by Arjun Walia, The Pulse:
- The Facts:
- A study published in 2019 is one of many to point out that appropriate safety testing is needed and should be required before 5G technology is rolled out.
- It’s one of many studies pointing out that this type of radiation has harmful biological impacts on all life forms.
- Reflect On:Why were no appropriate safety studies conducted by the industry and government prior to the rollout out of 5G and other wireless technologies? Why are safety concerns often labelled as a “conspiracy theory” within the mainstream and in most cases remain unacknowledged?
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The rollout of 5G forges on regardless of the fact that no appropriate safety testing has been conducted prior to the rollout. The mainstream continues to tout the idea that there is no science showing that there are dangers associated with 5G radiation. Perhaps the lack of acknowledgement of health concerns comes from what Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate uncovered. He compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry. It’s quite revealing.
The wireless industry has admitted that no appropriate safety studies regarding wireless radiation and human health have been conducted. It’s no secret. There are many medical and health experts who have been raising concerns with regards to 5G technology and thousands of peer-reviewed publications that have been sounding the alarm for quite some time.
Stop the corporate media takeover: Big Tech censors and demonetizes independent media. We stay in the game because of YOU. Donate to help our work stay free. Click here to Donate.
Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University wrote a report titled “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.” In it, he emphasizes that:
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”
These concerns are also hitting the mainstream, one recent example of mainstream awareness is an article published in the blog section of Scientific American titled “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe” written by Joel M. Moskowitz.
The Environmental Health Trust is actually a great place to access more of the science on this topic if you’re interested in learning more.
A study published in 2019 is one of many that raises concerns. It’s titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.”
It outlines how,
“In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed. Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”
It goes on to state that,
“Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard”
It also emphasizes the following:
The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).
Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (73, 74). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.
One major theme of the study is the absence of science proving that this technology is safe.
With this absence of human evidence, governments must require large-scale animal studies (or other appropriate studies of indicators of carcinogenicity and other adverse health effects) to determine whether the newest modulation technologies incur risks, prior to release into the marketplace. Governments should also investigate short-term impacts such as insomnia, memory, reaction time, hearing and vision, especially those that can occur in children and adolescents, whose use of wireless devices has grown exponentially within the past few years.
How can science like this be deemed a conspiracy theory? If it is, why are scientists allowed to publish it after going through a rigorous peer-reviewed process in an esteemed scientific journal?
A list of Annual Reports by telecommunication companies clearly shows how companies warn their shareholders but not residents living near cell antennas. Read more here. They are already facing numerous lawsuits.