Smartphones, tablets, smart watches, fitbits, drones, virtual reality headsets, wireless earphones, Airpods and wifi enabled toys and gadgets expose your child to harmful microwave radiation. Children are more vulnerable to adverse health effects as they absorb more radiation than adults.
Read More Here: Fact-Sheet-Compilation-Holiday-Alert.pdf
Prof. Olle Johansson – Adverse Health Effects of Artificial Electromagnetic Fields:
Prof. Tom Butler – What does Science say about Risks of Wireless technologies:
SOURCE ARTICLE : EURACTIV
12the December 2019
The European Commission is “irresponsible” in not addressing the health risks associated with the future rollout of next-generation mobile network, Bulgarian MEP Ivo Hristov has said.
His comments echo concerns recently highlighted by EU telecoms ministers, related to “non-technical” elements of 5G cybersecurity, as the debate continues around Europe’s ability to keep pace with the rest of the world on 5G deployment.
However, discussion over the potential health risks of establishing denser network infrastructures consisting of considerably higher capacities has recently surfaced as a growing concern among Parliamentarians in Brussels.
Speaking at an event at the European Parliament on Tuesday (10 December), S&D’s Hristov hit out at the Commission for failing to conduct a health impact assessment report on 5G, despite warnings being highlighted by many in the scientific community.
“Currently the EU has no assessment of the human health risk of the introduction of 5G technology,” he said. “The European Commission took the position that such an assessment was not necessary, despite warnings of the scientific community. I find this irresponsible.”
He added that he has asked the Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to prepare a study of the potential effects on health and the environment from the introduction of 5G networks.
Hristov’s point was supported on Tuesday by a contingency of Green MEPs who came out in force to challenge various telecom industry representatives, keen on making sure that Europe doesn’t lag further behind in its deployment of 5G network infrastructure.
5G technologies were described as an “inevitability” by Prof. Vladimir Poulkov, head of the intelligent communications infrastructure R&D Laboratory at Sofia Tech Park.
Poulkov said there were “forces at play” that would mean 5G deployment in the EU would become a necessity in order to keep up with the demand for higher capacity data transfers and speeds, something, he said, may help with wider goals in reducing Europe’s energy consumption.
This point in particular was heavily refuted by Paul Lannoye, former MEP and chairman of the Environmental Group Grappe, who claimed that there are no benefits whatsoever to the application of 5G in the energy sector.
In terms of the environment, Lannoye referred to several scientific studies that claim radio waves emitted from 5G transmitters could negatively impact insect populations, causing disruption to natural ecosystems.
Along this axis, German Green MEP Klaus Buchner was keen to highlight the importance that the EU follow its own commitments in exercising the ‘precautionary principle’ with regards to the future deployment of 5G across the bloc, which involves potentially taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty or possible risk.
Enshrined in Article 191 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU’s precautionary principle states that “environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source.”
In 2016, the European Commission put forward plans to provide an EU-wide commercial launch of commercial 5G by 2020, with additional targets to cover urban areas by 2025.
However, these plans have faced a series of potential setbacks, thus far principally concerning the security of 5G network infrastructure, and allowing third-party access to the bloc’s next-generation telecommunications networks.
Last week, EU ministers adopted conclusions concerning the importance and security of 5G technology, stressing that an approach to 5G cybersecurity should be comprehensive and risk-based, while also taking into account ‘non-technical factors’.
Europe currently finds itself under pressure to take a stance on the involvement of China’s Huawei in the EU’s 5G networks. The US has already signed agreements with several EU member states including Poland and Romania, stressing that they will work together on a 5G approach.
Meanwhile, Bulgaria Prime Minister Boyko Borissov has recently met with US President Donald Trump in Washington, and the two released a joint statement saying that the “United States and Bulgaria declare the shared desire to strengthen cooperation” in the field of 5G.
More broadly, in order to reach Bulgaria’s 2023 targets for connectivity and e-government, the country’s Minister of Transport, Information Technology and Communications, Rosen Zhelyazkov, recently said that people need to be won around on some of the issues currently holding up the wider rollout of 5G infrastructures, such as security and health.
For Bulgarian MEP Hristov, however, these issues should be at the top of the list.
“It is the irreversibility of the process that should cause us to pay attention to fifth-generation mobile networks,” he said on Tuesday. “Along with the numerous advantages, I believe that we should pay serious attention to the possible risks related to cybersecurity and potential effects on the environment and human health.”
For the Commission at least, it appears that security rather than health is the most important issue.
An October report from the Commission about the coordinated risk assessment of 5G networks noted that “threats posed by states or state-backed actors are perceived to be of highest relevance,” and member states have now been tasked with working on a set of risk alleviating measures to mitigate the cybersecurity risks outlined in the report.
EU nations will work alongside the Commission and ENISA, the European Agency for Cybersecurity, in the drawing up of the plans, which are set to be ready by the end of December this year.
[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]
SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
SOURCE ARTICLE : IRISH EXAMINER
Local residents in the Cork village of Watergrasshill have emerged victorious in a planning row over a telecommunications mast located within a few metres of their homes.
A ruling by An Bord Pleanála means telecom firm, Three Ireland, could face enforcement proceedings unless it removes the unauthorised 30-metre mast and associated equipment including a security fence from its location at Bishop’s Island in Watergrasshill.
It follows the decision of the board to uphold the appeal of local people against the decision of Cork County Council in July to grant retention planning permission for the mast.
An Bord Pleanála said guidelines on the location of telecom antennae and support structures published by the Department of the Environment in 1996 made it a requirement that free standing masts should only be located in the immediate surrounds of villages “as a last resort”.
In addition, the board pointed out that the guidelines stated that masts should also only be located as a last resort in a residential area if alternative sites were either unavailable or unsuitable.
“It is considered that the proposed development would constitute a highly obtrusive development immediately abutting established housing within the village of Watergrasshill,” the board ruled.
It said the mast would also have a significant overbearing impact on nearby homes and would “contribute substantially to the erosion of the visual amenities of residents at this location.”
Cork County Council has granted retrospective permission for the mast on the basis it had been in use for over 20 years and recognising the importance of providing modern telecommunications across the country.
Temporary retrospective permission for the mast had previously been granted in 2011 but it expired in July 2018.
Council planners also considered that the location was not of high landscape value and that the retention of the mast would not unduly compromise the visual character of the area despite the proximity of almost 40 residential units.
One objector who lives close to the mast in the Glen Dara estate said it was a considerable eyesore and visually obtrusive.
Tarak Ben Amor claimed there was a constant buzzing noise from the mast and from the fans of associated equipment and he believed it was dangerous and a health risk, especially to young children.
Mr Ben Amor said he had taken radiation measurements from the mast and found them to be way above recommended limits – a claim disputed by Three who said it was compliant with international guidelines on exposure to electro-magnetic fields.
The company had argued that telecom masts were frequently located in close proximity to housing, particularly in urban areas.
Three claimed a growth in the number of houses in Watergrasshill further justified the need to retain the structure as there was an increased demand for telecom services in the area.
It also stated the loss of the site would create significant coverage difficulties for three mobile phone operators and would possibly require the need for additional masts around Watergrasshill.
Three said it had investigated complaints about noise from the mast and adjustments were made with subsequent readings not exceeding recommended levels.
The company promised it would carry out landscaping work around the site to mitigate any perceived negative visual impact it was having.
However, an inspector with An Bord Pleanala said significant residential development had taken place in the immediate vicinity of the mast since it was previously granted planning permission eight years ago.
“It has developed from being a rural area to now distinctively forming a growing residential suburb of Watergrasshill,” the inspector observed.
He added: “Unquestionably, in my opinion, there is an unacceptable overbearing impact.”
The inspector said Three Ireland had also failed to address the issue of alternative sites in its application for retention permission.
He concluded that the existence of the mast was also likely to have an adverse impact on property values in the area.
SOURCE ARTICLE : REUTERS WASHINGTON
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a free speech challenge brought by a trade group against a regulation issued by the California city of Berkeley that requires cell phone retailers to tell customers of certain radiation risks.
The justices left in place a July 2019 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that refused to block the 2015 regulation that industry group CTIA appealed.
CTIA said the regulation violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech rights, because the government, without the necessary justification that supports other types of regulations, is forcing retailers to spread a message they disagree with.
The 2015 regulation requires retailers to provider a notice to customers saying that carrying a cell phone can exceed Federal Communications Commission guidelines for exposure to radio-frequency radiation.
“If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines,” the notice says.
CTIA disputed the content of the notice, saying it is misleading because the FCC has concluded that carrying a cell phone is safe.
Read more on the 5 year battle https://mdsafetech.org/2019/07/05/berkeley-cell-phone-warning-ordinance-upheld-by-us-federal-appeals-court/
SOURCE ARTICLE : ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST
Greece: The Kalamata City Council decided not to continue the 5G pilot program after a three hour debate.
“The City decided not to renew the contract with the telecommunications company- a contract originally signed for the development of a 5G Pilot program. This is a result of a 6 month effort made by the people of Kalamata to stop the 5G deployment in their town,” stated Dr. Theodore Metsis who has been presenting across the country on the environmental and human health issues posed by 5G.
News coverage: “The city council decided to suspend 5G in Kalamata”
CNN Greece News Coverage Kalamata: “Experiment with the Kalamatians’ Guinea Pigs” – “Block” on 5G Network by the Municipality
Video of the meeting at the Kalamata City Council.
Kalamata was the first City in Greece to install 5G. Watch a video from earlier this year when they celebrated the pilot program.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE : PHONEGATE ALERT.ORG 18th November 2019
![[Press release] Brain cancers : 4 times more new cases of glioblastoma in 2018 according to Public Health France](https://www.phonegatealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/logo_ogg-1.png){kind=logo}
In July 2019 (updated in September 2019), the French Public Health Agency “Santé Publique France“, together with the Francim cancer registries, the Hospices Civils de Lyon and the Institut National du Cancer, published national estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in metropolitan France between 1990 and 2018. These are based on the modeling of observed incidence data (new cases) until 2015 by cancer registries, supplemented by projections until 2018.
Volume 1 of the report is devoted to solid tumors (27 tumors and 22 subtypes). Between 1990 and 2018, the overall incidence rate of solid tumors remained relatively stable in men and continued to increase in women. At the same time, the annual number of new cases of glioblastoma with histological confirmation (one of the most aggressive types of brain cancer) has increased fourfold and more for both sexes.
Santé Publique France estimates that there will be 3,481 new cases of these glioblastomas in metropolitan France in 2018, 58% of them in men. There were only 823 in 1990.
Age trends show an increase in incidence regardless of age and gender between 1990 and 2018.
According to Santé Publique France, similar observations are observed in the United States where an increase in the incidence of glioblastoma was also observed in the years 1980-1990 in connection with diagnostic progress. In addition, an Australian study reports an increasing incidence of histological confirmed glioblastoma over the period 2000-2008.
In conclusion of its analysis, Santé Publique France considers that the extrinsic factors that may play a role in increasing the incidence of glioblastoma could be:
“brain radiation therapy and possibly intense and prolonged exposure to pesticides (farmers)[14]. The latest epidemiological studies and animal experiments would support the carcinogenic role of exposure to electromagnetic fields[15]”
For Dr Annie Sasco, cancer epidemiologist, former Director of Research Unit at IARC-WHO:
“The evolution of incidence and mortality rates of central nervous system tumors as a whole and especially glioblastoma over the past 30 years is of particular concern. Of course, diagnostic behaviours have evolved and play a role, especially for older people. Nevertheless, there is a real increase, even among the youngest, for whom it is likely that diagnostic modalities have changed less than among the elderly and which may therefore be linked to environmental factors and primarily to the use of mobile or wireless phones. Informing the public should make it possible not to continue on this upward trajectory, especially among young people, with an absolute duty to protect children by not allowing them to use a cellular phone and in general by protecting them from exposure to electromagnetic fields“.
For Dr. Marc Arazi, President of Phonegate Alert:
“Over the last 2 decades, nearly 50,000 people have been affected in France by this extremely aggressive brain tumor, which has a very high mortality rate. It was also during this period that mobile telephony exploded and industrialists knowingly overexposed us to the waves of our mobile phones. This industrial and health scandal has a name, the “Phonegate”! Public authorities can no longer deny the evidence and must urgently protect the health of tens of millions of users.
Attorney-at-law Christian Jensen, of Bonnor Lawyers in Denmark, examined potential health damages and risks of 5G in relation to human rights and environmental conventions.
The legal opinion is centred around results that have positively documented actual damages or risks to humans, animals and plants. Jensen points out that this research is “inherently of much greater significance than examinations which have been incapable of identifying a damage or risk thereof, since the latter group does not in itself exclude the possibility that there exist real damage or risks”.
He explains that “If it has on one occasion defensibly been scientifically proven that there is a damaging effect or risk of damage, then the fact that ten other defensible trials did not show such an effect or risk is irrelevant. It is then merely up to the scientific community to clarify why the ten defensible trials did not show what is scientifically proven, in order to better understand why and how the damages occur or could occur”.
In his final remarks, on page 64 of the 75-page document, Jensen states that:
“It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described, would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonn-conventions.
The reason is the very significant body of scientific documentation available, showing that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is harmful and dangerous to the health of humans (particularly children), animals and plants.
This also applies when the radiation remains within the limits recommended by ICNIRP and currently used in Denmark as well as broadly within the EU.”
The legal opinion was provided at the request of the Danish Institute for Public Health, the Council for Health-Safe Telecommunications, the EHS-association and the Danish Health Association May Day.
This opinion is also relevant to Australia. Australia is a signatory to both the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Bonn convention (also known as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals). European Union directives don’t apply in Australia; however, decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights, which has responsibility for monitoring compliance with the rights and freedoms set out by the European Convention on Human Rights,influence the development of human rights law in Australia.
Access the Danish legal opinion document HERE.
SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE https://stopsmartmeters.com.au/2019/11/04/danish-legal-opinion-concludes-5g-contravenes-human-and-environmental-laws/
SOURCE ARTICLE : COMMUNITY OPERATING SYSTEM
The International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are a private self appointed body or NGO who together with the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) and Public Health England (PHE), have somehow ended up effectively setting microwave radiation exposure ‘safety’ standards for the populations of large parts of the world since the 1990s.
In May 2011, Mr Jean Huss from the EU Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs in a report entitled “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment” made the following statement on the credibility of ICNIRP.
The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=13137
An organisation whose origin and structure is none too clear and which is suspected of having rather too close links with the interests of the industries it notionally ‘regulates’. Indeed, how do such bodies mysteriously come about in the first place? NGOs may technically be non-governmental organisations but that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily non-political organisations, so called scientific ‘objectivity’ is always shaped and influenced to some degree by political and economic considerations and NGOs are subject to corporate capture and corruption just as much as a sporting ruling body such as FIFA. How is it that a group of people manage to self appoint themselves as the reliable regulatory body which takes upon itself to decide what is supposedly safe for the rest of us or not?
Was ICNIRP funded, established or captured by the very industries it was designed to ‘regulate’? Given the endemic corruption which is the hallmark of Neoliberal deregulation in general one would have to say that in all probability: yes.
Anthony J. Swerdlow, who was the ICNIRP Chair of the standing committee on epidemiology contributed to a paper of 2011 which concluded that ” the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults“. Swerdlow on this occasion, declared in a mere footnote and not any statement of interests or conflict of interests that “A.J.S. holds shares in the telecom companies Cable and Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications. A.J.S.’s wife holds shares in the BT group, a global telecommunications services company. ” Should the chair of the supposedly ‘independent’ body setting the guidelines of microwave radiation protection and also his wife – really be holding shares in the very same companies he is supposed to be regulating? How is this not an extreme conflict of interests?
Why is the origin and structure of ICNIRP so opaque when the decisions it has made have had direct impacts on the health of billions of people? This is something which is far more than ‘curious to say the least’ and should be a matter of thorough public investigation considering what is at stake in all of this in terms of global public health. Billions of people may well have been adversely effected by the extremist decisions of this self appointed scientific oracle of health and safety to which the whole world seems to have meekly deferred to without asking any real questions.
In terms of its philosophy, it turns out that ICNIRP is something of a closed ideological shop, in that in order to be accepted or invited to become a member of ICNIRP, one is preliminarily required to strictly adhere to the thermal paradigm in terms of radiation health and safety. This paradigm in terms of its followers and their beliefs, asserts that only short term, extremely high exposure to non-ionising microwave radiation that produces a large thermal effect is deemed to be hazardous to human health. Once one adopts that position, then all non-ionising radiation that falls below these levels is automatically and universally assumed to be benign. Once this paradigm is also accepted by government and other bodies such as Public Health England, then the burden falls on those subjected to such now completely unregulated sources of radiation to prove that far lower levels of exposure are indeed harmful, whereas conversely, there is no burden on the industry to irrefutably demonstrate that such exposures are completely and utterly safe. Because in the real world there are no control groups on account of the universal exposure of all the population to such radiation sources then proving irrefutable links between illness and exposure is intensely problematic.
In taking this highly selective approach ICNIRP have effectively inverted the conventions of environmental risk assessments. Don Maisch describes this reversal of principles in the ‘Procrustean Approach’.
Risk assessment for chemicals reversed for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation
It is important to note that when it comes to risk assessment that serves as the basis for Western radiofrequency and microwave (RF/MW) standards there is a fundamental departure from conventional risk assessment as used for chemicals. In their 1995 review of risk assessment of environmental chemicals, Fan, Howd and Davis point out that when assessing human exposure to chemicals, environmental levels are the focus. In other words, protecting the public from toxic effects of chemicals in the environment involves consideration of possible mechanisms of low-level toxicity and likely biological effects at low levels of exposure. In addition, the potential for cumulative (long-term), irreversible effects, such as cancer induction and neurotoxicity, are important considerations. There may be debate over what is the lowest level at which a hazard from a chemical may exist, but calculations are aimed at determining the lowest-dose toxic effects to provide human health protection. The obvious adverse effects from high level exposures are not usually a focus of risk assessment as there is no uncertainty on hazards at high-level exposure. Just the reverse applies to the risk assessment of possible hazards from human exposure to non-ionizing radiation from extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) to RF/MW electromagnetic radiation (EMR), as examined in this thesis. This thesis explores reasons why a risk assessment paradigm developed in the so-called ‘Western world’ that only provides protection from obvious adverse effects at high-intensity (acute) exposures unlikely to be encountered in the environment. The possibility of cumulative effects, cancer induction and neurological effects arising from low-intensity exposures that could be encountered in the environment are not a consideration in assessing human health risks [Under ICNIRP’s terms]. This has been pointed out in a Swiss government agency publication ‘Electrosmog in the Environment’ where it is stated “Exposure limit values [in Western standards/guidelines] ensure protection against recognised, acute effects, but they do not protect against suspected effects at lower radiation intensities, especially with long-term exposure”. This thesis proposes that such a radical departure from accepted risk assessment practice is based on reasons that primarily are to ensure the continuing development of both corporate and military technology at the expense of public health considerations. This assessment is in agreement with Michaels & Monforton in their observations that both corporate and a revisionist political influence in the risk assessment process has affected the outcome of supposedly scientific risk assessments to marginalize the interests of the public, while at the same time maximizing the influence of the vested interest corporate sector.
The Procrustean Approach – Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation
…..
PLEASE READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
Electromagnetic Sense Ireland 