CPTF Letter to COP27 PDF

Cellular Phone Task Force
Post Office Box 6216 ∙ Santa Fe, NM 87502 ∙ (505) 471-0129

Issue: Unsolicited
Deadline: Open
Title: Voluntary submissions to the COP 27 / CMP 17 / CMA 4
Session Name: COP 27
Mandate: N/A

LETTER TO THE COP 27

A blind spot must be filled

Outside of an atomic nucleus, there are only two fundamental forces in nature: gravity and electricity. The electromagnetic force is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the gravitational force. Yet much of western science pretends that it does not exist. This is now having terminal consequences for life on Earth. The consequences for life are being blamed on microorganisms. The consequences for the environment are being blamed on climate change.

This Conference is rightly concerned with halting the burning of fossil fuels. Unless that is stopped, the Earth will become uninhabitable. But even if it is stopped, the Earth will not survive unless global electrosmog is also stopped— electrosmog from the wireless cloud and from satellites. And electrosmog is even more of an emergency than climate change. We have only years to stop it, not decades. In addition, many of the strategies for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels—solar power, wind power, the smart grid, electric vehicles, smart highways, smart cities, and so forth—are only making matters much worse. The methods used to gather information about altered animal habitats—GPS, radio
tracking devices, etc.—are killing wildlife instead of saving them.

The following are a few of the facts that the United Nations must immediately recognize and take control of in order for our children to live to grow up:

 Electricity, and no other force, is responsible for life. The study of electricity must be restored to biology, chemistry, and medicine.

 Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) interfere with the flow of electrons in our nerves, our brains, and our hearts’ pacemakers. This is responsible for the recent huge increases in the prevalence of neurological diseases such as ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and autism, and the large increase in the incidence of heart attacks in young people.

 EMFs interfere with the flow of electrons from the food we eat to the oxygen we breathe, which occurs day and night in the mitochondria of every cell in order to make the energy necessary for life.

 This interference with metabolism—interference with the burning of sugars, fats and proteins for energy—has put all living things into a state of oxygen deprivation. This is occurring to every person, every animal, every insect, and every plant, without ceasing and without possibility of escape.

 The reduced ability of our cells to digest sugars is called diabetes.

 The reduced ability of our cells to digest fats causes them to be deposited in in our tissues, resulting in obesity. It causes them to be deposited in coronary arteries, resulting in heart disease.

 The reduced ability of our cells to utilize the oxygen we breathe causes them to revert to anaerobic (non-oxygen-using) metabolism, resulting in cancer.

 The extraordinary increases in these four pandemic diseases—obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer—are predominantly caused by constant radiation from personal wireless devices and the global infrastructure that supports them.

 In bees, which have a very high metabolism, this interference is quickly lethal. Colony collapse disorder is caused almost entirely by electrosmog.

 The 75% decline in flying insects in nature reserves throughout Germany, and the 98% to 99% decrease in the number of crawling insects in a Puerto Rican rainforest—decreases that reflect what is globally being called “insect apocalypse”—are predominantly caused by the enormous increase in the intensity of radiation from the global wireless infrastructure.

 The unprecedented mass deaths of nesting birds worldwide in the spring and summer of 2022 was due to the tremendous global intensification of wireless infrastructure now occurring on land, in space, and in the oceans.

 The emissions from wireless devices are called radio frequency (RF) radiation. In addition to the general interference with electron flow in our bodies that occurs from any source of EMFs, RF radiation carries complex information from one wireless device to another in the form of frequencies and pulsation patterns. It carries the same information to the cells of our bodies, interfering with and drowning out the communication between our cells, and between our bodies and the Earth.

 This interferes with reproduction, growth, differentiation, maturation, healing, and normal functioning, and is responsible for the dramatic degradation of human health in the past two and a half decades.

 This interference with internal communication does not depend on dose. Even at near- zero power levels, RF radiation has been shown to alter brain waves and change the structure of DNA.

 Every wireless device and every antenna is responsible for electrosmog. None can ever be used safely, not even theoretically. Not cell towers, not cell phones, not WiFi, not Bluetooth, and not any of the 25 different wireless devices owned by the average household today.  by governments and private corporations, are massively polluting and altering the electromagnetic environment of the Earth itself. This is further degrading all of life below, because every living thing is part of the global electric circuit which flows at all times between the sky and the Earth.

 There are 15 billion cell phones on Earth today emitting RF radiation, along with more than 6 million cell towers. At least 5,000 satellites are emitting radiation globally from space, with at least 100,000 more being scheduled and planned.

On behalf of my organization, the millions of people who support my work, and on behalf of humanity, all of life, and the Earth, I ask the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to recognize electrosmog as the emergency that it is, and a huge contributor to aspects of the degradation of life that have heretofore been blamed only on climate change. I further ask the United Nations to open an official discussion on this emergency threat to all nations and I propose the drawing up of a new treaty and the establishment of a Convention on Electrosmog. I, and the thousands of global experts with whom I communicate, are available to assist in this effort in any way that is required.

Arthur Firstenberg
P.O. Box 6216
Santa Fe, NM 87502
USA
+1 (505) 471-0129
November 3, 2022

The following resources contain much more information and citations to thousands of studies,
and are essential to understanding this emergency threat to life on Earth:

Radio Wave Packet (2022): https://cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Radio-
Wave-Packet.pdf. 20 pages, including 10 pages of bibliography. The best concise resource.
International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space: https://5gSpaceAppeal.org. An appeal
to the United Nations, World Health Organization and European Union. It has been signed, to
date, by 302,708 people from 216 nations and territories, including 7,301 scientists, 4,471
medical doctors, and 14,165 engineers.

“Birds on Texel Island” (2022): https://cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/07/Birds-on-Texel-Island.pdf. A study finding that the mass deaths of
thousands of nesting birds this spring on Texel Island (the Netherlands) and elsewhere exactly
corresponded in time to a sudden large increase in RF radiation at each nesting colony and were
not due to bird flu.

The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea
Green 2020) by Arthur Firstenberg: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-invisible-
rainbow. 576 pages, including 137 pages of bibliography.

Arthur Firstenberg is a scientist, author, and journalist who has been studying electromagnetic fields for the past 42 years. He is one of the world’s leading experts on this subject. His book, The Invisible Rainbow, is the first book to tell the history of electricity from an environmental point of view. He is the president of the Cellular Phone Task Force, the oldest and largest organization in North America devoted to reducing electromagnetic pollution. Its website is www.cellphonetaskforce.org.

PDF Cellphone TaskForce Letter to COP 27

Source Article : Phonegate Alert  7 Nov 2022

Tumor and cell phone: the Court of Appeal of Turin indemnifies an employee

‘Distance therefore remains the best friend of users and cell phones should never be kept in contact with the body’.

READ FULL ARTICLE AND MORE: https://phonegatealert.org/en/tumor-cellphone-court-appeal-turin-indemnifies-employee/

Click to access Court-of-Appeal-of-Turin-n.-519-Confirms-Court-of-Aosta-Italy-Decision-Cogne-Acciai-Speciali-Employee-Acoustic-Neuroma-from-Cell-Phone-Use-November-02-2022.pdf

Open Access Published online by De Gruyter  October 26, 2022

From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health  https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0108

READ THE FULL PAPER https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0108/html

DOWNLOAD PDF 10.1515_reveh-2022-0108

SEE ALSO:

Leszczynski presentation at the 4th Ibero-American Congress on Magnetobiology: ‘Individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields: Biochemical studies are the only reasonable way forward‘

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2022/11/04/leszczynski-presentation-in-madrid-nov-4-2022/

Thanks to Green Street News  https://www.greenstreetnews.org/this-weeks-show

https://soundcloud.com/greenstreetradio/cell-phones-brain-cancer-risks-and-reality

On this edition of Green Street News, Patti and Doug discuss several scientific studies recently promoted by the wireless industry that claim to show there is no harm from cell phone radiation.

​Then we hear the story of Ellie Marks, whose husband Alan developed a brain tumor after years of heavy cell phone use. Ellie tells about her testimony in Washington and the legal case against cell phone manufacturers.

Introduction

Microwave and radiofrequency (RF) radiations power all over-the-air wireless channels, communication links, and network systems through which text, files, images, and videos are transferred by mobile devices and related platforms. The recent decades have seen exponential expansion in popularity for mobile access that has been forecasted to persist in the foreseeable future. Satisfying the demand would necessarily bring about greater human exposure to microwave and RF radiation.

Asides from primary intended roles as a carrier or infrastructure that enables the communication technology, microwave and RF radiation may induce additional effects that could influence the vital functions of living organisms. The biological changes caused would manifest in multiple physical and biological spheres. They may or may not be grossly apparent or observable soon after exposure of the living organisms. In some cases, they may only manifest until years later—they may develop years to decades after repeated low-level exposures.

The health impact of RF and microwave radiations has been a subject of scientific investigation shortly after demonstration of their production in scientific laboratories, over a century ago (1, 2). Without any doubt, their use especially in cellular mobile communication and associated wireless technologies have enriched human lives. Our knowledge regarding its health effects has increased gradually. Nonetheless, RF radiation has come to be a focal point of interest as a result of accelerated use of RF and microwave radiation in wireless mobile communications.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorized exposure to RF and microwaves as a possible carcinogen to humans in 2011. The IARC had evaluated existing scientific studies and came to the conclusion that while data was imperfect and restricted, particularly regarding reports from animal experiments, epidemiological investigations concerning elevated risks for gliomas (a type of malignant brain cancer) and acoustic neuromas (a non-malignant tumor of the acoustic or vestibulocochlear nerves) among heavy users or long-term customers of cellphones, are satisfactorily robust to warrant a classification of possibly carcinogenic in humans for exposure to RF and microwave radiation (3, 4).

Recently, two commonly distributed RF health protection recommendations revised their guidelines and standards. The updated International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection guidelines (5) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety standards (6) are strongly connected to acute temperature rises induced by RF heating inside the human body. The updated safety guidelines and standards showed without any question the groups’ staunch convictions of nothing but heat to worry about with microwave and RF radiation.

A persistent and vexing question lingers concerning these guidelines and standards for safe long-term exposure to RF radiation (in contrast to exposures shorter than 6 or 30 min). A general sense on the absence of appreciation of scientific evidence regarding long-term exposure below the basic restrictions continues with these safety guidelines and standards.

There is also the question of how there can be such divergent evaluations and inferences of the identical scientific findings by WHO’s IARC, ICES, and ICNIRP. To be fair, scientists are not impervious to conflicts of interest such as conflicting financial interests or personal relations which could affect the deliberations and reporting through such experiences as groupthink. Also, in some ways, it may parallel the compulsion by big business to choose profit over societal concerns—big businesses often use a range of organized and refined tactics to enhance and protect their commercial interests, and regrettably in some cases these tactics come at the expense of public health.

Human beings repeatedly render decisions and select choices that challenge principled logic. Indeed, science has not been devoid of politics—weird as that may sound. Various biases can impair sensible reasoning and result in bad judgments. Groupthink can mislead human beings and inhibit scientists from making understandable inferences. Regrettably, groupthink or herd mentality is as rampant today as ever. Has science become partisan? And if science becomes partisan, is it science or politics, or would it be political science? At times, science gets wrapped up in politics and politics intervenes with science. It may simply turn out to be a matter of guilelessly being politically correct of the willing. Less than rigorous enforcement of policies in research conduct or full disclosure of financial conflicts can lead to failures in guiding and informing the development of transparent and trustworthy evaluations of scientific evidence for safety protection. Scientists may not always be consistent, coherent, or as transparent as promoted…..

READ FULL PAPER HERE https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478/full

PDF  Carcinogenesis from chronic exposure to radio-frequency radiation-10-1042478

Dr Magda Havas, Trent University, Canada

This is a short video (15 minutes) on the publication from the International Commission on the biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) that critiqued 14 flawed assumptions by FCC/ICNIRP on Radiofrequency Radiation limits. Paper entitled: “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G” was published October 2022 in the journal Environmental Health. This article is open access and is available for download at: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)

Environmental Health (2022) 21:92 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

Abstract

In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any  biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.

Keywords: Federal Communications Commission (FCC), International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP), Radiofrequency radiation (RFR), Exposure limits, Exposure assessment, Radiation health effects, Reactive oxygen species (ROS), DNA damage, 5G, Scientific integrity, Cell phone*, Mobile phone* ……

See Full Document HERE

https://icbe-emf.org/

From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health   https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106

Nils Rainer Nyberg, Julie E. McCredden, Steven G. Weller and Lennart Hardell

Read Full Article HERE :  https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106/html

PDF 10.1515_reveh-2022-0106

Chief among the health consequences of blue light is its ability to suppress the production of melatonin, the hormone that regulates sleep patterns in humans and other organisms. Numerous scientific studies have warned that increased exposure to artificial blue light can worsen people’s sleeping habits, which in turn can lead to a variety of chronic health conditions over time.

The increase in blue light radiation in Europe has also reduced the visibility of stars in the night sky, which the study says “may have impacts on people’s sense of nature”. Blue light can also alter the behavioural patterns of animals including bats and moths, as it can change their movements towards or away from light sources.

The UK is among the countries singled out in the study for being most affected by the impacts of the transition to LED night lighting, especially the risk of melatonin suppression. Fifty-one per cent of street lights in the UK were powered by LEDs in 2019.

Italy, Romania, Ireland and Spain were also identified as countries more vulnerable to the impacts of blue light radiation due to their recent transitions to LED night lights. The impacts have been felt much less in countries such as Austria and Germany, which still power much of their night lighting using older gas and fluorescent bulbs.

The research was published in the journal Science Advances.

Darren Evans, professor of ecology and conservation at Newcastle University, who was not involved in the study, hailed it as “an extraordinary piece of work”, and said it aligned with his own findings on how local street lighting has dramatically reduced the abundance of nocturnal insect populations.

The transition to LEDs in the UK “poorly considered” the ecological and human costs of such a policy, said Evans.

David Smith, of the conservation charity Buglife, said: “Light pollution can dramatically impact invertebrates, whether that be how they go about their daily lives, or even by reducing populations of species that live in habitats lit by LED lights. Given that invertebrates are already suffering dramatic declines, it is vital that we relieve them from all pressures to provide the best chance of recovery.”

Smith urged the UK government to introduce national targets to reduce levels of light pollution, saying measurement in the country was patchy and uncoordinated.

“We should consider light from a wider biological perspective than that of just humans [and] we must focus on better quality lighting that is harmonious with our natural world. Better quality and lower levels of lighting would help save energy, and lower financial costs, while also making our environment safer for invertebrates.”

Some councils in England are already trying to reduce the impact of LED lighting, which Evans says are “encouraging signs” that action is being taken. He points out that some authorities are dimming the lights during night hours, and are changing the bandwidths of their LED bulbs to produce less harmful blue light, as seen on the Isle of Wight, which uses warmer bulbs that emit less blue light

See Article Here https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/14/increase-in-led-lighting-risks-harming-human-and-animal-health

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Environmental risks from artificial nighttime lighting widespread and increasing across Europe https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl6891

Source Article: https://www.propilotmag.com/5g/

With more bandwidth, EMFs become stronger.

By Owen Davies

Contributing Writer

An illustration of 5G network architecture, showing 5G and 4G working together, with central and local servers providing faster content to users and low-latency applications.

Recently, we tried to cut through the babble about 5G, look at actual data, and figure out how troublesome it really is for aviation. (See Pro Pilot, April 2022, p 8). Since then, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has doubled down on blaming its victims, ordering avionics makers to bring their “defective” radar altimeters up to a standard of signal discrimination required in no other country. However, that is not our topic here. This time, we will look at what electromagnetic fields (EMFs) may be doing – not to your equipment, but to you.

Why EMFs matters

Many hundreds of scientific studies have linked radio frequency EMFs to serious medical issues.

They include DNA damage, rare brain cancers, including glioma and acoustic neuroma, salivary tumors, heart disease, diabetes, sperm abnormalities, reduced volumes of the brain’s gray matter and damage to white matter, neuropsychiatric disorders such as anxiety and depression, and even very early onset Alzheimer’s disease.

The list seems to grow almost daily. This may be significant to pilots. Nina Anderson, a retired corporate pilot who has built a second career as a respected consultant specializing in EMF issues, reports that jet cockpits are the most EMF-dense environments she has ever examined. Every flight instrument and radio contributes its share.

We should note that all findings of a link between EMFs and health are disputed. For every study showing that electromagnetic fields subvert biological systems, scientists funded by the telecommunications industry can provide one to refute it, plus an explanation of why the other research was methodologically flawed or otherwise invalid.

They do so routinely. Anderson has little sympathy for them. A similarity to the tobacco industry may have been mentioned. Nonetheless, since the 1990s, the great preponderance of independent evidence has shown that exposure to EMFs has medical consequences. A lot more supporting data has been added since then.

What has changed

Nature exposes all life to EMFs. Most forms are weak, and distributed over a wide range of frequencies. The sun’s ultraviolet light causes burns and skin cancers, and contributes to skin aging.

As far as we know, natural EMFs are otherwise harmless. Technology is different. The EMFs our artifacts create are stronger than most natural fields, and we marinate in them 24/7. Their frequencies are often well suited to couple with biological processes. They’re also polarized, where natural EMFs are not.

This can greatly amplify their biological effects. EMF sources abound in our homes and workplaces – even on the street. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth devices, computers, microwave ovens, “smart” electric meters, and the inverters that turn DC electricity from solar panels to 120V AC, all generate EMFs at varying frequencies and power.

A single fluorescent light can add high-frequency voltage spikes to electricity that arrived “clean.” Turn off all these devices, and we still would receive EMFs from our neighbors – especially in apartments – and when passing cellphone towers. In the years ahead, we will experience even more EMFs.

Devices connected to the “Internet of things” pass data and control signals back and forth wirelessly almost constantly. Estimates vary, but they could be 30 to 50 billion of them by 2025. In time, their “electrosmog” will fill the air as London’s pea-soup fogs did in the age of coal.

Why 5G matters

Cellphones are a particular concern because they broadcast next to our ears at frequencies that in recent generations can extend into the microwave range. And in all but the most rural areas, tower transmissions are with us always. Each new generation of phones carries more data faster than the last by transmitting at higher frequencies.

4G phones, for example, operate at 2.5 GHz microwave frequencies. 5G extends to 39 GHz. And generations up to 8G are already under development. The good news is that the electrical component of high-frequency EMFs penetrates barely 1 mm into the body.

The bad is that it couples to biological processes much more efficiently than phone transmissions used to, and nothing keeps their magnetic component at bay. There is more. Buildings block 5G signals, so many more transmitters are needed to serve an urban area. They also use beam forming to aim all their power in one direction rather than omnidirectionally, as previous cell technologies have done.

Standing in a 5G beam at a given distance subjects us to much more powerful electromagnetic radiation than 4G did – and, because there are more transmitters, we have more opportunity for exposure. Telecoms point out that no one has ever shown that 5G transmissions harm human health, and this is true.

The technology is so new that no one has had time to carry out the necessary studies. Yet, even for 4G, the data is compelling. As long ago as 2009, neurosurgeon Vini G Khurana at the Australian National University, and colleagues in Australia, Austria, and Sweden, reviewed long-term epidemiologic studies of cell phones and brain cancer.

They found that using a cell phone for 10 years or more doubled the risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma, but only on the side of the head where users held their phones. In Malta, researchers studied the incidence of glioblastoma multiforme, the rare brain cancer scientists have long suspected might be linked to the use of cell phones.

From 2008 through 2017, the number of people who had used cell phones for 10 years or more, when excess cancers are considered most likely to appear, was rising fast. Medical records showed an obvious trend. In 2008, there were only 0.73 cases per 100,000 population.

Ten years later, there were 4.49 per 100,000. Something might have caused this other than the growing use of cell phones, but no credible alternative has been suggested. Moreover, researchers at the Yale School of Public Health reported in 2020 on genetic variations that predispose people to develop thyroid cancer.

Heavy cell phone use more than doubled the risk of thyroid cancer in those with any of four such variations. Professional critics can find ways to trash any inconvenient research. For the rest of us, the picture should be clear.

F-16 cockpit is dense with RF emitters that may fatally degrade pilot cognition. DARPA is now investigating that possible hazard.

The bottom line

EMFs can affect us in ways that are especially important in the air. Known effects that appear within the duration of an average flight include fatigue, irritability, an inability to concentrate, and mild cognitive impairment resulting in task saturation, mistaken priorities, complacency, and spatial disorientation. Between 1993 and 2013, US Air Force pilots were involved in 72 severe accidents attributed to spatial disorientation.

The incidents resulted in 101 deaths and 65 aircraft lost. The possibility that electromagnetic fields were to blame concerned the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) enough that in October 2020 it initiated a 2-year project called Impact of Cockpit Electro-Magnetics on Aircrew Neurology (ICEMAN).

ICEMAN appears to have been dormant for some 20 months, but in May DARPA issued a $371,000 grant to Spotlight Labs, specialists in human factors analytics in Haddonfield NJ, and Norwich University in Vermont. Engineers there will use 5 workstations to simulate EMF in the cockpit of an F-16 and identify any effects on experienced F-16 pilots.

ICEMAN has $1.5 million in total funding and is scheduled to last 3 years. A hint of what ICEMAN could find comes from the International Association of Fire Fighters. As early as 2004, the organization published a resolution stating that it did not want telecom infrastructure located near fire stations.

The issue came up when firefighters in Santa Barbara responding to emergencies could not remember such basic information as where they were going or how to administer CPR. The problem affected those operating from stations with cell towers nearby.

According to Dr Gunnar Heuser, now retired from the UCLA Medical Center Department of Medicine, brain scans showed changes in their gray and white matter.

Looking ahead

Regulators and advisory bodies have been remarkably unmoved by all this evidence. A few decades ago, the only known hazard of radio frequency (RF) signals was excessive heating: when powerful enough, RF can warm tissues like a microwave oven. Emissions were known to cause corneal damage in this way, and FCC regulations were designed to prevent that kind of injury.

They have remained unchanged since 1977. Independent researchers say that emissions are 10 to 100 times higher than they should be. The official positions of nearly all regulators and medical bodies match that of the telecom industry exactly. FCC, FDA, and even the National Cancer Institute declare, in FCC’s words, “At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, ie, levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) concurs. Yet, one government body does not. In 2019, the New Hampshire state legislature created a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology. It reported in November 2020 that 5G signals unambiguously couple with biological processes in ways that cause health problems.

The commission also concluded that regulators and advisory bodies had been captured by the telecoms they were supposed to police. They had cause to believe it.

The picture is clearest at WHO

The guidelines most European governments rely on for EMF standards come from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) – a private non-governmental organization based in Germany.

In practice, it is tightly bound to both WHO and the telecom industry. ICNIRP was founded in 1992. Its first chairman was Australian biophysicist Michael Repacholi. He had no background in EMF research, and he immediately adopted the idea that only heating injury matters.

Four years later, he became founding chairman of the WHO EMF Project and established the same policy there. Despite what might seem a conflict of interest, he held both offices simultaneously. His chosen successor at WHO was Emilie van Deventer, an electrical engineer from the University of Toronto praised by the university magazine for her “invaluable” service to the telecom industry. It brought in donations and lucrative research contracts.

She received research funding from the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada, Communications & Information Technology Ontario, and Nortel, then Canada’s largest telecommunications company. Deventer took office in 2008 and remains head of the EMF Project today.

The EMF Project is WHO’s sole authority on electromagnetic radiation. It established the organization’s current policy in a 2016 monograph. The 6-member core group in charge of writing it had only 1 independent member. The rest belonged to ICNIRP and many to other industry groups as well. Their rejection of non-thermal risks from EMF remains unchanged. Similar – although less obvious – influences can be found at most regulatory bodies concerned with EMF.

In the US, of course, we also have congressmen to run interference for donors’ companies. Their interest in tightening regulations is, at best, inconspicuous. In all, anyone concerned about the possible health risks of EMFs will have to protect themselves. How that can be accomplished in the cockpit is not obvious. If you are interested in more information about EMFs, it can be found at the Scientific Alliance for Education (safehelpsyou.org).

---

Owen Davies is a veteran freelance writer specializing in technology. He has been a futurist at Forecasting International and TechCast Global.

Original Article – Please share from HERE