JOINT STATEMENT BY GREENROCK & BAST (dated November 10, 2020)
We have reviewed the Advisory Panel bios published on the RA website and noted that the panel is heavily weighted with industry professionals. We are also deeply concerned with the lack of representation from several key areas, including health and environment.
In the interest of keeping our communities safe, it is necessary for public health to be well represented on the advisory panel. We recognize Dr. Weldon’s substantial credentials, however, we would also like to see the
involvement of an expert in epidemiology or toxicology. The panel also lacks representation from our environmental groups or professionals from our environmental departments. Having a diverse panel which
includes independent health and safety experts is of paramount importance to arriving at policy designed to deliver the best possible outcome for our people, something that we will be challenged to achieve should we
rely solely on professionals from within the industry.
Of further concern is the inclusion of Dr. of Psychology, Rodney Croft, something we consider to be a clear conflict of interest. Telstra, the largest telecommunications company i n Australia, funds the Australian Centre
for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research of which Dr. Croft is the Director. Time and time again it has been proven that science funded by industry, as opposed to independent research, produces biased outcomes. This
raises legitimate suspicion surrounding Dr. Croft’s studies and his capacity to advise the RA objectively. In addition, his role as Chair of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection presents even more cause for concern. Recent reports, such as the one linked to this statement, clearly outline examples of ICNIRP ignoring science, which has proven the harmful effects of RF (Radio Frequencies) and EMF
(Electromagnetic Fields), in favor of persisting with safety limits, that according to independent scientists and health experts, no longer protect public health. In light of these revelations, we encourage the RA to remove
Dr. Croft from the Advisory Panel. Although the decision may appear challenging, swift execution is required to preserve the integrity of the RA and the public consultation process they have initiated on our behalf. There
are many independent experts free from controversy and industry funding, who are far more appropriate for participating on the Advisory Panel. The inclusion of such persons would bring a more balanced view and
ensure that the panel has the data necessary to make informed and unbiased recommendations.
We are also concerned with where the final decision-making responsibilities lie. When the Advisory Panel makes their recommendation, rather than deciding on their own, we feel that it is imperative for the RA to share this information with other key policymakers to reach a collective decision. With this in mind, we strongly urge the RA to collaborate with the Ministry of Health, the Environmental Health Unit, and the Department of
Planning, when determining whether 5G technology is truly appropriate for Bermuda and its people.
