The Government would have us believe that “there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network or in a new area” but that “there should be no consequences for public health”. Is this actually the case? On what evidence has this statement been made?
I have just read the four 5G case studies carried out this year by Professor Lennart Hardell and Mona Nilsson, in which eight people developed debilitating symptoms after the installation of 5G masts next to their accommodation, where precise radiation measurements were taken. The results put a big question mark over the Government’s statement.
Has our Government ignored the worldwide appeals and consensus statements made by independent scientists and doctors, calling for a revision of safety guidelines and a halt to the rollout of 5G on the basis of research on the much lower levels of pre-5G emissions? These include 433 scientists who have signed the EU 5G appeal, 259 scientists from 44 nations who have signed the international EMF scientist appeal and 164 scientists and medical doctors as well as 95 non-governmental organisations who have signed the EMF Call. There is also the compelling 2020 Consensus Statement of U.K. and international, medical and scientific experts on the health effects of non-ionising radiation, signed by organisations representing 3,500 medical doctors throughout the world, initiated by the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE).
The lead author of the four 5G case studies is Professor Hardell, an oncologist and leading researcher from the Swedish Research Foundation for Environment and Cancer. He was the first in the world to publish results on elevated cancer risks with mobile phone use. His co-author, Mona Nilsson, is Director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, which seeks, in the absence of information from the Government or the media, to inform people of the risks.
But before we look at the 5G case studies, let’s take a brief look about what is already known about the health risks of previous mobile communications technology. The updated Bioinitiative Report has listed thousands of studies on the adverse health effects of pre-5G technology. A clear majority of studies shows
a clear and consistent pattern of adverse effects that form the basis of the mechanisms whereby RFR [radiofrequency radiation] can cause the cancers seen in human populations. Of 261 studies looking at oxidative effects from RFR exposure, 240 (91%) showed damage. Of 346 studies on effects of RFR on genes, 224 (65%) reported genetic damage. Oxidative stress and genetic damage are the major mechanisms leading to cancer. In addition, RFR exposure causes effects on brain and behaviour. Of 336 studies published on RFR neurological effects, 73% reported effects and only 27% showed no effect.
Moving on to 5G itself, what is different about it? It does not yet use millimetre wave bands, as these will not be allocated until about 2025 for use in 70 U.K. cities. Up-to-date information about health research on millimetre waves can be found on this webpage produced by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. from the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. At present, 5G runs on the lower frequencies of 3.4 to 3.8 GHz in the U.K., but what is very novel is the addition of complex new technology, such as beamforming, massive MIMO and phased arrays. Professor Hardell says:
The effects of the exposure depend not only on the carrier frequency, for instance 3.5 GHz as for 5G, but also, and perhaps more importantly, on the modulation and pulsation of the signal and the peak and average intensity. Pulsed signals and simultaneous exposure to several frequencies… were considered more hazardous. The observed effects increased with duration of exposure.
The Hardell-Nilsson case studies are groundbreaking because, incredibly, they study human beings in a real-life 5G environment for the very first time.
The four 5G case studies themselves, published in January, February, April and June this year, deal with acute health effects, i.e., symptoms which come on very quickly after exposure, whereas some of the information at the start of this article refers to chronic effects, i.e., illnesses which develop over years such as cancer or Alzheimer’s.
All four studies describe how previously healthy people very quickly developed symptoms of microwave syndrome after 5G phone masts were installed above or opposite their accommodation at distances of between five and 60 metres. Most of the symptoms disappeared within days of them moving to less irradiated accommodation, but reappeared when they returned to the strongly irradiated accommodation.
Their symptoms included neurological symptoms, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, insomnia, emotional distress, skin disorders, joint and muscle pain, cardiovascular abnormalities and blood pressure variability. Participants were asked to fill in questionnaires about their health before the 5G masts had been installed, after installation and after they had moved away to less irradiated accommodation. They were asked to grade the severity of their symptoms, with 10 being unbearable. The results are produced in tables in the studies and show that some symptoms were unbearable while near the 5G mast and even more so for the female participants.
The four studies are highly readable and full context is given. I will however mention individual features of particular interest.
Precise radiation measurements are given for different areas of the apartments in relation to the distance from the masts involved. In the first study it is noteworthy that readings of the radiation levels prior to the 5G mast deployment were available. The couple had lived in this apartment for 10 years under a 3G and 4G mast without obvious health problems and, when they heard that the mast was to be upgraded, arranged for measurements to be taken beforehand. The maximum (peak) measurement was 9,000 μW/m2. However, after installation of the 5G mast, very high RF radiation with maximum levels of 354,000, 1,690,000 and over 2,500,000 μW/m2 were measured at three occasions in the bedroom, which was located only five metres below the new 5G base station. Levels in the other three studies were similarly high after the installation of the 5G masts.
Thus it is clear that the deployment of 5G leads to a massive increase in radiation levels, contrary to what our Government has told us. The increase from 9,000 to 2,500,000 µW/m2 can hardly be described as a small increase and the symptoms arising cannot be written off with the phrase “no consequences for public health”.
Yet even these high levels are well below the limits which are supposed to be ‘safe’, according to the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP). ICNIRP’s guidelines are accepted in the U.K., USA and parts of Europe, but only allow for thermal effects (i.e., assume that health will only be damaged if body tissue is heated). They allow exposure to be as high as 10,000,000 μW/m2 averaged over 30 minutes and 40,000,000 μW/m2 of local exposure averaged over six minutes.
These limits do not allow for longer exposure or chronic effects and ignore studies showing health damage below the thermal threshold. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields has concluded that “the assumptions underlying ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm”. In addition, ICNIRP has been strongly criticised for having ties to the telecommunications industry.
In the fourth article, Hardell addresses the difference between microwave syndrome and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which both seem to have similar symptoms,
Unlike the microwave syndrome, individuals suffering from EHS can develop debilitating symptoms at extremely low exposure levels that are tolerated by most other people. That is in contrast to the very high RF radiation levels seen in our four case studies where healthy individuals, with no prior major reactions to wireless technology, developed symptoms.
However, the participant in the second study found that, although his symptoms completely disappeared after six weeks of living in a low radiation apartment, his “arthralgia and headache reappeared rather quickly whenever he visited places with high radiation such as Stockholm City”. He estimates that “his sensitivity to RFR has increased” since living in the office below the 5G base station. Could this mean that he is on the way to developing EHS? The highest RFR measurement found in Stockholm last month was 5,271,555 µW/m2.
Set against these high levels are the vastly different safety exposure levels for RFR recommended by certain expert groups. In 2016, the European Academy of Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) recommended limits of 0.1 to 100 µW/m2 for frequencies from 900 MHz to 5.6 GHz, depending on sensitivity and whether exposure was during the day or at night. Already in 2012, the Bioinitiative Report had suggested a limit of 30 to 60 μW/m2 and lower still for sensitive persons and children at 3 to 6 μW/m2. These recommended safety limits along with others from different advisory groups are set out in Table 1 in Hardell’s first study.
Yesterday, I spoke to Mona Nilsson, one of the authors of these 5G case studies. She is appalled that the public is now exposed to such high and clearly dangerous levels of RF radiation and not only in city centres but in people’s own homes, where they are irradiated without informed consent. Many people in this situation cannot afford to move away.
Nilsson emphasised that there is no protection against adverse health effects that are not caused by heating of tissue, nor against the effects of chronic exposure. She is shocked that there has been no request from authorities for studies proving the safety of 5G, as indeed Senator Blumenthal realised in 2019 when he said: “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”
In her opinion, the telecoms industry is now acting in the same way as the tobacco industry did in the past. Experts who question the safety of RFR are smeared or silenced. Journalists, decision-makers and some experts have been bought by the telecoms industry. She says that a small group of experts on RF radiation denying health harms sit on the most influential advisory boards, and that those who disagree are never invited to join them to broaden the debate, despite the fact that the dissenters may represent the majority of expert opinion.
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.
If a country and it’s history have to be undermined and ultimately destroyed then our Flag has to go.
The spirit of this country, the very essence of Great Britain is enshrined within the Union Jack ergo it must be destroyed. We can’t have a one world government running the country while remnants of Britishers cling mournfully to their flag.
“Build Back Better” doncha know.
They can Firk right off.
Yes exactly, hux. There’s that godawful word again: ”Inclusive”. Because didn’t we feel just so excluded for all of these decades prior to 2024? I mean, what better way to feel *included*, right? FFS! Inclusivity equates to excluding white folk, from where I’m standing.
Tenuous link here, but you know I seldom come to the table empty-handed. Look at this UN ‘climate advisor’. Yes, the ‘climate crisis’ is not just ‘manmade’ but it is ‘white man-made’. But it’s the corrupt disgraceful UN, which recently unanimously appointed that bastion of equal rights for women, Saudi Arabia, to chair a gender equality forum next year, so it shouldn’t surprise us that they install this shameless racist biatch to chat toxic garbage to Useless Idiots;
”Meet Ayisha Siddiqa, a climate adviser for the UN. She claims the “white man” and “capitalism” are responsible for bringing life to “the verge of extinction” and calls white men k*llers, looters, and abusers.
Her account is filled with hateful anti-white posts.
Apparently, it’s totally fine to be disgustingly racist against white people if you work at the @UN”
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1775191286032523366
.
Thanks Mogs
Lovely bit of womanhood that Siddiqa. Bright too.
A nice way to handle such a nasty bit of work would be to stop all payments of money taken from white people to her. That would cause her income to drop to about nothing and she’d henceforth be forced to save something more proportionate than planets.
You’re getting the German treatment here (the one Britain and the USA co-invented) because to the people who talk of European fascism and colonialism (like the American guy who keeps writing about the new WHO pandemic treaty) you’re equally in the way and equally part of the forces of evil which have to be pushed aside.
Well it does make one wonder just how many white people were in that audience actually…Something tells me a lot, so here we have another example of the nonsensical and toxic, ”white guilt” phenomena. Or basically just ‘delusional, treacherous Leftards’, as I call them. The kind that would attend a BLM protest/riot. Fully masktarded up, of course.
Exactly. Very little of this insanity is organic. The objective is the communist goal of a single identity – the identity that the state will provide for you. Build on the back of existing divisive ideologies to further the demolition of the traditional family unit. Build a blob of people who have so many different identities that there is no identity; identity becomes a characteristic like hair colour – meaningless. Your identity will be your name. Then your number. You will comply because your thoughts are the thoughts of everyone, and everyone’s thoughts are the thoughts of the state. You will be the states identity. Nothing more.
Sam Goldwyn’s quote is appropriate from 80 years ago. “Gentlemen, include me out!”
The Union already includes all within it’s shores. This ‘new’ rebranding is a from of exclusion, in the extreme.
How appropriate having that wilting white rose above the words Team GB.
Team GB = Team Gay Boys?
= Team Gender Benders?
I am sure you can come up with more.
Grandiloquent Bollocks
And another thing… by what right does the alphabet minority have the right to dictate the colours and content of our National flag? How many alphabet people are there in Great Britain? One per cent if that. Dictating to seventy million if we include all the immigrants.
Furthermore, by what right do the Olympic Association deem it within their remit to take a wrecking ball to the Union Jack? The flag and all it represents belongs to all the people of these nations and not some tiny pea-brained minority which clearly has some WEF Fifth Columnists within its ranks.
Absolutely appalling and treasonous behaviour.
But the agency […] says its Team GB redesign should appeal to a “new generation of sports fans”.
With this, the agency (SPECTRE?) means to communicate that it has absolutely no idea whether or not the new design will actually appeal to anyone but is absolutely certain that it will rub the majority of current sports fans absolutely the wrong way. Which is presumably the sole point of the exercise.
“How can we unite all the disparate folk of Britain around their national team?”
“I know! Why not antagonise everyone who cares about the nation?
You mean the ‘Far Right’, decent family type people who pay their bills, and won’t take part in turning their nation into a rancid shithole.
Everybody’s Far Right now – my take.
“For fans of all backgrounds” They’ve just lost one here.
Also has to be said here: This is an absolutely shitty design which steals the general layout of the Union Jack, splashes a blue – pink – purple colour gradient over it and fills all available spaces with seemingly random patterns introducing a lot of optic noise which seems to exist for the sake of it. Kindergartenkids using finger paint would easily come up with something of much more artistic substance because they’d be trying to paint something and not just to obscure someone else’s creation.
Outrageous!!
It reminds me of a section from the Hitchiker’s Guide, which described the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as “a bunch of mindless jerks who shall be first against the wall come the revolution”. A copy of the Guide from the future fell through a wormhole and described them as “a bunch of mindless jerks who were first against the wall…”
For some reason, this made be think of the depressed, telepathic elevators sulking in the basement.
Our enemies are ramping up the pressure. Let them – they will be more clearly seen for what they are.
This chap nails the whole ‘DEI’ anti-white/racist scam, in my opinion;
”The best way to understand DEI is to separate the marketing pitch—which, I agree, is attractive—from the reality of DEI in practice. Here is how I see it:
1. Diversity: We agree that it is important for people of all backgrounds to be treated fairly. But “diversity” in the political sense means treating individuals as a representation of their group identity, sorting them into a hierarchy based on the “oppressor-oppressed” dynamic, and then discriminating for or against certain groups on that basis. In practice, it means putting identity above merit, rewarding and punishing individuals based on their ancestry and, increasingly, their political ideology. In academia, for example, “diversity statements” are used to measure conformity to left-wing racial theories.
2. Equity: We agree that we should maximize opportunity for all. But “equity” is a political ideology that is distinct from, and contradictory to, “equality.” In the highest sense, equality means that the state should treat individuals impartially, as in “equality under law,” while recognizing that individuals have different talents, desires, and motivations, which will inevitably lead to inequalities. In a sense, you cannot have equality without inequality—they are two sides of the same coin. “Equity,” on the other hand, treats all inequality as illegitimate and attempts to force group equalization, or “equality of outcomes,” through redistribution of wealth and property. This is a key tenet of critical race theory.
3. Inclusion: We agree that institutions should have constructive, creative environments. But in practice, “inclusion” is a code word for a distinct, left-wing orthodoxy and is used to suppress disfavored groups and opinions. At many universities, DEI administrators publish speech codes in the name of “inclusion” that restrict the range of discourse and speech on campus. Additionally, the “inclusion” principle is never extended to supposed “oppressor” groups, such as whites, men, and Christians—instead, it becomes a form of exclusion. We can see this in the real world with many institutions implementing “hate,” “bias,” and “safe space” policies, which, in practice, are used to silence dissent and, especially, conservative speech.
This is not speculation. I have substantiated all of these claims with dozens of investigative reports on DEI bureaucracies in universities, schools, and corporations. It is, in fact, much worse in the particular than in the general dynamics I am describing above.”
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1774891216737538166
Great comment
From where I am in France, I simply cannot imagine French men and women of any background standing by if their flag was debased in this way. Or Marianne being portrayed as anything other than a white woman. Hell would freeze over first. Too right, too. And it’s not because they’re racist. They aren’t. They actually care. Common courtesy exists here.
I ain’t patrotic. Too anarchic for that. But just because:
.
The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are intent on destroying our country.
People from all corners of the globe come here to live and work. They obviously come here for a better life and when you ask them “Where do you come from”? they will often get offended and adamantly state “I am British”. —–OK that is great you are all British. So why then are culture warriors fiddling about with the British flag talking about trying to be “inclusive” and other such woke language? ——-There is clearly no need for this absurd idea that our flag may offend people from other parts of the world, since they all say they are British when it suits them. —–STOP IT.
Another Bud-Lite fiasco. They never learn.
They know exactly what they are doing. The thick ones are our unconcerned British (for the moment) brethren.
No other country would allow its National Flag to be disrespected and abused in this way.
Why do we?
The government of the state of Berlin (SPD – Left- Greens) has banned display of the German flag by the police during the upcomfing Euros because of “state neutrality”. And the present chancer (Olaf Scholz¹) is on record for referring to marches where people were carrying placards with stuff like “Against nation, state and capitalism!” written on them a fine demonstration of comittment to democractic values.
¹ Most famous for getting out of an anti-corruption and tax fraud hearing by declaring that he really couldn’t remember anything about the events in question.