I am heartened to see that the negative effects of technology, such as smartphones and remote learning are now being discussed more publicly. Last Friday on GB News, Bev Turner talked about an ALDI store, to which entry can only be gained via smartphone. Various national newspapers are mentioning the psychological damage done to children through overuse of screens and social media. Addiction is a major problem.
However only a handful of people and organisations seem to be aware of the likely damage to physical and mental health from the radio-frequency radiation (RFR) emitted by smartphones, wi-fi and phone masts. Those who do mention this are quickly labelled as conspiracy theorists, perhaps following the lead of the Counter-Disinformation Unit, which, I suspect, is the “subcommittee” referred to in the official Report for the Broadband and Road to 5G inquiry conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I have explained this more fully in a previous TCW article, but the implication was that anyone who submitted evidence about possible health harms from RFR was tarred with the same brush as those who thought 5G caused Covid.
Considering how controversial it still is to oppose our Government’s view that RF radiation “should have no consequences for public health”, I am highly appreciative of the open-mindedness of bodies such as The Heritage Party and UsforThem in questioning its safety. Under the heading ‘Preserving the Environment’ in the Heritage Party Manifesto there is a call for a moratorium on 5G, while the UsforThem campaign ‘Safe Screens’ has a comprehensive list of harms, which include the health effects of radio-frequency radiation.
All the more welcome, therefore, is a free event hosted at the Royal School of Medicine by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) on Wednesday June 14th, with the topic: ‘Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Sources: Are Safety Limits Valid?’ For this event, a group of international experts has been assembled.
The safety exposure limits presently followed by our Government are set by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and are seen as insufficient by certain groups of scientists, and clearly also by many countries such as Italy, Switzerland, Eastern Europe, China and India, who use much stricter guidelines. The event on June 14th will be framed around the problem of divergent evaluations of the same scientific evidence on hazardous agents.
But what exactly will be discussed? Firstly, two scientific papers produced by ICBE-EMF in recent months will be summarised.
One paper lays out 14 false assumptions behind the ICNIRP guidelines. These include ICNIRP’s insistence that biological damage does not occur below a certain heating threshold in the body. Another, is that ICNIRP had only looked at exposures of six and 30 minutes, but did not consider low-level, long-term effects. In addition, the 2011 classification of RF radiation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “possibly carcinogenic”, as well as the results of large animal studies in 2018 were not taken into account despite the guidelines being updated in 2020.
The second paper suggests six engineering fixes which can go a long way toward reducing radiation exposure for the individual user of mobile phones.
After this, Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe will discuss acute (short-term) effects of RF radiation such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which currently affects an estimated 3-10% of the European population, as well as some chronic health concerns. She will also highlight some important related legal cases.
Thirdly, a presentation will be given on the only U.S. state to comprehensively investigate 5G and RFR, New Hampshire, by an expert member of its commission, Kent Chamberlain. Last year New Hampshire lawmakers voted to recommend action on the issue of wireless radio-frequency radiation. The New Hampshire House subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Technology and Energy had held study sessions on RF radiation featuring numerous experts, organisations and residents as well as wireless industry consultants. One significant recommendation was that mobile phone masts should be at least 500 metres away from any place of work, residence, play or education. It was convincingly shown, through two different approaches, that a setback of less than 500 metres would cause a greater risk of cancer and other disease. An excellent summary of the process is here.
Who are the speakers at the upcoming event? James Lin is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Bioengineering, Physiology and Biophysics at the University of Chicago as well as an ex-member of ICNIRP. Since leaving ICNIRP, he has become convinced that the classification for RF radiation by IARC should be “probably carcinogenic” if not “carcinogenic”. His criticisms of ICNIRP were published this month in Health Matters and can be read in full here.
Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe is a medical doctor specialising in electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and is the founder of Physicians Health Initiative on Radiation Effects (PHIRE). With her help, legal precedent was created at an Upper Tribunal hearing in July 2022 when a local authority was mandated to make low-EMF educational provisions to accommodate a child with EHS. She also helped Sally Burns, a 59 year-old social worker win her appeal for early ill-health retirement and Ms. Burns will now receive a full pension due to disabling Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS).
Kent Chamberlain is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire and an expert member of the New Hampshire Commission on 5G (2019/20), described above.
The summary of key points and discussion will be led by Professor John Frank MD, who is Professorial Fellow (formerly Chair of Public Health Research and Policy and Director of Knowledge Exchange and Research Impact) at the Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics at the University of Edinburgh. He is also Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. He has called for a moratorium on 5G.
Who will listen? The organisers hope to attract decision-makers such as MPs and local councillors as well as to inform GPs, who seem to know little of EHS and cannot diagnose it, but instead use such labels as ‘Functional Neurological Disorder’, as I heard from Sally Burns. It is also to be hoped that local planning departments will take an interest in this presentation, as they are often unaware of their obligations to look at health concerns surrounding masts, but are encouraged by Government to believe that the siting of masts is purely a visual matter.
Presently many ordinary citizens, aware of the negative health effects of RF radiation, often through personal experience, are forced to take individual action. This may be the time-consuming and arduous task of objecting to planning applications on a mast-by-mast basis, informing themselves through various specialised websites which are of great help on this complex subject. Others go through the expense of asking for judicial review and raising funding for it as in this case in Kent, where a mast is planned within 10 metres of a primary school boundary. In this case funds are needed urgently.
Why should individual citizens have to fight their own corner time after time? Isn’t it time to gather highly qualified experts together to investigate RF radiation and 5G, as New Hampshire has done? In the recent judicial review on 5G led by Michael Mansfield, the Government listed several international organisations on which it relies, but these organisations – ICNIRP, the WHO EMF Project, IARC and SCENHIR/SCHEER – share to a large extent the same somewhat underqualified personnel, as detailed in this lengthy report on conflicts of interest. U.K. groups that were quoted as being relied upon by Government were the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR), which reported in 2012, but which disbanded in 2017 after being discredited by Dr. Sarah Starkey, as well as the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) at the Department of Health, which unfortunately focuses on ionising radiation and not RF radiation, where it has very little expertise. Thus officially, this subject is badly neglected in the U.K.
This event, therefore, on the 14th provides an unparalleled opportunity in the U.K. to hear these vital issues discussed by well-qualified and experienced experts in this complex field, which covers the disciplines of medicine, biophysics, electronic engineering and more. For those who cannot watch online on the 14th, a video link will be available shortly thereafter from this page.
Postscript (June 26th 2023):
Having recently attended this event online and a then follow-up event in person, I’d like to add my impressions to the preview above. A video and slides from the online event will shortly be available here.
Most compelling was the experience of Professor Kent Chamberlain, who as a previous designer of antennae, had considered the risk to health from RF radiation to be low. On hearing the medical evidence presented at the New Hampshire Commission, to which he had been invited as an electronic engineering expert, he completely changed his mind. He is still in shock at the poor standard of the studies carried out to set safety exposure guidelines.
These studies were based on eight rats and five monkeys, who had been trained to press a lever to get food when they were hungry. They were starved, then irradiated with non-ionising radiation for periods of up to an hour. Their subsequent behaviour disruption was linked to increase in body temperature, which helped to set a heating threshold, below which health damage was assumed not to occur. An arbitrary safety factor was incorporated and safety exposure levels for humans created. This is fully described here.
As we heard from all speakers, the vast majority of studies show health damage well below the heating threshold for the body. Not only that, but the studies relied on by ICNIRP only allow for short-term exposure, not the continuous exposure that is now prevalent. It also ignores long latency disease, which is disease that may take decades to develop after initial exposure. ICNIRP itself admits that the guidelines are not relevant to those with metal implants and some other devices.
Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe gave a very detailed and convincing lecture. My main take-away was that children are not just little adults, but their absorption of RF radiation is disproportionately greater, e.g. five-fold for the eyes, 10-fold for bone marrow and 30-fold for the hippocampus.
With all humans, there are differences in sensitivity, perhaps due to the combination of environmental pollutants experienced in addition to RF radiation, or to underlying health conditions. There are no separate safety guidelines appropriate to these groups, just as there are none for flora and fauna.
The conference covered existing knowledge about 2G to 4G, since few studies have been done on 5G and the associated apparatus. However, Dr. Mallery-Blythe thought that 5G would be more harmful, since it cannot pass through the body, but deposits its energy on the skin, which it penetrates by a few millimetres. The skin is an important organ. This applies to the eyes too.
The event was presented by David Gee, Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Pollution Research and Policy, Brunel University, London. He had been involved in the European Environmental Agency reports on environmental pollutants, ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ (2001, 2013). He regards the dangers of RF radiation as on a par with asbestos, thalidomide and ionising radiation, though the problem with RF radiation is that all life is now exposed to it. He pointed out that in the early days of X-rays, the excitement about this new technology led to X-ray machines being used to measure children’s feet in shoe shops. Professor Lin had pointed out that the biological effects of RF radiation have been studied for 70 years. When therefore will we learn our ‘late lesson’ and bring together the wide range of experts needed to investigate this complex topic urgently to prevent further irreparable damage to all living beings?
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.
I’m still waiting for vaccine narrative collapse.
I don’t know about the narrative, but demand for the covid jab has definitely collapsed for two big reasons:
Whether the public can easily be scared into repeating it all with some new scary disease remains to be seen, but I’m actually not so sure.
I don’t think people are ready for another fake pandemic, but I suspect quite a few still think the jabs saved us.
The climate change narrative has been ongoing for over 30 years and despite none of the dooms predicted coming to pass, it goes from strength to strength.
So sad and so true.
To get some idea of the incredible waste and profligacy (and criminality?) of the UK Government response, the cost of the utterly useless Track and Trace system was £37 billion over 2 years.
To put that in perspective, let’s say there are roughly 10 million households in the UK with residents over the age of 65. And let’s say it costs £5 to have your shopping delivered. Allowing for deliveries twice a week, and assuming my back-of-the-envelope calculations are correct, £37 billion would have paid for home shopping delivery for all older people for 7.5 years.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that old people be confined to their homes for the best part of a decade, but if focused protection had been seriously considered, it would have been far, far more cost effective to provide help to older people who wanted to remain at home and exercise some control over their environment, and of course would have avoided the enormous damage to children’s education, the economy, and society.
Your calculation is too simple for these simpletons to comprehend.
Was a down-payment on digital IDs and 24/7 surveillance presented as a C19 safety measure.
I fit into the post 65 bracket, reasonably healthy and fit enough to do my own shopping and exercise outdoors. If you want to hide indoors in fear that’s fine by me, but I would prefer to enjoy what time I have left to the full. As for the lockdown, it was a perfect time and chance for a national stock take of all and everyone’s assets, and was found the public had more money to spend than the government thought. With track and trace, and the stock take, soon you will see the introduction of a digital ID, and a digital currency. The 15 min cities are a surveillance measure and more traffic cameras are going up in all areas. Lock downs were a perfect action to test the system.
Absolutely agree with you. My Dad ( fit in 80’s) decided at the very start that if he couldn’t live , why be here; pretty much just carried on. Immuno suppressed me- also did the same. If people want to ‘lock themselves down’ fine, but don’t think the rest of us do, Personal responsibility and choice comes into this. It might kill us, but hey that’s what happens in this life. It must NEVER happen again.
Absolutely, couldn’t agree more. It should always have been a choice – the government should have advised people and offered guidance and support, it should never have forced people to lock down, mask up, down tools or anything else. Covid made it absolutely clear that the government/state regards itself not as a servant of the people, but as a dictatorial ruler, enforcing its edicts on its hapless subjects.
I worked out that Track and Trace cost roughly 40% of the outlay on HS2. Think of all the houses pulled down for that, all the work that has gone into it. Who are the bastards who wrote it and pocketed all that money? I work for a major software house and it is impossible to realistically cost a mobile app at anywhere near that amount no matter what it does. It doesn’t even work and yet nobody is asking for a refund!
I have the feeling that if the government had tried to organise home delivery shopping for over 65s, they would have somehow ended up paying not £5 but £50 per delivery.
That’s what government does, they piss our money up the wall.
Focused protection. The Vulnerable™️ are vulnerable for a reason, their general health is bad and immune system compromised. There is little point protecting them from one particular pathogen, when there are any number of others and their own underlying condition waiting to finish them off.
Why don’t we have ‘focused’ protection every Winter when Colds & ‘flu are about… that’s exactly what ‘Covid’ is – a new scary name for a very old disease – nasal congestion & discharge, sneezing, coughing, headache, fever, sore throat, aches & pains, difficulty breathing, pneumonia and death.
The lives of those soon to die cannot be saved, at best their end might be delayed a little but at what cost and to whose benefit?
We all knew that the lockdown policy was arrant folly predicated upon an exaggerated portrayal of risks by the higher ups and their advisers.
I, like many others, knew Johnson was lying when he announced lockdown #1.
I, like many others, knew that the attendant harms caused by the fallout of lockdown would be far worse than any havoc the virus could wreak.
I am the proud owner of this prescient cartoon by Bob Moran used often on this very website.
This article illustrates perfectly why Gupta was so utterly useless arguing her corner in debate when she got on TV or radio. It’s all to nuanced. You need to be a delphic oracle to work out what she’s saying.
Yes I agree.
Too many weasel words.
She says some of us would have settled for keeping schools open and locking down everything else. Jog on.
We didn’t have a proper lockdown anyway- it was a fake lockdown, for theatrical purposes. To be clear I’m not saying that a lot of things were not closed/forbidden, I am saying that life in some modified form, went on. They had a proper lockdown in Wuhan because people from outside were able to come in and keep “essential” services running while the locals were literally locked in their homes.
I’m not keen on the concept of focused protection either. Give people accurate information that is designed neither to frighten nor to minimise the risks, and let them decide what to do about it. Follow established infection control protocols in settings where there is a concentration of the most frail- but you cannot stop visits to the very frail in care homes and hospitals indefinitely because they have little time left anyway and don’t want to die lonely and alone.
Disappointing that five people have disliked this post without having the courtesy to say why. That’s not the sceptic way.
I agree..it’s so calm it almost like an opioid!! And when will she EVER say that the vaccines were wrong/bad/harmful/not required? You KNOW that she knows this?
I don’t know..I’m getting more mad and more frustrated by the day with the people who should be really cursing the blighters who did all of this to us….but don’t….!!
I do hope Sunetra Gupta is correct.
From my perspective as a member of the public I still see amongst friends, family, colleagues and others this clinging to the idea, that it was ‘kind’ however there is a slight shift in their confidences with what was imposed and their own compliance. BUT they will not admit it! They betray it by sighing, shuffling on their seats and taking more time to explain away the ridiculous.
This morning at the Surgerey there is a notice in red letters; “ If you have a fever, cough, or cold. Please wear a mask to protect our staff. Thank you” only one doctor with the ‘Chinese’ mask but no patients complied.
So you see the authoritarians are still pushing this damaging nonsense or doubling down due to their guilt.
One sad impact is that at my SEN school some students still wear masks all day long due to anxiety that remains with them.
Whilst the fatuous rules remain for example, to get into the Covid Inquiry you need to have a test even if you did attend a forbidden killer party?people will still lap it up.
LOCK DOWN was extremely good for business, some made absolute killings. Made millionaires. County lines dealers; dial a deal’ ; traffickers;illegal immigration; Pimps; groomers; certain “coffee/barber shops” , Peadophiles. Child abusers had a field day. Government, supported by SAGE et al- encouraged this with wild abandon as they told Plod to go out and arrest people for not wearing a mask.
I guess I’m in the wrong job
What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive…
I have long believed we entered a period of Societal Collapse quite some years ago. It first became blindingly apparent when Blair decided to murder people in Iraq. When leaders, those we look to for wisdom and honest endeavour in leading us, decide to lie, society will, eventually, collapse.
In 2020 we were faced with the inarguably insane decisions of Governments all around the world, in lockstep, doing the same things. It remains today and is a form of mass insanity. How did any of the lies they used against the people of the world have any justification? The only way any of it makes sense is if they deliberately set out to collapse society.
People are, very slowly for the majority, waking up to the fact they were deliberately and knowingly lied to. They lost their lives as they once knew them, every single one of them. Once they are awake they will not go back to sleep and society will collapse.
I read a book some years back about the fall of societies and it explained that in every great society, the same thing happened. The leaders, in every case, made decisions that, at best, seemed insane. From the Incas to the Romans and beyond all falls of society were pre-empted by a form of insanity in the leadership.
How can our society survive, let alone thrive, when it is impossible to trust any of the institutions that form our societies? The NHS falsified figures, Government openly lied, all levels of “experts” lied. We can no longer trust anyone and when the trust goes the Society falls.
Absolutely correct. The fall of Empires, is what I think it is known as. Egyptian, Romans, etc. Question is who’s Empire is at risk now. I’d go for Joe 90 and the post war ‘consensus’
The narrative collapsed from the start, for those of us who hadn’t gone mad.
I think most people now realise it was nonsense but they have moved on- among people I know there is zero interest in understanding what happened and why, how to prevent it. Nobody ever mentions it to me, nobody has mentioned the inquiry. Nobody has apologised to me for calling me a conspiracy theorist, comparing me to Hitler, implying I was a cruel granny killer. Nobody has apologised to my wife for excluding her from various activities she did because she was not vaccinated.
In our lifetimes we will not see a general recognition of how bad it was, nor will those responsible be held to account.
‘We Are Finally Entering a Phase of Covid ‘Narrative Collapse’, Says Oxford Epidemiologist’
When do The Hague trials begin?
I won’t believe it until that happens; then the Net Zero genocide trials.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/education-education-indoctrination/
“Sadly, our schools and universities operate (instead) as factories of indoctrination, apparently attempting to mould our children into compliant puppets, ripe for a life of obedience. The episode at Rye College fills me with hope that the factories are failing. Common sense must prevail.”
It doesn’t matter because the yearning to be controlled isn’t just present it is growing. You can look at tintellectual activity over the last thirty years. The sad fact is that most people would rather shit down than face reality. And if most peope are like this it forces us into difficult areas. Which is as it should be. The time that we are living in isn’t one of choosing a lazy option. It is completely ferocious with everything up in the air. Either you find the spiritual energy to join the fray or you don’t.