The case

Since 1930s, harm to humans from radiofrequency radiation has been studied and recorded. The 1971 US Naval Medical Research Institute report, the 1981 NASA report and the 2019 Bioinitiative report, among many more, identify thousands of studies showing harmful biological effects. In 2020, we are told this radiation is safe. This is wrong.

Radiofrequency radiation, which includes 5G, is well known to pose a serious risk to human health. 

This legal challenge is against wireless 5G, radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”) and electromagnetic fields (“EMFs”) generally due to their impact on the health of humans. 

The government and media state that there is no harm to humans from 5G.  This is wrong.  The majority of scientific evidence show that there is harm.  The burden for illnesses which may result from 5G and other RFR will fall on the NHS and ultimately on the taxpayer.  This too is wrong.  The government is tasked with safeguarding the health of the nation and they are now being called to account for their failure to honour their duty to do so. The balance of scientific evidence is now clear that RFR/EMFs are harmful to humans.

Many people are sensitive to RFR and EMFs and suffer illness, distress and financial loss due to inability to work. Those who suffer from electrohypersensitive (EHS), estimated at over 800,000 in the UK, have a limited involvement in public life or are excluded from public life because 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.  

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.

The UK government insist on using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set limits of radiation for public health.  ICNIRP’s guidelines are not fit for purpose as, among other things, they only recognise harm from heating of the body and are set for short term exposure – 6 minutes in fact.  Many people suffer harm without any heating of their bodies.

 

5G is the fifth generation of RFR technology used in the mobile telecoms industry and follows 1G – 4G.  It dwarfs RFR from 1G – 4G because millions more masts, antennae, small cells, picocells etc have to be placed at short distances apart all around the country in order to develop the infrastructure to deliver the data speed promised by 5G. As one scientist puts it, “5G is wifi on steroids”.

The current electrosmog from 1G – 4G will become significantly worse and it is likely to result in more harm to humans, animals, trees and pollinators.

 

Many people have tried to engage with the government and its agencies, including Public Health England, over the last few years in an attempt to persuade them that their existing policies are harmful to human, animal and plant health.  The government rejects such approaches and insists on its adherence to ICNIRP’s guidelines.  

It has removed health concerns from the National Planning Policy Framework, thereby removing the ability of its residents from raising such concerns at local council level.  Its Electronic Communications Code has limited the rights of its citizens to object to equipment being put on their land.  It has permitted the proliferation of RFR gadgets used by babies and children without constraint. 

These policies are likely to result in harm to UK residents.  There are likely to be many breaches of English law but a few which are the subject of this case are breaches to duties to safeguard public health, breaches of the environmental legislation, breaches of human rights and breaches of the public sector equality duty.  

The public sector equality duty is relevant because the government, in promoting these harmful policies, is likely to be doing so without considering people who are electrohypersensitive and who are, thereby, disabled and disadvantaged under the terms of the Equality Act.

 We want:

  • to obtain a change of government policy to stop the harm to UK residents, which would include:

    • an immediate halt to the roll out of 5G infrastructure until it is proven that there is evidence of no harm;

    • direct all such businesses and persons to turn off all equipment which propagate wireless signals, including those used for 5G, masts, antennae, wifi (including in schools), small cells as the frequencies used have not been tested for long term exposure;

    • Direct all products which use wireless technology including 5G to be recalled until proper testing by independent scientists do not document harm at realistic levels of exposure;

    • Direct that the manufacture of all products using wireless technology including 5G be halted. Direct that all forms of use of wireless technology be halted including lightbulbs that talk to mobile phones, diapers that tell mobile phones that they are wet, soothers or pacifiers that are placed into the mouth of infants to measure temperature which information is sent to their parents’ mobile.

  • Require the government to ensure that the industry lays cabling for the purposes of upgrades in technology rather than relying on wireless technology generating RFR and EMFs;

  • Require the government to examine all equipment and gadgets generating RFR and to take steps to ensure that there is evidence of no harm from such equipment.

We have issued a claim in the High Court for Judicial Review against the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Communities, Housing and Local Government in relation to their decision to remove planning permission requirements for masts, antennae and associated equipment. There may be other legal action which we will consider as matters arise and for which the funding will be used.

The funds are used to review the cases, draft the applications for judicial review, appear at any hearing relating to the applications, prepare the cases for a hearing and appear in court to present our cases.  Jessica Learmond-Criqui will be the solicitor acting in the cases through LCS Practice Ltd.

How much are we raising and why?

We are raising £150,000 to cover the legal and other costs and contingencies mentioned above including costs for the other side in the event of failure of the judicial review application - the Aarhus Convention cap of up to £5,000 has so far been claimed.  We need your support: please donate and share this site now.

Under the terms of the Crowd Justice fundraising platform, if you give over £1,000, if there are unused funds after litigation, some of your donation will be returned on a pro rata basis.  

If you give less than £1,000, unused funds will not be returned to you but used in accordance with the platform's terms on unused funds.  Please review the other terms of the platform to be sure that you understand their policy regarding donations.

Thanks so much for supporting this endeavour. We would be grateful if you would donate what you can and share this page on social media, via WhatsApp and email to spread the word!