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.”
Wind power depends on coal
by Viv Forbes, science writer
June 15th was declared by wind energy rent-takers as “Global Wind Day”. This is just another orchestrated media event designed to distract taxpayers, electricity consumers and wind turbine victims from the follies of wind energy. The only people celebrating will be turbine owners getting subsidies, propped-up prices and guaranteed markets; lucky landowners getting rich on compensation; and green zealots promoting a UN Agenda. But neighbours of turbines driven mad by the noise of the thumping blades are not celebrating; neither are the birds and bats being sliced by the spinning sickles; nor nearby property owners who see their property values slashed; nor true environmentalists concerned to see the destruction and uglification of their landscapes and hilltops with a spider-web of turbines, transmission lines and access roads; nor electricity consumers facing expensive and increasingly unreliable power supplies. Future generations will look back in wonder at a whole generation of westerners whose misdirected religious green zeal wasted billions of dollars to create industrial and environmental destruction, while insisting (without evidence) that it would create a cooler climate, and that everyone wants a cooler climate. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirl-wind.
Further Reading: Why Wind Won’t Work: http://carbon-sense.com/2011/02/08/why-wind-wont-work/
Green Energy Steals from the Biosphere Earth has only three significant sources of energy.
First is geothermal energy from Earth’s molten core and decaying radioactive minerals in Earth’s crust. This energy moves continents, powers volcanoes and its heat migrates towards the crust, warming the lithosphere and the deep oceans. It can be harvested successfully in favourable locations, and radioactive minerals can be extracted to provide large amounts of reliable heat for power generation.
Second is energy stored in combustible hydrocarbon minerals such as coal, oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale. These all store solar and geothermal energy collected eons ago and they are the primary energy sources supporting the modern world and its large and growing populations.
Third are radiation and gravitational energies from the Sun and Moon which are captured by the biosphere as heat, winds, tides, rain, rivers and in biomass such as forests, crops and animals. These are the natural “Green” energies that support all processes of life and still support a peasant existence for some peoples. Green zealots believe that we can and should run modern societies exclusively on “Green” energies, and they have embarked on a war on hydrocarbons. They need to be told that their green energy favourites are just stealing from the biosphere – they are not as green as they claim. The most obvious example is the ethanol industry which takes food crops like corn, sugar and palm oil and uses heaps of water and a lot of hydrocarbon energy to convert them to ethanol alcohol which will burn in internal combustion engines, but has less energy density than petrol.
See: The Water and Corn costs to produce Ethanol: http://gazette.Com/the-water-and-corn-cost-for-a-gallon-of-ethanol/article/1506579 This process is replacing natural grasslands and forests with artificial monocultures. The latest stupid ethanol suggestion is to power Obama’s “wanna-be-green” US Pacific Fleet using Queensland food crops. Feeding ethanol to the engines of the US Navy would consume far more food than was used feeding hay and grain to the thousands of horses used to move our artillery and Light Horse Brigades in the Great War. Sailors in the British Navy got much of their energy from Jamaican Rum, but the American navy will not run on Queensland ethanol whiskey.
More: World turning against Biofuels: http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/02/a-world-turning-against-biofuels/
Biomass is a fancy name for plant material and vegetable trash which, if maintained in/on the soil, will provide the fertility for the next crop. Burning it reduces the humus that maintains fertile soil. The ultimate biomass stupidity is to harvest American forests, pelletise them, dry them and ship them across the Atlantic (all using hydrocarbon fuels) to burn in a UK power station. Burning biomass produces the same emission gases as coal. Most plants will not grow without energy from the sun. Solar arrays steal energy directly from the biosphere. Some incoming solar energy is reflected to space by the panels, some is converted to waste heat on the panels, and some is converted to electricity – much of which ends up as waste heat. Solar radiation that could have given energy to growing plants is largely returned to the atmosphere as waste heat and much is then lost to space. Some solar farms are built over land that is already a desert – the rest create their own deserts in their shadow. Because solar energy is very dilute, very large areas of land must be shaded and sterilised by the panels in order to collect significant energy. Solar radiation also evaporates water from the oceans and provides the energy for rain, winds and storms. Much of this moisture falls as useful rain when the winds penetrate land masses. Wind turbines create artificial obstacles to the wind, reducing its velocity and thus tending to create more rain near the coast and rain shadows behind the turbine walls. And they chop up many birds and bats. Again, green energy harms the biosphere. More: The Windfarm Delusion:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7684233/the-winds-of-change/ Hydro power is one of the few green energy sources that is “grid ready” and can supply economical reliable energy. So, naturally, many greens are opposed to it. However, in most places there is competition for fresh water for domestic uses, irrigation, industry and environmental flow. Hydro power is just one more competitor for this valuable green resource. So… Green energy is not so green after all. It reduces the supply of food, water and energy available to all life on earth, and it often consumes large amounts of hydrocarbon energy for its manufacture, construction, maintenance and backup. Green advocates are enemies of the poor. They want to burn their food, waste their water and deny them access to cheap reliable energy. Hydrocarbon fuels are the true green energy sources. They disturb less land per unit of energy produced, they do not murder wildlife, and their combustion produces new supplies of water and carbon dioxide for the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere enables plants to grow faster, bigger and more able to cope with heat or drought. It was coal, and later oil, which created and still largely supports the populations, prosperity and industry of developed nations. With a backdrop of freedom under the law, they can do the same for the whole world. Those professing concern for the poor need to realise that Green Energy steals from the biosphere and that hydrocarbons are the real friends of the poor. Finally, those who have swallowed the carbon dioxide scare should be told that nuclear energy is the most reliable and least damaging “low carbon” option.
Further Reading: Corn Ethanol Destroying the Prairies: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/16/corn-ethanol.aspx
Ethanol Mandate fuels Habitat Loss: http://www.cfact.org/2013/12/24/ethanol-mandate-fueling-habitat-loss/ The Biofuel Curse: http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/64405