Regarding the placement of a Cell Phone Mast in Close Proximity to your residence.
Please enquire from your insurance company – are you insured against developing adverse health effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation?
Check with your medical aid – will it cover you in the event of developing adverse health effects? For instance: ask if you will be protected in the event of you developing Electrohypersensitivity(EHS)/Electromagnetic Field Intolerance Syndrome (EMFIS).
1. Click on the link below to access the pdf (more extensive and updated information is available from EMFSA upon request).
Letters to Residents being Asked for Approval to Erect Cell phone Tower
2. Dear Resident –
Prior to Granting Permission of the Erecting of a Cell Phone Tower in close proximity to your residence, please consider the following before you give your permission:
Each tower may have more than one antenna set, each antenna set will cover 360 degrees for full coverage.
Once the tower has been installed –You will not be able to have it removed.
You will also have no say about the cellular service providers that use these towers, or about what equipment they install within or outside of the towers, or future additions.
Each tower will emit pulse modulated radio frequency radiation, specifically microwave and millimeter-wave radiation, 24 hours a day, every day and night, forever.
The radiation is designed to penetrate into every room in your home. The radiation levels to which you might be subjected to could be biologically unsafe. Whereas you are able to switch off your own devices at night the tower radiation is 24/7.
Radio frequency radiation has been linked, by numerous international biomedical research studies, to a broad range of health consequences. Some examples are sleep disruption, headaches, ringing in the ears, fatigue, loss of concentration, memory, or learning ability, disorientation, dizziness, or loss of balance. Studies have also indicated increased risk of cancer.
Everyone is vulnerable to harm from radio frequency radiation, including pregnant women and their unborn children, babies, teenagers, adults, seniors, the chronically ill, the disabled, those in remission from cancer and those fighting cancer. No consideration will be given to which of these sensitive individuals is present in your community, or to where these cell towers are located relative to them. Nor will any effort be made to track any health problems that may surface in your community after the installation of both macro and small cell towers, (including numerous 4G and 5G small cells that will be deployed on lampposts, security poles and other street furniture in the public right of way.)
While medical organizations, like the National Institutes of Health, must control the exposure of humans to toxins, without a thorough ethics review, no similar prohibition exists for telecommunications companies.
You will have a difficult time proving that the cell tower radiation did harm you, even if it has, because the symptoms of such harm are highly varied and differ from individual to individual.
Also, you will undoubtedly be exposed to radiation from other sources, those sources most likely from within your home so it will be hard for you to prove that it was cell tower radiation that was at fault. The telecom companies will try to deflect responsibility to others, perhaps even to government agencies, and to the government officials who approved the locating of the cell tower in your community.
If you try to get insurance protection against any harm to your health from the radiation, you will be turned down because the underwriters of insurance are increasingly aware of the health risks of radio frequency radiation and may not be willing to back the insurance carriers.
If you try to get medical care for any harm that the radiation has caused you, you will find that the medical profession is not yet trained to address this type of harm. As a result, the profession may have no remedies for you other than treating the symptoms.
Even if you move to avoid the radiation, you may find that the harm done to you may not be fully reversible. And, when you do move, you may find that the value of your home is less than you expected. Given these circumstances, consider carefully if you would like to volunteer yourself and your family for exposure to the radio frequency radiation from cell towers.
General Letter of Liability re Placement of Cell Phone Towers
Send the following form Letter of Liability in terms of the placement of Cell Phone Masts in close proximity to Residence.
Residents Association, your Councilor, an attorney, preferably all three.
1. Your local Telecommunications Infrastructure Policy doc
2. Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005 [specifically section 22]
3. The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998
4. The National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 0f 1997
5. Your local Town Planning Scheme
6. Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act 3 of 2000)
7. Municipal Systems Act
8. The South African Constitution
9. How to represent yourself in court [emfsa, work in progress]
See notice of intent on page 2
To.
I………………………………… .
ID No……………………………
Address
…………………………………..
…………………………………..
…………………………………..
ERF…………………………….
Make the following statement regarding Application No…………………………………..
For……………………………………………………………………………………………………
At…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Should the application be approved the following actions will take place:
A. I will continue to apply wireless communications good practice In my home and workplace [see www. EMFSA .co.za for details].
I will have my property surveyed for current levels and types of electromagnetic radiation.
B. I will be undertaking an annual medical examination specifically aimed at internationally accepted EHS / biomarkers and other medical conditions proven to be as a result of long term low level non-ionizing radiation exposure.
C. I will take advantage of any new methods of evaluating health related to EMF exposure as and when they become available
D. Should my property be devalued as a result of such approval in terms of either the municipal valuation method or independent assessment by property professionals I will claim compensation from the successful applicant.
E. Should I require shielding from the radiation generated as a result of a successful application the account for such shielding will be deemed the responsibility of the successful applicant .
Signed………………………. On this day ………….. Of ………………………………. 20……..
Received by………………………… Place…………………………………………..Date…………
Last week, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal grilled wireless industry representatives, who admitted the industry has done ZERO health & safety studies on 5G technology. Meanwhile, dozens of independent studies indicates that 5G is a risk to all biological life. Watch the video above, on YouTube here, or on Facebook here.
[WASHINGTON, DC]— During today’s Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of 5G wireless technology and their impact on the American people and economy, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) raised concerns with the lack of any scientific research and data on the technology’s potential health risks.
Blumenthal blasted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—government agencies jointly-responsible for ensuring that cellphone technologies are safe to use—for failing to conduct any research into the safety of 5G technology, and instead, engaging in bureaucratic finger-pointing and deferring to industry.
In December 2018, Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seeking answers regarding potential health risks posed by new 5G wireless technology. At today’s hearing, Blumenthal criticized Carr for failing to provide answers, and instead, just echoing, “the general statements of the FDA, which shares regulatory responsibility for cell phones with the FCC.” Blumenthal also decried the FDA’s statements as “pretty unsatisfactory.” A PDF of Carr’s complete response is available here.
During an exchange with wireless industry representatives, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radiofrequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.
Blumenthal stated:
“If you go to the FDA website, there basically is a cursory and superficial citation to existing scientific data saying ‘The FDA has urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps, including support additional research on possible biological effects of radio frequency fields for the type of signals emitted by cell phones.’ I believe that Americans deserve to know what the health effects are, not to pre-judge what scientific studies may show, and they also deserve a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions.”
“So my question for you: How much money has the industry committed to supporting additional independent research—I stress independent—research? Is that independent research ongoing? Has any been completed? Where can consumers look for it? And we’re talking about research on the biological effects of this new technology.”
At the end of the exchange, Blumenthal concluded,
“So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”
In November 2018, the National Toxicology Program released the final results of the longest and most expensive study to date on cellphones and cancer. Those studies found “some evidence” of a link to cancer, at least in male rats. However, the study only focused on the risks associated with 2G and 3G cell phones.
The latest 5G wireless technology relies on the deployment of many more new antennas and transmitters that are clustered lower to the ground and closer to homes and schools. There has been even more limited research with respect to the health ramifications of 5G technology, and the FCC has thus far failed to adequately explain how they have determined 5G is safe.
Additional Notes
Senator Blumenthal is speaking to industry witnesses in the Senate hearing video:
Mr. Brad Gillen, Vice President, CTIA
Mr. Steve Berry, President and CEO, Competitive Carriers Association
Mr. Shailen Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
Mr. Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission
Note: Several of the organizations listed below are still promoting actions limited to contacting your elected representatives and pleading for help. With that being said, there is a resounding increase in awareness that a firmer response is now required.
COPY AND PASTE THE LETTER BELOW THIS LINE INTO YOUR OWN EMAIL AND SEND IT TO THE PERSON ADDRESSED TO.
————————————
To:
Attention:
Email:
Dear
re:
I hereby strongly object to the above 5g roll-out in South Africa due to the following:
It has never been tested and proven safe to people and the environment.
This concern is further heightened by the literally thousands of scientific studies done on lower generations that show a sufficient harm to warrant the precautionary principle being applied with regard to 5G. (See here for scientific reports) which include the following:2017 Scientific Appeal on 5G To the European Commission: Scientific Appeal on 5G of more than 250 doctors from 35 countries to the European Commission who say: “We recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry…RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”5G Appeal to Stop Deployment on Earth and Space by more than 201,383 signatories from 202 nations and territories as of February 14th, 2020 all calling for a moratorium on 5G until it has been tested due to the high potential of risks;
You are also hereby put on notice that your 5g actions have put you in violation of at least nine international agreements/ codes as well as being in violation of our South African Constitutional right (Clause 24) to a safe environment. (See Annexure 1 for full details). These include:a)The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: States shall “undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being” (art. 3), “ensure… the survival and development of the child” (art. 6) and “take appropriate measures to combat disease… taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution” (art. 24(c)).b) The Nuremberg Code (1947)applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the deployment of 5G with new, higher RF radiation exposure that has not been pre-market tested for safety. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (art. 1). Exposure to 5G will be involuntary. “No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (art. 5). The findings of over 10,000 scientific studies and the voices of hundreds of international organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members who have suffered disabling injury and been displaced from their homes by already-existing wireless telecommunications facilities, are “a priori reasons to believe that death or disabling injury will occur”.c) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (art. 3).
5G does not make good Business sense. From a business stand-point your actions around 5G should be a cause of concern because else were in the world, the Cell phone companies are themselves warning their own investors (not the public) of the risks associated with radiation and secondly INSURANCE COMPANIES are refusing to underwrite them again due to the potential risks.- Corporate Company Warnings to Investors contained in Annual Reports filed on Form 10-K (or Form 20-F or 40-F for foreign companies) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Cell phone manufacturers and providers of their infrastructure are aware that the radiation from their products could be risky and warn their shareholders. Excerpts from statements in their annual reports that indicate these companies are informing their shareholders that they may incur significant financial losses related to electromagnetic fields include: “We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.” The companies include: AT&T, Verizon, Crown Castle, VODAFONE, Blackberry, China Mobile, American Tower Corp, AMÉRICA MÓVIL, S.A.B. DE C.V., T-Mobile US Inc., GCI Inc, TELEFÓNICA, S.A, Soft Bank Crown Corp, Nokia, Microsoft, Telstra. You can read these warnings here.Vodafone 2017 Report This 2017 Report ranks the EMF health risk issue as having a “high” impact. Please see page 29 of the report for a graphic on “Our Principal Risks” that features the EMF risk as “High.” The graphic states, “EMF health related risks EMF found to pose health risks causing reduction in mobile usage or litigation.” See the Vodaphone 2017 graphic here. Vodafone 2018 Report (EMF is a “Key Principal Risk”rated as high in the graphic on page 38) In addition this Report states that: “What is the risk? Electro-magnetic signals emitted by mobile devices and base stations may be found to pose health risks, with potential impacts including: changes to national legislation, a reduction in mobile phone usage or litigation.” Read the Vodafone 2017 Report
Insurance companieswill not insure these companies for harm from the radiation from their products and networks. Lloyd’s underwriters refuse to insure mobile phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users’ health.” That article was unequivocally clear. The insurers had: “fears mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.” Twenty years ago, the industry already knew their business models were a risk to the general public, especially because insurers were already refusing to cover their biggest liabilities. And as TruePublica reported yesterday in Dieselgate to Phonegate — the news was very much kept under wraps by the industry.
In light of all of the above above and more, we feel that it is negligent and downright reckless to continue with the roll-out of 5G until it has been tested by independent, non-industry-funded scientists and found to be safe. We therefore call on you to:
To take immediate measures to halt the deployment of 5G because we do NOT consent to being guinea-pigs (test subjects) for your untested 5G equipment and
Apply the Precautionary Principle
You could, if you so chose, also be the first company in Africa to adopt this approach .
Yours sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen
Annexure 1
International Agreements/Codes/Practices you are Violating:
Your roll-out of 5G technology is in violation of the following nine codes /International agreements as well as our Constitutional Right to a Save Environment (Section 24).
Children and duty of care
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: States shall “undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being” (art. 3), “ensure… the survival and development of the child” (art. 6) and “take appropriate measures to combat disease… taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution” (art. 24(c)).
The Nuremberg Code (1947)applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the deployment of 5G with new, higher RF radiation exposure that has not been pre-market tested for safety. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (art. 1). Exposure to 5G will be involuntary. “No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (art. 5). The findings of over 10,000 scientific studies and the voices of hundreds of international organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members who have suffered disabling injury and been displaced from their homes by already-existing wireless telecommunications facilities, are “a priori reasons to believe that death or disabling injury will occur”.
Environment
The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972): “The discharge of toxic substances… in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems” (principle 6).
The World Charter for Nature (1982): “Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided… [W]here potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed” (art. 11).
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992): “States have… the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (principle 2).
The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002): “There is an urgent need to… create more effective national and regional policy responses to environmental threats to human health” (para. 54(k)).
The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2017): “The Parties shall… take all appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and eliminate to the maximum extent possible, detrimental effects on the environment, in particular from radioactive, toxic, and other hazardous substances and wastes” (art. 13).
The United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030)has as objectives and targets to “transform”, by expanding enabling environments; to “survive”, by reducing maternal and newborn mortality; and to “thrive” by ensuring health and well-being and reducing pollution-related deaths and illnesses.
Advertisements
Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here,
as well as a Privacy & Cookies banner at the bottom of the page.
You can hide ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.
ITe Vergesig case is only one of many examples illustrating the “Illusion of Inclusion” farce. This is in regards to public participation, communities and cell tower placements. Communities are simply ignored and/or overruled.
Backgound:
The council received a substantial amount of objections to this mast. In addition a petition was circulated in the immediate area against this mast and base station leading up to the Municipal Planning Tribunal hearing. In less than six days, 202 residents signed this petition. The application for the free standing base tower was rejected by the Municipal Planning Tribunal on Tuesday April 11, 2017.
Highwave Consultants then appealed the decision of the Municipal Planning Tribunal.
MAYCO disregarded all the objections and approved the cell-tower, with the (then) Mayor de Lille personally signing approval for the tower.
Vergesig-Aurora Residents’ Association chairwoman Verne Jankielsohn said they had written to various members of the DA and the City to help with their fight, but to no avail. They had approached the Cape Party, which agreed to take on the case pro-bono.
The Cape Party (on behalf of the Vergesig-Aurora Residents’ Association) filed court papers in the Western Cape High Court late last year. The City filed opposing papers in January.
Advocate Carlo Viljoen said the Cape Party promoted the principle of direct democracy, endorsing the idea that the people of an area should make decisions regarding their lives and not a politician, and therefore decided to take on this case.
“It’s clear in this instance that the will of the people was not to have a mast erected. In addition, it’s clear that there is no need for the mast, and that the erection of the mast is an illogical step by the DA, based on considerations outside the will of the people, legal considerations or need,” he said.
The case is to be heard in the Cape Town High Court in February.
First respondent: Patricia de Lille (she was the executive mayor when the tower was approved)
Second respondent: Highway Consultants (PTY) LTD
Objections included:
Property values decreasing
Ruining of the area’s rural image
Health concerns
A crèche is being operated from the church – in close proximity to the mast.
Alternative proposed sites were ignored
Residents also complained that they had not been properly consulted.
No need for added telecommunication services
EMFSA is very concerned that a cell tower was placed in an area where the most vulnerable in our society might be at risk. The Precautionary Principle was clearly ignored by the then Mayor Patricia de Lille and MAYCO. We note that some residents in close proximity to the tower are complaining of disrupted sleep since the tower became active.
Apr 11, 2017 · · …good news – this morning, Ian Jankielsohn (local resident) and I addressed the Durbanville Tribunal, and together with the hard work done by locals Verne, Adrian, etc the application for a mast in church grounds was REFUSED! Yay!
The mayor’s advisory panel has given the go-ahead to erect a cell tower at a Durbanville church – despite objections from residents.
This comes after a consulting company appealed a decision by the Municipal Planning Tribunal, which rejected its application to erect a cell tower at AGS Church, in St John’s Road, Vergesig.
The original application by the church to let Highwave Consultants build the 25m-high tower, was supported by the City’s town planner but then rejected by the tribunal on Tuesday April 11 (“Tribunal rejects cell mast application,” Northern News, May 4) because it would have been on the crest of a rise and posed too much of a negative visual impact.
Brett Herron, mayoral committee member for transport and urban development, said at the time that the applicant had also not motivated its choice of site, offered alternatives or adequately shown how the proposed mast would be blended into the landscape, all of which was required in terms of the City’s policy on telecommunications mast infrastructure.
In its appeal, Highwave Consultants said an August 2016 memorandum had made a compelling argument for the mast and suggested alternatives.
Highwave said there was a growing need for denser cell-tower distribution to meet the demand of more smart devices and it was prepared to put up a 20m mast disguised as a tree instead of the standard 25m monopole design.
The advisory panel recommended that the appeal be upheld and the decision of the tribunal be set aside and replaced.
The panel said the potential visual impact would be mitigated by the updated proposal and the objections relating to the impact on resident’s view, health risks, property values and other impacts had been addressed. It noted that the proposal for the mast was informed by careful network planning to address the needs of the area.
Verne Jankielsohn, from the Vergesig-Aurora Residents’ Association, said they were disappointed by the decision and had not been given an opportunity to appear before the panel before it made its decision and recommendation to the mayor in favour of the mast and base station.
In its report, the panel said the appeal could be adequately determined by the documentation submitted and said the parties were given an opportunity to make written submissions for the original application and the appeal.
The City received 98 objection letters before the period for public input closed on Wednesday November 16, and 49 comments on the appeal.
“The council received a substantial amount of objection letters last year. A petition was done in the immediate area against this mast and base station leading up to the Municipal Planning Tribunal hearing. In less than six days, 202 residents signed this petition,” said Ms Jankielson.
Ms Jankielsohn said they were still trying to stop the mast and base station. They plan to take the case to the public protector and will be asking the City to answer questions in line with the Promotion of Access to Information Act.
“It is our constitutional right to protect our families, our homes and our environment,” she said.
Engineer and Vergesig resident Anton Esterhuizen previously told Northern News that he did not see the “need” for the tower, as there were already two within a 2.3km radius of the proposed site; fibre-optic cables would be installed in the area soon; and the neighbourhood had reached capacity and was also serviced by the commercial tower at the Ipic Centre.
However the advisory panel said there was a need for telecommunication support structures to be situated closer to one another due to the increased need for more efficient data connectivity in the Durbanville area.
In November last year, residents claimed the mast would hurt property values, make it harder to sell their homes, ruin the area’s rural feel and possibly even harm their health (“Residents say no to tower,” Northern News, November 10 2016). Residents also complained that they had not been properly consulted.
But church spokesman Cyril Rosalt had argued that there was no conclusive evidence that cell tower radiation harmed humans.
Northern News sent the City questions on last Thursday, but they did not respond by deadline; and Highwave did not respond to questions sent on Friday.
Durbanville mast row headed for the courts
Wednesday Dec 20, 2017
A row over the installation of a cellphone mast tower between fed-up Durbanville residents and the City is headed for the courts.
The City of Cape Town has approved a cellphone base station on a church property next to a crèche in Vergesig near Durbanville despite residents’ claims of a fraudulent planning application.
High Wave Consultants’ first application for a base station at the AGS church in St John Road was refused in April because it did not comply with the council’s telecommunication mast infrastructure policy.
But the application was approved on appeal by mayor Patricia de Lille.
Objectors claim High Wave Consultants made a fraudulent representation to the council by pretending to investigate alternative sites but not doing so.
Verne Jankielsohn from the Vergesig-Aurora Residents Association said they understand the need for cellphone towers, but said the applicants were offered other sites.
“We gave them a different site and asked them not to install this cellphone mast on the church’s property. It is simply not viable to do that especially it being on a church ground,” she said.
Jankielsohn said the Durbanville area is well-covered with 4G/LTE cellphone coverage.
“No one helped us. We went to the DA’s provincial and national leadership. All they told us, that they were looking into the matter. They have not told us anything further as yet. We feel very dis-empowered because every door we knock on, gets closed in our faces,” she said.
She said court papers had been filed in the Western Cape High Court to overturn De Lille’s decision.
“A cellphone tower will decrease our property values and poses great health risks,” she said.
Zara Nicholson, De Lille’s spokesperson, said the City of Cape Town confirms that it had received the court papers. “The City will peruse the documentation and decide on a course of action,” she said.
Meanwhile residents of Heathfield have also been fighting developers from erecting a cellphone tower next to a community church.
Local resident Helen Hoekstra said: “Surely there is a point when a victory is a victory, and not open for appeal any longer? We have also heard of other sites where this has happened. How can this be democratic, when a single individual can override multiple processes.
“The community has had three victories so far, once at a sub-council meeting, once by error on the applicant side and the third time at a municipal planning tribunal hearing. Each time, the developer appealed the outcome and so it keeps returning. This is reminiscent of how large corporations with lots of resources are able to eventually exhaust a community’s capacity and resources,” she said.
“At the last appeal, community members again submitted complaints but without any further engagement we are suddenly told the erection will go ahead. How did the company do this? They went to the mayor.”
Cape Town – The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed communications service provider Telkom’s appeal against a Western Cape High Court judgment that it is obliged when erecting a cellphone mast – whether free-standing or rooftop-based – to do so in accordance with the City’s Municipal Planning by-law.In order to extend its mobile electronic communication network coverage in and around Cape Town, in 2017 Telkom planned to develop 135 sites for the erection of free-standing base telecommunication stations, commonly referred to as cellphone masts, and rooftop base telecommunication stations.
One of the sites was on a property owned by the estate of Birch Kalu in Heathfield.
The property was situated in a zone where the erection of such a mast was prohibited under the relevant planning by-law.
After initially applying for a rezoning of the portion of the property, Telkom erected it without obtaining a change in zoning.
Telkom contended that a section of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005 and in particular 22(1)(a) thereof, entitled it to enter a property and erect a mast without having to seek the permission of either the property owner or the local authority.
The high court rejected this contention and the SCA upheld its decision and dismissed Telkom’s appeal with costs.
“Telkom’s argument is that it should be unfettered in determining where it should be able to erect its telecommunications infrastructure…
“This would lead to the curious result that the construction of major infrastructure that can be seen across our country and in many places in our cities, having a potentially major impact on the environment, would fall outside any regulatory control insofar as its location was concerned,” the SCA found.
Mayco member for spatial planning and environment Marian Nieuwoudt said the City welcomed the judgment.
“With this judgment, the SCA has once again affirmed the constitutional validity of the City of Cape Town’s Municipal Planning by-law, and our telecommunications mast infrastructure policy.
“The SCA dismissed Telkom’s argument that it was free to select where to situate base stations without prior approval from the city.
“Also, the SCA judgment concurs with the order from the Western Cape High Court that the telecommunications infrastructure had been erected without obtaining the city’s approval as stipulated by the Municipal Planning by-law,” Nieuwoudt said.
Telkom said in a statement it was reviewing the judgment to consider its options.
“We are not yet in a position to comment in any greater detail at this stage until management has had an opportunity to obtain advice on the judgment and to consider the advice provided.”
PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THE LETTER BELOW THE LINE INTO YOUR OWN EMAIL AND SEND IT. PLEASE DO NOT POST COMMENTS HERE IT IS TOO TIME-CONSUMING FOR ME TO READ.
We write in response to your recent press release Vodacom launches Africa’s first live 5G network which supports both mobile and fixed wireless services on Monday, 4 May 2020.
Due to the fact that 5G has never been tested together with the evidence that lower generation EMFs do have significant health problems, it is both reckless and negligent of your organisation to be rolling it out in our country.
In addition to the nine international agreements/codes you are in violation of, you are also in violation of our South African Constitutional right to a safe environment.
Your roll-out of 5G technology is in violation of the following nine codes /International agreements as well as our Constitutional Right to a Save Environment (Section 24).
Children and duty of care
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: States shall “undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being” (art. 3), “ensure… the survival and development of the child” (art. 6) and “take appropriate measures to combat disease… taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution” (art. 24(c)).
The Nuremberg Code (1947)applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the deployment of 5G with new, higher RF radiation exposure that has not been pre-market tested for safety. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (art. 1). Exposure to 5G will be involuntary. “No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (art. 5). The findings of over 10,000 scientific studies and the voices of hundreds of international organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members who have suffered disabling injury and been displaced from their homes by already-existing wireless telecommunications facilities, are “a priori reasons to believe that death or disabling injury will occur”.
Environment
The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972): “The discharge of toxic substances… in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems” (principle 6).
The World Charter for Nature (1982): “Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided… [W]here potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed” (art. 11).
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992): “States have… the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (principle 2).
The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002): “There is an urgent need to… create more effective national and regional policy responses to environmental threats to human health” (para. 54(k)).
The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2017): “The Parties shall… take all appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and eliminate to the maximum extent possible, detrimental effects on the environment, in particular from radioactive, toxic, and other hazardous substances and wastes” (art. 13).
The United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030)has as objectives and targets to “transform”, by expanding enabling environments; to “survive”, by reducing maternal and newborn mortality; and to “thrive” by ensuring health and well-being and reducing pollution-related deaths and illnesses.
In terms of the following International policies and practices you have a duty to inform and EMFs
The World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (2012) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) stated that “[t]here is a need to inform the public of the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” and invited Member States “to adopt suitable measures in order to ensure compliance with relevant international recommendations to protect health against the adverse effect of EMF”.
The Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2008): “The European Parliament… [n]otes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, … obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or of the stricter emission standards adopted, for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children..”
Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): “Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people.”
Lastly, we draw your attention to the fact that tech companies themselves are warning their investors of the potential harm of Radiation risks and Insurance companies are unwilling to insure equipment.
THIS INCLUDES YOUR OWN PARENT COMPANY VODAFONE:
Vodafone 2017 Report This 2017 Report ranks the EMF health risk issue as having a “high” impact. Please see page 29 of the report for a graphic on “Our Principal Risks” that features the EMF risk as “High.” The graphic states, “EMF health related risks EMF found to pose health risks causing reduction in mobile usage or litigation.” See the Vodaphone 2017 graphic here. Vodafone 2018 Report (EMF is a “Key Principal Risk”rated as high in the graphic on page 38) In addition this Report states that: “What is the risk? Electro-magnetic signals emitted by mobile devices and base stations may be found to pose health risks, with potential impacts including: changes to national legislation, a reduction in mobile phone usage or litigation.” Read the Vodafone 2017 Report
Corporate Company Investor Warnings contained in Annual Reports filed on Form 10-K (or Form 20-F or 40-F for foreign companies) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Tech Companies warn their shareholders (not the public) about that the products could be risky. See below excerpts from statements in their annual reports that indicate these companies are informing their shareholders that they may incur significant financial losses related to electromagnetic fields.
Insurance companies will not insure these companies for harm from the radiation from their products and networks. Lloyd’s underwriters refuse to insure mobile phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users’ health.” That article was unequivocally clear. The insurers had: “fears mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.” Twenty years ago, the industry already knew their business models were a risk to the general public, especially because insurers were already refusing to cover their biggest liabilities. And as TruePublica reported yesterday in Dieselgate to Phonegate — the news was very much kept under wraps by the industry.
The following companies are warning Investors: “We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.”
The companies include: AT&T, Verizon, Crown Castle, VODAFONE, Blackberry, China Mobile, American Tower Corp, AMÉRICA MÓVIL, S.A.B. DE C.V., T-Mobile US Inc., GCI Inc, TELEFÓNICA, S.A, Soft Bank Crown Corp, Nokia, Microsoft, Telstra. You can read these warnings here.
We therefore call on you to:
To take immediate measures to halt the deployment of 5G because we do NOT consent to being guinea-pigs (test subjects) for your untested 5G equipment.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: States shall “undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being” (art. 3), “ensure… the survival and development of the child” (art. 6) and “take appropriate measures to combat disease… taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution” (art. 24(c)).
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we have the right to live in ‘freedom and safety’; a right that was incorporated into UK law in the 1998 Human Rights Act.
The Nuremberg Code (1947) applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the deployment of 5G with new, higher RF radiation exposure that has not been pre-market tested for safety. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (art. 1). Exposure to 5G will be involuntary. “No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (art. 5). The findings of over 10,000 scientific studies and the voices of hundreds of international organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members who have suffered disabling injury and been displaced from their homes by already-existing wireless telecommunications facilities, are “a priori reasons to believe that death or disabling injury will occur”.
Duty to inform and EMFs
The World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (2012) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) stated that “[t]here is a need to inform the public of the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” and invited Member States “to adopt suitable measures in order to ensure compliance with relevant international recommendations to protect health against the adverse effect of EMF”.
The Mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2008): “The European Parliament… [n]otes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete, … obviously take no account of developments in information and communication technologies, of the recommendations issued by the European Environment Agency or of the stricter emission standards adopted, for example, by Belgium, Italy and Austria, and do not address the issue of vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children.”
Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): “Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people.”
Environment
The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972): “The discharge of toxic substances… in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems” (principle 6).
The World Charter for Nature (1982): “Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided… [W]here potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed” (art. 11).
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992): “States have… the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (principle 2).
The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002): “There is an urgent need to… create more effective national and regional policy responses to environmental threats to human health” (para. 54(k)).
The African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2017): “The Parties shall… take all appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and eliminate to the maximum extent possible, detrimental effects on the environment, in particular from radioactive, toxic, and other hazardous substances and wastes” (art. 13).
The United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030) has as objectives and targets to “transform”, by expanding enabling environments; to “survive”, by reducing maternal and newborn mortality; and to “thrive” by ensuring health and well-being and reducing pollution-related deaths and illnesses.
(Excerpts from the International Space Appeal)
We call upon the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations,
(a) To take immediate measures to halt the deployment of 5G on Earth and in space in order to protect all humankind, especially the unborn, infants, children, adolescents and pregnant women, as well as the environment;
(b) To follow the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Council of Europe Resolution 1815 by informing citizens, including teachers and physicians, about the health risks (to adults and children) from RF radiation, and why they should and how they can avoid wireless communication and base stations, particularly in or near day-care centres, schools, hospitals, homes and workplaces;
(c) To favour and implement wired telecommunications instead of wireless;
(d) To prohibit the wireless/telecommunications industry through its lobbying organizations from persuading officials to make decisions permitting further expansion of RF radiation, including ground- and space-based 5G;
(e) To appoint immediately—without industry influence—international groups of independent, truly impartial EMF and health scientists with no conflicts of interest, [120] for the purpose of establishing new international safety standards for RF radiation that are not based only on power levels, that consider cumulative exposure, and that protect against all health and environmental effects, not just thermal effects and not just effects on humans;
(f) To appoint immediately—without industry influence—international groups of scientists with expertise in EMFs, health, biology and atmospheric physics, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive regulatory framework that will ensure that the uses of outer space are safe for humans and the environment, taking into account RF radiation, rocket exhaust gases, black soot, and space debris and their impacts on ozone, [121]global warming, [122] the atmosphere and the preservation of life on Earth. Not only ground-based but also space-based technology must be sustainable [123] for adults and children, animals and plants.
Many WHO IARC scientists who are WHO advisors and served on the 2011 WHO IARC working group now state that additional scientific evidence indicates that wireless radiation should be re-classified either as as a “probable human carcinogen” or a “known human c 2019 Update: WHO/IARC Advisory group recommend re-evaluating RF in light of new science since 2011 classification.
The advisory group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of World Health Organization advisory group has released new recommendations to reassess as a “high priority” the cancer risks of radiofrequency (RF) radiation between 2020–2024. The recommendations were published in The Lancet Oncology on April 18, 2019. The IARC advisory group of 29 scientists from 18 countries met in March, 2019. Many WHO/IARC scientists have publicly stated the classification will likely strengthen due to the National Toxicology Program study.
The Class 2B classification includes wireless radiation from any transmitting source such as cellphones, baby monitors, tablets, cell towers, radar, other wifi, etc. It applies to RF-EMF in the range of 30 KHz to 300 GHz emitted from any device- not just cell phones. This fact is detailed in the Lancet’s published statement and in the related press release in 2011. All wireless electronic devices emit RF-EMF (wireless radiation). It does not matter what type of device is the source. While cell phone use at the head results in highest exposures to the brain, many other devices emit lower levels of exposures that can have a cumulative effect on the whole body.
The WHO IARC Monograph states that research shows this radiation is absorbed deeper into children’s bodies than into adults.
The 2013 published Monograph states, “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child’s brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.” Read these details on page 34 of the World Health Organization’s International Association for Research on Cancer’s published Monograph on Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
The WHO IARC Director Christopher Wild recommends taking measures to reduce exposures until research on long term exposures is completed in light of the risk classification.
The 2011 Press Release by the WHO IARC states, “Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,” said IARC Director Christopher Wild, “it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.”
Even in 2010 WHO stated that significantly more research is needed. Statements about proof of safety are false.
The WHO has published a 36-page Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields (Wireless) detailing the critical research that still needs to be done with wireless, calling for research that looks at the connection with neurodegenerative diseases, cognition, and cancer—among other endpoints. Please note the following points made in the research agenda:
The agenda states it a high priority to look at “Prospective cohort studies of children and adolescents with outcomes including behavioural and neurological disorders and cancer”. They recommend a “longitudinal design, thereby allowing the study of several outcomes and changes in technology and the use of mobile phones as well as other sources of RF EMF exposure, such as wireless laptops.”
The agenda prioritizes “Effects of early-life and prenatal RF exposure on development and behaviour “ because “there is still a paucity of information concerning the effects of prenatal and early life exposure to RF EMF on subsequent development and behaviour. Such studies are regarded as important because of the widespread use of mobile phones by children and the increasing exposure to other RF sources such as wireless local area networks (WLANs) and the reported effects of RF EMF on the adult EEG. “
WHO IARC scientists continue to publish research and commentary in medical journals detailing that there are no safety assurances with wireless. They state an urgent need for well done directed research.
Dr. Samet, Senior Scientist, Chair of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer 2011 RF-EMF Working Group stated, “The IARC 2B classification implies an assurance of safety that cannot be offered—a particular concern, given the prospect that most of the world’s population will have lifelong exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.” in his 2014 Commentary calling for more directed research published in the journal Epidemiology.
Many WHO IARC scientists who are WHO advisors and served on the 2011 WHO IARC working group now state that additional scientific evidence indicates that wireless radiation should be re-classified either as as a “probable human carcinogen” or a “known human carcinogen.”
Several experts no longer are of the opinion that the evidence shows “possible carcinogenicity. They believe the evidence has increase and they are upgrading their opinion on the matter.
Sep 27, 2019
Safe Technology for SA 
