WiFi Experiment Done By A Group Of 9th Grade Students Got Serious International Attention. THIS Is Why…
Researchers from England, Holland and Sweden have shown great interest in the experiment done by 5 girls from northern Jutland in 9th grade.
They did an experiment for a biology test, so brilliant, that it has attracted international attention among acknowledged biologists and radiation experts.
The girls got really surprised by the sudden attention from all around the world.
“It has been such a rollercoaster ride. I still cannot believe it”, says Lea Nielsen, one of the girls.
“It’s totally overwhelming and exciting. It’s just not something you experience every day”. added Mathilde Nielsen, another girl from the group.
It all started because they found it difficult to concentrate during the school day:
“We all think we have experienced difficulty concentrating in school, if we had slept with the phone next to our head, and sometimes also experienced having difficulty sleeping”, explains Lea Nielsen.
So here is what they did:
They took 400 cress seeds and placed them in 12 trays. Then, they placed 6 trays in 2 separate rooms at the same temperature. They gave the same amount of water and sun to all the trays for 12 days.
However, 6 of the trays were put next to two [Wi-Fi] routers. Such routers broadcast the same type of radiation as an ordinary mobile.
After 12 days what the result spoke was clear: cress seeds next to the router did not grow, and some of them were even mutated or dead.
“It is truly frightening that there is so much affect, so we were very shocked by the result”, says Lea.
Olle Johansson, a renowned professor at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, is one of the impressed researchers.
He will now repeat the experiment with a Belgian research colleague, Professor Marie-Claire Cammaert at the Université libre de Bruxelles.
According to him, this is absolutely brilliant:
“The girls stayed within the scope of their knowledge, skilfully implemented and developed a very elegant experiment. The wealth of detail and accuracy is exemplary, choosing cress was very intelligent, and I could go on”, he says.
He is not slow to send them an invitation to go on the road:
“I sincerely hope that they spend their future professional life in researching, because I definitely think they have a natural aptitude for it. Personally, I would love to see these people in my team!”
But the experiment proved something really huge. Something the majority of the world does without knowing the consequences.
“None of us sleep with the mobile next to the bed anymore. Either the phone is put far away, or it is put in another room. And the computer is always off”, says Lea.
If your bed is close to a WiFi Router we strongly advise to change the bed’s or the router’s location. And when it is time to sleep, leave the technology where its place is.
This article was first published in naturalblaze.com February 2017
The telecoms industry and governmental regulators have consistently ignored or avoided meaningful discussion on the cancer risks from using mobile phone and other microwave devices such as DECT phones, smart-meters, etc. Our safety regulators also routinely disregard any form of criticism, particularly the omission of non-thermal biological effects in their regulatory methodology.
The reason why is very simple yet they do not advertise the ‘Achilles heel’ or foundation stone of their regulatory and legal methodology. In fact, all safety legislation in all countries that rely on data from the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) focus solely on non-ionising radiation. Biological or non-thermal effects such as cancer, DNA-breakages, disruption in cellular transport and other adverse biological processes are completely ignored.
I urge the reader to ask their telecoms regulators one very simple question, ‘do you have any legislation relating to consumer safety that specifically mentions non-thermal or biological effects’? Over here in the UK I have looked at the legislation surrounding the use of mobile phone and other microwave technologies from Public Health England (PHE) and cannot find any exposure values or safety information relating specifically to non-thermal or biological effects. The regulatory framework is concerned with thermal or skin-heating effects and nothing else. Here in Europe, America, Australia and elsewhere, regulators rely on advice and information in setting exposure levels on data from the ICNIRP. The ICNIRP base all their safety data on non-ionising radiation which legally translates to thermal heating effects only.
The ICNIRP and telecom regulators the world over further argue that initiation of biological effects is theoretically impossible because the devices they regulate use non-ionising radiation. Significantly, note that current-day regulatory advice related to exposure of non-ionising radiation extends up to 300 GHz. This means that the next development of telecommunication devices known as 5G (which operates up to 300GHz) will not be safety tested for non thermal or biological effects. Why? The telecoms industry will argue that because these frequencies are non-ionising, there is no need to test for carcinogenic processes. The rest of this article will discuss what we need to know about the hidden and forgotten debate surrounding the definition of non-ionising radiation. It is also good to know that all parameters of non-ionising radiation were put in place before the wide-scale rollout of the Internet, WIFI and the proliferation of consumer toys that has led to our present-day electromagnetic entanglements with electrosmog.
The electromagnetic spectrum (see Figure 1) illustrates the division between non-ionising and ionising radiation. The threshold between these two groups of radiation was discussed from the early 19th century onwards within private scientific organisations such as the ICRU (International Committee on Radiation Units), ANSI/IEEE (American National Standards Institute /Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers) and a host of other safety standards setting bodies. Notably, most of these findings were eventually consolidated under another private body called the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection). These august scientific bodies were staffed mostly by physicists and engineers with little input from the medical profession. The ICNIRP ‘guidelines’ on non-ionising radiation were formulated in 1988, just prior to the rollout of the Internet.
Historically, it has always been easier to scientifically define ionising radiation compared to non-ionising radiation. This is due to the fact that ionising radiation mostly refers to radioactive substances, principally alpha, beta and gamma emitters. Non-ionising radiation has always been more difficult to define scientifically because it solely relies on the value of the photon energy to define the threshold between itself and ionising radiation. Additionally, we are talking about a photon which can be viewed as a planar travelling wave having electrical and magnetic components. It is difficult to predict the propagation of microwave frequencies because the signal can be reflected, refracted, attenuated or enhanced depending on what is between your head and the mobile phone tower. The significance of both electrical (e) or magnetic properties (h) varies along the electromagnetic spectrum. Towards the low end of this spectrum, biological systems are dominated by magnetic effects because the wavelengths (or dissipation of energy per wavelength) is very dilute. As we move up the spectrum band, wavelengths become smaller with resultant rise in increased electrical characteristics. There is little work that has been carried out to identify the significance of the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic effects of body exposures to frequencies between 30 kHz and 300 GHz. Instead we rely on safety work carried out during the development of radar. There are several reviews (mostly military) that take a standard view that exposure to microwave radiation is carcinogenic and leads to all sorts of cancers.
To make sense of radiation in general, it is useful to look at what we are already aware of. If we look at the entire electromagnetic spectrum, we can already identify carcinogenic effects from (a) electrical generating systems and (b) overhead pylons and cables and electrical substations. All these processes create very high electrical field voltages and currents with subsequent high magnetic fields. If you live close to these structures you increase the statistical odds you may contract some form of cancer. Eden(2) suggests in his paper published by Cancer Treat Rev (2010) that environmental factors, including non-ionising radiation, contribute to the aetiology of childhood cancers (leukaemia’s). The Dutch government currently has a scheme going on where it is buying up all privately owned properties that lie under high power electrical pylon cables. They understand what is going on in terms of cancer induction and are pro-actively taking issues into their own hands(4).
If we move up the electromagnetic spectrum we discover carcinogenic effects attributed to microwave radiation studies. A snapshot of these studies can be found here. It is useful to understand that exposures to microwave radiation can increase free radicals, decrease DNA repair mechanisms, lead to DNA-breakages and other initiators of cancer. These biological endpoints are all potential initiators of carcinogenesis, similar in function to that found for ionizing radiation. Clearly, if it waggles like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck. It is becoming more and more difficult for the telecoms industry and its regulators to ignore non thermal effects. Part of the problem we face when presenting this type of data to regulators is that we have to engage the State Machine which is reluctant to change any of its microwave safety advice in light of new developments. This is even more so when the facts between microwave exposure and initiation of carcinogenic processes become ever larger and more significant.
In 2011 the IARC (International Agency on Cancer Research) classified exposure to microwave radiation, as Class 2B i.e. possibly carcinogenic. This warning is based on the fit between the incidence of gliomas (brain tumours) and heavy users of mobile phones. Heavy usage in the year 2000 was defined as 30 minutes per day. Usage for many groups within present-day society easily exceeds this length of time. This agency is the scientific arm of the World Health Organisation. The classification of microwave radiation having the potential to initiate cancer was based on data from a study called INTERPHONE(3). The IARC report itself is 481 pages long and it is by no means a critique of the telecoms industries because it clearly states that “although numerous experimental studies have been published on the non-thermal biological effects of RF-EMF, multiple computational analyses based on biophysical and thermodynamic considerations have concluded that it is theoretically implausible for physiological effects to be induced at exposure intensities that do not cause an increase in tissue temperature”. In other words, it is clear from a first read of this report that the Agency itself accepts the ‘theory’ behind non-ionising radiation. Interestingly, the weight and significance of data from the INTERPHONE study probably led to much heated discussion. Those members of the Agency who stuck to their guns in demanding some form of cancer warning on exposure to microwave radiation are to be commended. Importantly, this is the first bit of light in the whole debate on non-ionising radiation. This IARC Class 2B carcinogenicity warning suggests that, under certain conditions, it is possible to initiate carcinogenic processes for users of mobile phones. Clearly, it is no longer safe to assume that non-ionising radiation is safe. This is an ‘inconvenient truth’ for the telecoms industries and their regulators yet the significance of this cancer-warning has largely gone over the head of consumers. Regulators do not want to talk about mobile phone frequencies, Class 2B cancer warning in the same breath with ‘non-ionising’ radiation. Clearly, their is much more scientific work that needs to be carried out on exposure to microwave radiation. It should be carried outwith an open mind free from the restrictions of the scientific paradigm that ‘non-ionising radiation’ is incapable of initiating carcinogenic processes within the body.
The real problem we all face in this is simply that the Scientific Process itself is not working as it should to resolve any of these issues. Thomas Kuhn, who was a philosopher of Science, stated that ‘any science must be falsifiable’. What he meant by this phrase is that any hypothesis must be provably wrong i.e. the hypothesis should be put to the test until it sinks or passes all tests. Only then can we view it as a scientific theory. Even at this stage of scientific maturity, the theory remains a theory unless or until proven wrong. Science supposedly advances in this way.
The current ‘no cancer effect’ hypothesis put forward by a sizeable chunk of health physicists, the telecoms industries and their regulators is that there is insufficient photon energy within microwave frequencies to eject electrons from the outer orbit of elements or molecules. It is obvious that the current hypothesis needs rigorous testing because it is becoming clearer each day that exposure to microwave radiation is causing adverse biological effects on our body and capable of causing cancer. If for some reason microwave radiation is able to break chemical bonds in several different ways, it is highly likely that these biological changes will lead to carcinogenesis. If the telecoms industry took a leaf out of the life of Dr Bob Becker(6), they may discover a wealth of information related to the functioning of the central nervous system when exposed to artificially-induced electromagnetic frequencies. This work is even more important now because unlike the early 1970s, we are all encapsulated within a sea of electromagnetic frequencies. What effect do all these frequencies have on the body? Is there a ‘cocktail effect’ going on where the presence of one frequency in combination with a second (or more) frequency is able to exert a disproportionate adverse biological effect on the body? Do some frequencies completely swamp the central nervous system to the extent that the entire internal signalling of the body begins to break down? Do we really understand all there is to know about the effect of magnetism on the human body both at the low and high end of the electromagnetic spectrum?
According to Kuhn, the telecoms industry and its regulators should be conducting experiments to falsifiably prove that exposure to microwave radiation does initiate carcinogenic processes. Every single time a paper is looked at by the ICPIRN /IARC /PHE (Public Health England) they argue the scientific protocol is not sufficiently robust or of the wrong type or statistically unsound. Almost all the data on non thermal effects is ignored for one reason or another. When this particular apple falls to the ground – and it will – we approach what Kuhn describes as the ‘overturning of a scientific paradigm’. It will be like a switch going off in the minds and perception of the scientific community. Look for massive changes in the telecom industries and how they do business. The telecom regulators and everyone else involved in this deception of perception will quickly fall by the wayside. Everyone loves mobile phones yet it is the fully informed consumers who will ultimately demand much safer technologies – consumer sovereignty truly is king.
Finally, most ordinary people would say that the chances of catching cancer is down to lifestyle choices, the type of work you do and where you live. The bulk of the scientific community, however, views this as chance, luck or down to the odds your genes randomly mutate. It took a long time coming but a scientific paper published in 2015 sides with the view of ordinary people in these matters and statistically argues that “external factors play a big role (in cancer-causation), and people cannot hide behind bad luck”(6). In other words, many of the fallacies of Big Science are beginning to break down. It is only a matter of time before many of the fallacies behind non-ionising radiation break down as well. Next time you see anything from a government regulatory department that says ‘these devices use non-ionising radiation’ as a form of fluffy appeasement, understand there is a lot in this sentence that has not been said, caveat emptor.
About the Author
Dr. Ellis Evans underwent a significant spiritual awakening in 2014 in which many things in his mind fell like pins. One of the fruits of his awakening was an increased sensitivity to microwave radiation which is real and can be felt adversely within various organs of the body. He has a website dealing with these issues: http://www.emfguru.co.uk He is also a spiritual counsellor for those undergoing deep spiritual awakening including spiritual emergency. His website can be found here: http://www.hellostarseeds.net
FCC Intimidates Press And Evades Questioning About Wireless And Cancer At 5G Rollout
Note from Annie: Although this article is American the topic is very relevant to the World and can be easily adapted for UK policies, procedures and fighting back.
In a public meeting at [Federal Communications Commission] FCC headquarters on July 14, the agency which once served the American people instead acted like tyrannical thugs, in an escalating series of remarkable events.
First, they prevented wireless science advocates from displaying a simple sign, violating their First Amendment rights in a public venue. Then, a security guard forcefully prevented a t-shirt from being taken out of a bag, by a former Congressional candidate with opposing views.
Next, a Bloomberg reporter had his credentials confiscated — almost unbelievably — for talking with the former Congressional candidate.
Following these incidents, the reporter, Todd Shields, was visibly irate with FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler — who also happens to be the former president of CTIA, the wireless industry’s lobbying organization.
“Moments ago I was attempting to talk to some people who came to attend the meeting and have concerns about radiation and 5G. And your security force intervened — told the guy he couldn’t show me the t-shirt he wished to display at the meeting, forced him to put it away, and confiscated my FCC-issued ID. Is this consonant with the discussion that ought to be taking place here, and what’s your reaction to this action by your staff?”
Todd Shields, Bloomberg reporter, to FCC Chair Wheeler [on video above]
And in the Q&A that followed, the former Congressional candidate Kevin Mottus successfully added another dose of truth to the narrative.
“Hey Tom, with the NTP study showing wireless causes cancer sub-thermally, how can you proceed with more wireless expansion, with FCC standards only recognizing thermal effects — ignoring thousands of studies showing cancerous effects, neurological effects, reproductive harm, immune system disorders… people are being electrosensitive…”
Kevin Mottus, former Congressional candidate, to Wheeler [on video above]
After about 20 seconds of yielding the floor to Mottus, Wheeler interrupted, dodged this very appropriate question, and diverted to an FCC-compliant journalist.
Why Is The FCC Resorting To Gestapo-Like Tactics Of Censorship And Intimidation?
The issue here is that the Federal Communications Commission just rubber-stamped their rollout of “5G” cellular technology which, while increasing throughput, would blanket the planet with ultra-high microwave frequencies — 24Ghz and up. The fact that these frequencies have never been tested as safe is not stopping corporate-government plans for an unleashing of “massive infrastructure.”
But there have been thousands of published peer-reviewed studies that indicate the proliferation of microwave (wireless) technologies is not safe to biological life. (See meta-study links here, here, here and here.)
There’s a lot of money in a wireless economy and the data-harvesting that comes with it. So, Big Industry has bought the science, bought lawmakers, ruled the proliferation of microwaves as “safe,” and infiltrated the FCC along with most international health agencies.
And in the face of this willful, for-profit negligence, instead of employing conscience and responsibility, it appears they are now operating from within governing agencies to silence opposition.
Great book: Captured Agency, an expose on the FCC by Norm Alster at Harvard Ethics Dept.
Here’s some snippets from FCC Chair Wheeler at his June 20 press conference:
“5G will use much higher frequency bands [24 to 100+ GHz]… antennas that can aim and amplify signals… massive deployment of small cells… tens of billions of dollars in economic activity… hundreds of billions of microchips… if something can be connected, it will be connected… unlike other countries… we won’t wait for the standards…”
Tom Wheeler, FCC Chair [on video above]
Paraphrased: “We can’t let life get in the way of profit. We want to make billions from all of you, and control everything. And in doing so, we’re not only going to willfully ignore science, we’re going to remove the idea of standards and initiate a free-for-all.”
If Unchecked, What Could This Lead To?
The implications of all of this are very far-reaching. How far? Well, to find out, let’s start with what we know.
It’s pretty clear at this point that we have a government that has been taken over by corporate interests. In order to increase their power and control even more, they plan to exponentially ramp-up the deployment of technology everywhere, which a vast body of science clearly says is harmful.
If unchecked, this will almost certainly lead to an increase in cancer and other ailments associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Haven’t we had enough of for-profit agendas putting profits before health?
From a surveillance standpoint, we already know there is a sinister spying agenda operating behind the scenes. The rollout of “5G” technology — especially in the standardless, profit-centered way Wheeler describes — would indeed open up a considerable new threat to basic rights.
If everything is connected, you can bet that as many details as possible about our actions will be tracked and stored somewhere — like the $2B NSA facility in Blufdale, Utah. And there is extraordinary market value in this. A director at NARUC stated that the value of data harvested just by “smart” utility meters alone will likely be worth a lot more than electricity itself, which is a $2.2 trillion market globally.
But besides being creepy and making the 1% even richer, there are clear warning signs that a control-oriented governing system could easily take an indexed catalog of all of your actions and use it against you in a multitude of ways.
For example, increasingly instrusive “pre-crime” operations are already planned in Miami. And insurance providers are checking their customers’ facebook data to influence premiums and even coverage availability. So it’s really not unreasonable to see how a governing body concerned primarily with staying in power could restrict rights or remove “privileges” for behavior that is deemed to be not aligned with national interests.
So, tracking is not okay unless we are absolutely convinced that the governing body of that system truly respects individual rights and has the best interests of the people in mind. And right now, we are not even close to having such leadership in our governments.
Wheeler’s vision of 5G would significantly enable those who are motivated by power and money to use technology to rule over everyone else. In order to protect our lives and future, we must not allow that to happen.
While we would all like to have fast internet, we must now look closely at the downside of this technology, and take constructive action. This can understandably be difficult, due to the considerable attachment that we have to both our devices and the sense of immediate gratification that using them offers.
How We Will Save Our World: Individual Responsibility, Accountability & Liability
In addition to an interview with Kevin Mottus, last Sunday I skyped with Dafna Tachover, a New York-based attorney who was present at“G-Day” last Thursday.
Tachover, who is among millions now who have directly experienced microwave radiation harm after becoming sensitized to it, says that the only way forward is individual accountability and liability. In my view, she is obviously right.
“Until there’s personal accountability and liability, this systematic problem that repeats itself will happen again, and again, and again, and it has been. So, we learned that the tobacco industry was lying to the public, bluntly — to the public, to the government, to health organizations — without any hesitation…. Was anyone sued? No. Was anyone found personally accountable? No. So that’s actually what enables this kind of behavior to happen again and again.”
“This is the action we should take: we should make it clear to those government people — or you know, if we talk about wi-fi in schools, the school principals, who do have personal responsibility and liability to protect children’s health — to make sure they know they will be found personally liable for the harms they cause. They have a position of trust, and they betrayed that trust. And they should be found liable. It should be civil liability and criminal liability.” -Dafna Tachover, attorney & CEO of We Are The Evidence [on above video]
Former Congressional candidate Kevin Mottus spoke about the urgency of the situation.
“My background is as a medical social worker. And when I was in the hospitals I saw young salesman and lawyers coming in with brain
tumors, and healthy otherwise, other than the tumor — and doctors asking them about their cell phone use. So I was clued in very early with these heavy users and the tumors it was causing.”
“Schools are now our most dangerous places to be. You have 20-40 wireless transmitters in their iPads and wireless laptops, and then you have 2-3 commercial-grade wireless routers…. So you have, really, the setting of the most significant exposure in our country, and the most vulnerable population being exposed are small children — which we know are 3 to 4 times as sensitive to all environmental hazards.”
“We are microwaving our population and wondering why our cancer is going through the roof and chronic disease is going through the roof. It’s really very sad.”
“I spoke to Congressman Grayson from Florida, and while I was talking with him, one of his staffers, Joe, came up to me. And he said, ‘What are you talking about?’ I said, ‘I’m talking about wireless cell phones causing brain tumors.’ He said, ‘That’s interesting, because I had a brain aneurysm and I’m lucky to be alive. It’s also interesting because my buddy just died from a brain tumor.’”
“So, people are definitely getting sick. And you need to ask them, ‘Does your face tingle when you use your cell phone?…. Do you have difficulty sleeping? Have you ever gotten nauseous using the phone? Do you feel funny when you’re around wi-fi, or getting close to it?’ And you’ll be surprised — people are getting sick.”
“For instance, I spoke to Congressman Rush. Congressman Rush has a salivary gland tumor, which Israel has associated with cell phone use….”
“We need to stop this before they [FCC] auction the [ultra-high frequency] spectrum.”
-Kevin Mottus, former Congressional candidate, California [on above video]
What Can I Do To Stop This Crazy Plan?
FIRST: SEND A LETTER, EMAIL, OR CALL
Our friends at parentsforsafetechnology.org have put together an action page for writing, calling, and emailing Congress, the FCC, and others. Use this platform and templates to let them know firmly that you:
Accept their oath of office to defend the Constitution, and all of your rights.
Will hold them responsible, liable, and accountable if they do not stop harmful 5G technology in its tracks.
Demand the 1996 Telecommunications Act be immediately repealed. (This industry-penned law took away local rights to refuse cell tower installations on health or environmental grounds.)
Demand that the responsibility of electromagnetic frequency (EMF) safety standards be transferred to an independent, science-based panel that represents the people. (The FCC has NO ONE who is qualified to protect the health of the people, because it was never part of their mandate.)
This is the “warning shot.” While all know that more than letters to our reps will be needed to right the ship, this is where it starts. So do this first.
Mottus is calling on everyone to go speak with your government reps in DC — and to go in person if at all possible.
“You know where the Congressmen are. You know where all of the committees are. Go. Educate them. Go like the wireless industry goes, time after time, to the FCC.”
Mottus is inviting anyone who wants to join him in DC for the next session of Congress (between September 6 to October 6) to email him at firstname.lastname@example.org
It is also very important to contact your local governments, to let them know that they, too, will be held individually accountable and liable. In Wheeler’s June 20 talk, he very clearly identified the role that local governments will play, if their plan of 5G is to be “successful” or not.
THIRD: ACCEPT YOUR OWN ACCOUNTABILITY, AND ENVISION THE POSITIVE OUTCOME
This is as much about standing up to the harm-doers and holding them accountable as it is about holding yourself accountable to do the right thing. Not to take the world on your shoulders, but to do the right thing and stay connected with others who are likewise committed.
In this process, we’re remembering who we are, as co-creators of reality. We’re accepting responsibility for the fact that we let the situation become what it is today, because of our passive trust in those who have become corrupted — but we’re forgiving ourselves, trusting in the greater flow, and coming together.
Though it can be painful to face the situation and accept the necessity of our action, we just have to do it. We’re now seeing clearly that in order for the human species to make it through this threshold, individual rights must be protected.
It is not okay to suppress free speech. It is not okay to suppress science; whenever this happens, the resulting harm is enormous. And it is not okay to prioritize power and greed above life itself.
So the only way left is to grow up, individually and as a species. When we do this — by taking responsibility and putting our Inspired Will into the world — we open the door to a future of awakening, freedom, and peace for all humanity.
On September 13, 2017, more than 180 scientists and doctors sent an 11-page Appeal for a moratorium on the roll out of 5G in the European Union.
The reason for the appeal is “RF/EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment,” but 5G has not been investigated fully for potential health hazards and environmental impact by INDEPENDENT scientists, rather than industry scientists who apparently would rubber stamp 5G similarly as the other generations of telecommunications updates have been.
According to the Appeal, 5G is effective only over short distances and is transmitted poorly through solid materials. Because of that inefficiency in transmission, a tremendous number of antennas or cell towers will be needed to implement 5G service.
One key paragraph jumped out for me:
With “the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies,” nobody can avoid to be exposed. Because on top of the increased number of 5G-transmitters (even within housing, shops and in hospitals) according to estimates, ”10 to 20 billion connections” (to refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, self-driving cars and buses, etc.) will be parts of the Internet of Things. All these together can cause a substantial increase in the total, long term RF-EMF exposure to all EU citizens. [CJF emphasis]
Unfortunate as it is, there are no studies for long-term RF/EMF exposures to humans that I neither know about nor have found in my research. That deliberate omission seems to be the most incriminating aspect of probable collusion on the part of “consensus science,” which apparently motivates and propels microwave technology, the industry and, in particular, its professional associations that impact microwave ‘policy’ at the United Nations, World Health Organization and its IARC, and the U.S. Federal Communication Commission.
“[N]umerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines,” including “increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.”
The Appeal notes:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, new studies like the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological investigations including the latest studies on mobile phone use and brain cancer risks confirm that RF-EMF radiation is carcinogenic to humans.
The scientists and doctors point out the Precautionary Principle, adopted by the EU in 2005, states:
When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.
Unfortunately, in this writer’s opinion, the Precautionary Principle has been negated for all intents and purposes by medicine and science in favor of corporate profiteering, “consensus science” and downright falsified or ‘vintage’ research, plus marketing strategies to promote less-than-accurate facts regarding pharmaceuticals, microwave technology and much of the “smart” meme.
Under “Safety Guidelines,” the Appeal emphasizes how industry is protected, but not human health:
The current ICNIRP “safety guidelines” are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation…To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.” [CJF emphasis]
The current ICNIRP/WHO guidelines for EMF are based on the obsolete hypothesis that “The critical effect of RF-EMF exposure relevant to human health and safety is heating of exposed tissue.” However, scientists have proven that many different kinds of illnesses and harms are caused without heating (”non-thermal effect”) at radiation levels well below ICNIRP guidelines.
The problem apparently is ICNIRP seems to be running the show “science-wise,” while it’s really behind the times, especially since ICNIRP refuses to accept non-thermal waves and adverse effects, which 32 percent of industry-funded-research proved they exist! Talk about Neanderthals! What rock has ICNIRP been under all this time?
The Appeal offers five recommendations the European Union ought to follow, especially “to study the total and cumulative exposure affecting EU-citizens.” Cumulative exposure is KEY to any study whether it is assessing a chemical or a pollutant, which microwave EMFs/RFs truly are. They create “electrosmog.”
The Appeal has 7 pages of signatories from around the globe, including 23 from the USA.
Let’s hope a similar Appeal is presented to the U.S. Federal Communication Commission, which apparently is totally off-base regarding its safety recommendations.
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.