Human Rights:

There are clear human rights violations, particularly for vulnerable groups1. In essence many of these also apply to any individual who does not consent to exposure in their home, place of work or public building and yet is being given no choice. People all over the world are making their unwillingness to be exposed abundantly clear via protests, letters and where there is resource, legal actions2,3,4,5,6,7. At its core, this is an issue of consent and there can be no defensible argument for forcibly exposing those who do not consent. That is a breach of the Nuremburg Code as well as numerous Human Rights. The ‘Rights of a Child’ and unborn child are currently also being contravened by these exposures and parents who strive to protect their children currently have no avenue to achieve this without complete public isolation. Indeed, they may even be unable to prevent their children’s exposures in their own property given the penetration of EMF over large distances and through walls. There are adults and children who have severe acute symptoms and in some cases they can prove life threatening. Additionally, the extreme measures some are forced to take to avoid exposures (such as primitive camping for example) can also lead to lack of access to medical care, social support, isolation from basic necessities such as food, water and shelter and to hostile exposures such as extremes of temperature.

It is noteworthy also that as individuals prove they have been harmed by RFR exposures, (which is certainly already happening8), there is also likely no insurance coverage, which enhances the injustice of this situation. Following in depth analysis of the scientific literature and thorough risk assessment, underwriters are refusing to cover RFR related injury claims, which they consider to be ‘high impact’9. Governmental bodies could therefore be forced to ‘self insure’. This would present the very unethical situation that the taxpayer could ultimately pay for health damages incurred by exposures that they never consented to and in many cases actively refused.

Precautionary Principle and public Health:

The application of the Precautionary Principle10 has been called for over many years, by multiple, credible, professional organisations and most recently by the European Parliament11. This is now crucial in order to protect both public health and the economy given the already apparent escalating health costs. RFR has been proven to damage biological systems at levels well below those claimed to be safe within the ICNIRP guideline levels. Public exposures to existing levels of RFR are already harmful and will rise substantially with the deployment of 5G12,13.

In truth, we are now beyond the point of precaution and protection of vulnerable groups is an emergency. RF has been shown to cause widespread, multisystem health detriment14 and effects on the immune system have been demonstrated in some peer-reviewed published studies15.

Given the extraordinary pressure on public health provision in 2020, the simple measure of halting further RF exposures via 5G is a proportionate and logical measure in order to optimise the biological resilience of the population.

Given the current planetary environmental crisis and impact of electromagnetic fields also on the health of wildlife 16,17,18 and with higher 5G frequencies affecting insects in particular19, it is not just protection of human health from harmful effects of anthropogenic radiation which constitutes an emergency but actually that of all global life.


  1. Jamieson I, Electromagnetic hypersensitivity & human rights commentary to the European Economic and Social Committee
  2. Phonegate Alert:
  3. Action against 5G
  4. Environmental Health Trust V Federal Communications Commission
  5. 5G Judicial Review 2020
  6. CHD v the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
  7. Kompetenzinitiative: kompetenzinitiative mobile phones and health legal action 2020
  8. The Court of Appeal of Turin full judgment, 13 January 2020 (904/2019 of 3.12.2019 , Romeo v. INAIL
  9. Swiss re Institute, 2019. “Swiss Re SONAR New emerging risk insights”
  10. Commission of the European Communities, 2000.
    Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. Brussels, 2.2.2000, COM(2000) 1 final.
  11. Karaboytcheva, M., 2020. Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research Service PE 646.172 – March 2020
  12. Nasim I, Kim S. Adverse impacts of 5G downlinks on human body. 2019 SoutheastCon; 2019: IEEE; 2019. p. 1-6..
    DOI: 10.1109/SoutheastCon42311.2019.9020454
  13. Nasim I, Kim S. Mitigation of human EMF exposure in downlink of 5G. Annals of Telecommunications 2019; 74(1-2): 45-52
  14. Yakymenko et al., 2015, Electromagn Biol Med. Jul 7:1-17.
    Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.
  15. Sage, C., 2020. Bioinitiative report update: Disrupted Immune Function from Exposure to Low-Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation (Radiofrequency Radiation)
  16. Balmori, A., 2014. ‘Electrosmog and species conservation’ Science of the Total Environment 496 (2014) 314–316
  17. Bandara, P., Carpenter, D.O., 2018. Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. Lancet. Planet. Health 2 (12).
  18. Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. 2016. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phonebase stations Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554–569 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.045
  19. Thielens, A. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 2;8(1):3924. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22271-3.