1) Danish legal opinion re. 5G. A prime question is if something is truly safe, will any credible, peer-review study show that it isn’t? Many excellent references and evidence broken into categories that make use very easy. Depending upon the audience, there are studies. Please consider sending some of the studies re. animals, insects, birds, etc. to your environmental groups. The basis for guidelines for exposure are based on ICNIRP limits established on thermal heating only. The industry-affiliated ICNIRP is maintaining this guideline despite many thousands of studies showing that serious biological effects occur at mere fractions of levels required to heat tissue. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, like ICNIRP, is based on heating and is wrong, antiquated and dangerous.
The conclusion is that 5G would be illegal according to the human and environmental laws in EU, the UN and several conventions. A long read (64 pages) but well worth it.
“If it has on one occasion defensibly been scientifically proven that there is a damaging effect or risk of damage, then the fact that ten other defensible trials did not show such an effect or risk is irrelevant. It is then merely up to the scientific community to clarify why the ten defensible trials did not show what is scientifically proven, in order to better understand why and how the damages occur or could occur. … [p.5]
220.127.116.11. DNA damage. [p.5]
In 2015, a scientific review of the then more than 100 accessible peer-reviewed studies regarding the so-called ”oxidative effects” of low intensity radiofrequent radiation (hereafter: RFR) was undertaken.
The review (Yakymenko et al., 2015 7 ) showed e.g. that it was plausible that EHS-like 8 conditions were in part caused by exposure to low intensity RFR (p. 195) and that the exposure could lead to cancer (p. 196), both of which are caused by ”oxidative stress”. It was thus found that 93% of studies showed that such radiation led to the forming of reactive oxidative connections in all investigated living organisms, from cells, plants, insects, lab animals to humans (sperm), (cf. ibid. p. 186)….
1.3. Overall subject conclusion. [p.39]
It is my belief that the scientific research materials analysed above document a clear and substantial causal link between the exposure of humans and animals to radiofrequent electromagnetic radiation on the one hand, and a range of damaging effects as well as possible damaging effects on both groups, including life threatening consequence, on the other hand.
Additionally, there is a well supported causal link regarding damage done to plants. …
2.1. Limits used in Denmark for exposure to radiofrequent electromagnetic radiation. [p.40]
….The limits are based on thermal heating and similar short and immediate effects, whilst much reseach as mentioned in item 1.2 above, documents that radiofrequent electromagnetic radiation is harmful regardless of thermal heating79, and still more research finds harmful effects likely. The ICNIRP guidelines state (p. 496):
”BASIS FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE These guidelines for limiting exposure have been developed following a thorough review of all published scientific literature. The criteria applied in the course of the review were designed to evaluate the credibility of the various reported findings (Repacholi and Stolwijk 1991; Repacholi and Cardis 1997); only established effects were used as the basis for the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions, although epidemiological research has provided suggestive, but unconvincing, evidence of an association between possible carcinogenic effects and exposure at levels of 50/60 Hz magnetic flux densities substantially lower than those recommended in these guidelines….” (Emphasis added.) [p.40]
3. Conclusion and final remarks. [p.64]
It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described, would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonn-conventions.
The reason is the very significant body of scientific documentation available, showing that radiofrequent electromagnetic radiation is harmful and dangerous to the health of humans (particularly children), animals and plants. …
5G Danish legal opinion Jensen 2019 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ArfycrCD_ZFb1gp0OhuTBdZSC9t9tJ9R/view
2) Americans for Safer Technology has produced a new booklet that is appropriate for politicians to help educate them about the dangers associated with EMR. I haven’t read it but the excerpt below is terrific. This might be something that could be sent/given to teachers, school boards, doctors … [https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/contact/] If anyone reads it, please share your opinion.
5G Crisis Store
Here is a 3 page excerpt from it:
3) From our friend and colleague in Winnipeg, Marg Friesen, a terrific list of references:
“The next time someone says there is no scientific evidence reporting adverse health effects from radiofrequency wireless radiation , show them this… ———— List of thirteen (13) papers and three (3) videos on wireless radiation in the radiofrequency range and adverse health effects: Cancer, public health risks, behaviour in children, sperm, DNA damage, oxidative stress, cell tower exposures”
(click on photos to enlarge)
Subject: American report: Fire & Electrical Hazards from “Smart” meters
Date: 16 Sep 2019
From: Sharon Noble <email@example.com>
To: Office PREM OfficeofthePremier, EX <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, EMPR.Minister@gov.bc.ca, chris oriley <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ken Duke <email@example.com>
Dear Premier Horgan, Min. Mungall, Mr. Wruck, Mr. O’Riley, Mr. Duke,
In Sept. 2017 I hand delivered or mailed you a binder with reports on fires caused by or associated with smart meters. Not one of you had the courtesy to respond which seems to indicate that you have no interest in the information that I gathered from BC Hydro, BC Fire Commissioner’s records, BC Safety Authority, and various fire departments over several years. In addition professional, independent engineers provided detailed analysis of the design flaws of the ITRON meter that make it a fire hazard. This report, “BCUC & Smart Meter Fires: The Failure to Protect” is available at https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/bcuc-smart-meter-fires-the-failure-to-protect/ should you wish to read it. But now there is a second report by someone in the U.S. that, hopefully, will assure you that my concerns are justified and will cause you to become involved.
In July 2019, a report was published by Nina Beety of Monterey, California, in which she confirmed much of what was in my report, explaining in great detail why smart meters have burned and damaged homes, risking the lives of occupants. Here is an overview in a press release:
OVERVIEW: Fire and Electrical Hazards from ‘Smart’, Wireless, PLC, and Digital Utility Meters
“Due to meter design and function, these digital meters can malfunction in several ways. Electric digital meters can allow surges and overvoltage to flow into buildings which can burn wiring and destroy appliances and electronics. They can interfere with arc and ground fault circuit interrupters. Meters have exploded and have caused fires, and they have likely contributed to the severity of other fires. Some of the fires have resulted in the deaths of people and their pets. Water and gas AMI/AMR/digital meters pose additional hazards. These problems are known to the industry, regulatory commissions, some fire officials, the news media, and insurance companies, and were the subject of a dispute before the National Labor Relations Board. This paper is on known problems with meters used in the U.S. and Canada, but electrical problems and fires are occurring internationally.”
The report, “Fire and Electrical Hazards from ‘Smart’, Wireless, PLC, and Digital Utility Meters” is available at https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Overview-Fire-and-Electrical-Hazards-from-Smart-Wireless-PLC-and-Digital-Utility-Meters-by-Nina-Beety-final-rev-July-21-2019-.pdf
Just as I found in BC, there is a lack of accountability and no transparency by the utility companies. They consistently (and illegally, in contravention of the BC Safety Standards Act, Section 36) remove the meters from the fire scene before inspection can be done, hampering any effort to determine if the smart meter was the cause of the fire or not. Just as I reported, no independent professional engineer has certified smart meters or various components, e.g. remote disconnect switch, to be safe. Just as I reported, independent engineers found a multitude of design flaws in smart meters that do not exist with simple, electro-mechanical (non digital) analogs.
Here is a partial list of flaws from page 2 of this report:
“Utility companies and regulatory commissions have publicly denied these problems. Fire and electrical risks have not been disclosed to the public. In California, the California Public Utilities Commission refused to release results of a 2013 preliminary investigation on Smart Meter fires and declined to investigate further. California fire officials have yet to launch a public investigation despite continuing problems. These electrical problems include:
- Lack of surge protection
- No direct path to ground
- National Electrical Code 240 violation
- No Protective Device Coordination Study
- “Catastrophic failure” – a new meter failure mode
- Inferior materials
- Faulty remote disconnect switch (uncertified)
- Meters don’t fit sockets
- Thinner blades
- Switching mode power supply (SMPS) surges and appliance damage
- RF signal and SMPS transients routed onto building wiring
- Interference with AFCIs/GFCIs
- Moisture, heat, and flammable Lithium batteries”
You now have detailed reports on smart meter flaws and fires from 2 different sources which say the same thing. Smart meters are fire hazards.
There are two attachments to this document which add significantly to the import of this letter:
(for this update I’ve given links instead of attachments)
1) an abbreviated history of communications with BC authorities regarding flaws and certification concerns, none of which resulted in precautionary actions being taken.
2) a detailed description of a single flaw that pertains to the disconnect switch of the ITRON smart meter and the failure of BC Hydro to perform testing of it to certify that it is safe.
Mr. Horgan, Mr. Wruck, Ms. Mungall, Mr. Duke and Mr. O’Riley, it is beyond negligent to force British Columbians to have these dangerous devices on homes. And please realize that the first batch of smart meters are now due for replacement because of their short lifespan. This means another round of expensive replacements by unqualified installers, who are encouraged by BC Hydro to ignore standard safety practices such as shutting power off to the meter before making the exchange.
Many thousands of British Columbians fear that ITRON’s smart meters could explode or burn, that their property and families are at risk because BC Hydro failed to do its due diligence. You have the ability to calm these fears and if you call for precautionary actions to be implemented, every single one will be grateful to you.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“A politician thinks of the next election. A leader thinks of the next generation.” – Bernie Sanders