UK High Court case against EMFs and 5G

by Jessica Learmond-Criqui

UK High Court case against EMFs and 5G

by Jessica Learmond-Criqui
Jessica Learmond-Criqui
Case Owner
I am a solicitor. I became involved in understanding the harmful health impact of 5G when a member of my community alerted me to an application to put a mast on the building opposite her apartment.
on 29th May 2020
pledged of £150,000 stretch target from 2148 pledges
Jessica Learmond-Criqui
Case Owner
I am a solicitor. I became involved in understanding the harmful health impact of 5G when a member of my community alerted me to an application to put a mast on the building opposite her apartment.

Latest: May 28, 2021

Update on legal case - 28.5.21

Dear All,

Update – 28.5.21

As you know, we applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to proceed to judicial review having been refused permission in the High Court.  We have now heard fr…

Read more

5G is well known to pose a serious risk to human health. We are not talking here about Covid-19, but about links that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

This page is against wireless 5G, radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”) and electromagnetic fields (“EMFs”) generally due to their impact on the health of humans, animals and plants. 

Many people are sensitive to RFR and EMFs and suffer illness, distress and financial loss due to inability to work.  The balance of scientific evidence is now clear that RFR/EMFs are harmful to humans.

The UK government insist on using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set limits of radiation for public health.  ICNIRP’s guidelines are not fit for purpose as, among other things, they only recognise harm from heating of the body and are set for short term exposure – 6 minutes in fact.  Many people suffer harm without any heating of their bodies.

5G is the fifth generation of RFR technology used in the mobile telecoms industry and follows 1G – 4G.  It dwarfs RFR from 1G – 4G because millions more masts, antennae, small cells, picocells etc have to be placed at short distances apart all around the country in order to develop the infrastructure to deliver the data speed promised by 5G.

The current electrosmog from 1G – 4G will become significantly worse and it is likely to result in more harm to humans, animals, trees and pollinators.

Many people have tried to engage with the government and its agencies, including Public Health England, over the last few years in an attempt to persuade them that their existing policies are harmful to human, animal and plant health.  The government rejects such approaches and insists on its adherence to ICNIRP’s guidelines.  It has removed health concerns from the National Planning Policy Framework, thereby removing the ability of its citizens from raising such concerns at local council level.  Its Electronic Communications Code has limited the rights of its citizens to object to equipment being put on their land.  It has permitted the proliferation of RFR gadgets used by babies and children without constraint. 

These policies are likely to result in harm to UK residents.  There are likely to be many breaches of English law but a few may be breaches to duties to safeguard public health, breaches of the environmental legislation, breaches of human rights and breaches of the public sector equality duty.  The public sector equality duty is relevant because the government, in promoting these harmful policies, is likely to be doing so without considering people who are electrohypersensitive and who are, thereby, disabled under the terms of the Equality Act.

What are we trying to achieve?

I am trying:

  • to obtain a change of government policy to stop the harm to UK residents, which would include:
    • an immediate halt to the roll out of 5G infrastructure until it is proven to be safe;
    • Direct all such businesses and persons to turn off all equipment which propagate wireless 5G signals including without limitation masts, antennae, wifi (including in schools), small cells;
    • Direct all products which use 5G wireless technology to be recalled as they are not safe;
    • Direct that the manufacture of all products using 5G wireless technology be halted.
  • Require the government to ensure that the industry lays cabling for the purposes of upgrades in technology rather than relying on wireless technology generating RFR and EMFs;
  • Require the government to examine all equipment and gadgets generating RFR and to take steps to ensure that such equipment does not cause harm to humans.

What's at stake?

The government and media state that there is no harm to humans from 5G.  This is wrong.  The majority of scientific evidence show that there is harm.  The burden for illnesses which may result from 5G and other RFR will fall on the NHS and ultimately on the taxpayer.  This too is wrong.  The government are tasked with safeguarding the health of the nation and they are now being called to account for their failure to honour their duty to do so.

Many people who are electrohypersensitive have a limited involvement in public life or are excluded from public life because RFR in public spaces is so prevalent that they feel ill in such environments.  Some are prisoners in their own homes, unable to go out and they struggle to live a normal life.  A change in policy will, at the very least, see safe corridors being formed for such persons so that they too can participate in public life by enjoying public spaces and public venues.

UK residents are unaware of the harm that is being caused to themselves, their children and babies who are exposed to RFR to the extent that they are in today’s world.  This case will, hopefully, change the government’s stance and ensure that they are aware of the potential harm so that they can either agree to participate in an RFR environment or they can live in their homes and public spaces free from RFR.

More about this important case:

Who am I? 

I am a solicitor.  I became involved in understanding the harmful health impact of 5G when a member of my community alerted me to an application to put a mast on the building opposite her apartment.  She was electrohypersensitive. 

I started to investigate the nature of 5G including reading articles, scientific literature, the appeal by 240 scientists from around the world to pause the rollout of 5G pending proper health studies into its impact and discussed the position with various scientists, doctors and weapons experts.  I spoke to many others who have written to their MPs, local councils, government departments, the Prime Minister, telecoms and infrastructure companies, Ofcom and others about the harm to humans, animals, trees, pollinators etc with no success.

I have come to the conclusion that taking legal action is the only way to bring this issue into a public forum and to examine the government and Public Health England’s stance on this matter. 

I may be a claimant in this matter but if there are others who are more suited to be claimants in these claims, then they will proceed as claimants using the funds which I have raised on this page.

What is the next step in the case?

With the help of Tim Buley QC of Landmark Chambers, as a first step, the High Court will be asked to review the stance taken by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England.  The claim will be for judicial review of their policy of using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set the limits of public exposure which I and many other scientists say is too high, thereby, causing harm to humans.

I need Tim Buley QC to review the case, draft the application for judicial review, appear at any hearing relating to the application, prepare the case for a hearing and appear in court to present our case.  I will be the solicitor acting in the case through LCS Practice Ltd and will charge just less than half of my normal hourly rate for work done.  My normal hourly rate is £450 per hour plus VAT and I will charge £200 plus VAT per hour.

How much are we raising and why?

I am raising £150,000 to cover the legal and other costs and contingencies mentioned above including costs for the other side in the event of failure of the judicial review application - the Aarhus Convention cap of up to £10,000 will be claimed.  I need your support: please contribute and share this page now.

Under the terms of this fundraising platform, if you give over £1,000, if there are unused funds after litigation, some of your pledge will be returned on a pro rata basis.  If you give less than £1,000, unused funds will not be returned to you but used in accordance with the platform's terms on unused funds.  Please review the other terms of the platform to be sure that you understand their policy regarding pledges.

You will see an initial target of £50,000 which should get to the end of any hearing relating to the application for judicial review and it includes the court fee and the Aarhus Convention cap of up to £10,000 for the other side's costs if the application is unsuccessful.  Any unused funds and the balance to £150,000 (the stretch target) will be used as necessary for this litigation.

Thanks so much for supporting this endeavour. Please donate what you can and share this page on social media, via WhatsApp and email to spread the word!

Get updates about this case

Subscribe to receive email updates from the case owner on the latest news about the case.

Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 17

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 28, 2021

Update on legal case - 28.5.21

Dear All,

Update – 28.5.21

As you know, we applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to proceed to judicial review having been refused permission in the High Court.  We have now heard from the Court of Appeal which has refused permission to proceed to judicial review. 

This is disappointing news, without doubt.  It means that the challenge which we made to the government’s decision to remove planning permission requirements from the siting of masts and antennae was unsuccessful.

But, that is not the end of the story.  Some of you know that the efforts to obtain justice for those who suffer from the effects of man-made radiation is a journey.  We have been pushed back on the first step on that journey but we are continuing on that journey.

The government’s consultation on the removal of planning permission has another layer - a step 2 - they have started a technical consultation on how they are going to remove this planning permission.

The technical consultation seeks views on how to implement the proposals consulted on in August 2019 to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage and is below.  Comments have to be in by 14 June, 2021:

Current Technical Consultation link:

In refusing permission to proceed to judicial review, the Court of Appeal judge  referenced this from the Government’s consultation response document)*:

“We will undertake a technical consultation on the detail of the proposals, including appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards, prior to amending the existing legislation and will reassess whether there would be a positive or negative, direct or indirect, impact on people with protected characteristics, and update the Public Sector Equalities Duty assessment as necessary.”

Consistent with that, the Technical Consultation document says this (in paragraph 84 and then Question 11):

“Considering the technical detail of the proposals, we would welcome views on the potential impact of the matters raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?”

This opportunity gives a second bite at the cherry.  Our barrister, David Wolfe QC, continues to advise our claimant on this matter and has suggested that we invite you all to put in responses.

If there are particular impacts in certain areas, eg, residential areas, areas close to schools etc, then those should be identified.

Depending on how the government then deals with all of that information, we might have a chance at a further legal challenge.

I will be reviewing the documents in the Technical Consultation and will circulate shortly my responses.  You will be welcome to base your responses using mine as a guide. 

We will be working with our barrister to review the government’s continuing response and to obtain legal advice on potentials to challenge.

This continuing legal activity will have costs and to that end, I will be setting up a new fundraising page to address those costs.  We would be grateful for your continued support in relation to those costs.  I hope that you will be able to continue to support these endeavours as generously as you have done in the past and thank you all for your fantastic support so far.

If there are no other opportunities for legal challenge, any funds raised which are not used will be donated to the charity or other similar charity.  Many of you will know of es-uk which can be found at which provides:

“unbiased and balanced information to help those who have become sensitive to mobile and cordless phones, their masts, wifi, and a multitude of common everyday electrical appliances”.

I will be in touch soon with the details of the new fundraising site and with my comments on the Technical Consultation document so that you can submit your own responses asap.

Yours sincerely,

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

* You may recall that the Government's response to this initial consultation was published in a report in July 2020 which is below:

August 2019 Consultation (Proposed reforms to development rights to support rollout of 5G) - Government response link:

In the government's response to the initial consultation, at point 62 (page 29 of the report) it states "... The majority of personal respondents expressed concerns in relation to in-principle opposition to the deployment of 5G infrastructure, in particular on grounds relating to public health concerns, and the effects of EMF radiation on the environment, including on wildlife populations." In the summary of this report, at point 5 (page 4) it states "....Having considered the responses to the consultation, we are satisfied that there is evidence to demonstrate that the proposed reforms would have a positive impact..... we will ensure that the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards are in place to mitigate the impact of new mobile infrastructure...". At point 10 (page 5) it states "In developing the technical consultation, we will work with mobile industry representatives .... including... Ofcom*....."

Update 16

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Feb. 17, 2021

Update on 5G Judicial Review legal case - 17.2.21

Just a quick update on the legal action. As you know, we were refused permission to proceed to judicial review in the High Court. Our QC advised that we should appeal and we filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in December. 

The Court sealed our notice which I received last week. We are awaiting a translation of the transcript of the judgement in the High Court. Once that is ready, perhaps another week or two, then the papers will be sent to the judge. 

The judge will make a ruling on the papers only and without a hearing.

If we are successful in the Court of Appeal, the government may appeal to the Supreme Court.  If they do not, then we will have a full hearing for judicial review in the High Court.  I will keep you posted. 

Thanks as ever for your support.  We are continuing to raise funds which are very much depleted at present.  Do please make donations to the below so that we have enough funds to, at the very least, pay our barrister going forward:

In the meantime, we have had many articles published in the legal press. The link to the latest article in Toddle About is below:

Below is a summary of much of the legal press around this case:

  • David Wolfe discussed why judicial reviews are so essential to our legal system in The Times.
  • Jessica Learmond-Criqui outlined the process of persuading the courts to recognise a new illness in Litigation Futures.
  • David Wolfe explained what local governments need to know about consultation responses in Local Government Lawyer.
  • In New Law Journal, Jessica Learmond-Criqui examined the government’s decision-making process in relation to the 5G networks. She noted that, shockingly, the ministers making the decision about the 5G rollout were not shown the evidence (collected through a public consultation in 2019) that 5G can negatively impact our health. The piece first published in December and then again in the February edition.
  • Jessica Learmond-Criqui and Phillip Watts provided a consumer piece explaining to parents how the 5G rollout could impact our health in Toddle About.
  • Jessica Learmond-Criqui used the 5G Judicial Review to outline how to get a new disability recognised in the law in Solicitors Journal.
  • Jessica Learmond-Criqui’s involvement in challenging the government over its 5G strategy was summarised in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary.
Update 15

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Jan. 6, 2021

Article regarding the legal challenge

Do see the article which I wrote in the New Law Journal published on 30 December, 2020.

Update 14

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Dec. 9, 2020

Update on 5G legal case regarding Judicial Review

Dear All,

I am providing an update of where we are on this litigation.

Today, we had a hearing in the High Court to determine if we would be permitted to proceed with our application for Judicial Review against the government’s decision to remove planning permission from masts, antennae and its equipment throughout the UK. Judge Sir Ross Cranston refused our application in this round.  For the reasons below, we have, therefore, taken steps to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal as soon as possible.

You will recall that we had issued proceedings on the basis that the decision makers (being the Secretaries of State of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government):

  • did not give ‘conscientious consideration’ to the responses, over 1,000 of which (out of 1,800 total responses) were based on adverse health impacts of 5G, let alone the detailed and specific information supporting them or the technical and other information to which they referred so that the decision was not based on compliance with the requirements of a lawful consultation and was unlawful;
  • breached their ‘public sector equality duty’ (“PSED”) under the Equality Act 2010 as there is nothing to suggest, let alone show, that the decisionmakers even engaged with the fact that particular sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation, including from 5G in particular, amounts to a disability (EHS) for the purposes of the PSED.

In brief, Judge Cranston determined that:

  • health impacts were not within the remit of the consultation document which meant that the government did not have to “conscientiously consider” comments made on health grounds. In any event, the Secretaries of State were entitled to be take advice from Public Health England on the health comments made by consultees and could rely on that advice which was that there was no harm from 5G, in making their decision. He also said that if there was nothing in the consultee responses which changed the scientific advice (which the defendants said that PHE told them that it did not), then there was no need to go behind it;
  • re the claim for breach of the PSED, he said that there was no flaw in the approach taken by the Defendants, namely that:
  • there is the “lack of scientific consensus on the link between 5G and negative health effects which the Claimant believes exists” (submissions put forward by the Defendants which he accepted);
  • the equality impact assessment which stated that although the health risks were out of scope, the advice from PHE was that there was no new scientific evidence in the consultee responses so that their advice that there was no harm remained unchanged and the EIA concluded that in light of PHE’s advice it did not consider that there were any potential impacts which needed mitigating.

For the above reasons Judge Cranston concluded that he did not think that the claim was arguable and he would refuse it. We have discussed the judgement with our barrister who has advised that an appeal to the Court of Appeal is appropriate. 

We do need funds to continue fighting this matter and would invite you to visit the site below and to continue to provide funding for this case:

The legal campaign can be found here:

Best Regards,


Update 13

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Aug. 25, 2020

Update on 5G Judicial Review legal case - 25.8.20

Dear All,

You will recall that my legal campaign is to, among other things, change government policy on the roll out of 5G – details of the campaign are at   

During the time that our legal team has been considering taking legal action against the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, the government has made the decision to remove the need for planning permission for masts, antennae and equipment.  

Do see further below.

They did this after consulting with the public over permitted development rights (“PDR”) which ended in November, 2019.   That would mean, among other things, that planning permission would no longer be needed for masts, antennae and equipment which can then be erected in town centres, neighbourhoods and conservation areas at will and mobile service providers can proliferate this equipment across the country with no oversight by anyone. 

The decision includes proposals to “Enable higher new masts to deliver better mobile coverage and mast sharing, subject to prior approval and specified limits”.  It is not clear what this means but I have already seen a number of applications for massive 60 foot structures with multiple masts on them currently being made and from this decision it looks like it will be made easier for these types of structures to proliferate in our neighbourhoods. 

Our legal team obtained some copies of objections to the PDR public consultation which demonstrated the overwhelming submissions of adverse health consequences to humans, bees, trees and birds from such a reckless proposal.  The government’s decision barely commented on such representations quoting the usual PHE stance which is known to be deeply flawed and unfit for purpose.  

 A key part of the legal campaign is to change government policy on the roll out of 5G.  Therefore, our legal team has decided to challenge this decision making process through the medium of judicial review promptly and, to that end, have sent a letter before action to the Secretaries of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and for the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government.  Do see it below. 

Our legal team continues to consider taking legal action against DHSC/PHE. While I have seen some objections to the PDR consultation, if any of you made objections, please send them to me asap at [email protected] as they may be helpful in any eventual legal action. 

I know that some of you have contributed hugely and generously already.  And you would be right to think that a one off contribution should suffice.  But, the problem with this situation is that it is like an onion, with many layers and one has to peel off each layer of the onion skin to get at the different parts which form this brutal and inhumane treatment of humanity and our environment.  You have all so far been fantastic.  I am trying to do all that I can, but I cannot do this alone. 

Finally, I will write to you more later about this – but the UK government has just spent £500m (on 27 July) investing in the bankrupt OneWeb which was building 5G satellites for 45% of the company.  The government made this investment against the advice of the UK Space Agency and of the relevant department’s Accounting Officer who said that the investment was not “value for money”.  A shocking waste of taxpayer’s money. 

A company has just got planning permission to build a space port in Scotland and the government has given permission for satellites to be launched from that port.  The UK Space Agency has been working on a plan to launch 5G satellites over the UK at least since 2018 that I can find.  I will send more information on this with links to read soon.   

In the meantime, there are three immediate actions we need to take: 

- Object to the UK government’s investment in OneWeb; 

- Object to OneWeb’s new filing (since the UK government invested in the bankrupt company) to launch 42,000 satellites (to match SpaceX’s permission also to launch 42,000 satellites); and 

- Make representations on a consultation opened until October about legislation for satellites which would include 5G satellites. 

There is much work to do and not much time in which to do it.  I will send more about these objections etc later. 

While some funds have been raised already, it is still below halfway to the £150,000 which I am trying to raise for this campaign.   

Please go to either of the pages below and donate what you can, including making a monthly contribution so that the fund can be built up to address these issues and issues similar to these to achieve the overall objective.  

Even a regular monthly donation of say £10 or more a month will move us towards the target. 

Please tell your friends and spread the word. 

Best Regards,

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Update 12

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Aug. 13, 2020

Talk on 5G satellites tonight - 13 August - you have to register to attend

Further to Arthur Firstenberg’s email below, if you wish to attend the talk you need to register.  I have extracted the relevant details below.  


On Thursday, August 13, 2020, from 7 to 9 PM EDT (2300 to 0100 UTC), Americans for Responsible Technology will host a meeting about the 5G satellites on Zoom that will be simulcast on Facebook. In the first hour, four presenters will speak for 15 minutes each:

Ben Levi, technology consultant, will summarize the current satellite situation. Where are we now, and what is forecast over the next few years?

Joe Sandri has a law degree and has training and experience in radiofrequency engineering. He will describe how the satellites work. How will a typical 5G transmission use the satellites? What kinds of earth stations will be required?

Arthur Firstenberg will talk about the impact of the satellites on people and the environment. How will the electrical environment of the earth be altered by constant transmission of 5G signals?

Julian Gresser, attorney, will address what is being done legally to stop this. What right does the FCC or any other agency have to authorize the use of space for private commercial interests? What are the legal and ethical principles involved?

The second hour of the meeting will consist of a discussion among the presenters, followed by questions from the online audience, which will include members of the press.

Attend by Zoom (limited space). Participants must register in advance: 

Watch on Facebook: 

Update 11

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

Aug. 13, 2020

Arthur Firstenberg's email re current position on 5G satellites

From: Arthur Firstenberg <info=[email protected]> On Behalf Of Arthur Firstenberg
Sent: 12 August 2020 10:27
Subject: Online meeting about 5G satellites, August 13

Dear Friends,

Due to problems with my email marketing service, a great many of you were not receiving these important newsletters about our common future. Therefore I temporarily stopped sending them while I hired a consultant to troubleshoot and fix the problems. This is my first newsletter since June 18. Coincidentally, SpaceX also had problems with its launches and did not send any Starlink satellites into space during that time. The launch of 57 satellites on Friday, August 7, 2020 was SpaceX’s first such launch since June 13.




The launch of 57 more satellites by SpaceX in the early morning of Friday, August 7, at 1:12 AM EDT, has brought the number of SpaceX’s “Starlink” satellites orbiting in the Earth’s ionosphere up to 595.

Although this was the first launch since June 13, SpaceX has not been idle during this time. It has built additional ground stations and has received permission from the Federal Communications Commission to operate (so far) 40 ground stations, scattered throughout the United States. It has signed up customers to begin “beta testing” of the satellites that are already in orbit. Beta testing will occur initially, says SpaceX, with customers who live between 44 and 52 degrees latitude in the northern U.S. and southern Canada. SpaceX plans to begin the testing sometime in September.

As I reported in a previous newsletter, SpaceX’s launch of April 22, which brought the number of its satellites up to 420, was accompanied by reports of heart palpitations from far and wide, including from yours truly. I again felt strong heart palpitations that began early in the morning on August 7. Actually I began to experience a feeling of oppression Thursday night about two hours before the launch time. Please contact me if you have been having heart palpitations since Friday’s launch.


OneWeb, which is based in the UK, and which had declared bankruptcy in March, has been bailed out to the tune of one billion dollars by the UK government and Indian telecommunications company Bharti Global. And on May 26, 2020, OneWeb applied to the FCC for permission to compete on an equal footing with SpaceX by launching 47,844 satellites into the ionosphere.

Although OneWeb’s offices are in the UK, none of its Directors live there. Its CEO, Adrián Steckel, is Mexican, and the rest of its Directors live in the U.S., Germany, Israel and Mexico. Its major stockholders are Qualcomm (Singapore), SoftBank Group (Japan), and 1110 Ventures (U.S.).


On July 29, 2020, the FCC granted Amazon’s application to launch 3,236 satellites into the ionosphere. Like the satellites of SpaceX and OneWeb, Amazon’s satellites will operate at millimeter wave frequencies and use phased array technology to cover the Earth with focused beams of radiation enabling customers to access the Internet from anywhere on Earth, on land or ocean.

The satellites of SpaceX, OneWeb and Amazon alone, if they are all launched, will total, together, about 92,000 satellites. If you add in Iridium and Globalstar, which are already operating small constellations, and the plans of Facebook, Link, Canadian companies Kepler and Telesat, the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, Russia’s Roscosmos, and other competitors, there could soon be 100,000 satellites orbiting in the ionosphere.

“But will you wake for pity’s sake”*

The out-of-control satellite industry is one of the stupidest things humankind has ever created. It treats the life-giving envelope of our atmosphere as if we don’t depend on it. It poses an immediate threat to life on Earth, in so many ways.

The 100,000 planned 5G satellites, each with a designed lifespan of 5 to 10 years, must be constantly de-orbited and replaced. This means that at least 10,000 satellites will have to be launched every year, forever into the future. If an average of 50 satellites can be launched on each rocket, that’s 200 rocket launches per year, just to maintain the satellites used for cell phones and Internet. And it means the de-orbiting of 10,000 worn out satellites per year, burning them up in the atmosphere and turning them into toxic dust and smoke. And that’s not counting the ever-increasing numbers of weather, research, tracking, monitoring, surveillance, military, and other kinds of satellites and missiles being launched in what will soon be a parade of rockets burning prodigious quantities of fossil fuels, punching holes in our atmosphere on a daily basis, and treating the source of all life as Earth’s largest garbage pit.

Martin Ross of the Aerospace Corporation and other researchers have been modeling the effects of daily rocket launches on ozone and global temperatures. Rocket exhaust, depending on the type of fuel used, may contain chlorine and/or oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen, and/or aluminum, all of which destroy ozone. SpaceX’s kerosene-fueled rockets deposit enormous amounts of black soot into the stratosphere, where it accumulates, absorbing solar radiation and warming the stratosphere. The warming of the stratosphere accelerates the chemical reactions that destroy ozone.

Most rockets are launched from the northern hemisphere. And the winter and spring of 2020 saw the largest and longest-lasting Arctic ozone hole in history. Ozone-watchers did not know what caused it, but they were not communicating with the scientists who are studying rocket exhaust. Our world is full of specialists, deaf and blind to other specialties, collectively asleep and marching toward oblivion.

Atmospheric physicists do not study astronomy. Astronomers do not study electricity. Electricians do not study biology. Medical doctors do not study acupuncture. Doctors of oriental medicine do not study atmospheric physics. But the universe is not fragmented, it is a whole, and our culture has forgotten what that is, to its peril and to the peril of everything alive.

The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the electric circuitry of the biosphere and everything in it, including the fine-tuned circuitry of every human, every animal, every tree, and every fish. If we do not immediately stop the destruction of our fragile blanket of electrified air, upon which we depend for growth, healing, and life itself, climate change and ozone destruction may not matter. Beta testing begins in September.


On Thursday, August 13, 2020, from 7 to 9 PM EDT (2300 to 0100 UTC), Americans for Responsible Technology will host a meeting about the 5G satellites on Zoom that will be simulcast on Facebook. In the first hour, four presenters will speak for 15 minutes each:

Ben Levi, technology consultant, will summarize the current satellite situation. Where are we now, and what is forecast over the next few years?

Joe Sandri has a law degree and has training and experience in radiofrequency engineering. He will describe how the satellites work. How will a typical 5G transmission use the satellites? What kinds of earth stations will be required?

Arthur Firstenberg will talk about the impact of the satellites on people and the environment. How will the electrical environment of the earth be altered by constant transmission of 5G signals?

Julian Gresser, attorney, will address what is being done legally to stop this. What right does the FCC or any other agency have to authorize the use of space for private commercial interests? What are the legal and ethical principles involved?

The second hour of the meeting will consist of a discussion among the presenters, followed by questions from the online audience, which will include members of the press.

Attend by Zoom (limited space). Participants must register in advance: 

Watch on Facebook: 


When SpaceX begins its beta testing in the northern United States and southern Canada later this summer, the single biggest obstacle to recognizing its effects on humans will be COVID-19. Because no matter how many people sicken or die in that part of the world, it will be blamed on the coronavirus.

As I pointed out in a previous newsletter, the pandemic began with 5G. 5G came to Wuhan shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. 5G came to New York City streetlamps shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. COVID-19 deprives the blood of oxygen, while radio waves deprive the cells of oxygen. COVID-19, alone, is just a respiratory virus like the common cold. But together with 5G, it is deadly. To deal with COVID-19 effectively, society must first recognize the harm done to the body by radio waves. 5G is radio waves on steroids.

This worker’s death was not caused by hot weather, as was reported by the media

Instead of acknowledging the harm from radio waves, society is tearing its fabric apart by instituting measures that are protecting no one and are instead sickening and killing people. I will mention just one of those measures here: facial masks.

As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”

I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

  • Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
  • Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
  • Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
  • In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
  • A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.
  • Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
  • Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
  • Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.
  • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
  • Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
  • Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
  • Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
  • Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
  • Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

“We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.
* from Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoners, 1951.

Arthur Firstenberg

August 11, 2020

Update 10

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

July 9, 2020

5G Judicial Review 2020 update 9.7.20

I have been working hard on preparation of the case and getting information to our barrister.  I am still in that process and will let you know when I have news to report.

In the meantime, we have now raised £67,488 being £61,364 on the Crowdjustice platform and £6,124 sent directly as at 9.7.20 @ 22:23.

We still need to get to £150,000 so any help you can give would be very much appreciated.

Update 9

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

June 17, 2020

BBC Radio 4 v Judge John Deed

Some of you would have heard the BBC 4 File on 4 report last night at 8pm which was titled “The 5G con that could make you sick”.

It pitched the impressive Devra Devis against David Grimes who denies there is any harm from 5G. Then it addresses the sale of expensive products which are marketed to those concerned about EMFs. Some of you may have been disappointed with the reporting of this serious subject.

I would like to juxtaposition that case against 2 Episodes of Judge John Deed in which he considers the case of a nurse suffering from brain damage from use of a mobile phone. The industry at the time is said to be making £10 – 15bn in revenues. This was back in Mar 2011.

Below are the episodes which are very realistic and entertaining. There are twists and turns but ultimately, the nurse dies from the brain tumour and a settlement is reached.  The arguments presented about the dangers of using mobile phones are realistic.

If you do watch, have fun. 

First section on ‘Health Hazard’ on Series 3 – Episode 1 Part ½ - there are ads regularly but you can skip them when invited to do so.

Part 1 – start 16.20 mins in for the start of the case on the nurse

Part II – Episode 1 Part 2/2

The case probably continues in other episodes but the climax is in Episode 4:

Then the case continues with Episode 4

Part I - Second section on ‘Economic Imperative’- Series 3, Episode 4 - Part 1/2

Part II of ‘Economic Imperative’ – Series 3, Episode 4 – Part 2/2

Below is a review of the series 3

Judge John Deed – Series 3 – BBC

The first two series of Judge John Deed consisted of self-contained episodes. Here, the four shows are bit more serialized, insofar as the two biggest cases are spread across the four shows, though highlighted in one episode each. The first involves a Member of Parliament charged with mowing down a mother and her two children with his car while recklessly talking on his mobile phone. The second follows the case of a young mother with a brain tumor versus the mobile phone company she believes knowingly put unsafe product onto the market that ultimately caused her terminal illness. One gets the feeling creator-writer G.F. Newman is not a big fan of mobile phones.

The season gets bogged down first in Jo Mills's disciplinary hearing, a potentially career-ending crisis generated by Deed's enemies to discredit him, and later by the usual attempts by them to gain leverage in the politically/economically delicate trials Deed hears. His on-again, off-again romance with Jo, instead of being romantic merely tests the audience's patience. That said, things do get interesting when Deed, in claiming to want a long-term relationship with Jo, begins outpatient therapy hoping to put an end to his womanizing. His efforts are half-hearted however and, predictably, he winds up sleeping with his exotic-looking therapist (Amita Dhiri, The Bill).

The final show of the set is by all odds the best, as it explores the real problems of corporate greed putting profits ahead of public safety; of the willingness of scientists and universities to be bought off when they don't deliver the scientific results the big corporations want; big corporations transparently suppressing data about the safety (or not) of their products; and the lengths they will go to discredit their critics. (Spoilers) As extravagantly theatrical as his characters often are, Newman gets equal credit for taking bold and specific stands (in this case: cell phones are bad for human health and should be taken off the market) and for showing how big corporations will resort to dirty tricks to protect their interests. In a last-ditch effort to get the case thrown out, the phone company infiltrates Deed's computer, uploading child pornography onto its hard-drive. Then they call the cops. It doesn't get any worse.

As always, Martin Shaw is a delight as Deed; his rakish charm and intelligence serve the character well. It's really amazing that he's almost completely unknown in America.

Update 8

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

June 12, 2020

5G summit expert question time live stream tonight

Update 12.6.20

There was a live question time with experts at the 5G summit tonight. Do see the link below. 

It has a number of different perspectives in 2 hours and is interesting to listen and to see the various points of view.

Update 7

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 26, 2020

A great video to understand concerns re 5G and RFR generally

if you are interested in how 5G affects our bodies, this video is a must see. It is a brilliant over-view of the nature of our bodies and brings to life the reasons for concern about electromagnetic fields caused by telecoms equipment and infrastructure including mobiles, laptops, ipads, airpods, Bluetooth speakers and the like.


If you are not yet persuaded about concerns being expressed, do watch this as it is informative.

It explains in easy to understand terms the electrical nature of our bodies. It also highlights the dangers of holding mobile phones on our bodies as this breaches the terms of the phone companies which is buried deep in their terms and conditions.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did - it is 1.5 hours so do put aside some time.

Update 6

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 20, 2020

Funding update and international lawyers fighting 5G and RFR

We now have £38,933 on the crowdjustice site.  This is a fantastic endeavour and I encourage you all to continue to spread the word far and wide.

I thought that it may interest you to know that yesterday, there was an inaugural online meeting of lawyers around the world, all working on fighting the roll out of 5G and the satellites which will dowse the earth with radiofrequency radiation.  There were at least 30 lawyers in the session.  There is a tremendous movement to help each other during these times. 

There is a momentum which is building which is exciting and encouraging.  We do need to get to £150,000 so please continue to help as much as you can.

Update 5

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 17, 2020

Query about solicitor's costs

Some of you have asked why I am charging £200 per hour for the solicitor's work which needs to be done in this case.  Others have suggested that I should reduce the charge more or donate my time at no cost to do the soliciting work on this case.

But any person thinking of taking action of this type will have to instruct one or more solicitors.  It  is unlikely that any solicitor suitable for this case will work at no cost and more likely that they will charge much more than £200 per hour plus VAT.

The £150,000 target is set as low as possible given that there will be barrister costs (we will have 2), expert witnesses, Claimant witnesses, preparation of evidence and, ultimately between 2 - 4 weeks in court with costs if the case is not successful. The government will have their own expert and other witnesses and a tremendous amount of work will have to be done in relation to their evidence and witness information. This case may take between 6 months and 2 years, depending on the court schedule, preparation time and delays in the system. 

As I am a lawyer, I will be doing the solicitor’s work and have been transparent about what that may cost.  I am doing it as cheaply as possible for the solicitor's work involved for a case such as this. 

Update 4

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 17, 2020

Our crowdfunding in the news

Update 3

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 12, 2020

If you have problems donating to this page

I understand that some people are having trouble donating to this page.

If you are having trouble, please email [email protected] who will help you to trouble shoot the problem asap.

Update 2

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 11, 2020

Video explaining the dangers of 5G

Some people have asked for a video explaining the dangers of 5G.  Below is a video prepared by Professor Tom Butler on the Understanding of the Health Risks of Wireless Technologies (which includes 5G).  I had organised a talk by Prof Butler which was postponed by the lockdown, but Prof Butler has kindly prepared his lecture which is below.

As many people are at home trying to work or do schoolwork, they will be using wifi for their laptops, ipads and mobiles in addition to the fields from telecoms masts. Electromagnetic radiation is created from the use of 3G, 4G and now 5G. This radiation, while invisible and unfelt, has damaging effects on humans, plants etc. The levels used by telecoms companies as approved by the government are too high and result in a number of physical and mental symptoms and illnesses.

Masts and antennae are proliferating across the country at an exponential rate.  We are being bathed in an EMF soup.

Prof Butler explains why the current levels are too high and the impact on our health and that of our children and he questions how our government and Public Health England can deem these technologies to be safe.  Do watch if you can.

Update 1

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

May 10, 2020

Information for those new to the RFR/EMF issues

Some of you are new to the debate on the health impact of 5G.  So, to help you I have set out below various links to documents which I and others have prepared which sets out the health issues of radiofrequency radiation issues generally which includes 5G.

I sent these documents to the Secretary of State for the UK Department of Health and Social Care and to Public Health England with a letter before action (which I have not included here).  But these materials will help you to understand why this case is so important.  If you are just becoming acquainted with these issues, do just read my note to start.

I am prepared to do all I can to help in this endeavour and to put my shoulder to the wheel, but I cannot do this without you.  So, do continue to share this fundraising site far and wide. 

Many thanks for your support which is deeply appreciated.

My note

Schedules to my note

Article on clear evidence of risks to children from smartphones and wifi

Full Ecolog study for T Mobile (now owned by BT plc and part of EE) in 2000

Appendices to Ecolog study

NASA paper on harm from EMFs

Get updates about this case

Subscribe to receive email updates from the case owner on the latest news about the case.

    There are no public comments on this case page.