Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started

Letter to IFP re Question to Dept Health

To
Magdalena Duduzile Hlengwa
From
Charmaine Treherne
Subject
Your Question NW143 to the Minister of Health

Dear Minister

I am writing on behalf of a group of citizens who are interested to know whether you are satisfied with the response by the Minister of Health regarding the current status quo in South Africa which is basically compliance with the WHO/applicable ICNIRP limit which they maintain “will afford protection against the known adverse health effects of any such electromagnetic fields” The minister continued in their reply “Surveys conducted around the world and also in South Africa have consistently indicated that the levels, to which the general population is exposed as a result of various wireless technologies, invariably are orders of magnitude below the applicable ICNIRP limit.”

We are not aware of such studies having ever been done in South Africa and would like to ask whether you would be willing to continue engaging with the Ministry of Health on this matter. When the health of South Africans is affected (and their is so much science that it is), it is ultimately a matter for the Health Department regardless of it’s source. Also the ICNIRP guidelines are hopelessly inadequate and currently being challenged globally in the USA by concerned organisations and individuals. (See https://safetechnology4sa.home.blog/sa-regulations/) for details.

If there is any information (scientific research etc.,) that I can help you with, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Yours sincerely,
-Charmaine Treherne
Safe Technology For South Africa

Your question and the response is here: https://www.pa.org.za/person/magdalena-duduzile-hlengwa/
source file RNW143-190916.docx

For easy reference: Your question to the Minister of Health was:

1)Whether, with reference to the current and future plans to roll out 5G, a term used to reference the next generation of high speed mobile network, he and/or his department conducted any research that suggests any possible long or short term human health risks posed by 5G technology; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of associated risks; (2) whether he has found that there are potential risks and/or consequences to the mental and physical health of persons, particularly in a situation where the skin and sweat ducts absorb the higher millimetre frequencies intended for 5G; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details of the findings; (3) whether, in view of the findings of the US National Toxicology Program which found clear evidence of cancer due to cell phone radiation, he has any plans in place to protect the citizens from the (a) identified potential health risks and/or consequence and (b) the added cell tower frequencies needed for 5G linked to the damage of human blood; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the plan?

Source Link

Reply:

1. The Directorate Radiation control (formerly part of the Department of Health, now transferred to the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority – SAHPRA) has the mandate in terms of the Hazardous Substances Act (Act 15 of 1973) to exercise regulatory control over devices and installations that have been declared Group III hazardous substances, i.e. all devices and installations covered by the Schedule of listed Electronic Products (Reg R1302, 14 June 1991).

The Directorate Radiation Control does not have the mandate, resources or infrastructure to engage in or support research with respect to the health effects of any such listed electronic product. Instead, the Directorate (in performing its regulatory responsibility with regard to listed electronic products that purposely produce non-ionising electromagnetic fields) has opted since 1998 to follow the recommendations and guidelines of the WHO International Electromagnetic fields Project (www.who.int/peh-emf).

Since the publication of exposure guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in 1998, the WHO International Electromagnetic Fields Project has constantly been recommending the use of these guidelines (updated periodically) as the science-based way to deal with any situation where a person might be exposed to non-ionising electromagnetic fields. Compliance with the applicable ICNIRP limit will afford protection against the known adverse health effects of any such electromagnetic fields.

Surveys conducted around the world and also in South Africa have consistently indicated that the levels, to which the general population is exposed as a result of various wireless technologies, invariably are orders of magnitude below the applicable ICNIRP limit.

The WHO International Electromagnetic Fields Project has not published any report or statement to the effect that 5G technology would have any deleterious effect on the health of either the users of this technology or the population in general.

2. See (1) above.

(3) The methodology in the US National Toxicology Program involved exposing rats for long period of time to levels of microwave radiation well above the applicable ICNIRP limit for humans.

Compliance with the applicable ICNIRP limit is expressly aimed at avoiding any significant heating of the body or part of the body. Given these high levels of microwave radiation, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that the effects that were noticed in some rat populations were indeed mainly or exclusively due to excessive heating caused by the exposure to microwave radiation.

Although no human subject would knowingly be exposed to the high levels of microwave radiation to which the rats are exposed, this study does serve as confirmation of (a) the fact that the ICNIRP limits would have to be exceeded significantly before any health effects would become apparent, and (b) that compliance with the applicable ICNIRP limit will indeed protect against significant heating and hence the health effects that could be associated with heating.

In making policy recommendations to the Department of Health on the health effects on non-ionising electromagnetic fields, the Directorate Radiation Control does not consider it appropriate to even attempt to look at the results of any single study in isolation. The WHO International Electromagnetic Fields Project has rigorously been reminding member countries that a single study on its own could never by an adequate basis for setting or changing policy, no matter how significant or even ground breaking it may seem. Only in the event that other researchers independently make the effort to replicate a single study under the same conditions and their results turn out similar to those yielded by the initial study, could the process even of looking closer at the results of that initial study start. In all of this the implicit assumption would be that the initial study had been properly designed in the first instance, and carried out according to a scientifically justified methodology, and that the statistical analysis had been executed properly. The guidance and recommendations of the WHO International Electromagnetic Fields Project have therefore always been based on reviews which were conducted by multi-disciplinary panels of scientists employing a health-oriented, science-based weight-of-evidence approach involving all of the available scientific evidence.

The US National Toxicology Program has as yet not been replicated independently. The Japanese and Korean Ministries of Health announced in April 2019 that they were embarking on a five-year joint research effort aimed at verification of the results of the US National Toxicology Program. Regardless of the outcome, any replication/verification of these results would then still need to be evaluated in terms of the overall weight of evidence with respect to the health effects of exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields.

END.

Advertisement

Wireless Companies Warn Shareholders not People

Mar 19, 2020

A list of Annual Reports by telecommunication companies clearly shows how companies  warn their shareholders but not residents living near cell antennas. Read more here.
  • Crown Castle Annual Report (Usually the same text every year) 
  • “If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our communications infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues.
    The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and certain negative health effects, including some forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us.
    Public perception of possible health risks associated with cellular or other wireless connectivity services may slow or diminish the growth of wireless companies, which may in turn slow or diminish our growth. In particular, negative public perception of, and regulations regarding, these perceived health risks may slow or diminish the market acceptance of wireless services. If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”

Verizon Communications Inc.

2020 Filing by Verizon 

  • “We are subject to a significant amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements…In addition, our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”

See a list of Annual Reports clearly showing how companies  warn their shareholders here.

A list of White papers by insurance authorities going back years showing insurance authorities consider wireless and 5G comparable to asbestos 

  • 2019 Swiss Re Report 5G is rated as a “high impact” emerging risk affecting property and casualty claims in more than 3 years. “Off the leash – 5G mobile networks   (p. 29) As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.” Read the 2019 Swiss Re Report
  • See a list of insurance white papers that classify EMFs as high risk at EHT here. 

Electromagnetic Fields are defined as a “pollutant” by insurance companies and are not covered. EMF exclusion clauses are the standard in the industry.

  • For example- “California State University Risk Management Authority (CSURMA) Self Insured Program “We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following: Artificially generated electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic energy that damages, disturbs, disrupts or otherwise interferes with any: (1) Electrical or electronic wire, device, appliance, system or network; or (2) Device, appliance, system or network utilizing cellular or satellite technology. But if fire results, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that fire if the fire would be covered under this coverage form. For the purpose of this exclusion, electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic energy includes but is not limited to: (1) Electrical current, including arcing; (2) Electrical charge produced or conducted by a magnetic or electromagnetic field; (3) Pulse of electromagnetic energy; or (4) Electromagnetic waves or microwaves. “
  • See  more examples of the exclusion clauses  at EHT here.

State 5G Streamlining Bills Are Stripping Localities’ Basic Contractual Rights To Indemnification

Some state 5G streamlining bills are targeting and eroding localities’ basic contractual rights to indemnification.  

Read the full details at EHT here.

Corporate Company Investor Warnings

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 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“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.”

Cell phone manufacturers and providers of their infrastructure are aware that the radiation from their products could be risky and warn their shareholders. 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. As Crown Castle states, “We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters. “

Ericsson

Ericsson Annual Report 2019: p.131,  

5.3 Potential health risks related to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may subject us to various product liability claims and result in regulatory changes. The mobile telecommunications industry is subject to claims that mobile devices and other equipment that generate radiofrequency electromagnetic fields may expose users to health risks. At present, a substantial number of scientific reviews conducted by various independent research bodies have concluded that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, at levels within the limits prescribed by public health authority safety standards and recommendations, cause no adverse effects to human health. However, any perceived risk or new scientific findings of adverse health effects from mobile communication devices and equipment could adversely affect us through a reduction in sales or through liability claims. Although Ericsson’s products are designed to comply with currently applicable safety standards and regulations regarding radio frequency electromagnetic fields, we cannot guarantee that we will not become the subject of product liability claims or be held liable for such claims or be required to comply with future changed regulatory requirements that may have an adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition, reputation and brand.

AT&T Inc.
2017 Annual Report

“We are a party to numerous lawsuits, regulatory proceedings and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. As of the date of this report, we do not believe any pending legal proceedings to which we or our subsidiaries are subject are required to be disclosed as material legal proceedings pursuant to this item.

We are subject from time to time to judicial and administrative proceedings brought by various governmental authorities under federal, state or local environmental laws. We are required to discuss below those proceedings in our Forms 10-Q and 10-K, which could result in monetary sanctions (exclusive of interest and costs) of $100,000 or more. However, we do not believe that any currently pending will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Waste Disposal Inquiry Involving DIRECTV.  In August 2012, a unit organized by the California Attorney General and the District Attorney for Alameda County, California notified DIRECTV that the unit was examining allegations that DIRECTV had failed to properly manage, store, transport and dispose of Hazardous and Universal Waste in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code. No litigation was filed.  In November 2017, DIRECTV settled this matter for an immaterial amount and agreed to continue to abide by processes to comply with California waste regulations already implemented by AT&T affiliates in California for a period of 5 years.”

2016 Annual Report
“Unfavorable litigation or governmental investigation results could require us to pay significant amounts or lead to onerous operating procedures”

“We are subject to a number of lawsuits both in the United States and in foreign countries, including, at any particular time, claims relating to antitrust; patent infringement; wage and hour; personal injury; customer privacy violations; regulatory proceedings; and selling and collection practices. We also spend substantial resources complying with various government standards, which may entail related investigations and litigation. In the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees who use such technologies including, for example, wireless devices. 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.”

Verizon Communications Inc.
 2017 Annual Report
“We are subject to a significant amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements.

We are subject to a substantial amount of litigation, including, from time to time, shareholder derivative suits, patent infringement lawsuits, antitrust class actions, wage and hour class actions, personal injury claims and lawsuits relating to our advertising, sales, billing and collection practices. In addition, our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”

2016 10-K ANNUAL REPORT
“We are subject to a significant amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements.

…our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters, and class action lawsuits that challenge marketing practices and disclosures relating to alleged adverse health effects of handheld wireless phones. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”

Crown Castle
2020 Annual Report

2017 Annual Report

“If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our communications infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues.

The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and certain negative health effects, including some forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us.

Public perception of possible health risks associated with cellular or other wireless connectivity services may slow or diminish the growth of wireless companies, which may in turn slow or diminish our growth. In particular, negative public perception of, and regulations regarding, these perceived health risks may slow or diminish the market acceptance of wireless services. If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”

2016 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

  • If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our wireless infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues.
  • The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and certain negative health effects, including some forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us.
  • Public perception of possible health risks associated with cellular or other wireless connectivity services may slow or diminish the growth of wireless companies, which may in turn slow or diminish our growth. In particular, negative public perception of,
  • and regulations regarding, these perceived health risks may slow or diminish the market acceptance of wireless services. If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.

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 graphic here.

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.”

Vodafone 2017 Report

 

  British Telecom
“Acquiring EE has also raised the exposure of our customers and staff to radio frequency emissions from wireless mobile devices and mobile telecoms sites. Media reports have suggested these emissions may cause health issues, including cancer, and may interfere with some electronic medical devices, including hearing aids and pacemakers. Research and studies are ongoing.

According to the World Health Organization’s Fact Sheet Number 193, last reviewed in October 2014, there are no known adverse effects on health from emissions at levels below internationally recognised health and safety standards. Even so, we can’t provide absolute assurance that research in the future won’t establish links between radio frequency emissions and health risks.”- BT British Telecom May 2018  Filing SEC filing

Blackberry Limited

40-F Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ended February 28, 2018

*** Important changes from 2014 report

“The Company is subject to risks related to regulations regarding health and safety, hazardous materials usage and conflict minerals, and to product certification risks.

The Company must comply with a variety of laws, standards and other requirements governing, among other things, health and safety, hazardous materials usage, packaging and environmental matters, and its products must obtain regulatory approvals and satisfy other regulatory concerns in the various jurisdictions in which they are sold. The Company is also subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) disclosure requirements applicable to issuers that have contracted to manufacture products containing certain minerals that are mined from the Democratic Republic of Congo and adjoining countries. There can be no assurance that the direct or indirect costs of complying with such laws, standards and requirements will not adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition. Any failure to comply with such laws, standards and requirements may subject the Company to regulatory or civil liability, fines or other additional costs, and reputational harm.

In addition to complying with regulatory requirements, the Company must obtain certain product approvals and certifications from governmental authorities, regulated enterprise customers and network carrier partners. Failure to maintain such approvals or certifications for the Company’s current products or to obtain such approvals or certifications for any new products on a timely basis could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.”

40-F Annual Report for the Fiscal year ended February 28, 2017

*** Important changes from 2014 report

“The Company is subject to risks related to health and safety and hazardous materials usage regulations, and to product certification risks.

The Company must comply with a variety of laws, standards and other requirements governing, among other things, health and safety, hazardous materials usage, packaging and environmental matters, and its products must obtain regulatory approvals and satisfy other regulatory concerns in the various jurisdictions in which they are sold. There can be no assurance that the costs of complying with such laws, standards and requirements will not adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition. Any failure to comply with such laws, standards and requirements may subject the Company to regulatory or civil liability, fines or other additional costs, and reputational harm, and may in severe cases prevent it from selling its products in certain jurisdictions.

In addition, any perceived risk of adverse health effects of mobile communication devices could materially adversely affect the Company through litigation or a reduction in sales. In addition to complying with regulatory requirements, the Company must obtain certain product approvals and certifications from governmental authorities, regulated enterprise customers and network carrier partners. Failure to maintain such approvals or certifications for the Company’s current products or to obtain such approvals or certifications for any new products on a timely basis could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.”

Blackberry Limited 2014 Report had different wording

40-F Annual Report for the fiscal year ended March 01, 2014

“The Company is subject to regulation and certification risks that could negatively affect its business, and is also subject to allegations of possible health or other risks relating to the use or misuse of the Company’s products, or lawsuits and publicity related to such allegations.

The Company must comply with a variety of laws, standards and other requirements governing, among other things, health and safety, hazardous materials usage, packaging and environmental matters, and its products must obtain regulatory approvals and satisfy other regulatory concerns in the various jurisdictions in which they are manufactured or sold. For example, the Company’s products must be approved by the FCC before they can be used in commercial quantities in the United States. The FCC requires that access devices meet various standards, including safety standards with respect to human exposure to electromagnetic radiation and basic signal leakage. Regulatory requirements in Canada, Europe, Asia and other jurisdictions must also be met. Although the Company’s products and solutions are designed to meet relevant safety standards and recommendations globally, when used as directed, any perceived risk of adverse health effects of wireless communication devices could materially adversely affect the Company through a reduction in sales.

There has also been public speculation about possible health risks to individuals from exposure to electromagnetic fields or radio frequency energy from the use of mobile devices. Government agencies, international health organizations, industry associations and other scientific bodies continue to conduct research on the topic, and there can be no assurance that future studies, irrespective of their scientific basis, will not suggest a link between electromagnetic fields from mobile devices and adverse health effects. Mobile device manufacturers and cellular services providers have been named in lawsuits alleging that the use of mobile devices poses a risk to human health and that radio emissions have caused or contributed to the development of brain tumors. Other users of mobile devices with multimedia functions, such as MP3 players, have claimed that the use of such products has contributed to or resulted in hearing loss or other adverse health effects. In addition, users of the Company’s products who disregard the Company’s warnings about using the products while operating a motor vehicle or who use aftermarket accessories, such as batteries, that are not subject to the Company’s quality control procedures may also be at risk of bodily harm. The perception of risk to human health or other risks could adversely affect the demand for the Company’s Table of Contents 51 products and allegations of risks relating to the Company’s products could result in litigation, which could distract management or result in liabilities for the Company, regardless of the merit of such claims.”

China Mobile Limited

2017 Form 20-F

“Actual or perceived health risks associated with the use of mobile devices could materially impair our ability to retain and attract customers, reduce wireless telecommunications usage or result in litigation.

There continues to be public speculation about possible health risks to individuals from exposure to electromagnetic fields from base stations and from the use of mobile devices. While a substantial amount of scientific research conducted to date by various independent research bodies has shown that radio signals, at levels within the limits prescribed by public health authority safety standards and recommendations, present no adverse effect to human health, we cannot be certain that future studies, irrespective of their relative reliability or trustworthiness, will not impute a link between electromagnetic fields and adverse health effects. Research into these issues is ongoing by government agencies, international health organizations and other scientific bodies in order to develop a better scientific understanding and public awareness of these issues. In addition, several wireless industry participants were the targets of lawsuits alleging various health consequences as a result of wireless phone usage or seeking protective measures. While we are not aware of any scientific studies or objective evidence which substantiates such alleged health risks, we cannot assure you that the actual, or perceived, risks associated with radio wave transmission will not materially impair our ability to retain customers and attract new customers, significantly reduce wireless telecommunications usage or result in litigation.”

2016 Form 20-F

“Actual or perceived health risks associated with the use of mobile devices could materially impair our ability to retain and attract customers, reduce wireless telecommunications usage or result in litigation.

There continues to be public speculation about possible health risks to individuals from exposure to electromagnetic fields from base stations and from the use of mobile devices. While a substantial amount of scientific research conducted to date by various independent research bodies has shown that radio signals, at levels within the limits prescribed by public health authority safety standards and recommendations, present no adverse effect to human health, we cannot be certain that future studies, irrespective of their relative reliability or trustworthiness, will not impute a link between electromagnetic fields and adverse health effects. Research into these issues is ongoing by government agencies, international health organizations and other scientific bodies in order to develop a better scientific understanding and public awareness of these issues. In addition, several wireless industry participants were the targets of lawsuits alleging various health consequences as a result of wireless phone usage or seeking protective measures. While we are not aware of any scientific studies or objective evidence which substantiates such alleged health risks, we cannot assure you that the actual, or perceived, risks associated with radio wave transmission will not materially impair our ability to retain customers and attract new customers, significantly reduce wireless telecommunications usage or result in litigation.”

American Tower Corporation

 

2017 Annual Report and the 2017 Annual Report

“Our costs could increase and our revenues could decrease due to perceived health risks from radio emissions, especially if these perceived risks are substantiated.

Public perception of possible health risks associated with cellular and other wireless communications technology could slow the growth of wireless companies, which could in turn slow our growth. In particular, negative public perception of, and regulations regarding, these perceived health risks could undermine the market acceptance of wireless communications services and increase opposition to the development and expansion of tower sites. If a scientific study or court decision or government agency ruling resulted in a finding that radio frequency emissions pose health risks to consumers, it could negatively impact our tenants and the market for wireless services, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. We do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”

2016 Annual Report

“Our costs could increase and our revenues could decrease due to perceived health risks from radio emissions, especially if these perceived risks are substantiated.

Public perception of possible health risks associated with cellular and other wireless communications technology could slow the growth of wireless companies, which could in turn slow our growth. In particular, negative public perception of, and regulations regarding, these perceived health risks could undermine the market acceptance of wireless communications services and increase opposition to the development and expansion of tower sites. If a scientific study or court decision resulted in a finding that radio frequency emissions pose health risks to consumers, it could negatively impact our tenants and the market for wireless services, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. We do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”

AMÉRICA MÓVIL, S.A.B. DE C.V.

2017 Form 20-F Annual Report

“Concerns about health risks relating to the use of wireless handsets and base stations may adversely affect our business.

Portable communications devices have been alleged to pose health risks, including cancer, due to radio frequency emissions. Lawsuits have been filed in the United States against certain participants in the wireless industry alleging various adverse health consequences as a result of wireless phone usage, and our subsidiaries may be subject to similar litigation in the future. Research and studies are ongoing, and there can be no assurance that further research and studies will not demonstrate a link between radio frequency emissions and health concerns. Any negative findings in these studies could adversely affect the use of wireless technology and, as a result, our future financial performance.”

2016 Form 20-F Annual Report

“Concerns about health risks relating to the use of wireless handsets and base stations may adversely affect our business.

Portable communications devices have been alleged to pose health risks, including cancer, due to radio frequency emissions. Lawsuits have been filed in the United States against certain participants in the wireless industry alleging various adverse health consequences as a result of wireless phone usage, and our subsidiaries may be subject to similar litigation in the future. Research and studies are ongoing, and there can be no assurance that further research and studies will not demonstrate a link between radio frequency emissions and health concerns. Any negative findings in these studies could adversely affect the use of wireless technology and, as a result, our future financial performance.”

T-Mobile US, Inc.

2017 Annual Report

“Our business could be adversely affected by findings of product liability for health/safety risks from wireless devices and transmission equipment, as well as by changes to regulations/radio frequency emission standards.

We do not manufacture the devices or other equipment that we sell, and we depend on our suppliers to provide defect-free and safe equipment. Suppliers are required by applicable law to manufacture their devices to meet certain governmentally imposed safety criteria. However, even if the devices we sell meet the regulatory safety criteria, we could be held liable with the equipment manufacturers and suppliers for any harm caused by products we sell if such products are later found to have design or manufacturing defects. We generally seek to enter into indemnification agreements with the manufacturers who supply us with devices to protect us from losses associated with product liability, but we cannot guarantee that we will be fully protected against all losses associated with a product that is found to be defective.

Allegations have been made that the use of wireless handsets and wireless transmission equipment, such as cell towers, may be linked to various health concerns, including cancer and brain tumors. Lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers and carriers in the industry claiming damages for alleged health problems arising from the use of wireless handsets. In addition, the FCC has from time to time gathered data regarding wireless handset emissions and its assessment of this issue may evolve based on its findings. The media has also reported incidents of handset battery malfunction, including reports of batteries that have overheated. These allegations may lead to changes in regulatory standards. There have also been other allegations regarding wireless technology, including allegations that wireless handset emissions may interfere with various electronic medical devices (including hearing aids and pacemakers), airbags and anti-lock brakes. Defects in the products of our suppliers, such the 2016 recalls by a handset Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) on one of its smartphone devices, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Additionally, there are safety risks associated with the use of wireless devices while operating vehicles or equipment. Concerns over any of these risks and the effect of any legislation, rules or regulations that have been and may be adopted in response to these risks could limit our ability to sell our wireless services.”

2016 Form 10-K Annual Report

“Our business could be adversely affected by findings of product liability for health/safety risks from wireless devices and transmission equipment, as well as by changes to regulations/radio frequency emission standards.

We do not manufacture the devices or other equipment that we sell, and we depend on our suppliers to provide defect-free and safe equipment. Suppliers are required by applicable law to manufacture their devices to meet certain governmentally imposed safety criteria. However, even if the devices we sell meet the regulatory safety criteria, we could be held liable with the equipment manufacturers and suppliers for any harm caused by products we sell if such products are later found to have design or manufacturing defects. We generally seek to enter into indemnification agreements with the manufacturers who supply us with devices to protect us from losses associated with product liability, but we cannot guarantee that we will be fully protected against all losses associated with a product that is found to be defective.

Allegations have been made that the use of wireless handsets and wireless transmission equipment, such as cell towers, may be linked to various health concerns, including cancer and brain tumors. Lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers and carriers in the industry claiming damages for alleged health problems arising from the use of wireless handsets. In addition, the FCC has from time to time gathered data regarding wireless handset emissions and its assessment of this issue may evolve based on its findings. The media has also reported incidents of handset battery malfunction, including reports of batteries that have overheated. These allegations may lead to changes in regulatory standards. There have also been other allegations regarding wireless technology, including allegations that wireless handset emissions may interfere with various electronic medical devices (including hearing aids and pacemakers), airbags and anti-lock brakes. Defects in the products of our suppliers, such the recent recalls by a handset Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) on one of its smartphone devices, could have an adverse impact on our operating results.

Additionally, there are safety risks associated with the use of wireless devices while operating vehicles or equipment. Concerns over any of these risks and the effect of any legislation, rules or regulations that have been and may be adopted in response to these risks could limit our ability to sell our wireless services.”

GCI INC

 2017 Annual Report

“Concerns about health/safety risks associated with wireless equipment may reduce the demand for our wireless services.

We do not manufacture devices or other equipment sold by us, and we depend on our suppliers to provide defect-free and safe equipment. Suppliers are required by applicable law to manufacture their devices to meet certain governmentally imposed safety criteria. However, even if the devices we sell meet the regulatory safety criteria, we could be held liable with the equipment manufacturers and suppliers for any harm caused by products we sell if such products are later found to have design or manufacturing defects. We cannot guarantee that we will be fully protected against all losses associated with a product that is found to be defective.

Portable communications devices have been alleged to pose health risks, including cancer, due to radio frequency emissions from these devices.  Purported class actions and other lawsuits have been filed from time to time against other wireless companies seeking not only damages but also remedies that could increase the cost of doing business.  We cannot be sure of the outcome of any such cases or that the industry will not be adversely affected by litigation of this nature or public perception about health risks.  The actual or perceived risk of mobile communications devices could adversely affect us through a reduction in subscribers.  Further research and studies are ongoing, with no linkage between health risks and mobile phone use established to date by a credible public source.  However, we cannot be sure that additional studies will not demonstrate a link between radio frequency emissions and health concerns.

Additionally, there are safety risks associated with the use of wireless devices while operating vehicles or equipment. Concerns over any of these risks and the effect of any legislation, rules or regulations that have been and may be adopted in response to these risks could limit our ability to sell our wireless services.”

2016 Form 10-K Annual Report

“Concerns about health/safety risks associated with wireless equipment may reduce the demand for our wireless services.

We do not manufacture devices or other equipment sold by us, and we depend on our suppliers to provide defect-free and safe equipment. Suppliers are required by applicable law to manufacture their devices to meet certain governmentally imposed safety criteria. However, even if the devices we sell meet the regulatory safety criteria, we could be held liable with the equipment manufacturers and suppliers for any harm caused by products we sell if such products are later found to have design or manufacturing defects. We cannot guarantee that we will be fully protected against all losses associated with a product that is found to be defective.

Portable communications devices have been alleged to pose health risks, including cancer, due to radio frequency emissions from these devices.  Purported class actions and other lawsuits have been filed from time to time against other wireless companies seeking not only damages but also remedies that could increase the cost of doing business.  We cannot be sure of the outcome of any such cases or that the industry will not be adversely affected by litigation of this nature or public perception about health risks.  The actual or perceived risk of mobile communications devices could adversely affect us through a reduction in subscribers.  Further research and studies are ongoing, with no linkage between health risks and mobile phone use established to date by a credible public source.  However, we cannot be sure that additional studies will not demonstrate a link between radio frequency emissions and health concerns.

Additionally, there are safety risks associated with the use of wireless devices while operating vehicles or equipment. Concerns over any of these risks and the effect of any legislation, rules or regulations that have been and may be adopted in response to these risks could limit our ability to sell our wireless services.”

TELEFÓNICA, S.A.

2017 Form 20-F Annual Report

“The telecommunications industry may be affected by the possible effects that electromagnetic fields, emitted by mobile devices and base stations, may have on human health.

In some countries, there is a concern regarding potential effects of electromagnetic fields, emitted by mobile devices and base stations, on human health. This public concern has caused certain governments and administrations to take measures that have hindered the deployment of the infrastructures necessary to ensure quality of service, and affected the deployment criteria of new networks and digital services such as smart meters development.

There is a consensus between certain expert groups and public health agencies, including the World Health Organization that states that currently there are no established risks associated with exposure to low frequency signals in mobile communications. However, the scientific community is still investigating this issue especially with respect to mobile devices. Exposure limits for radio frequency suggested in the guidelines of the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Committee have been internationally recognized. The mobile industry has adopted these exposure limits and works to request authorities worldwide to adopt these standards.

Worries about radio frequency emissions may discourage the use of mobile devices and new digital services, which could cause the public authorities to implement measures restricting where transmitters and cell sites can be located, how they operate, the use of mobile telephones and the massive deployment of smart meters and other products using mobile technology. This could lead to Telefónica being unable to expand or improve its mobile network.

The adoption of new measures by governments or administrations or other regulatory interventions in this respect, and any future assessment on the adverse impact of electromagnetic fields on health, may adversely affect the business, financial conditions, results of operations and cash flows of the Telefónica Group.”

2016 Form 20-F Annual Report

“The telecommunications industry may be affected by the possible effects that electromagnetic fields, emitted by mobile devices and base stations, may have on human health.

In some countries, there is a concern regarding potential effects of electromagnetic fields, emitted by mobile devices and base stations, on human health. This public concern has caused certain governments and administrations to take measures that have hindered the deployment of the infrastructures necessary to ensure quality of service, and affected the deployment criteria of new networks and digital services such as smart meters development.

There is a consensus between certain expert groups and public health agencies, including the World Health Organization that states that currently there are no established risks associated with exposure to low frequency signals in mobile communications. However, the scientific community is still investigating this issue especially with respect to mobile devices. Exposure limits for radio frequency suggested in the guidelines of the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Committee have been internationally recognized. The mobile industry has adopted these exposure limits and works to request authorities worldwide to adopt these standards.

Worries about radio frequency emissions may discourage the use of mobile devices and new digital services, which could cause the public authorities to implement measures restricting where transmitters and cell sites can be located, how they operate, the use of mobile telephones and the massive deployment of smart meters and other products using mobile technology. This could lead to Telefónica being unable to expand or improve its mobile network.

The adoption of new measures by governments or administrations or other regulatory interventions in this respect, and any future assessment on the adverse impact of electromagnetic fields on health, may adversely affect the business, financial conditions, results of operations and cash flows of the Telefónica Group.”

CROWN CASTLE INTERNATIONAL CORP.

2016 Form 10-K Annual Report

“If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our wireless infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues.

The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and certain negative health effects, including some forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us.

Public perception of possible health risks associated with cellular or other wireless connectivity services may slow or diminish the growth of wireless companies, which may in turn slow or diminish our growth. In particular, negative public perception of, 12 and regulations regarding, these perceived health risks may slow or diminish the market acceptance of wireless services. If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”

SoftBank Group Corp.

(SoftBank is a corporate group comprising the pure holding company SoftBank Corp. and 756 subsidiaries including Sprint, Wireless City Planning and Yahoo Japan. They consolidated Sprint in 2013.)

2017 Annual Report

“Regulations about health risks associated with electromagnetic waves.  There have been some research results that have indicated the possibility that electromagnetic waves emitted from mobile devices and base stations have adverse health effects, such as increasing the risk of cancer. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has prescribed guidelines relating to the amplitudes of these electromagnetic waves. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued an opinion that there is no convincing evidence that electromagnetic waves have adverse effects on health when their amplitude is within the reference values in the ICNIRP’s guidelines,  and recommends that all countries adopt them. The Group complies with a policy for protection from electromagnetic waves based on the ICNIRP guidelines in Japan, and complies with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. However, the WHO and other organizations continue to conduct research and investigations, the results of which may lead to regulations being revised in the future, or new regulations being introduced. Complying with such revision or introduction of regulations may incur costs, or may restrict the Group’s business operations, which could impact the Group’s results of operations. Moreover, regardless of the presence of such regulations, concerns over the adverse effects on health associated with use of mobile devices could make it difficult for the Group to acquire and retain customers, which could impact the Group’s results of operations.”

2014 Annual Report

“Concerns about health risks associated with mobile devices

There have been claims made that the radio waves emitted from mobile devices have adverse health effects, such as increasing the risk of cancer. Such concerns over adverse effects on health associated with use of mobile devices could make it difficult for the Group to acquire and retain customers, which could impact the Group’s results of operations. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has prescribed guidelines relating to the amplitudes of the electromagnetic waves emitted from mobile devices and base stations. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued an opinion that there is no convincing evidence that electromagnetic waves have adverse effects on health when their amplitude is within the reference values in the ICNIRP’s guidelines, and recommends that all countries adopt them. The Group complies with a policy for protection from electromagnetic waves based on the ICNIRP guidelines in Japan, and complies with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. However, the WHO and other organizations continue to conduct research and investigations, the results of which may lead to regulations being revised in the future, or new regulations being introduced.”

Nokia Corporation

2017 Annual Report

*** Important changes made from 2014 report

“An unfavorable outcome of litigation, arbitrations, agreement-related disputes or product liability-related allegations against our business could have a material adverse effect on us.

We are a party to lawsuits, arbitrations, agreement-related disputes and product liability-related allegations in the normal course of our business. Litigation, arbitration or agreement-related disputes can be expensive, lengthy and disruptive to normal business operations and divert the efforts of our management. Moreover, the outcomes of complex legal proceedings or agreement-related disputes are difficult to predict. An unfavorable resolution of a particular lawsuit, arbitration or agreement-related dispute could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and reputation. The investment or acquisition decisions we make may subject us to litigation arising from minority shareholders’ actions and investor dissatisfaction with the activities of our business. Shareholder disputes, if resolved against us, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations as well as expose us to disputes or litigation.

We record provisions for pending claims when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is likely and the loss can reasonably be estimated. Due to the inherent uncertain nature of legal proceedings, the ultimate outcome or actual cost of settlement may materially differ from estimates. We believe our provisions for pending claims are appropriate. The ultimate outcome, however, may differ from the provided estimate, which could have either a positive or an adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

Although our products are designed to meet all relevant safety standards and other recommendations and regulatory requirements globally, we cannot guarantee we will not become subject to product liability claims or be held liable for such claims or be required to comply with future regulatory changes in this area, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. We have been involved in several lawsuits alleging adverse health effects associated with our products, including those caused by electromagnetic fields, and the outcome of such procedures is difficult to predict, including potentially significant fines or settlements. Even a perceived risk of adverse health effects of mobile devices or base stations could have a material adverse effect on us through a reduction in the demand for mobile devices having an adverse effect, for instance, through a decreased demand for mobile networks or increased difficulty in obtaining sites for base stations.

For a more detailed discussion of litigation to which we are a party, refer to Note 29, Provisions, of our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 20-F.”

2016 Annual Report

*** Important changes made from 2014 report

“Regulations about health risks associated with electromagnetic waves.

There have been some research results that have indicated the possibility that electromagnetic waves emitted from mobile devices and base stations have adverse health effects, such as increasing the risk of cancer. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has prescribed guidelines relating to the amplitudes of these electromagnetic waves. The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued an opinion that there is no convincing evidence that electromagnetic waves have adverse effects on health when their amplitude is within the reference values in the ICNIRP’s guidelines, and recommends that all countries adopt them. The Group complies with a policy for protection from electromagnetic waves based on the ICNIRP guidelines in Japan, and complies with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. However, the WHO and other organizations continue to conduct research and investigations, the results of which may lead to regulations being revised in the future, or new regulations being introduced. Complying with such revision or introduction of regulations may incur costs, or may restrict the Group’s business operations, which could impact the Group’s results of operations. Moreover, regardless of the presence of such regulations, concerns over the adverse effects on health associated with use of mobile devices could make it difficult for the Group to acquire and retain customers, which could impact the Group’s results of operations.” – pg. 71

2014 Annual Report

“An unfavorable outcome of litigation…allegations of health hazards associated with our businesses could have a material adverse effect on us.

Although NOKIA products are designed to meet all relevant safety standard and recommendations globally, we cannot guarantee we will not become subject to product liability claims or be held liable for such claims or be required to comply with future regulatory changes in this area, and these could have a material adverse effect on our business. ‘ “We have been involved in several lawsuits alleging adverse health effects associated with our products, including those caused by electromagnetic fields and the outcome of such procedures is difficult to predict, including the potentially significant fines or settlements.” “Even a perceived risk of adverse health effects of mobile devices or base stations could have a material adverse affect on us through reduction in the demand for mobile devices having an adverse effect, for instance through decreased demand for mobile networks or increased difficulty in obtaining sites for base stations.”

Microsoft Corporation

2017 Annual Report

“U.S. cell phone litigation

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. We assumed responsibility for these claims as part of our acquisition of Nokia’s Devices and Services business and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines (“FCC Guidelines”) are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs’ expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the trial court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation experts. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence, which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard en banc. In October 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its decision adopting the standard advocated by defendants and remanding the cases to the trial court for further proceedings under that standard. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reopen discovery and file additional expert evidence.

Canadian cell phone class action

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than two years.”

2016 Annual Report

“U.S. cell phone litigation

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. We assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines (“FCC Guidelines”) are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.”

Telstra

2017 Annual Report

“Mobile phones, base stations and health

We acknowledge that some people are concerned about possible health effects from electromagnetic energy (EME), and we are committed to addressing these concerns responsibly. We are proactive, transparent and fact based in our communications regarding EME and comply with the standards set by regulators. We rely on the expert advice of national and international health authorities including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and actively contribute to scientific research in the area.

“Helping our customers and the community keep abreast of the latest information is important to us. This year, we continued our mobile safety SMS campaign, sending out over 17 million messages referring customers to telstra.com.au/mobiletips, where we have information on mobile use, EME, and tips to reduce exposure. We provide information on EME on our website at telstra.com/eme and have a dedicated EME help desk and team that proactively reviews new site proposals, develops community consultation plans and works with the community to determine acceptable sites for new base stations.”

2016 Annual Report

“Mobile phones, base stations and health

We acknowledge that some people are concerned about possible health effects from electromagnetic energy (EME), and we are committed to addressing these concerns responsibly. We are proactive, transparent and fact based in our communications regarding EME and comply with the standards set by regulators. We rely on the expert advice of national and international health authorities including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and actively contribute to scientific research in EME and health.

Helping our customers and the community keep abreast of the latest information is important to us. We provide information on EME on our website at telstra.com/ eme. We also invite customers to go directly to the WHO, ARPANSA and ‘EMF Explained’ websites for further information. This year, we continued our mobile safety SMS campaign, sending out almost 17 million messages referring customers to telstra.com/mobiletips, our information site for safe and responsible phone use.

We have a dedicated EME help desk and team that proactively reviews new site proposals, develops community consultation plans and works with the community to determine acceptable sites for new base stations.”

VODAFONE GROUP PUBLIC LTD CO

 2017 Annual Report

“Electro-magnetic fields related health risks

What is the impact?

This is an unlikely risk; however, it would have a major impact on services used by our customers in all our markets – particularly in countries that have a very low tolerance for environmental and health related risks.

What is our target tolerance position?

Vodafone does not want to expose anyone to EMF levels above those mandated by regulators.

We comply with national standards, where existing, and with our own EMF policy, based on international science guidelines.  Our vision is to lead within the industry in responding to public concern about mobiles, masts and health.

Who do we manage it?

Our Group EMF Board manages potential risks through cross sector initiatives and oversees a global programme to respond to public concern.

We monitor scientific developments and engage with relevant bodies to support the delivery and transparent communication of the scientific research agenda set by the World health Organization.

Key risk indicators

We monitor:

  • Scientific research
  • International standards and guidelines
  • Public perception
  • Compliance with EMF policies”

Annual Report 2016

“EMF related health risks:

What is the risk?

Concerns have been expressed that electromagnetic signals emitted by mobile telephone handsets and base stations may pose health risks. Authorities, including the World Health Organization (‘WHO’) agree there is no evidence that convinces experts that exposure to radio frequency fields from mobile devices and base stations operated within guideline limits has any adverse health effects. A change to this view could result in a range of impacts from a change to national legislation, to a major reduction in mobile phone usage or to major litigation.

How could it impact us?

This is an unlikely risk; however, it would have a major impact on services used by our customers in all our markets – particularly in countries that have a very low tolerance for environmental and health-related risks.

2015 VODAFONE GROUP PUBLIC LTD CO

There have been no significant changes to this risk over the last 12 months.

How do we manage it?

We have a global health and safety policy that includes standards for electromagnetic fields (‘EMF’) that are mandated in all our local markets. Compliance to this policy is monitored and overseen by the Risk and Compliance Committee.

We have a Group EMF Board that manages potential risks through cross sector initiatives and which oversees a coordinated global programme to respond to public concern, and develop appropriate advocacy related to possible precautionary legislation.

We monitor scientific developments and engage with relevant bodies to support the delivery and transparent communication of the scientific research agenda set by the WHO.”

 

Itron, a manufacturer of Smart Meters warns shareholders that, “We may face adverse publicity, consumer or political opposition, or liability associated with our products…We may be subject to claims that there are adverse health effects from the radio frequencies utilized in connection with our products. If these claims prevail, our customers could suspend implementation or purchase substitute products, which could cause a loss of sales”  Itron Inc, SEC Form 10 K 2017

Telstra 2019 SEC Filing 

“Some risks cannot be effectively insured such as potential claims in relation to electromagnetic energy and business interruption.”

“Actual or perceived health risks relating to the emission of electromagnetic energy (“EME”) by mobile handsets and transmission equipment could lead to decreased mobile communications usage.
     While certain reports have suggested that EME emissions from mobile handsets and transmission equipment may have adverse health consequences, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is that there are no adverse health effects when wireless equipment is used in accordance with applicable standards. Nonetheless, any widespread perception of EME risks may lead to decreased mobile communication usage, which would decrease our wireless business.”
“Electromagnetic energy (“EME”)
     Certain reports have suggested that EME emissions from mobile phone base stations and radio communications facilities (including handsets) may have adverse health consequences for users and the community. We rely on the expert advice of national and international health authorities such as the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (“ARPANSA”) and the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) for overall assessments of health and safety impacts of EME. The current consensus is that there is no substantiated scientific evidence of health effects from the EME generated by radio frequency technology, including mobile phones and base stations, when used in accordance with applicable standards.
     We are committed to being open and transparent on all issues relating to EME emissions. We comply with all relevant radio frequency standards and have comprehensive policies and procedures to protect the health and safety of the community and our employees.
     Together with other Australian mobile carriers, through the Mobile Carriers Forum (“MCF”), we have implemented a process to help ensure compliance with the Australian Communications Media Authority (“ACMA”) electromagnetic radiation framework and the Australian Communications Industry Forum (“ACIF”) code of practice for radio communications infrastructure deployment. We developed tools to assist compliance, such as the National Site Archive and National Antenna database, which have been adopted by the MCF.
  We have developed base station EME software that calculates environmental emission levels in a matter of seconds. Our RF-MAP(TM) software enables operators, local authorities and community groups to assess the environmental impacts of mobile phone base stations and confirm compliance with safety standards. We have given copies of our RF-MAP(TM) software to national and international health authorities as well as community and Government organisations, reflecting our commitment to sharing expertise and providing the community with easy to use solutions.
     We are also active participants on national and international EME standards bodies and research institutions.”- Telstra 2019 SEC Filing 

Vigin Media 2010 SEC filing

Concerns about health risks associated with wireless equipment may reduce the demand for our services.

Portable communications devices have been alleged to pose health risks, including cancer, due to radio frequency emissions from these devices. Class actions and other lawsuits have been filed against numerous wireless carriers, seeking not only damages but also remedies that could increase our cost of doing business. We cannot be sure of the outcome of those cases or that our business and financial condition will not be adversely affected by litigation of this nature or public perception about health risks. The actual or perceived risk of mobile communications devices could adversely affect us through a reduction in subscribers, reduced network usage per subscriber or reduced financing available to the mobile communications industry. Further research and studies are ongoing, and we cannot be sure that additional studies will not demonstrate a link between radio frequency emissions and health concerns.-

Vigin Media 2010 SEC filing

 

The above taken from EHT website: https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/corporate-company-investor-warnings-annual-reports-10k-filings-cell-phone-radiation-risks/

Proposed New policy on the deployment of communications networks in South Africa

Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams has gazetted a new policy on the deployment of communications networks in South Africa, and has allowed the public comment on the proposal before implementation. The policy gives mobile networks and other licensees the right to select, enter, and use public or private land for the deployment of their network infrastructure.

The policy aims to accommodate the accelerated deployment of electronic communications networks, such as LTE and 5G networks. Any infrastructure built on this land would belong to the network which built it, and property owners are directed to avoid damage to the facilities built on their property.

Additionally, owners may not charge companies for building infrastructure on their property, except under certain conditions. These include cases where more intrusive electronic communications networks or facilities, such as masts, are erected on a property.

It should be noted that this policy is currently open to written comments from interested parties, and will be until 30 working days after the date of publication. Comments submitted after this date will be disregarded.

Gazzette 24 July 2020

Short Submission

Please copy and paste this objection (below the line) here into your own email and send it from there. DO NOT COMMENT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE Please.

——————————————————————————–

Email to: rapid@dtps.gov.za;

To: The Acting Director-General, Department of Communications and Digital Technologies
Minister of Department of Communications and Digital Technologies
For attention: Mr. A Wiltz, Chief Director, Telecommunications and IT Policy Cell: 0837140126 (Mr. L Motlatla)

 To: rapid@dtps.gov.za

 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICY AND POLICY DIRECTION ON RAPID DEPLOYMENT OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND FACILITIES

I hereby object to the above proposed policy based on the following grounds:

  • The erection of cell masts in close proximity to where we live, work and play, violates our Section 24 constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to our health or well-being because it has been proven by science that the radiation from cell masts is harmful to our health. (See here for scientific reports: https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/ With regard to the violation of our Section 24 rights we cite in mitigation the following: There has been no testing done on 5G that can prove that it is not harmful to our health and wellbeing, whereas a great deal of existing scientific evidence shows that even the current generations radiation emissions are proving to be of great harm  https://mdsafetech.org/ This is of relevance because 5G technology is a gross intensification of current generation emissions. It will add significantly to the electro-magnetic radiation we already have from mobile phone masts, mobile phones, Wi-Fi, wearable devices, smart meters, and other ‘smart’ devices. (See A 2018 multi-country study published in Environment International measured RF in several countries).
  • Property owners are concerned about this proposed policy downgrading resale value of properties . They are defending their right to privacy, full property ownership and their right to a healthy and safe home environment. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-property-mobilephone-trfn/south-africans-push-back-against-5g-towers-in-their-backyards-idUSKCN24W21H
  • Property owners are concerned and about this policy being used as an excuse to expropriate land without compensation. See https://ewn.co.za/2020/07/31/south-africans-push-back-against-5g-towers-in-their-backyards
  • The South African Government is attempting to expedite roll out of electronic communications with 5G technology without public consultation or public consent.  Government regards the benefits of increased digital speed and outreach together with the considerable profits to be made by large telecoms companies from this technology, as more important than public health and safety. Please refer to what Robert F Kennedy (Jr) calls: The Global Human Experiment Without Consent.
  • There is a lack of effective policy and risk assessment of rapid deployment of electronic communications networks and 5G by the South African government and corporate telecommunications players. We are therefore calling for the South African Government to adopt the Precautionary Principle and place a moratorium on this proposed roll-out of fifth generation technology in South Africa, until it has been independently tested and proven safe.South Africa adheres to the ICNIRP  guidelines which independent scientific research shows is inadequate and ineffectual; https://ehtrust.org/?s=ICNIRP (See A 2020 European Parliament Briefing on the “Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health” reiterates the issues with measurements and also comments on how radiation limits are outdated stating in this summary,  “The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account” (Karaboytcheva, 2020). ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation.
  • Because 5G has never been tested and proven safe, the erection of its technology violates twelve international codes and policies twelve international codes and policies  including  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”.

We look forward to your prompt response to these legitimate concerns and hereby call for a moratorium on the fast tracking of electronic communication networks and roll-out of 5G until Government has conducted independent (not funded by industry with vested interests) studies to prove its safety).

 

Signed:  Name

Radiation protection and the Directorate of Radiation Control in South Africa

Radiation protection and the Directorate of Radiation Control in South Africa

Mr Leon du Toit from the Directorate of Radiation Control of the Department of Health in South Africa is frequently quoted by the mobile industry & Council officials as saying that “local and other authorities, in considering the environmental impact of any particular base station, do not need to and should not attempt, from a public health point of view, to set any restrictions with respect to parameters such as height of the mast, distance to the mast, and duration of exposure.” DRC – Leon du Toit’s letter

However in this study published in 2012 the SA Journal of Radiology the authors note that “the DRC [Directorate of Radiation Control] is not a juristic person and has no locus standi or legal capacity to take decisions, issue licences, determine conditions or function on its own. The common idea that the DRC is the ‘regulatory authority’ is not only wrong, but also without legal foundation.”

Although the study considers the negligence of the DRC with respect to ionising radiation, there are useful parallels in the way they fail to adequately protect the public from the effects of non-ionising radiation as well.

Radiation protection and the safe use of X-ray equipment: Laws, regulations and responsibilities

Background: South Africa’s regulatory framework for electromagnetic medical devices has come under considerable criticism. Here it is reviewed in terms of how it has given form to protective measures against ionising radiation. The Hazardous Substances Act provides for effective protection against radiation, but has been undermined by poor administration and uncertainty about regulations and licensing conditions. The legal weight of enforcing licensing conditions through a website without proper consultation with all parties concerned is questionable and ineffective…

Authors:
Charles P Herbst, PhD (Department of Medical Physics, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein)
Gerhard H Fick, DCL (Department of Private Law, University of the Free State)
Corresponding author: C Herbst (Gnbich@ufs.ac.za)

http://www.sajr.org.za/index.php/sajr/article/view/306/405

https://www.emrsa.co.za/radiation-protection-and-the-directorate-of-radiation-control-in-south-africa/

———————————————————————————

 

Detailed Submission to DoC&DT re 5G Masts

Cut and paste everything in the block under this into your email. Then copy  ONE OR TWO of the numbered points (or however many you choose just NOT ALL OF THEM) and copy them into your email and if possible, try to add in your own words. This is because Government hates form letters and tends to disregard them.

—————————————————————————————

Email to: rapid@dtps.gov.za

The Acting Director-General, Department of Communications and Digital
Technologies
For attention: Mr. A Wiltz, Chief Director, Telecommunications and IT Policy

rapid@dtps.gov.za; Cell: 0837140126 (Mr. L Motlatla)

RE: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICY AND POLICY DIRECTION ON RAPID DEPLOYMENT OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND FACILITIES

When the ‘advancement as a country in the 4th Industrial Revolution’ becomes a danger to the health of people and environment.

I hereby object to the above policy and policy direction based on the following grounds:

[INSERT YOUR NUMBERED POINTS FROM THE LIST BELOW THE LINE UNDER THIS, HERE])

We look forward to your prompt response to this legitimate concern and hereby call for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G and using the Precautionary Principle until Government has conducted independent (not funded by industry with vested interests) studies to prove its safety) and that an effective safety, monitoring and regulation policy has been establish.

Signed: SA Citizen


NUMBERED POINTS – REMEMBER TO only copy and paste some points not all of them and also you will then need to remove the paragraph numbers in your email submission.

The erection of cell masts in close proximity to where we live, work and play, violates our Section 24 constitutional right to:

  1. An environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being. The untested 5G technology has been proven by science that the radiation from cell masts is harmful to our health.  (See here for scientific reports: https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/)
  2. To have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that—
    (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
    (ii) promote conservation; and
    (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

Regarding these points (i)(ii) and (iii)  under (2) above, the roll-out of 5G technology will:

(i) rather than prevent ecological degradation 5g technology in fact enhances it because it will be inescapable to all life on earth; there is no ‘opting out’ or getting away from it; (A 2018 study published in Annals of Telecommunications found increased RF-EMF exposure from small cell LTE networks in two urban cities in France and the Netherlands. Researchers measured the RF-EMF from LTE (Long-Term Evolution) MC (macro cells meaning large cell towers) and SC networks (low-powered small cell base stations)  and found that the small cell networks increased the radio emissions from base stations (called downlink) by a factor of 7–46  while decreasing the radio emissions from user equipment exposure (called ) by a factor of 5–17. So while the devices themselves could emit less radiation, the cell antennas will increase the levels from cell antennas (Mazloum et al., 2019). This study shows the increased exposures would be involuntary. We can turn our phones off, but we cannot turn off the antennas in the neighborhood.)

(ii) again 5G technology destroys conservation of trees, birds etc., rather than conserve it; See here for the results of a symposium regarding the effects of 5G on  Birds, Bees, and Humanity.

(iii) As shown but the somewhat reckless and certainly unbalanced manner in which the Government is rolling out 5G technology without our consultation or consent, Government is clearly more in favour of developing the profits of the telecoms companies, rather than protecting to our health and safety.

Other Factors for Opposing the Current Role-Out of 5G

  • It has never been tested and proven safe, the erection of its technology violates twelve international codes and policies including :
    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”.
  1. There is no effective legislative procedure in place to guide, monitor or redress 5G electro-magnetic radiation. South Africa adheres to the ICNIRP  guidelines which the independent scientific research shows is inadequate and ineffectual; (See A 2020 European Parliament Briefing on the “Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health” reiterates the issues with measurements and also comments on how radiation limits are outdated stating in this summary, “The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account” (Karaboytcheva, 2020).
  2. Studies show that radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range of 30 kHz-300 GHz (the range for 5G) is classified as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen, Group 2B, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2011.The above evidence has since then been strengthened by further research; thus, RF radiation may now be classified as a human carcinogen, Group 1. In spite of this, microwave radiations are expanding with increasing personal and ambient exposure. One contributing factor is that the majority of countries rely on guidelines formulated by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a private German non-governmental organization. ICNIRP relies on the evaluation only of thermal (heating) effects from RF radiation, thereby excluding a large body of published science demonstrating the detrimental effects caused by non-thermal radiation.
  3. 5G will add significantly to the current electro-magnetic radiation we already have from mobile phone masts, mobile phones, Wi-Fi, wearable devices, smart meters, and other ‘smart’ devices. (See A 2018 multi-country study published in Environment International measured RF in several countries. It found that cell phone tower radiation is the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor areas; exposure in urban areas was higher and that exposure has drastically increased. As an example, the measurements the researchers took in Los Angeles, USA were 70 times higher than the US EPA estimate 40 years ago (Sagar et al., 2018). and another study of how rapidly RF is increasing from wireless antennas, a 2014 published study from Environmental Research looked at RF in three European cities and found in just one year (between  April 2011 and March 2012) that the total RF-EMF exposure levels in all outdoor areas in combination increased by 57.1%  in Basel, by 20.1% in Ghent and by 38.2% in Brussels. “Exposure increase was most consistently observed in outdoor areas due to emissions from mobile phone base stations” (Urbinello et al., 2014).
  4. There has been NO public hearings or consent which is problematic and is thus what Robert F Kennedy (Jr) calls: The Global Human Experiment Without Consent.
  5. The consequence of Government inaction could be serious and irreversible damage. We just don’t know how damaging the technology is. The latency period asbestosis for example is officially 5 to 10 years, although often it takes 40 or more years from first exposure before the disease is diagnosed.

WHAT WE ARE CALLING FOR:


MORE INFORMATION

THE SCIENCE

The public needs to be properly informed of the potentially harmful effects of radio-frequency waves (RF) and their role in cancer and other serious medical conditions as reported in the following studies and reports:

  1. Radio-frequency radiation has been designated as a Group 2b carcinogen in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer based on increased incidence of certain types of brain tumours in heavier users of mobile phones was not communicated to the public.
  2. A ten year $30 million dollar study from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) funded by the U.S. government, which analyzed the effect of mobile phone radiation concluded ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenesis.
  3. The highly esteemed Ramazzini Institute corroborated these findings above by demonstrating the same types of tumours in response to much lower intensity base station type exposures. Together, these two very large scale animal studies confirm the human epidemiological data already demonstrating carcinogenesis and as a result multiple independent experts and teams of experts have made clear that RF should now be designated as a Group 1 ‘known human carcinogen’
  4. Effect of Ultra High Frequency Mobile Phone Radiation on Human Health : This paper describes the risk of mutation and sexual trauma and infertility in masculine sexual cell by mobile phone radiations:
  5. The results of this study and International Commission of Non Ionization Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reports showed the people who spend more than 50 minutes a day using a cell phone could have early dementia or other thermal damage due to the burning of glucose in the brain.

 

 

Request to DoC&DT for an extension for public participation

The Acting Director-General, Department of Communications and Digital Technologies
For attention: Mr. A Wiltz, Chief Director, Telecommunications and IT Policy

rapid@dtps.gov.za; Cell: 0837140126 (Mr. L Motlatla)

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ON TIME PERIOD FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICY AND POLICY DIRECTION ON RAPID DEPLOYMENT OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND FACILITIES

Due to the current circumstances of the lockdown, we request an extension for the public participation process for the above policy for a further 30 days until the end of SEPTEMBER 2020.

This is to allow for a wider exposure to the general public so that they can be adequately informed of their rights regarding the roll-out of this technology.

Your prompt attention to this would be appreciated.

Kindly respond by no later than 15 August 2020

Yours sincerely

Member of the Public.

 

 

.

 

Interested persons are invited to provide written comments on the proposed policy

and policy direction, within 30 working days of the date of publication, addressed

to –