Experts Gather to Warn of Health Dangers of 5G radiation
as published in the Daily Sceptic on 12th June 2023
I am heartened to see that the negative effects of technology, such as smart phones and remote learning are now being discussed more publicly. Last Friday on GB News, Bev Turner talked about an ALDI store, to which entry can only be gained via smartphone. Various national newspapers are mentioning the psychological damage done to children through overuse of screens and social media. Addiction is a major problem.
However only a handful of people and organisations seem to be aware of the likely damage to physical and mental health from the radio-frequency radiation (RFR) emitted by smartphones, wi-fi and phone masts. Those who do mention this are quickly labelled as conspiracy theorists, perhaps following the lead of the Counter Disinformation Unit, which, I suspect, is the “subcommittee” referred to in the official Report for the Broadband and Road to 5G inquiry conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I have explained this more fully in a previous TCW article, but the implication was that anyone who submitted evidence about possible health harms from RFR was tarred with the same brush as those who thought 5G caused Covid.
Considering how controversial it still is to oppose our Government’s view that RFR “should have no consequences for public health,” I am highly appreciative of the open-mindedness of bodies such as The Heritage Party and Us for Them UK in questioning its safety. Under the heading “Preserving the Environment” in the Heritage Party Manifesto, there is a call for a moratorium on 5G, while the Us for Them campaign “Safe Screens” has a comprehensive list of harms, which include the health effects of radio-frequency radiation.
All the more welcome, therefore, is a free event hosted at the Royal School of Medicine by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) on June 14th, with the topic: “Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Sources: Are Safety Limits Valid?”. For this event, a group of international experts have been assembled.
The safety exposure limits presently followed by our Government are set by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and are seen as insufficient by certain groups of scientists, and clearly also by many countries such as Italy, Switzerland, Eastern Europe, China and India, who use much stricter guidelines. The event on June 14th will be framed around the problem of divergent evaluations of the same scientific evidence on hazardous agents.
But what exactly will be discussed? Firstly, two scientific papers produced by ICBE-EMF in recent months, will be summarised.
One paper lays out 14 false assumptions behind the ICNIRP guidelines. These include ICNIRP’s insistence that biological damage does not occur below a certain heating threshold in the body. Another, is that ICNIRP had only looked at exposures of 6 and 30 minutes, but did not consider low-level, long-term effects. In addition, the 2011 classification of RFR by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “possibly carcinogenic”, as well as the results of large animal studies in 2018 were not taken into account despite the guidelines being updated in 2020.
The second paper suggests six engineering fixes which can go a long way toward reducing radiation exposure for the individual user of mobile phones.
Secondly, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe will discuss acute (short term) effects of RFR such as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which currently affects an estimated 3-10 % of the European population, as well as some chronic health concerns. She will also highlight some important related legal cases.
Thirdly, a presentation will be given on the only US state to comprehensively investigate 5G and RFR, New Hampshire, by an expert member of its commission, Kent Chamberlain. Last year New Hampshire lawmakers voted to recommend action on the issue of wireless radio-frequency (RF) radiation. The New Hampshire House subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Technology, and Energy had held study sessions on RF featuring numerous experts, organizations and residents as well as wireless industry consultants. One significant recommendation was that mobile phone masts should be at least 500 metres away from any place of work, residence, play or education. It was convincingly shown, through 2 different approaches, that a setback of less than 500 metres would cause a greater risk of cancer and other disease. An excellent summary of the process is here.
Who are the speakers? James Lin is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Bioengineering, Physiology and Biophysics at the University of Chicago as well as an ex-member of ICNIRP. Since leaving ICNIRP, he has become convinced that the classification for RFR by IARC should be “probably carcinogenic” if not “carcinogenic.” His criticisms of ICNIRP were published this month in “Health Matters” and can be read in full here.
Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe is a medical doctor, specialising in electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and is the founder of Physicians Health Initiative on Radiation Effects (PHIRE). With her help, legal precedent was created at an Upper Tribunal hearing in July 2022 when a local authority was mandated to make low-EMF educational provisions to accommodate a child with EHS. She also helped Sally Burns, a 59 year old social worker win her appeal for early ill-health retirement and Ms Burns will now receive a full pension due to disabling Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS).
Kent Chamberlain is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire and an expert member of the “New Hampshire Commission on 5G” (2019/20), described above.
The summary of key points and discussion will be led by Professor John Frank MD, who is Professorial Fellow (formerly Chair of Public Health Research and Policy and Director of Knowledge Exchange and Research Impact) at the Usher Institute (of Population Health Sciences and Informatics) at the University of Edinburgh. He is also Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. He has called for a moratorium on 5G.
Who will listen? The organisers hope to attract decision-makers such as MPs and local councillors as well as to inform GPs, who seem to know little of EHS and cannot diagnose it, but instead use such labels as “Functional Neurological Disorder”, as I heard from Sally Burns. It is also to be hoped that local planning departments will take an interest in this presentation, as they are often unaware of their obligations to look at health concerns surrounding masts, but are encouraged by Government to believe that the siting of masts is purely an visual matter.
Presently many ordinary citizens, aware of the negative health effects of RFR, often through personal experience, are forced to take individual action. This may be the time-consuming and arduous task of objecting to planning applications on a mast by mast basis, informing themselves through websites such as this, which are of great help on this complex subject. Others go through the expense of asking for judicial review and raising funding for it as in this case in Kent, where a mast is planned within 10 meters of a primary school boundary. In this case funds are needed urgently.
Why should individual citizens have to fight their own corner time after time? Isn’t it time to gather highly qualified experts together to investigate RFR and 5G as New Hampshire has done? In the recent judicial review on 5G led by Michael Mansfield, the Government listed several international organisations on which they rely, but these organisations, ICNIRP, the WHO EMF Project, IARC and SCENHIR/SCHEER share to a large extent the same somewhat underqualified personnel as detailed in this lengthy report on conflicts of interest. UK groups that were quoted as being relied upon by Government, were the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR), which reported in 2012, but which disbanded in 2017 after being discredited by Dr Sarah Starkey, as well as the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) at the Department of Health, which unfortunately focuses on ionising radiation and not RFR, where it has very little expertise. Thus officially, this subject is badly neglected in the UK.
This event, therefore, on the 14th provides an unparalleled opportunity in the UK to hear these vital issues discussed by well-qualified and experienced experts in this complex field, which covers the disciplines of medicine, biophysics, electronic engineering and more. For those who cannot watch online on the 14th, a video link will be available shortly thereafter from this page.
Postscript
Having recently attended this event online and a then follow-up event in person, I’d like to add my impressions to the preview above. A video and slides from the online event will shortly be available here.
Most compelling, was the experience of Professor Kent Chamberlain, who as a previous designer of antennae, had considered the risk to health from RFR to be low. On hearing the medical evidence presented at the New Hampshire Commission, to which he had been invited as an electronic engineering expert, he completely changed his mind. He is still in shock at the poor standard of the studies carried out to set safety exposure guidelines.
These studies were based on 8 rats and 5 monkeys, who had been trained to press a lever to get food when they were hungry. They were starved, then irradiated with non-ionising radiation for periods of up to an hour. Their subsequent behaviour disruption was linked to increase in body temperature, which helped to set a heating threshold, below which health damage was assumed not to occur. An arbitrary safety factor was incorporated and safety exposure levels for humans created. This is fully described here.
As we heard from all speakers, the vast majority of studies show health damage well below the heating threshold for the body. Not only that, but the studies relied on by ICNIRP only allow for short-term exposure, not the continuous exposure that is now prevalent. It also ignores long latency disease, which is disease that may take decades to develop after initial exposure. ICNIRP itself admits that the guidelines are not relevant to those with metal implants and some other devices.
Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe gave a very detailed and convincing lecture. My main take-away was that children are not just little adults, but their absorption of RFR is disproportionately greater, e.g. 5-fold for the eyes, 10-fold for bone marrow and 30-fold for the hippocampus.
With all humans, there are differences in sensitivity, perhaps due to the combination of environmental pollutants experienced in addition to RFR, or to underlying health conditions. There are no separate safety guidelines appropriate to these groups, just as there are none for flora and fauna.
The event was presented by David Gee, Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Pollution Research and Policy, Brunel University, London. He had been involved in the European Environmental Agency reports on environmental pollutants, ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ (2001, 2013). He regards the dangers of RFR as on a par with asbestos, thalidomide and ionising radiation, though the problem with RFR is that all life is now exposed to it. He pointed out that in the early days of X-rays, the excitement about this new technology led to X-ray machines being used to measure children’s feet in shoe shops. Professor Lin had pointed out that the biological effects of RFR have been studied for 70 years. When therefore will we learn our “Late Lesson” and bring together the wide range of experts needed to investigate this complex topic urgently to prevent further irreparable damage to all living beings?