Legal team

Michael Mansfield QC has recently been given the title “The king of human rights” by The Legal 500.

His formidable experience is second to none. He is supported by two further barristers.

Our letter before action to the government and report

The above documents are both under copyright protection

Our challenge

We are challenging the irresponsibility of continuing to allow unacceptable levels of exposure to radio frequency radiation that will not protect us from known harm, and takes no account of the cumulative effects of the unseen hazardous electro-smog from multiple sources.

Case notes

Why, in other countries, is 5G being halted until all risks are evaluated? In April 2019, the 5G internet roll-out was postponed in Brussels after Environment and Energy Minister Celine Fremault stated that it was not compatible with Belgian radiation safety standards.  “I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not. The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt.”

A planned upgrade to 5G in Geneva was also stopped with the application of the Precautionary Principle, until independent studies prove this form of radiation to be safe.

If 5G is genuinely safe, why have 248 scientists issued an urgent appeal to the UN to stop it?  And why are there 253,665 signatures from scientists, doctors and engineers on the 5G Space Appeal? Why are thousands of peer reviewed studies in medical literature, showing harmful bio-effects from wireless radiation, not being taken into account?

Research shows that electromagnetic radiation from 2G, 3G, 4G and WiFi already undermines health.

A 2018 review in the Lancet World Health Journal of 2,000 studies concluded: “[The] weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks”.

Public Health England

Public Health England (PHE) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) take their guidance from ICNIRP. ICNIRP is a small private group which has been widely accused of having conflicts of interest.

The Court of Turin ruled in February 2020 that ICNIRP should not be relied upon for meaningful guidelines due to bias. Court of Turin Ruling

ICNIRP refuses to acknowledge the robust body of peer reviewed research demonstrating harmful bio-effects from manmade radio frequency electromagnetic radiation. ICNIRP produces ‘guidelines’ which are based largely on theory and do not take into account independent experimental evidence.

To support our campaign

Donate Now

Reasons why we are bringing a legal challenge

Deploying 5G without the public’s consent constitutes a breach of the 1947 Nuremberg Code of Ethics regarding human subjects experimentation.

ICNIRP, the body that provides only ‘guidance,’ considers just thermal (heating) effects to the physical body, and bases its guidelines solely on ‘opinions’ to which disclaimers are attached. All other effects are excluded. Without the inclusion of such a comprehensive body of scientifically proven data, the guidelines are not applicable to real life and environmental circumstances.

Further, the combination of new types of modulation and new higher frequencies have not been tested prior to the deployment of this new infrastructure.  This ‘test’ (‘5G Testbeds’) on a population and environment, and adopting a ‘wait-and-see’ approach, amounts to an experiment on the human population and a failure in duty of care by responsible authorities.

In March 2020 the European Parliament  published ‘Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health’

…as 5G is an untested technology, a cautious approach would be prudent. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords and other international treaties recognise that informed consent prior to interventions that might affect human health is an essential, fundamental human right, which becomes even more controversial when considering children’s and young people’s exposure.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has long advocated precaution concerning EMF exposure, pointing out that there were cases of failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in often irreversible damage to human health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives.

EU Parliament: Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health

….when we have substantial risk of multiple existential threats to every single technologically advanced country on earth, failure to act vigorously means there is a very high probability of complete destruction of these societies….Dr Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University.

Dr Pall explains that there is a good understanding not only that adverse biological effects occur, but also has explanations for biochemical mechanisms by which damage occurs. The extraordinary sensitivity of the Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel Activation sensor (VGCC) to the forces of the EMFs would indicate that the current safety guidelines expose us to EMF levels that are around 7.2 million times too high. That sensitivity is predicted by the physics. The physics and the biology are each pointing to the same mechanism of action on cells of non-thermal EMFs.

The UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council received this statement on 25 February–22 March 2019

‘The deployment of 5G violates over 15 international agreements, treaties and recommendations, including article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which derives from the Nuremberg Code of 1947’

5G is cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under resolution 39/46

In 2011, in Resolution 1815, The European Parliamentary Assembly stated: Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.

‘The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs….’.

PACE – Resolution 1815 (2011) – The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

Precautionary principle and prevention principle

In the EU Treaty the Prevention Principle deals with known, and largely scientifically uncontested, evidence of harm.  However the Precautionary (Foresight) Principle is there to justify administrative and political actions to reduce or eliminate harms where the evidence is uncertain and disputed by scientists and the law.

With EMF radiation on humans and the environment we have a dispute. It is between 14 ICNIRP scientists, the telecoms industry and most regulatory authorities that all choose to rely only on evidence of thermal tissue heating versus the research of hundreds of EMF scientists who hold an inclusive scientific paradigm based on all effects on biological systems.

The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union :

Ofcom states “We are independent, and funded by fees paid to us by the companies we regulate.” 

We are confused. Are you? We wonder how such ‘independence’ can be assured when those ‘regulated’ fund the body that ‘regulates’ them.

Cisco was granted £4.3 million by the UK government to create a rural 5G testbed system for network trials in 2018. Bob Downes, Ofcom board member, has Cisco as a client (Kubenetworks.)

We are also confused when we see that our taxes fund an operation with a client of an Ofcom Board member. Are you?

These and many other strange anomalies require attention.

‘Industry control, in the case of wireless health issues, extends beyond Congress and regulators to basic scientific research

……direct lobbying by industry is just one of many worms in a rotting apple. The FCC sits at the core of a network that has allowed powerful moneyed interests with limitless access a variety of ways to shape its policies, often at the expense of fundamental public interests.

As a result, consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence.

The cable industry has consolidated into giant local monopolies that control pricing while leaving consumers little choice over content selection….

Perhaps the best example of how the FCC is tangled in a chain of corruption is the cell tower and antenna infrastructure that lies at the heart of the phenomenally successful wireless industry…. ‘

In the UK we have a parallel situation.

 

How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation

The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

By Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie

Legal Actions 2019-2020
JANUARY 2019

FRENCH COURT RECOGNIZES TINNITUS AND OTHER SYMPTOMS AS MICROWAVE SICKNESS

HAZARDOUS RADIATION: PAKISTANI COURT ORDERS REMOVAL OF 20 CELL TOWERS

ITALIAN COURT ORDERS GOVERNMENT TO PUBLICIZE RADIATION RISKS FROM MOBILE AND CORDLESS PHONES

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TURIN CONFIRMS THE LINK BETWEEN A HEAD TUMOUR AND MOBILE PHONE USE

FEBRUARY 2019

COURT OF FLORENCE ORDERS IMMEDIATE SHUTDOWN OF SCHOOL WIFI

MARCH 2019

ACTIVIST WINS EHS/WIFI ILLNESS CLAIM FOR DISABILITY

APRIL 2019

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FAVOURS CITY CONTROL OVER WIRELESS INITIATIVES

MAY 2019

GENEVA BLOCKS ERECTION OF 5G ANTENNAS

AUSTRALIAN BARRISTER FINDS LEGAL PATHWAY TO STOP 5G

CAPE TOWN RESIDENTS WIN LEGAL BATTLE TO TAKE DOWN INTRUSIVE MAST

JUNE 2019

CRIMINAL CASE FILED IN PARIS AGAINST FINNISH COMPANY NOKIA  – The company’s phones exceed Specific Absorption Rates (SAR)

JULY 2019

FRENCH COURT ORDERS REMOVAL OF 13 SMART METERS

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES WIN CASE AGAINST DEREGULARIZATION OF SMALL CELL CONSTRUCTION

SEPTEMBER 2019

USA CONSUMERS FILE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST SMART PHONES

NOVEMBER 2019

DANISH ATTORNEY CHRISTIAN JENSEN: 75-PAGE LEGAL OPINION Concludes 5G contravenes human rights laws, written at the request of the Danish Institute for Public Health, the Council for Health-Safe Telecommunications, the EHS-association and the Danish Health Association May Day.

DECEMBER 2019

USA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ‘RIGHT TO KNOW’ ABOUT CELL PHONES RADIATION RISK

JANUARY 2020

TURIN COURT VERDICT -MOBILE PHONE CAUSED HEAD TUMOUR JUDGEMENT SUMMARY

FEBRUARY 2020

LONDON: CLAIMANT WINS APPEAL FOR BENEFITS ON THE GROUNDS OF ELECTROSENSITIVITY

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT: APPLE I-PHONE MUST BE TESTED FOR SAFETY

USA NON PROFIT SUES FCC FOR IGNORING PHONE RADIATION RISK

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER SUES FCC FOR IGNORING PHONE RADIATION STUDIES

‘CHILDREN’S DEFENSE’ INJUNCTION FILED TO STOP ROLLOUT OF 5G IN NETHERLANDS

MARCH 2020

SUIT FILED IN NETHERLANDS TO STOP 5G ROLLOUT

CELL ANTENNAE PLACEMENT: JUDGE RESTORES CONTROL TO OYSTER BAY, USA

APRIL 2020

RADIOFREQUENCY EMISSIONS: ‘CHILDREN’S DEFENSE’ LAWSUIT PETITIONS FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

DANISH LAWYER EXPLAINS: 5G A BREACH AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 

Earlier calls for stricter regulation or moratorium on wireless technology:

Vienna Resolution 1998
Salzburg Resolution 2000
Declaration of Alcalá 2002
Catania Resolution 2002
Freiburger Appeal 2002
Bamberger Appeal 2004
Maintaler Appeal 2004
Coburger Appeal 2005
Oberammergauer Appeal 2005
Haibacher Appeal 2005
Pfarrkirchener Appeal 2005
Freienbacher Appeal 2005
Lichtenfelser Appeal 2005
Hofer Appeal 2005
Helsinki Appeal 2005
Parish Kirchner Appeal 2005
Saarlander Appeal 2005
Stockacher Appeal 2005
Benevento Resolution 2006Allgäuer Appeal 2006
WiMax Appeal 2006
Schlüchterner appeal
Brussels Appeal 2007

Venice Resolution 2008
Berlin Appeal 2008
Paris Appeal 2009
London Resolution 2009
Porto Alegre Resolution 2009
European Parliament
EMF Resolution 2009
Dutch Appeal 2009
Int’l Appeal of Würzburg 2010
Copenhagen Resolution 2010
Seletun Consensus Statement 2010
Potenza Picena Resolution 2013
Doctors’ Appeal to Health Canada 2014
Scientists’ Declaration to Health Canada 2014
International Scientists Appeal 2015
Brussels Declaration 2015

Paris Appeal 2016
Reykjavik Appeal 2017
International Scientists Appeal for a 5G Moratorium 2017
Nicosia Declaration 2017
Madrid Declaration 2017