Letters and Emails That Have Been Sent… Mayor of Manchester 1.13

Dear Mayor Burnham,

I genuinely apologise for the amount of words this is taking, but laborious as it is, it’s necessary. We are, without any doubt, under a very serious threat from the already existing radiofrequency radiation levels, but much more so from the coming 5G radiation levels. I really haven’t enjoyed reading about brain or salivary gland tumours, mutated sperm or DNA damage, but there has been a very bright silver lining appear during my recent effort to gain knowledge. I’ve read through quite a number of published research papers on both EMFs and specifically 5G related topics. I now understand that there is a host of unsung heroes, scientists working behind the scenes on behalf of us all…and I feel a heartfelt gratitude to them for everything they’re doing and everything they stand for. The consensus, according to the papers I read, is that 5G should not be allowed to go ahead without rigorous independent research to assess the  biological implications and that, from what is already understood about radiofrequency radiation, the potential for harm outweighs the benefits. As you know, if you’ve read my emails, a large body of highly qualified scientists has been trying to avert this 5G threat, but their warnings are being ignored and their requests overridden by powers greater than them.

The reason I’ve spent so much time on this Guardian article is because it demonstrates the degree to which propaganda is being used against people. Spin is already in full flow as the 5G antennas are made ready to be rolled-out onto our doorsteps. Dr Grimes is, by nature of his impressive academic credentials, a representative of academia. He is an expert in his field, a person ‘to be trusted’, somebody who will be privy to the cutting edge science. He is also in a position to communicate his scientific understandings in the Guardian newspaper to readers who will tend to trust his expertise. There are serious implications to Dr Grimes’ ‘expert’ assurance that mobile phones don’t cause cancer in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that they do. What’s going on?  I wrote an email on ‘tactics’. Dr David Grimes has managed to implement all of them…with aplomb.

I don’t know who wrote the introductory sub-title at the top of the article, the Guardian or David Grimes, but alone, before you even start reading the article, it manages to promulgate two fundamental cell phone industry strategies, ‘keeping the argument going’ and cell phone industry denial of cell phone harm: ‘An article we published last week about links between mobiles and cancer proved highly controversial. Here a cancer expert and physicist argues that it misrepresented the research and that fears are ill-founded’

In response: The use of the word ‘controversial’. The issue of cell phones causing cancer is not controversial, it’s a known fact, the argument is over.

‘…misrepresented the research’. The Observer article did not misrepresent the research, it honoured it, and in doing so, exposed the cell phone industry’s corrupt and deceptive ways.

Continuing my analysis of Dr David Grimes’ Guardian article, ‘Mobile phones and cancer – the full picture’.

DR GRIMES: ‘Last week the Observer published an article by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie on a disturbing topic – THE IDEA THAT TELECOMS GIANTS MIGHT COLLUDE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE THAT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY CAUSES CANCER. The feature was well written, ostensibly well researched, and deeply concerning. Its powerful narrative tapped into rich themes; our deep-seated fears about cancer, corporate greed, and technology’s potentially noxious influence on our health. It spread rapidly across social media – facilitated by the very object on which it cast doubt.’    (…an object which simply needs to be wisely assessed and reformulated by brilliant physicists who take health effects into account)

IN RESPONSE:

  1. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5G-Small-Cell-Letters-Science-Policy-67-page-pdf-.pdf Dr Martin Pall: ‘Thousands of published studies show biological and health effects from electromagnetic fields. THIS NEW UNDERSTANDING (1-7) MEANS WE CAN DEBUNK THE CLAIMS OF THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY THAT THERE CANNOT BE A MECHANISM FOR EFFECTS PRODUCED BY THESE WEAK EMFs. THE 20 YEARS PLUS OF INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA CLAIMS ARE FALSE.

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Pall-Letter-to-CalLegis-FINAL-8-7-17.pdf                Dr Martin Pall, ‘THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY HAS CORRUPTED THE AGENCIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REGULATING THEM.’ The best example of this is that the FCC which regulates EMFs in the U.S. is a “captured agency”, captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate, according to an 8 chapter document published by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University [9]. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the industry keeps touting that their devices are within the safety guidelines set by the FCC?’

  1. Dr Devra Davis,”… SOMETIMES YOU CAN SET UP A STUDY SO THAT IT’S DESIGNED TO FAIL.”

From Dr Devra Davis’ book, Disconnect: ‘WHEN NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE FOUND THE CELL PHONE INDUSTRY HAS GONE OUT OF ITS WAY TO HIDE IT.’

From a news item: ”In Seattle, Henry Lai, with his study on rats, was one of the first to report that cell phone like radiation damages DNA, seen as a first hint of cancer.  When his work was reported, his funding dried up.

When Om Gandhi published a report showing that the brains of smaller adults and children absorb much more than the ‘Sam’ (6’2” 200lb man they’d modelled their research on). his long and profitable ties with the defence and electronics industry came to an end.

In Devra Davis’s book, Om Gandhi is quoted as saying, ”ANYTIME THERE IS EVIDENCE OF AN EFFECT, THERE ARE MANY OTHERS BROUGHT IN TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NOTHING.”

Carlo ”AND WHEN THEY FOUND THAT WE HAD FINDINGS OF GENETIC DAMAGE AND INCREASE IN THE RISK OF CANCER, THEY CUT OFF OUR MONEY COMPLETELY..”

  1. From Dr Devra Davis’s book: ‘Given the complex money trails through which industry funds have indirectly sponsored WHO (World Health Organization) projects, in his research on this issue, Donald Maische, of the University of Wollongong, New South Wales, questions whether independent scientific research is possible. Such a disregard for the fundamental principles of credible science, as well as WHO’s mission in protecting world health, speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if that cost is the integrity of WHO.’
  2. The Union of Concerned Scientists:https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html#.W8So1ntKjIW

Methods of Abuse

The report describes five basic methods that corporations use to influence the scientific and policy-making processes:

Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.

Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the “revolving door” between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public.

Influencing Congress. By spending billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions, corporate interests gain undue access to members of Congress, encouraging them to challenge scientific consensus, delay action on critical problems, and shape the use of science in policy making.

Exploiting Judicial Pathways. Corporate interests have expanded their influence on the judicial system, used the courts to undermine science, and exploited judicial processes to bully and silence scientists.

These apply to cell phone industry.

Cont’d

Kindest regards,

The previous (twelfth) email can be found here and the following (fourteenth) email can be found here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close