My letter to Kemi Badenoch about smartphones, children and the WHO

On unreliable science from the WHO and lack of UK expertise

Dear Mrs Badenoch,

I am not a constituent, but have something important to communicate with you. References for my comments are in the hyperlinks.

I applaud your stance on smartphones and children and acknowledge the many harms children are exposed to by using them. There is however one important harm which is being swept under the carpet. This is that the wireless signals themselves (despite being the non-ionising type of radiation) do damage to health. The particular damage to children's health was described by neuroscientist Dr Starkey in her evidence to the Early Years Inquiry. But this affects us all!

I’d like to talk about the bodies the UK relies on, for wireless radiation science. These are the WHO and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Just 3 days ago, the WHO EMF Project was forced to correct its systematic review on the effect of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) on male fertility and to admit that RF-EMFs have a negative impact on pregnancy rates.

The WHO is conducting a series of these reviews on the effects of RF-EMFs on health, around ten, and this is the third they have had to correct. Another six have been heavily criticised in peer-reviewed journals with requests for their retraction. Yesterday Dr Moskowitz from the University of California, Berkeley, published an update on the corrections and rebuttals.

I have had correspondance on this subject with my MP Rishi Sunak, but he provided only stock responses saying that EMFs should be safe, as on the various Government webpages, so I would be grateful if you could look beyond this, as this information is seriously misguided.

Unfortunately our Government seems fully reliant on the WHO. COMARE which is supposed to report on the health effects of EMFs to Government, has never been asked to do so and indeed does not have the expertise. They have admitted that they are awaiting the results of the WHO reviews, as I said in my written evidence to the Broadband and Road to 5G inquiry. The last review undertaken in the UK was the AGNIR report of 2012 and this has been discredited by Dr. Starkey as it omits and distorts scientific evidence leading to wrong and misleading conclusions.

Thus the UK appears to have few experts in the field, but neither should it rely on the WHO or indeed on ICNIRP, whose guidelines the UK follows, since they are dogged by conflicts of interest and the resulting bad science. The WHO EMF project is compromised as it began as a close collaboration between WHO and ICNIRP and the electric, telecoms and military industries. The project was partly financed by the industry lobbying organisations: GSM Association and Mobile Manufacturers Forum. Its current leader, van Deventer is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which has long prioritized international lobbying efforts aimed at the WHO. Two MEPS reported on this in their extensive discussion of ICNIRP, including their close links with the WHO.

Scientific objections to the ICNIRP guidelines are many but include the fact that ICNIRP members do not believe that damage can occur to human health unless body tissue is heated by RF radiation and that they only tested for short-term exposure, not the 24/7 exposure we all experience today. In addition the guidelines were based on behavioural studies involving only 5 monkeys and 8 rats! Thousands of studies show health effects below the heating threshold.

You, personally, may not feel affected by EMFs so far and indeed for cancer or neurological disease there is a long latency. However in 2019, 3 to 5% of the population was estimated to have electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and their lives can be badly affected, as they experience at times very painful short-term effects. The numbers will be higher now. Because I see this as a looming crisis I obtained permission from the Health and Social Care Committee to submit an inquiry proposal and this is attached below. I urge you to read this. I also regularly write accurate, yet accessible articles such as this one on 5G case studies, which gives a good general background too. This earlier article was written in collaboration with Professor Frank, retired Chair of Public Health and Policy Research at Edinburgh University. I mention these because they are easy to read for a non-specialist, but have also been praised by the scientists whose work I described.

The International Commission for the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has recently been set up to "make expert scientific recommendations that ensure public health and environmental protection regarding wireless and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) based on the best peer-reviewed research publications.” It has published various critiques and analyses, which are important. I fully recommend this organisation.

I look forward to hearing how you can help to ensure that the UK only relies on good independent science and what action will be taken to accommodate those who wish or need to reduce their exposure, which I believe should be everybody, whether they know it or not. The environment is also affected and the guidelines do not cover this.

Yours sincerely,

Gillian Jamieson

INQUIRY PROPOSAL FOR THE HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE COMMITTEE

To investigate the need for formal recognition of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) as an EMF (electromagnetic fields)-induced injury exacerbated by the proliferation of signals emitted by mobile or wireless communications.

Rationale

In 2019, it was estimated that 3 to 5% of the population (up to 3.45 million in the UK) suffers from EHS, some of those being so severely disabled, that they live in poverty and isolation due to their needing a very low-EMF environment, something which is increasingly impossible to find as a result of dense wireless networks in the UK today. They cannot work or travel, may have to live rough and may have severe ill-health. Doctors rarely understand this condition and awareness amongst employers is low. However, there have been individual UK legal actions resulting in a local authority being mandated to provide low-EMF accommodation for a child, as well as an award of early ill-health retirement and compensation for a worker, due to disabling EHS. Sufferers, however, need to be accommodated, without having to take legal action. Others, aware of the current scientific uncertainty with regard to safety and wishing to reduce their exposure, need to be able to do so. Further, as confirmed in a recent court ruling, a sub-group of potential EHS sufferers (those with metallic or medical implants) is specifically excluded from protection by the safety guidelines adopted in the UK. There is no guidance on how to protect this group, neither is there a UK policy seeking to accommodate those disabled by EHS, whereas in the US, for example, the National Council on Disability has recognised EHS as an EMF-induced disability and has created a policy framework to help achieve health equity for all with disabilities, including EHS. Accommodations for the EHS-disabled have already been made throughout the world.

Aim and potential impact

Aim: to raise the profile of EHS as a disability and to educate the general public and the medical profession with regard to EMFs being a possible cause for certain symptoms and to develop policies enabling EHS sufferers to access a normal life.

Impact: local authorities, employers and public services may need to find solutions such as low-EMF zones in residential areas, places of work, in schools and care settings as well as in public spaces and on public transport, in order to make these accessible to those disabled by EHS and to others wishing to reduce exposure to EMFs. Criteria for the siting of mobile phone base stations may need to be re-appraised and the obstacles faced by those not using smart devices, addressed.

Questions the inquiry should address

What are the symptoms of EHS and in what measure are they attributable to a) the vulnerabilities of the individual and b) the toxicity of man-made EMFs in the environment, respectively?

Are current safety exposure guidelines adopted in the UK strict enough to halt the increase in cases of EHS and if not, what levels would be?

How does EHS affect the everyday life of the sufferer and what measures, technological, medical or otherwise, might make work, education, care settings, public areas and public transport more accessible to them (as well as to all who wish to reduce exposure) and how can suitable housing be provided?

Witnesses (redacted)