search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
right outside or very near their home. As noted by a Federal Communications Commission repre-


sentative during a February 6, 2019, senate commerce hearing (above), no 5G safety studies have been conducted or funded by the agency or the telecom industry, and none is planned. In short, there's no telling exactly what might happen to our


ecology and the people being exposed to this novel wireless technology 24/7, once it's deployed. As noted by Dr. Cindy Rus- sell, executive director of Physicians for Safe Technology, in her August 2018 paper in the journal Environmental Research:


"Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radio-


frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be prob- lematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are


likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other com- mon health risk behaviors. Effects can also be non-linear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave


life span exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated."


There's No Safe Way to Implement 5G Similarly, in an article on the Environmental Health Trust's


website, Ronald Powell, Ph.D., a retired Harvard scientist of ap- plied physics, notes "there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather, there are only 'bad ways' and 'worse ways,'" and rather than argue about who should have control over its deployment, we should focus on preventing its employ- ment altogether.


Indeed, mounting research suggest the proliferation of 5G for the sake of faster wireless internet could be a public health disaster, so if 5G does end up "replacing cable internet for good," humanity may be in for a devastating shock in coming decades, if not sooner. While it may take years to fully ascertain the full effects of


5G, there are early warning signs. People have reported mass die-offs of bees around 5G towers in California, for example, and residents in Gateshead in the U.K. started reported insomnia, chronic nosebleeds and stillbirths after the installation of streetlamps that emit 5G radiation in 2016.


'No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe,' Scientific American Says In an October 17, 2019, article, Scientific American warns


"We have no reason to believe 5G is safe," and that "contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks." The article, written by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., director for the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, notes:


"The telecommunications industry and their experts have


accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of 'fear mongering' over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation."


January 2020 31


Moskowitz points out that the FCC has recently announced


its intention to reaffirm and maintain current radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits, which were originally adopted in the late 1990s. However, there are significant problems with this.


Current RFR limits are based on studies from the 1980s look- ing at the behavioral effects of microwave radiation on rats, "and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure," Moskowitz writes. These limits are already outdated for our current levels of


exposure, so they're surely bound to be completely inadequate for 5G. Since the 1980s, more than 500 studies have identified harmful health or biological effects at RFR intensities far below those needed to produce heating, yet the FCC is ignoring these clearly established facts. As noted by Moskowitz:


"The FCC's RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat's behavior."


What Science Says About 5G A 2-page fact sheet on 5G can be downloaded from the


Environmental Health Trust's website. There, you can also access a long list of published scientific studies showing cause for con-


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40