Email to William Wragg (MP) 14/06/19

To: WRAGG, William <>,

Subject: ‘The stifling of science’

Dear William,

I’ve sent some lengthy correspondences in your direction, so I’m now going to write to you in shorter (relatively!), specifically orientated emails. This one is written with your Westminster researcher in mind… please could you forward it on to them.

From a Harvard Law Today 2011 article on a lecture given by Dr Franz Adlkofer to Harvard Law School: ‘In his lecture, “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science”, Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs their research … “The practices of institutional corruption in the area of wireless communication are of enormous concern,” said Adlkofer, … “Based on the unjustified trivializing reports distributed by the mass media by order and on account of the wireless communication industry, the general public cannot understand that its future wellbeing and health may be at stake. The people even distrust those scientists who warn. In democracies, it is a basic principle that above power, and its owners, are laws, rules, and regulations. Since in the area of wireless communication this principle has been severely violated it is in the interest of a democratic society to insist on its compliance.” Article:(

Seeking out the truth on potential 5G health effects

Seeking for the truth about mobile phone radiation health effects can be a tortuous process that confronts the seeker with bewilderingly contradictory information. The reason I deemed it necessary to cover the subject of 5G propaganda in my letter was because I knew people might do a few google searches and think they’d found answers… usually on the lines of ‘we’re surrounded by background radiation and mobile phones aren’t much different. There’s no real evidence of harm even if some people say there is’.

Finding the truth on potential 5G health effects

The dependable answers on health effects lie… pretty obviously… with the scientific experts who are qualified in the field and who have no vested interest beyond the autonomous integrity of their science. These are the scientists who are appealing to the world health authorities. They are the scientists who have carried out their research with an open mind, who haven’t fallen prey to ‘man prefers to believe what man prefers to be true’, but have let the science inform them. What’s most important is that they have been independent of the telecommunications industry.

Along with Dr Adlkofer, Dr Martin Pall is such a scientist. In his ‘Health effects of wireless’ testimony at Massachusetts Statehouse in 2017 he stated: ”There should be no question that there is an international scientific consensus on the existence of non-thermal health effects and the inadequacy of the safety guidelines and standards”. His closing words were: ”Everything I say here will be denied by industry, I guarantee it. This is what the science says”.

The three scientists’ appeals:

2015: The ‘EMF Appeal’ was sent to the UN, WHO, UNEP and all UN member states, requesting a lowering of current EMF guidelines and standards, stating that current standards are not biologically protective. The 206 signatories of the appeal were not just random scientists, they all had peer reviewed, published scientific papers (over two thousand papers collectively) on the biological effects of EMFs.

2017: the ‘5G Appeal’, this time addressed to the European Commission, warning of ‘potential serious health effects of 5G‘ and recommending a moratorium.

2018: ‘The EMF Call’, to the UN and WHO: ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health‘ It warned that the ICNIRP international guidelines on RF radiation (mobile phone radiation) are not protective and endanger people. ICNIRP guidelines are the guidelines the British Parliament references.

I would like to know, did the British Parliament receive notification of these appeals and their serious warnings? (That isn’t a rhetorical question… I’d like an answer as soon as possible, please.)

Specifically for your researcher

1. ‘5G: GREAT RISK FOR EU, U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL HEALTH! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF). Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them’ written by Dr Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University.  BA degree in Physics, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors, Johns Hopkins University; PhD in Biochemistry & Genetics, Caltech:

2. ‘THE EMF CALL’ APPEAL:  ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health.’ (ICNERP GUIDELINES, JULY 2018: ‘In order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization and all governments not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines. They are not protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific pretext that they are “protective”.


4. Translation of the German report: ‘Birds, Bees and Mankind – Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’ – Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies‘:

5. The Bioinitiative Report Conclusions: ‘Overall, these 1800 or so new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9), carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function…’.

6. Magnetochemistry journal, 5th May 2019, ‘Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels’. From the opening paragraph: ‘It is concluded that politicians in the Western world should stop accepting soothing reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking the health and safety of their communities seriously

7. The Lancet, December 2018, Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact’. … ‘This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels’

8. Declassified 1977 article on millimetre radio wave biological effects: …’Morphological, functional and chemical studies conducted in humans and animals revealed that millimetre waves caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the skin and  internal organs. Qualitative and quantative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the processes of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism. The degree of unfavourable effect of millimetre waves depended on the duration of the radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.

9. EU Reflex Study, parts 1,2,3,4:

10. Robert C Kane ‘Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette – a Historical and Scientific Perspective’:

11. Pdf of letter I sent to all MPs, which has further information and research links:

Dr. Erica Mallery Blythe speaking about RF radiation health effects: ”The precautionary principle is outdated now, it’s overdue and protection is an emergency.” 

Thanks for  your time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close