Here are the steps to submit the template letter (below) to the Regulatory Authority of Bermuda:

---

1. Scroll down and click here: Radiofrequency and 5G Safety – Regulatory Authority of Bermuda
2. Click here:  www.ra.bm
3. You will enter this page headed “Radiofrequency and 5G Safety“
4. Scroll down to number 3. and click Submit
5. The page will open to Submit Your Response
6. Customise and Paste the template letter (below) as your attachment

---

REPSONSE TEMPLATE

---

December  ____, 2020
 
 
Mr. Craig Davis
Regulatory Authority
1st Floor, Craig Appin House
8 Wesley Street
Hamilton HM11
Bermuda

cdavis@ra.bm
 
 
Dear Mr. Davis,

1. Do you agree that the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable within the United States, RF Exposure standards are appropriate for Bermuda? If not, what is a suitable alternative and why?

No,  I do not agree that the Federal Communications Commission RF exposure standards are appropriate for Bermuda, because they are outdated and only based on thermal effects from short-term exposure.  As a suitable alternative, we should look to countries such as Belgium, China, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia and Switzerland whose standards consider non-thermal effects, long-term exposure and vulnerable populations including children.
 

2. Do you agree that all antennae used by licensed sectoral providers should be registered with the RA? If not, what if anything should be registered with the RA e.g. location, direction (if applicable) and power level?

Yes, I agree that all antennae used by licensed sectoral providers should be registered with the RA.  This registry should be publicly available and easily accessible for full transparency.
 
3. Do you agree that the Moratorium established by the EGD should be removed? If not, should it be modified and how should it be modified and why?

No, I do not agree that the Moratorium established by the EGD on 5G should be removed, but instead made permanent for the following reasons:

• There has been no testing to ensure that 5G technology is safe for humans and the environment. Hundreds of high-quality peer-reviewed studies show serious adverse health effects of current (pre-5G) wireless technologies. We should be looking to reduce not increase exposure, see Resolution 1815 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the EU Council.  http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&
• 5G will use those same frequencies, plus it will employ new technologies and will add millimetre waves (mmWaves) to the mix. 5G technology does not replace but adds another layer to the existing wifi, 2, 3, 4G. A 2019 European Parliament Report notes, “The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beam-formed transmissions in both directions— from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable.” Because of this, that report concludes, “It is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.”
• Some people experience immediate health effects – Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS): The Canaries in the Coal Mine, as with other environmental exposures, some people are more susceptible (sensitive or intolerant) and overtly affected by wireless technologies.
• Research has demonstrated 5G and other wireless technologies impact wildlife, including birds, pollinators, and plants.
• 5G and wireless communications technology will have a considerable impact on climate change and pollution. A 5G base station is generally expected to consume roughly three times as much power as a 4G base station and wireless technologies will continue to consume at least 10 times more power than wired technologies.
• 5G networks will transmit massively more data wirelessly, increasing the risks to personal and business data privacy, providing opportunities to collect, process, harvest and use it for commercial, or nefarious purposes. Sensitive information can be easily transferred, leaked or hacked.
• Basic human rights are being infringed since most small cell antennas for the 5G network do not require public notification. Electric poles, and other structures close to people’s homes and workplaces, are candidates to host 5G small cell antennas.
• Scientists have warned that 5G technology could interfere with critical satellite data resulting in a 30% reduction in weather forecast accuracy and decreasing the ability to monitor the climate. NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agree. The Civil Aviation Authority in France is considering banning 5G near airports, out of concern that the specific bands being used would pose an aviation safety risk.  
• Concerns have been raised about the economic burden of increased health care costs, lost productivity, financial impacts of security and privacy breaches, degradation of weather forecast accuracy, and environmental damage. The European Environmental Authority ranked the impact of 5G as “high” due to “the possibility of unintended biological consequences.” Swiss Re and Lloyd’s have compared 5G and wireless to asbestos as “high” risk and most companies will not underwrite coverage for health damages.
• Better alternatives exist.  Solutions that are 100 times faster, more reliable, less vulnerable to security and privacy problems, consume significantly less energy, decrease the points of failure and substantially reduce the amount of personal and business data at risk are available, and must be pursued.
• Other regions of the world are taking action to stop the rollout of 5G technology. Bermuda’s current safety guidelines do not protect Bermudians and lag behind many other countries who have stronger and more protective policies.

 4. Do you agree that a real-time, publicly accessible Radiofrequency field intensity monitoring network should be deployed, and a dedicated fee be levied on relevant sectoral providers and end-users that use Radiofrequency spectrum to cover the cost of the deployment and ongoing maintenance?

Yes, I agree that a real-time, publicly accessible Radiofrequency field intensity monitoring network should be deployed, and a dedicated fee be levied on relevant sectoral providers that use Radiofrequency spectrum to cover the cost of the deployment and ongoing maintenance.  However, we do not agree that this fee should also be levied on end-users.

 5. Should mmWave networks and small-cell technologies be restricted or prohibited in Bermuda? If so, why and what alternatives should be used?

Yes, mmWave networks and small-cell technologies should be prohibited in Bermuda because they have not been proven safe for humans or the environment.  As an alternative, fibre to the home/business should be adopted as a safer and more reliable option.
 

Name_:__________________________________________________________

Email_:___________________________________________________________