The South African Government is rolling out 5G across our country without our consent. This technology has never been tested so in effect, you and your loved ones are guinea pigs.
Why is this a problem? Because there is more than enough evidence on existing 4G and lower generation technologies to warrant a thorough examination of the potential dangers.
The South African government’s actions in authorizing the reckless roll-out of 5G in our country are a breach of both our human rights and our constitutional rights to a safe environment.
They have failed to:
- take into account the extensive evidence showing that EMF/radio-frequency radiation from masts and wireless devices at the current 4G level and lower, puts health and life at risk.
- carry out a full and independent (not funded or run by the companies that own the technology and have vested interests in the outcome) examination of the risks.
- inform the public of the potential dangers so we can decide how to protect ourselves bearing in mind there is no opting out of the effects of radiation, and the latency period is 40 years.
- empower our doctors to deal with the health problems and other fall out of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that is one-hundred times stronger then the current 4G; this, bearing in mind that even the telecom companies themselves warn their shareholders (not the public) about the risks. In addition, insurance companies are refusing to cover damages related to 5G – They say: Electromagnetic Fields are defined as a “pollutant” by insurance companies and are not covered. EMF exclusion clauses are the standard in the industry – so that tells you something alone.
- The government continues to adopt guidelines which the independent scientific research shows is unsafe for humans, animals, and the environment.
- The government regards the benefits of increased speed and maximising the digital outreach together with the considerable profits to be made by large telecom companies from this technology, as more important than our health and safety.
Why are we worried?
- 5G will add significantly to the emissions we already have from mobile phone masts, mobile phones, Wi-Fi, wearable devices, smart meters, and other ‘smart’ devices.
- This issue concerns all citizens.
- The consequence of inaction could be serious and irreversible damage. We just don’t know how damaging the technology is. The latency period for 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.
Many people are not aware of the harmful effects of radio-frequency waves (RF) and their role in cancer and other serious medical conditions.
The fact that radio-frequency radiation was 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.
A 10-year $30 million dollar study from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) funded by the U.S. government, which analysed the effect of mobile phone radiation, concluded ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenesis.
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’.
The results of this study and International Commission of Non-Ionizing 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.
Safe Gen Five For South Africa are calling for the government to halt the deployment of 5G until proven safe.
Non-industry-funded research studies prove the value of applying the precautionary principle.
By Emma Kelly