symptoms and wireless technologies (5G was implicated in C-19 by some commentators) was derided as “conspiracy theory” in a tirade of fact-checking and information campaigns from mainstream media sources. However the science does exist that confirms that potentially 5G could put the immune system on overdrive, as if it were readied to fight an invader, when in fact it is an electromagnetic stimulation that it has no way of attacking, and this can lead to repercussions for human health.

Dr. Ollie Johansson, a highly renowned professor at the Karolinska Institute is one of the highest authorities in the world on the effects of electromagnetic fields; he’s published hundreds of scientific papers. Among them is research that points to “Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields,” please see here: Johansson concludes that “new public safety limits, as well as limits on further deployment of untested technologies, are warranted.”

As you can see, this was published in 2009 and highlights the “potential adverse health effects of chronic exposure.” Please also see: . This study also confirms electromagnetic radiation disturbs the immune system and increases the number of leukocytes (cells that fight disease) present in the blood: . The body acts as if it is under attack.

A scientific paper paper of June 2020 by Dr. Leendert Vriens, a physicist, titled “Viral infections aggravated by electromagnetic fields” states: “It is also impossible to predict to what extent the health problems will worsen due to the increase in the EMF load when 5G is rolled out and what the consequences will be for future viral infections. In a worst-case scenario, viral infections, such as we experience every year, can turn into pandemics.”

The ICNIRP, who inform all electromagnetic guidance and limits in the UK appears very happy for the government to mislead the public and forego independent research into 5G’s safety, or even apply the precautionary principle. The ICNIRP, which the WHO now uses in preference to its own internal experts, has provided western governments with a misleading set of guidelines that jeopardise public health.

The situation exemplifies how, as Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc Research Professor at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Finland) puts it the “process of evaluation of science and recommendations of health policy has been taken over by “private clubs.” He makes that observation in relation to ICNIRP especially.

ICNIRP is indeed a private club and appear to exude a worrying lack of ethical scientific pursuit, empathy or accountability as they influence health policy from a skewed perspective with regards exposure settings that PHE is still basing public safety advice around. Leszczynski importantly points out “ICNIRP considers only thermal effects.” We’ve heard that said before and it echoes around the world. It reveals clearly the flawed UK government position on the 5G roll out.

I quote Leszczynski again to further illustrate the problems of following ICNIRP guidelines as writ because as he says, “…any equipment radiating below currently set safety standards is automatically considered safe, which might be misleading.” That is another shortcoming and so it should be clear ICNIRP guidelines are not a scientifically useful basis for the unabashed deployment that leads to the implementation of new wireless technologies “without any health-related testing.”

According to the ICNIRP-subservient PHE “5G is initially using frequencies close to those used by current mobile communications technologies and Wi-Fi. However, with the increase in the volume of information being transferred via 5G technologies, the government’s regulator, the Office of Communication (Ofcom) is making new spectrum available for 5G services.

his means higher frequencies will become available for future use by 5G – up to a few tens of gigahertz (GHz), around 10 times greater than those used by current network.” Without any independent research or safety testing we can expect to endure an exponential increase in radiation exposure, because inadequate guidelines and safety measures would be an inconvenient impediment to a smooth 5G roll out.

Concern applies to low frequencies as well as high frequency iterations of the technology, as the Bioinitiative Report helps to make clear. The Bioinitiative Report states “There is more evidence in 2012 that such exposures damage DNA, interfere with DNA repair, evidence of toxicity to the human genome (genes), more worrisome effects on the nervous system (neurology) and more and better studies on the effects of mobile phone base stations (wireless antenna facilities or cell towers) that report lower RFR levels over time can result in adverse health impacts.” There report has been updated, and is no less grave, so please see the research and commentary here: .

The government’s roll-out methodology is unfortunately based on zero confirmatory science and relies on EMF standards / guidelines borrowed form ICNIRP, an organisation riddled with conflicts of interest, such as through the WHO and ICNIRP relationship, which has received much investigation that publicly exposes the collusions and corruption of each.

ICNIRP, the HSE, Ofcom, the Health Security Agency and the World Health Organisation are the primary EMF authoritative bodies informing EMF standards and how government bodies market electromagnetic services to the public, and thus far they have given the public no reliable guarantees of safety on 5G, so how can the government you serve and believe in as a professed guarantor of public health and protection operate as if 5G will be safe and beneficial?

As Martin L. Pall PhD states: “The European Commission has done nothing to protect European citizens from any of these very serious [EMF exposure] health hazards and the U.S. FDA, EPA and National Cancer Institute have done nothing to protect American citizens. The U.S. FCC has been much worse than that, acting vigorously with wanton disregard for our health.” .

The government is serving the needs of the telecoms corporations in this case, not the people. As is ICNIRP and PHE (Public Health England) with seamlessly flwaed guidelines informing public health policy. Please see:

How the government is behaving, orchestrating a situation that will harm the population, is a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code. What the government is doing translates as an act of assault on a pervasively misinformed public who do not unanimously consent to what in conclusion can be seen as unlawful experimentation on all.

The government and its PHE (Public Health England) advisers touting the ICNIRP’s misleading guidelines can be said to be deceiving and potentially harming innocent people for corporate gains. It might have seemed otherwise over the past few years of Covid-mania, but the public are not merely convenient guinea pigs to be experimented on by profiteering corporations and conflicts of interest in the government.

As a priority the government should be deeply concerned about the 5G risks. Lawyers building the legal case against 5G are currently looking at the weight of research around human fertility impacted by wireless radiation, and this is another reason why the precautionary principle should be prioritised instead of launching a potentially very harmful technology that harms men, women and children:

Consider the findings of the Environmental Health trust. “Dozens of peer reviewed research studies indicate that wireless and electromagnetic fields alter brain function and affect the nervous system…Children are more vulnerable as their brains are still developing so the neurological effects will be greater.” Many resources are available about the link between EMFs, Autism and ADHD.

Please see here: Pall also reminds us “there is evidence that EMF exposures in utero and shortly after birth can cause ADHD and autism.” Please see: . And, please see: .

Lawsuits are in progress that define the roll out of this 5G technology as a grossly illegal act. At this time a team of lawyers headed by Michael Mansfield QC have joined forces to commence legal proceedings to challenge the UK government’s failure to take sufficient notice of clearly identified health and safety risks of wireless radiation and the increased exposure from the deployment of 5G.” Please see:

All is not clear cut in the case for 5G safety, and as a government, your approach to 5G is facing a concerted legal backlash as we speak. In this context please note in a recent landmark case in America, legal action against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concluded that: “after the FCC …found no evidence of harm caused by wireless technology, CHD and other groups sued — and included 11,000 pages of evidence refuting the FCC’s conclusion.”

Please see: . “The evidence referenced in the case shows profound harmful effects and widespread sickness from wireless technology….[with] references to thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies showing DNA damage, reproductive harm, neurological effects such as ADHD, and radiation sickness, which seems to be the most widespread manifestation of wireless harms.”

The conclusion many will draw from what this government is doing and saying as it neglects the precautionary approach applicable to 5G and endangers public health is that this government is supporting an illegal enterprise. It appears to be acting illegally and deceptively, and successful legal action in America shows us clearly how we should not take what industry or government says at face value. In promoting harmful technologies the government’s intended actions to roll out 5G, a dangerous technology, represent a direct threat to populations across the globe, and not just in the UK.

Sensibly Switzerland has declared a moratorium on the roll out of their 5G network due to “health concerns.” But not here, Public Health England, who advises the UK government, “based on the published scientific evidence,” and “is committed to monitoring the evidence applicable to this and other radio technologies,” has surprisingly ignored a multitude of scientific studies confirming extensive electromagnetic harm is the most likely outcome of a hasty 5G roll out, as well as unforeseen effects and potential harm due to a lack of independently confirmed safety evidence to build any case of its suitability for public consumption.

We can only wonder aghast at why PHE will advise the public on how to lower exposures, which is a roundabout way of stating that it believes there is a health issue in the use of electromagnetic technologies, but, oddly, as 5G is a significant leap in the spectra, apparently for PHE there is nothing to add to their preferred guidelines and sources in terms of safety advice. They’d have to change the laws of physics to come to that conclusion. Or, as the government is doing, just change the laws to enable 5G to roll out unimpeded.

From electromagnetic technologies there are adverse effects that include thermal and non-thermal health impacts. More than 500 studies show harm from low thermal impacts.

Powerwatch, an organisation that is completely independent of government and industry, has been researching the links between EMF and health risks for more than 25 years.

Here are 1,670 peer-reviewed scientific papers on electromagnetic fields and biology or health to consider: . Consider a further 23,840 studies that make the safety issues we face equally as plain at documenting evidence of the acute and chronic effects of low to high frequency electromagnetic fields.

As stated there are serious shortcomings in the ICNIRP guidelines that inform UK government’s approach to the 5G roll out. Exposures criteria are compromised and it has been proven by a member of IEEE that exposures not being measured correctly (as I will come to shortly). The ICNIRP guidelines have become a major point of contention to scientists and researchers who can point out the worrying shortcomings eloquently.

Nisa Khan, a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), has found issues with the way radiation strength distribution from an antenna’s surface is being measured, and this has implications for existing EMF guidelines and measuring standards. She has shared her findings in an open access study of electromagnetic energy distributions and how they propagate through space.

She was compelled to do so because in rolling out 5G something very basic is being overlooked: Safety. Have your government scientific and health advisers read such papers and considered the implications of the findings? It has been described as “especially significant because it presents a step-by-step process to mathematically derive the radiation strength distribution at the antenna surface.” Please see: And the paper:

The government must not ignore the incontrovertible evidence that electromagnetic pollution is a real problem and people, and wildlife, suffer as a result. Please see: for a study compiled by researchers at the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins University. Scientists confirm “effects [from environmental EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies)] have been observed in mammals such as bats, cervids, cetaceans, and pinnipeds among others, and on birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora.”

Government statements opining the “blue bar blues,” as in the irresponsibly shallow press release discussed, do not inform us that proven safety tests have been conducted. These are service-related speculations that completely disregard the reality that pulsed electromagnetic fields disrupt both cognitive and auditory performance, and if we apply that finding to insects like bees, we get a picture of the scale of the damage being done.

Your whimsical image of protecting the aesthetic of the countryside totally disregards the real impacts of the government pursuing law changes for a technology of unproven safety efficacy, that uses unprecedented higher frequencies, and millimetre wave applications on a globally unheard of scale.

Proof absolutely exists of 5G harm, but there is no proof of its supposed safety. The Journal of Reviews on Environmental Health states that: “scientific evidence concerning the possible effects of millimetre-waves on humans is insufficient to devise science-based exposure limits and to develop science-based human health policies.” The government looks like it has a different position on the science.

I would like to know the information and conclusions it has drawn about the safety of millimetre waves and how the government intends to make the public safe when the science it could reference to demonstrate the safety does not exist. It is no surprise that Scientific American published an article in 2019 titled “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.” Please see:

Airports, especially in the United States, have already raised deep concerns about the strength of the frequencies, and in America the Federal Aviation Administration intend to “impose restrictions on flight operations using certain types of radio altimeter equipment close to antennas in 5G networks.” According to the FAA, the 5G frequencies are of an intensity that creates “an unsafe situation.” Please see: .

To date, the outcome of the governments 5G consultations represents a blatant disregard of the significant and increasing numbers of scientists, protestations and studies that show what you are doing is an abuse of human rights and a way to fast-track laws that increase the rights of the telecommunications and technology firms to do as they wish. You are pushing forward with them without restraint, foregoing any necessity of precautionary measures that could hamper the swift roll out of 5G.

You do this in the same breath as purporting to protect the environment too, which is a gross piece of misinformation when 5G will lead to unprecedented increases in energy consumption, which contradicts your climate goals, and exacerbates an already serious problem of unseen electro smog pollution, which again, will be exacerbated by the constant exposure to 5G. As far as I am aware, PHE’s literature does not account for constant exposure in its guidelines, and so we are still without any protection of public health and safety from a 5G roll out.

It stands that proof exists of 5G’s potential to harm, but there is no proof of its safety. What are you going to do to protect those you represent, the public, for it seems at present your goal is to protect the interests and goals of the telecoms industry?

I urge you to place a moratorium on 5G and prioritise the health of the citizens of this country who will potentially be harmed by the technology in the ways described in the thousands of scientific studies. The electro smog being exacerbated by wireless technology and potentially more by the 5G roll out is a deep concern, and potentially impacts everyone, including the electro-hypersensitive, a growing number of people recognised as having a functional impairment due to an electromagnetically toxic environment.

Please find relevant scientific research on electro-hypersensitivity

here: . Scientists have found that: “In view of recent epidemiological studies, pointing to a correlation between long-term exposure from power-frequent magnetic fields or microwaves and cancer, our data ought to be taken seriously and further analyzed.”

Sweden seems to be further ahead than the UK in recognising the health and rights of individuals suffering from electro-hypersensitivity. As a government claiming to championing diversity and especially when claiming to have concerns about public health and well-bing please kindly take note.

In closing I remind you of the recent study from Sweden that begins this letter, published in the journal Medicinsk Access. This study confirmed that non-ionizing radiation — well below levels allowed by authorities — can cause health problems, a factor that is conspicuously ignored in ICNIRP guidelines.

The wealth of information in this letter confirms 5G is a harmful technology for the public. Their health must be adequately safeguarded over the proposed changes in the law that serve to hasten the potential damage to their health. All of the evidence pointing to the unreliable safety assessments of the technology that have enabled an unrestricted roll out should be of deep concern to you.

The issues surrounding 5G are wider than public health so please also refer to the attached documents I have supplied for your information. They further illustrate how the impact of 5G will not only be to the public cost, it will have a clear environmental cost, and further underline why this controversial-for-good-reason technology must be urgently retracted and the precautionary principle applied.

The government should be able to present the public with a roll-out plan based on independent, balanced, non-industry-funded science to back it up. As yet it has not. It continues instead to ignore organisations such as the International EMF Scientist Appeal (please see, which for many years now has been “calling upon the United Nations and its sub-organizations, the WHO and UNEP, and all U.N. Member States, for greater health protection on EMF exposure.”

The Appeal has been raising wider awareness of the safety and ethical issues especially because of “the World Health Organization’s (WHO) conflicting positions about EMF risk,” and because “the WHO continues to ignore its own agency’s recommendations and favours guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German NGO with industry ties long criticized for promoting guidelines not protective of humans.” Please see:

The ICNIRP informs the UK government’s teams of advisers who are responsible for delivering the unsafe 5G roll out. This largely explains why the UK never realised the precautionary principle in this regard.

I hope you will agree from the evidence in this letter that in consequence the government’s position on 5G doesn’t sufficiently prioritise public health, and by extension does not justify a change of laws to fast-track the 5G roll out.

Please don’t prioritise the telecoms industry’s needs (profits) over the rights and health of the British public.

Please place an urgent moratorium on 5G and have it thoroughly scientifically investigated for safety reasons.

Yours Sincerely,

Sean Carney