5G - EMR - Your health and what Australia is planning whilst overseas countries block it

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!

Research overseas has quite clearly indicated serious health issues that can arise through using 5G technology.

Recent developments suggest that telecommunications carriers may face a number of headaches in their plans to rollout 5G technology.
On 1 April, the Brussels Times reported that the government of the region will not relax its standards to accommodate 5G technology.1 The government introduced stricter regulations Brussels as a
precautionary measure to protect people’s health. They include a limit of 6 volts per metre, much lower than Australian and international standards.
Environment Minister Celene Fremault is reported as saying that the residents of Brussels were not guinea pigs and that the government was not willing to compromise their health.
According to Ericsson’s Christer Tornevik, the ‘size of the exclusion zone [in Brussels] makes 5G network roll-out a major problem or impossible.’ 

Poland has already rejected 5G.  The government stated they did not wish the Polish people to be subjected to this frequency level of 5G.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has now added a disclaimer to its website, in
which it disclaims liability for the contents of its site, which includes Australia's Australian radiation protection standard RPS 3.6 The disclaimer says:
This website is not a substitute for independent professional advice. Nothing contained in this site is intended to be used as
medical advice and it is not intended to be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, nor should it be used for therapeutic purposes or as a substitute for your own health professional's advice. ARPANSA does not accept any liability for any injury, loss
or damage incurred by use of or reliance on the information.

And again:
Before relying on the information on this site, however, users should carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.
ARPANSA can not guarantee and assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information.
If ARPANSA is not willing to take liability for its own material, then where does that leave carriers? Does compliance with the standard protect them against litigation? Does it protect businesses and
organisations that expose their workers or require them to use wireless devices?

Radiofrequency radiation produces a range of harmful effects on the body, including cancer, and children are most at
risk, says Professor Tom Butler, a social scientist at University College in Cork and a former satellite and microwave
communications engineer and IT professional

He said, ‘Epidemiological and experimental research reports increased risk of pathophysiological conditions with current
exposures to Smartphone and WiFi RFR that include: cellular DNA damage, leading to a range of cancers; sperm and
testicular damage leading to male infertility; neuropsychiatric conditions, including post-natal neural development, and
learning and cognitive problems; and melatonin reduction leading to sleep disruption among others.’

Butler refers to a large body of evidence that this radiation is harmful, including:
• results of the National Toxicology Program (USA) which showed increased rates of tumours and DNA damage in exposed rodents;
• results of the Ramazzini Institute’s study (Italy) which found increased tumours in exposed rats;
• a French study (CERENAT study) which found increased numbers of tumours in people who were heavy mobile phone users;
• a number of studies by Prof Lennar Hardell who found increased rates of brain tumours in long-term and heavy mobile phone users.
As well as causing cancer, Professor Butler says that wireless radiation can promote cancer.
One of the ways that wireless radiation damages the body, Butler said, is through oxidative stress, also known as reactive oxygen species (ROS). ‘A wealth of studies now illustrate M that nonionizing radiation emitted from smart phones, cordless
phones, WiFi, Bluetooth and other wireless technologies, such as those powering the Internet of Things (IoT) can severely disturb this balance, M by amplifying ROS, suppressing antioxidants, and increasing oxidative stress.’

Damage occurs at levels of exposure generated by typical wireless devices.

Butler believes that children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of wireless radiation. He says, ‘A recent study demonstrated that in a child’s brain the hippocampus and hypothalamus absorb 1.6—3.1 times the microwave energy of an adult brain. M The same study found that the bone marrow in a child’s skull absorbs microwave radiation at a level 10 times greater than that of an adult.’ Children’s eyes also absorb more radiation than adults’ eyes, he said.’
Butler considers that international standards do not provide adequate protection and advises that governments and regulators
should ‘take immediate action to change policy and implement appropriate safety standards’. This includes removing WiFi routers and devices from all schools.
Professor Butler also recommends that parents take action to protect their children from exposure. This includes:
• educating children about the risks of wireless technology;
• restricting use of wireless devices;
• keeping wireless devices switched off where possible;
• holding wireless devices away from the body;
• keeping routers away from children’s bedrooms.

A prominent scientist has criticised information about the health effects of wireless radiation written by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
In an unsigned letter of 18 December, ARPANSA reaffirmed its entrenched position that radiofrequency radiation only causes health problems at levels high enough to cause heating (ie thermal effects). The letter stated, ‘there are no established health effects from RF (radiofrequency) EME at levels below current protection guidelines.’ It dismissed evidence of harmful biological effects from
exposure and of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

On 4 March, eminent scientist Martin Pall, a professor of biochemistry at Washington State University, issued a critique of the ARPANSA letter. He began by listing statements, signed by tens of thousands of scientists and medical practitioners, listing their concerns about the inadequacy of international standards that are based on the thermal-effects-only paradigm. ‘It should be clear ,’ Pall wrote, ‘that independent scientists and physicians know that these safety guidelines, which do not take into account the many thousands of studies on non-thermal EMF effects, have no
connection with the genuine scientific literature.’

Professor Pall also referred to a large body of scientific evidence showing that exposures too low to cause heating can have extremely harmful effects on the body, including cancer. In his review of the scientific literature, he has shown that nonthermal exposures resulted in:

• endocrine problems
• increased levels of intracellular calcium which have been shown to cause other biological problems
• cancer
• fertility problems in males and females
• reduced libido
• neurological problems, including sleep problems, tiredness, headaches, depression, concentration and memory
problems, dizziness, vertigo, anxiety, irritability, stress
• DNA damage and chromosome mutations
• free radical (oxidative) damage.
‘We have here, a total of 158 bodies of evidence each showing that non-thermal exposures cause an important health
-related effect,’ he said.

‘The majority of the claims made in the ARPANSA letter are completely undocumented and, in the minority of those claims where some documentation is provided, that documentation is completely inadequate,’ Professor Pall told EMR Australia. He said, ‘Each of the ARPANSA claims has been shown to be false, based on vastly larger and more convincing evidence from the scientific literature. Four of the ARPANSA claims are intentionally misleading and, therefore, meet the definition of scientific fraud. Six important, distinct and repeatedly reported findings in the scientific literature show that the ICNIRP, ARPANSA and other national and international safety guidelines do not predict biological response to EMF exposures and are, therefore fraudulent. Hence, meeting those guidelines tells us nothing useful about safety or lack thereof.’

Professor Pall concluded by saying,
‘With 100% consistency, ARPANSA avoids all of the strongest available science in this area.
‘With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has produced a stunningly biased document, whose positions are repeatedly and consistently contradicted by the strongest science and by large numbers of independent scientists.
‘With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has failed to protect the health and safety of the people of Australia.
‘With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has protected the economic interests of the telecommunications industry.’

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation had harmful effects on brain architecture and chemistry in a study from Korea.
Researchers exposed mice to a signal of 835 MHz for five hours a day for 12 weeks. They found that exposure affected the striatum—the part of the brain that deals with rewards and movement. It reduced the number of synaptic vesicles that store neurotransmitters and this led to lower levels of dopamine. Dopamine, often described as a feel-good neurotransmitter, is linked with feelings of happiness, wellbeing and satisfaction.
Reduced levels of dopamine are associated with lack of motivation.
Dopamine is also associated with movement and the researchers tested whether RF exposure would affect movement by treating animals with a drug that induces symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. They found that exposure did impede the mice’s ability to
recover locomotion after treatment with the drug.

Kim, JH et al, ‘Decreased dopamine in striatum and difficult locomotor recovery from MPTP insult after exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields’, Sci Rep 9
(1):1201, Feb 2019.

Even if you if you don't use 5G technology yourself you will be affected if your neighbors use it, or people you walk by in the street.  Basically we will be bombarded.  This is too much for the brain and nervous system to take on.  The above information should be sufficient to show people the negative impact on the human body.  We can continue with 4G quite successfully and have no need for upgrading to 5G.   Please raise you comments when you sign the petition.

Using wireless devices interferes with the quality and quantity of sleep, according to new research published in the April issue of Environmental Research. Investigators from Spain and the Netherlands studied wireless device use and sleep quality in a group of Spanish adolescents aged 17 to 18. They found that making as few as one cordless phone call a week reduced sleep quality. Not surprisingly, sleep quality was also reduced by heavy mobile phone or tablet use.
Exposure to blue light as well as mental stimulation might be among the factors causing sleep problems, the researchers suggested. Cabré-Riera A et al, ‘Telecommunications devices use, screen time and sleep in adolescents’,
Environ Rev 171:341-47, 2019.

More evidence that radiofrequency (RF) radiation contributes to cancer comes from a new animal study from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy.  The researchers found that both male and female rats had a higher rate of malignant tumours when exposed to both power-frequency magnetic fields and formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is found in many homes and workplaces, being present in carpeting, building materials, glues and some fabrics and cosmetics. Results of the Institute’s previous research on mobile phones and tumours can be seen in the May 2018 issue of EMR and Health. Soffritti, M and Giuliani, L, ‘The carcinogenic potential of non-ionizing radiations: The
cases of S-50Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM RFR’, Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol Feb 2019.