Electromagnetic Sense Ireland

Source Article: Cellphone Taskforce, Arthur Firstenberg  12 January 2022

CELL TOWERS ON THE OCEAN FLOOR

One blue sky above us,
One ocean lapping all our shores,
One earth so green and round,
Who could ask for more?
– Pete Seeger

In 2018, on land and in space, preparations to deploy millions of antennas were very publicly being made and advertised, for “5G,” “Smart Cities,” and the “Internet of Things.” At the same time, and without any publicity, governments, research laboratories, and commercial and military interests were collaborating on plans to create “Smart Oceans” and the “Internet of Underwater Things” (IoUT). They did not consult the fishes, whales, dolphins, octopuses, and other inhabitants of those depths.

In the United States, the National Science Foundation funded what it called the SEANet Project. The goal was to enable broadband wireless communication from any point on or in the oceans to anywhere else on the planet or in space. The Internet of Underwater Things is being designed to enable all the same communication capabilities that are being provided on land, including “real-time video streaming
from underwater.”

In the last three years, a flood of papers have been published by scientists and engineers in the U.S., China, Pakistan, Qatar, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Greece, Italy, France, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. In 2020, the IEEE Internet of Things Journal published a Special Issue on Internet of Things for Smart Ocean. In 2019, the journal Sensors published a Special Issue on Smart Ocean: Emerging Research Advances, Prospects and Challenges, and the same journal is now publishing another Special Issue on Internet of Underwater Things.

Some of the activities that supposedly “need” this technology in the oceans are:

 climate change monitoring
 pollution control and tracking
 disaster prevention including tsunami warning systems
 ocean exploration
 fishing and aquaculture
 coral reef harvesting
 tectonic plate monitoring
 navigation
 global oceanic trade
 oil and gas exploration and production
 military communication and surveillance

The infrastructure that is beginning to be deployed, throughout the oceans, includes:

 sensors and antennas (“nodes”) on the ocean floor
 nodes at different depths
 surface nodes
 relay antennas at different depths to transmit data vertically from the ocean floor to the ocean  surface, and horizontally between nodes
 Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)
 Autonomous Surface Vehicles (ASVs)
 underwater robots
 wireless surface buoys
 smart boats and ships
 smart submarines
 smart shores

Communication being more difficult to accomplish underwater than through the air, and more subject to interference, several different types of communication media are being used in the oceans to send data at different speeds and over different distances. Acoustic waves, radio waves, lasers, LED light, and magnetic induction are all being used to flood the oceans with data. An underwater GPS system is being
developed. Most of these media work only for short- to medium-range communication. Long-range communication relies on acoustic waves, and is similar to the technology used in ocean sonar.

These technologies are already being marketed commercially and installed in the world’s oceans today. At the 2022 Oceanology International conference, which will be held in London from March 15 to 17, dozens of these companies will be exhibiting their products.

WaterLinked sells underwater sensor technology through distributors around the world for use in aquaculture, and in underwater navigation. “Our Wireless Sense™ technology enables reliable wireless communication and innovative subsea sensor solutions,” says their website.

EvoLogics sells underwater acoustic modems, both mid-range and long-range, that “provide full–duplex digital communication.”

SonarDyne International sells underwater acoustic modems to the oil and gas industry and to  governments and navies.

Voyis sells short- and long-range underwater laser scanners.

GeoSpectrum sells “integrated, end-to-end acoustic systems” for oil and gas exploration and for military purposes.

Dynautics sells autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).

Seaber sells “off-the-shelf micro-AUVs.”

Hydromea markets “the first ever tether–less underwater drone.”

Mediterraneo Señales Maritimas sells “data buoys that integrate sensors through our datalogger so the data can be transmitted to a remote station and displayed on our software.”

3D at Depth, Inc. “provides advanced subsea LIDAR laser systems.”

Teledyne Marine sells Autonomous Underwater Gliders, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (“unmanned robot submarines”) and “laser systems for both shallow and deep-sea submerged diving.”

“Underwater robots swarm the ocean,” says a page on the website of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The Institute has developed an acoustic-based navigation system that is enabling large numbers of underwater robots to work together. “Instead of using just a single, larger and more expensive underwater robot to cover an area of the ocean, we want to have hundreds or even thousands of smaller, lower-cost robots that can all work in sync,” says their webpage.

Ocean protection organizations have long been campaigning against noise pollution in the oceans, but they are only beginning to be aware of this new type of assault, which has the potential to dwarf all previous noise assaults in its scope and magnitude. For example, one of the campaigns of the environmental organization, Sea Shepherd, is “Silencing the Deafening Roar of Ocean Noise Pollution.” They write:

“In 1953, Jacques Cousteau published a classic memoir on his early days of underwater exploration. He titled this book The Silent World. Today, human activities make a mockery of that title. Over the past several decades, marine noise pollution has grown at an exponential rate. Noise from vessel traffic is doubling every decade. Pile-driving, dredging, sonar, and seismic exploration for oil and gas add to the
cacophony. For marine wildlife, and especially for acoustically-sensitive cetaceans, this anthropogenic racket poses a grave and growing threat. Ocean noise pollution causes severe stress, behavioral changes, masking (i.e., difficulty perceiving important natural sounds), strandings, and noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity.”

To this mix is now being added the Internet of Underwater Things, which is beginning to flood the oceans with sound in order to connect them to the Internet. And this sound will be pulse-modulated with the same harmful frequencies as radio waves in order to carry the same data. And to communicate over large distances, some of the underwater acoustic modems that are being marketed are capable of producing sound as loud as 202 decibels. That is equivalent to 139 decibels in air. It is as loud as a jet engine at a distance of 100 feet, and is above the threshold for pain in humans. These modems blast modulated sound at frequencies ranging from 7 kHz to 170 kHz, encompassing almost the entire  hearing range of dolphins, which use sound for hunting and navigating.

The effects of sonar on whales and dolphins have been widely publicized. But the effects of noise pollution on fish and other denizens of the deep are just as devastating, as Lindy Weilgart details in her 36-page report for OceanCare. She reviews 115 research studies on the effects of noise on 66 species of fish and 36 species of invertebrates.

“Most fish and invertebrates use sound for vital life functions,” she writes. “Noise impacts on development include body malformations, higher egg or immature mortality, developmental delays, delays in metamorphosing and settling, and slower growth rates… Anatomical impacts from noise involve massive internal injuries, cellular damage to statocysts and neurons, causing disorientation and even death, and hearing loss… Behaviorally, animals showed alarm responses, increased aggression, hiding, and flight reactions; and decreased anti-predator defense, nest digging, nest care, courtship calls, spawning, egg clutches, and feeding… Some commercial catches dropped by up to 80% due to noise, with larger fish leaving the area.”

If the new assault continues, it will provide the last nails in the coffins of our oceans, and — since the oceans are the source of all life — of our planet. Already in 1970, just 17 years after he published The Silent World, Jacques Cousteau, returning from 3½ years of exploration in which he traveled 155,000 miles, told the world: “The oceans are dying. The pollution is general.”

“People don’t realize that all pollution goes to the seas,” said Cousteau. “The earth is less polluted. It is washed by the rain which carries everything into the oceans where life has diminished by 40 per cent in 20 years. Fish disappear. Flora too.” And what was not being poisoned was being mined for food as though ocean life was an  inexhaustible resource. “The oceans are being scraped,” he said. “Eggs and larvae are disappearing. In the past, the sea renewed itself. It was a complete cycle. But this balance was upset with the appearance of industrial civilization. Shrimps are being chased from their holes by electric shocks. Lobsters are being sought in impossible places. Coral itself is disappearing. Even in the Indian Ocean, which is little traveled.”

Life in the oceans today is hanging by a thread. If the rate of population declines continues, there will be no almost fish left in the oceans by 2048.1 The oceans are absorbing 24 million tons of carbon dioxide every day, are 26% more acidic than before we began burning fossil fuels,2 and have absorbed 93% of the heat generated by greenhouse gases since the 1970s.3 The damage already done to coral reefs by
acidification, rising temperatures, and bottom trawling would take 100,000 years for nature to repair.4 Diatoms — a type of algae at the base of the ocean’s food chain that is also the source of a third of the world’s oxygen production — have been declining by more than 1% per year for two decades.5 Populations of krill — the small shrimplike crustaceans that make up a large portion of the diet of many species of whales, penguins and seals — have declined by 80% since the 1970s.6 And the deepest layers of the oceans are severely depleted of oxygen — so much so that deep-diving fish no longer dive deep but remain near the surface in order to breathe. And populations of fishes that live in the deep sea are drastically declining. Warming oceans can no longer hold as much oxygen, and it is the deepest waters that are depleted of oxygen first.7,8,9,10 Large numbers of bottom-dwelling crabs have suffocated off the coast of Oregon.11 More than a thousand manatees died of starvation in 2021 off the coast of Florida because the seagrass they eat has been killed by pollution.12 And there is so much plastic throughout the oceans13 that sardines sold in an Australian fish market contain 3 milligrams of plastic in every gram of their tissue.14

Although many are the assaults on the oceans, and on the Earth, the single most urgent assault, which is destroying the planet the quickest, is wireless technology. It is the most destructive itself, and it speeds up and coordinates all the other assaults. And driving all of wireless technology, including wireless technology on land, in space, and in the oceans, is the cell phone. All of wireless technology, from 2G to 5G to the Internet of Things to the Internet of Underwater Things, requires everyone to be holding a cell phone in their hands. It is the director, it is the target, and without it, the present rate of destruction could not continue.

As Hillel said two thousand years ago, “If not now, when? If not me, who?”

 1 Boris Worm et al. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science
314: 787-790 (2006).
2 Oceaneos. Ocean Acidification.
3 D. Laffoley and J. M. Baxter. Explaining ocean warming: Causes, scale, effects and
consequences. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Sept. 2016.
4 Charles Clover. The End of the Line: How Overfishing is Changing the World and
What We Eat. New Press, 2006, p. 67.
5 Cecile S. Rousseaux and Watson W. Gregg. Recent decadal trends in global
phytoplankton composition. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 29: 1674-1688 (2015).
6 Matthew Taylor. Decline in krill threatens Antarctic wildlife, from whales to
penguins. The Guardian, Feb. 14, 2018.
7 Craig Welch. Oceans Are Losing Oxygen—and Becoming More Hostile to Life.
National Geographic, March 12, 2015.
8 Laura Poppick. The Ocean Is Running out of Breath, Scientists Warn. Scientific
American, Feb. 25, 2019.
9 Kirsten Isensee. The Ocean Is Losing Its Breath. Ocean and Climate Platform, 2018.
10 International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Ocean Deoxygenation.
11 Bradley W. Parks. Low oxygen levels off Northwest coast raise fears of marine
“dead zones.” Oregon Public Broadcasting, July 22, 2021.
12 Corryn Wetzel. Florida Wildlife Officials Move to Feed Starving Manatees in
Experimental Conservation Approach. Smithsonian, Dec. 8, 2021.
13Captain Charles Moore. Plastic Ocean. Avery, NY 2011.
14 Francisca Ribeiro et al. Quantitative Analysis of Selected Plastics in High-
Commercial-Value Australian Seafood by Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography Mass
Spectrometry. Environmental Science and Technology 54: 9408-9417 (2020).

For Full Article, links and to share, go to https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cell-towers-on-the-ocean-floor.pdf

Arthur Firstenberg
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
Administrator, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space
Caretaker, ECHOEarth (End Cellphones Here On Earth)

SEE ALSO https://stop5ginternational.org/smart-ocean-impacts-of-technology-on-marine-life/

Source Article: Cellphone Taskforce, Arthur Firstenberg

Experts from the UK are warning that 5G’s energy requirements are great and that they will increase with more data transmitted plus more devices with shorter lifespans. The impact on the environment by 5G has been ignored to a great degree while the public is misled about the benefits.

”Our review suggests that work on the energy use implications of 5G has overwhelmingly focused on the energy required to power mobile phone networks. However, the energy required to manufacture and install network equipment and manufacture mobile phones is a potentially important part of the puzzle that seems to be routinely overlooked in assessments of 5G’s energy use….

“We have identified a number of potentially significant shortcomings of the evidence base on the energy use implications of 5G. The surprising lack of peer-reviewed, publicly available whole network level assessments on the energy use implications of 5G, and patchy disclosure of the key data and assumptions of those studies that do exist, currently make it impossible to conclude with any confidence that 5G will reduce the energy consumption of mobile networks.”

READ FULL REPORT HERE  https://www.sussex.ac.uk/business-school/news-and-events/news?id=57164&fbclid=IwAR1jzk8QpfUZ9mWgYoCwxxeJEMyZoJGJQnn2XvPURIoMUVaFRTtuU5B2h3c

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Effects of mobile phone usage on sperm quality – No time-dependent relationship on usage: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121010781?via%3Dihub

See Also:

Pusan National University scientists reveal links between sperm quality and cell phone use

https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/cell-phone-danger-for-fertility?fbclid=IwAR0EsoHM_1vBh6YEWDRsKR7mGMjkIxk2g0YukIT0PgZdVkZGH-qwCVXe6Io

https://knewz.com/south-korean-researchers-link-cell-phone-exposure-to-sperm-quality/

https://www.saferemr.com/2022/

Source Article :  SaferEMR

Excerpt:

A Critique of “Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review”

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

January 3, 2022

Grimes DR. Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review. JAMA Oncol. Published online December 09, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5964. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/article-abstract/2786776

The title of this paper, “Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review,” is misleading because this is not a literature review. Rather, this is an opinion piece written by David Grimes, a science writer and physicist who has served as a paid spokesperson for the telecommunications industry.

Following is a link to an “informational video” he recorded for Vodafone UK: 

Vodafone UK News Centre. “5G and health: Everything you need to know.” Video (2:23). April 24, 2020. https://newscentre.vodafone.co.uk/5g/5g-and-health-everything-you-need-to-know/

The Grimes paper rehashes arguments I have heard for more than a decade. It reflects the perspective of some physical scientists and engineers since the 1980’s that only ionizing radiation is harmful due to photon energy. Their position is that radiofrequency radiation (RFR), or non-ionizing radiation, is harmless unless its intensity exceeds a certain heating threshold, and the only plausible mechanism for harm from RFR is acute heating. These scientists employ a common industry strategy to manufacture doubt about the science by dismissing thousands of peer-reviewed RFR studies published since the 1980’s with the claim that these studies are not methodologically sound or have not been replicated.

Grimes implies that anyone concerned about health effects from 5G or RFR is a conspiracy theorist. 

It is indeed unfortunate that many people distrust science and believe in conspiracy theories. However, distrust in government and the proliferation of conspiracy theories may be attributable to a history of governmental failure to regulate environmental toxins and protect public and environmental health instead of industry profits  …..

READ, AND SHARE, FULL ARTICLE BY DR MOSKOWITZ   HERE

Source Article: The Wall Street Journal

Flight suspensions occur even as AT&T and Verizon agree to limit signals within 2 miles of runways to address air-safety concerns

Two of the biggest U.S. wireless operators agreed to not turn on some 5G signals near airport runways, a temporary concession to address air-safety concerns that have already prompted international airlines to cancel some U.S.-bound flights.

AT&T Inc. T -1.43% and Verizon Communications Inc. VZ -0.95% on Tuesday afternoon accepted the new limits after a monthslong standoff between the cellular operators and aviation officials, who had promised to limit flights over concerns about the 5G signals’ effect on aircraft instruments.

President Biden on Tuesday thanked the wireless companies for the pause. “This agreement will avoid potentially devastating disruptions to passenger travel, cargo operations, and our economic recovery, while allowing more than 90 percent of wireless tower deployment to occur as scheduled,” he said.

Nevertheless, airline executives were left wondering whether the Federal Aviation Administration’s pending safety precautions would still ground their flights. Aviation-safety officials say the wireless carriers’ agreement will avert many—but likely not all—cancellations and delays. An FAA spokesman didn’t detail the extent of those delays.

5G Service Rollout Is Delayed Amid Flight Safety Concerns

---

Delta Air Lines Inc. said Tuesday evening that it is planning for the possibility of flight cancellations in certain weather conditions as soon as Wednesday, even after the agreement by Verizon and AT&T Tuesday. “While this is a positive development toward preventing widespread disruptions to flight operations, some flight restrictions may remain,” the airline said.

The airline said it will automatically rebook customers whose flights are affected and will waive fare differences for customers who need to reschedule.

A handful of international airlines said Tuesday they planned to suspend some U.S. flights starting Wednesday, citing operational concerns stemming from 5G deployment and the FAA restrictions, as well as Boeing Co. ’s guidance not to operate the 777 wide-body jet.

Emirates Airline said it would suspend flights to nine U.S. cities. Japan Airlines Co. and All Nippon Airways Co. said Boeing had advised them not to operate the 777 to the U.S. in light of 5G deployment. Air India also announced the cancellation of some U.S.-bound flights operated by 777 jets.

An ANA spokesperson said that its cancellations, which would affect about 10 of its flights, were made before the wireless companies announced their latest concessions.

An AT&T spokeswoman said the wireless company agreed to temporarily defer the turning on of a limited number of towers around some airport runways but would launch 5G services “everywhere else as planned.” Verizon later Tuesday also committed to limit its 5G network around airports, adding that the new high-speed service will still cover more than 90 million Americans when it goes live Wednesday.

The cellphone carriers’ next-generation wireless upgrades have sat in limbo in recent months after the FAA asked them to pause their 5G rollouts. The aerospace regulator said the frequencies AT&T and Verizon planned to use to carry the new 5G signals might confuse radar altimeters, which aircraft depend on to measure height off the ground.

Telecom-industry executives have disputed those claims and said that the service in dispute, which covers a set of frequencies known as the C-band, already operates around similar airwaves in dozens of other countries.

Aviation-industry officials said without an agreement, they could face limits on flying certain aircraft types, including being effectively unable to use Boeing 777 jets that fly internationally. Boeing declined to comment.

The telecom and aviation industries seemed on the brink of a truce earlier this month after cellphone carriers agreed to completely pause the launch of their new 5G services until Jan. 19. The timeout was designed to give the FAA more time to whittle down its safety restrictions to specific aircraft and airports, which would lessen the disruption they caused to flight plans.

But the FAA in recent days informed airlines that many airports expected to get some relief from the safety restrictions would still face sharp limits on landings in harsh weather. Top passenger and cargo airline executives on Monday wrote Biden administration officials with another delay request, warning that the federal safety precautions could ground swaths of their fleets without more protection from 5G signals.

AT&T and Verizon said they still plan to launch their high-speed network links nationwide Wednesday but will refrain from turning on signals within 2 miles of airport runways. Spokespeople for the companies declined to say how long the new wireless buffers around airports will last. They had previously agreed to dim the power of their 5G signals around runways for six months.

The partial launch has a deeper effect on Verizon, which is using the 5G frequencies in a larger number of locations. The 2-mile quiet zones will limit several hundred Verizon cell stations and about 10 AT&T stations, according to people familiar with the matter. T-Mobile US Inc. isn’t expected to activate its C-band services until late 2023.

The new 5G limits announced Tuesday will buy regulators more time but stop short of settling the issue. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a Tuesday media briefing that U.S. aviation and telecom regulators were working with industry representatives to develop a solution. “We certainly understand what’s at stake for both industries,” she said. “But certainly, minimizing flight disruptions, ensuring safety in travel is a top priority.”

The wireless service scheduled to be launched on Wednesday has been on telecom companies’ wish list for several years. The Federal Communications Commission sold licenses to use the service a year ago through a public auction that collected more than $81 billion.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a written statement Tuesday that C-band signals can safely co-exist with aviation technology, adding, “It is essential that the FAA now complete this process with both care and speed.”

---

See Also

Verizon, AT&T will limit 5G around airports as airlines warn of ‘catastrophic’ disruption https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/airline-ceos-warn-catastrophic-disruption-5g-rollout-verizon-rcna12525?fbclid=IwAR2hmMUkodQnaf7Q4LWYwV8wi4zFoZNm6ic8hZYcyhlHs9vM55MAd2jv398

US airlines warn 5G could ground some planes, causing ‘catastrophic’ flight disruptions https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/us-airlines-warn-5g-could-ground-some-planes-causing-catastrophic-flight-disruptions-41250347.html

Airlines scramble to rejig schedules amid US 5G rollout concerns https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/airlines-scramble-to-rejig-schedules-amid-us-5g-rollout-concerns-41254764.html

FAA Decrees 50 Airports Will Have 5G Buffers https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/330410-faa-decrees-50-airports-will-have-5g-buffers

Airlines cancel some flights to US ahead of 5G deployment https://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/airlines-us-5g-deployment-flights-cancelled-verizon

The military is scrambling to understand the aviation crash risk from a new 5G sale https://www.defensenews.com/2020/12/21/the-military-is-scrambling-to-understand-the-aviation-crash-risk-from-a-new-5g-sale/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/02/business/verizon-att-5g-planes.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR28-WE-uiWB39YBVJNUxuvB4anujMcpaK7Mjjya8Ri6cmeen-gPKyP2rUQ

SOURCE ARTICLE : ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST

Jan 18, 2022

Digitilisation – Challenges for Europe

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-01-19-295-pdf page 85

Rapporteur: Bernardo Hernández Bataller

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Background

Each day the number of EHS sufferers increases: according to new estimates, between 3% and 5% of the population are electro-sensitive, meaning that some 13 million Europeans may suffer from this syndrome, which has various names (electro-sensitivity, Wi -Fi syndrome, microwave syndrome, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, etc.).

Gist of the opinion

Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been increasing in recent years, following the expansion of technologies. In addition to health problems, this can result in limited access to many public or private facilities, especially in buildings where devices have been installed for transmitting wireless technology.

These people may sometimes suffer the incomprehension and scepticism of doctors who do not deal with this syndrome professionally and therefore fail to offer proper diagnosis and treatment. Due to the serious differences in scientific opinion, the independence of bodies involved in establishing maximum exposure levels must be reinforced. The EESC is in favour of adopting binding safeguarding legislation that reduces or mitigates exposure to electromagnetic fields.

The EU should assist currently affected groups and limit exposure fields in light of the recommendations set out in this opinion, especially with respect to recognising this exposure as a cause of functional disability and environmental illness. The EESC emphasises the need to step up the application of the ALARA principle, bearing in mind the risk of non-thermal biological effects of electromagnetic emissions. In addition, it is important to facilitate research in this area. The EESC is in favour of ensuring a high level of health protection for workers by applying the improvements that are available, while this principle should be included in European legislation.

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-01-19-295-en-n.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ozMC1Oz5FIAKiTYl856GbZQHs9upYYC5fLDEF_4yzKd5AbwgRkkphJ2I

Source Article: Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation

In recent years, human exposure to pulsed microwave radiation from wireless technology has increased exponentially. The increase is mainly a result of the expansion of 4G + and 5G as well as an increased amount of consumer products based on technology that emits microwave radiation. In addition to more base stations, millions of so-called smart electricity meters are being installed, which also contribute to the overall increase in microwave radiation in our outdoor and indoor environment.

In parallel with this exploding radiation exposure, regulations and so-called safety limits applicable to the permitted radiation are based on a severely outdated approach from the 1950s. These ‘safety limits’ (or guidelines) only protect people against harmful effects that occur as a result of acute heating. This means that humans are completely unprotected against a whole range of harmful effects, such as cancer, DNA damage, oxidative stress and neurological effects, which scientific research has repeatedly shown to occur at levels well below these safety limits. Current safety limits give no protection at all against harmful effects of radiation on biodiversity.

We represent organizations that have been involved in research and /or followed the research in this field for many years. We constantly receive new testimonies from people who have suffered from ill health after base stations for 4G, 5G or smart electricity meters have been installed in their immediate environment. We are deeply concerned about these developments and demand that the following measures be taken as soon as possible:

1. New safety limits must be established that protect against the evident health and environmental risks at levels that are far below current guidelines. This must be done by experts who are free from any ties to the industry concerned, and with participation by researchers within the research community, who consider the risks to be considerable even at levels well below the current guidelines.
2. Before further deployment, a risk assessment of 5G systems must be carried out, also in this instance by experts who are free from ties to the industry concerned, and with participation by researchers within the research community who point to evidence that the risks are considerable.
3. To prevent injuries, education about the risks must be carried out at all levels of society, for example in healthcare, schools, and the general public.
4. The best possible technology should be used to protect human health and the environment. Wired technology that minimizes harmful radiation must be a priority.

Background

Measurements show massively increased radiation

Measurements carried out in the spring of 2021 within an international collaborative project showed that radiation in cities has increased sharply with peak values (pulses) that can amount to between 200,000 and over 1 million microwatts per square meter. [1] These are levels that far exceed the levels that have been known already for 50 years to cause harmful effects on human health, which was initially called the microwave syndrome. [2] At the same time, there is a lack of research that shows that these levels do not cause ill health when exposed to the whole body and for a long time. Researchers, doctors and elected representatives have for several years called on governments to introduce regulations that allow only significantly lower exposure at a maximum level of 1-100 microwatts per square meter[3], and to reconsider the current safety limits as these are severely insufficient and outdated to protect against health risks.

Abundant evidence of harmful effects

The ongoing massive increase in human exposure to microwave radiation from wireless technology is expected to lead to serious consequences in the form of deteriorating public health and harmful effects on plants, insects, birds and other animals. Research shows increasing and clear evidence that this radiation is harmful both to humans and to other biological life at levels that are far below the levels approved by the responsible Nordic authorities. [4] The radiation is pulsed, which is especially serious with regard to negative biological effects. [5]

As early as 2011, the WHO’s cancer research institute IARC classified microwave radiation/radio frequency radiation as ”possibly carcinogenic”, Group 2B, for humans, based on research that had repeatedly shown increased risk of tumours in the brain and auditory nerves among people with long-term use of cordless/cellular phones. This decision, which was based on the evaluation of all research in the field up until 2011, has had no effect in reducing public exposure. On the contrary, exposure to microwaves has increased sharply, which is the opposite of preventing ill health.

Since 2011, the evidence that this radiation causes and promotes cancer development has increased. Research on cells, animals and humans today clearly shows that radiation increases the risk of cancer in humans, not only brain tumours but also other types. [6]

A Swiss government expert group has found that the majority of research shows that radiation causes oxidative stress, which in turn can cause various diseases. [7] Consequently, a new evaluation at the IARC would most likely tighten the classification and lead to the radiation being judged to be ”probably  carcinogenic to humans”, Group 2A, or ”carcinogenic to humans” Group 1, if it is done by independent experts.

A research inquiry under the European Parliament has found that radiation from 5G and other wireless technologies can cause cancer, and that this radiation damages men’s fertility and possibly also women’s reproductive ability. [8] An investigation by The National Academies of Sciences in the USA concludes that pulsed microwaves have caused a large number of diplomats’ ill health and corresponds to the symptoms that have been reported for 50 years as a result of exposure to microwave radiation. [9]

Research shows that microwave radiation can damage foetal development[10], the thyroid gland[11] and other hormone-regulating organs[12], the eye[13] and impairs mental and physical health in general. [14]

Statistics from the Nordic countries show that diseases linked to the observed ailments increase, in some cases very sharply, such as mental illness, sleep disturbances or insomnia, certain cancers, eye diseases and degenerative neurological diseases. [15]

Medical doctors, scientists and elected officials have appealed for better protection

In 2017, the 5G Appeal was launched (www.5Gappeal.eu). The appeal, which is currently signed by more than 400 medical doctors and scientists from around the world, demand that decision-makers stop the 5G expansion until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry, due to the risk of serious consequences for human health. [16]

The EMF Scientist Appeal was launched in 2015 (www.emfscientist.org), and is today signed by 255 scientists, all of whom are active in the field. They demand that people must be better protected against risks from this form of radiation exposure by strengthening the current guidelines for permitted radiation and that the general public and the medical profession, particularly doctors, should be informed about the risks.

In 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommended that member states should strive to generally keep the microwave radiation levels in society as low as possible, as well as to lower the safety limits for permissible radiation to 100 microwatts per square meter. Children and others particularly vulnerable groups should be especially protected. Governments are also urged to ensure that the public is widely informed about the known risks. [17]

The authorities ignore the risks and the need for better protection

The responsible authorities continue to ignore the increasingly clear evidence of risks, despite the research and the repeated appeals from the qualified research community, the medical profession as well as elected representatives. They even claim that the risks shown do not exist and that the current, severely outdated safety limits, are sufficient as protection. In support of their positions, the authorities rely on a small group of experts, who are not representative of the scientific community at large, and the majority of whom are shown to have ties to the telecommunications companies. [18]

Mona Nilsson, Chairman, Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, Sweden

Lennart Hardell, Chairman, Professor (ret), The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Sweden

Marianne Ketti, Chairman, ElectroSensitive Association, Sweden

Nigel Wells, Chairman, The Wavebreaker, Sweden

Rainer Nyberg, Chairman, Professor (em), Finnish Radiation Safety Society, Finland

Erja Tamminen, Chairman, Association for Electrosensitive, Finland

Anni-Marja Riikinsaari, Chairman, The Finnish Electrosensitivity Foundation, Finland

Thomas J. Middelthon, Chairman, Citizens’ radiation protection, Norway

Solveig Glomsrød, Chairman, Association for Electro Hypersensitive, Norway

Pernille Schriver, Spokesperson, The Danish EHS Association, Denmark

Thomas Graversen, Spokesperson, The Council for Health-Safe Telecommunication, Denmark

[1] https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2021/05/11/matningar-av-mikrovagsstralning-fran-basstationer-i-fem-svenska-stader/

[2] https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2020/12/09/regeringsrapport-huvudvark-somnproblem-yrsel-tinnitus-orsakades-av-mikrovagsstralning/ samt https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2020/12/03/skadliga-effekter-kanda-1969-fornekas-an-i-dag/

[3] https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2014/01/13/euoroparadet-informera-brett-om-riskerna/ and https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2016/07/26/lakare-ger-riktlinjer-for-att-forebygga-och-behandla-sjukdomar-orsakade-av-stralning/

[4] https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2020/10/01/vaxande-bevis-mikrovagsstralning-orsakar-oxidativ-stress-dna-skador-och-skadliga-effekter-pa-hjarnan/ samt http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/documents/15803/0/EMR-KnowledgeOverviewReport_FINAL_27042018.pdf/1326791c-f39f-453c-8115-0d1c9d0ec942

[5] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf

[6] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31457001/

[7] https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/7/3772/htm?fbclid=IwAR3ApmXw8562xOCQ5qjIktp2TSE2mWBe7wxsPO0fyYJEtasor3Drc51UonQ

[8] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf

[9] https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/20420409-nas-assessment-of-illness-of-us-government-employees-and-their-families-at-overseas-embassies/?embed=1&title=1

[10] https://news.yale.edu/2012/03/15/cell-phone-use-pregnancy-may-cause-behavioral-disorders-offspring

[11] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34567874/

[12] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26578367/

[13] https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/23338

[14] https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

[15] https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/statistik/ and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185461  and https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-016-2429-4

[16] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7016513/?fbclid=IwAR2

[17] https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/resolution-1815.pdf

[18] https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/aspects-on-the-international-commission-on-nonionizing-radiation-protection-icnirp-2020-guidelines-on-radiofrequency-radiation.pdf and Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks (nih.gov) and https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2021/06/02/icnirp-dominerar-expertutredningar/ and https://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/icnirp-report-june_2020_buchner_rivasi.pdf

Submission 2021 re ICNIRP Guidelines pdf

Submission to Government Departments

ARE THE ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION GUIDELINES CURRENTLY BEING USED, PARTICULARLY THOSE FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PROTECTIVE OF OUR HEALTH?

It seems that all enquiries to Government Departments regarding possible health effects from emissions of Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and in particular, for the purpose of this submission Radiofrequency (RF) from wireless telecommunication devices and infrastructure are responded to with assurances that there are no health effects below the ICNIRP ⁽¹⁾ guidelines.  The question is, what are the ICNIRP guidelines and have these been efficiently examined by the Government to protect us, our children and other living things?

Guidelines currently used by our Government were first published in 1998 and moderately updated in 2020 and have been produced by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a registered private association based in Germany.  The ICNIRP is recognized as the main body of expertise in non-ionising radiation protection for the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the E.U.  As with the WHO the ICNIRP is a non-governmental organisation and, as the scientific arm of the WHO, established the WHO International EMF Project with funds collected from governments and industry.  The ICNIRP have gained huge influence globally as a majority of countries around the world have adopted their guidelines on limits of protection and potential health risks from EMR/RF.

Over the past twenty years numerous Appeals and Consensus statements from International Scientists and Physicians, NGOs, concerned professionals and the public have been sent to the WHO, the U.N., Council of Europe and various Governments asking for the ICNIRP guidelines to be reviewed in light of up-dated science ^{.(2), (3), (4), (5)}  To date all of these have been ignored despite scientific proof of cancers, adverse health effects, and the growing number of people who now suffer from Electrohypersensitivity (EHS)/ microwave sickness (5% to 10% of the global population).

So, if the EU, other major countries and our own Government continue to disregard Appeals from independent scientists and physicians, and concerns from the public with a mantra that there is no scientific evidence of health effects below ICNIRPs limits, is this factually correct?  Does any real evidence regarding health risks from RF exist?  Is it okay not to protect citizens under the pretext of ‘scientific uncertainty’?

With the knowledge that politicians don’t undertake research themselves and that our health, our children’s health and the health of our planet is paramount, the nitty-gritty of the guidelines should be scrutinized, questions asked and findings opened up in the public arena.

Weaknesses in the ICNIRP Guidelines

The ICNIRP guidelines are based on an experiment undertaken in 1953 by Dr Herman Schwan ⁽⁶⁾ a German scientist invited to the USA after the Second World War.  Schwan studied the absorption of Electromagnetic field energy (including RF) by the body for heat stress, an experiment that was performed on mannequins composed of bags of fluids considered to mimic bodily contents.  The heating/thermal effects of EMR/RF on the mannequins were then measured in order to produce a hypothesis regarding the safe limits for human exposure to EMR/RF.  The results of this experiment became the basis for most EMR/RF exposure standards that continue to be used today. Schwan’s experiment did not address the potential effects on the body of non-thermal radiation and are based on physics/physiology and not on the body at biological, cellular or molecular level.  The Mid-Term Review of the EU Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (Ref P6-TA-2008-0410 Point 22) ⁽⁷⁾ notes that limits of exposure set for the general public are obsolete given that current science is excluded along with potential effects on vulnerable groups.

The guidelines continue to be based solely upon the potential impact of heating/thermal effects of EMR/RF on the body.  The ICNIRP actively continue to assure the world that there is no scientific evidence of harmful effects from the radiation emitted by this relatively new communications technology below the proposed heating/thermal limits. In 2015 (Istanbul) ICNIRP stated in a draft review that ‘non-thermal effects do not exist because …  we do not know [any] mechanism that could cause them’.  (See ICNIRP will debate ‘Thresholds of thermal damage’) ⁽⁸⁾  At that time scientific literature already existed on the mechanisms by which non-thermal effects occur.  Nowadays the majority of independent scientists accept the mechanistic basis behind biological effects. ⁽⁹⁾

The ICNIRP guidelines only consider acute exposure, and short-term exposure to RF (6 minutes in 1998 and 6 – 30 minutes in 2020). Today most people are subjected to long-term chronic exposure to pulsed/modulated emissions of RF on a 24/7/365 basis.  This would seem to be a crucial element to take into account when considering potential health effects, yet it has not been.

The ICNIRPs updated version of the guidelines (2020) continue to promote the opinion that the only proven health effects induced by EMR/RF are those that occur through the heating of human tissue. The ICNIRP continue to maintain their safe threshold level as being upwards to 61V/m (volts per metre).  In stark contrast to this the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM (2016) ⁽¹⁰⁾ and the BioInitiative Group Report (2012) ⁽¹¹⁾ (a collaboration of prestigious scientists and health experts) concur that around 0.02v/m should be the upper threshold, and lower for sensitive persons, and that levels above this have been scientifically proven to cause biological harm.

The ICNIRP guidelines are being promoted as referring to all humans exposed to EMR/RF despite experiments on one-size mannequins (body and head).  They therefore do not take the developing bodies of children, the elderly or those with illnesses/vulnerabilities into account. Foetuses are treated as a ‘member of the general public’ ⁽¹⁶⁾  Independent scientists concur that children are more exposed to radio-frequency radiation than adults. ⁽¹²⁾

The ICNIRP guidelines do not consider effects on animals, plants, insects, biodiversity, the environment or the planet, despite numerous available peer-reviewed scientific papers identifying actual harmful effects on them from EMR/RF as identified in the comprehensive report Bees, Birds and Mankind, Destroying Nature by Electrosmog, ⁽¹³⁾ Dr Ulrich Warnke and recent review by the National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). ⁽¹⁴⁾

The ICNIRP guidelines are now the minority scientific opinion.  The 1998 guidelines and the updated version (2020) excludes scientific research that contradicted the ICNIRP opinion, a bias that saw rejection of the ever-growing number of peer-reviewed scientific studies on negative health effects from EMR/RF non-thermal radiation.  It was noted that not one of the five reviews used to update the ICNIRP guidelines has been published after peer-review in a scientific journal, and criticism by the scientific community against several of these reviews has been ignored.  (Hardell et al Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on radiofrequency Radiation …  pg 255) ⁽¹⁵⁾

Some documented points in ICNIRPs 1998 guidelines such as ‘microwave hearing’ have been removed in the updated version.  The reason provided by ICNIRP is that ‘there is no evidence that it would adversely affect health’. (Differences Between the ICNIRP (2020) and Previous Guidelines) ⁽¹⁶⁾ This is particularly concerning given that this is one of the most torturous effects of microwave sickness/EHS and experienced constantly by many people who are already suffering from EHS.  Microwave hearing was first recognised in 1962 by Dr Allan Frey and the science is continuously being updated, e.g., James Lin’s work ⁽¹⁷⁾ and more recently by Dr. Beatrice Golomb ⁽¹⁸⁾ in light of what is being referred to as The Havana Syndrome (EHS/microwave sickness).  The European Council Recommendations 1999/519/EC (pg 65) ⁽¹⁹⁾ recognised effects of localized EMF exposure of the head and recommended that limitations be taken into account in order to avoid the auditory effect.  For sufferers it seems that these limitations have been completely ignored.

There appears to be no real oversight or control over the ICNIRP, nobody controls it, nobody supervises it, nobody checks it for conflicts of Interests, nobody checks it for the scientific accuracy. (Environmental Health Trust – Deep Industry Ties, No Oversight and Only 14 Members…) ⁽²⁰⁾  It is questionable why the WHO works so closely with ICNIRP to the exclusion of other research groups and public health professionals.

The ICNIRP are defined as a self-selected closed group with strong links to industry and the military through the WHO, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES), which it is believed, accounts for biased guidelines/reports.  As a closed group ICNIRP appoints its own members who shift position within ICNIRP and move around monopolising other evaluation committees, for example the Irish Expert Group (2007). ⁽²¹⁾ This creates a situation in which the ‘no risk’ mantra is enabled and reinforced as the only narrative.  The group ‘Investigate Europe’ provide an interactive graph to visually understand this better: https://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who ⁽²²⁾

The EU Report The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection: Conflicts of Interest, Corporate Capture and the Push for 5G, ⁽²³⁾ produced by MEPs Klaus Buchner and Michele Rivasi informs us, among other things, that ICNIRPS invitation to industry organisations IEEE and the ICES to make comment on the then upcoming 2020 guidelines gave them special permission to influence the conclusion.  The implication of such an action is ‘that large telecom-companies … as well as US military, had a direct influence on ICNIRP guidelines which are still the basis for EU-policies in this domain’.  (Hardell et al, pg 269) ⁽¹⁵⁾

The ICNIRP guidelines are only guidelines, yet they are being used as de facto/factual standards.  Given this, no legal responsibility for subsequent harm falls onto that organisation for countries that have chosen to use their guidelines.

‘Safety guidelines developed by the ICNIRP are ‘the sole guidance used by the Telecommunications industry that manufactures and operates wireless communication hardware and infrastructure throughout most of the world’ (Professor Leszczynski) ⁽²¹⁾ and the guidelines are being used to justify the workings of industry through Governments and their agencies.

THE REGULATORY POSITION IN IRELAND

The Telecommunications Antennae and Support Structures Guidelines for Planning Authorities 1996 and the ICNIRP guidelines are the standards used in relation to EMR/RF regulation in Ireland.

The ICNIRP guidelines bypassed the scrutiny of Dáil Eireann and the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas by being adopted directly into licensing practice for Telecommunications operators through the Commission for Communication Regulation (ComReg).

No primary legislation exists to protect public health, no implementation measures are taken on basic restrictions and the precautionary principle does not appear to have been adopted in Ireland.

Any existing regulations appear to be pro-industry with minimal monitoring e.g. planning authorities have been instructed not to take health into account regarding planning applications – through Circular Letter PL 07/12. ⁽²⁴⁾  This letter stipulates that health has been replaced by ‘other codes’.  These ‘codes’ remain elusive as, in response to a number of enquires sent, no Government Department or official has managed to identify what these are.

The subsequent Circular Letter PL 01/2018 ⁽²⁵⁾ removed restrictions regarding size, number, placement etc of antennae and Circular PL 11/2020 ⁽²⁶⁾ allowed certain ‘overground electronic infrastructure’ to become exempt from planning permission under Section 254 licenses.  These three Circular Letters saw the removal of any possibility of the public exercising their right to effectively object to, or being consulted about, developments, ie. 12, 15 or 18 metre high telecommunications structures, that would potentially affect their person, home and community.

ComReg, because of its remit, cannot avoid being heavily influenced by the telecommunications industry and it is therefore difficult for it to be impartial. There is an inherent conflict of Interest in being responsible for selling frequencies to the industry and also regulating it, and this is not helped by the vast amounts of finance involved which might encourage complicity and lead to the science not being efficiently examined.

ComReg had, up to recently, offered a service of monitoring the homes of people who made contact with them with concerns about levels of RF/microwaves in their environment.  Monitoring was based, as per ICNIRP guidelines, only on thermal effects and only for a short period (6 minutes) and only for average measurements, all of which lead to the risk being underestimated.  The Environmental Protection Agency has now taken over this service on a similar basis.

The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment is identified by other Government Departments as having responsibility for policy in relation to health and EMR/RF.  There are two major issues here:  The Department of Health has no legislative or Constitutional right to devolve responsibility for health to another Department nor to ignore their own role regarding public health.  Furthermore, response to inquiries seem to indicate that no actual policy with regard to health and EMR/RF exists.

Over the years warnings have been placed before the Dáil and various Government Departments by the public and elected representatives, e.g. through Questions in the Dáil and through The Mobile Phone Warning Bill (Members Bill No. 24 of 2011) ⁽²⁷⁾ which passed through a number of stages in Seanad Eireann but was mysteriously quashed on 31^st May 2011.  Aggressive lobbying by the wireless industry has seen similar actions occur in other countries – is this what happened to Bill No. 24, a bill that was generated to protect people, especially children?

The telecommunications industry is insulated from any responsibility for public health issues and subsequent financial costs should harm occur.  These have been shifted onto the taxpayer and ultimately it is the Exchequer/public purse that will bear the cost.

Understanding the risks of EMR/RF has seen the Insurance Industry remove themselves from risk of potential loss through Exclusion 32. ⁽²⁸⁾

Fifty per cent of the Irish Expert Group who produced the report Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 2007 ⁽²⁹⁾ were members of the ICNIRP group.  A third member had represented a Telecom company at a Joint Committee on Non-ionising Microwave Radiation from masts (1998) ⁽³⁰⁾ and the fourth member famously declared at a Seminar on EMF Risk Perception, Canada (1998) that ‘Ireland’s EMF policy is not to allow the EMF-health issue effect the growth and prosperity of the Irish economy’. ⁽³¹⁾  The Irish Expert Report dismisses any health concerns below thermal/heating levels i.e. ICNIRP guideline levels.

The public have not been made aware of the dangers of EMR/RF despite recommendations from the EU Council e.g. Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 12608 Report, May 2011 ⁽³²⁾ and its subsequent Resolution 1815 (2011), The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment ⁽³³⁾ and the Parliamentary Report A6-0089/2009 On health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields 2008/2211(INI) ⁽³⁴⁾. These have all been ignored along with the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) reports on Late Lessons from Early Warnings ^{(35). (36)}.  (See also Science of Spin: Targeted Strategies to Manufacture Doubt with Detrimental Effects on Environmental and Public Health) ⁽³⁷⁾

Despite the fact that microwave sickness/EHS has been known about since the 1930s, it is not formerly recognized by the Irish Government.

The burden of proof is placed on the victim of EMR/RF pollution whose daily physical symptoms prevent them from living an equal life to others and for whom daily tasks can become insurmountable problems.  Instead of having their experiences taken seriously many are subjected to ridicule, labelled as conspiracy theorists, Luddites or of having psychological problems.  If research clearly demonstrates the fact that plants, animals and insects are affected by EMR/RF, surely it cannot all result from fear generated through access to media sources.  A scientific consensus International report by 32 scientists working in the field of EMR/RF puts paid to such a notion.  The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity (2021) (Belpomme, Carlo et al). ⁽³⁸⁾

 Medical practitioners have not been trained in environmental illnesses such as EHS or the sometimes related, multi-chemical sensitivity.  Instead, doctors have been informed that ‘treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and clinical picture’ and that ‘GPs should be informed that the (EHS) symptoms are not due to EMF exposure’. (Expert Group 2007 pg 5 and pg 54). ⁽²⁹⁾

Despite being informed that a Swisscom system is available to assist in the reduction of electrosmog from wireless local area networks designed to reduce the risk of damage to health, no action has been taken. Swisscom (one of the largest telecommunications companies) have a patent application that confirms adverse health effects and also confirms that health destruction is ‘not dependent upon temperature increases/thermal. (See page two – WIPO Patentscope, 1. (W02004075583) – Reduction of Electrosmog in Wireless Local Networks. ⁽³⁹⁾

CONCLUSION

The Irish Government and its agencies seem to have contented themselves with replicating and adopting the recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP in order not to impede the expansion of technological progress/economic growth/job creation and also because political decision-makers still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for health and the environment.  This has resulted in decision-making regarding EMR/RF being based on ICNIRPs obsolete guidelines.  These guidelines are not biologically based and emerged from a thermal only physiological experiment undertaken in the 1950s.

In 2016, the Irish Government did commission the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) ⁽⁴⁰⁾ in the Netherlands to review updated possible health effects from EMR/RF and policies used in other EU countries. In reviewing radiofrequency, the RIVM considered findings from ICNIRP, SCENIHR and AGNIR i.e. groups with the same ‘experts’.   This process of asking the same people the same question while expecting to get a different answer is quite insane.  It undermines credibility of real evidence and creates doubt.  Both SCENIHR and AGNIR were later dissolved due to Conflicts of Interest and inaccurate reflection of the scientific evidence available and we have now learned about potential Conflicts of Interest in the ICNIRP group ^(41).  The EMF Call to the U.N., WHO and all Governments from hundreds of scientists in 2018 requested that they do not accept the ICNIRP guidelines as they are not protective and pose a serious risk. ⁽²⁾

Scientifically justifiable worries appear to be actively dismissed as scare tactics, hostility to technology or ignorance.  Ordinary citizens, many of whom have become ill, are faced with an inaccessible environment and ignoring of their human rights.  Those who are active experience the daily chore involved in navigating the lack of transparency, an official game of pass-the parcel and an ostrich style management towards care of the public.

The current EMR/RF exposure limits need to be reviewed again by independent scientists as a matter of urgency as they are not protective of human health or indeed of our flora, fauna, insects, environment or the planet.

In August 2021 the FCC (equivalent of our ComReg) was challenged in a Court of Appeals (USA) regarding their EMR/RF guidelines.  The Court ruled against the FCC stating that their guidelines were not evidence based due to exclusion of current science and cannot be considered to provide an assurance of safety.  At the hearing 11,000 pieces of evidence regarding the health effects of EMR/RF were contained in the brief, the link to this information is provided for your perusal.  ^{(42), (43), (44) & (45)}

This submission is important as it is a voice for people within our population who suffer from microwave sickness/EHS. ⁽⁴⁶⁾  It is for the children who cannot attend school due to feeling unwell around WiFi networks, the young people who cannot stay in employment, those who have lost their homes or cannot leave them, the elderly who are travelling the roads seeking a safe place to sleep, the victims living in sheds and tents.  The main issue for EHS lies in an inaccessible environment associated with unsustainable levels of EMR/RF both within and outside the home. The most noted symptoms are extreme pressure in the head, burning head and face, brain fog, severe pain especially in head and limbs, palpitations, eye and ear problems, insomnia, vertigo, skin tingling, skin rashes and ‘microwave hearing’ etc.  Long-term effects include Cancer, Neurological/Neuropsychiatric effects, Anxiety and Stress, Alzheimers, Autism, Genetic effects such as male sterility, DNA damage, Miscarriage and Birth defects, Asthma, Diabetes, Thyroid dysfunction, Bleeding disorders, and significantly decreased sperm counts. (BioInitiative Report 2012) ⁽¹¹⁾.  Allowing this situation to continue is shameful given that there are safer ways to have a communications infrastructure, access the internet and benefit from use of this technology where wireless radiation is not necessary, or significantly reduced.

Thank you for reading this

Researched and Written by Ethna Monks on behalf of Electromagnetic Sense Ireland

 ES Ireland is a Member of the Co-ordination of organisations in Europe for an EMF exposure regulation which truly protects public health: http://www.peccem.org/DocumentacionDescarga/Plataforma-Estatal/notasprensa/European.coordination.press.release-february-2017.pdf

ES Ireland at https://es-ireland.com

CHECKLIST REGARDING WEAKNESSES OF THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION IN THE ICNIRP GUIDELINES AND THE IRISH REGULATORY SYSTEM RE WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES

The ICNIRP guidelines are obsolete as they are based on experiments carried out in 1953 and don’t take current research into account

The experiment was carried out on fluid-filled bags thought to mimic the body

They are based on physics/physiology and not on biological/cellular/molecular level

They only take thermal/heating effects into account

Mechanistic basis of non-thermal effects not accepted despite available science

They only consider acute exposure

They only consider short-term exposure

Their ‘safe’ level is up to 61 V/m whereas majority science threshold level prior to harm is 0.6 V/m

No difference in age, vulnerability, developing bodies of children or foetuses are taken into account

No mention is made of effects on other living things e.g. flora, fauna, insects or biodiversity

Their opinion is the minority scientific opinion, based on assumptions of safety and not on current scientific evidence

Bias in choice of scientific studies used to produce guidelines, all contradictory research excluded

None of the documents used to update the ICNIRP guidelines have been published in scientific journals after peer-review, and criticism of them has been ignored.  (Hardell pg 255)

Removal of points noted in the 1998 version when updated in 2020 e.g. ‘microwave hearing’

No oversight or control of the ICNIRP

Bias involved in membership through the exclusion of other research groups and public health professionals

A closed group of 14 scientists with strong links to the telecommunications industry and the military and with no accountability

They are only guidelines yet they are being used as de facto standards

ICNIRP have no legal responsibility for potential harm

Being used as sole guidance and to justify workings of the industry through Governments and their agencies

Do not take social or economic considerations into account e.g. health and cost of health implications

REGULATORY POSITION IN IRELAND (in addition to the above)

 The ICNRIP guidelines bypassed the legislative process by being adopted directly into ComReg’s licensing practice

No primary legislation exists to protect public health

Instructions from Government not to take health into account in planning Circular Letter: PL 07/12

All regulations regarding size, place and number of antennae removed through Circular Letter PL 01/2018

Inherent Conflict of Interest between selling frequencies and notionally regulating them (ComReg)

Influence by industry

Monitoring is limited to ICNIRP guidelines based on thermal, short-term (6 minutes) and only on average measurements – potentially underestimating risk

Transfer of responsibility re policy on health effects from EMR/RF to DCCAE is unconstitutional

DCCAE does not seem to have any particular policy on health effects from EMR/RF

Warnings placed before the Dáil through questions and Bills (Bill No 24 of 2011) ignored and quashed

Insulation of industry from any cost for health effects, transferred to the public purse

Fifty per cent of the Irish Expert Group were also members of the ICNIRP – Conflict of Interest

The public have not been made aware of dangers from EMR/RF despite EU recommendations

Burden of proof is placed on victims of electropollution

The Insurance industry understands the EMR/RF risks and have removed themselves from potential loss (Exclusion 32)

The RIVM report commissioned by the Irish Government was based on inaccurate reflection of current scientific evidence available.  Two of the organisations providing information for the RIVM on RF have since been dissolved for this reason and due to Conflicts of Interest.

Reduction of Human Rights for those suffering from microwave sickness/EHS

No recognition, no resources, no help, no redress for those adversely affected by electromagnetic & wireless radiation

REFERENCES

1. ICNIRP Guidelines 2020 https://www.icnirp.org
2. EMF Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields https://www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/
3. EMF Scientists Appeal 2016 – to UN, WHO and UN member nations  https://emfscientist.org
4. International Appeal – Stop 5G on Earth and in Space – to UN, WHO, Council of Europe and Governments https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal
5. PHIRE Medical Organisation: 2020 Consensus Statement of UK and International Medical and Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR) Press Release:   https://phiremedical.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Press-Release-2020-Non-Ionising-Radiation-Consensus-Statement.pdf
6. Herman P. Schwan: A Scientist and Pioneer in Biomedical Engineering by Kenneth Foster:  Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering Volume 4: 1-27 (Volume publication date August 2002) https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.4.092001.093625
7. Mid-Term review of the European Environment and health Action Plan 2004 – 2010 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A6-2008-0260+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
8. ICNIRP will debate ‘Thresholds of thermal damage’ Professor Darius Leszczynski   May 21, 2015 https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/?s=ICNIRP+will+debate+thresholds&submit=Search
9. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects Martin L Pall PhD, June 2013 Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine 17(8) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242331926_Electromagnetic_fields_act_via_activation_of_voltage-gated_calcium_channels_to_produce_beneficial_or_adverse_effects
10. EUROPAEM: European Academy for Environmental Medicine – EMF Working Group:  Europaem EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses     Belyaev et al.  Rev Environ Health 2016, 31(3):  363-397 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305689940_EUROPAEM_EMF_Guideline_2016_for_the_prevention_diagnosis_and_treatment_of_EMF-related_health_problems_and_illnesses
11. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biological based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation. Sage, C. and Carpenter, D, Editorshttp://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/
12.  Redmayne M, Johansson O.  Radiofrequency exposure in young and old:  different sensitivities in light of age-relevant natural differences.  Rev Environ Health, 2015 Dec 1 30(4):  323- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284888146_Radiofrequency_exposure_in_young_and_old_Different_sensitivities_in_light_of_age-relevant_natural_differences
13. Warnke, Ulrich: Bees, Birds and Mankind, Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’ Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies.  English Edition 2009 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241538484_BEES_BIRDS_AND_MANKIND
14. NIER: Effects on Flora & Fauna:  A Major Review:  27 September 2021 https://www.microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/review-emf-and-rf-effects-flora-and-fauna
15. Hardell, Lennart, Mona Nilsson, Tarmo Koppel, Michael Carlberg Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on radiofrequency Radiation:  Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics 2021; 5(2):  250-285https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/aspects-on-the-international-commission-on-nonionizing-radiation-protection-icnirp-2020-guidelines-on-radiofrequency-radiation.html
16. Differences Between the ICNIRP (2020) and Previous Guidelineshttps://www.icnirp.org/en/differences.html
17. Hearing of Microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds. Lin, JC, Wang Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495664
18. Beatrice Golomb MD, PhD – Diplomats Mystery Illness and Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation 2018 https://es-ireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fa902-cuba2018-08-23c-nejm.pdf
19. EU Commission Recommendation 1999/519 Implementation Report 2008 Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)  –  (1999/519/EC) Official Journal of the European Communities 30.7.1999:  L199/59 – 70 https://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/environment/emf/implement_rep_en.pdf
20. Environmental Health Trust: ICNIRP the International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection: Deep Industry Ties, No Oversight and Only 14 Members,  March 31, 2021 https://ehtrust.org/icnirp-the-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiation-protection-deep-industry-ties-no-oversight-and-only-14-members/
21. Leszczynski, Darius, Professor [Tribune] 5G is testing the limits of trust 8^th September 2021 published on the Medium website on April 13, 2021https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/tribune-5G-is-testing-the-limits-of-trust
22. Investigate Europe: an interactive graphic re members of the ICNIRPhttps://www.kumu.io/Investigate-Europe/whos-who
23. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing RadiationProtection: Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G: Report on ICNIRP by MEPs Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi 2020  https://www.michele-rivasi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ICNIRP-report-FINAL-JUNE-2020_EN.pdf
24. Circular Letter (PL 07/12) https://assets.gov.ie/125943/de628060-8c04-4b71-a2d9-88e2afe1c541.pdf
25. Circular Letter (PL 01/2018) http://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/development-management/circular-pl-012018-amendments-exempted-development-provisions
26. Circular Letter PL 11/2020 http://www.housing.old.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/pl_11-2020_telecoms_exemptions_17_dec_2020_final_headed.pdf
27. Mobile Phone Radiation Warning Bill 2011 https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2011/24/eng/initiated/b2411s1.pdf
28. Exclusion 32 – Insurance Industryhttps://ehtrust.org/key-issues/electromagnetic-field-insurance-policy-exclusions/
29. Irish Expert Report: Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 2007   https://www.three.ie/pdf/Expert%20Group%20on%20Health%20Effects%20of%20Electromagnetic%20Fields.pdf
30. Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport Report on Non-ionising Microwave Radiation Emissions from Communications Masts – 1998 http://archive.oireachtas.ie/1998/REPORT_26111998_0.html
31. Proceedings International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communications Canada, 31 August – 1 September 1998  https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/reports/ottawa.pdf
32. EU Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 12608 (6 May 2011)  https://pace.coe.int/en/files/13137/html
33. EU. Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1815 (2011), The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environmenthttp://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994
34. EU. Parliament Report A6-0089/2009 on health concerns associated with EMF -Committee on the Environment, Public health and Food Safety 2008/2211(INI)http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0089+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
35. EEA – Late lessons from early warnings ii – Part A – Lessons from Health Hazards – Chapter 1 The Precautionary Principle and False Alarms by Steffen Foss Hansen and Joel A. Tickner https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/part-a-lessons-from-health-hazards
36. EEA Report – No. 1/2013, Part E, Implications for Science and government. Late Lessons ii Chapter 26 Science for Precautionary decision-making by Philippe Grandjean, page 623  https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-chapters/late-lessons-ii-chapter-26/view
37. The Science of Spin: Targeted Strategies to Manufacture Doubt with Detrimental Effects on Environmental and Public Health, Goldberg R., Vandenberg, L. Environmental Health Volume 20, Article Number: 33 (2021) https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0
38. The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. International Medical Journal of Medical Science, 22, 7321. International Scientific Consensus written by 32 authors:  Dominique Belpomme, George L Carlo, Phillipe Irigaray, David Orlo Carpenter et al https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353095266_The_Critical_Importance_of_Molecular_Biomarkers_and_Imaging_in_the_Study_of_Electrohypersensitivity_A_Scientific_Consensus_International_Report/link/60e72a0630e8e50c01f011e6/download
39. Swisscom Patent Application: WIPO Patentscope – 1. (WO2004075583) Reduction of Electrosmog in wireless local networks  https://www.emfacts.com/2014/04/swiss-teleco-acknowledges-rf-dangers-in-2003-patent-application/
40. RIVM Report (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands) https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2015-0073.pdf
41. AGNIR (2017): Mobile Phone Cover-up?  Gov’t advisory body disbanded – inaccurate and misleading conclusions remain.  https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/mobile-phone-cover-up-govt-advisory-body-disbanded-inaccurate-and-misleading-conclusions-remain/
42. The Defender, Children’s Health Defence, 21.1.21. 11,000 pages of Evidence filed in Landmark 5G Case Against the FCC hearing.  Links to Joint Appendix 27 Volumes https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/landmark-5g-case-against-fcc-hearing-set-jan-25/
43. January 18^th 2021 – Environmental Health Trust Et AL. V. FCC Key Documents in case https://ehtrust.org/environmental-health-trust-et-al-v-fcc-key-documents/
44. Proposed FCC changes to Measuring and Evaluating Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Wireless Power Transfer Devices are Flawed: need for biologically-based standards: Paul Ben Ishai 1* , Mikko Ahonen 2 , Hugo Gonçalves Silva 3 and Devra Davis https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061621406508/FCC%20Submission%2019-226%20Environmental%20Health%20Trust.pdf
45. IN HISTORIC DECISION, FEDERAL COURT ORDERS FCC TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IGNORED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWING HARM FROM WIRELESS RADIATION – August 13 2021 https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/
46. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity – A Summary by Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe  https://www.radiationresearch.org/images/rrt_articles/Dr_Erica_Mallery-Blythe_EHS_A_Summary_Working_Draft_Version_1_Dec_2014_for_EESC_Brussels.pdf