https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121 daily 0.75 2021-03-19 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/huroyj7ppc1sl076uv3mvoa36msazi monthly 0.5 2021-01-20 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed3ec057403fe7ae60a8525/1590947375378/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - Information for those new to the RFR/EMF issues - Update 10.5.20 Some of you are new to the debate on the health impact of 5G. So, to help you I have set out below various links to documents which I and others have prepared which sets out the health issues of radiofrequency radiation issues generally which includes 5G. I sent these documents to the Secretary of State for the UK Department of Health and Social Care and to Public Health England with a letter before action (which I have not included here). But these materials will help you to understand why this case is so important. If you are just becoming acquainted with these issues, do just read my note to start. My note Schedules to my note Article on clear evidence of risks to children from smartphones and wifi Full Ecolog Institut study for T Mobile (now owned by BT plc and part of EE) in 2000 Appendices A to D to Ecolog study NASA paper on harm from EMFs https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/video-explaining-the-dangers-of-5g monthly 0.5 2020-05-31 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed413d925a6bf670bed7f52/1590957027033/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - Video explaining the dangers of 5G - Update 11.5.20 Some people have asked for a video explaining the dangers of 5G. Below is a video prepared by Professor Tom Butler on the Understanding of the Health Risks of Wireless Technologies (which includes 5G). I had organised a talk by Prof Butler which was postponed by the lockdown, but Prof Butler has kindly prepared his lecture which is below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhLqExpuFE&t=383s As many people are at home trying to work or do schoolwork, they will be using wifi for their laptops, ipads and mobiles in addition to the fields from telecoms masts. Electromagnetic radiation is created from the use of 3G, 4G and now 5G. This radiation, while invisible and unfelt, has damaging effects on humans, plants etc. The levels used by telecoms companies as approved by the government are too high and result in a number of physical and mental symptoms and illnesses. Masts and antennae are proliferating across the country at an exponential rate. We are being bathed in an EMF soup. Prof Butler explains why the current levels are too high and the impact on our health and that of our children and he questions how our government and Public Health England can deem these technologies to be safe. Do watch if you can. https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/international-lawyers-fighting-rfr monthly 0.5 2020-05-31 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed4157b25a6bf670bedb9ca/1590957444744/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - International lawyers fighting RFR - Update 20.5.20 I thought that it may interest you to know that yesterday, there was an inaugural online meeting of lawyers around the world, all working on fighting the roll out of 5G and the satellites which will dowse the earth with radiofrequency radiation. There were at least 30 lawyers in the session. There is a tremendous movement to help each other during these times. There is a momentum which is building which is exciting and encouraging. https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/5g-summit-started-today monthly 0.5 2020-06-02 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed5bc340666e1118a808b46/1591065656319/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - 5G summit started today - Update 1.6.20 The rise of EHS - The 5G summit started today with five speakers. One in particular was very interesting. Dr Magda Havas spoke about the effects of EMF on our bodies and the rise of electrohypersensitivity. Do see her talk below here. https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/5g-and-its-impacts monthly 0.5 2020-06-02 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed6aa298f29367da900d194/1591126619700/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - 5G and its impacts - Update 2.6.20 Today is the second day of the 5G summit. There was a powerful video by Sayer Ji which looked at the following: Satellites and 5G: what are the facts? Propaganda and censorship tactics Threats to freedom of choice and natural medicine You can see his video here. https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/family-site-offering-spaces-and-services-to-help-our-bodies-to-heal monthly 0.5 2020-06-02 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed6c19ec9c4c8758c642051/1591132595792/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - Family site offering spaces and services to help our bodies to heal - Update 2 - 2.6.20 Do see below. We are a family who have been affected by the man made artificial environment we currently all live in. We are striving to build a community of people who are looking to improve their health and at the same time want to offer spaces, events and services for others to improve and heal. Our natural environment has been changing substantially over the last number of years. This is mainly due to the on-going building of technical infrastructure that is separate from nature. We want to keep learning about ways to overcome this toxic bombardment and help others who suffer from many of these man made creations, by offering spaces where our bodies can heal and services that help improve our health and own environments. https://www.keepyourfrequency.com https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/5g-summit-expert-question-time-livestream-tonight monthly 0.5 2020-06-11 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ee2befcbff7b11983a52f5a/1591918339355/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - 5G summit expert question time livestream tonight - Update 12.6.20 There was a live question time with experts at the 5G summit tonight. Do see the link below. It has a number of different perspectives in 2 hours and is interesting to listen and to see the various points of view. https://youtu.be/iQKlp7p9lQw https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/bbc-radio-4-v-judge-john-deed monthly 0.5 2020-06-17 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5eea8046b4b3ca02f1dc3254/1592426583540/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - BBC Radio 4 v Judge John Deed - Update 17.6.20 Dear All, Some of you would have heard the BBC 4 File on 4 report tonight at 8pm which was titled “The 5G con that could make you sick”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000k2mj It pitched the impressive Devra Devis against David Grimes who denies there is any harm from 5G. Then it addresses the sale of expensive products which are marketed to those concerned about EMFs. Some of you may have been disappointed with the reporting of this serious subject. I would like to juxtaposition that case against 2 Episodes of Judge John Deed in which he considers the case of a nurse suffering from brain damage from use of a mobile phone. The industry at the time is said to be making £10 – 15bn in revenues. This was back in Mar 2011. Below are the episodes which are very realistic and entertaining. There are twists and turns but ultimately, the nurse dies and a settlement is reached with the mobile phone company. If you do watch, have fun. First section on ‘Health Hazard’ on Series 3 – Episode 1 Part ½ - there are ads regularly but you can skip them when invited to do so. Part 1 – start 16.20 mins in for the start of the case on the nurse https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ozsdf Part II – Episode 1 Part 2/2 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ozhu8 The case probably continues in other episodes but the climax is in Episode 4: Then the case continues with Episode 4 Part I - Second section on ‘Economic Imperative’- Series 3, Episode 4 - Part 1/2 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6fejvc Part II of ‘Economic Imperative’ – Series 3, Episode 4 – Part 2/2 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ozmrt Below is a review of the series 3 Judge John Deed – Series 3 – BBC https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/46888/judge-john-deed-season-three/ The first two series of Judge John Deed consisted of self-contained episodes. Here, the four shows are bit more serialized, insofar as the two biggest cases are spread across the four shows, though highlighted in one episode each. The first involves a Member of Parliament charged with mowing down a mother and her two children with his car while recklessly talking on his mobile phone. The second follows the case of a young mother with a brain tumor versus the mobile phone company she believes knowingly put unsafe product onto the market that ultimately caused her terminal illness. One gets the feeling creator-writer G.F. Newman is not a big fan of mobile phones. The season gets bogged down first in Jo Mills's disciplinary hearing, a potentially career-ending crisis generated by Deed's enemies to discredit him, and later by the usual attempts by them to gain leverage in the politically/economically delicate trials Deed hears. His on-again, off-again romance with Jo, instead of being romantic merely tests the audience's patience. That said, things do get interesting when Deed, in claiming to want a long-term relationship with Jo, begins outpatient therapy hoping to put an end to his womanizing. His efforts are half-hearted however and, predictably, he winds up sleeping with his exotic-looking therapist (Amita Dhiri, The Bill). The final show of the set is by all odds the best, as it explores the real problems of corporate greed putting profits ahead of public safety; of the willingness of scientists and universities to be bought off when they don't deliver the scientific results the big corporations want; big corporations transparently suppressing data about the safety (or not) of their products; and the lengths they will go to discredit their critics. (Spoilers) As extravagantly theatrical as his characters often are, Newman gets equal credit for taking bold and specific stands (in this case: cell phones are bad for human health and should be taken off the market) and for showing how big corporations will resort to dirty tricks to protect their interests. In a last-ditch effort to get the case thrown out, the phone company infiltrates Deed's computer, uploading child pornography onto its hard-drive. Then they call the cops. It doesn't get any worse. As always, Martin Shaw is a delight as Deed; his rakish charm and intelligence serve the character well. It's really amazing that he's almost completely unknown in America. https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/in-the-us-400-medical-amp-public-health-professionals-oppose-fcc-plans-for-expanded-wireless-technology monthly 0.5 2020-06-18 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5eebd72c475c4b473b1cbae3/1592514353197/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - In the US, 400 Medical &amp; Public Health Professionals Oppose FCC Plans for Expanded Wireless Technology - Update 18.6.20 From: Joel M. Moskowitz PhD <jmm@berkeley.edu> Sent: 18 June 2020 21:50 To: CHE-EMF <cheemf@healthandenvironment.org> Subject: 400 Medical & Public Health Professionals Oppose FCC Plans for Expanded Wireless Technology: FCC Urged to Update RF Radiation Guidelines to Protect Americans from Harm 400 Medical and Public Health Professionals Oppose FCC Plans for Expanded Wireless Technology: Letter Urges FCC to Update RF Radiation Exposure Guidelines to Protect Americans from Harm Press Release, Americans for Responsible Technology, June 18, 2020 Media Contact: Doug Wood (516) 423-6021 (New York) More than four hundred medical and public health professionals have signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging the agency to update its human exposure guidelines for radio-frequency (RF) microwave radiation before approving additional wireless technologies. The letter, filed yesterday in a regulatory procedure, highlights the FCC’s failure to consider the established and newly emerging science on RF radiation and its adverse impacts on human health, particularly for vulnerable populations including children and pregnant women. "Americans are entitled to know the full extent of any potential health risks associated with exposure to RF microwave radiation, particularly at this time when wireless companies are busy installing hundreds of thousands of new wireless antennas in close proximity to homes and apartments," the letter states, noting the Commission's obligation to ensure the "safety of life" for all Americans as set forth in the Communications Act of 1934. The letter was organized by Americans for Responsible Technology, a national coalition of more than 140 grassroots organizations across 42 states working to educate communities about the health impacts of exposure to RF microwave radiation and opposing further deployment of 5G-enabled wireless antennas in residential areas. "Science moves slowly, and while this may be inconvenient for the restless purveyors of wireless technologies, it does not excuse the Commission from its obligation to protect public health and safety," the letter states. "Waiting for decades to learn whether or not these exposures increase disease rates in human populations and in the natural world is a dangerous and irresponsible strategy." The full text of the letter and list of signatories can be found at: https://bit.ly/MDFCCletter62020 Related Posts on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety "We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe" (Scientific American) Scientific American Created Confusion about 5G's Safety: Will They Clear It Up? 5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health? 5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G- Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley Electromagnetic Radiation Safety Website: https://www.saferemr.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR Twitter: @berkeleyprc https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/over-400-doctors-in-brussels-sign-an-open-letter-to-the-government-to-stop-the-roll-out-of-5g-due-to-safety-fears monthly 0.5 2020-06-18 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5eebd923255cbd061ec97255/1592514862939/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - Over 400 doctors in Brussels sign an open letter to the government to stop the roll out of 5G due to safety fears - Update 2 - 18.6.20 Over 400 doctors in Brussels tell the government to halt the roll out of 5G By News4Trafford on 04/05/2020 https://news4trafford.co.uk/2020/05/04/over-400-doctors-in-brussels-tell-the-government-to-halt-the-roll-out-of-5g/ Here in the UK the roll out of 5G continues, we know its a dangerous technology and finally we have found a letter representing over 400 doctors in Brussels that was sent to the government that will shock political councillors here in Trafford who believe it is safe! We want an immediate halt to the roll out of 5G. The letter in full reads: In the midst of a pandemic, while citizens are confined and society is under severe strain, Proximusa began in March and the deployment of the future 5G in 30 municipalities around Brussels. Even if it could be a simple coincidence, this seems indecent to us at a time when the Belgians must fight together to try to overcome the human drama which concerns us all. At the same time, consumer organizations have rushed to publish articles to assert the non-dangerousness of this technology. The exposure of the population to electromagnetic radio frequencies / microwaves (RF / MO) did not stop increasing in the last decades. , tablets in 3G then 4G, Wi-Fi at home, at work, in nurseries, schools, transport and public places … And now, we are witnessing the arrival of 5G or at least 4G +. However, the safety of this exposure has never been demonstrated. On the contrary, the evidence of sanocivities is accumulating. Since 2011, moreover, electromagnetic RF / MO radiation from wireless technologies has been considered by OMS as possibly carcinogenic (class 2B), largely because of the increased risk of gliomas and acoustic neuromas. among long-time cell phone users. The Precautionary Principle was in no way observed during the massive deployment of these wireless technologies. However, when serious and possibly irreversible risks have been identified, the lack of certainty should not be used as an excuse to postpone measures to protect the environment and health. We have reviewed the independent scientific literature and we refer to inter alia, to Resolution 1815 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Our conclusions agree with those of independent specialists, and are that the precautionary principle is not currently applied and that the protection of the health of citizens, and children in particular, is not ensured in the face of overexposure to these RF electromagnetic radiation. /MO. The standards intended to protect the population from exposure to electromagnetic RF / MO radiation only take into account the heating of tissues (thermal effect) during an exposure of limited duration. These standards do not take into account repeated and / or prolonged exposures, or any non-thermal biological effects that occur at values significantly lower than the values currently authorized. They were not designed to protect fetuses, children, adolescents, the elderly … For children, the risks may be increased due to the cumulative effects of prolonged exposure. Their brains, organs and developing and immature tissues may be more sensitive to exposure, and radiation penetrates their organs proportionally more deeply than those of adults since their dimensions are smaller. Numerous studies (studies on cells, animals, epidemiological studies) confirm the existence of non-thermal biological effects induced by exposure to electromagnetic RF / MO radiation emitted by wireless technologies. These biological effects are, for example, DNA damage (ruptures), disturbances in protein synthesis, sperm alterations, disturbances in hormone synthesis is aware of the consequences of DNA damage, in particular their link with the occurrence of cancers.The latest studies on rats conducted in 2018 by two different independent institutes (NTP and Ramazzini) have shown that exposure to electromagnetic RF / MO radiation increases the occurrence of tumors, especially of the brain. Following this, in March 2019, the International Agency for Research on Cancer recommended a reassessment of the classification of these radiations within 4 years. The consequences of DNA damage, including their link to the onset of cancer, were known.The latest studies on rats conducted in 2018 by two different independent institutes (NTP and Ramazzini) showed that exposure to electromagnetic RF / MO radiation increases the occurrence of tumors, especially of the brain. Following this, in March 2019, the International Agency for Research on Cancer recommended a reassessment of the classification of these radiations within 4 years. In May 2019, the Belgian Superior Health Council recognized, in an opinion on non-ionizing radiation, the existence of the biological effects of this radiation at non-thermal levels; their link with the development of cancers (significant and statistically significant increases in the risk of cerebral gliomas and homolateral acoustic neuromas); the link between maternal exposure to electromagnetic fields from the frequencies of mobile phones and the existence of behavioral and language disorders in children. Although it takes more than 20 years for some cancers to develop, there is already an increase in glioblastomas (brain cancers) in populations in some European countries. In view of these facts, it would therefore become unseemly to dare to continue to claim that all of this represents no danger to health. The installation of 5G will require a significant easing of standards that are already much too high. ‘preliminary health studies. Some scientists fear an increase in the occurrence of skin cancer and eye damage linked to the use of higher carrier frequencies. In addition, the multiplication of the number of relay antennas necessary for the installation of the 5G network and the absolute hyper-connectivity in which it will precipitate society will impose a general and certain increase in the levels of exposure of populations. This is equivalent to predicting a situation where the overall health risk would be increased by a factor which it is impossible to determine in advance, with health consequences of which we do not know the nature and over which we would have no control. And this would also amount to an offense under the Nuremberg Code since it would ultimately be an experiment on humans without his consent, without certainty that the benefit to society is greater than the risk incurred. As doctors, we are already deploring more and more pathologies that may be related to environmental components such as this increasing exposure of the population to electromagnetic radiation from wireless. We are also receiving testimonials and we are meeting more and more people suffering from physical disorders potentially linked to exposure to electromagnetic radiation such as sleep disorders, tinnitus, palpitations, headaches, attention and concentration disorders, severe pain … We ask, with reference to Resolution 1815 of May 2011 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as well as in line with dozens of calls from doctors and scientists around the world, that local, regional public representatives and federal governments take their responsibilities and the necessary measures in order to obtain The application of the Precautionary Principle in order to protect the population, especially the youngest, children, pregnant women, the elderly, • A moratorium on the deployment of 5G pending health impact studies, Awareness of citizens, in particular parents, adolescents and pregnant women, for the responsible and responsible use of wireless connected objects, The establishment of truly protective exposure standards based on the thermal and non-thermal biological effects of RF / MO electromagnetic fields and radiation, The creation of a vigilance center or a symptom inventory organization in connection with this exposure With this carte blanche, we reach the thousands of doctors and scientists from around the world who, since the year 2000, have joined their voices in recurrent calls to alert populations and politicians to the dangers of wireless technologies Today, we are one of the 486 medical doctors who signed the “Hippocrates Electrosmog Appeal” to ask the government to apply the precautionary principle in order to protect the population from these dangers You will find on our website all the references relating to the information communicated above: https://www.hippocrates-electrosmog-appeal.be/ The recent news worries us all the more, but let’s bet together that it can be the opportunity for new awareness and advances in the field of prevention, which must today and more than ever be the subject of our full attention https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/q0ehn9ryzk8q9allwjperssbxssx8m monthly 0.5 2020-08-13 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5f35390c8e4ad50d15b53167/1597323546676/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - 5G and space satellites - Update 1 - 13.8.20 Latest email from Arthur Firstenberg From: Arthur Firstenberg <info=cellphonetaskforce.org@cyberimpact.com> On Behalf Of Arthur Firstenberg Sent: 12 August 2020 10:27 To: Subject: Online meeting about 5G satellites, August 13 Dear Friends, Due to problems with my email marketing service, a great many of you were not receiving these important newsletters about our common future. Therefore I temporarily stopped sending them while I hired a consultant to troubleshoot and fix the problems. This is my first newsletter since June 18. Coincidentally, SpaceX also had problems with its launches and did not send any Starlink satellites into space during that time. The launch of 57 satellites on Friday, August 7, 2020 was SpaceX’s first such launch since June 13. Arthur THE CURRENT SITUATION IN SPACE SpaceX The launch of 57 more satellites by SpaceX in the early morning of Friday, August 7, at 1:12 AM EDT, has brought the number of SpaceX’s “Starlink” satellites orbiting in the Earth’s ionosphere up to 595. Although this was the first launch since June 13, SpaceX has not been idle during this time. It has built additional ground stations and has received permission from the Federal Communications Commission to operate (so far) 40 ground stations, scattered throughout the United States. It has signed up customers to begin “beta testing” of the satellites that are already in orbit. Beta testing will occur initially, says SpaceX, with customers who live between 44 and 52 degrees latitude in the northern U.S. and southern Canada. SpaceX plans to begin the testing sometime in September. As I reported in a previous newsletter, SpaceX’s launch of April 22, which brought the number of its satellites up to 420, was accompanied by reports of heart palpitations from far and wide, including from yours truly. I again felt strong heart palpitations that began early in the morning on August 7. Actually I began to experience a feeling of oppression Thursday night about two hours before the launch time. Please contact me if you have been having heart palpitations since Friday’s launch. OneWeb OneWeb, which is based in the UK, and which had declared bankruptcy in March, has been bailed out to the tune of one billion dollars by the UK government and Indian telecommunications company Bharti Global. And on May 26, 2020, OneWeb applied to the FCC for permission to compete on an equal footing with SpaceX by launching 47,844 satellites into the ionosphere. Although OneWeb’s offices are in the UK, none of its Directors live there. Its CEO, Adrián Steckel, is Mexican, and the rest of its Directors live in the U.S., Germany, Israel and Mexico. Its major stockholders are Qualcomm (Singapore), SoftBank Group (Japan), and 1110 Ventures (U.S.). Amazon On July 29, 2020, the FCC granted Amazon’s application to launch 3,236 satellites into the ionosphere. Like the satellites of SpaceX and OneWeb, Amazon’s satellites will operate at millimeter wave frequencies and use phased array technology to cover the Earth with focused beams of radiation enabling customers to access the Internet from anywhere on Earth, on land or ocean. The satellites of SpaceX, OneWeb and Amazon alone, if they are all launched, will total, together, about 92,000 satellites. If you add in Iridium and Globalstar, which are already operating small constellations, and the plans of Facebook, Link, Canadian companies Kepler and Telesat, the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, Russia’s Roscosmos, and other competitors, there could soon be 100,000 satellites orbiting in the ionosphere. “But will you wake for pity’s sake”* The out-of-control satellite industry is one of the stupidest things humankind has ever created. It treats the life-giving envelope of our atmosphere as if we don’t depend on it. It poses an immediate threat to life on Earth, in so many ways. The 100,000 planned 5G satellites, each with a designed lifespan of 5 to 10 years, must be constantly de-orbited and replaced. This means that at least 10,000 satellites will have to be launched every year, forever into the future. If an average of 50 satellites can be launched on each rocket, that’s 200 rocket launches per year, just to maintain the satellites used for cell phones and Internet. And it means the de-orbiting of 10,000 worn out satellites per year, burning them up in the atmosphere and turning them into toxic dust and smoke. And that’s not counting the ever-increasing numbers of weather, research, tracking, monitoring, surveillance, military, and other kinds of satellites and missiles being launched in what will soon be a parade of rockets burning prodigious quantities of fossil fuels, punching holes in our atmosphere on a daily basis, and treating the source of all life as Earth’s largest garbage pit. Martin Ross of the Aerospace Corporation and other researchers have been modeling the effects of daily rocket launches on ozone and global temperatures. Rocket exhaust, depending on the type of fuel used, may contain chlorine and/or oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen, and/or aluminum, all of which destroy ozone. SpaceX’s kerosene-fueled rockets deposit enormous amounts of black soot into the stratosphere, where it accumulates, absorbing solar radiation and warming the stratosphere. The warming of the stratosphere accelerates the chemical reactions that destroy ozone. Most rockets are launched from the northern hemisphere. And the winter and spring of 2020 saw the largest and longest-lasting Arctic ozone hole in history. Ozone-watchers did not know what caused it, but they were not communicating with the scientists who are studying rocket exhaust. Our world is full of specialists, deaf and blind to other specialties, collectively asleep and marching toward oblivion. Atmospheric physicists do not study astronomy. Astronomers do not study electricity. Electricians do not study biology. Medical doctors do not study acupuncture. Doctors of oriental medicine do not study atmospheric physics. But the universe is not fragmented, it is a whole, and our culture has forgotten what that is, to its peril and to the peril of everything alive. The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the electric circuitry of the biosphere and everything in it, including the fine-tuned circuitry of every human, every animal, every tree, and every fish. If we do not immediately stop the destruction of our fragile blanket of electrified air, upon which we depend for growth, healing, and life itself, climate change and ozone destruction may not matter. Beta testing begins in September. NATIONAL MEETING ABOUT SATELLITES, AUGUST 13 On Thursday, August 13, 2020, from 7 to 9 PM EDT (2300 to 0100 UTC), Americans for Responsible Technology will host a meeting about the 5G satellites on Zoom that will be simulcast on Facebook. In the first hour, four presenters will speak for 15 minutes each: Ben Levi, technology consultant, will summarize the current satellite situation. Where are we now, and what is forecast over the next few years? Joe Sandri has a law degree and has training and experience in radiofrequency engineering. He will describe how the satellites work. How will a typical 5G transmission use the satellites? What kinds of earth stations will be required? Arthur Firstenberg will talk about the impact of the satellites on people and the environment. How will the electrical environment of the earth be altered by constant transmission of 5G signals? Julian Gresser, attorney, will address what is being done legally to stop this. What right does the FCC or any other agency have to authorize the use of space for private commercial interests? What are the legal and ethical principles involved? The second hour of the meeting will consist of a discussion among the presenters, followed by questions from the online audience, which will include members of the press. Attend by Zoom (limited space). Participants must register in advance: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwkdeqoqjIiGNx6dqXjti7HrZHqle3LNwrH Watch on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1176845649355076 CORONAVIRUS’S HIDDEN THREAT When SpaceX begins its beta testing in the northern United States and southern Canada later this summer, the single biggest obstacle to recognizing its effects on humans will be COVID-19. Because no matter how many people sicken or die in that part of the world, it will be blamed on the coronavirus. As I pointed out in a previous newsletter, the pandemic began with 5G. 5G came to Wuhan shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. 5G came to New York City streetlamps shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. COVID-19 deprives the blood of oxygen, while radio waves deprive the cells of oxygen. COVID-19, alone, is just a respiratory virus like the common cold. But together with 5G, it is deadly. To deal with COVID-19 effectively, society must first recognize the harm done to the body by radio waves. 5G is radio waves on steroids. This worker’s death was not caused by hot weather, as was reported by the media Instead of acknowledging the harm from radio waves, society is tearing its fabric apart by instituting measures that are protecting no one and are instead sickening and killing people. I will mention just one of those measures here: facial masks. As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.” I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses. Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.” Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.” Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002. In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%. A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.” Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.” Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn. Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.” Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden. Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group. Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same. Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.” Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.” Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask. Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them. “We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature. _____________ * from Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoners, 1951. Arthur Firstenberg August 11, 2020 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/update-on-judicial-review-25820 monthly 0.5 2020-09-02 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5f4563a2eb3f1f49c0606b87/1598383304670/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - Update on judicial review - 25.8.20 You will recall that my legal campaign is to, among other things, change government policy on the roll out of 5G – details of the campaign are at www.5gemfreview2020.com. During the time that our legal team has been considering taking legal action against the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, the government has made the decision to remove the need for planning permission for masts, antennae and equipment. Do see further below. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902836/Government_Response_Mobile_Planning_Consultation.pdf They did this after consulting with the public over permitted development rights (“PDR”) which ended in November, 2019. That would mean, among other things, that planning permission would no longer be needed for masts, antennae and equipment which can then be erected in town centres, neighbourhoods and conservation areas at will and mobile service providers can proliferate this equipment across the country with no oversight by anyone. The decision includes proposals to “Enable higher new masts to deliver better mobile coverage and mast sharing, subject to prior approval and specified limits”. It is not clear what this means but I have already seen a number of applications for massive 60 foot structures with multiple masts on them currently being made and from this decision it looks like it will be made easier for these types of structures to proliferate in our neighbourhoods. Our legal team obtained some copies of objections to the PDR public consultation which demonstrated the overwhelming submissions of adverse health consequences to humans, bees, trees and birds from such a reckless proposal. The government’s decision barely commented on such representations quoting the usual PHE stance which is known to be deeply flawed and unfit for purpose. A key part of the legal campaign is to change government policy on the roll out of 5G. Therefore, our legal team has decided to challenge this decision making process through the medium of judicial review promptly and, to that end, have sent a letter before action to the Secretaries of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and for the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Do see it below. https://www.scribd.com/document/473627506/LCS-Practice-letter-to-DCMS-and-DHCLG-final-as-sent-21-8-20-pdf Our legal team continues to consider taking legal action against DHSC/PHE. While I have seen some objections to the PDR consultation, if any of you made objections, please send them to me asap at jlc@lawlcs.com as they may be helpful in any eventual legal action. I know that some of you have contributed hugely and generously already. And you would be right to think that a one off contribution should suffice. But, the problem with this situation is that it is like an onion, with many layers and one has to peel off each layer of the onion skin to get at the different parts which form this brutal and inhumane treatment of humanity and our environment. You have all so far been fantastic. I am trying to do all that I can, but I cannot do this alone. Finally, I will write to you more later about this – but the UK government has just spent £500m (on 27 July) investing in the bankrupt OneWeb which was building 5G satellites for 45% of the company. The government made this investment against the advice of the UK Space Agency and of the relevant department’s Accounting Officer who said that the investment was not “value for money”. A shocking waste of taxpayer’s money. A company has just got planning permission to build a space port in Scotland and the government has given permission for satellites to be launched from that port. The UK Space Agency has been working on a plan to launch 5G satellites over the UK at least since 2018 that I can find. I will send more information on this with links to read soon. In the meantime, there are three immediate actions we need to take: - Object to the UK government’s investment in OneWeb; - Object to OneWeb’s new filing (since the UK government invested in the bankrupt company) to launch 42,000 satellites (to match SpaceX’s permission also to launch 42,000 satellites); and - Make representations on a consultation opened until October about legislation for satellites which would include 5G satellites. There is much work to do and not much time in which to do it. I will send more about these objections etc later. While some funds have been raised already, it is still below halfway to the £150,000 which I am trying to raise for this campaign. Please go to either of the pages below and donate what you can, including making a monthly contribution so that the fund can be built up to address these issues and issues similar to these to achieve the overall objective. Even a regular monthly donation of say £10 or more a month will move us towards the target. https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-judicial-review-2020/ Please tell your friends and spread the word. Best Regards, Jessica Learmond-Criqui https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/2cmdakwelzta8tq02des9iklo9dvlj monthly 0.5 2020-09-02 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5f4f7dc212287c6cfabed0a7/1599045072584/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - UK 5G space satellite race - Update - 2.9.20 I was alerted to the UK’s involvement in the space race for satellite connectivity to 5G by a member of the network who sent me the article below: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-53834962 He had heard on LBC Radio news a reference to planning permission being given for a space hub in the Highlands in Scotland. He also mentioned that he heard a reference to permission to launch 12 satellites a year. This is deeply concerning for 4 reasons: (a) The public are not aware of the UK’s involvement in the space race and the eye watering sums needed to support that endeavour. Google’s parent company Alphabet alone has a £1bn investment in SpaceX run by Elon Musk which has received permission from the US FCC for 42,000 satellite launches in the US. (b) The pristine pollution free Highlands will now be choked with solid fuel burn ups with satellite launches; (c) For the reasons below 12 satellite launches a year may be increased significantly in a short space of time; (d) The level of radiation in the atmosphere and on every part of earth is set to become dramatically higher and the health effects of radiofrequency radiation are set to become more pervasive and persistent. This is very concerning. After some research, I learned the following: 1. The UK government has just spent £500m on the bankrupt OneWeb satellite company. OneWeb has just applied to the FCC for permission to launch the same number of satellites as SpaceX – 42,000. See One Web’s FCC application below, made in May 2020. It is important that we object to OneWeb’s application for 42,000 satellites. More on this later. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rjXMUw5jAzPsuYN0GUsxRVl-uG6MuQSL/view?usp=drivesdk 2. The UK government sees space as a business opportunity and is seeking to “grow the market” in space which it considers may be worth around £500bn over the next few years. https://www.ukspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Prosperity-from-Space-strategy_2May2018.pdf 3. The government’s strategy on global connectivity is set out below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-space-industry-sets-out-vision-for-growth UK space industry sets out vision for growth The Prosperity from Space strategy sets out a vision for enhanced growth in the UK space sector over the next decade. Published by the Space Growth Partnership on Friday 11 May 2018, the strategy focuses on four sector priorities: · Earth information services including navigation, analytics and security · Connectivity services – global connectivity anywhere from any device · In-space robotics – for science enterprise, consumers · Low-cost access to space The strategy aims to double the value of space to wider industrial activities from £250 billion to £500 billion, generate an extra £5 billion in exports and attract £3 billion of inward investment. The space sector will actively encourage diversity and inclusion in its workforce and interact with 1 million young people per year in a bid to increase interest in careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). 4. The above Prosperity from Space document talks about “earth information services” and is very specific about 5G. This is mentioned in the planning statement for the Scottish satellite hub. This hub will launch 5G satellites. 5. Here is the planning statement for the Scottish space hub: https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/ABC57F934E64DC9D2D330FE4DE54DE90/pdf/20_00616_FUL-PLANNING_POLICY_STATEMENT-2029583.pdf 6. Look at page 49 which refers to supporting the “Prosperity from space” strategy (also above). The public are blissfully unaware of the 5G space race in the UK. 7. The UK Space Agency is charged with developing the space market in the UK but it is under the direction of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”). It is merely an Executive Agency (government name for a department within the main department) of BEIS. So when BEIS’s Accounting Officer looked at the request for investment in OneWeb, he paused and was not convinced that this investment was value for public money. He cautioned that the investment does not meet the standards of managing public money. 8. Given his concern, he requested a “direction” from the Secretary of State for BEIS to make the investment, noting that the UK Space Agency did not consider OneWeb could overcome various technical issues which it identified. The request for a direction is below. file:///F:/New%20Home/Portas%20pilot/5G%20mobile%20masts/5G%20Action%20Group/Space/OneWeb_-_request_for_ministerial_direction.pdf 9. The BEIS’s Accounting Officer states at the end of the request for a direction, the following: “I cannot satisfy myself that this investment meets the requirements of Value for Money as set out in Managing Public Money. Therefore, whilst I believe the risks around the other Accounting Officer standards of regularity, propriety and feasibility are manageable, Managing Public Money requires me to seek a direction from you.” 10. The Secretary of State directed the purchase of a 45% stake in the bankrupt OneWeb. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-direction-for-the-purchase-of-oneweb 11. OneWeb’s satellites are connectivity satellites and will use 5G transmission and upwards to enhance comms on earth. 12. So Space X with its 42,000 and OneWeb with its 42,000 (and rising for both no doubt) will increase the satellites circling earth. Amazon is also trying to set up its own satellite consternation so the numbers are set to rise further. There are only hundreds of satellites in the ionosphere at present enabling satnav and other activities. These massive increases will present new issues, challenges and dangers which we have never before experienced on earth. 13. Satellites need to be replaced every 3 – 5 years so there will be constant launches to keep the exorbitant number of satellites in play. 14. On 16 June (2020), the UK and US governments signed the Technology Safeguards Agreement. This paves the way for US companies to operate from UK spaceports and export space launch technology. Science Minister Amanda Solloway said: “We want the UK to be the first place in Europe to launch small satellites and, in order to do that, we need business-friendly regulations in place. Satellite launches will create new jobs right across the UK and attract significant investment into our rapidly growing space sector. This consultation brings these exciting opportunities a big step closer.” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/giant-leap-for-uk-spaceflight-programme-as-consultation-launches 15. There is a consultation on regulations for the space port and satellite services which ends in Oct 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/spaceport-and-spaceflight-activities-regulations-and-guidance 16. There are many documents at this link which relate to space but the document entitled “Guidance on the assessment of environmental effects” does not mention health. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904454/guidance-for-the-assessment-of-environmental-effects..pdf The actions I am investigation further now as mentioned are: (a) The legality of the decision to invest in OneWeb; (b) Preparing objections to the FCC re OneWeb’s application for 42,00 satellites; (c) Preparing comments on the consultation on regulations. I will be in touch further when I have considered the above. Some background notes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb On 3 July 2020, a consortium led by the UK national government and Bharti Global won the auction to purchase the bankrupt company, with each of the two parties expected to invest US$500 million for a combined investment of US$1 billion.[13][5][14][15] On 3 July 2020, the UK Government announced that it had acquired a 45% stake in OneWeb Global for US$500 million in a joint venture with Sunil Mittal's Bharti Global of India who would hold 55% (formerly a partner of OneWeb), the deal being subject to US Bankruptcy Court and regulatory approval. The deal was subsequently approved by the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on 10 July 2020.[33] It was reported that the UK would repurpose the satellites for its own Global Navigation Satellite System.[34] It was also announced that Hughes Network Systems would invest USD$50 million in the consortium.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Global_Navigation_Satellite_System The United Kingdom Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is in development to rival the European Union’s Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System after Brexit.[1] The system will be run by the United Kingdom Space Agency. Satellites are planned to be launched from the proposed spaceport in Sutherland, Scotland using a vertical launch platform in 2025,[2] with the United Kingdom GNSS planned to be fully operational by 2030.[3] In 2019, it was estimated that the cost of the project would be £5 billion.[4] [5] The United Kingdom government has said that it wants the United Kingdom GNSS to be openly compatible with the United States' Global Positioning System (GPS) and Five Eyes. Both the United States of America and the other Five Eyes nations are contributing their expertise to assist the planning and construction, and in exchange these nations will gain access to the United Kingdom's GNSS encrypted area after it is launched.[6][7] [8] History The United Kingdom GNSS was first discussed by the UK government in May 2018, after the European Union told the United Kingdom that it would no longer be able to use the secure component of the EU's Galileo,[9] [10] the equivalent of the USA's GPS. One suggested name for the UK Global Navigation Satellite System GNSS is Newton, after the English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton.[11] In November 2019, the United Kingdom's Space Trade Association (UKSA) released a United Kingdom Space Manifesto, in which they state that the United Kingdom "participation in a new global satellite navigation system must be secured".[12][13] In July 2020, the United Kingdom Government and India's Bharti Enterprises were successful in a joint bid to purchase the bankrupt OneWeb satellite company, with the UK paying $500m (£400m) for a 45% stake.[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Space_Agency The United Kingdom Space Agency (commonly known as the UK Space Agency or UKSA) is an executive agency of the Government of the United Kingdom, responsible for the United Kingdom's civil space programme. It was established on 1 April 2010 to replace the British National Space Centre (BNSC) and took over responsibility for government policy and key budgets for space exploration;[2][3] it represents the United Kingdom in all negotiations on space matters.[4][5] The Agency "[brings] together all UK civil space activities under one single management".[2] It is based at the former BNSC headquarters in Swindon, Wiltshire.[4][6][7] History and aims The establishment of the UK Space Agency was announced by Lord Mandelson, Lord Drayson and astronaut Major Timothy Peake at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre on 23 March 2010. Around £230 million of funding and management functions were merged into the UK Space Agency from other organisations.[4] "Improving co-ordination of UK efforts in fields such as Earth science, telecoms and space exploration" will form part of its remit, according to Lord Drayson.[8] Prior to the creation of the Agency, the space and satellite industry in the UK was valued at £9 billion and supported 68,000 jobs.[9] The 20-year aim of the Agency is to increase the industry to £40 billion and 100,000 jobs,[2] and to represent 10% of worldwide space products and services (increasing from the current 6%). This plan arises from the "Space Innovation and Growth Strategy" (Space-IGS) report, published by the Space Innovation and Growth Team in February 2010.[4] Dr David Williams was appointed Acting Chief Executive on 1 April 2010 and he was confirmed as the first CEO on 1 April 2011. At the ESA Council at Ministerial level in November 2012 the UK budget for space was significantly increased. Alice Bunn is the International Director.[10] Although Space-IGS called for the UK to double European Space Agency (ESA) contributions and to initiate and lead at least three missions between now and 2030, this has not been committed to, with Lord Drayson stating that "We will require a compelling business case for each proposal or mission".[4] Transfers of authority The UK Space Agency took over the following responsibilities from other government organisations: · All responsibilities, personnel, and assets of the British National Space Centre · ESA subscriptions from Natural Environment Research Council, Science and Technology Facilities Council and Technology Strategy Board,[2] including project grants and post-launch support[11] · UK elements of the space components of Global Monitoring for Environment and Security, and the Galileo satellite navigation system[2] · The financial interest in the European Union Satellite Centre (agreed in principle)[2] · Space technology and instrumentation funding from the Research Councils UK and Technology Strategy Board[2] UK Space Gateway The UK Space Gateway at Harwell, Oxfordshire is a focal point for growth in the UK's space sector. Harwell is home to a growing number of space organisations including start-ups, inward investors, corporate offices, the Satellite Applications Catapult, RAL Space and ESA's ECSAT Facility. As of April 2016, the site is estimated to host over 600 space-related employees working in circa 60 organisations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_space_programme United Kingdom Space Agency (2010 – present) Main article: UK Space Agency On 1 April 2010, the government established the UK Space Agency, an agency responsible for the British space programme. It replaced the British National Space Centre and now has responsibility for government policy and key budgets for space, as well as representing the UK in all negotiations on space matters. As of 2015, the UK Space Agency provides 9.9% of the European Space Agency budget.[12] Commercial spaceport competition In July 2014, the government announced that it would build a British commercial spaceport. It planned to select a site, build the facilities, and have the spaceport in operation by 2018.[18] Six sites were shortlisted, but the competition was ended in May 2016 with no selection made.[19] However, in July 2018 UKSA announced that the UK government would back the development of a spaceport at A' Mhòine, in Sutherland, Scotland.[20] Launch operations at Sutherland spaceport will be developed by Lockheed Martin with financial support from the UK government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, with the aim of commencing operations in 2020. Space Industry Bill 2017–2019 In June 2017, the government introduced a bill which will create a regulatory framework for the expansion of commercial space activities and the development of a UK spaceport, covering both orbital and sub-orbital activities.[21] Commercial and private space activities The first Briton in space, cosmonaut-researcher Helen Sharman, was funded by a private consortium without UK government assistance. Interest in space continues in the UK's private sector, including satellite design and manufacture, developing designs for space planes and catering to the new market in space tourism. British contribution to other space programmes Communication and tracking of rockets and satellites in orbit is achieved using stations such as Jodrell Bank. During the Space Race, Jodrell Bank and other stations were used to track several satellites and probes including Sputnik and Pioneer 5.[citation needed] As well as providing tracking facilities for other nations, scientists from the United Kingdom have participated in other nation's space programmes, notably contributing to the development of NASA's early space programmes,[22] and co-operation with Australian launches.[citation needed] The Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, invented carbon fibre composite material. The Saunders-Roe SR.53 Rocket/jet plane in 1957 used the newly invented silver peroxide catalyst rocket engine. The concept of the communications satellite was by Arthur C. Clarke. https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/legal-proceedings-issued-today-against-government-re-scrapping-planning-permission-requirement-for-5g-rollout monthly 0.5 2020-09-30 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5f74ca82e733a60563e6a2de/1601489650373/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - Legal proceedings issued today against Government re scrapping planning permission requirement for 5G rollout - Update 30.9.20 With the assistance of barrister David Wolfe QC, I have today issued legal proceedings which launches a legal challenge by way of Judicial Review to the Government’s recent decision (22 July 2020) to scrap the requirement for mobile phone companies to apply for planning permission before installing masts, antennae and cell towers up and down the country as the UK gears up for 5G. The decision being challenged was made jointly by the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DDCMS). This was against the backdrop of longstanding and widespread public concern about health issues, particularly the risk of radiation sickness, relating to 5G infrastructure – and ahead of the installation of a further 400,000 units at least (exact figure not known as mobile operators are no longer obliged to report it). We will claim in court that the Government’s decision did not comply with the requirements of a lawful consultation and will ask the court to quash it, to make way for a fresh - lawful - decision to be made. This legal challenge represents the voice of reason in the 5G debate, relying on establishment channels and due legal process to ensure rational Government decision-making in this matter and challenging the authorities where reason is absent. We argue that the Government has failed to discharge its legal duty to give ‘conscientious consideration’ to consultation responses - and specifically that civil servants withheld vital information from the Secretaries of State as they made their decision to relax planning permission requirements to expedite the roll-out of 5G. Indeed the Government's formal reply [dated 21 September 2020] to our Letter Before Action confirms that the entire body of detailed, cross-referenced and evidenced scientific material that accompanied their consultation response was never presented to Ministers. Among other points listed in the Judicial Review application, we point out that the UK Government’s reliance on guidelines produced by the International Commission on non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is flawed, as these represent only a minority view amongst scientists and healthcare researchers. There is already a huge body of work by specialist biochemists, scientists and doctors citing adverse effects on health of prolonged exposure to man-made pulsed high frequency electromagnetic radiation at levels well below the ICNIRP-recommended guideline maxima. None of this evidence, all of which was detailed in consultation responses, was presented to Ministers. We are invoking the EU's ‘Precautionary Principle’, contending that the Government's support of the roll-out of this technology before potential adverse health effects have been independently assessed, amounts to treating the general population as live subjects in a UK-wide 'in vivo' experiment on man made mmWave radiation. This is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, among other international conventions, and to English Law. We are arguing that until widespread use of the mmWave bands is deemed safe for long-term human exposure, based on evidenced and peer-reviewed research, mobile phone companies should be made to cease and desist the 5G rollout - and that therefore the UK Government’s recent decision to remove the planning permission requirements for mobile companies is highly irresponsible and should be judicially reviewed. We are campaigning for a rational review of the Government’s process in coming to this irrational decision to allow mobile phone companies to erect 5G masts, antennae and cell towers anywhere, anytime, without even having to apply for planning permission. It is clear that the consultation process has been completely undermined: the Government has now admitted that the scientific evidence submitted by the campaigners who are party to the Judicial Review proceedings was never presented to the Ministers making the decision. When questions about risk to public health have been raised, it is simply not right for civil servants to take it upon themselves to withhold vital scientific and other evidence. And further, while there is so much ambiguity around health issues associated with 5G infrastructure, it cannot be right to give mobile phone companies carte blanche to invade our cities, towns, communities and residential streets with controversial technology. The content of our judicial review application demonstrates clearly that the Government did not follow due process in reaching its decision to jettison the requirement for mobile phone companies to apply for planning permission, and certainly did not give the matter (particularly the responses they received to their consultation document) the conscientious consideration the authorities are required to by law.” While writing, the fundraising has been going well, but we need to b sure that we have enough funds to get to the end. If you are able to make further small donations, please fee free to do so on: 5G EMF review2020.com Do see the positive press coverage we have so far received today following the issue of proceedings: Evening Standard – 30.9.20 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-5g-phone-mast-radiation-safety-fears-a4560011.html https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updates-pre-1121/iaoba4e6fyg4xdq7ql21humxs12zhf monthly 0.5 2020-11-04 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5fa2f3cffec2054a8bfb236c/1604514798019/ Updates pre-1.1.21 - US’s State of New Hampshire Commission makes recommendations on 5G and associated electromagnetic radiation The State of New Hampshire in the US set up a Commission to consider the scientific evidence on health impacts of 5G and related electromagnetic radiation. Its report can be seen here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf In the report are the following 15 recommendations. It would be great if our own government could, as a minimum, consider similar recommendations: Here are the 15 recommendations on pages 9 - 17 of the report: RECOMMENDATION 1 - Propose a resolution of the House to the US Congress and Executive Branch to require the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to commission an independent review of the current radiofrequency (RF) standards of the electromagnetic radiation in the 300MHz to 300GHz microwave spectrum as well as a health study to assess and recommend mitigation for the health risks associated with the use of cellular communications and data transmittal.......... RECOMMENDATION 2 - Require that the most appropriate agency (agencies) of the State of New Hampshire include links on its (their) website(s) that contain information and warnings about RF-radiation from all sources, but specifically from 5G small cells deployed on public rights-of-way as well as showing the proper use of cell phones to minimize exposure to RF-radiation, with adequate funding granted by the Legislature. In addition, public service announcements on radio, television, print media, and internet should periodically appear, warning of the health risks associated with radiation exposure. Of significant importance are warnings concerning the newborn and young as well as pregnant women.......... RECOMMENDATION 3 - Require every pole or other structure in the public rights-of-way that holds a 5G antenna be labeled indicating RF-radiation being emitted above. This label should be at eye level and legible from nine feet away....... RECOMMENDATION 4 - Schools and public libraries should migrate from RF wireless connections for computers, laptops, pads, and other devices, to hardwired or optical connections within a five-year period starting when funding becomes available...... RECOMMENDATION 5 - Signal strength measurements must be collected at all wireless facilities as part of the commissioning process and as mandated by state or municipal ordinances. Measurements are also to be collected when changes are made to the system that might affect its radiation, such as changes in the software controlling it. Signal strength is to be assessed under worst-case 12 conditions in regions surrounding the tower that either are occupied or are accessible to the public, and the results of the data collection effort is to be made available to the public via a website. In the event that the measured power for a wireless facility exceeds radiation thresholds, the municipality is empowered to immediately have the facility taken offline. The measurements are to be carried out by an independent contractor and the cost of the measurements will be borne by the site installer...... Recommendation 6 - Establish new protocols for performing signal strength measurements in areas around wireless facilities to better evaluate signal characteristics known to be deleterious to human health as has been documented through peer-reviewed research efforts. Those new protocols are to take into account the impulsive nature of high-data-rate radiation that a growing body of evidence shows as having a significantly greater negative impact on human health than does continuous radiation. The protocols will also enable the summative effects of multiple radiation sources to be measured...... RECOMMENDATION 7 - Require that any new wireless antennae located on a state or municipal right-of-way or on private property be set back from residences, businesses, and schools. This should be enforceable by the municipality during the permitting process unless the owners of residences, businesses, or school districts waive this restriction..... RECOMMENDATION 8 - Upgrade the educational offerings by the NH Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) for home inspectors to include RF intensity measurements..... RECOMMENDATION 9 - The State of New Hampshire should begin an effort to measure RF intensities within frequency ranges throughout the state, with the aim of developing and refining a continually updated map of RF exposure levels across the state using data submitted by state-trained home inspectors...... RECOMMENDATION 10 - Strongly recommend all new cell phones and all other wireless devices sold come equipped with updated software that can stop the phone from radiating when positioned against the body..... RECOMMENDATION 11 - Promote and adopt a statewide position that would strongly encourage moving forward with the deployment of fiber optic cable connectivity, internal wired connections, and optical wireless to serve all commercial and public properties statewide..... RECOMMENDATION 12 - Further basic science studies are needed in conjunction with the medical community outlining the characteristics of expressed clinical symptoms related to radio frequency radiation exposure...... RECOMMENDATION 13 - Recommend the use of exposure warning signs to be posted in commercial and public buildings. In addition, encourage commercial and public buildings, especially healthcare facilities, to establish RF-radiation free zones where employees and visitors can seek refuge from the effects of wireless RF emissions...... RECOMMENDATION 14 - The State of New Hampshire should engage agencies with appropriate scientific expertise, including ecological knowledge, to develop RF-radiation safety limits that will protect the trees, plants, birds, insects, and pollinators...... RECOMMENDATION 15 - The State of New Hampshire should engage our Federal Delegation to legislate that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the FCC do an environmental impact statement as to the effect on New Hampshire and the country as a whole from the expansion of RF wireless technologies... https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updatespost1121 daily 0.75 2021-03-18 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updatespost1121/radiofrequency-radiation-causes-brain-tumours monthly 0.5 2021-03-19 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updatespost1121/us-cancer-lawsuit-filed-in-2001-will-finally-go-on-trial monthly 0.5 2021-03-19 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updatespost1121/update-121120-2020-consensus-statement-of-uk-and-international-medical-and-scientific-experts-and-practitioners-on-health-effects-of-non-ionising-radiation-nir monthly 0.5 2021-03-19 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/updatespost1121/update-91220 monthly 0.5 2021-03-19 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/new-1 daily 0.75 2020-05-30 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/donate daily 0.75 2020-05-31 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/lawyers daily 0.75 2020-09-03 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/contact daily 0.75 2020-05-30 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/the-case daily 0.75 2021-03-18 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/newsletter daily 0.75 2020-06-04 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/home daily 1.0 2021-03-18 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/adverse-health daily 0.75 2020-06-18 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/news daily 0.75 2021-02-17 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/60087fa77d9f8363e428a0b7/1611169876137/NLJ+page+1.png News https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/600888bc3c8e377f59d3894b/1611172038401/SJ2.png News https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5f8df6c8de123812ce0299d2/1603139284434/Edward+Fennell+post+-+picture.png News https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5f74d1cb1f7065735c90f763/1603137756921/The+Times+with+launch+of+case+-+30.9.20.jpg News https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/6008801f9ac0892df0744283/1611169891167/NLJ+page+2.png News https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/600888577bc025296a27ea65/1611172009696/SJ1.png News https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/600888d97618d76328a4b038/1611174366151/SJ3.png News https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/what-can-i-do daily 0.75 2020-05-31 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed125e602ae51475738bc53/1590765051296/ What can I do? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed1271e8302042c26b9add2/1590765365917/ What can I do? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed1268eb208c2251339290b/1590765216225/ What can I do? https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/our-mission daily 0.75 2020-06-02 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed0eca58c3f6405dc6478d7/1590840869422/ Our mission - UK residents are unaware of the harm that is being caused to themselves, their children and babies who are exposed to man-made radiofrequency radiation to the extent that they are so exposed in today’s world. This case will, hopefully, change the government’s stance and ensure that they are aware of the potential harm so that they can either agree to participate in a man-made RFR environment or they can live in their homes and public spaces free from man-made RFR. Help us to protect your future. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/5ed248d626df7f3a80f03eec/1590839530676/ Our mission - Many of the estimated 800,000+ people who are electrohypersensitive have a limited involvement in public life or are excluded from public life because man-made RFR in public spaces is so prevalent that they feel ill in such environments. Some are prisoners in their own homes, unable to go out and they struggle to live a normal life. They are ignored by the government and marginalised. A change in policy will, at the very least, see safe corridors being formed for such persons so that they too can participate in public life by enjoying public spaces and public venues. Photo by liulolo/iStock / Getty Images https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/electrohypersensitivity daily 0.75 2020-05-31 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/further-updates daily 0.75 2021-02-17 https://www.5gemfreview2020.com/update-post-28521 daily 0.75 2021-05-28 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ecfbed07e862804a03f4431/t/60b10b8ab8d56c0c6071a65d/1622215594799/unsplash-image-bHaDK74hWLY.jpg Update post 28.5.21 - Update on legal case Dear All, Update – 28.5.21 As you know, we applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to proceed to judicial review having been refused permission in the High Court. We have now heard from the Court of Appeal which has refused permission to proceed to judicial review. This is disappointing news, without doubt. It means that the challenge which we made to the government’s decision to remove planning permission requirements from the siting of masts and antennae was unsuccessful. But, that is not the end of the story. Some of you know that the efforts to obtain justice for those who suffer from the effects of man-made radiation is a journey. We have been pushed back on the first step on that journey but we are continuing on that journey. The government’s consultation on the removal of planning permission has another layer - a step 2 - they have started a technical consultation on how they are going to remove this planning permission. The technical consultation seeks views on how to implement the proposals consulted on in August 2019 to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage and is below. Comments have to be in by 14 June, 2021: Current Technical Consultation link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation In refusing permission to proceed to judicial review, the Court of Appeal judge referenced this from the Government’s consultation response document)*: “We will undertake a technical consultation on the detail of the proposals, including appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards, prior to amending the existing legislation and will reassess whether there would be a positive or negative, direct or indirect, impact on people with protected characteristics, and update the Public Sector Equalities Duty assessment as necessary.” Consistent with that, the Technical Consultation document says this (in paragraph 84 and then Question 11): “Considering the technical detail of the proposals, we would welcome views on the potential impact of the matters raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?” This opportunity gives a second bite at the cherry. Our barrister, David Wolfe QC, continues to advise our claimant on this matter and has suggested that we invite you all to put in responses. If there are particular impacts in certain areas, eg, residential areas, areas close to schools etc, then those should be identified. Depending on how the government then deals with all of that information, we might have a chance at a further legal challenge. I will be reviewing the documents in the Technical Consultation and will circulate shortly my responses. You will be welcome to base your responses using mine as a guide. We will be working with our barrister to review the government’s continuing response and to obtain legal advice on potentials to challenge. This continuing legal activity will have costs and to that end, I will be setting up a new fundraising page to address those costs. We would be grateful for your continued support in relation to those costs. I hope that you will be able to continue to support these endeavours as generously as you have done in the past and thank you all for your fantastic support so far. If there are no other opportunities for legal challenge, any funds raised which are not used will be donated to the charity ES-UK.info or other similar charity. Many of you will know of es-uk which can be found at http://www.es-uk.info/ which provides: “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”. I will be in touch soon with the details of the new fundraising page on Crowdjustice and with my comments on the Technical Consultation document so that you can submit your own responses asap. Yours sincerely, Jessica Learmond-Criqui * You may recall that the Government's response to this initial consultation was published in a report in July 2020 which is below: August 2019 Consultation (Proposed reforms to development rights to support rollout of 5G) - Government response link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902836/Government_Response_Mobile_Planning_Consultation.pdf In the government's response to the initial consultation, at point 62 (page 29 of the report) it states "... The majority of personal respondents expressed concerns in relation to in-principle opposition to the deployment of 5G infrastructure, in particular on grounds relating to public health concerns, and the effects of EMF radiation on the environment, including on wildlife populations." In the summary of this report, at point 5 (page 4) it states "....Having considered the responses to the consultation, we are satisfied that there is evidence to demonstrate that the proposed reforms would have a positive impact..... we will ensure that the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards are in place to mitigate the impact of new mobile infrastructure...". At point 10 (page 5) it states "In developing the technical consultation, we will work with mobile industry representatives .... including... Ofcom*....."