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.
Labour vows to ‘eliminate’ fox hunting
‘……there is not a majority in “any part of the country” that wants it to continue’
Or not really……..
‘To what extent do you personally support or oppose a ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales?’
A MORI survey for BBC ONE’s Countryfile programme has revealed that support for a ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales has fallen from nearly two thirds of British adults to around half.
The Hunting Act is a disaster for animal welfare.
‘Both shotguns and rifles are used to shoot foxes and we observed and filmed foxes shot at by all the main methods. We obtained data from the Scottish gun packs for the 2002-2003 season documenting the outcomes of 574 shots fired at 386 live foxes. This revealed an average kill rate of 55% (range 20-79%) for all shots fired……’
‘……..different known causes of mortality of British foxes………They concluded that 80,000 foxes were shot and retrieved each year and that a theoretical further 115,000 fox deaths remained unaccounted for. Some of these may be foxes that have been shot and died later without being retrieved”.
https://www.falcons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Wounding-rates-in-shooting-foxes.pdf
The Hunting Act bans the use of more than two dogs to follow up a wounded fox. Two dogs are useless for that task in thick cover……
The shape of things to come:
Since his lambing season began three weeks ago, Meirion Jones has collected 27 carcases from his fields at Cwm Mynach Isa farm.
Two more lambs were rescued with severe head puncture wounds but are unlikely to survive despite intensive nursing.
Mr Jones, 67, said the foxes are harbouring in the adjacent Coed Cwm Mynach, a 1,000-acre woodland owned and managed by the Woodland Trust.
“We were born and bred in the countryside but these people don’t think our ideas count for anything.”
And in Colorado, where Grey Wolves have just been re-introduced:
‘….when Coloradans are recreating in the wild…….they must pay attention to their surroundings. That means that while outdoors, remove one or both headphones and remember to look around and take note of your environment.’
“If we can teach people proper behavior, we’re not going to see any human conflicts whatsoever,”
Good luck with that…….
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought fox hunting with dogs was already banned?
The hunt just goes through the motions following a pre trailed scent.
So why ban it again? Don’t get it!
Very well said!
I believe the ‘labour’ party imagine that all they have to do is get their core vote out in order to win the next general election. The conservative party has been so utterly contemptible in government that ‘labour’ are probably correct in that assessment.
In any case, the ban, ‘regretted’ by Blair, its architect, was never about hunting in the first place:
‘why was this low priority, hopelessly ill drafted, time consuming, expensive and utterly impractical act ever passed?
The two dog follow up limit…..responsible for the biggest wild animal welfare disaster in living memory……
Why did the proponents of this mindless piece of legislation in England talk all sensible and practical amendments out of time in parliament?
Why was the idea of an amended wild mammals protection bill, calling for the general protection of all wild mammals from undue suffering, also talked out of the commons?
Why did the hunting act have to be forced through parliament by inappropriate use of the parliament act, described as ‘the most illiberal act of the last century’ by one of our most distinguished parliamentarians, Roy Jenkins (Labour and Social Democrats)?
The answer to those questions is quite simply (freely admitted) that the hunting act has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with partisan political agendas entirely unconcerned with animal or human welfare:
“Hilary (Armstrong) told him that if he didn’t bring back the Hunting Bill for a third reading soon we would not have a hope in hell of winning the foundation hospital vote. Tony Blair said sane people just would not understand how we can put at risk our whole public service agenda over hunting. Hilary said he had to understand that hunting went deep, and was symbolic.”
Alastair Campbell Tuesday 17th June 2003
“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over that Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war.’’
Peter Bradley, former Labour MP for The Wrekin, Sunday Telegraph – 21stNovember 2004
“This is a dispute we must win, having long ago ceased to be about the fate of a few thousand deer and foxes. It’s about who governs us. Us or them?”
Chris Mullin, former Labour MP for Sunderland South – A View from the Foothills(2009)
“This has nothing to do with animal welfare – this is for the miners”
Dennis Skinner MP, Labour Party Conference – September 2004
“As one of those who voted for the Act, I made it clear beforehand in many discussions with the pro-hunting lobby that I expected farmers to shoot more foxes (an acknowledged agricultural pest) after the Act was passed.”
David Rendel, former Liberal Democrat MP for Newbury, letter to the Independent– 1st December 2006
Fox hunting truly serves no useful purpose, much like sport and trophy hunting in general. To all those who still do it: hey, what did that fox ever do to you?
Fox hunting is the most humane way of selectively dealing with problem foxes preying on lambs, poultry. Shooting wounds thousands of unrecoverable foxes every year, an animal welfare disaster.
Completely agree, True. They tell themselves ( and us ) stories and give excuses to justify it but it’s a seriously barbaric and cruel activity. Much like bull fighting in Spain, how anybody can have a party and gleefully find the suffering being inflicted upon a poor creature for entertainment ( oops, soz…”tradition”! ) value makes these people disgusting psychopaths. There is no justification. None. You want to hunt or cull an animal then you do so in the most humane way possible, which minimizes suffering. Hunting a small mammal down by terrorizing it with a herd of horses, pack of dogs and people accompanying on foot until it meets a terrible, grisly end does not meet my definition of ”minimizing suffering”. Then there’s the cubs that inevitably get torn to shreds…People who find this enjoyable and a ‘sport’ make me sick.
You’re probably already aware of this lady who goes around saving foxes from fur farms in the US. She deserves a medal. So many adorable videos of her rescues and these beautiful animals all have their own little characters. Just gorgeous, but everybody knows Finnegan fox;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh-4I2pggNo&ab_channel=SaveAFox
I have rarely read such nonsense.
You would not ignore evidence regarding covid vaccines etc and yet you completely ignore the evidence that I have provided above.
Hunting kills aged and infirm foxes quickly; fit and healthy foxes easily evade foxhounds.
Shooting wounds 45% of foxes fired at.
Problem foxes kill lambs, poultry kept by smallholders, often amongst the poorest in the land and must be controlled.
Hunting is the most selective and humane way of killing problem foxes, aged and infirm foxes often wounded by shooting.
The hunting act is widely acknowledged to be an animal welfare catastrophe.
Nothing has been done about it because it was never about hunting in the first place, as I show above.
‘Peter Mandelson, the peer and former Labour MP, said the former prime minister included a commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs in Labour’s 1997 manifesto after receiving money from an animal welfare fund.
Blair has said the foxhunting ban, which was finally enacted in 2004, was one of the policies he most regrets…..
Mandelson was speaking during a discussion on whether political donations can affect policy on the Times Radio podcast How to Win an Election.
He said: “I can offer you an example from 1997 where an organisation – it was a fund to do with the welfare of animals – got pretty transactional with us.
“They wanted a ban on hunting in return for a very sizeable amount of money. And Blair and co were sort of reluctant obviously to enter into some sort of trade over this policy……
“And we got into a difficult situation where frankly we went a little bit too far – further than Blair wanted – in making this commitment in our manifesto. It was frankly under, not duress, but under some sort of pressure. It wasn’t attractive and it’s not been repeated.”
Mandelson did not name the group responsible. However, in 1996 Labour accepted £1m from Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Follow the money…….
Net Zero Pets The New Target – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online.
No, that’s not why dogs should be banned from public spaces, or muzzled, as they are in countries like Austria.
Jack Russells killed a week-old baby in London, 1986, and another in Telford, 2012. Staffies killed a London man, 45, in 2003; a County Durham man, 33, in 2009; a Manchester girl, 14, in 2013; a Liverpool woman, 43, in 2014; and a Cumbrian man, 45, in 2016, to name but a few.
“Researchers at the University of Liverpool with Public Health England recently estimated the total cost of dog attacks to the NHS, using hospital attendance and admissions data in England. Publishing their findings in Scientific Reports last year, they estimated direct costs of treatment to be more than £25m for the financial year 2017-18. Estimates for total costs of hospital attendance and admissions amounted to more than £70m for the same period.”
Rising fatalities, injuries, and NHS costs: dog bites as a public health problem British Medical Journal 27 April 2023
https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p879#:~:text=Researchers%20at%20the%20University%20of%20Liverpool%20with%20Public,more%20than%20%C2%A325m%20for%20the%20financial%20year%2023
That means the NHS had to spend nearly £100,000,000 in one year alone to treat victims of dog attacks.
Monday morning Sopwith Rd & Harvest Ride Warfield Bracknell
“Net Zero” should simply be shortened to “NERO”
Please give thought to Julian Assange today and tomorrow as his final appeal against extradition goes to court.
Stella Assange interview yesterday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIm4aIcJWig
John Mearsheimer (amongst many others) appeal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_Shacd2Iw
Shout out to the farmers in Spain who are still revolting with no plans to let up;
”For 11 days in a row, Spanish farmers have blocked highways and ports, dumping cheaply imported Moroccan vegetables and cereals on the roads and marching with tractors into the centers of large cities.
Farmers took over Santander on the weekend, while this Wednesday, farmers plan to hold tractor marches and protests in Andalusia, Extremadura, and Castilla and León, with media reports warning of additional road closures and blockaded roads in these regions.
Last week, on Wednesday, Spanish protesters paralyzed traffic for hours at the port of Motril in southern Spain, where a large part of Morocco’s fruit and vegetable shipments arrive. Several of the vans stuck inside had their holds opened and tomatoes found inside were thrown onto the road in protest at cheap imports of agricultural products from Morocco, which do not meet EU standards.
Meanwhile, scores of farmers with tractors and human chains have blocked the busiest highways in Spain, and have also made crossing the Spanish-French border at La Jonquera difficult for more than two days.
The farmers’ mass protest, planned for Madrid on Feb. 21, is expected to cause major disruptions in the city. There are also fears that clashes with police could ensue. Farmers also announced on Thursday morning of last week that they would mobilize on Feb. 26, the day EU agriculture ministers meet in Brussels.”
https://rmx.news/economy/farmer-blockades-continue-to-paralyze-spain-on-11th-day-mass-protest-scheduled-for-madrid/
Much respect for these brave Spanish farmers.
‘No farmers No food.’
In the BBC news today:
Gloucestershire vertical farm is one of UK’s ‘most advanced’
Great. We can now grow salad and herbs all year in the UK. We can have the L and T in our BLTs. What about wheat or other staple foods? Dairy? Meat?
This cannot be the future of most farming.
One thing they don’t mention: I bet they increase the CO2 levels inside the warehouse in order to boost growth.
Not food farming. Garnish growing.
I disagree with almost every goal of tearing up tradition – I think tradition is the bedrock of a functional society – but elites hunting a fox on horseback, with a pack of excited dogs eager to hunt and to kill, while the animal being pursued runs in complete panic for its life, knowing the odds are it will die being ripped apart by a pack of frenzied hounds (although sometimes through sheer exhaustion), isn’t a tradition I want to uphold. It’s elitist cruelty and not something I will ever support.
Support? No.
Support others’ right to support? Yes.
They are not ‘elites’, many are farmers, farm workers, equestrian workers. Some follow on foot. Hill packs hunted problem foxes on foot.
Hunting selectively swiftly kills aged and infirm foxes that would otherwise die (and do now, after the Hunting Act) a slow and lingering death alone underground. Fit and healthy foxes are too smart and elusive even for the best foxhounds.
Shooting is not similarly selective and wounds thousands of foxes every year that cannot be recovered due to the Hunting Act two dog follow up limit.
You are complicit in an inhuman, barbaric, animal welfare disaster.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/andrew-bridgen-tells-james-roguski-we-must-just-say-no/
Video of the Interview. Transcript embedded. The indomitable Andrew Bridgen.
With regards to our Iranian friend in the video above, the Met police have released a statement justifying their picking on him. Yes it was his fault for being provocative and therefore his fault he got sticks and soil lobbed at him from a load of triggered terrorist supporters. What this chap needs is some allies. I’d laugh my bits off if he turned up on Saturday with 50 mates. What would the bent bizzies do then??;
https://twitter.com/GhorbaniiNiyak/status/1759732475419340955
“Mr Nkozi was arrested and held overnight in police cells for being provocative by being black in a whites only area. He had only himself to blame that the lynch mob almost got him.”
“Labour has vowed to eliminate fox hunting within its first five years in power, saying there is not a majority in “any part of the country” that wants it to continue,”
Will they apply the same logic to immigration. That requires them to stopp legal immigration and require all future illegal arrivals to live solely in London?
That is an absolutely brilliant point, and one we can all use in communicating to our MPs.
“Mass immigration is bringing a European-style populist revolt to Ireland”
At long last, the Irish are rising against their real enemy, instead of always against the English. Ethnic Europeans worldwide are all in this together.
Wildlife campaigners worry about providing “safe havens” for wildlife in danger of extinction. Maybe they should look at their own situation.
What is common across all the wokeness in the newsm tems above, is that this is essentially communism and nazism being enacted in our societies. The nazis took control of their societies and so did the communists. One way they did this was to take control of the media and entertainment and embed control ‘messages’ into the content. It is as plain as day that we are becoming a communist/nazi-fied society.
The economy in particular is being nazi-fied: companies are being controlled to do the bidding of government policies, even under the tories, and/or by pressure group wokeness threats. It will be very much worse under Stalin Starmer and his comm-nazis.
See Tik History on YouTube for more fascinating detail on how the nazis were a branch of socialism (not capitalists!l