Legal case against UK Government for not warning about 5G health risks is awaiting judgement

Last week the Administrative Court heard the judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to address the evidence of risks to human health posed by 5G technology. Judgment is awaited from the Administrative Court in due course.

The case was brought by Action Against 5G with the support of the public through Crowd Justice.  Action Against 5G are individuals across the UK, including doctors, scientists and engineers who have joined forces to commence legal proceedings to challenge the UK government’s failure to take sufficient notice of clearly identified health and safety risks of wireless radiation and the increased exposure from the deployment of 5G.

At the hearing, the Government argued that there is no duty to inform the public of any risks at all because it essentially denies that there are any risks from the increased exposures or new form of radiation frequency to be used in the 5G rollout. This is in keeping with its publications that have sought to reassure the public that there – categorically and conclusively – is no chance of harm arising from exposure to 5G and radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”).

The claimants’ claimed the position taken by the Government is not based upon the scientific report that the government itself has advanced as being the most up-to-date piece of international research. That is the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (“ICNIRP”) March 2020 guidelines.

Far from providing any proof of an absence of risk, the ICNIRP guidelines in fact evidence the existence of risks and notes 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.

ICNIRP concludes, based on its very limited approach, that 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.

The Court was shown, for example, 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 radiofrequency is notably a recorded disease or illness recognised by the World Health Organisation, since 2005, in the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10, even if the precise cause is not yet understood or known.

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 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.

Read the full article HERE.

Last Tuesday, Piers Corbyn posted a video update on his Telegram channel.  Speaking outside The Royal Courts of Justice after the hearing he said: “The Government barristers were on the defensive and even stuttered at times.  We think, logically, the judge will find in our favour and therefore the Government will have to do something to warn people about 5G dangers.”