Articles on 5G and health published in the Defender (Children’s health defense

The article published February 23, 2023 starts with:

“A new case report on two previously healthy men who developed “microwave syndrome” symptoms after a 5G cell tower was installed on the roof of their office, and a similar report published last month, show that non-ionizing 5G radiation can cause health problems in people with no prior history of electromagnetic sensitivity.”

See the full report here.

Another article in the Defender published March 9, 2023 is based on the Nordic Appeal published in Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports. The article in the Defender starts with:

“Research on 5G radiofrequency (RF) radiation shows it can cause brain damage and possibly lead to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, according to nine independent experts in the RF radiation field who published a new peer-reviewed article.”

The full article in the Defender can be seen here.

Health Council of the Netherlands and evaluation of the fifth generation, 5G, for wireless communication and cancer risks

The Health Council of the Netherlands released on September 2, 2020 their evaluation on 5G and health. It was largely based on a World Health Organization draft and report by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, both criticized for not being impartial. The guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were recommended to be used, although they have been considered to be insufficient to protect against health hazards.

The full report can be found here.

Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation

Abstract: The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published 2020 updated guidelines on radiofrequency (RF) radiation in the frequency range 100 kHz to 300 GHz. Harmful effects on human health and the environment at levels below the guidelines are downplayed although evidence is steadily increasing. Only thermal (heating) effects are acknowledged and therefore form the basis for the guidelines. Despite the increasing scientific evidence of non-thermal effects, the new ICNIRP guidelines are not lower compared with the previous levels. Expert groups from the WHO, the EU Commission and Sweden are to a large extent made up of members from ICNIRP, with no representative from the many scientists who are critical of the ICNIRP standpoint.

This article is relevant for the implementation of 5G. The full article is free to download and can be found here.

ICNIRP, guidelines, conflicts of interest and EU

Two members of the EU Parliament, Claus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi, published on June 19, 2020 a document on ICNIRP. It shows the many conflicts of interest that exist among the ICNIRP members.

It clearly also shows that the ICNIRP guidelines should not be used for radiofrequency radiation. At pages 48-49 this is concluded:

“We think that the call for more independent scientific assessment in this area is, for all the arguments mentioned above and in what follows, fully justified. 49 That is the most important conclusion of this report: for really independent scientific advice we cannot rely on ICNIRP. The European Commission and national governments, from countries like Germany, should stop funding ICNIRP. It is high time that the European Commission creates a new, public and fully independent advisory council on non-ionizing radiation. The funds currently allocated to ICNIRP could be used to set up this new organisation. And given the overall rise in R&D funding via Horizon Europe, with a foreseen budget (for 2021-2027) of between 75 and 100 billion euros, funding should in no way constitute an insurmountable hurdle to setting up this new, truly independent, body.”

Radiofrequency radiation, 5G, ICNIRP and conflicts of interest

In a new article the outdated guidelines for radiofrequency radiation by ICNIRP are discussed.

These guidelines are used by many countries. The recent publication by ICNIRP gives even higher levels for exposure compared with the previous ones. Only heating (thermal) effects are considered.

The conclusion in the article is that:

“..the ICNIRP has failed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of health risks associated with RF radiation. The latest ICNIRP publication cannot be used for guidelines on this exposure.”

New article: Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation

In a new article the history of an appeal sent to EU on a moratorium on the deployment of 5G is described. The full article can be found here.

Excerpt:

In an appeal sent to the EU in September, 2017 currently >260 scientists and medical doctors requested for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the health risks associated with this new technology have been fully investigated by industry‑independent scientists. The appeal and four rebuttals to the EU over a period of >2 years, have not achieved any positive response from the EU to date. Unfortunately, decision makers seem to be uninformed or even misinformed about the risks. EU officials rely on the opinions of individuals within the ICNIRP and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), most of whom have ties to the industry……In this article, the warnings on the health risks associated with RF presented in the 5G appeal and the letters to the EU Health Commissioner since September, 2017 and the authors’ rebuttals are summarized. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment.

Letter on Expert evaluations on health risks from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and 5G

Several Swiss citizens have expressed concern that bias and misinterpretation of the science on radiofrequency radiation (RF) and health have influenced the expert evaluations in BERENIS and the subgroup 3. In fact, the conclusion that ‘No health effect has been consistently proven’ does not reflect the evaluation by scientists with no conflicts of interest. These circumstances are further elaborated in the included letter, original in English and with German certified translation. This letter is endorsed by 22 scientists with research in this area and no conflicts of interest.

Parliament hearing in Tallinn, Estonia June 4, 2019 as regards the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, of wireless communication

Based on an appeal signed by 1,122 persons a parliament hearing was held in Tallinn on June 4, 2019 regarding the deployment of 5G. The whole hearing was recorded and published at internet.

A scientific article on the hearing has now been published after peer-review. The article gives notes from the hearing. The whole article can be found here.

WHO – ICNIRP and radiofrequency radiation

The close association between WHO and the ICNIRP has been described in a previous article. Unfortunately, this association seems to have prevented actions on health and the environment. ICNIRP is a private NGO based in Germany that acts pro-industry. In fact, exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation has increased in the society. Now the fifth generation, 5G, of wireless communication is implemented in spite of potential risks to human health and the environment. Our appeal (www.5gappeal.eu) asking for a moratorium until research on risks have been performed has not had any positive response either from EU or the Nordic countries.

Microwave news has now published an update with historical views. It is well worth to read. This information is usually not available to the layman.

ICNIRP draft on new radiofrequency guidelines is flawed

At a meeting in Paris on 17 April 2019 Eric van Rongen, the present ICNIRP chairman presented a draft on new ICNIRP guidelines for radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure. The presentation is freely available at the web although labeled as a ’draft – do not cite or quote’.

Most remarkable is that the science on health effects is still based on thermal (heating) effect from RFR just as the evaluations published 1998 and updated in 2009.

In the draft only thermal effects are considered for health effects (page 7). Van Rongen states there is ’No evidence that RF-EMF causes such diseases as cancer’ (page 8).

These comments are based on the power point presentation. However, there is no evidence that non-thermal effects are considered and thus a large majority of scientific evidence on human health effects, not to mention hazards to the environment. Thus the basis for new guidelines is flawed and the whole presentation should be dismissed as scientifically flawed.

If this draft represents the final version on ICNIRP guidelines it is time to close down ICNIRP since their evaluation is not based on science but on selective data such as only thermal effects from RFR, see also www.emfcall.org.

The draft represents a worst-case scenario for public health and represents wishful thinking.