Independent information on the possible health and safety issues arising from human exposure to electromagnetic energy.

Consultation Services

  • Architects and builders

    How to reduce or eliminate excessive EMF areas during the preliminary design phase.

  • Homeowners

    How to identify and eliminate excessive EMFs in the home.

  • Medical practitioners

    If you suspect EMF exposure may be a factor in your patient’s ill health (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome).

  • Wireless Technology

    Advice on how to reduce microwave exposure from mobile phones, Wi-Fi and other wireless technology.

  • Inside air quality

    Advice on chemical and mould exposure in buildings including electrical equipment VOCs.

  • Workplace OH&S

    How to identify and eliminate or reduce EMF in the workplace

From the Blog

  • ARPANSA claims 5G is safe by referring to bogus provocation studies.

    ARPANSA is scraping the botton of its scientific credibility barrel in its latest claims that 5G is safe by dredging up a double blind provocation study (from ACEBR) which found no evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields was a cause of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). In the best of Hogwarts’ School of Wizardly, ARPANSA manages a

    Read more →
  • Open Season on 5G Critics First NY Times, Now Scientific American

    From Microwave News

    December 6, 2019
    Excerpt: Simply saying that more health research is needed on 5G —the latest generation of cell phone technology— can be hazardous to your reputation.Last May, the New York Times tried to take down David Carpenter, a public health physician and the country’s most prominent 5G critic. Veteran science writer William Broad painted Carpenter as a willing tool of a disinformation campaign promoted by RT America, a TV network which he described as “the cat’s paw of Russian president, Vladimir Putin.” The page-one story ran under the headline, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You To Think Otherwise.”Two months later, on July 16, Broad was back for another hit on Carpenter. This time, he was given most of the front page of the Times’ Tuesday science section, to portray Carpenter as a fringe player working “hard to revise established science.”Much of what Broad wrote was fiction. (See “A Fact-Free Hit on a 5G Critic.”)Now Scientific American has ambushed Joel Moskowitz, one of the few other academics willing to state the obvious: No one knows whether 5G is safe…. SNIP

    Read more →
  • November 5G posts by Dariusz Leszczynski including his New Zealand tour

    1) Leszczynski: 5G presentation at the Auckland University Posted on November 19, 2019. Here are slides of my lecture on November 2019 at the Auckland University, Nov. 19, 2019. Titled: 5G AND HEALTH –IS IT SAFE? WHAT THE SCIENCE TELLS US

    2)Asking the right questions: Guest Blog from Julius Gorm Graakjær Grantzau, former member of The Danish Parliament Posted on November 23, 2019 Excerpt: Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of Julius Gorm Graakjær Grantzau himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.

    3) presentation at the Victoria University in Wellington: Here are slides of my lecture at the Rutherford House Lecture Theatre, Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington, Nov. 27, 2019. In my lectures, I am presenting science with all its limitations. I am trying to educate listeners that not every peer-reviewed study is a good quality study. That the design of the study may, and will, pre-determine the outcome of the study. Also, I am often pointing out that not every study is useful, or of value, for determining human health policies.However, I found it interesting that there are listeners, who come to me after lectures, and complain that my opinions are not good ones because some other scientist(s) think differently and claim that there is plenty of studies proving health harm. Hence, in the listener’s opinion, my opinions, claiming lack of sufficient evidence to prove health harm due to exposures to wireless radiation, are incorrect.However, when I ask these listeners what education and expertise they have to scientifically judge which of the expert opinions is the correct one, they are often offended.But this is a simple fact life. How, non-scientist with no education in this area of research, can decide which scientific expert opinion is correct? It seems that the only way the non-scientists make judgement is based on whether scientist’s opinion fits/agrees with their existing already belief what the heath hazard is, instead of listening with the open mind.

    And there’s more…

    Read more →
  • City of Sydney’s submission to the government’s 5G inquiry: Sacrifice trees for network performance and overwhelming numbers of small cells…

    In stark contrast to the ACEBR/Vodafone/Telstra submissions (see last message) the city of Sydney has expressed very valid concerns over the introduction of 5G in the city. To quote in part from submission #310 from Sydney: “We know, for example that 5G millimetre wave radio spectrum is adversely affected by trees and that other physical assets and this adds a critical reason to collaboratively decide on cell heights and locations. We will not be willing to sacrifice trees in favour of network performance. Similarly, we need to consider the aesthetic and physical impacts of a potentially large volume of physical infrastructure which is located based on network performance only. We must find sustainable ways to advance the use of technology and we can do this only if we are an active part of the decision-making process within our city”…SNIP

    Read more →
  • Lies, Damn Lies and the Australian 5G inquiry

    Following on from the last message on the Australian 5G inquiry here are some submission quotes which clearly illustrate a willful maintenance of a state of scientific ignorance and outright lies, based on Procrustean Approach principles. The first is from  ACEBR and then from Vodafone. SNIP….

    Read more →