This page summarises key issues you can cite in correspondence with Wealden District Council. It excludes height-based arguments and focuses on certificate independence, case law, liability issues, mainstream reports, expert commentary, and peer-reviewed studies.

At-a-glance

Expert Commentary: RFK Jr. on 5G Health Risks

Source: RFK Jr. appears in a YouTube video titled “RFK Jr. sounds the alarm about 5G: ‘RF radiation is a public health hazard!’” produced by user “Herb Strabo.”

ICNIRP Certificates Are Not Independent Assessments

Local planning authorities typically accept an ICNIRP declaration from the operator as proof of compliance. However:

Bottom line: ICNIRP certificates only show 'thermal' compliance—not proof of absence of broader biological effects.

Insurance & Liability Risks

RF/EMF is treated as an uninsurable or emerging risk. Public health claims are often excluded from standard policies.

Implication: Operators may not be insured against future claims—and the Council should be aware of liability implications.

Mainstream Reports of Mast Removals / Cancer-Cluster Concerns

These cases highlight local actions taken in response to health worries—not proof of causation.

Peer-Reviewed Evidence (Selected Studies Reporting Adverse Effects)

A concise list of peer-reviewed studies reporting adverse findings from RF/wireless exposures. Not exhaustive; shows why precaution and proper risk appraisal are reasonable planning considerations.

Carcinogenic Signals (Animal)

Human Epidemiology (Positive/Suggestive)

Reproduction (Male Fertility)

Oxidative Stress & DNA/Genotoxicity

Neuro/BBB & Development

mmWave / 5G-Relevant (≥24–60 GHz)

Note: Many authorities judge typical public exposures (within ICNIRP limits) as safe; however, the above peer-reviewed literature documents signals of possible harm under certain conditions, supporting precautionary siting near sensitive receivers (schools, homes, clinics) and independent measurement.

Learn More: EMF & The Invisible Rainbow

The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life by Arthur Firstenberg (AGB Press; first ed. 2017, updated printing 2020) surveys two centuries of electrification and correlates major shifts in ambient electromagnetic exposure with reported changes in public health. The book is widely cited by campaigners and includes extensive endnotes to primary sources.

Themes you can reference

How to cite the book in letters

Note: The book’s interpretations are debated. Citing it as a secondary synthesis alongside primary peer‑reviewed studies (see above) keeps submissions balanced while showing reasonable grounds for precaution.

How to Use This in Your Letter

Ask the Council to:

  • Recognise that the ICNIRP certificate is not an independent health assessment.
  • Reference legal precedents showing EMF can be a material consideration.
  • Note the lack of liability insurance for RF harm.
  • Consider mainstream cases where concerns led to mast removal.
  • Review peer-reviewed literature indicating adverse effects and request independent measurements where appropriate.
  • Consider historical and biological context as presented in The Invisible Rainbow, treating it as a secondary synthesis with extensive references.

Quick FAQ

Are ICNIRP certificates independent?
No. They are operator declarations of compliance with exposure limits, not independent health assessments.
Can EMF be a planning consideration?
Yes. UK decisions indicate EMF impacts (e.g., on medical implants) can be material in planning.
Is there peer-reviewed evidence of adverse effects?
There are animal, mechanistic, and some human studies reporting adverse findings under certain conditions (see section above).
How should I reference The Invisible Rainbow?
Cite it as a book (see details in the Learn More section) and pair it with specific peer‑reviewed studies for each claim.

Additional sources: Ofcom FOI on ICNIRP declarations, UK Code of Practice documents, and ProPublica FCC analysis (available upon request).
↑ Back to top

Prepared for Wealden residents ‱ August 2025