UPDATE: Weapons expert and 5G activist Mark Steele wrote to me concerning this case and pointed out the following:
Just read the latest of the Mansfield case.. He has been badly advised… The main point his assumption that 5G on the Street lights are mm wave. They aren’t they are SUB GHz 868MHz to be precise in the UK.
This smashes the whole narrative as to why they are on every street light.. Not as he has stated every third one, that is another industry lie.
As Sub GHz is long range urban radar and what is required for interrogation of the built up urban environment. Sub GHz in the beam forming is far more lethal than mm waves that have difficulty in air and would prove useless as a weapon in the city battle field as intended and planned using 5GW.
The Sub GHz network is using Microsoft Azure which is the cloud edge technology developed with Lockheed for the 5G extermination plan on the vaccinated.
We have covered the issue of the new 5G technology that was rolled out during the CONvid-1984 lockdowns of 2020 and subsequent years. We have had weapons experts, nurses and experts in eletromagnetic frequencies on the show that have exposed the dangers of EMFs, and we’ve even provided a number of solutions to neutralize the effects on you, your family and your animals. However, earlier this month, 5G took center stage in court and here’s what’s happened so far.
Gillian Jamieson has the story at The Daily Sceptic.
A few days ago, I spent a day and a half in Court 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice, listening to a Judicial Review in which Michael Mansfield KC challenged the Government for its “failure to give adequate information to the public about the risks of 5G and to explain the absence of a process for investigation of any adverse health effects”. These failures are deemed to be in breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity as stated in Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I was fascinated by Mr. Mansfield’s take on these issues. Those of us who have concerns about the adverse health effects of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) such as 5G usually argue that the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) safety exposure guidelines relied upon by Government to protect our health are woefully inadequate because they only recognise the heating of tissue as potentially harmful and because many thousands of well-conducted studies have shown harm below the heating threshold.
However Mr. Mansfield pointed out that ICNIRP does not say that RFR is safe. In Appendix B of the 2020 safety exposure guidelines adverse health effects are considered. In most cases it is stated that insufficient, high quality research has been done or that results of studies conflict and that therefore the adverse health effect in question has not been substantiated. This is very different to stating that RFR will not cause this adverse effect or that it is safe. Mr. Mansfield had also provided the judge with a screenshot of an ICNIRP webpage, which stated that health harms were “unlikely”.
This lack of clarity is reflected in the imprecise language used in U.K. Government documents. For example, in its guidance for reducing exposure we read, “excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged”; or on its webpage on 5G and health the Government optimistically tells us that “there should be no consequences for public health” and then says vaguely, “it is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure”. But what is “excessive use” or a “small increase”? The public needs to know.
Indeed, the main thrust of the case put forward by Mr. Mansfield was that the Government has a duty to inform the public of the full spectrum of risk from RFR, whether or not the risk is substantiated or proven. This information must be full and clear so that each individual can make an informed choice about his or her level of exposure, if this is even possible. Providing access to information via a website is insufficient. Later on, the Government mentioned in its defence that the ICNIRP website is accessible, but how many of the public have even heard of ICNIRP?
As we will see, because the Government denies any causal link between RFR and ill-health there is no process for reporting, investigating or monitoring possible symptoms from exposure. Mr Mansfield stated that there is a need for environmental impact assessments. It is not enough to measure radiation from masts, but their impact on people must be assessed. The situation has become more urgent with the advent of 5G and new technologies.
Although the Government claims that the new higher frequencies to be used by 5G are covered by ICNIRP, Mr. Mansfield argued that 5G was a game changer because it ratchets up exposure. When the higher frequencies are allocated, small antennae will need to be placed on every third lamppost. This will involve the use of targeted beams and pulsation.
It is acknowledged that little research on this combination of new technology and various frequencies has been carried out. Considering that this radiation will be everywhere and will be emitting all the time, it is negligent to ignore the risks. Those who do not consent to accepting these risks will not be able to avoid them.
Mr. Mansfield spoke for around five hours on the first day to a full courtroom with around 70 members of the public present, while many more supported outside. On the second day we heard the Government’s defence, but not before it had been firmly reprimanded by the judge for not following basic procedures as regards submitting supplementary documents.
The Government’s position became clear when Judge Stacey asked its representatives to state what they thought the obligation of the Government was as regards informing the public of the potential health risks of RFR. They answered that the Government needed to say nothing, because there were no health risks from RFR or 5G. The judge restated Mr. Mansfield’s opinion that the Government should inform the public that there are different opinions as to the risk, to which the reply was that the Government had no obligation to provide commentary on different opinions. When the judge asked about the recommended investigative process, the Government replied that there was no failure in process because it had established there was no risk with the help of international bodies such as ICNIRP.
At this point I’d like to refer to another earlier revelation from Mr. Mansfield about ICNIRP’s guidelines. It turns out that they do not apply to those with metal implants, nor to those with devices such as pacemakers, nor to those affected by medical treatment using radio-frequency radiation (page 2). This is left to doctors to manage. Do the affected people know this? Are doctors well enough informed to advise their patients?
Mr. Mansfield summing up, noted that it was misleading to say there was no risk from RFR and stated that the Government had misinterpreted the ICNIRP guidelines. It was the Government which had made a choice to promote 5G and this choice brought with it a responsibility to be fully transparent with the public about all the risks. It is wrong to state that there is no risk, just because that risk cannot be fully proven due to inadequate research. The public needs to know about possible risks, not just proven risks, as well as the location of these risks. The WHO has admitted: “Given that the 5G technology is currently at an early stage of deployment, the extent of any change in exposure to radiofrequency fields is still under investigation.” Again, the public needs to know about the experimental nature of the 5G rollout.
Judgment is awaited from the Administrative Court in due course.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.