5G technology has not had any official safety tests that are credible or broad spectrum health risk assessments before the nation is to be exposed to it.

It is extremely likely to cause significant health and environmental harm both immediately and in the long term.  Please refer to Dr Martin Palls overview of scientific peer reviewed research showing biological effects.

https://einarflydal.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf

 There are many eminent scientists and health officials even within the World Health Organisation who have expressed their most serious concerns about exposure to 5G, and various countries, towns, cities and American states, (Glastonbury, Telford, Brussels, Geneva, Vaud, Switzerland, Mill Valley California)  have decided to say no to 5G until at least there are meaningful tests and health assurances. 

Some Facts:
1/ IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has
designated Non-Ionising Radiation, a class 2B hazard (possible
Carcinogen) the rumour has it that some members would
have designated it a class 2A hazard (probable Carcinogen)
2/ The international 2012 Bio-Initiative report chaired by
Cindy Sage listed thousands of evidence and data driven,
peer reviewed science studies documenting the harmful
effects of non-ionising radiation on people.
3/ The effects are long term and chronic, and even with pre
5G technology the earliest negative health effects would take
10 years to manifest. 5G may be quicker. Somewhere down
the timeline even more pressure will be put on the NHS to
deal with the consequences.
4/ Recently the EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON RADIATION RISK
(ECRR) formed a sub committee the European Committee on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Risk ECNRR with Dr Chris Busby as
science secretary to formulate a Dose standard for limits,
albeit, guidance only. The other organisation responsible for
these limits ICNIRP - International Commission on Non –
Ionising Radiation Protection appears to be an industry
“captured” organisation. Dr Chris Busby of ECNRR is a non
industry affiliated scientist, not captured. If you could get him
to testify or present to you, he could explain this whole topic
of Non–Ionisng Radiation very well to the lay person.
5/ The Common Law Duty of Care still applies to all of us. We
all, individuals and Government/ Corporate have this Duty of
Care.
6/ The Precautionary Principle applies and has legal standing
in EU law. If there is reasonable doubt about Hazards even
without sufficient evidence, then there is an obligation to act.
I had to read this when employed and Fair Play to the EU this
was an extremely good document to read. Usually this type of
document is deadly dull to read.
7/ Lloyds of London will not insure Non-Ionising Radiation
Technology under their Exclusion clause 32. Lloyds faced
financial annihilation back in the 1990s when the bill for
Asbestos came in. They will not make the same mistake
again. Quoting from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a
Lloyd’s of London underwriter. “The Electromagnetic Fields
Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and
is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the
exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by
continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e.
through mobile phone usage.”


8/ Very good and short (2:33 minutes) clip from Dr Magda
Havas demonstrating the bio-active effect of Non-Ionising
radiation on blood. https://www.youtube.com/watch
v=L7E36zGHxRw short and to the point. The blood clotting
phenomenon you see is known as Rouleaux formation.
So to sum up:
There are many people across the world, both scientific and
lay, who have very serious concerns over the health issues
arising from the roll out of the new 5G systems. However
please note that the existing systems are also dangerous, if
not quite as severe as 5G.
There is sufficient science based, data driven evidence that
1st to 5th generation wireless technology is hazardous.