5G and beyond

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

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

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…

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

Recent 5G information resources

1) On 13 September 2019 the Australian Minister for Communications, Hon Paul Fletcher MP asked the Committee to inquire into and report on the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in Australia. At the end of the time for submissions, Nov. 1, 2019, 172 submissions  had been received and all are available on their website: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Communications/5G/Submissions

2) The UK EM Radiation Research Trust held an International conference in London on 28th September, 2019 with doctors and scientific experts from around the world discussing the facts regarding 5G.  The presentations are available to download on the Radiation Research Trust website: https://www.radiationresearch.org/campaigns/september-28th-conference-presentations/

Leszczynski: Lecture Tour of New Zealand

Excerpt: Posted on November 6, 2019. The ongoing deployment of the 5th generation of the wireless communication technology (5G) is being met with a great enthusiasm by the telecommunication industry and national governments and the majority of the general public. However, there is also resistance from the part of the population in various locations around the globe. The opposition towards deployment of the 5G is caused by the uncertainty whether radiation emitted by the 5G networks and devices will have any effects on human health and environmental impact on fauna and flora. This November, I will be lecturing for the first time in New Zealand. In my lectures I will present the current scientific knowledge as well as the current lack of scientific research on the biological and health effects of the 5G millimeter-waves. I will also present the evidence, and the reasoning, for the invocation of the Precautionary Principle and for the temporary moratorium on 5G deployment, while awaiting for the much needed scientific research on millimeter-waves…SNIP

Danish legal opinion concludes 5G contravenes human and environmental laws

Excerpt:
Posted on November 4, 2019 by Stop Smart Meters Australia Attorney-at-law Christian Jensen, of Bonnor Lawyers in Denmark, examined potential health damages and risks of 5G in relation to human rights and environmental conventions.The legal opinion is centred around results that have positively documented actual damages or risks to humans, animals and plants.  Jensen points out that this research is “inherently of much greater significance than examinations which have been incapable of identifying a damage or risk thereof, since the latter group does not in itself exclude the possibility that there exist real damage or risks”.He explains that “If it has on one occasion defensibly been scientifically proven that there is a damaging effect or risk of damage, then the fact that ten other defensible trials did not show such an effect or risk is irrelevant.  It is then merely up to the scientific community to clarify why the ten defensible trials did not show what is scientifically proven, in order to better understand why and how the damages occur or could occur”.In his final remarks, on page 64 of the 75-page document, Jensen states that:“It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described,  would  be  in  contravention  of  current  human  and  environmental  laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonn-conventions….SNIP

Joel M. Moskowitz writing in Scientific American: “We Have No reason to believe 5G is Safe”

Excerpt: The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risksBy Joel M. Moskowitz, October 17, 2019The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include 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 plant and animal life.”..SNIP