Subscribe For Free

Absence of 5G risk means Govt has no need to inform the public court told.

Staff Reporter
February 11, 2023

Judicial Review verdict may trigger Govt u-turn on 5G public information policy

The Administrative Court on London last week heard a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to address claimed evidence of risks to human health posed by 5G technology. The Court of Appeal previously granted permission for the case to proceed.

Barrister for the claimant Action Against 5G, Mr Philip Rule KC produced a report for his No 5 Chambers on the hearing:

At the hearing, the government lawyer argued that there is no duty to inform the public of any risks because it is denied that there are any risks from the 5G rollout. The Government’s position taken is not based upon the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection report that the government said contained the most up-to-date research.

Mr Philip Rule: “ICNIRP concludes there are already three substantiated effects caused by exposure to radiofrequency EMF”

‘That is the March 2020 guidelines. These however are far from finding that there are no risks at all. Indeed, far from providing any proof of an absence of risk, the ICNIRP guidelines in fact evidence the existence of risks and note that several are yet to be fully understood or proven by repetition of study or by anthropological study directly on people who are ‘guinea pigs’ for ubiquitous RFR or 5G in the real-world” claimed Mr Rule in his report.

ICNIRP concludes there are already three substantiated effects caused by exposure to radiofrequency EMFs: nerve stimulation, (changes in the permeability of cell membranes, and effects due to temperature elevation. For many other recorded matters, it essentially notes the jury is still out but did not find that as yet the harm to human health has already been proven. In particular, there are not yet any significant number of studies into 5G technology (which uses high-frequency waves, targeted beams and pulsation in a way earlier generations did not).

For those with disability treated by medical implant the consideration of safety given by ICNIRP, in its revised 2020 guidelines expressly do not cater for their safety. As well as those genetically or environmentally susceptible to suffer cancer or EHS in the future from the exposure to RFR, there are also existing vulnerable groups who ought to be considered and who deserve to be given information to assist them”.

The Court was shown, that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to non-ionising radiation including radio frequency is notably a recorded disease or illness recognised by the WHO, since 2005, in the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 (even if the precise cause is not yet understood or known).

A responsible body of scientific study has raised concerns about risks that remain under study. Many studies ICNIRP identifies have identified certain effects that might prove harmful and their substantiation by further study is awaited – but a position where the jury is out is not the same as a concluded final position established by the study that finds radiation is safe or safe for all people.

Limitations on current knowledge are relevant when assurances are sought to be given by the government. The public has the right to be informed and not misled about how much is known or can be stated with certainty, and what risks remain to be investigated or conclusively determined one way or the other.

These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Administrative Court is now considering its judgment.

Share this article