My Cart


Who is responsible for 5G consequences?

Posted on August 27 2019

Who is responsible for 5G consequences?

There seems to be a mad rush to install the latest 5G EMF technology around our country. I am wondering who has done the investigations into, and given the OK for, this technology? More importantly, who will take responsibility for the health and other consequences that could result? The responsible approach should be that any such damage must be avoided — at all costs.

Already there is growing concern and resistance to this technology from many communities around the world, including in the USA. In some cases, countries have pressed the pause button.

Rather than getting submerged in scientific discussion, let me quote from two academic sources:

Professor Martin Pall, Washington State University — “5G rollout is absolutely insane”, and the “stupidest idea in the history of the world”.

A retired Harvard scientist of applied physics Ronald Powell, Ph.D., says: “there is no safe way to implement 5G in our communities; rather there are only ‘bad ways’ and ‘worse ways’ . . . and rather than argue about who should have control over its deployment, we should focus on preventing its employment altogether.”

Again, I ask who is responsible? And, where is the scientific evidence for the safety of this new technology?

One thing is for sure; those who make such decisions or avoid fulfilling their responsibilities appropriately will not suffer any penalty unless they and/or their families suffer the consequences.

But there is neither satisfaction nor justice in that. We will all, individually and collectively, pay the price, likely for generations to come.

Marcus Williams


Footnote response from a Ministry of Health spokeswoman:

5G is simply a new application of radio technology. Existing research on the possible health effects of radiofrequency (RF) fields applies as much to 5G as to any other radio system in use. Measurements of 5G sites in Australia have shown that exposures are similar to those from 3G and 4G, and very far below health-based exposure limits.

The Ministry of Health monitors new research in this area and participates in a World Health Organisation project to assess the health effects of electromagnetic fields.

A lot of research investigating the possible health effects of RF fields has been published, and health and scientific bodies around the world have reviewed such research thoroughly. The reviews are carried out by groups that collectively cover the range of disciplines needed to make an informed assessment, rather than by individuals. They take a systematic approach so as to be as objective as possible in their conclusions.

More information on 5G and health is available here:

You can download independent monitoring reports commissioned by companies that operate cellsites at Cellsite monitoring.

An interagency committee monitors research into the health effects of radiofrequency fields. Find out more at Research into non-ionising radiation.

NZS 2772.1:1999 Radiofrequency fields – Maximum exposure levels sets out limits for exposure to the radiofrequency radiation. Find out more at Radiofrequency field exposure standard. 





Janine, Auckland - 1 day ago
The Government needs to produce scientific evidence that 5G millimeter EMF waves have been proven safe. 5G EMF waves are NOT the same as 4G.

Dennis Blair, Auckland - 22 hours ago
Thank you Gisborne Herald for allowing coverage of this important health issue that virtually every newspaper/newsroom refuses to report on. It's not unreasonable to ask that we be included in the introduction of any new technology that may impact health. Not too much to ask that Government agencies and legislators apply the precautionary principle to these matters. I have been writing to Government regarding the roll out of this adaption of directed energy weaponry for many months, mainly to ensure they have all the information that their advisers will not be supplying. This is the largest lobby in history, with uncanny analogies to Big Tobacco. The various committees and groups that set standards and advise governments consist of the same 13 interchanging people, all of them with links to industry funding, and biased data contradicting the scientific majority. Independent research clearly showing harm vs industry-funded papers showing no evidence of harm. Of the two groups, which will gain by manipulating data or interpreting the science to favour a desired outcome? As many people as possible must get involved, send emails, letters to all ministers involved reminding them of their responsibility to protect the people, provide a safe environment, and also put them on notice, point out their potential culpability, and negligence should this be forced upon all, with no opt-out mechanism, with no testing. They need to receive enough correspondence to take notice. If they think enough of the public are on to this collusion, and we won't stand for it, we have a chance to at least postpone the roll out. Below is a link to Professor Golomb's letter to San Diego County, it has all the facts you need to make an informed decision on this technology. Hundreds of cited, peer-reviewed papers as evidence including declassified military research on millimeter radiation effects. This should not even be open for debate according to science.
Thanks again, I appreciate this so much.

Clare Swinney, Whangarei - 12 hours ago
Thank you Marcus Williams for stating what the public needs to be warned about. 

If radiofrequency radiation is as safe as the New Zealand Government claims, why does insurance company Lloyds of London put it in the highest long-term risk category for things to insure? EMFs are classified as a "pollutant" alongside smoke, chemicals and asbestos. See:

The government standard (NZS 2772.1:1999 Radiofrequency fields) is bogus and outdated, as it does not take the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation into account. Financial conflicts of interest and deliberately misleading statements have been corrupting factors in leading to the evidence of thousands of scientific studies that show radiofrequency radiation is harmful, being overlooked. 

Published reviews on 5G, millimeter waves and wireless (even from decades ago) have catalogued a host of harmful affects including altered gene expression, faster cell growth, inflammatory and metabolic processes, damage to the eyes and cellular stress, memory problems, behaviour issues, brain damage, genetic damage and sperm damage.

An independent panel in 2011 advised the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) that cellphone and other wireless RF radiation should be classified as a "possible human carcinogen", based on evidence from studies carried out up to that date.

Recent analyses from scientists who have been senior advisers to the WHO and the NIH conclude that there is clear evidence of cancer in the National Toxicology Program study, later corroborated by the Ramazzini Study, and a growing number of scientists say RF radiation is a "human carcinogen".
In light of this mounting research, the WHO/IARC advisory group released 2019 "high priority" recommendations to re-evaluate the cancer hazard from wireless radiation. 

There is scientific evidence independent of the telelcommunications industry at this link:



Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing