Sign the petition against harmful 5G at this link:
Most people think that 5G is just like 2G, 3G and 4G and that it will just mean we have faster internet.
Unfortunately this will come at great cost to public health and safety as 5G technology is very different to anything we’ve had in the past.
If faster internet comes at the expense of our health, children, animals and the environment, is it worth it?
What is 5G
5G technology will use extremely high (millimetre wave) frequencies, which are poorly transmitted through solid material. To make up for this, instead of having one large phone tower that facilitates the signal reception of cellular phones and other wireless communication devices like we have currently, 5G will include not only the large phone tower but also antennae set up about every 100 metres.
This is concerning because 5G is designed to deliver concentrated and focused electromagnetic radiation far greater than current levels and will result in a massive increase in inescapable, involuntary exposure to wireless radiation.
A more detailed explanation of 5G can be found here http://www.5gappeal.eu/what-is-5g-an-introduction/
Why Are Our Exposure Limits 100 Times Higher Than Other Countries?
ARPANSA which is the Australian Government, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency who set the safety standard limits for exposure to radio frequency (the technology 5G use) say that the operation frequencies of the 5G network are included within the limits set by the ARPANSA safety standard.
However the last time ARPANSA did testing was back in 2002 (17 years ago) even before 4G and certainly doesn’t cover 5G technology which is 100 times stronger.
The ARPANSA safety limits are set at 1000 µW (microwatts) per cm2, up to 300GHz. This was set in 2002 against a senate committee recommendation of 200 µW/cm2 in 2001.
Despite the fact that many other countries such as China, Russia, Bulgaria, Canada and Poland set the limit at 10 µW/cm2, Switzerland sets their safety standard even lower at 9.5 µW/cm2 and in sensitive areas at 4.25 and Austria set the safety limit even lower at .0001 µW/cm2.
WHY IS OURS 100 TIMES HIGHER?
What is also alarming is that they recently put a disclaimer on their website that says that their info should only be used as a guide for education purposes and that you should seek professional advice (ie a doctor).
If their information should only be as a guide, why is it the standard that is being used to roll out 5G?
In another article on the ARPANSA website Dr Karipidis admits that the higher frequencies used in 5G technology will penetrate human tissue and acknowledges that there are gaps in this knowledge that require further research, ‘ARPANSA therefore has made recommendations for areas where further studies are needed. The recommendations include research for frequencies above 6 GHz and for emerging technologies that use them like 5G. But they go on to say that despite gaps in the knowledge, no health effects are expected from radio frequency exposures below the limits set in the ARPANSA standard.
ARPANSA claim that they are an independent organisation. They aren’t. ARPANSA as well as ACMA collects $1M annually from wireless industry as a levy for health research. While $700K goes to NHMRC for research, $300K goes to ARPANSA. How can the govt health regulator be on the industry payroll and deliver impartial outcomes?
Scientists Worldwide Call for Action
Scientists are cautioning that before rolling out 5G, research on human health effects urgently needs to be done FIRST to ensure the public and environment are protected, unlike ARPANSA who are giving it the nod, despite having acknowledged more research needs to be done.
The bottom line is that safety guidelines from bodies such as ARPANSA are clearly designed to protect industry, not health, as the profits from the 5G rollout are immense.
“Independent scientists and physicians know that these safety guidelines, which do not take into account the many thousands of studies on non-thermal EMF effects, have no connection with the genuine scientific literature”
In Europe, Over 26,000 scientists from more than 40 countries have expressed their serious concerns. Referring to numerous scientific publications that have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international guidelines. This is particularly concerning given Australian guidelines are 100 times higher than most other countries.
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 plants and animals.
Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor, comments on 5G while speaking to the U.S. Senate.
“Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-review literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now: there is no question We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects…5G is an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics, this is called human subjects research.” ~Dr. Sharon Goldberg
Adding to the voices of dissent is Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. In a study and presentation, he takes a closer look at 5G technology, and issues a major warning for all of us.
“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.” ~Martin L. Pall, PhD
Read this 90 page book on 5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. Written by Martin L Pall PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards–dr-martin-l.-pall–eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf
There is already a substantial and convincing amount of scientific studies that show many adverse health effects and health hazards from radiofrequency/microwave radiation.
Check out a large number of peer reviewed research articles here https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/
Some Say that Non-Ionising Radiation Does Not Cause Harm to Humans
Some argue that radio frequency (the technology 5G uses) is non ionising and therefore does not cause harm to humans. Unfortunately this notion that non ionising radiation is safe is outdated and false.
The biological effects of radiofrequency (non ionising) energy should not be confused with the effects from other types of electromagnetic energy (ionising) such as those found in xrays and gamma rays.
Ionising radiation can permanently damage biological tissues including DNA.
And it has been a previously strongly held belief that non ionising radiation causes no harm to humans.
However even Samsung have released a statement that includes the following
“While RF energy does not ionize particles, large amounts can increase body temperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow in them to carry away excess heat.”
Did you know that on your iPhone you can also go to Settings>General>About>Legal>RF Exposure
They recommend to reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in speakerphone, the supplied headphones or other similar accessories. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device, including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been tested or certified.
Unfortunately the damaging effects don’t end here. As Martin L. Pall, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University states in his 90 page book which you can read in full here https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards–dr-martin-l.-pall–eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf
“There are many possible indirect effects that may occur, given the complexity of biology. But our situation goes way beyond that, because we know that most of the effects are produced via VGCC activation which produces, as downstream effects, the free radical breakdown products of peroxynitrite (Fig. 1, Chapter 2). Those free radical breakdown products attack DNA, proteins and other biological constituents in ways that are very similar to the ways in which ionizing radiation attack these same molecules. Ionizing radiation was shown by Arthur Compton, who won the Nobel prize in physics in 1927, for showing that ionizing radiation produces large numbers of free radicals through what has become known as Compton scattering, with those free radicals being responsible for most of the biological effects of ionizing radiation. So the often repeated industry claim that ionizing radiation is dangerous but non-ionizing radiation is not, is wrong – both of them produce similar effects mediated through free radical generation.”- Martin L Pall.
Frank Clegg- Former Head of Microsoft Canada, points out the safety standard only protects people from thermal damage that can occur through overheating, but scientists have demonstrated that radiation omitting devices can cause DNA damage without heating tissue, these are non thermal effects.
“Unfortunately the safety standards in North America and in Australia are based on this theory that’s many decades old, that if tissue doesn’t get heated, that it can’t cause harm. and that’s just out of date.. what the biologists tell us and have shown in many, many experiments and again in peer reviewed published papers- is that there is damage done at the DNA level and from a biological standpoint. Non thermal radiation can cause and does cause harm to humans.”