Send a Letter: Artificial Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Technologies and Emissions

Artificial Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Technologies and Emissions

1 Write Your Letter
2 Review and Send
  • This email will be sent to the following people:

    Cr Rick Baberowski <[email protected]>
    Division 1 <[email protected]>

    Cr Terry Landsberg <[email protected]>\
    Division 2 <[email protected]>

    Cr Peter Cox <[email protected]>
    Division 3 <[email protected]>

    Cr Joe Natoli <[email protected]>
    Division 4 <[email protected]>

    Cr Winston Johnston <[email protected]>
    Division 5 <[email protected]>

    Cr Christian Dickson <[email protected]>
    Division 6 <[email protected]>

    Cr Ted Hungerford <[email protected]>
    Division 7 <[email protected]>

    Cr Jason O'Pray <[email protected]>
    Division 8 <[email protected]>

    Cr Maria Suarez <[email protected]>
    Division 9 <[email protected]>

    Cr David Law <[email protected]>
    Division 10 <[email protected]>

  • ====================================================

    This is the email content that will be sent.


  • To [recipient]

    Re: Artificial Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Technologies and Emissions

    I am writing directly to you as my elected representative to confirm my extreme concern about what appears to be the forced rollout of Telecommunications infrastructure in and around the Sunshine Coast without any obvious community consultation. Even more concerning, is my awareness this infrastructure is vast and will be constantly emitting artificial EMR upon my family and my self, into my home and our surroundings including our parks, beaches and natural environment.

    Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of this situation, is the fact I have not, at any moment, knowingly given my consent to be subjected to the threat of being harmed by what I understand is a category '2B carcinogen', is defined as a 'pollutant' and is also uninsurable (according to Lloyds of London who “refuses to cover wireless mobile illnesses directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise” - 22 Oct 2019).

    It is my understanding this technology, which emits artificial electromagnetic radiation, has not been proven safe to the standard of “scientific certainty”.

    I hereby call upon you as my elected representative to remember your 'declaration of office' and take all necessary steps to 'faithfully and impartially fulfill the duties of the office, in accordance with the local government principles under the Local Government Act 2009, to the best of ..your...judgment and ability.’

    It is my understanding as my elected representative you, also have certain principles, values and standards to which you are to abide.

    Councillors' principles, values and standards:
    The Queensland Government “Code of Conduct for Councillors in Queensland” (revised and approved 7 April 2020), tells us the LGA (Local Government Act) lays out five local government principles with which Councillors must comply while performing their roles as elected representatives.
    These principles are:

    1. Transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest
    2. Sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure, and delivery of effective services.
    3. Democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement.
    4. Good governance of, and by, local government
    5. Ethical and legal behaviour of Councillors and local government employees

    This Code of Conduct also provides a set of values that describe the types of conduct Councillors should demonstrate to ensure their compliance with the local government principles.
    These values include: committing to exercising proper diligence, care and attention when making decisions in the public interest and to clearly and accurately explain Council’s decisions.
    May I also remind you that this Code of Conduct sets out the standards of behaviour applying to all Councillors in Queensland. The behavioural standards relate to, and are consistent with, the local government principles and their associated values.

    The standards of behaviour are:

    1. RESPONSIBILITIES / Carry out RESPONSIBILITIES conscientiously and in the best interests of the Council and the community
    2. RESPECT / Treat people in a reasonable, just, RESPECTFUL and non-discriminatory way
    3. REPUTATION / Ensure conduct does not reflect adversely on the REPUTATION of Council

    As my elected representative, I am expecting you to adhere to the Councillors principles, values and standards above-mentioned before making any decisions whatsoever relating to existing and proposed installation of infrastructure which will emit artificial EMR, especially considering the risks relating to harm which have become a matter for much concern among scientific and medical professionals and many communities both here in Australia and around the world.

    A common response by various government organisations, is they rely on ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) for standards on, electromagnetic radiation levels and health. ARPANSA however only provides guidelines. ARPANSA does not provide a regulatory framework with enforcement or penalty provisions. Furthermore, ARPANSA do not have authority to provide medical advice as relates to the health of individuals and advises individuals to seek medical advice from ones own Medical Practicioner regarding the matter of health.

    ARPANSA also adds, that risks and risk management are the responsibility of industry and other government agencies.

    ARPANSA and ACMA admit, “The exposure limits in the ARPANSA Standard are only enforceable if they are referenced in other regulatory arrangements.”

    ARPANSA statement (December 2019);
    “How is radiation regulated in Australia? It’s a common question, and unfortunately the answer isn’t as straightforward as it could be. While ARPANSA is responsible for regulating Commonwealth entities that use or produce radiation, the wider regulation of radiation in Australia falls within the remit of state and territory governments, or in the case of telecommunications, with the Australian Communications and Media Authority. “ 

    “Regulation of RF (Radiofrequency) exposure is thorough in the area of communications where public exposure occurs, however, only the Commonwealth regulates RF emitting devices at workplaces. This oversight is limited by the specificity of the regulations where the focus is on devices rather than exposure. In this case, there is a clear limitation in being able to address other sources of RF exposure and a risk of regulations becoming outdated based on the technology focus of the oversight. All other jurisdictions (apart from Western Australia) have no specific regulations regarding RF exposure in the workplace.” Link:

    May I also refer you to “Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy and Health: Research Needs Technical Report 178 - June 2017” in which 13 recommendations were made for ongoing research on millimetre waves, studies on children, electromagnetic hypersensitivity etc..
    A statement by Steve J.Toneguzzo (B.E.Eng., Grad.Dip.Comp.Sc., M.Eng.Sc., CPEng., Fellow IEAUST., NER, APEC, IntPE(Aus)). Chair, Environment and Community Safe from Radiation Inc. [email protected]

    “The health risk posed by accumulation of radiation from multiple devices and exposure over time is not regulated (or even monitored) by any Commonwealth, State or industry body. There is a generally held erroneous belief that ARPANSA are the authority and ARPANSA is keeping the people and the environment safe. Apart from Commonwealth employees; the Nation’s workers (and school children) are NOT protected by WHS requirements in relation to non-ionising radiation. Countless parents, children, workers and councils have raised issues of concern over telecommunications powers and specifically 5G mm waves. The Parliamentary Inquiry is evidence of this.”

    I am aware you have been sent a significant amount of information on the subject of artificial EMR by many concerned voices among our community and that you also recently attended an online workshop. I trust, that you, as my elected representative charged with the duty of keeping yourself properly informed, will appreciate the contribution made by the many concerned members of the community and subsequently investigated the material provided.

    With such support being provided to you from the community it is expected you will be in a sufficiently informed position to apply your highest integrity in your elected function and ensure we are each being represented with impeccability, in any and all matters relating to the installation of any infrastructure including the emissions of artificial EMR which, will occur twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, year round.

    It is of particular importance to remind you of my genuine concern around the increased influx of the new small cell infrastructure that is proposed to be built close to private homes, public buildings such as libraries, parks also near childcare centres, places of worship, community centres, business buildings, street lamps, bus shelters etc.

    Request / Solution
    Given there is very considerable evidence emissions from this technology have not been proven safe, and do not satisfy even the most basic protocols of safety mitigation according to the matter of risk of harm and the threat of harm;

    "I hereby call or an immediate 'pause' in order for a precautionary approach to be applied, to enable proper independent investigation and thorough assessment of risk, amounting to the proven conclusion this technology is SAFE to the standard of “scientific certainty” for ALL long term".

    Looking forward to receiving your earliest reply.

    Thank you.
    Kind regards,