Dear Editor,
I am writing to highlight a major health hazard that almost all of the Irish population is being exposed to.
Equally concerning is the lack of response and inaction of the regulatory body, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is supposed to safeguard the Irish public from this risk that is posed by the 5G towers and antennae which have sprung up all over our country in recent years.
These masts emit harmful levels of EMF radiation at a level which has long been known to be hazardous to human health.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on cancer in 2011 classified Radiofrequency Electrofields as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
I have recorded levels of radiation exceeding the limits associated with increased risks of childhood leukaemia and have warned the EPA of the readings and asked for an urgent investigation, including witnessed readings to be carried out by them with their calibrated equipment.
This is a reasonable request, based on dangerous recorded readings. The refusal by the EPA to carry out the testing is beyond concerning.
The EPA is hiding behind an exposure limit set by a supposedly independent body that is supported by EU law.
The EU also fund this body, The International Commission in Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP recommend a safe expose limit of 100,000 nT (nanotesla).
This is 250-1000 times higher than many other expert groups recommend. Commercial conflicts of interest may explain this huge discrepancy as the infrastructure is clearly very expensive and I have heard of rents of €100,000 per year being paid to private landowners for these masts to be placed on their property.
It’s clear that one of these groups is wrong and the ICNIRP is totally alone and an outlier in recommending such high limits as being safe. Making money cannot jeopardize the health of our children.
The Proposed safety limits (flux density) in nT (nano Tesla) are 300-400nT (WHO), a US expert group (the National Council for Radiological Protection) recommend no greater than 200nT and many other independent scientific expert groups assert that lower limits of 100nT should apply.
People living or working near these masts are exposed to higher limits, including sick and elderly people in nursing homes and hospitals and children in their homes and schools.
The precautionary principle is well understood and does not need any specialist scientific expertise.
It simply means that where there is known or potential risk the population should not be exposed.
This risk is real, and exposure is affecting almost everyone. The companies behind these towers (eg Vantage Towers a Vodafone subsidiary are not responding to e-mails and have not done any proper, long term risk assessments).
I recall a time before these towers appeared everywhere, and this was not long ago.
I had no major issues with mobile phone signal or mobile broadband. Indeed, the signal was perfect in the majority of places where I now see these huge masts, right in the middle of towns and heavily populated residential areas.
I do not believe in highlighting a problem without a solution. What can we do about this and how can we ensure the safety of ourselves and our children?
- Many smart phone apps are available to detect EMF radiation. These are not calibrated but can signal a potential problem and hazard. The EPA has the calibrated equipment to do proper readings, and it is their job and legal obligation to do so.
- The workplace exposure to EMF is covered by EU and adopted Irish legislation.
- This specifically mentions that their recommended safe EMF exposure limits do not cover long term exposure and there are not sufficient scientific studies to show long term safety. Employers must carry out transparent risk assessments of EMF exposure. This is particularly powerful if the employer is the State.
Schools are a major concern where there are masts nearby, and teachers may be reading this letter, and as employees of the State are positioned to act, and by extension to force the EPA to act.
Long term exposure studies obviously require long term monitoring and doing so while you are exposed to a potential health hazard is not acceptable. Gardai working in stations that have masts on or near to the site is another group that need to take action.
- Contact your local representatives, councillors, and TDs, they all sit in areas where these masts have appeared (often with sneaky planning permission tactics such as retention, adding equipment to existing masts, hiding planning notices in hedgerows not accessible to the public etc).
- If they are not willing to speak to authority concerning the health of their constituents and vociferously raise these questions in the Dáil or at local council meetings, then they are not fit to be in public office.
Finally, some facts need to be highlighted which are of major concern in light of the above.
The excess mortality in this country and many other countries has increased sharply since the erection of these masts and the radiation they emit.
Official EuroStat figures and data confirm this. Correlation does not equal causation, but the suspicion is there and based on scientific knowledge.
We have also seen a sharp rise in the incidence of many types of cancers in the same time-frame, these are affecting younger people than can be expected, is there a link?
This has been suspected long before this problem presented itself.
We don’t need these masts or the risk they bring. We need people to apply pressure to avert a potential health catastrophe.
We need and deserve our government and government agencies to listen. Let’s collectively make that happen.
I am a credible person, qualified to speak on this subject, and a genuinely concerned citizen and parent, the editor can speak to my bona fides.
I have chosen to maintain anonymity and invoke the whistleblowers disclosure act for legitimate personal reasons.
Name and address supplied.
Editor’s note: I don’t normally print letters without name and address included but in this case I make an exception as the writer, I can assure is fully qualified to comment and wishes to protect his family from any possible recriminations.
