Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697633358372.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee, My submission concerns itself with the exclusions to insurance contracts, under the head of ‘Deployment’, as they may pertain to the financial impacts of the rollout, and to the total cost of implementation and upgrades.

As risk management is a primary concern for all stakeholders, this submission focuses on the common exclusion of harm caused by electromagnetic fields due to the significant financial impact on the rollout.
As early as 2006, Marsh’s ‘Research Report, Limits of Liability 2006: Setting Limits in a World of Risk’, the report identified: ‘Asbestosis and electromagnetic fields are increasingly common exclusions.’ (see: Appendix B: Liability Program Structures, page 4) Such exclusion are now common across insurance policies, and tend to be worded very similarly, the following example is from ‘CFC Underwriters Ltd Policy Document: Insurance for Technology Companies’1, ‘Exclusions We will not: 1. a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim; or 2. b) incur any costs and expenses; or 3. c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you; or 4. d) pay any medical expenses: … 48.
Electromagnetic fields directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.’ 1 https://eperils.com/pol/cfc-tech-usv25.pdf .

Page 9, accessed 01/11/2019.

Also see: Insurance for Architects and Engineers: ProSurance A&T Policy Document by CFC Underwriters https://thedigitalsurvivor.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/insuranceaewordingcanadav17feb2015.pdf At page 7.
Inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in AustraliaSubmission 534 Again, in Marsh’s 2014 ‘Insurance and Self Insurance Market Estimate, Transgrid: Quantification of Self-Insurance Costs and Estimation of Insurance Premiums 2014/2015 to 2018/20192, the report states at pages 18 and 19: ‘We consider it credible that highly infrequent events have the potential to result in liability claims that exceed limits of liability for the relevant insurance policy.
Through consultation with TransGrid the following have been highlighted as potential high severity / low probability risks faced by the company: o o A bushfire event originating from a TransGrid asset resulting in significant third party damage Liability resulting from interaction with third party infrastructure Failure to supply o o Terrorism o Long tailed liability, for example third party or employee exposure to asbestos or Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF)’ Further, in Appendix C, at page 1, Marsh identifies: ‘The two key risks to TransGrid in relation to EMF are:  That a linkage is found between EMF and adverse health impacts such as childhood leukaemia and other cancers; and  That the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) draft standard on EMF may inhibit TransGrid’s ability to undertake work, due to the potential exposure to EMF of its employees and contractors.
‘ It is important to note, that the key risks, based on establishing causality, arise if: 1) There is a linkage found between EMF and adverse health impacts, or, 2) There is a change in ARPANSA EMF standard.

Regarding the latter, it is notable that there appears to be no ‘Medical Doctors’ at ARPANSA, noting that whilst Dr Ken Karipidis has a PhD in epidemiology, he is a physics graduate.
2 See: https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/TransGrid%20-%20Appendix%20T%20- %20Insurance%20and%20Self-Insurance%20Market%20Estimate%20-%20May%202014.pdf Inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in AustraliaSubmission 534 A common feature of insurance benchmarking in the area of emerging risk is the comparative analysis between asbestos and EMF, notably due to latency periods, also resulting in lengthy complex legal cases.
The potential significant financial risk has been acknowledged by Lloyd’s of London in the Emerging Risks Team Report: ‘The impact on the insurance industry in general, and Lloyd’s in particular, is well known.

The predicted cost of asbestos to the insurance industry is still rising.
The UK Asbestos Working Party Update 2009 stated that the undiscounted cost of UK mesothelioma related claims to UK insurance market from 2009-2040 would be over £8bn, which is double their estimate of £4bn presented in a 2004 paper.

Long latency periods and increasing life expectancy mean mesothelioma claims are likely to be with us for many years.
The comparison here with EMF is obvious – if it is proven to cause cancer, then the injuries may not become clear until many years after the exposure due to similarly long latency periods.
The danger with EMF is that, like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years.’ 3 As it relates to the realising of risk, it is notable to mention, in the US, that the doctrine of conflict pre-emption effectively bars complaints for exposures emitted within government set limits, as the remedy would take the effect of lowering SAR standards.
However, the doctrine is not effective if manufacturers are found to have been fixing the results of the standards tests, or to have suppressed evidence that EMF does cause harm, in which case they may become liable.4 On a personal level, as a mother of two small children, I am concerned about the health risks associated with deployment of 5G in Australia.

I became aware of the health risks of man-made EMF and wireless radiation when I became pregnant with our first child.
At that point my partner and I purchased EMF meters to help us to create an EMF sanctuary for our unborn child.

We made the choice then to hardwire our Internet, use a corded landline and avoid all wireless devices/appliances in our home, in addition to those emitting high magnetic and electrical fields.

We have also avoided the installation of a smart meter.

We have carefully selected a school for our children that does not use wireless technology in the classrooms.
We have also chosen to live in a rural area away from the high EMF environment of the cities to protect our children's health and wellbeing.

3 Lloyd’s Emerging Risks Team Report: Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Recent Developments, 2010, at page 17 https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-risk-insight/risk- reports/library/technology/emf Accessed 01/11/2019.

4 Murray v Motorola 2009.

US case.


https://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1499482.html Accessed 01/11/2019 Inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in AustraliaSubmission 534 There are serious health risks associated with the proliferation of wireless technologies.

It has been known for decades that RF/MW radiation produces non- thermal biological effects5.
Thousands of scientific papers indicate harm.6 5G millimeter-waves will be layered upon existing 4G, 3G and 2G technologies, significantly increasing our chronic exposure to wireless radiation, and taking away our basic human right to live in a home that is not being beamed 24/7 with wireless radiation.

With 5G technology there are some very serious issues to be concerned about, from a health standpoint, and from a surveillance and human rights standpoint.
I find it alarming that 5G is being pushed at a time when we should be reconsidering and reducing our wireless exposures, not ramping them up.

Yours sincerely, 5 https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Glaser_1972_shortened.pdf 6 https://bioinitiative.org/ Inquiry into the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in AustraliaSubmission 534