{"id":1973,"date":"2019-05-20T12:07:23","date_gmt":"2019-05-20T11:07:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amazonnewsmedia.com\/articles\/?p=1973"},"modified":"2019-05-20T12:07:31","modified_gmt":"2019-05-20T11:07:31","slug":"future-generations-act-5g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/amazonnewsmedia.com\/articles\/2019\/05\/20\/future-generations-act-5g\/","title":{"rendered":"out-SMART-ing BIG 5G – Future Generations Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The Future Generations Act Commissioner, Sophie Howe <\/a>\u00a0has written to Vaughn Gethin, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, about safety concerns<\/a> with the 5G roll out.<\/p>\n

Concerned Bridgend parent Dan Ellis received a copy of this letter on Thursday from the Commissioner in response to his original enquiries. Mr Ellis became concerned about electro magnetic frequency (EMF) waves when he encountered worrying levels of tumours occurring locally, and a blanket lack of response to concerns.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy MP said no studies have been completed on 5G and it’ll be taken down if dangerous\u2026<\/em>\u201d Dan told ANM \u201cso that basically means people will need to get sick and die before they admit it<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Future Generation Commissioner reported receiving \u201cseveral letters<\/em>\u201d raising similar concerns to Mr Ellis about 5G.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lack of safety studies prior to 5G roll-out<\/h4>\n

The concerns about safety expressed by the Future Generations Commissioner could provide welcome relief from the general attitude of “safe until proven otherwise<\/em>“, in spite of the avalanche of scientists pointing out that this technology hasn\u2019t actually been tested humans at all except in military situations.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s obviously much easier to hide the lack of safety studies if you can stop people asking about them.
\nThe general attitude pervading all enquiries from Governments, through utility companies, and even to Extinction Rebellion, is summed up in this statement of Ecotricity to polite enquiry:<\/p>\n

\"ANM<\/a>

Ecotricity parrot the same illogical and unlawful argument as so many others.<\/p><\/div>\n

.<\/span><\/p>\n

The neutrality lie<\/h4>\n

An asleep toddler can easily spot what is wrong with this argument. If there are \u201cconcerns\u201d and \u201ccounterclaims\u201d but it is unresolved, the precautionary principle dictates that 5G should not be rolled out until those safety concerns have been evidentially and completely allayed.<\/p>\n

The neutrality lie is something like throwing that sleeping toddler into shark infested waters just because a bit of mud has been stirred up, temporarily reducing visibility.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Precautionary Principle<\/h4>\n

In fact, according to the Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union<\/a> the precautionary principle is precisely there in order to enable \u201ca rapid response to be given in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The Article states:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe precautionary principle may only be invoked when the three preliminary conditions are met:<\/em>
\nidentification of potentially adverse effects;<\/em>
\nevaluation of the scientific data available;<\/em>
\nthe extent of scientific uncertainty.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It also says:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.<\/em>\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So it\u2019s clear that this principle covers the neutrality lie, and that even if the science was<\/em> inconclusive, instead of being ignored, it is a reason, along with the other two conditions, for halting any roll out until the effects of 5G radiation, as it is deployed amongst civilians, have been properly tested.<\/p>\n

\"ANM<\/a>

This Appeal is being ignored by those elected to protect us.<\/p><\/div>\n

If the many scientists and doctors expressing concerns<\/a> don\u2019t underline that point, how about the fact that since 2015 Lloyds of London are refusing to underwrite<\/a> any damage caused by microwave telecoms technology? Back<\/p>\n

It looks very much as though Lloyds digested all the actual studies on millimetre wave radiation that Government spat out, citing instead the consensual “dummy reports” all the countries have got together and agreed to use, it\u2019s a global roll out, remember.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/p>\n

Future Generations Act – Class Act or toothless baby?<\/h4>\n

Back in Wales the Future Generations Act worryingly just failed to protect Cymer Afan Comprehensive<\/a> in Neath Port Talbot from closure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>High Court judge Mrs Justice Lambert said: “I do not find it arguable that the 2015 act does more than prescribe a high-level target duty which is deliberately vague, general and aspirational and which applies to a class rather than individuals.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In contrast to Health, the courts and legal system is not devolved, from Westminster so essentially this is an English judge trashing a Welsh Act of Parliament about purely Welsh concerns.<\/p>\n

Mr Williams QC, acting for the campaigners\u00a0said<\/p>\n

\u201cunless individuals can rely on these rights – if they feel they haven’t been upheld – to challenge the decisions of public bodies, the Act is virtually useless.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Future Generations Act lists several “well-being goals” for public bodies. These include<\/p>\n

“attractive, viable, safe and well-connected communities”.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

.<\/span><\/h4>\n

Safe connectivity mandated for sustainability in Wales<\/h4>\n
\"ANM<\/a>

This mast appeared in Mayals Road Swansea<\/p><\/div>\n

Although the attempt to use the Act failed for this school, the Judge\u2019s argument that the goals apply only to \u201ca class\u201d may favour those putting forward 5G safety concerns.<\/p>\n

Radiation is indiscriminate and any resulting damage from 5G will occur widely to the whole class of \u2018humans\u2019 as well as all classes of creatures caught in it. Due to the global roll out, this would further affect the whole class of humans again.<\/p>\n

Here is Senator Blumenthal<\/a>, at the US Senate, realising that there have been, and are, no independent safety studies conducted the safety of 5G radiation. All they have is those dummy reports.<\/p>\n

Also in the case of 5G, the Act\u2019s perceived necessity for both connectedness and safety further predicates the necessity of not placing safety below connectivity.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/p>\n

For the People<\/h4>\n

Secretary Vaughn Gethin, as an elected representative, can mandate and back a more robust scientific and evidential approach to BIGT\u2019s 5G global roll out and invoke the Precautionary Principle.<\/p>\n

I asked Dan Ellis whether he was cautiously optimistic about the Commissioner’s response.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a more positive response than my correspondence with my MP, Madeline Moon. She\u2019s quite reluctant to admit to any health concerns even when shown evidence\u201d <\/em>he said \u201cI don\u2019t think she\u2019s reading it\u201d<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which is unfortunate because ignorance rarely saves the day, and is never a defence to a charge of betraying the people you are elected to protect.<\/p>\n