Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Mobile Phones: BBC Bias

The BBC, Britain's state broadcaster, aired an extremely biased piece about mobile phones on Tuesday 23rd April 2019, as part of a programme called 'Heath: Truth or Scare'. I was contacted about this by a severely electrosensitive person, who was upset about the one-sided nature of the coverage.

On watching the programme myself, I was amazed at the BBC's portrayal of mobile phones and other wireless devices as being essentially harmless. Indeed, the idea that these things are harmful was described as a 'myth' by one of the presenters.

The programme featured two 'experts', who both denied that mobile phones are harmful. This message was reiterated by one of the presenters, as well as by the reporter. Apparently, the BBC had failed to do even a small amount of research beforehand, and had also failed to invite a properly qualified EMF expert to take part.

The poor lady and her family who were the subject of the piece were given some spectacularly bad advice by one of the 'experts', and I very much hope that sooner or later, she comes to realise this.

I've just sent in a complaint to the BBC about the programme, which you can find below. I've also added links to a couple of videos - one containing the programme's 'lowlights', and the other with the whole piece on mobile phones.

If you feel like I did after watching this industry propaganda, I've also added information at the bottom on how to complain to the BBC. The more complaints that they receive - no matter how brief they are - the more they will realise what a blunder it was for them to broadcast this biased piece in the first place.

VIDEO: 'Lowlights' of the programme (5.22 minutes):

VIDEO: Complete section of the BBC programme about mobile phones - can be downloaded (13 minutes approx.):

My complaint to the BBC - sent 29th April 2019

Complaint. Health: Truth or Scare, Series 3 Episode 2 - Broadcast at 9:15am, 23 Apr 2019

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to complain about the section in this programme that discussed the issue of 'whether radiation from mobile phones really is causing brain cancer' [1].

The BBC is a public service broadcaster, and its Editorial Guidelines state that:

'The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy' [2].

Unfortunately though, this programme completely failed to cover this issue with 'due impartiality', as I summarise below. 

1) The programme approached the issue in a biased, one-sided manner, and presented the debate as having been settled, describing any view to the contrary as a 'myth'.

2) It called upon the testimony of just two supposed experts concerning the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation; however, the expertise of these individuals in the field of non-ionising radiation is not obvious, and their no-effects bias was evident.

3) The programme gave misleading, scientifically incorrect, and irresponsible information, and omitted providing crucial advice, not just to the lady who featured in this segment, but also to the wider public, with potentially serious repercussions. 

Taking each of my complaints in turn:

1. Biased coverage

The BBC only presented one side of the issue of whether or not mobile phone (and other) wireless technologies are harmful, and can cause cancer. It relied upon two 'experts' who stated that the radiation is not harmful, but it didn't feature any experts to counter this opinion.

The two experts, the reporter, and one of the presenters, all made statements that are not supported by the majority of the independent, non-industry, science. Any member of the public who viewed this programme, and who was not aware of the science, would naturally believe that mobile phones (and wireless technologies in general) had been given a clean bill of health by the BBC and its 'experts', and that their use - even by very young children - was therefore without risk.

2. Biased 'experts'

The BBC featured two 'experts' on the biological effects of exposure to the radiation that is emitted by mobile phones and other wireless technologies - Professor Malcolm Sperrin and Yolanda Ohene.

Professor Dariusz Leszczynski, who was a member of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group which in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible carcinogen, said this following the programme:

'BBC should do better selection of experts to make their science program believable. Continuous repeating, as BBC journalists and experts did, of ICNIRP and telecom's mantra that "low power" radiation emitted by wireless devices has no health effects misrepresents what scientific research has found.

Just two examples of BBC experts with no expertise in wireless radiation but who provided a very definite opinions of no-health-effects-whatsoever:

BBC expert, Dr Ohene, has 2 peer-reviewed publications on MRI, as listed on PubMed database. She has also 5 conference abstracts listed on Google Scholar website. And that is all. Sort of little for the thorough in-depth expertise on wireless radiation.

BBC expert, Prof. Sperrin: "I've been associated with the military for many years" ( Just to recall, cell phones derived in 80's from the military technology. Thus, the military background might be considered a bias. Prof Sperrin's list of publications on Google Scholar lists 19 articles, mostly on radon. No practical research expertise with wireless radiation.' [3].

An online search shows that Professor Sperrin has, over many years, claimed that the radiation from wireless technologies is safe, despite his apparent lack of expertise on non-ionising radiation. For example, he is quoted in a BBC article published in 2007 as saying that:

'...evidence points to wi-fi transmissions being well below any likely threshold for human effect'. [4].

No non-ionising radiation expert was invited to counter the opinions expressed on the programme with a fact-based evaluation of the science, and an analysis of the potential for wireless technologies and infrastructure to harm health at exposures that are below the current allowable levels.

3. Misleading, incorrect, contradictory, and irresponsible statements, plus omissions

The following statements were made by the presenters, reporter, and chosen experts over the course of the programme. My comments are in parenthesis.

Yolanda Ohene (expert):

(Stickers were given to Ashley to put on her wireless devices, denoting low, medium or high risk when it comes to radiation emissions)

'It [RF radiation] doesn't do any damage to the cells' (false - see the scientific literature)

'It [mobile phone] does give off some radiation, but it's a radiofrequency wave, so we can change this [sticker] from high to, perhaps, a medium' (non-sequitur, and contradicts other statements, such as the cells not being damaged by RF radiation)

'The light from the sun would be much more damaging than these [wireless] devices' (where is the peer-reviewed evidence to support this assertion?)

'It [sunbathing without sunscreen in Barbados] would be so much worse than even using 10 mobile phones at the same time' (where is the peer-reviewed evidence to support this assertion?)

'The cells in your body are not going to be harmed by this [radiation]' (false - see the scientific literature)

Kevin Duala (presenter)

'(it's) great to know I don't have to worry about the radiation from my mobile phone...I mean that is one myth Angela that doesn't seem to be going away' (IARC's classification is not a myth)

Steve Brown (reporter)

'So there is no evidence that the radiofrequencies emitted from our mobile phones cause illness in human beings' (false - see the scientific literature)

'So because the radiation emitted from mobile phones and wifi routers is the very weak non-ionising kind, there is no evidence to suggest we're in danger of developing any health problems from it' (false - see the scientific literature; also, this assumes that it is the intensity of the radiation alone that causes biological damage, and not the polarity, frequency, pulsation, duration, modulation etc.)

Professor Malcolm Sperrin (expert)

'There's no evidence that suggests you should worry' (false - see the scientific literature; there is actually a great deal of evidence to worry about)

The statements, made by Professor Malcolm Sperrin, Yolanda Ohene, Steve Brown and Kevin Duala were either misleading, contradictory, or false, as even a superficial examination of the non-industry, peer-reviewed, scientific literature shows.

Were members of the public to believe what they have been told by the presenters and experts on this programme, they would potentially be putting themselves and their families at great risk.

Also, there was no mention in the programme of any of the following:

a) The formal classification in 2011 of RF radiation as a Group 2B Possible Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer / World Health Organisation, on the basis of an increased risk of glioma [5].

Also, an IARC expert group has recently recommended that high priority be given to a re-evaluation of RF radiation, in light of recent scientific findings [6].

b) The results of two recent scientific studies, carried out by the National Toxicology Program in the US, and the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, which found 'clear' and 'statistically significant' evidence respectively of a link between mobile phone / mobile mast radiation and cancer [7] [8].

c) A recent study, and related analysis, showing a doubling in the occurence of the most deadly form of brain cancer in England, and the possible link between this and the use of mobile phones [9].

d) The substantial body of non-industry scientific literature showing evidence of harm from RF radiation (see the EMF Portal, the BioInitiative Report, or the ORSAA database) [10] [11] [12].

e) The RF radiation warning that is buried deep in the phone itself, or in small print in the manual, advising that the device should not be held against the body; Ashley was filmed taking her phone out of her back pocket, but no attention was drawn of this. By storing the phone there, she was potentially exposed to radiation from the phone which exceeded the international limits.

f) The fact that the insurance industry will not cover any health effects of exposure to the RF radiation from wireless technologies [13].

g) Two significant papers by Om Gandhi, Life Fellow at the IEEE: 'Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body' [14], and 'Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children' [15].

h) The warnings of the 247 experts who have signed the International EMF [Electro Magnetic Field] Scientist Appeal, which has been sent to the UN, all UN member states, and the World Health Organisation (emphasis mine):

'Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life...It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects, they are insufficient to protect public health' [16].

i) The fact that the UK follows the radiation exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which have been criticised as inadequate by many experts, including Dr Lennart Hardell, the oncologist whose studies were instrumental in IARC's 2011 classification of RF radiation as a possible carcinogen:

'The exposure guideline used by many agencies was established in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and was based only on established short-term thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation neglecting non-thermal biological effects...ICNIRP is a private organisation (NGO) based in Germany. New expert members can only be elected by members of ICNIRP. Many of ICNIRP members have ties to the industry that is dependent on the ICNIRP guidelines. The guidelines are of huge economic and strategic importance to the military, telecom/IT and power industry' [17].

j) The paper 'Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation', written by neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey:

'The Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) 2012 report forms the basis of official advice on the safety of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields in the United Kingdom...PHE [Public Health England] and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields. Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest. Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up'

Her critique shows that three senior members of PHE are also members of ICNIRP, and she notes that:

'Independence from ICNIRP is necessary to remove the conflict of interest when effects below ICNIRP exposure guidelines are being assessed' [18].

(Subsequent to the publication of her paper, coincidence or not, AGNIR was quietly disbanded...)

k} The subsequent calls by a number of the experts who were part of the 2011 IARC RF radiation working group for the cancer classification of this agent to be raised, to either Group 2A Probable Carcinogen, or Group 1 Human Carcinogen. These include Dr Lennart Hardell [19], Dr Anthony Miller [20], and Professor Dariusz Leszczynski [21].

l) The health risks associated with the blue light that is emitted by mobile phones and other wireless devices, which were highlighted by Dame Sally Davies, the Government's Chief Medical Officer, in her 2017 report: 'Health Impacts of All Pollution – what do we know?' [22].

m) The advice issued in 2000, and reiterated in 2004, by the Government's Scientific Adviser, Sir William Stewart ('The Stewart Report'):

'If there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be especially vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy on the tissues of the head...and a longer lifetime of exposure. In line with our precautionary approach, we believe that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children'. [23].

(Should the BBC therefore also refrain from promoting and normalising their use by children...?)

n) The advice given in the Health Protection Agency's response to the 2012 Advisory Group on Non Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) report, which said:

'Excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged, while adults should make their own choices as to whether they wish to reduce their exposures, but be enabled to do this from an informed position' [24].

This advice is repeated by Public Health England [25].

o) The advice given by the NHS:

'Children should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short' [26 ], and 'The UK Chief Medical Officers advise that children and young people under 16 should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only, and to keep calls short' [27].

(Footage was shown in the programme of Ashley's young children using mobile phones and other wireless devices, but no warning was given by the BBC that this practice is officially discouraged)

p) The recent request of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to the Government:

''The report of the Independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation [AGNIR] on the ‘Health effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields’ is now nearly seven years old. In its Response to our Report, we ask the Government to outline what assessment it has made of the quantity and quality of the research on this topic, published since 2012, and to explain whether another evidence review is now warranted' [28].

(To its credit, the Committee did not describe the concern that the radiation from wireless devices such as mobile phones might be harming children as a 'myth'...)


When an issue is of such fundamental importance to human health as the biological effects of radiation from ubiquitous wireless devices and infrastructure, it is surely the duty of the BBC to present both sides of the scientific debate fairly, and without bias. It should not cherry-pick the scientific evidence and the experts that it uses, nor offer advice to the viewing public that is false, misleading, or potentially harmful. It should also not normalise the casual use of radiation-emitting technologies by young children, as this would be contrary to official advice.

The BBC failed to display due impartiality in this programme, but I hope that my complaint is examined in a more objective manner, and that it is ultimately upheld.

Please can I suggest that in order to remedy the damage that I would argue has been done, it would be appropriate for the BBC to produce and air another tv programme in which this crucial issue is addressed in a much more balanced manner, and with the participation of properly qualified experts from both sides of the debate.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence showing that the radiation from wireless devices and technologies is harmful, and that the current safety guidelines are not protective, as they are based on a false assumption (i.e. that the radiofrequency/microwave radiation from wireless devices is safe, so long as it doesn't heat you too much...).

There are also official and other organisations which argue that there is no 'convincing', 'conclusive', or 'consistent' evidence of harm, and who do not practice a 'precautionary approach', other than in name alone. In order to have a fair debate, so that the public interest is properly served, both sides must be allowed to have their say, the facts must be presented, and BBC presenters and reporters should really keep their opinions to themselves.

Yours faithfully,

Dave Ashton


1. Truth or Scare, Series 3 Episode 2, BBC, Broadcast at 9:15am, 23 Apr 2019

2. BBC Editorial Guidelines

3. Professor Dariusz Leszczynski

4. Wi-fi health fears are 'unproven' - BBC, 21st May 2007

5. IARC Monograph 102

6. Lancet Oncology, 17th April 2019

7. National Toxicology Program

8. Ramazzini Institute

9. Glioblastomas Have Doubled in Number in England Since Mobile Phones Were Introduced in 1995 - Franz Adlkofer

10. EMF Portal

11. BioInitiative Report

12. ORSAA Database

13. Electromagnetic Field Insurance Policy Exclusion Are The Standard - Environmental Health Trust

14. Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body, OM P. GANDHI

15. Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children - Om Gandhi et al

16. International EMF Scientist Appeal

17. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review) - Lennart Hardell

18. Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation - Sarah J. Starkey

19. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation - Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg

20. Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102) - Anthony Miller et al

21. Something potentially BIG is brewing down-under for the 5G – A class action lawsuit, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, 30th July 2018

22. Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2017

23. Mobile Phones and Health, IEGMP, Chairman Sir William Stewart

24. HPA response to the 2012 AGNIR report on the health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 1st April 2012

25. Radio waves: reducing exposure from mobile phones - Public Health England

26. Overview: Mobile phone safety - NHS

27. Mobile Phones and Base Stations, NHS, 2011

28. Impact of screen-use on young people's health - House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

How to complain (by online form, phone, or address to send a letter to):

Tuesday, 8 January 2019

Call on IARC to re-evaluate RF Radiation

Everyone - not just experts - can nominate an agent for IARC to examine, in order to decide whether it is carcinogenic to humans. Nominations must be received by 15th January 2019, and they will be considered at its meeting  'Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2020–2024', which takes place on 25–27 March 2019.

IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation) is holding a meeting in March 2019 in order to decide which agents to study over the next few years. Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation from wireless technologies is an obvious candidate for their consideration. It is emitted by phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, mobile masts (cell towers), etc., it is just about everywhere, and it is currently classified as a Group 2B Possible Carcinogen.

In 2011, IARC determined that there is limited evidence in humans of a link between RF Radiation and glioma and acoustic neuroma. Since then, the non-industry scientific evidence has continued to accumulate, showing that as well as being linked to tumours, RF radiation can also cause many other health effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

Despite IARC's decision, a precautionary approach to the mass deployment of wireless technologies has generally NOT been adopted, and now new 5G millimetre wave frequencies are to be added to the electrosmog to which we are all exposed on a daily basis. Nobody really knows what the total effect of this will be on human, animal and plant life, but many scientific experts are warning that the consequences are likely to be dire.

Major studies carried out by the National Toxicology Program in the US, and the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, have recently found 'clear' and 'statistically significant' evidence respectively of a link between RF radiation and tumours:


Ramazzini Institute

What more evidence do we really need?

Despite this, all warnings and appeals to Governments and other official organisations fall upon deaf ears, no precautions are taken, and we are told that this electrosmog is safe as long as it is kept within 'internationally agreed' guidelines, such as those provided by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation, which is a small, self-appointed organisation based in Germany, with known commercial and military links.

To illustrate the sheer scale of the problem, the GSMA - an industry lobby group - says that 'the number of unique mobile subscribers will reach 5.9 billion by 2025, equivalent to 71% of the world’s population'. It adds that (wireless) Internet of Things connections 'will increase more than threefold worldwide between 2017 and 2025, reaching 25 billion'.

Perhaps one of the few remaining ways in which sanity could be restored, and meaningful action taken, might be if IARC were to reclassify RF radiation as either a Group 2A Probable Carcinogen, or even as a Group 1 Human Carcinogen. Just look what happened with Roundup / Monsanto after Glyphosate was classified as a Group 2A Probable Carcinogen

Everyone is able to nominate an agent for IARC to study; it says this on their website, and I emailed them for verification, which I duly received.

The form itself is a bit fiddly to use. I downloaded the .pdf file of the form, and filled it in on the computer. Even though you may not be an expert who will taking part in the actual deliberations, you will still need to fill in the Conflicts of Interest section of the form. You will also need to create a 'digital signature', and add this at the bottom of the form. Instructions on how to do this are given via the link below, and please note that you will need the free software Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your device to add the digital signature to the form.

I really believe that if IARC were to re-evaluate RF radiation, taking into account the recent results from the National Toxicology Program and Ramazzini Institute study results, and if the classification was subsequently tightened - even if only to Group 2A Probable Carcinogen - then this would change everything. Just imagine a world where it is officially acknowledged that exposure to radiation from wireless devices and technologies will probably cause cancer.

If you'd like to suggest that IARC re-evaluate RF Radiation (or any other agent, come to that), the link is below. The link below this is to a page with further information about this meeting. Below this is a link to a copy of the form that I submitted, with my email address removed.

It seems to me that if we want things to change for the better, we will need to be instrumental in that change. Nominating RF Radiation as an agent for IARC to study - urgently - would be a good place to start...

FORM: Nomination of Agents for Future IARC Monographs

IARC Monographs - Upcoming Meetings (additional links and information)

My agent nomination to IARC

Image from:

(Please note that Coffee, shown in the image at the top, is now classified as  Group 3: 'Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans')

Saturday, 10 November 2018


(Shared from Arthur Firstenberg) 



Please Present This Appeal to Your Government

The Earth has reached its limit
  • In 1995, when cell phones were still luxury items, Sarah Benson from Australia contacted me to say that we had to organize internationally to prevent an electromagnetic assault on the Earth from the ground and from space. The following year, cell towers began to sprout like mushrooms over all natural landscapes. Wherever they sprouted, we received reports that bees disappeared, birds fell dead out of the sky, and frogs turned up with deformed legs, missing eyes, and other genetic mistakes in lakes, streams and forests.
  • A few years later, 3,000 German doctors warned that the radiation from cell phones and cell towers was causing headaches, anxiety, insomnia, attention deficit disorder, extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, heart rhythm disorders, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, cancer, and heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population.
  • In Sweden, neurosurgeon Leif Salford showed that a cell phone disrupts the blood-brain barrier within two minutes, and causes brain damage within two hours
  • In India, zoologist Neelima Kumar proved that a ten-minute exposure to a cell phone rendered honey bees completely unable to metabolize their food
  • In Spain, biologist Alfonso Balmori raised tadpoles on an apartment terrace near a cell tower. When shielded from the radiation, they all thrived; when exposed to the cell tower, the tadpoles all died
    • In England, the common house sparrow declined so precipitously that it was added to the endangered species list
    • The latest alarming study, released on October 15, 2018, shows a much more precipitous decline in insect populations than anyone had suspected—a 30- to 60-fold decrease in insects in Puerto Rican rainforests over the past few decades. Their study shows that insect populations did not decline during the 1990s until 1997, when they suddenly and precipitously dropped. That is the year cell towers were built everywhere in Puerto Rico.

      How you can use this Appeal to stop the rollout of 5G in your country

      We originally envisioned this as an emergency appeal by scientists and doctors, which we planned to present to the world’s governments by November 1, 2018. But the outpouring of support and signatures from around the world, not only from doctors and scientists, but in far greater numbers from people who have been injured by their cell phones or by cell towers, and from the general public, has surprised and overwhelmed us. More than 300 environmental and health organizations and 13,000 individuals from all walks of life, from at least 96 countries, have signed so far. We are still processing the backlog of signatures, and we have posted as many of them as we can on the website ( In anticipation of asking everyone—not just scientists and doctors—to sign, we have now automated the process.

      So far, translations of the Appeal in eight languages (Chinese, Croatian, English, French, German, Greek, Russian and Spanish) have been posted on the website ( and at least 12 more (Arabic, Czech, Danish, Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Macedonian, Mongolian, Norwegian, Romanian and Serbian) will be posted soon. We are seeking volunteer translators for Farsi, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Swedish, Turkish and other languages.

      We are just two people—a professional editor at the United Nations, now retired, and I — and we need your help in order to make this Appeal succeed.

      Sign the Appeal – everyone can sign

      We are now asking everyone—not just scientists and doctors, but everyone—to sign the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space ( and Success is much more likely if the public is on board in large numbers.

      Donations are needed

      Over 20,000 US dollars has been spent on this Appeal to date, including website design and maintenance, data processing services, computer time, office supplies, paper, postage, international phone calls, professional translators for certain languages, a part-time assistant, and many other expenses. Until now this has been paid for entirely from sales of my book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, which gives both the historical and scientific background of the present problem.

      Radio and television announcements, professional lobbyists, and other aspects of a public relations campaign will cost much more money than we presently have. Therefore we have recently added a “Donate” page to the website ( and we are asking for donations in any amount.

      Another way to support the Appeal is to purchase my book, which is for sale on the Cellular Phone Task Force website ( All the proceeds from sales of my book are being used to fund this Appeal. I keep none of this money and collect no salary for my work on the Appeal.

      Present the Appeal to your government and other authorities

      We originally anticipated gathering signatures mostly from doctors and scientists, and presenting the Appeal ourselves to the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the European Union, and all of the 195 nations of the world. This would have had to be done by mail, email, and by finding appropriate people to present it around the world in person. But now we have a much bigger and more effective resource – YOU. You live in more than 90 countries around the world, and some of you are well connected, both with the public and with your government.

      BEFORE NOVEMBER 14, 2018: Write to the US Federal Communications Commission

      On November 14, 2018, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to auction millimeter wave spectrum (24 GHz, 25 GHz, 28 GHz) to 60 American telecommunications companies for the provision of 5G. On about November 8, 2018, I will send a copy of the Appeal along with an official list of 11,000 signatories from 95 countries to each of the FCC Commissioners:

      My letter will ask the FCC to protect the world’s health and environment by CANCELLING THE AUCTION. There is already a report from The Hague, dated 2 November 2018, that hundreds of birds fell dead in Huijgens Park immediately after a new 5G mast (emitting 7.4 GHz) was tested on a nearby rooftop.

      Italy and South Korea have already held auctions of millimeter wave spectrum for 5G. Most of the rest of the world has not yet done this, and should not do this. Please, everyone send emails to the FCC Commissioners and the news media, directing them to our website and supporting our request that this auction be cancelled.

      BEFORE DECEMBER 1, 2018: Mail, email or hand-deliver this Appeal to your government

      On about November 25, 2018, we will enter both the number of signatories and the number of countries they represent into the Appeal that is posted on the website in many languages. On about November 25, please print out copies of the Appeal from the website ( and present it to the appropriate officials in your national government who are in charge of telecommunications and outer space on or about December 1.  You may also wish to send the Appeal to:

      • Citizens’ associations
      • National politicians
      • Academic institutions and faculties of medicine
      • Mayors of major cities
      • Political parties
      • Parent-children associations
      • Head teachers of schools


      PLEASE RECORD the names of the officials to whom you have presented the Appeal, and the date presented, and send me this information by email along with a copy of your cover letter.
      Thank you.
      Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator
      International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space
      P.O. Box 6216
      Santa Fe, NM 87502
      Tel: 1-505-471-0129

      Tuesday, 11 September 2018

      Radiation and Me - by artist Jane Goodfellow

      About 40 years ago I noticed that close proximity to neon tubes made me feel ill, but my life wasn't badly impacted as they were easy to avoid. Then, while working as a graphic designer in the 90's, the industry went Apple Mac mad, and I had to use one or become unemployable (and they certainly made previously laborious tasks quick and easy). However, I soon developed headaches and mild nausea if I used the computer for long periods, so I took frequent breaks.

      In about 2005 I started working in publishing as a sub-editor, which necessitated spending ages online, in proximity to Wi-Fi, and I acquired a cellphone, despite being wary of them. And then the poo really hit the fan...

      Headaches, poor concentration, insomnia, brain fog and poor memory were just the start, followed by sore glands in the throat and M.E. However, I didn't join the dots and relate these odd symptoms to radiation until about three years ago, when very frequent shingles attacks started blighting my life, and my G.P. couldn't identify a cause. Then, during my 'wake up call' week, I developed a very severe headache and nausea (I couldn't eat for three days), and on glancing in the mirror one morning, I noticed that my left eyelid was drooping, the pupil was hugely enlarged, I couldn't see properly, and was dizzy. Panic stations.

      Hectic medical tests ruled out a stroke/brain tumour (I knew I had neither), and the docs concluded that an unknown virus, probably shingles, had damaged the nerve behind my left eye, possibly permanently. I sat down and thought about what had changed in my life that might coincide with the onset of the shingles attacks, and I realised that they'd started soon after I started using Wi-Fi and cellphones, and the very bad eye-damaging attack occurred soon after I'd become hooked on online scrabble, spending much longer periods online than previously.

      I tried staying offline for days. Result? No shingles. I went online again. Result? Shingles. Every single time, if I'm online for more than a few minutes. Now I know that radiation doesn't 'cause' shingles; rather, it's the chicken pox virus that is still in my system. But the radiation is definitely irritating my body and my brain, weakening my immune system, and allowing the virus to keep resurfacing. Incidentally, my cousin in Australia has exactly the same symptoms as me, and she also gets shingles when around Wi-Fi. Perhaps this is something for Professor Dominique Belpomme to consider...?

      In an effort to earn a living, offline, I am developing my artistic talents whilst simultaneously being compelled to work as a live-in carer of the elderly. Initially, this worked fine, because I was able (at considerable expense) to Wi-Fi-proof my home, and most elderly people had no Wi-Fi. Unfortunately, now most of them do have Wi-Fi, as their carers demand it, and to add insult to injury, they're now getting smart meters too. Smart meters? Oh my heavens - instant insomnia, hyperactive brain, headaches, and, the next day, shingles.

      I have a website that needs tweaking and promoting, but I am between rocks and hard places everywhere I turn. I can't do anything on social media myself, and I can't afford to pay a company to do it, so the website gets no traffic I thought of trying to get crowdfunding, but cannot research it.

      My social life has hit the skids - I'm single but can't do internet dating, and can no longer go to coffee shops or pubs because of the Wi-Fi and cellphones. Even hiking with friends, an activity I love, is becoming impossible because they won't switch their phones off.

      I really am at my wits' end, as I need to work for another ten years. So if anyone knows an elderly person without Wi-Fi/smart meter, who lives in the south or south-west of the UK and who needs caring help, please get in touch. And if you know anyone who is a dab hand at websites and social media who is looking for unpaid work experience, or you have any bright ideas as to how I can fund this, please let me know.

      Finally, I am willing to do just about anything to raise awareness of electrosensitivity. We need to get the powers-that-be to allocate WiFi-free, cellphone-signal-free, radio calm areas where people like me can simply live healthy lives, away from the pervasive menace of high tech radiation.

      If anyone wants to picket outside Parliament, to get someone to listen to us - for God's sake! - I'll be there in a heartbeat. And any lawyers out there with guts and tenacity (Erin Brockovich?) - you're going to get lots of work in the future!

      Jane's website:

      You can contact Jane via this blog post: please either leave a comment below, which I will pass on to her, or send me an email to forward to her.

      Monday, 11 June 2018

      EMF Awareness Day 2018, by Dave Ashton

      Note: EMF Awareness Day 2018 marks the third anniversary of the death of Debra Fry's daughter, Jenny, who took her life due to the Wi-Fi in her school. This tragic story was recently covered by the Mirror:

      I wanted to write a brief article to mark EMF Awareness Day on 11th June 2018. I haven't planned this, or done any preparation, so this is just going to be a few random thoughts on the issue of EMFs (Electromagnetic Fields), now that the harmful pulsed microwave radiation from wireless technologies - certainly in the UK where I live - is just about impossible to avoid.

      As I think that I've mentioned before, I'm not a scientist, and so I try to steer clear of delving too deeply into the science. I'm very happy to leave discussion of this to the experts. However, I do try to keep up with the general thrust of what the science is showing, and with any significant developments - good or bad - on what I call 'the issue' (yes, I know that there are some other things going on in the world right now, besides the monumental health implications of whole-body exposure to harmful radiation of most of the world's population in some ghastly biological experiment - it's just that I can't really think of anything that's more important).

      The funny thing is that until I finally realised that I was severely 'electrosensitive' - and we can debate whether a physical and life-changing awareness of the harm that non-native EMFs is doing to our bodies is a sensitivity, or whether it is actually a well-honed and necessary advance warning system - I'd probably never even heard of electromagnetic radiation, and certainly hadn't heard of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

      Once you do stumble across "the issue" though, for whatever reason, and you start reading books, articles, and gain an understanding of the scientific investigations that have taken place over many, many years, you start to gain a greater appreciation of the extent of the problem, and are likely experience a growing incredulity and disbelief that it is being allowed to happen.

      You have to unlearn and unpick many of your ideas about how you may have thought that the world, politicians and other 'authorities', health and protection organisations operate. In a way, you are forced, by the evidence, to understand that a conspiracy that dwarfs any that have been carried out before by the likes of Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma and so on, is really taking place, openly, and with the full support of most of the population, which remains blithely unaware that its insatiable demand for all things wireless, 'smart' and 'convenient' is actually resulting in ill health, and eventually hastening death.

      You only have to venture out into the 'real' world, to see people wandering about, zombie-like, perhaps pushing the baby in a pushchair, or maybe pre-teen children coming home from school - all with microwave-emitting phones glued (not literally, but not too far off either) glued to their ears.

      Were you to mutter 'brain tumour!' out loud as you passed them, they would momentarily look at you as if you were completely mad, and then return to their conversation. That's if they could even be bothered to look at you at all.

      Then, for anybody who has come to realise that their incapacitating symptoms are actually linked to their use of wireless gadgets, or their second-hand exposure to the radiation from the wireless technologies that are present wherever they go (and often in their own homes from neighbours), there are the 'friends' and family members, who greet warnings of the harm that these technologies are doing with incomprehension and disbelief, and who often then distance themselves or lose contact altogether.

      Some people are forced to flee homes to avoid exposure to these EMFs, to stop working, and to add insult to injury, they are then condescendingly assured that their problems are all in their head, by individuals who either haven't heard of electrosensitivity before, or who may have some vested interest in claiming that it is a psychological issue which can best be treated with drugs and cognitive behavioural therapy.

      The science is non-conflicted out there, in abundance, and yet according to most of the media coverage of EMFs and EHS, it simply doesn't exist.

      So, what to do about this? How to warn the masses, and bring about change? How to protect not just ourselves as a species, but all of the other life on the planet which is under threat?

      There are many, many ways of trying to bring about awareness and change. These can take the form of signing petitions, writing to or seeing elected officials, contacting health organisations, speaking to health professionals, putting up posters, posting articles and blogs online, attending meetings, taking part in campaigns, supporting political initiatives and Bills, talking to people, shunning 'smart' products and other wireless devices, and so on.

      All of this is valid and necessary, and many people are already doing whatever they can.

      I do believe that another necessary step will be to loudly say that the radiation levels to which we are exposed are monstrously high, and that we are all being harmed as a result. For much of the world, this will mean exposing an organisation called ICNIRP - the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection - which has set the fatally flawed guidelines followed by many Governments, and which protect commercial, military, and perhaps even political, interests, rather than our own.

      Dr Lennart Hardell, who has done so much to expose the conflicts of interest that are rife in organisations such as the World Health Organisation and ICNIRP, recently produced an important review, entitled 'World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack' (link below to this open access paper).

      One of the few pieces of formal recognition that EMFs represent a clear and present danger was the 2011 classification by the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) of radiofrequency radiation (such as is emitted by mobile/cell and cordless phones, mobile masts/cell towers, Wi-Fi, smart meters etc.) as a Group 2B Possible Carcinogen, and the work of Dr Hardell was instrumental in this classification. Since that time, he has repeatedly stated that this radiation is a known carcinogen, no ifs, no buts, and that it should be reclassified accordingly.

      He is joined by many other scientific and medical experts who have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, and who collectively say:

      'Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.'

      Concerning ICNIRP, they add:

      'The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF'

      As I said, I am not a scientist, but it seems clear to me that exposure to this ubiquitous radiation in our environment has numerous harmful consequences for humans (let alone other species), one of which is electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

      If this is so, we need to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, this harmful agent from our environment. Not just for EHS people, but for all of us. And, if the science showing damage to fertility and DNA is correct, for the future viability of our species.

      Organisations that claim that the guidelines protect us, and that there is no 'convincing', 'consistent' or 'conclusive' evidence otherwise, must be challenged, and conflicts of interest among the individuals who are producing these statements must be exposed.

      There have been some welcome signs of the re-emergence of investigative journalism on 'the issue', such as the recent exposé of the wireless industry by Mark Hertsgaard (see 3rd link below), and also some coverage in the Mirror newspaper in the UK (by the journalist who wrote the Mirror article about Jenny Fry at the top of this post).

      On EMF Awareness Day, I think that we should, as well as remembering the many victims of wireless technologies, whether through cancers, heart disease, electrosensitivity, or any other of the many serious and life-changing health conditions that are linked to EMFs, come to an understanding that if things are ever going to change for the better, the organisations and individuals that are obstructing change need to be named and shamed, and the conflicted assertions that these EMFs are safe, and that the current exposure levels are protective, must be challenged.

      World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review)

      International EMF Scientist Appeal

      How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation - The Nation

      Wednesday, 25 April 2018

      Liz Barris: Please take part in our new EHS study!

      (Electrosensitive individuals only)

      Message from Liz Barris:

      We are very happy to announce we have a new study underway from the same team that recently decimated the myth that EHS is a psychological problem by producing the ground breaking study * showing EHS in pictures on an fMRI (functional MRI scan), finally making the invisible - wireless radiation's affect on the brain - visible, as seen above!

      This is allegedly what our government uses to look at effects on the brain and/or EHS from microwave targeting, such as with the American Embassy employees in Cuba, only they don't tell the public this is a way to see if your brain has been damaged by wireless radiation.

      If you are EHS we hope you will participate in our new study.  It's not an fMRI, it is only a questionnaire so we hope you will participate.  If you know someone who is too EHS to use a computer please print it out and mail it to them.  Please do pass this questionnaire on to any EHS people you might know of.

      Please note that you do not have to fill in all of the questionnaire in one go - you can log out, and then return to complete the rest. The survey is divided up into 6 pages, of 10 questions per page (the last page has 7 questions). One you complete and submit the first, or any subsequent, page, it will save that page.


      You may notice the questions have a broad range. This is because we plan on publishing multiple papers from the information gathered from this one questionnaire. Whether or not the paper/s are ever published, it is important to know that your name will never be published in any of the paper/s, and any and all information will be kept strictly confidential

      Link to covering letter and the EHS questionnaire:

      * Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields, Gunnar Heuser and Sylvia A. Heuser

      Corrigendum to: Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields

      Tuesday, 10 April 2018

      FRANCE: Smart meter legal threat from ex-Environment Minister

      On 6th April 2018, La Croix reported that the former French Environment Minister, Corinne Lepage, is calling on the current French Environment Minister and the Health Minister to suspend the roll-out of 'Linky' smart meters, as many people have claimed that these meters are adversely affecting their health.

      The Connexion France reported that:

      '...She (Corinne Lepage) has called for scientific studies "to assess the health effects of these meters".

      "If the government does not react within two months, we will launch a class action against the State in the tribunal administratif on behalf of the mayors and citizens opposed to Linky," Ms Lepage told Le Parisien.

      The threat of legal action comes on top of another court case. A lawyer is due to file a summary judgment on June 5 with 11 regional courts on behalf of 3,000 householders who want the meter withdrawn or who refuse to have one fitted at their homes.

      Meanwhile, an email calling for the suspension of the Linky programme, signed by 92 associations, was sent to MPs...'

      According to Le Parisien:

      '...It's a reputed smart box that gives headaches to hundreds of customers. Dizziness, feeling tired, palpitations, insomnia ... just type Linky on the Internet to appear plethora of user testimonials who claim to be victims of electromagnetic waves emitted by the new green electricity meter Enedis.

      Expected to gradually replace our old devices, it currently equips ten million homes. But more and more municipalities and collectives of citizens, worried about the health effects of this meter, now oppose its installation...'

      La Croix notes that:

      '...Corinne Lepage, claims to have received the support of several municipalities, including Bondy (Seine-Saint-Denis), associations and citizens, as the MEP Michèle Rivasi ecologist.

      According to her, the distribution network operator has already accepted that the deployment will be delayed in certain municipalities. He would also have committed not to put the meter in the people who do not want it. The lawyer believes that in the name of "  the right to property and equality before the public office  ", Enedis must do the same throughout France.

      In case of rejection of the request, or after two months of silence from the public authorities, Corinne Lepage threat to seize the administrative court. This procedure would be in addition to the collective action brought by lawyers, who claim that they have already met 3,031 complainants. "We will launch on June 5 an assignment of Enedis to appear in summary in eleven courts," says lawyer Arnaud Durand, who plans to reach by then the 5,000 applicants...'

      According to Landis + Gyr, manufacturers of the Linky, 'The meter is based on PLC (Power Line Communication) technology', which means that the readings (data) from the meter are sent to the utility company over existing electrical wiring and power lines.

      The EI Wellspring website documents some of the health issues related to this technology here:

      Below is some of the media coverage of the ultimatum given by Corinne Lepage to the French Government ministers.

      La Croix - Corinne Lepage réclame la suspension de Linky, 6th April 2018

      English translation:

      Le Parisien - Ces citoyens qui veulent la peau du compteur électrique Linky, 8th April 2018

      Original in French:

      English translation:

      The Connexion France - Ex-minister demands halt to Linky meter rollout, 9th April 2018

      In English

      Le Figaro - Compteurs Linky : Corinne Lepage saisit l'État et demande leur suspension, 9th April 2018

      Original in French:

      English translation: