Long time government scientist Christopher Portier PhD submitted a detailed review of the scientific research in a major cell phone/brain cancer lawsuit concluding that there is a very strong link between cell phone use and brain tumours. Why have no appropriate safety studies been conducted or used to approve the rollout of these and other wireless technologies? Why has there been no safety testing of 5G technology prior to its rollout? Would this not be in everybody's best interest? Before you begin... Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this. What Happened: Does cell phone radiation cause brain tumors? Christopher Portier PhD, a longtime US government scientist seems to think so. He recently submitted a comprehensive review of the scientific research in a major cell phone/brain cancer lawsuit where he concludes that: “The evidence on an association between cellular phone use and the risk of glioma in adults is quite strong [...] RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high.” Click here to check it out! The 176-page expert report with 443 references was prepared for the plaintiffs in a major product liability lawsuit, Murray et al. v Motorola, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against the telecommunications industry.
The plaintiffs in the case are suing the telecommunications industry for damages because they developed brain cancer after years of using a cell phone up to their head. Most of the plaintiffs have passed away. Court dates are set for Murray et al. v. Motorola July 12-23, 2021. Portier knows his stuff, and is one of thousands of scientists who are, and have been, concerned about this issue for quite some time. Portier was the Director of the United States National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Prior to CDC, Dr. Portier was with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for 32 years where he served as the NIEHS Associate Director, Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program, and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program. Dr. Portier holds a Ph.D. in Biostatistics (with a minor in Epidemiology). For over three decades, Dr. Portier has held prominent leadership positions in the U.S. government. In 2011, Dr. Portier was selected to represent the CDC on an expert working group convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization to review the carcinogenicity of wireless radio-frequency radiation.
The working group met for two weeks and ultimately decided to determine that RF radiation was “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). In 2015 during the BIOEM Conference Portier officially called for invoking the precautionary principle. Since 2011, the published research in both humans and animals linking wireless radiation to cancer and tumors has substantially increased as Dr. Portier documents in his research review. You can read more from the Environmental Health Trust on this specific testimony, here. You can read more about this issue in general, and more about cell phones, wireless technologies in general as well as concerns with 5G technology by browsing through their home page.
The organization was founded by Dr. Devra Davis and it’s an excellent resource for this type of information. So again, if you want to learn more be sure to visit them. Why It Matters: A number of countries have already banned wireless technology in schools, and more are taking action steps, but it’s difficult when so many governments are dominated by corporations. Many people believe we now live in a corporatocracy, not a democracy, given the fact that they (corporations) have amassed so much power and have ways of dictating government policy. Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing. Internet service providers in the United States have spent more than $1.2 billion on lobbying since 1998, and 2018 was the biggest year so far with a total spend of more than $80 million. You can read more about that here. At the end of the day, these technologies are and have been rolled out without any safety testing. For example, A study published in 2019 (access study within this article if interested) is one of many to point out that appropriate safety testing is needed and should be required before 5G technology, for example, is rolled out. It outlines how: “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed (. Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.” It goes on to state that: “Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard” It’s one of many that call for safety testing before the rollout of 5G testing, because all we have right now from those who claim that it’s safe are ‘reviews of literature’ that are determining it’s safe. This particular study emphasizes: The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72). Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (73, 74).
The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure.
These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.
Read the full article at the original website