Scientific American on 5G: “No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe” and “Space Junk Threatens Satellites and Earth.”

By B.N. Frank

Approx. 20,000 5G Satellites Planned and Millions of Towers.

There are countless examples of when “legal” doesn’t mean “safe.”  5G is one of them.  The telecom industry doesn’t even know for sure that 5G is safe.  In February, telecom executives gave congressional testimony that they have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it is.  However it’s legal and cheaper for them to do so  – on Earth and in space – despite increasing warnings about biological and environmental risks and that there are dangerous levels of space junk already (see 1, 2).

Thanks to Scientific American for publishing an opinion piece by Dr. Joel Moskowitz, “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.”

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.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits.

[…]

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.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

[…]

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation.

[…]

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term.

[…]

Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

People and their pets are becoming sick where 5G is already operating (see 1, 2, 3) and we don’t even need it!

Activist Post reports regularly about research, risks, lawsuits and opposition to 5G and other sources of unsafe technology.  For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:

• 5GCrisis
• 5GExposed
• 5G Information
• The 5G Summit
• Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
• Environmental Health Trust
• Last Tree Laws
• My Street, My Choice
• Physicians for Safe Technology
• SafeG
• Scientists for Wired Tech
• TelecomPowerGrab.com
• Whatis5G.Info
• Zero5G
  

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.