5G Now Determined as Safe – But is It Really?

With all the current attention on 5G due to the alleged ‘Conspiracy Theories‘ about its links with the COVID-19 pandemic, we thought it would be a good idea to take a look at any studies that exist which indicate the technology is safe. After all, we keep getting told that 5G is safe and anyone who suggests otherwise is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.

But the fact remains, there are no specific studies for 5G, as  Congressman Blumenthal discovered when he asked the question to top officials from both the FDA and FCC at a US senate hearing:

ICNIRP Determines 5G Poses No Health Risk

On March 11th 2020 the International Commission on Non‐ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a German-based scientific organization that determines the impact of electromagnetic waves on people and the environment stated that 5G poses no negative health effect. This conclusion was determined from existing scientific research into the frequency ranges used by 5G.

The ICNIRP have updated their RF EMF Guidelines to take into account the new 5G technology being rolled out, though they state that ‘in terms of the 5G exposure levels measured so far, the ICNIRP (1998) guidelines would also provide protection for 5G technologies’.

Scientists have countered these guidelines claiming that the ICNIRP are using outdated science and refuse to accept the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found biologic and health effects from exposure to low-density radio frequency radiation.

Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Public Health and creator of the saferemr.com website, said that ICNIRP’s guidelines

“were designed to protect us only from short-term heating (or thermal) effects. The guidelines fail to protect us from non-thermal effects, especially from long-term exposure to wireless radiation because ICNIRP continues to dismiss the many hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that have found biologic and health effects from exposure to low-intensity, radio frequency radiation including many human as well as animal studies.

The preponderance of the research has found evidence of increased cancer incidence, oxidative stress, DNA damage, and infertility from exposure to wireless radiation.”

RF EMF Guidelines 2020

The new guidelines issued by the ICNIRP have been specifically updated to include the new frequency ranges used by 5G technology. However, much of the studies referenced are still only for frequency ranges below 6Ghz. The studies that do exist on for frequencies above the 6GHZ range are limited and just about all conclusions determine that further studies are needed.

In a paper written in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health they concluded that:

‘Evidences about the biological properties of RF-EMF are progressively accumulating and, although they are in some case still preliminary or controversial, clearly point to the existence of multi-level interactions between high-frequency EMF and biological systems, and to the possibility of oncologic and non-oncologic effects.

Biological effects have also been recorded at exposure levels below the regulatory limits, leading to growing doubts about the real safety of the currently employed ICNIRP standards.’

The paper goes on to list the various areas of concern including DNA damage, Increased susceptibility in children and alterations in gene expression.

The paper goes onto say:

‘Further experimental and epidemiologic studies are urgently needed in order to better and fully explore the health effects caused in humans by the exposure to genetic or specific (i.e MMW) RD-EMF frequencies in different age groups and with increasing exposure density.

However, underestimating the relevance of available results do not appear to be ethically acceptable. Results already available should be sufficient to invoke the respect of the precautionary principle considering the large numbers of subjects involved in this form of environmental exposure…’

The Studies (Or Lack of)

The very fact that after years of working towards the roll out of 5G, they have failed to do a study should raise alarms bells in anyone. What we can take a look at though is studies into the effects of the particular frequency range used in 5G, which ranges from 2GHZ through to 60GHZ.

Fortunately for us the hard work has already been done, a study in the US National Library of Medicine entitled ‘5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects — A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz’ looks extensively at all the available studies which have elements of relevance to the 5G technology. The review analyzed 94 relevant publications performing in vivo or in vitro investigations.

To summarize what they found , here is their conclusion from the paper:

Since the ranges up to 30 GHz and over 90 GHz are sparingly represented, this review mainly covers studies done in the frequency range from 30.1 to 65 GHz.

In summary, the majority of studies with MMW exposures show biological responses. From this observation, however, no in-depth conclusions can be drawn regarding the biological and health effects of MMW exposures in the 6–100 GHz frequency range.

The studies are very different and the total number of studies is surprisingly low. The reactions occur both in vivo and in vitro and affect all biological endpoints studied.

The question therefore remains whether warming is the main cause of any observed MMW effects?

In order to evaluate and summarize the 6–100 GHz data in this review, we draw the following conclusions:

• Regarding the health effects of MMW in the 6–100 GHz frequency range at power densities not exceeding the exposure guidelines the studies provide no clear evidence, due to contradictory information from the in vivo and in vitro investigations.

• Regarding the possibility of “non-thermal” effects, the available studies provide no clear explanation of any mode of action of observed effects.

• Regarding the quality of the presented studies, too few studies fulfill the minimal quality criteria to allow any further conclusions.

Another paper published on the Elsevier entitled ‘5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications’ also delves into the current studies and research we have relating to 5G and their conclusions are not dissimilar to the former paper, they conclude:

Although 5G technology may have many unimagined uses and benefits, it is also increasingly clear that significant negative consequences to human health and ecosystems could occur if it is widely adopted.

 Current radiofrequency radiation wavelengths we are exposed to appear to act as a toxin to biological systems. A moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted.

Considering the current science, lack of relevant exposure standards based on known biological effects and data gaps in research, we need to reduce our exposure to RF EMF where ever technically feasible.

The paper finishes with a statement which I think we all need to really consider regardless of our current opinion and understanding of the potential dangers surrounding  5g:

There are many lessons we have not learned with the introduction of novel substances, which later became precarious environmental pollutants by not heeding warning signs from scientists.

The threats of these common pollutants continue to weigh heavily on the health and wellbeing of our nation. We now accept them as the price of progress. If we do not take precautions but wait for unquestioned proof of harm will it be too late at that point for some or all of us?

The reality is, there are no relevant studies to establish the safety of 5G, watchdogs and health authorities are basing all safety on previous studies on the frequencies used for the technology. Though in most cases they are using studies up to only 6GHZ and making assumptions that higher frequencies will have similar results.

But even these lower frequency studies are in no way comparable to the real world environment of frequency we now find ourselves in and further more even the these relatively short term studies show a clear thermal increase in tissue temperature. This can range from 0.2 degrees up to 1 degrees depending on the study and limb your refer to.

Facebook Banning All Anti-5G groups

To add to the fuel to the fire on suspicion surrounding 5G, Facebook has now begun clamping down and banning any anti-5G groups and pages. Even hashtags which suggest negativity towards 5G are being removed. With such censorship in place, you have to question why would such measures be taken. After all, if there is nothing to hide then there is nothing to worry about. Truth prevails, right?

Facebook made the decision to begin banning these groups following a controversial interview with David Icke by Brian Rose for his London Real platform. The video was originally live streamed on YouTube, only to be taken down shortly after the live stream was over. The video was also uploaded to Facebook and Vimeo, only to be taken down on both these platforms within 24 hours.

We anticipated the take down of this particular video and put it up on the Decentralized media sharing platform LBRY.

The 5G Coronavirus Conspiracy

Back in February when this whole crisis was really coming to a head in China a theory began to circulate connecting the coronavirus symptoms and fatalities to 5G. The theory is not without merit either as the mainstream media would have believe.

In a nutshell the theory suggests that the frequency of 60GHZ used in some 5G applications interferes with the lungs ability to absorb oxygen. The scientific backing to this concept can be found in an earlier article we published which gets more into the science behind this, but here is a snippet:

When you hit oxygen molecules with 60 GHz millimeter wave emissions it affects the orbital properties of the electrons of the oxygen molecules.

We then breath these effected oxygen molecules into our lungs which is then passes through bound to red blood cells using a protein called haemoglobin, this protein consists of four iron atoms, which in turn can bind four atoms of oxygen the the blood cell.

Now, exactly what the affects of these charged oxygen molecules is relatively unchartered territory, but what we do know is that the lungs work most efficiently when they are receiving oxygen in its natural state, MMW charged oxygen molecules will not bind as well to the iron atoms in the haemoglobin, in fact there is suggestion that these oxygen molecules may be repelled by the iron.

The initial countries which were being largely affected by the COVID-19 virus were also linked to having rolled out, or rolling out 5G first. Wuhan for example switched on their 5G network back in December. Now there are holes in the theory and much of what has happened since can be difficult to tie into the theory. However, much of the official narrative is also very hard to tie in with what is happening, because lets face it very little makes sense right now regarding this whole situation; so we should not rule out anything at this point and certainly not censor discussion on the topic.

David Icke touched on this theory and expanded on it in his recent interview and the internet blew up, the video was removed, calls for social network companies to pull the video and other so called ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theories regarding 5G and coronavirus offline.

It would seem however they have gone one step further in banning content connecting 5G to the coronavirus pandemic, they are now banning all pages and groups discussing the potential health risks of 5G.

The Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous.

There are many critics of this approach out there, they claim such a principle hinders progress. But putting life before progress seems like a pretty ethical approach to me, wouldn’t you agree?

I think we should hinder progress as much as possible if the ‘progress’ in question has any cause for concern, the argument that there are not enough quality studies which show harmful effects on health is not a valid argument. Even the ICNIRP state the lack of studies in this scientific field, so then how on earth can they now make the claim that ‘5G poses no health risks’. This is a highly irresponsible claim to make and they need to be held accountable in the future for any damage done to life on earth.

References:

1. Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?

2. 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications

3. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?

4. ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100khz to 300ghz)

5. 5G Wireless Communications and Health Effects