1) Another attempt to have the UK government recognize that the dangers posed by RFR, and especially 5G, are real and not rely on ICNIRP’s guideline and assertion that, so long as exposure levels are below its outrageously high levels, there is no harm.
Applicaton to the European Court of Human Rights
“Following receiving a refusal for permission to Appeal Mrs Justice Stacey’s order we have now proceeded with our application to the European Court of Human Rights.
5G Radiation and Risks and Danger posed
The European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology has noted that there is evidence of the carcinogenic potential of lower frequencies RFR and that there are “no appropriate studies” that assess the impact of the higher frequency range of 5G.
The panel called 5G “an experiment on the population.”…
This case is concerned with the safety of the environment in which people live, and the state’s duty to provide information in relation to man-made industrial risk to the public. There has been a failure to identify that the risk is
(a) a known risk which has been already established to exist from past inquiry (known, already proven harm), AND that
(b) the duty encompasses a risk of future harm that is presently not conclusively established or quantified, but cannot be presently discounted and so remains an unquantifiable identified risk.”
https://actionagainst5g.org/case-updates/application-to-the-european-court-of-human-rights/
Here is information about Mrs. Justice Stacey’s order which is referenced above:
“But Mr Mansfield KC had a more nuanced point that he was not seeking to challenge the government’s views on 5G, but that the Veerbeek, Oftedal et al Report to which Dr Mann contributed was at odds with the information and reasons that the government had provided to the public, and was therefore relevant to question of the adequacy of the information provided to the public by the government. He suggested that the information provided to the public did not align with the government’s view thus demonstrating it was inadequate. But there are two difficulties. Firstly, the application is a thinly disguised attempt to challenge the science which is off limits. Secondly, even if the more subtle argument was accepted, the conclusions in the article to which Dr Mann contributed does not depart from the government’s understanding and view of the risks associated with 5G as explained by Dr Mann in both his first and second statements and as expressed in the public information on GOV. UK. The Veerbeek, Oftedal et al Report is consistent with Dr Mann’s evidence that there is a consensus between the domestic and international authorities which have reviewed the public health evidence that the roll out of 5G is safe provided it is kept within ICNIRP levels, which is consistent with the government message. It was therefore not evidence that supported the claimants’ point and would again fail the relevance test. It is not in the interests of justice to admit evidence that is not relevant to the issues in the case and which will not assist the party seeking to adduce it. Accordingly, beyond allowing the ICNIRP charter and statute which is helpful as background information and remedying the oversight of not exhibiting the AGNIR report referred to at [33] of Dr Mann’s witness statement, the applications are refused.”
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/495.pdf
2) There are many reasons the telecoms are pushing 5G so hard. IMHO, one that this article doesn’t address is fear of competition from fiber optic cable. The push for profit and domination of the wireless telecom industry over wired should not be ignored.
What’s Really Behind the 5G Push?
“The wireless industry has announced that we are in a “race to 5G.” The industry is cleverly pushing the same line in every country: We Americans, we French, we Japanese, we (you name the country), need to be the first to deploy 5G because it will somehow magically confer economic advantages over countries that adopt the technology more slowly.
But the real reason for the “race” has little to do with national economic prowess and more do with wireless industry profits. The industry faces stagnation. The ugly truth for these companies is that in the world’s advanced economies almost everyone who wants a cellphone already has one. So, there is little room for expansion by reaching the very few who don’t own one. In addition, with multiple carriers serving the same markets, intense price competition has driven down company profits.”
https://safeg.net/5g-the-real-story/
[- https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/search.html?pwcGeo=01&pwcLang=en&searchfield=report+on+5G+industry+at+risk]
3) While some individual schools in North America are banning or limiting the use of cell phones, quite a few countries are setting national standards that apply to all schools. This type of information should be shared with Trustees, Superintendents, Principals, teachers and parents. Why are the USA and Canada not protecting their children by taking these simple steps?
(click on photos to enlarge)
More Countries Ban Cell Phone Use in Schools; Will the U.S. Be Next?
“Russia and Sweden are the latest countries to ban cell phones in classrooms. Numerous other countries already have school cell phone prohibitions including England, France,Netherlands, Finland, Israel, China, Australia, Ontario, Greece, Ghana, Rwanda: and Uganda, but not the United States.
The Russian school cell phone ban is for all grades and the Swedish ban is for students from grades 1-9 (up to around 16 years). In Sweden, the ban extends even during breaks between classes…
Russia has several regulations regarding wireless radiation and health. To start they have allowable environmental levels much lower than U.S. FCC or ICNIRP limits.“
Sharon Noble, Director, Citizens for Safer Tech
“If we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusion.” Noam Chomsky
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. Practice Safe Tech.