1) Dr. David Carpenter gave me permission to share the report he wrote in October 2020 to the WSSC (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission) to refute a report written by a long-time industry-affiliated scientist, Leeka Kheifets, regarding smeters and the radiation they emit. There are 23 slides followed by his letter. We cannot forget that smeters are dangerous to our health and the environment as well as being a fire hazard, and being an integral part of the new 5G grid.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Adverse Health Effects from Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation with a Focus on AMI Smart Meters
2) In the Netherlands, a judge ruled that a cell tower cannot be erected without consideration of health concerns raised by opponents. The translated article is in “Letters” below. This is an important precedent. Canada (ISED) currently refuses to allow health concerns to be a reason for refusal of a new tower or transmitter.
“Radiation Illness” Happy: Judge’s Ruling on 5G Cell Tower Breakthrough
3) A good news story. Thanks to public protests and the residents making known that Telus had not followed procedure, Telus has dropped plans to build a cell tower.
Telus backs off planned cellphone tower in Riondel
“Telus says it will not build a cellphone tower in Riondel that was met with community opposition.
A spokesperson for Telus told the Nelson Star that the project was put “on indefinite hold” in June….
“I understand that’s why [ISEDC] then told Telus they didn’t follow the protocol, and if Telus wanted to proceed they will have to redo their public consultation.””
Although the vast majority of the Netherlands cannot imagine this, a small group of people claim to get serious complaints from electromagnetic fields. Similarly, a woman in Haarlo in Gelderland. The municipality wanted to allow a new transmission tower there. The judge has now decided that the municipality of Berkelland must take her situation into account, because even far below the radiation standards “it is not excluded” that she may run health risks.
“Great news”, responds Wilma de Jong. She claims that she develops headaches, dizziness, sleeping problems and aphasia-like complaints with high exposure. “I had word finding problems. Wanted to say one word and the other came out. People have been trying to draw attention to health complaints below the current limits for decades, but that has always been dismissed. This is a breakthrough.”
Within the community of “electro-hypersensitive” the judge’s decision is hailed. There are voices for new and joint lawsuits.
Do we see a change of course in the judiciary here? Yes, say three professors of administrative law and environmental law. “This is mainly due to new scientific developments. Where it used to be said that there do not appear to be any health risks, it is now said: you cannot rule it out completely, ”says Professor Chris Backes (Utrecht University). On the basis of “advancing scientific insight”, the judge dismissed an important advice from 2009.
Stakeholders are difficult
Whether or not the transmission tower in Gelderland will be built remains to be seen. The matter has yet to be examined in substance. But De Jong is now officially “interested party”. “In recent years it has become increasingly difficult in case law to be a stakeholder. That has been limited in steps, ”says Prof. Backes. Thus, the criterion “consequences of some significance” was introduced, says professor Hanna Tolsma (University of Groningen). So you really have to have something to crumble in the milk [this is a Dutch expression meaning: you have to present considerable weight to your argument]. “As far as I know, this is the first judgment in which a court reaches this judgment on someone 650 meters from a cell tower.”
“There are misunderstood complaints. Many people will think, what are we talking about? But there are new developments and insights, and although a causal relationship has not yet been made plausible between radiation and all kinds of disorders, there is increasing doubt ”, says Professor of Administrative Law Herman Bröring (University of Groningen). “I find the judge’s reasoning convincing. If you are not already interested, I can imagine that it will make you despondent.”
Desire for recognition
That is exactly what happened for years, it sounds among radiation activists. They see this as a victory in their quest for recognition. But do professors also see opportunities in new, comparable cases? “That remains to be seen. While the court’s reasoning is understandable, it is not legally compelling. Only when the Administrative Jurisdiction Division confirms this new line, other courts will not be able to ignore it, ”says Professor Backes.
But the much more important second question is, what are the standards for cell towers? Do judges also look at this more critically than before? ” This substantive decision can go in any direction, say the professors. The court only mentioned the interest of the stakeholders and did not get to the content. But it can be expected that courts will now find something of the content more often and will look at it more critically, says Prof. Bröring. “This has more impact than you think for telecom companies, financiers and governments. They are not waiting for this.”
Financier KPN and the municipality of Berkelland say they are studying the verdict. The municipality is considering the next steps.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right.” Oprah Winfrey