1996: When Cell Phone Safety Guidelines Were Last Updated

 

In a Washington Post op-ed (June 4), “5G conspiracy theories threaten the U.S. recovery,” Thomas Johnson Jr., the Federal Communications Commission’s general counsel, declared: “Conjectures about 5G’s effect on human health are long on panic and short on science.”

The FCC, however, has been “short on science” for more than two decades. Along with the World Health Organization, the FCC abdicated its responsibility to protect the public’s health from hazards associated with exposure to radio frequency, or RF, radiation. As a result, almost 400 international scientists and doctors have called for a moratorium on deployment of 5G, and 150 community groups have tried to block its rollout in the United States. Recently, the Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense, along with multiple plaintiffs, sued the FCC over its inadequate RF exposure limits and cell phone testing procedures.

The FCC relies on other agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, for health expertise. However, without a comprehensive review of all peer-reviewed science and a formal risk assessment, the FDA in a letter advised the FCC that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.” The letter “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.”

In a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Senator Blumenthal “blasted” the FCC and FDA for “failing to conduct any research into the safety of 5G technology . . . and deferring to industry. . . . We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”

Last December, the FCC reaffirmed its obsolete RF exposure limits, ignoring critical input from more than 50 scientists, hundreds of scientific studies, and hundreds of people who have suffered illness from RF radiation.

Originally adopted in 1996, these limits were based upon a behavioral change in rats and monkeys exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect humans only from short-term heating risks due to RF radiation exposure.

Since 1996, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research—more than 500 studies—has found harmful biologic or health effects from RF radiation exposure at intensities too low to cause significant heating. Thus stringent exposure limits based on biological effects are needed to protect human health.

Citing this body of research, over 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields, or EMF, signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger RF exposure limits. The signatories have published over 2,000 papers and letters on nonionizing EMF in professional journals and arguably constitute the majority of experts in this field.

The appeal proclaims:

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

In 2018, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program reported “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone radiation increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute replicated the NTP’s key finding using much weaker cell phone radiation exposure over the rats’ lifespan.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. We are seeing increases in head and neck tumors in cancer registries from multiple countries, which may be attributable to the proliferation of wireless device use. These increases are consistent with case-control studies that found increased tumor risk in long-term cell phone users.

Moreover, cancer is not even the most common hazard, because there is substantial scientific evidence that RF radiation causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm.

The volume of peer-reviewed scientific evidence on earlier technologies suggests that exposure to microwaves and millimeter waves used in 5G is likely harmful.

According to Johnson, “if we delay 5G deployment based on irrational fears and unproven theories, it will only hurt the American people.” But can we trust the FDA or FCC’s evaluation of the science? Should we gamble on our health and invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a technology that requires 800,000 new cell antenna sites installed next to our homes and workplaces? Or should we develop RF exposure standards that fully protect humans and the environment and institute a risk management system based upon a formal risk assessment?

SOURCE ARTICLE HERE

FCC Telecommunications Act 1996: 

 

The Microwave Injured Masses– Canary Warnings About 5G

The Microwave Injured Masses – Canary Warnings About 5G And Covid-19
2018: 28-year-old Tim Barker became ‘electro-sensitive’ (or ‘microwave injured’) after years of working in Silicon Valley as a developer for iPhone Apps. Too ill to continue working in that microwave saturated environment, he quit his job and took refuge at his mother’s home in Arizona the same year, hoping to recover.
2019: Tim went for a walk around the block with his mother in her Scottsdale neighborhood. As they neared a metal box positioned on a corner lamppost, Tim experienced intense pressure in his head, seized up with convulsions in his gut, doubled over in pain, and fell to the ground. The following week he and his mother passed near to the same lamppost and again the nightmare repeated itself.
What began as suspicion that the box on the lamppost could be a container for the new 5G (5th Generation Wireless communications technology) and thereby responsible for his symptoms, was confirmed when Tim received verification from AT&T (the local cell phone provider) that they had in fact ‘turned on’ the 5G network on January 4, 2019.
We need to know more.
Check out the rest of the story here: https://www.electricsense.com/5g-covid-19/
And learn what you can do to protect yourself:

5G In National Parks?

 

Should there be 5G in National Parks without studies on the impacts it may have on wildlife and nature?
“There is no federal health agency that has ever set safety limits for trees, birds or bees. Our outdated wireless radiation limits were never intended to protect the nature around us. No agency even has a funded mandate to ensure our flora and fauna are safe from cell tower radiation. In other words, it is a gaping hole in federal accountability. Thus, wireless infrastructure expansion should be halted until proper safety limits are developed.
Expanding wireless communications in parks will irrevocably impair the wilderness experience. With the science on our side, we firmly believe there are wired solutions that would be far less damaging.”
-Albert M. Manville, II, Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Solutions, DC Campus former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agency lead on avian-structural impacts — including from radiation.
Check out the rest of the story here:

5G Completely safe?

No conflict of interest to see here…
“As 5G rolls out during 2020, expect the technology to be in the headlines with ever-increasing regularity. Not all of it will be positive, however. Municipalities are becoming frustrated by the Federal Communications Commission’s push to streamline the approval process for the mini-towers that will make 5G’s superfast connections tick, and there will be continuing critiques of 5G’s safety… Still, 5G will change our lives. It’s not a question of if, but when.
Despite the claims of its detractors, 5G is safe. After numerous studies, there is no concrete evidence that radiation from 5G phones poses any more risk than your standard cell phone. So, no, your 5G device will not irradiate you, and it’s completely safe to use.”
Source:
For more information about how 5G may impact our health check out this website: https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-internet-everything/

Stop 5G Success in New Jersey!

Jersey City Council postpones 5G utility pole installation.

“The Jersey City Council has unanimously tabled an ordinance to approve the upgrade and installation of 72 utility poles which the council says will include 5G technology after members of the public spoke against the ordinance.

Resident and registered nurse Lucille Shah said she was against 5G utility pole installation.

“My children’s bedroom faces the street, and they can potentially be sleeping just a few feet away from a 5G tower,” she said, noting that the World Health Organization has yet to issue an opinion on the possible health impacts of the technology.

She said that several European countries have halted their installation until more studies have been concluded.”

Want to know more? Check out the rest of the story here. 

 

Dirty Electricity Interview

What are the physical effects of prolonged, constant exposure to the electromagnetic radiation coming off of your personal devices, smart appliances even household wiring?

At what point is the need for faster data transmission speeds outweighed by the negative health outcomes of the technology? Are we already there with 5G?

What can you do to lessen your exposure to harmful levels of radiation given off constantly by our “civilized” world?

Author and certified EMF expert Bill Cadwallader joins the program to discuss the effects of “dirty electricity” and proposes things you can do today to protect yourself.

Listen to it here today!