Email Response to Seema Kennedy (05/07/19)

Dear Seema Kennedy,

I’ve now been given copies of two letters (PO-1178233 and PO-1177761) which you have sent out in response to concerns raised about 5G health effects and deem it necessary to address their content. Before I do that, I want to communicate something to you. In your maiden speech on June 11th 2015, you said ”The greatest prize I won on the 8th May was the right to serve. I will do my utmost to repay the trust that the people of South Ribble have put in me.” It is my opinion that the greatest repayment you can make to the people of South Ribble is to do everything within your power to protect them from the serious potential health effects 5G could inflict upon them.

Response to your letters:

SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘Exposures of radio waves to the public are well within the international health related guideline levels that are used in the UK. These guidelines are from the ICNIRP and underpin health protection policies at UK and European levels.’

RESPONSE: The ICNIRP guidelines have been internationally discredited by a large number of highly qualified scientists. From ‘The EMF Call’  scientists’ appeal to the UN and WHO (  ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health.’ 

‘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”. 

Background: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz). 1. These guidelines are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP guidelines. 2. The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment.’

SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘With the increase in the volume of information being transferred, more spectrum is being made available and the highest frequencies being discussed for future use by 5G are around ten times higher than those used by current network technologies, up to a few tens of gigahertz (GHz). Their use is not new and they have been used for point-to-point microwave links, and some other types of transmitters that have been present in the environment for many years. ICNIRP guidelines apply up to 300 GHz, well beyond the maximum frequencies under discussion for 5G.’

RESPONSE: 1. ‘up to a few tens of gigahertz’. To put this in context: the range of human brain frequencies, from Delta to Gamma, is 0 – 100HZ . The planetary electromagnetic field (Schumann resonance), which all life forms have evolved in synchronization with, is 7.83Hz (fundamental) fluctuating between 3Hz and 60Hz. 5G frequencies, in PHE’s words: ‘a few tens of gigahertz’, when 10 gigahertz equals 10,000,000,000Hz, translates as superimposing the  electromagnetic field with frequencies that are tens of billions times higher than the inherent frequencies of nature… without a single safety test on biological effects. The pharmaceutical industry would never be allowed to introduce new drugs onto the market without rigorous safety testing.

2. Point-to-point microwave links are not remotely comparable to global exposure… and they could still be causing unclassified harm.

3. The ICNIRP guidelines ‘are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. … they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment‘.

SEEMA KENNEDY:  ‘Exposure to radio waves is not new, and health-related research has been conducted on this topic for over several decades. In particular, a large amount of new scientific evidence has emerged over the past few years through dedicated national and international research programmes that have addressed concerns about fast development of wireless technologies.

RESPONSE: 1. Published in the 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

2. Published in The Lancet, December 2018, Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact’. From the text: 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’

3. Declassified 1977 CIA article on millimetre radio wave biological effects: . The opening paragraph, written around 42 years ago: ‘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.

4. Please could PHE forward me, or my local MP William Wragg, the specific references for the scientific research relating to: ‘a large amount of new scientific evidence has emerged over the past few years through dedicated national and international research programmes that have addressed concerns about fast development of wireless technologies’.

SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘The focus of recent research has been on exposure to the types of radio signals used by current communications technologies and at the frequencies they use, up to a few GHz. Fewer studies have been carried out at higher frequencies, but the biophysical mechanisms that govern the interaction between radio waves and body tissues are well understood at higher frequencies and are the basis of the present ICNIRP restrictions.

RESPONSE: 1. ‘Fewer studies have been carried out at higher frequencies,’… then how is it even possible that the British population is being exposed to higher frequencies?

2. Please could PHE forward me, or my local MP William Wragg, specific references for a) the ‘fewer studies’ that have been carried out on higher frequencies b) the scientific research which demonstrates the well understood ‘biophysical mechanisms that govern the interaction between radio waves and body tissues’.

SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘The main change in using higher frequencies is that there is less penetration of radio waves into body tissues, and absorption of the radio energy and any consequent heating become more confined to the body surface.’

RESPONSE: PACE (Planetary Association for Clean Energy): ‘The idea that the human body can tolerate 5G radiation is based on the faulty assumption that shallow absorption by the skin is harmless. … when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. Shallow penetration of millimetre waves also poses a unique danger to the eyes and skin, as well as to very small creatures.’

Jeremy Naydler, 5G phased array RF radiation‘… because instead of the radiation decaying when it is absorbed into living tissue, it can be re-radiated within the body. The moving charges streaming into the body effectively become antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the organism.

Leading expert on RF radiation health effects, Dr Martin Pall, writing about 5G frequencies: ‘What this means is that the impacts on the outer one to two inches of our bodies will be massive. Because of this we can expect humans to suffer from:

1. Very large increases in blindness from each of the four major causes of blindness: cataracts, macular degeneration, glaucoma and retinal detachment. Each of these involves excessive calcium levels in different parts of the eye and 3 of them also involve excessive voltage-gated calcium activity. I conclude that each of them is likely to be massively elevated by 5G. 

2. Large increases in hearing loss and tinnitus, leading in many cases to deafness. 

3. Very large increases in male infertility, as well as universal drops in sperm count. 

4. Very substantial numbers of melanoma skin cancer and leukemia and possibly other types of cancer. EMFs appear to be particularly active in causing cancer in children and consequently children are at special risk from 5G. 

5. Impacts on the peripheral nervous system leading to near universal neuropathic pain and peripheral neuropathy. 

6. Large increases in thyroid dysfunction, because of the location of the thyroid gland near the surface of the body. 

7. Impacts on the immune system cells, possibly leading to autoimmune diseases and other deficiencies. 

8. Impacts on the erythrocytes (red blood cells), leading to stacking of the erythrocytes into rouleaux (long chains) and also cell lysis, leading to very low oxygen in the tissues and lowered nutrients transport to the tissues. 

Because plants and animals are affected as much as we are, but much larger parts of them are highly exposed to the 5G radiation, the impacts on insects (including bees and other pollinators), birds, small mammals and almost all plants will be much more severe than the effects of humans.’

SEEMA KENNEDY: ‘It is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network, or in a new area, but overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and there should be no consequences for public health.’

RESPONSE: This answer seriously belies the truth. 5G antennae are to be ubiquitously deployed across the streets and roads of Britain within yards of people’s homes. 5G frequencies are not just a raising of 4G frequencies but are radiated through the system called ‘phased array’. Jeremy Naydler: ‘In the phased array, groups of antennas are co-ordinated to radiate pulses in a specific direction and in a specified time sequence. This allows a concentrated beam of radio waves to be exactly aimed at designated targets, to enable signals to be sent or received. Because the beams are concentrated in this way, this adds to their power, which means they are able more easily to penetrate buildings. But it also means that any living creature that gets in the way of such a concentrated beam will be subjected to a powerful dose of extremely high frequency radiant electricity.’

I will forward some emails that I’ve sent to my local MP, William Wragg, relating to the ICNIRP guidelines and the AGNIR and SCENIHR reports, which PHE is referencing when it denies any risk of harm from 5G frequencies. I will also forward an email which draws parallels between the telecommunications industry and the cigarette industry.

William Wragg has already written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Jeremy Wright and to the Secretary of state for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock stating (in bold): ‘ I therefore ask that you provide independent, peer reviewed, indubitable and definitive evidence that the technology is safe and poses no risk to human health. This evidence must look at both the effect of short term and long term cumulative effects on people, the impacts of living close to antennae sites and the general background level that a national network will bring. If such evidence does not exist that the Government commission research into it as a matter of urgency. 5G technology should not be rolled out until we can be sure that it is safe, and in the absence of such evidence I would not support its further development, until the health effects have been fully established.’

Currently, WHO and PHE are choosing to act on the advice of ICNIRP, with a membership of 13, and failing to acknowledge the hundreds of highly and specifically qualified scientists, with no vested interests, who are warning that 5G poses serious risk of harm and trying to halt its deployment.(Scientists’ ‘5G Appeal’ to the EU:

The first priority in this picture is to protect the British population from harm and to uphold their fundamental human rights.

(I am forwarding this email to William Wragg; Jeremy Wright, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; Matt Hancock, Secretary of state for Health and Social Care; the members of the Science and Technology Committee; the members of the Health and Social Care Committee; Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Advisor to the UK Government).

Thank you 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