Why are these technologies rolling out when so many scientists, doctors and peer-reviewed publications calling for the need for more study and safety testing before the rollout of these technologies. Senator Anna Kaplan of New York introduced a bill on March 3rd, 2020 to study the health and environmental impacts associated with exposure to 5G wireless radiation frequencies. This has just come to our attention now.
The bill calls upon the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Conservation, in cooperation with the Office of Technology Services, to “...jointly study and evaluate the health and environmental impacts of the implementation of fifth generation (5G) and future generation wireless systems technology and small cell distribution antenna systems in the state.” Read the bill here and encourage your state representatives to establish a commission to study the health and environmental effects of 5G today! All you have to do is send them this sample bill! There are many initiatives that are currently taking place, despite the fact that they’re receiving no mainstream media attention. For example, in the state of New Hampshire a 5G Bill HB 522 asks, “Why have 1,000s of peer-reviewed studies, including the recently published U.S. Toxicology Program 16-year $30 million study, that are showing a wide range of statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and so many other ailments, being ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)?” and, “Why have more than 220 of the worlds leading scientists signed an appeal to the WHO and the United Nations to protect public health from wireless radiation and nothing has been done?” It’s great to see such initiatives started, as with any new technology, it can only benefit everybody if appropriate safety testing is conducted.
Therefore there really should be no resistance against it. In Nigeria, for example, the government has not issued any licence for the deployment of the 5G network following growing concerns over the potential health implications. Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Dr Isa Ali Ibrahim stated that the government would always take the welfare, health and security of the public into account while considering the deployment of any technology. This should be the approach of all governments. His statement reads that a “3-month study trial commenced on the 25th of November, 2019 in order to critically review and study the health and security implications of deploying 5G in Nigeria. As part of the study trial process, I directed the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) to ensure that a team of experts, security agencies and other stakeholders fully participate in the trial process and my office also invited these agencies to participate in the trial.” The trial process has since been concluded and the study and reporting process is currently ongoing. Government will not act on the speculations only, but rather we will take an informed decision on 5G after due consultation with experts and the public. I have also directed the NCC to engage citizens on any questions or concerns they may have regarding 5G. – Ibrahim It’s going to be interesting to see what they’ve discovered. 5G has also been halted in Slovenia, here is an official statement from their government. According to Minister Rudi Medved, “I’m aware we won’t find a conclusive answer, as there hasn’t been one globally. 5G technology hasn’t been established in practice to an extent that studies could produce results based on which we could say conclusively that 5G is completely harmless.” That being said, he did say that that 5G was definitely a technology of the future and that it would be unacceptable for Slovenia to remain an “isolated island” without the technology. Medved criticized the management of the Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS), for not giving sufficient attention to G5’s potential impact on health. France passed a law in 2015 banning WiFi from all nursery schools. In addition to that, the law states that Wi-Fi must be turned off in all elementary schools when it’s not in use. A wired connection, if possible, is preferred. Namibia’s atomic energy review states quite clearly that current so called “safety” standards don’t protect citizens from long term health effects, and that the guidelines governing their use do not guarantee adequate protection against the effects of long term exposure. This list of concerns is quite long, and real. As you can see. With the number of “conspiracy theories” that are floating around regarding 5g technology growing, it’s important to stick to the facts, the science, and the doctors and scientists who have been urging federal health regulatory agencies to conduct appropriate safety testing before the rollout of this type of technology and providing evidence as to why this needs to be done. Despite this fact, the roll out of 5G technology has already begun. It’s quite confusing that that a number of publications are calling into question the rollout of 5G technology, and thousands of publications outlining the biological unnatural sources of EMF radiation in general have already done so yet the idea that 5G technology could pose some type of health threat seems to continually be ridiculed by mainstream media publications. For example, an article written in Forbes states “Fortunately, science already tells us that 5G almost certainly poses no danger to humans. Unless you value unfounded conspiracies over bona fide science.” This is quite confusing, why? Because there is a tremendous amount of “bonda fide science” that raises concerns. For example, a study published in August of 2019 in Frontiers of Public Health states: “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 emphasize that: 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. Even the A briefing paper by the European Parliament Think Tank “Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health” states that: “A further consideration is the need to bring together researchers from different disciplines, in particular medicine and physics or engineering, to conduct further research into the effects of 5G.
The EU’s current provisions on exposure to wireless signals, the Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), is now 20 years old, and thus does not take the specific technical characteristics of 5G into account.” It’s quite clear that there are biological effects, but some studies point out that conclusions can’t be made. For example, a study published in The International Journal of Environmental Health titled “5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz” pointed out that, 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. So if we can’t make conclusions, should we not wait until we can? President Donald Trump has already signed into law a pair of bills designed to boost wireless and broadband networks: the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act. You can read more about that here. Again, this is just one example of the scientific publications out there that raise cause for concern. What about the hundreds of scientists who are raising concerns. More than 200 recently petitioned the United Nations to look into this appropriately. Are scientists like Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, “conspiracy theorists?” His report titled “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,” emphasizes that: “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. Perhaps this conflict comes as a result of corporate influence? Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing. At the end of the day, it’s quite clear that many experts in the field, and many citizens around the world have legitimate health concerns about the implementation of 5G technology, and even current 3 and 4G technologies.
These concerns should be independently addressed by science that is not tied to the telecommunications industry, and adequate safety testing should be conducted before these new technologies are implemented. It can be quite confusing to come across information that constantly tried to drive home the idea that it’s safe, while we have information on the other side statin the complete opposite. This is a common theme throughout history, we’ve seen it with pesticides like DDT, and products like tobacco, are we seeing the same thing with 5G technology? Are we that powerless to the point where such actions, like implementation, can be initiated without the approval of the citizenry? else.
Read the full article at the original website