|Subject:||The Precautionary Principle|
|Date:||Thu, 6 Jun 2019 20:24:34 +0100|
|To:||email@example.com, Jeremy.firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, WRAGG, William <email@example.com>|
Dear Norman Lamb,
this will be as short as possible.
I will take the following as the premise for this email about ‘the precautionary principle’:
1. From the EU’s ‘Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Energy Electromagnetic Field Exposure’ ... ‘Furthermore, there exists no justification anymore to claim that we are not aware of any pathophysiological mechanisms which could be the basis for the development of functional disturbances and any kind of chronic diseases in animal and man.’
2. Epidemiological assessment: ‘Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).’
3. Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe, speaking about RF radiation effects: ”The precautionary principle is outdated now, it’s overdue and protection is an emergency.”
The precautionary principle is fairly self-evident but has certain areas of complexity. Such complexity could obviously unfold if the precautionary principle was applied to 5G, not least, economically. Even so, the deciding factor would have to be based (at least in theory) on what ensures the safety and wellbeing of the British people and doesn’t endanger them.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, EUROPE. ‘The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment
and the future of our children’
‘The principle states that in the case of serious or irreversible threats to the health of humans or the ecosystem, acknowledged scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason to postpone preventive measures.’
‘Debate about the precautionary principle is partly a response to the recognition of the severe social and economic costs of not taking precautions. Millions of children worldwide have suffered from neurological damage, diminished mental capacity and thus the ability to make a living as a result of exposure to lead from smelters, in paint and in petrol. Tobacco, asbestos and numerous other agents provide ample evidence of the high costs associated with waiting for convincing proof of harm. These cases exemplify the failure of science and policy to prevent damage to health and ecosystems and the resulting impacts on health and the economy.’
The concepts of precaution and prevention have always been at the heart of public health practice. Public health is inherently about identifying and avoiding risks to the health of populations, as well as about identifying and implementing protective measures.
‘Irreparable mistakes must be avoided, such as those related to tobacco or asbestos, when people waited for definitive evidence far too long before springing to action. Further, irremediable chains of events leading to health damage must be prevented from being triggered.’
‘societal change and rapid technological development over the last century have also produced an increasing variety of agents and circumstances whose consequences are partly unknown, are difficult to predict, and capable of posing irreversible risks to human health and that of the ecosystem.
‘Of particular concern are the health and environmental impacts of technologies that can affect future generations.’
‘The debate around the precautionary principle is important and challenging, as it involves fundamental dimensions of human life, such as the right to health and to a clean environment and the aspiration for better standards of living. When such elements are potentially in conflict, such as when precautionary action might disrupt the free flow of trade, policy development often becomes controversial.’
From the comprehensive 2018 report (the report is well worth reading), ‘Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks’ written by Timothy Schoechle PhD, Senior Research Fellow, National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ReInventing-Wires-1-25-18.pdf)
‘The unstated industry motive is to force subscribers into more profitable wireless networks. The claims about obsolescence and the supposed need to “step toward to the21st century” are a self-serving, false narrative put forward by monopolistic corporations and their political lackeys.’
‘Wireless access has been artificially inflated by regulatory disparity. Present technology and a market trajectory of dependence on wireless are unsustainable as a long-term solution for many reasons, including: • Not efficient (energy or materials) • Not sufficient (economically or in performance) • Not self-sufficient (energy or materials) • Not sustainable (economically, in energy, environmentally, socially) • Vulnerable (hacking) • Growing health concerns’
‘Wired infrastructure is inherently more future-proof, more reliable, more sustainable, more energy-efficient, and more essential to many other services. Wireless networks and services are inherently more complex, more costly, more unstable, and more constrained.’
If ‘Wired infrastructure is inherently more future-proof, more reliable, more sustainable, more energy-efficient, and more essential to many other services.’, and wireless networks are being described as inferior, more vulnerable to hacking and potentially more harmful, why is Britain pursuing an inferior, more vulnerable and more potentially harmful infrastructure?
Thank you, yet again, for your time.