No independent safety testing on full 5G frequency spectrum – there is still large scientific uncertainty as to whether there are potential serious health effects.
Over 240 scientists, many of whom are biophysicists, are warning of serious potential health effects of 5G- they are asking for the roll-out to come to an immediate halt.
ICNIPR (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) is a committee of 13 self-appointed representatives that sets internationally adopted safety limits for exposure to Electromagnetic Fields – these safety limits are being challenged by over 240 scientists, may of whom, biophysicists.
Low-level EMF exposure has been shown to cause cumulative damage to biological tissue, not immediate; this means it degrades the biological and homeostatic functions over time which could lead to a plethora of diseases and conditions that is hard to trace back to radiation as the cause.
Children are at most risk from EMF radiation exposure – this is due to their biological development stage of body’s tissues.
5g health safety research
‘From a Harvard Law Today 2011 article on a lecture given by Dr Franz Adlkofer to Harvard Law School: ‘In his lecture, “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science”, Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs their research … “The practices of institutional corruption in the area of wireless communication are of enormous concern,” said Adlkofer, … “Based on the unjustified trivializing reports distributed by the mass media by order and on account of the wireless communication industry, the general public cannot understand that its future wellbeing and health may be at stake. The people even distrust those scientists who warn. In democracies, it is a basic principle that above power, and its owners, are laws, rules, and regulations. Since in the area of wireless communication this principle has been severely violated it is in the interest of a democratic society to insist on its compliance.” Article:(https://today.law.harvard.edu/at-center-for-ethics-event-cell-phone-radiation-and-institutional-corruption-addressed-video/)
The three scientists’ appeals:
2015: The ‘EMF Appeal’ was sent to the UN, WHO, UNEP and all UN member states, requesting a lowering of current EMF guidelines and standards, stating that current standards are not biologically protective. The 206 signatories of the appeal were not just random scientists, they all had peer reviewed, published scientific papers (over two thousand papers collectively) on the biological effects of EMFs. https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal.
2017: the ‘5G Appeal’, this time addressed to the European Commission, warning of ‘potential serious health effects of 5G‘ and recommending a moratorium.
2018: ‘The EMF Call’, to the UN and WHO: ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health‘ It warned that the ICNIRP international guidelines on RF radiation (mobile phone radiation) are not protective and endanger people. ICNIRP guidelines are the guidelines the British Parliament references.
1. ‘5G: GREAT RISK FOR EU, U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL HEALTH! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF). Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them’ written by Dr Martin L. Pall, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University. BA degree in Physics, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors, Johns Hopkins University; PhD in Biochemistry & Genetics, Caltech: https://europaem.eu/attachments/article/130/2018-04_EU-EMF2018-5US.pdf.
2. ‘THE EMF CALL’ APPEAL: ‘ICNIRP’s opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health.’ (ICNERP GUIDELINES, JULY 2018: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/consultation_upload/ICNIRP_RF_Guidelines_PCD_Appendix_A_2018_07_11.pdf) ‘In order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization and all governments not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines. They are not protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific pretext that they are “protective”.
3. DR NEIL CHERRY (Associate Professor of environmental health, Lincoln University, NZ), 2002 PAPER, ‘CRITICISM OF THE HEALTH ASSESSMENT IN THE ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR RADIOFREQUENCY AND MICROWAVE RADIATION’ (100KHz – 300GHz):: http://www.neilcherry.nz/document-downloads.html
4. Translation of the German report: ‘Birds, Bees and Mankind – Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’ – Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies‘: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521097894.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1175srGrsJ66nBRUJ4hjGPnNxad1-C_YcGoA4VxQXUPXAMfL3KfptHis
5. The Bioinitiative Report Conclusions: http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/ ‘Overall, these 1800 or so new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9), carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function…’.
6. Magnetochemistry journal, 5th May 2019, ‘Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels’. From the opening paragraph: ‘It is concluded that politicians in the Western world should stop accepting soothing reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking the health and safety of their communities seriously‘: https://www.mdpi.com/2312-7481/5/2/31/htm
7. The Lancet, December 2018, ‘Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact’. … ‘This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels’: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext
8. Declassified 1977 article on millimetre radiowave biological effects: https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/biological-effects-of-millimeter-wavelengths.-zalyubovskaya-declassif-by-cia-1977-biol-eff-mm-waves.pdf …’Morphological, functional and chemical studies conducted in humans and animals revealed that millimetre waves caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the skin and internal organs. Qualitative and quantative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the processes of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism. The degree of unfavourable effect of millimetre waves depended on the duration of the radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.‘
9. EU Reflex Study, parts 1,2,3,4:
10. Robert C Kane ‘Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette – a Historical and Scientific Perspective’: https://www.icems.eu/docs/Robert_C_Kane.pdf
11. Dr. Erica Mallery Blythe speaking about RF radiation health effects: ”The precautionary principle is outdated now, it’s overdue and protection is an emergency.”
12. Frontiers Journal has 22 peer-reviewed articles addressing effects on human biology from electromagnetic fields. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/sections/radiation-and-health#articles
13. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. C. Avendaño, A. Mata, A.M. Juarez Villanueva, V.S. Martínez, C.A. Sanchez Sarmiento. Nascentis Medicina Reproductiva, Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina. Wednesday, October 27, 2010.
15. Calls on the Council and Commission, in coordination with the Member States and the Committee of the Regions, to encourage the introduction of a single standard designed to ensure that local residents are subjected to as low a degree of exposure as possible when high-voltage grids are extended;
16. Is greatly concerned about the fact that insurance companies are tending to exclude coverage for the risks associated with EMFs from the scope of liability insurance policies, the implication clearly being that European insurers are already enforcing their version of the precautionary principle;
17. Calls on Member States to follow the example of Sweden and to recognise persons that suffer from electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate protection as well as equal opportunities;
18. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Committee of the Regions, and the WHO.
19. Precautionary Values for Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: https://www.degruyter.com/table/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-3/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.xml?id=j_reveh-2016-0011_tab_003
20. From the NASA Report: NASA CR 166661 1B APRIL 1981 ‘ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD INTERACTIONS WITH THE HUMAN BODY: OBSERVED EFFECTS AND THEORIES’ (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf):