Below is a comprehensive list of scientific research findings that provide evidence of the correlations between cellular telephone use, wireless radiation, EMF exposure and serious health implications… all highly relevant to the current roll-out of 5G/5th Generation wireless technology. The information is easy to share with others.
We must learn from a history in which the truth has all too often emerged at a point that’s too late to save many people’s lives. Monsanto (now Bayer) has recently been sued millions for hiding the truth, over decades, that their herbicide, Roundup, was known to be carcinogenic. Sadly, the truth wasn’t exposed before many people were seriously affected or killed by Roundup. Over time, corporations, governments and the media have proved themselves to be totally untrustworthy. We must take our lead from the many scientists who are revealing the truth about the harmful effects of mobile phone radiation and act on their words. It’s down to us to save ourselves from the unthinkable imposition of cumulatively lethal 5G radiation. We can’t look to those who should be saving us… or rather, who shouldn’t even be putting us in this truly unthinkable predicament in the first place.
‘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
Written and Compiled by Martin L. Pall, PhD Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University Address: 638 NE 41st Ave., Portland OR 97232 USA firstname.lastname@example.org 503-232-3883 May 17, 2018
Summary: We know that there is a massive literature, providing a high level of scientific certainty, for each of eight pathophysiological effects caused by non-thermal microwave frequency EMF exposures….
- Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neurological/neuropsychiatric effects and possibly many other effects. This nervous system attack is of great concern.
- Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that make us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system and our endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus the consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it is a travesty to ignore these findings.
- Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in essentially all chronic diseases.
- Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and oxidized bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce cancer and also mutations in germ line cells which produce mutations in future generations.
- Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.
- Lower male and female fertility, lower sex hormones, lower libido and increased levels of spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attack the DNA in sperm cells.
- Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and excessive calcium signaling.
- 8. Attack the cells of our bodies to cause cancer. Such attacks are thought to act via 15 different mechanisms during cancer causation.
There is also a substantial literature showing that EMFs also cause other effects including life threatening cardiac effects (Chapter 3). In addition substantial evidence suggests EMF causation of very early onset dementias, including Alzheimer’s, digital and other types of dementias (Chapter 3); and there is evidence that EMF exposures in utero and shortly after birth can cause ADHD and autism (Chapter 5).
The European Commission has done nothing to protect European citizens from the very serious health hazards and the U.S. FDA, EPA and National Cancer Institute have done nothing to protect U.S. citizens. The U.S. FCC has been worse than that, acting in wanton disregard for our health.’
The following articles under their Topic headings provide evidence of the effects listed above by Dr Martin Pall.
Important papers to read:
Published in the Magnetochemistry journal, 5th May 2019, ‘Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels’. From the opening paragraph: ‘It is concluded that politicians in the Western world should stop accepting soothing reports from individuals with blatant conflicts of interest and start taking the health and safety of their communities seriously‘: https://www.mdpi.com/2312-7481/5/2/31/htm
Published in The Lancet, December 2018, ‘Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact’. From the text: ‘A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects. This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels’: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext
The European REFLEX study (2004) was conducted on behalf of the EU by 12 institutions for a total budget of 3 million euros. The results show that even at a SAR value of 1,3W / kg (representative of many mobile phones) significant biological damage is done in human cells and especially to the DNA. https://www.jrseco.com/eu-reflex-study-shows-dna-damage-caused-by-radiation-from-wireless-devices-and-mobile-phones/
Written evidence submitted by Dr Sarah Starkey (EYI0062)
Dr Sarah Starkey, MSc (Neuropharmacology), PhD (Neuroscience), previously neuroscience research (pharmaceutical industry), currently Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research.
CIA Translations of the USSR Science and Technology Biomedical Sciences, 1977: GUO 28/77 https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120005-6.pdf
More are available in the CIA’s database: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/TRANSLATIONS%20ON%20USSR%20SCIENCE%20AND%20TECHNOLOGY%20BIOMEDICAL%20SCIENCES%20%28GUO%2028/77%29%20EFFECTS%20OF%20NONIONIZING%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20RADIATION
Dr Neil Cherry, Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Lincoln University, 2002. Criticism of the Health Assessment in the ICNIRP Guidelines for Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation ( 100kHz – 300 gHz).
From the abstract: ‘Dr Cherry was invited by the Ministry of Health/ Ministry for the Environment of New Zealand to carry out a peer-review of the proposal to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines for cell sites in New Zealand, in November 1999. The ICNIRP guidelines were covered by a published assessment in 1998. This review shows that the assessment had ignored all published studies showing chromosome damage. It was highly selective, biased and very dismissive of the genotoxic evidence and the epidemiological evidence of cancer effects and reproductive effects. The assessment gives the strong impression of being predetermined in the belief that the only effects were from high exposures that cause electric shocks and acute exposures that cause tissue heating. For, example, they cite two studies saying that they do not show any significant increased effects of Brain/CNS cancer from microwave exposures when the actual published papers, Grayson (1996) and Beall et al. (1996), both do show significant increases of Brain/CNS cancer.’ Available here: http://www.neilcherry.nz/documents/90_m4_EMR_ICNIRP_critique_09-02.pdf
Retired Canadian Army Captain Jerry Flynn has spelled out the dangers of microwave radiation in a 1,300-word letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Health Ginette Taylor: https://emfcommunity.com/retired-canadian-army-captain-jerry-flynn-has-spelled-out-the-dangers-of-microwave-radiation/
Investigate Europe‘s map of industry funding ties to ICNIRP, SCHENIR, IARC, WHO and others: https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe/
A Summary by Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe
WORKING DRAFT Version 1: http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Mallery-Blythe-v1-EESC.pdf
Current exposure levels are not safe: ‘The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.’
Appeal letter sent to reclassify Electromagnetic radiation to a Group 1 carcinogen, rather than a 2B Group classification. Lennart Hardell was a previous member of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) who advise the European Union on exposure limits and are part of the decision making team in regard to carcinogenic classifications. Signed by: Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital, Sweden and Michael Carlberg, MSc, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital, Sweden. The letter was published on their website setup to inform the public of their work and the true threats that are emerging in scientific studies conducted on Radio Frequency exposure. https://www.environmentandcancer.com/letter-regarding-california-sb649/
‘The length of time wireless devices are used is an essential determinant in overall exposure.’ by Lena K. Hedendahl, Michael Carlberg, Tarmo Koppel and Lennart Hardell. 2017. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00279/full
‘Phenotypicand genotypic characterization of antioxidant enzyme system in human population exposed to radiation from mobile towers’ by Sachin Gulati, Anita Yadav, Neeraj Kumar, Kanu Priya, Neeraj K. Aggarwal & Ranjan Gupta, 2018.
Scientists, researchers and health professionals – what they say:
In 2017, scientists and doctors, many of them professors, signed an appeal to the EU relating to the risks, both known and as yet unknown, of 5G technology. (There are now 209 signatories.) Here is the document.
This is an excellent blog created and updated by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director of the Centre for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. The blog is to inform the public about the dangers of wireless technology. Highly recommended for regular updates.
Paul Heroux, Ph.D., Professor of Electromagnetic Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. 5G and IoT: a Trojan Horse (article endorsed by 11 other scientists).
Complaint to the European Commission concerning the 2015 SCENIHR opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields by members of Non-Governmental Organisations in ten different countries. http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Complaint-to-the-European-Commission-SCENIHR-2015-08-31.pdf
Wireless devices and Radio Frequency exposure:
National Toxicology Programme (NTP):
Comments on the NTP study:
Dr Hardell, PhD :
‘Low intensity magnetic field influences short‐term memory: A study in a group of healthy students’ by Enrique A. Navarro, Claudio Gomez‐Perretta & Francisco Montes, 2015. The study can be found here too: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bem.21944
‘Wifi is an important threat to human health.’ by Martin L. Pall, 2018. This study reviews current literature on the health effects of Wifi radiation, addressing the current argument by Foster and Moulder’s 2013 conclusion, taken from their study, that argues there are no, and cannot be, any health effects from Wifi. Foster and Moulder’s study drew the wrong conclusions from their statistical modelling. Foster and Moulder’s study can be found here.
‘In conclusion, the EMF created by mobile phones caused morphologic and histological changes by the affecting germinal epithelium tissue negatively.’
by Alicja Bortkiewicz, Elżbieta Gadzicka, Wiesław Szymczak, 2017.
‘Twenty four studies (26 846 cases, 50 013 controls) were included into the meta-analysis. A significantly higher risk of an intracranial tumor (all types) was noted for the period of mobile phone use over 10 years (odds ratio (OR) = 1.324, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.028–1.704), and for the ipsilateral location (OR = 1.249, 95% CI: 1.022–1.526). The results support the hypothesis that long-term use of mobile phone increases risk of intracranial tumors, especially in the case of ipsilateral exposure. Further studies are needed to confirm this relationship.
Industry funded studies indicate biases to reduce findings: Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies
The Latest Reassurance Ruse about Cell Phones and Cancer. George Carlo, 2007, former research scientist employed by the telecommunications industry in 1996.
‘Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies.’ by Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O & Carlo GL., 2015. ‘While experimental studies employing simulated EMF-emissions present a strong inconsistency among their results with less than 50% of them reporting effects, studies employing real mobile phone exposures demonstrate an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects. This consistency is in agreement with studies showing association with brain tumors, symptoms of unwellness, and declines in animal populations.’
Robert C Crane, Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette: A Historical and Scientific Perspective PDF
Roseanne White Geisel, 6/3/2007 Business Insurance
See more on the Environmental Health Trust website: https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/reports-white-papers-insurance-industry/
The insurance companies are not insuring against electromagnetic radiation because…
“It may take two more decades to know if electromagnetic radiofrequency energy is a significant liability issue for telecommunications companies, so, in the interim, insurers are treating the risk as cautiously as a downed power line after a storm.
Insurers often exclude the risk from commercial general liability policies, strictly limit the coverage or avoid policyholders in the wireless industry, brokers say.”