Informing parents and schools about RFR harms just got easier
Just send them this letter, courtesy of WCH partner ACHES
Most schools these days know that smartphones are harmful to mental health and focus. But how many understand the real and potentially devastating physical effects of radio frequency radiation? Very few.
WCH partner ACHES decided to rectify this. They recently sent out an excellent letter to schools across the UK, setting out the biological harms of RFR, all fully referenced so that governors and teachers can verify the evidence themselves. Thank you to Lisa Hutchinson and ACHES for their fantastic work!
We are delighted to share their letter in full below. Have a read and see what you think. While it was aimed at UK schools, the information it contains is universally applicable. Feel free to share widely, and consider sending your own version to schools, local councils, teachers and concerned parents.
For more information on ACHES, please visit their website.
Letter from ACHES to UK schools
Dear [Name],
We are a group of concerned individuals and parents advocating reduced use of digital devices by children and adolescents in schools and the home. As you may be aware, increasing numbers of schools are banning smartphones in schools so as to improve the mental health and focus of young people.
We would like to bring to your attention evidence of another aspect of harm from smart devices, namely the biological effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR). The claim that RFR does not damage biology is no longer scientifically credible (1).
Noteworthy for their high-quality methodology and large-scale study sizes are the National Toxicology Program Report (2) and Ramazzini Institute Study (3) which found clear evidence of heart schwannoma and some evidence for glioblastoma resulting from exposure to RFR. Further studies have found a link between high RFR exposure and other cancers such as that of the breast (4). The referenced paper by Nobel team member Dr Davis et al reviews evidence of biological impacts of RFR and states that ‘A wide range of evidence indicates that there are numerous non-thermal effects from wireless radiation on reproduction, development, and chronic illness.’ (5)
Children and young people are particularly susceptible due to their growing bodies and thinner skulls, according to the Swiss expert group on radiation, BERENIS (6) and a number of scientific researchers (7, 8, 9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,13). Members of the American Academy of Pediatrics have written letters to the US government regarding the particular vulnerability of children (14). Of particular relevance to schools are the published studies showing negative effects of RFR on learning and cognition (15), and the French public health body ANSES has warned of neurological damage to children from RFR (16).
Indeed, child advocate and author Nicholas Kardaras was shocked to discover that "… recent brain imaging studies conclusively show that excessive screen exposure can neurologically damage a young person’s developing brain in the same way that drug addiction can." (17) The doctors’ and scientists’ Bio Initiative Report has compiled evidence of neurological damage (18) among other serious health effects.
In light of all this, it seems almost shocking that, currently in the UK, RFR exposures in children are limited only by ICNIRP ‘Thermal Guidelines’. That is, only tissue heating effects that are well known to cause cellular damage are considered. These guidelines only pertain to the tissue-heating effects which is to say that they are already acknowledged to cause cellular damage. Crucially, they do not take into account the substantial body of evidence showing biological effects below this level (19, 20).
Guidelines regarding biological effects and stating that RFR emissions should be avoided in nurseries and primary schools have been issued by official bodies and educators in France, Cyprus, Israel, Germany, Switzerland, Russia and parts of the USA (21 ,22 ,23 ,24 ,25, 26). For older children, scientists recommend ‘best practices’ such as using wired connections and switching devices off when not in use (27).
One can’t help wondering why Lloyds of London will not insure against the harmful effects of EMF and RFR. Their policies exclude any liability coverage for claims “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” Clearly, they do not wish this to be their next asbestos crisis. Food for thought, perhaps.
We hope that you will look at some of the research enclosed and that you will consider your school policy regarding the use of wireless devices. We would be very happy to be able to support or assist you in any way that we can regarding mitigation of RFR. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries or if we can help in any way.
Yours sincerely,
Lisa Hutchinson PhD (Medical Journalist)
Ian Jarvis BSc Nicholas Martin BSc (Local Councillor)
Amanda Kenton Michael Kenton
For and on behalf of ACHES (Adult, Child, Health and Environmental Support)
If you find value in our work and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.