The Myth of Wireless Safety

What you're not being told can hurt you

This. Is. Safety.

Do you believe something is safe based on who is telling you, or what is being told?

Do you love the messenger so much, that you kill the message?

It used to not be so diplomatic to “kill the messenger”, however maybe there should be a time and place for this as well (figuratively-speaking of course).

Don’t let the feeling of being safe, which is really a steel box, turn into a bottomless pit of fear. Open your eyes to the light.

The truth may be even more terrifying, but it will ultimately set you free.

War Games of Big Tech

In the eye-opening document “War Games for Profit”, whistleblowers, lawyers, and independent scientists speak out and reveal how the telecommunications industry falsified data, manipulated the press, and destroyed the lives of credible researchers through character defamation.

This video below is a must-watch for anyone on the fence about “trusting the science” behind wireless safety.

The english / US version has been taken down, and is still available in german with english subtitles:

“Doubt is our product”

An executive of Brown & Wiliiamson, a large tobacco company wrote in a 1969 memo“doubt is our product.” The wireless industry knows this as well, and this is why the studies finding harm (positive) vs no harm (negative) are always presented as mixed and inconclusive.

There are two immediate problems with these “inconclusive” studies.

1. Industry-funded studies used simulated EMF exposures instead of real cell phones.

2. 75 percent of the studies finding harm (positive results) are funded by the wireless industry and partners such as the US military.

“To explore the potential biases at work, Microwave News investigated a subset of health studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We selected papers on microwave-induced genotoxicity; that is, microwave effects on DNA, the genetic blueprint inside every living cell. With the generous help of Henry Lai of the University of Washington, Seattle, we identified 85 radiofrequency (RF)/microwave-genotox papers published since 1990. Of these, 43 found some type of biological effect and 42 did not. (You can download a complete list of references and abstracts here.)

Lai is an interested party to this controversy. with N.P. Singh, Lai made RF/microwave genotoxicity a major concern when, in the mid-1990's, they were the first to report that microwaves could lead to DNA single- and double-strand breaks. As you can see in Table 1, Lai is the lead author of four of the 43 "effect" or positive studies.

Link to original article: Microwave News

We let the fox guard the hen house

In 2015, the Harvard Center for Ethics published an expose by investigative journalist Norm Alster on the financial ties between the US federal government’s Federal communications Commission (FCC) and how, as a result, the wireless industry gained access and power over the FCC.

Alster describes how the FCC is a “captured agency” - meaning it is controlled by the industry it is supposed to be regulating. The report describes how the telecom industry is using the same lobbying strategies and playbook as Big Tobacco:

Presiding over the FCC during Obama was Tom Wheeler, a man who has led the two most powerful telecommunications industry lobbying groups: CTIA and NCTA. It is Wheeler who once supervised a $25 million industry-funded research effort on wireless health effects.

But when handpicked research leader George Carlo concluded that wireless radiation did raise the risk of brain tumors, Wheeler‘s CTIA allegedly rushed to muffle the message:

”You do the science. I‘ll take care of the politics”, Carlo recalls Wheeler saying.

credit: “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates”, Norm Alster.

The revolving door keeps spinning

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) is a private, self-appointed (not elected) organization that provides wireless safety limits to governments worldwide. ICNIRP membership also overlaps with the membership of other international organizations, most notably the World Health Organization (WHO). In the 1990s, the Chair of ICNIRP was the same as the Chair of the WHO EMF Project.

A recent 98-page report “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection(ICNIRP):  Conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G” by Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi reveals:

“Most European governments and radiation protection authorities rely mainly on these four scientific bodies for advice on non-ionizing radiation protection:

• ICNIRP

• Environment and Emerging Risk (SCENIHR / SCHEER),

• The World Health Organization WHO’s International EMF Project

• The WHO Cancer Unit IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Investigate Europe showed the close links between especially the first three bodies: ‘The groups, however, are to a remarkable degree, staffed by the same experts,’ it stated. ‘Of 13 ICNIRP scientists, six are members of at least one other committee. In the WHO group, this applies for six out of seven (members).’ The SCENIHR Working Group on EMF also counts two ICNIRP-members.

Certain members of ICNIRP are simultaneously members of the
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES), of the US-registered Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). We have seen further evidence of a close cooperation between ICNIRP and ICES, an organization in which many people from the media and telecom industries, as well as from the military, are actively and structurally involved.”

A Web of Corruption

Infographic showing the revolving door

Another example is Michael Repacholi was simultaneously the head of both ICNIRP and the WHO EMF program. When Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF Project, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally.”

I’m not a legal expert, but this sounds like money laundering.

Why “Tissue Heating” is only the tip of the Iceberg

Here are some more heart-warming facts to consider, from an eye-opening article by Environmental Health Trust:¹

Myth: Government cell phone and wireless safety standards protect us

”Fact: The USA does not have federally developed safety standards for wireless radiation.

The EPA, FDA and the CDC did not study the long-term health effects, and did not issue a report and make recommendations for a safe level.

Instead of safety limits developed by US health agencies, industry pressure and government loopholes resulted in the USA adopting guidelines that were developed decades ago for military men, not children, not people with smaller heads. “

Here are some reasons why FCC and ICNIRP limits do not protect us- especially children.

Short Term Exposures

The cell phone and cell tower radiation limits we have today were developed years ago so the military personnel could use radar.

Cell phones weren’t around during World War II, but as you’ll see in my previous post here, WWII was a pivot point in terms of the health fallout and radiowave sickness created from mass adoption to radar alone.

Wireless technology was not widespread like it is today.

The wireless tech we have today is also shorter-wave, microwave radiation.

Clearly, just a few seconds of microwave radiation at a high level can cook.

Current US and ICNIRP guidelines are based on research that found microwaves used for communication at high intensities caused burns and tissue damage.

Current guidelines are basically based on the premise that if the radiation level does not burn or cook tissue in 6 or 30 minutes, it is considered a safe level.

Heating Only

The guidelines are based only on preventing heating (thermal) effects, like what would happen if you put your hand over a hot stove, and not biological (non-thermal) effects similar to what would happen if you put that same hand in a microwave: no heat, but the frequency is what cooks you.

Guidelines do not consider that low-level microwave radiation (non-thermal) might harm our brains, cells and tissues when our bodies are continuously exposed day after day.

However, research clearly shows that non-thermal radiation levels do impact our bodies.²

Considering that FCC and ICNIRP guidelines were first developed in the 1960s for the military, you can imagine how it came to be that military men were envisioned as who would experience the exposure.

Indeed, the model used to test cell phone radiation is based on representing a man over 220 pounds. The model’s name is SAM.

Children are much smaller than 220 pounds and the smaller size of their heads and bodies were not considered.

Research now shows that children absorb up to ten times more radiation into their bone marrow than adults do because of children's thinner skulls and smaller bodies.

SAM: The Big Plastic Head

Official cell phone radiation tests used a plastic head filled with liquid to represent our brains. This large adult male plastic head is called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin or SAM. Many experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, state the way we test phones must be updated.

There are many problems with SAM, a big plastic head filled with special liquid. Unlike SAM, our brains are lumpy and have all sorts of twists, turns and thicknesses of tissue in them. Electricity will travel differently through a vat of liquid compared to a real brain with these different tissue densities.

Research from the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences details how cell phone radiation can create tiny hot spots within brain tissue of a mammal. There have been over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies showing how wireless harms, create leakage in our blood-brain barrier, and as well destroy most life on Earth.³

Developing Brains

FCC and ICNIRP limits do not account for how wireless will impact the developing brains of children and babies.

Children's cells are rapidly developing and can be more affected, as research has found.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states FCC guidelines do not protect children!

They called on the FCC to improve safety limits in 2013, stating current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.

It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.

One Device Only

FCC and ICNIRP guidelines for cell phone radiation tests do not consider the cumulative effects of radiation that penetrates into a person from multiple tech devices in one place.

The way the pre-market rules are set up for cell phones and other wireless devices, they only consider one device at a time.

This made sense decades ago as each soldier only had one radar!

Ten years ago each person had just one wireless device, a cell phone. Now families have dozens of wireless devices in every home.

If a child carries a cell phone in a pocket all day, sits under Wi-Fi routers at school with a laptop in the lap all day next to a window overlooking the school cell tower on their playing field, what is this child's total exposure?

Consider the office worker next to a wireless printer with a wireless headset all day on a wireless computer.

What will the health effects be?

Government pre-market cell phone radiation tests do not consider such scenarios.

More assumptions corporations like to make for the rest of us…

credit: Microwave News

You are more powerful than you know.

Roman Shapoval

&

Bohdanna Diduch

1. https://ehtrust.org/fcc-and-icnirp-limits-do-not-protect-people-of-the-environment-from-cell-phone-radiation-health-effects/

2. https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/

3. https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal/