Nothing should be more important to a responsible government than the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. But what do we have here? We have a government that admits that 5G is being tested by its deployment in ‘testbeds’ while contending that the increased radiation ‘should’ have no consequences for public health. ‘Should’ denotes no certainty. It signifies there are questions remaining.
The word ‘should’ is not appropriate when discussing health and safety. The government ‘should’ follow due process but it is not doing so.
The independent science has already shown that mobile radiation from masts and devices causes biological harm, including ‘clear evidence’ of cancer. The addition of 5G to the mix means both another layer of radiation on top of already toxic levels, in the form of low-frequency 5G, and new frequencies which have not been adequately tested, but which existing studies show can cause health issues.
We are litigating this issue. Our case against the UK government is that due process is not being followed, that the risks are being entirely disregarded. This is a national public health issue.
Dismissed by successive governments, the risk to health and safety is current, ongoing and will get worse.
Before we move towards the government’s ‘ambition’ to turn our existence into an ‘Internet of Things’, the need is urgent for a robust and thorough examination of the health repercussions.
Imposing 5G on an unsuspecting population amounts to an experiment when questions remain on the consequences to human health. Adopting a position of apparent ignorance is not excusable, it is indefensible when thousands of doctors and scientists have provided evidence of harm and signed countless appeals. Quite apart from the fact that the ICNIRP ‘guidance’ omits any reference to environmental or animal safety, here is a shortened version of the 1947 Nuremberg Code which states:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.
With the emergence of 5G, we are faced with an exposure situation not accounted for by guidelines – where many emissions, of different structures (phase, waveform, frequency, etcetera) occur randomly and simultaneously and can even superimpose in ways that have significance for living systems.
Our legal case against the government maintains a focussed position in defining the core issue: Health and safety.
.