Few of the general public I speak to have any awareness of the possible health harms of radio-frequency radiation such as 5G or Wi-Fi. Could this be because Government and mainstream media have colluded to ignore these risks? In fact, the Court of Appeal has recently given permission for a judicial review challenging the Government for “failure to give adequate information to the public about the risks of 5G and to explain the absence of a process for investigation of any adverse health effects”. This hearing, led by Michael Mansfield QC will take place on February 6th and 7th in London.
Politicians, however, are undeterred in continuing with the proliferation of electronic communication, now in the form of 5G. The Government states that it has a “clear ambition for the U.K. to be a global leader in the next generation of mobile technology, 5G”, and that there is “enormous potential to boost productivity and grow the economy” through it. It’s worth noting that almost all independent commentators on 5G suggest that the motives for its launch are entirely economic, not humanitarian. Certainly I don’t know anyone who is enthusiastic about smart cities, smart motorways, driverless cars or the intensification of electronic communications in healthcare settings, for example.
Regarding the health risks of 5G, the Government states, “there should be no consequences for public health”. Does that reassure you? What evidence is being relied upon? Isn’t there just a hint of unfounded optimism in that statement? Given my own health issues discussed here, I am highly sceptical, but, aware of my own lack of medical and scientific knowledge, I have enlisted the help of Professor John W. Frank, retired Chair of Public Health Research and Policy at Edinburgh University and an experienced epidemiologist/physician. I will summarise his 2021 peer-reviewed article entitled, “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” Professor Frank has kindly reviewed and checked the scientific accuracy of my work.
Before outlining Professor Frank’s article, I would like to clarify some terms. Radio-frequency radiation (RFR) refers to communication signals from Wi-Fi routers, mobile phones, cordless phones, suburban towers, masts and panels on buildings (including hospitals), bluetooth devices, smart meters, Fitbits, smart watches, baby monitors, game consoles, smart diapers (nappies) and more. RFR may also be referred to as electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or non-ionising radiation. In clarification of the frequencies used for 5G, a Government Guide explains that most 5G technology uses already existing frequencies, but the higher frequencies of 26GHz and 40 GHz (millimetre wave) are likely to be allocated soon for commercial use. I note that 60 GHz is already in use for 5G testbeds such as the one in Liverpool.
I now come to the essence of Professor Frank’s article. He explains that as well as higher frequencies, “5G will also make use of very new — and thus relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety — supportive technology (including pulsing, beaming, phased arrays and multiple-input and mulitple-output (MIMO)) to enable a higher data transmission capacity”. Because the new higher frequencies do not penetrate objects, signal boosters or ‘small cell’ antennae will be required on every second or third lamppost, thus creating a dense transmission network, which is likely to mean a substantial increase to overall population exposure.
Current controversy as to the health impact of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is evidenced by reviews by public health agencies and others with widely differing results and recommendations. On the one hand, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, while others such as the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have set very high (lax) safety exposure guidelines, which are based on the results of behavioural studies involving the exposure of five monkeys and eight rats to RFR over a period of one hour. Behaviour disruption was linked to increase in body temperature. This is controversial because studies have found that there may be health impacts without any heating of tissue and because the studies did not take account of continuous exposure or possible chronic or long-term effects.
Independent radiation and health scientists have expressed concern about the rollout of 5G because of the likely huge increase in exposure to a wide range of frequencies and because there is hardly any evidence on the safety of 5G-specific RFR emissions, while there is, to quote Professor Frank, a “growing body of research suggesting harms from other current RFR exposures, which have been studied for much longer”. Further references can be found in Professor Frank’s article.
Several international groups such as the EMF Scientist Appeal and the 5G Appeal have asked governments for a moratorium on 5G until more research has been done and for better safety exposure guidelines. Certain countries have taken some precautions such as banning Wi-Fi in pre-schools and some areas have banned 5G antennae. The USA, U.K. and some parts of Europe have followed the ICNIRP guidelines but other countries have adopted guidelines which are 10-fold or 100-fold lower (stricter).
Professor Frank then identifies four areas of “scientific uncertainty and concern”. The first is the lack of a clear definition of 5G internationally as regards frequencies to be used. Equally confusing is the “complex set of special signal modulations, pulses, polarisation, phased arrays and novel equipment designs — for example, ‘massive MIMO antennas’ — which represent the cutting edge technologies that accompany 5G system installation. He states that it is “highly likely that each of these many forms of transmission causes somewhat different biological effects — making sound, comprehensive and up-to-date research on those effects virtually impossible”. These difficulties are compounded because many of these technologies are protected by patent, so that researchers cannot know their precise technical nature.
The second area that worried Professor Frank concerns the preponderance of laboratory studies showing the negative biological effects of RFR, in which, however, there are many knowledge gaps. As regards recent innovative technology around 5G, studies with the same combination of radio frequencies, modulation and pulse patterns have not been replicated (replication being the “hallmark of reliable research”). Despite that, biological effects are remarkably similar irrespective of the combination used, according to a high quality review. Another review states that “some of the new RFR technologies are so new that biological scientists have not been able to keep up — that is, no studies yet exist of these new technologies’ biological effects”. One Israeli study throws serious doubt on the theory that 5G is less dangerous than its predecessors supposedly because it only penetrates the outside layer of skin.
Importantly however, the reviews reveal “a growing body of evidence that RFR exposures produce effects spanning reproductive, oncological (cancer-related), neuropsychiatric, skin, eye and immunological body systems. In addition, there are many fundamental effects at the subcellular level, in terms of oxidation, DNA alteration, gene expression and bacterial antibiotic resistance”. These are unrelated to heating effects. Professor Frank then discusses the widely cited National Toxicology Program studies using rats, which link RFR exposure to cancer, but he finds too many methodological weaknesses to allow a clear interpretation of the results. His conclusion is that laboratory studies “cannot replace high-quality human epidemiological studies” i.e., studies of the precise relationship between exposure and disease in large numbers of persons at different levels of exposure.
The third area concerns epidemiological studies. In 2019, an international expert team led by Canada’s most senior cancer epidemiologist Professor Tony Miller (Miller et al.) summarised the “human epidemiological evidence linking human breast and brain tumours, male reproductive outcomes and child neurodevelopmental conditions to RFR exposures” and found “compelling evidence of carcinogenesis, especially in the brain and acoustic nerve, as well as the breast, from strong RFR exposures to previous generations of mobile phone transmissions”.
However these results do not apply to novel 5G systems, as this type of epidemiological study designed to prove causation requires “decades of follow-up to detect delayed health effects, such as most cancers.”
In his review, Miller called for an update on the IARC classification of RFR as “possibly carcinogenic” and predicted that it would at least be changed to “probable” on the basis of the latest evidence. I note that the IARC review will now not take place until 2024 at the earliest. 5G will not be risk assessed by IARC until 2025.
The fourth area of concern is the unscientific basis for present health protection guidelines as well as conflicts of interest on scientific advisory panels, such as ICNIRP. The Swedish epidemiologist Hardell suggests that ICNIRP’s narrow focus on the heating of tissues being the only measure of harm is due to its pro-industry bias. This focus has remained unchanged for 25 years in the face of widespread criticism by other scientists. An important article from October 2022 has highlighted the 14 false assumptions made by ICNIRP in creating its guidelines. The article and a slide summary can be found here.
Professor Frank also highlights Hardell’s evidence of the number of cross-appointments held by six members of the WHO IARC Monograph Group across five major international advisory panels on the health effects of non-ionising radiation as well as their strong personal links to the telecommunications industry. These observations are confirmed by an article written last year about the self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines. In addition, a 90-page document written by two MEPs has confirmed all these concerns about ICNIRP.
In conclusion, as a result of his review of the evidence, Professor Frank “is convinced that RFR may well have serious human health effects” and that “there is also increasing scientific evidence for RFR effects of ecological concern in other species both plant and animal”, though reviewing this would be outside the scope of his expertise. He states that “several nations’ regulatory apparatus for telecommunications innovations such as the 5G rollout is not fit for purpose” and seems to have been captured by vested interests.
Professor Frank states that, as regards 5G, “there is a sound basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’” due to “significant doubt about the safety of this new and potentially widespread human exposure” and that there should be “a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspected adverse health effects”.
This article was written in collaboration with Professor John W. Frank, retired Chair of Public Health Research and Policy at Edinburgh University.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Thank you for this very informative, and alarming piece. Three years ago I would have probably been somewhat dismissive of the concerns raised, if I am honest, but now having seen how easily commercial interests capture the regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect us, this is very worrying indeed.
I’m in the same boat as you, I would have considered this tin-foil hat territory prior to Covid but the realisation of just how lax these so-called public health ‘experts’ are is alarming.
Tin-foil hats would probably actually be a great idea at this stage.
The more we see the more we can tell that TPTB (whoever it involves) do not give a Flying F- – K about us mere mortals !! That is a provable fact now & has always been the case if you check history !
Did you also see how easily you let the political rulers take away your Rights?
Can’t you see it us exactly the same science-free panic-mongering that got us into the CoVid disaster, because the population listened to people like the author?
Don’t listen to ‘Chairs’, they are no more informative than tables.
Radiation at all frequencies and at far, far higher concentrations is pummeling the earth every day from an enormous fusion reactor about 93 million miles from us. And it’s been there all my life, at least.
What worries me about 5G is how those in power and our “elected” lawmakers will inevitably get their grubby mitts on it for things like super high definition video surveillance. And how the people use the tech against themselves. Look at how they have turned the motorcar against themselves. Look at how enslaved people have allowed themselves to become by smartphones.
Expecting the authorities to do good science to show they are thinking about and care for our safety is naïve, anyway. Educate yourself. Don’t beg for protection from lawmakers. That’s what keeps getting us in a mess.
Learn about low power devices. Start with semiconductors and the wonderful component called the transistor, invented many decades ago by Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley.
You are right and, of course, we have evolved to be nourished by that radiation rather than killed by it, if we get the dosage right. However, it is quite a leap to assume that every modality of radiation is, therefore, safe. And you are right that we shouldn’t expect the authorities to protect us, but I feel that is a relatively recent phenomenon. There are many instances in the past where regulators did act in good faith and on the basis of science. Otherwise more people would be electrocuted, die in fires, have buildings fall on them and so on.
Maybe you’re an optimist on those matters, but there have been many gross mistakes in the past in industry. E.g. I’ve got an old fashioned kids encyclopedia that contains an article about how good asbestos is from a safety point of view; no risk at all (or so it said). I guess most of you know the aftermath of that one.
I think there is a difference between risks that we were ignorant of and ones that are deliberately minimised and covered up. Now that we know that asbestos is dangerous there are actually very stringent rules for dealing with it. I think the question is, how do we learn from past errors and build in precautions for dealing with emerging technologies, whether that be a new airborne particulate risk, or a possible risk such as 5G. I think in the past I would have had some confidence that these risks were being considered, but I have lost all that confidence with the Covid fiasco.
No one said the radiation from the Sun is perfectly safe. I do not subscribe to the “it’s natural therefore it must be good” school of thought. But the issue of scale is lost on most, obviously. People still believe we are approaching something called “Peak Oil”.
“Peak Oil”, when we have more than enough oil to deep fry the Earth many times over, lol.
As mentioned above… educate yourself.
I’m not sure I care for your tone. The author is raising legitimate concerns about a new technology that clearly has not been adequately tested or evaluated. It isn’t ‘science-free panic mongering’ because the opposite financial incentives are in place. Nobody stands to gain by restricting this new technology, even if it were found to be questionable whereas clearly a lot of people profited and made political capital out of the Covid fiasco.
The author is raising concerns. Concerns are neither legitimate nor illegitimate.
What is legitimate is that the author is raising concerns. Raising concerns must always be… legitimate.
Unless it is raising concerns about untested, unnecessary, novel medication. That, of course, in the New Normal, is illegitimate behaviour
From a USA legal perspective, a “concern” is an irrational belief not based on facts and law and when your public officials use that term they are legally dismissing your claims. it is a common trick. It must be immediately countered with sited laws and facts to keep the subject legitimate.
The frequency is only one factor that can make radio-frequency microwave (RF/MW) radiation harmful. One of the safety assumptions is that the photos do not combine, but these technologies concentrate them by the same techniques that turns light into a laser. Multi-photo technology can be exponentially more ionizing. If you look at the sun too long you will go blind. If you stay out it in too long without cover, you will get burned. And if you are also being microwaved that will happen sooner. Proof of harm, including proof of DNA damage is on file in the US Federal Ninth District Court with 11,000 pages of more harm. Case 20-1025 EHT/CHD v FCC re: FCC Order 19-126 re: the FCC’s Insufficient Analysis of the Adequacy of the RF/MW Radiation Exposure Guideline
Yes, the sun is deadly if you’re not careful.
Nothing can be called safe.
But…but…wireless EMF radiation is different, because reasons. It is pulsed/coherent/microwave/whatever, and the harms are INVERSELY proportional to the dose. Just like homeopathy, in fact. There is thus absolutely NO safe level of exposure, the only safe level of exposure is ZERO. Not Net Zero, but TRUE ZERO. So merely reducing the dose is not enough. It must be eliminated entirely. And who really needs replication of studies anyway?
Sarcasm of course. But this is a rather accurate paraphrase of the actual junk science arguments from the Arthur Firstenberg crowd.
Not to say there isn’t any cause for concern at all, but we do need to keep things in perspective all the same.
Actually, Arthur advocates the same ideas you are expressing, that even very low levels are harmful and it all must be eliminated. He has shut down safe tech meetings with his insistence as most are just looking for survivable levels at this point. But God’s Love is real an and we may one day have such freedom and harmony.
You’d have to eliminate the Sun, lu.
You don’t want to do that… do you?!
I have EMS and what I am looking for are the survivable levels. Most safe tech people advocate for wireline telecommunications with low power mobile phone calls and texts. Wireless facilities should have goodly setbacks and power limits. Wireless High Speed Internet is a BIG FAIL and too toxic. And we are talking about Radio-Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation, which is man-made and of an entirely different frequency range than the sun. You have no idea what I have found out about the energies in our world as we are taught the tip of the iceberg. Man-made RF/MW radiation can carry other energies with the photons, just like dirty electricity can carry high frequency noise on it’s waves. That is why experimental results are a bit inconsistent as there are other variables. There are mitigating technologies for both problems. The Stetzer filter for dirty electricity. Then, look at the Memon noise cancellation technology for “cleaning” the photons. I have a Memonizer on my car and I and other people with EMF feel some relief. This makes the photons somewhat less harmful, but does not address all mechanisms of harm. I have asked Memon why the industry is not required to use such harm mitigating technology on their production and they had no good explanation. But the obvious reason is they would have to admit to the harm, to acknowledge the need for mitigation. Ignorance and censorship kill. I am considering putting it on my house, but that is quite costly and difficult. Then there is Subtle Energy…
“behavioural studies involving the exposure of five monkeys and eight rats to RFR over a period of one hour”
So if your monkey doesn’t heat up after an hour your perfectly safe?!!
Sounds deeply technical and scientific, bring it on!
Cooking Standards.
I’m sure 5G will be completely safe and effective
Now where have we heard that before?
Thanks. The cheque is in the post, Nicholas.
The rich and powerful are generally able to isolate themselves from the harmful effects of the mad policies they pursue, harder with 5G – though I guess some of them probably did get covid vaccines so some of them at least are mad as well as bad.
To paraphrase Lewis’ Trilemma, they are either Mad, Bad, or God. AKA Lunatics, Liars, or Lord. Though they may think they are the latter, they are in reality one or both of the first two.
If you’re going to write this sort of thing, please get the terminology right. As an example, MIMO stands for Multiple Input Multiple Output and refers to mathematical signal processing of signals to allow multiple information streams on the same radio frequency.
Note also that the higher frequency signals have inherently higher path loss due to the reducing effective aperture of the antenna as frequency increases, in addition one reason that 60GHz is chosen is because it is on a strong oxygen absorption line which allows frequency reuse at short distances.
If people want to panic about this it would be wise to compare it with the proven bad effects of mRNA rather than assuming health problems that have repeatedly failed to materialize in the huge experiment where a lot of people use radio technology every day, namely the mobile communications industry.
I’ll mention double blind testing at this point, because such studies have not found a link between RF fields and sensitivity in humans.
There have been comparative studies in New York in blocks with and without 5G that indicate issues arising merely from 5G. I think it was someone called Pri Bandara.
I may be in the minority but I’m acutely affected by certain celular/wireless technologies.
Exactly, Tyrbiter.
There are 11,000 pages of proof of harm on file in the US court from when they threw out the FCC Human Exposure Guidelines in August 2021. Case 20-1025 EHT/CHD v FCC re: FCC Order 19-126 re: the FCC’s Insufficient Analysis of the Adequacy of the RF/MW Radiation Exposure Guideline, The FCC has not replied and likely will not as the proof of harm includes harm to DNA. Furthermore 5G failed to deliver on speed competitive with fiber and they have know that since 2021 also. Harm is done. Harm to life and property. Children, families… they do not care. It is all about control and dominance.
Unfortunately the case you site is just asking the DC circuit court to compel the FCC to re-look at their current guidelines. As both sides are represented in court I don’t see how you can say “The FCC has not replied”.
The DC Circuit court opinion is that the FCC should review it’s guidelines, oh and the court decision is 44 pages.
The 11,000 pages must be somewhere else, perhaps you can provide a reference for us to find them?
The Court remanded them back to the FCC. The guidelines revert back to the former ones from 30 years ago that were based on when a large man starts to cook and frequencies 6 GHz and under and none of the multi-photon technologies. So that excludes a whole lot. The liability then transfers to the carriers, local permitting authorities and end users. The reason the FCC is non-responsive is that they do not want the liablility and are not even the appropriate regulating authority. There was another case is 2018, Mozilla where they abdicated responsibility for high speed internet. Furthermore, their Guidelines themselves contain the poison pill as they stated they did not base their guidelines on the science provided by public input but based it on their program goals. And then, also in 2021, failed to meet their program goals. They state the levels are millions to billions of times over those the public information showed caused human health effects. It was always a set-up as the FCC also changed the accounting rules that have allowed the industry to loot public utility funds. This is ongoing. Now they are collapsing the liability back on to the public . Old game. Find out more on the blog of reject5g dot info in the post 5G Balderdash. The 11,000 pages is available at the Environmental Health Trust Website. Dr. Devra Davis actually appeared on Fox -Tucker Carson displaying it and discussing it and you can find that link at Reject5G dot info – post Listen to Devra. I am on lunch break that is ending and will post information on a more direct link later.
The documents are located on the US Court PACER system and links to the Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense pages that have the documents for download are on the Blog of Reject5G dot info in a post, “Listen to Devra”
Ha. We have 1G, irregularly. No signal unless I put my mobile upstairs by a window, and then it may involved holding the mobile out of the window for a couple of minutes to get a signal. Hence voice calls a waste of time.
We have 5G on our router. Disabled.
One also wonders about the effects on insect life.
It is really welcome that DailySceptic is addressing this issue – and ‘electrosmog’ in general. It is something of concern for the World Council for Health (see here).
I see a general depletion in insect life – bees, butterflies etc – that has been happening for some time now. So I feel there is already some reason for concern – even before 5G.
To be fair, that can also be a result of pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids.
This was a predicted consequence of 5G and it is my observation that it coincided with deployments in my area. When they disappeared most rapidly I also developed nerve and muscle pain that many in my area also experienced. It also measured increased RF/MW radiation and high fequency noise on my incoming electrical supply. Mitigations have given me some relief, but wildlife has no where to hide. Dreadful. It is all dreadful.
I’m quite sensitive to most things (celular mobile phone use gives me a headache and I start to become forgetful/have difficulty forming sentences after an hour of use) so ymmv, that said when I was setting up a series of 2.4Ghz point-to-point wireless radio transmitters in a warehouse (prior to delivery to an airfield) I started to feel very unwell!
Headache, irritability, forgetfulness, unease etc.
Something to do with how the liquid in your brain is vibrated apparently?
I have little or no RF sensitivity, but I am glad that people like you – and several others that I know – report their experiences. You may be equivalent to the canaries in the coal mines. Electrosmog may be having gradual long-term effects on the population as a whole that are passing unnoticed. It needs to be properly investigated.
I have a couple of detectors – a Safe and Sound Pro II and a TriField TF2. On initial measurements, an RF-sensitive friend seems to detect when the levels are high. I need to perform more comparisons to clarify.
Interestingly, I sometimes find that levels out in the open – within sight of large arrays on the tops of blocks of flats – are many, many times higher that I measure 2m away on my WiFi router. The TF2 can go off the scale even 200m away from such arrays!
75% of those reporting symptoms are women, but men’s DNA is as harmed as well. The best studies of proof of DNA harm are done on male sperm. The Environmental Health Trust has a very good library of the pier reviewed studies that were used in Case 20-1025 EHT/CHD v FCC re: FCC Order 19-126 re: the FCC’s Insufficient Analysis of the Adequacy of the RF/MW Radiation Exposure Guideline where the FCC had their guidelines thrown out of court.
I hate to think what power level these PtP devices were radiating if they did that. In decades of RF work I have never found any physical effect that couldn’t be explained by increased metabolic rate while mounting antennas and tightening up clamps etc.
But I will remind you of the dangers of higher energy photons and higher powers. My favourite warning sign, as seen in an optics lab:
“Danger!: Do not look into laser beam with remaining eye!”
Very well said. I also say, “Do not stare at the hideous cell tower.” Increased metabolic rate is it? Are you saying your heart is effected?
To protect your heart, there is the Q-Link SRT3 pendant you can order through amazon for $100. See the work of Dr. Robert Young for how it works to protect the biofield of the heart.
There is an epidemic of electromagnetic sensitivity reported. Check our a website called WeAreTheEvidence
There may be some confusion over terminology – 5G refers to 5th generation data transmission technology. The frequency used determines the speed at which data can be sent – the higher the frequency the higher the data rate.
Current 5G networks tend to use lower frequencies (eg mobile telephone network use frequencies less than 1GHz).
Domestic routers use 2.4 and 5GHz and many will know that the higher frequency enables higher data rates but at reduced range and attenuation from internal walls etc.
At the high end of 5G transmissions, which I think are still in the experimental phase there is likely to be more risk, as the article states.
However, as the article also points out the signals do not penetrate objects which is why there need to be repeater every few dozen yards. This will apply to people as well as objects.
Whilst there is a risk which is as yet unquantified, we need to avoid scaremongering. We have all seen how fear can be used to drive opinion, despite what the actual science says.
I should add that careful antenna design can ensure that the bulk of transmissions are essentially point to point and do not radiate in all directions equally. So for example, in the lamp-post to lamp-post model mentioned, the energy can be beamed several metres off the ground, well clear of most people. Only lamp lighters might be at risk.
Please get a meter and measure that. There is beam spread and electropollution.
Exactly, faffor
Excuse me, but 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz penetrate the body. The average depth of penetration of fields is, for example, approximately 1.5 – 0.5 cm in muscletissue in the lower GHzband (frequency range 0.5 – 2.5 GHz, used in mobile communication and microwave ovens), and above 10 GHz, it is only about 0.2 mm and less. Even penetrating the skin, which is the largest organ of our body, has health effects
The ultra-health stance of this article (really a subset of environmentalism, as shown by the references to claimed adverse effects on plants and animals as well as humans) is one of the main reasons that we are in such a quasi-totalitarian and economically negative mess in the UK.
Rising to ever-increasing prominence in the last few decades this dictatorial ideology and movement underpins outright bans or suppressions of smoking, sugary foods, alcohol, fracking, fossil fuelled power stations, internal combustion vehicles, gas boilers, the ‘Net Zero’ agenda in general, and indeed COVID lockdowns, business and school closures and mask / vaccine mandates.
It is a fundamentally selfish philosophy based on the concept that if some activity or substance might at any level or at any time in the future harm an individual’s health or well-being it should simply be banned immediately. No attempt at an overall cost-benefit analysis is ever carried out, see the list above. That is why societies that fall under its sway end up in accelerating downward economic and democracy-destroying spirals.
The author’s initial suspicions about 5g and RFR in general were apparently triggered by living near to a transmitter, two neighbours dying of a disease with no proven connection to these circumstances, and herself suffering flu-like symptoms for a few weeks (but not the entirety of the time living there) – ie completely anecdotal evidence.
All the scientific research projects mentioned here that came to mildly questioning conclusions about the safety of these technologies are outliers – Cancer Research UK, The UK Heath Safety Agency, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) and the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) have all found no evidence whatsoever of genuine health concerns.
And even if some relatively minor or rare adverse effects were ever detected that does not mean that such overall vastly useful and beneficial technologies (including re health, the NHS would grind to a halt overnight if it couldn’t make use of RFR emitting tools) should simply be got rid of.
Just about every activity and process in life carries some risks (to give just one obvious example getting in a car) indeed some jobs – policing, fire-fighting, search and rescue, mining, construction etc etc – are hugely dangerous. Imagine if all those who carried out these courageous and vital roles simply gave up on a health and safety basis.
Looking at the overall picture human beings are all going to suffer ill health, accidents, and eventually die at some point and attempts to overcome these facts of life are both futile and self-defeating.
When you go to the absolute extreme of risk-aversion known as ‘the Precautionary Principle’ (as advocated here) – ‘even though there is no conclusive evidence of a substance, process or activity causing harm it should be banned because you cannot prove that it never will’ (an outright impossible task) – you end up destroying everything that makes life worthwhile, indeed life itself.
Not to mention the dangers of motor vehicle technology, which has a proven track record of deaths and serious injury.
I am also aware of a number of cyclists of my acquaintance who have suffered serious, and in one case life threatening, injuries that did not involve motor vehicles, so that alternative is not a safe option.
Re ‘Not to mention the dangers of motor vehicle technology, which has a proven track record of deaths and serious injury.’
I did point to getting into a car as an example of a genuinely risky activity – but one which on balance brings about overwhelming pluses in terms of freedom of movement, economic benefits etc. and which individuals should be entirely free to carry out without being interfered with by the ultra-health and safety / Green movement and its Big Brother governmental enforcers.
Re ‘I am also aware of a number of cyclists of my acquaintance who have suffered serious, and in one case life threatening, injuries that did not involve motor vehicles, so that alternative is not a safe option.’
That was part of my underlying point – never mind specific activities simply being alive carries risks, and attempts to overcome this reality are entirely futile and self-defeating.
I’ve never advocated banning mobile phones however I’ve learnt (before the advent of wireless calling) that extended use (say 45+ mins on a call) would lead to me feeling dizzy and not with it, having a headache and becoming increasingly irritable whilst finding it increasingly harder to form sentences or retrieve the words I needed.
Going back aways I used to regularly end calls with my gf due to wanting to kill something, despite the conversation itself being quite enjoyable.
I just stopped using mobiles, the symptoms went away quite quickly after cessation of the call. That said if it was doing long term harm I’d very much like to know regardless of how useful the technology might otherwise be.
I of course have no problem with that whatsoever. Though I disagree with your assessment of the risks posed by mobile phones etc individuals should be entirely free to steer clear of anything that they personally might consider to be dangerous.
It is the excessive and dictatorial / governmental banning approach to health and safety being advocated here which I am challenging.
I know what you mean Paul, but in all honesty I have suffered these symptoms with wired phones well before the mobile phone was a mass market device. It’s to do with holding a handset to your head, muscle tension, heat due to increased blood flow and lack of cooling of the external ear (the pinna).
I have worked as an RF engineer for 40 years and held an amateur radio licence for nearly 45 years. Any effects of RF are minimal in comparison with the frustration of engineering where the tasks are difficult and on the limits of the technology. And then there’s management…
We have been mislead about RF/MW microwave safety. They have know since RADAR in the 1950’s. In the 1970’s the US government three letter agencies conspired to disregard what they knew about the harm, which is substantial, to persue the technology for the power it gave them over people. The Document has been declassified. You can find it on the blog of reject5g dot info in a post, Lets Declare and Epidemic of Amends
5G !!.. Nothing to see here ! + News just in – USA to Ban or maybe they have done it already, the manufacture of Gas Hobs , they must be so much more of a risk than their 5G surveillance kit !!!
Not this nonsense again! It’s ignorance of physics.
‘Chair’ of Public Health Research and Policy – there’s a non-job for you.
Unless you are very close to a source of high intensity, short wavelength, high energy electromagnetic radiation, the inverse square law takes care of your safety.
We are continually bombarded by electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, Space, TV/Radio transmitters, RADAR, cell phones, the wiring in our homes, electricity cables.
Where are the corpses?
Sir, the killer is silent and others are blamed for the crime. We were locked away from the bug while the worst of the deployments were made. Have you not noticed people are dying suddenly and the are blaming now the vax? You are being aged more rapidly as your life is quietly taken from you. As 4G Restless Leg Syndrome becomes 5G Stiff Person Syndome, you would be wise to find out more. Try the Environmental Health Trust who succesfully challenged the FCC in the USA
So the gist of it is that 5G isn’t dangerous then?
I know that sticking your head in a microwave can’t be good for you and that 5g operates on a similar frequency but generally the 5g signal is far far weaker and so does no harm?
Im just a layman and like most don’t know enough about RF and its effects to pass any serious comment but , I do need good reliable information to ease my worries about, to me, unknown technologies
What you need is DATA. It’s up to you, no-one else, to parse those data and create information for yourself.
The last thing we need (again) is government approved information. The lawmakers will jump in to “help” everyone and before you know it there’ll be RF MARSHALLS, VISITING TO MAKE SURE YOU AREN’T USING OR CREATING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION! TO SAVE GRANNY!
In fact, forget the data. I didn’t need data to know it was not a pandemic. I merely used data to try to prove myself wrong.
There is a website named WeAreTheEvidence and you have only to get an EMF meter to use yourself. Women are most sensitive and can tell. That is what I did and now I know who the liars are. Otherwise, for pier reviewed studies I would recommend The Environmental Health Trust. Dr. Devra Davis has been of Fox Tucker Carson discussing the studies demonstrating DNA damage.
Yes true, but that’s why iam asking, I’d sooner trust the evidence from poeple like you and on this forum for a more overall even view
I say there is massive harm done by the ubiquitous stressful and intermittent excessive exposures of 5G. I would direct you to the most significant court case in the US that took place over a year ago. Why have you not heard of it? Who is controlling our communications? Case 20-1025 EHT/CHD v FCC re: FCC Order 19-126 re: the FCC’s Insufficient Analysis of the Adequacy of the RF/MW Radiation Exposure Guideline
The U.S. Federal Court ruled on August 13, 2021, that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must explain why it ignored science showing harm from radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation as the FCC failed to respond to evidence that the testing of cell phones is flawed; to address evidence of prenatal harm, a potential link to ADHD, and harm to children; harm to DNA; evidence that this radiation causes electro-sensitivity; blood-brain barrier damage; cognitive & neurological problems; and evidence of mechanisms of harm; harm from long-term exposure; pulsation, modulation, and the effects of new technologies like Wi-Fi & 5G.
The Court noted that the FCC failed to address evidence of environmental harm. The court remanded the decision to the FCC.
Wow, I must admit it if I was to come down on one side, it would be the side of caution as many of these opinions and explanations on here seem to err towards misgivings
Btw, Thanks for the info, like many, I just thought it was all foil hat nonsense, but!
“The Government states that it has a “clear ambition for the U.K. to be a global leader in the next generation of mobile technology, 5G””
Boris Johnson made this country a global leader in stupidity. The same people who brought destructive Covid lockdown, dangerous Covid jab, no existent Climate Crisis are bringing you 5G. That alone tells you 5G is likely to be extremely bad.
First Friday Freedom Drinks For all freedom lovers everywhere to meet.
Friday 3rd February 7pm
The Foundry Bell
London Rd,
Wokingham RG40 1RD
Directions from M4 – A329(M) – A329
Directions from M3 – A322 – A329
***
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
5G was a fail. They promoted it as something that would compete with fiber optics at 1,000 Mbps and it is only around 50 Mbps, even Starlink is only like 60 Mbps at the current radiation limits. They will be wanting to raise them. And it is all very harmful, Find out more on the blog at reject5g dot info in a post, It is Here.
Hello Dears! The US has already thrown the FCC out of court on their Human Exposure RF/MW Radiation Guidelines of 2019 as not being science based. On August 13, 2021 the 9th Circuit remanded them back to the FCC and they have not responded. 5G failed to deliver on it’s grandiose promises of speed that could compete with fiber and it is a failed, toxic mess and a public wealth looting scheme. In the court case were over 11,000 pages of proof of harm including proof of harm to DNA, now on file with the Federal Court. Check out the Environmental Health Trust Website and the Children’s Health Defense who bench slapped them in court. You can also find out more on my blog art Reject5G dot info, particularly on the blog title 5G Balderdash.
Definitely a mistake to publish this article. Most of us are not tinfoil hat wearers. Instead we have legitimate and provable concerns about a few things, namely covid policies, covid vaccines, net zero, and the culture wars. Unfortunately those that wish to dismiss us as crazy conspiracy theorists and fanatics can wave this article around as evidence. A bit like the covid protest marches when David Ike showed up. Please steer well clear in future.
Although massively suppressed and denied, Safe Tech advocates are everywhere and can help you identify and mitigate the harmful effects we are suffering. I have posted my website address throughout these comment and recommended the Environmental Health Trust and the Childrens Health Defense as sources. Mosly I am affilliated with Scientists For Wired Technology and they have an extensive website up with information and histories on how this harmful fraud was perpetrated. Then there is Wire America, Physicians for Safe Technology and Safe Tech Schools where you can get more information. The Children’s Heath Defense is continuing legal actions I will be joining in defense of Life & Property. I have met so many wonderful people through these networks – they have saved my life. Get wired and grounded, my friends.