Dear Mayor Burnham,
before I continue, I want to point out that the unfolding of 5G technology is obviously a story of industrial and governmental profits and the promise of an ‘internet of things’ etc. and of ‘human progress’, but the infinitely more important story, is the imposition of these cacophonous electromagnetic frequencies on human biology. Humans do not deserve such violation of their basic rights, or the suffering this violation will bring, the potential of which is well known by those who are privy to the well-hidden truth. Tom Wheeler, ”We can’t wait for regulations or standards” … the unspoken words being ”because we will be stopped if the truth comes out.”. ‘The claims that were being made about health effects were so severe that had there been premarket testing, cell phones would never have made it into the market place.” Joel Moskowitz
The fact that the mobile phone industry and its technology have been allowed to bypass the regulatory process serves as a red flag of alarming proportions. Paul Heroux PhD, ”As Tom Wheeler from the FCC says, ”It’s a lot better to let these innovators loose and fill the surface of the earth with microprocessors, thereby slaughtering the human race out of oblivion, than to risk losing a profit.”
Back to Dr Grimes:
Sub-title: ‘Not all radiation is bad’
In response: … true… and I don’t want to digress, but this is not something you’d bring up with the inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or the Bikini Islands where, from the mid-1940s to the late 1950s, horrific and protracted nuclear testing was carried out on ‘human guinea pigs’, or ‘savages’ as the scientists called them.
Dr Grimes: ‘Since the early 1990s, mobile phone usage worldwide has grown at an exponential rate. If phones are linked to cancer, we’d expect to see a marked uptick in cancer with uptake. Yet we do not. American mobile phone penetration increased from almost nothing in 1992 to practically 100% by 2008 and there is zero indication glioma rates have increased, a finding replicated by numerous other studies.’
In response: … So from which sparsely laden branch did Dr Grimes pick his cherries when he wrote this? Whatever the RF radiation risks may or may not be for developing Gliomas (see first two links below) the incidence of another type of aggressive malignant brain tumour, glioblastoma multiforme, has more than doubled.
OPEN ACCESS PEER-REVIEWED
Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ming Yang , WenWen Guo , ChunSheng Yang , JianQin Tang, Qian Huang, ShouXin Feng , AiJun Jiang, XiFeng Xu, Guan Jiang
Published: May 4, 2017https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175136
Our results suggest that long-term mobile phone use may be associated with an increased risk of glioma. There was also an association between mobile phone use and low-grade glioma in the regular use or long-term use subgroups. However, current evidence is of poor quality and limited quantity. It is therefore necessary to conduct large sample, high quality research or better characterization of any potential association between long-term ipsilateral mobile phone use and glioma risk.
BioMed Central, Environmental Health, ‘Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies – how do they arise?’
Angelo G Levis,1 Nadia Minicuci,2 Paolo Ricci,3 Valerio Gennaro,4 and Spiridione Garbisacorresponding author
‘Blind protocols, free from errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give positive results that reveal a cause-effect relationship between long-term mobile phone use or latency and statistically significant increase of ipsilateral head tumour risk, with biological plausibility. Non-blind protocols, which instead are affected by errors, bias, and financial conditioning factors, give negative results with systematic underestimate of such risk. However, also in these studies a statistically significant increase in risk of ipsilateral head tumours is quite common after more than 10 years of mobile phone use or latency. The meta-analyses, our included, examining only data on ipsilateral tumours in subjects using mobile phones since or for at least 10 years, show large and statistically significant increases in risk of ipsilateral brain gliomas and acoustic neuromas.’
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/ From Hindawi Journal of Environmental and public health: Conclusions
(1) ‘We show a linear, large and highly statistically significant increase in primary GBM tumours over 21 years from 1995–2015, especially in frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. This has aetiological and resource implications.’
https://www.radiationresearch.org/research/fatal-brain-tumors-on-the-rise-in-england/ From the EM Radiation Research Trust.
‘Rate of GBM More than Doubled Between 1995 and 2015
The incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), the deadliest type of brain tumor, more than doubled in England between 1995 and 2015, according to a new analysis of national statistics. During that time, the number of cases of GBM rose from 983 to 2,531.’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/02/mobile-phone-cancer-warning-malignant-brain-tumours-double/From The Telegraph, May 2nd 2018: ‘Fresh fears have been raised over the role of mobile phones in brain cancer after new evidence revealed rates of a malignant type of tumour have doubled in the last two decades.
Charities and scientists have called on the Government to heed longstanding warnings about the dangers of radiation after a fresh analysis revealed a more “alarming” trend in cancers than previously thought.’
Dr Grimes: ‘This isn’t surprising in one respect. We are surrounded by a symphony of invisible light, of which our eyes detect only a tiny sliver. The energy carried by packets of light is proportional to the frequency of that light, a finding that won Albert Einstein his Nobel Prize.’
High-frequency light has sufficient energy to break apart chemical bonds, causing DNA damage. This is “ionising” radiation, exploited in x-ray therapy where high-energy photons are marshalled to kill tumour cells. Ionising radiation can also lead to cancer; high-energy ultraviolet radiation, for example, induces skin cancer through sustained DNA damage.’
In response: … This paragraph demonstrates the use of the tactic ‘making the complex simple’… whilst strategically, or even vicariously, throwing in Albert Einstein, whom I doubt, if he’d lived into his mid-hundreds, would have been particularly pleased to have his name affiliated with this article.
Dr Grimes: By contrast, RF (and indeed, visible light) are notoriously low energy and non-ionising, lacking the ability to wreak havoc on DNA. For cancers to form, a carcinogen needs to damage DNA – unless some extremely novel mechanism were to be discovered, it is extraordinarily unlikely that RF could cause cancer.’
In response: … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My5leLBbNqI&t=54s The late Dr Martin Blank, Dept of Physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University who also served as President of The Bioelectromagnetics Society: ”I’m here with disturbing news about our gadgets, cell phones, tablets and Wi-fi etc. Putting it bluntly, they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPs6PAG1H6c Dr Miller again: ”Statements that non-ionizing radiation such as radiofrequency radiation ”cannot cause harm” are simply false statements. That there are ”no established health effects” at levels below Federal Telecommunications Commission limits is misleading. The FCC limits do not equate with safety. Safety is not assured when FCC limits are met. These limits were set by groups with strong industry connections made up of engineers and physicists, not by medical professionals, public health experts and not by toxicologists.”
I’ll end this email by quoting Dr David Grimes: ‘This is antithetical to science, where the totality of the evidence must be assessed in concert’.
With my kindest regards,