This ones huge, and is written evidence to a committee for the UK parliament (comes straight from the UK parliaments website) by a doctor from Cambridge university (3rd ranking university in the world) with good credentials and prior experiences. I’ll just paste the summary. But concern for 5G is not a conspiracy theory.
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/2458/html/
Written evidence submitted by Dr Joseph
Call for Evidence : Broadband and the road to 5G
Written and compiled by Dr Joseph, PhD
Brief Introduction
I am molecular biologist by discipline and have worked in multiple University departments in Cambridge (Departments of Physiology & Clinical Pharmacology, University of Cambridge) as an academic postdoctoral research associate during the course of my scientific career (e.g. at the Department of Physiology I worked on beta-adrenergic receptor function alongside colleagues in the same lab who were studying voltage gated sodium channel genes which cause sudden cardiac arrest, i.e. Brugada syndrome).
Prior to this, I worked at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, in the X chromosome group helping to map the human genome. Latterly, I have also worked for a contract research company, Cogenics, and in the scientific distribution industry doing bioscience product management and marketing for companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific, Scientific & Chemical Supplies and Appleton Woods.
I am submitting my evidence, because as a scientist, I understand the implications of negative biological effects on human pathophysiology.
I am deeply concerned that key scientific literature, pointing to very real, non-thermal negative biological effects of EMR radiation is being ignored by the mobile and broadband industry as well as bodies like the ICNIRP, that our government relies upon, to give guidance regarding the safety of 5G.
These concerns are very important because they have a direct impact on the ‘Broadband and the road to 5G’ consultation, and if they are ignored, it will be to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of the whole UK population, particularly that of our children, future generations, as well as our delicate ecosystem.
Summary of my Evidence regarding the Consultation on Broadband and the road to 5G
- Very real, negative non-thermal biological effects occur as a direct result of extremely low electromagnetic radiation (EMR) levels, which are several orders of magnitude lower than the current safety limits set by the International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
- The current legislative and regulatory plans for the roll out of 5G are misguided by Public Health England (PHE) which relies entirely on ICNIRP safety guidelines on EMR radiation which have been shown to be deeply flawed – see Pall, M. (2018) (1) and Hardell & Nyberg (2020) (3). ) and Naren et al. (2020) (24).
- The ICNIRP safety guidelines are flawed because:
- They assume average EMR intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. In fact, negative non-thermal biological effects occur approximately 100,000 times below current allowable levels.
- They ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms
- They ignore pulsed EMRs which are much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMRs of the same average intensity
- They ignore complex sinusoidal dose-response curves
- They also ignore many important scientific reviews which show non-thermal negative biological effects caused by EMRs (see body of evidence in Tables 1,2 & 3)
- There are many articles which state that EMRs produce diverse non-thermal effects through voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) in cells and produce negative biological effects such as oxidative stress, cellular DNA damage and increased calcium signalling but the voltage sensor of the VGCC is ignored by the 2020 ICNIRP safety guidelines. (see the following articles for which Pall,M. 2018 (1) & Doyon PR et al, (2017) (8) Herbert MR & Sage C (2013) (15),Panagopoulos et al (2002) (30).
- Negative non-thermal biological effects of electromagnetic radiation listed in the literature across humans and other species are : (see Tables 1, 2, 3 below and References below from Pall (2018) (1))
- Lowered adaptive immune responses or immune system dysregulation
- Cardiac effects, including tachycardia, bradycardia and arrythmias, and ventricular developmental defects
- Cancer including initiation, promotion and progression
- Pathological damage to multiple organs (e.g. liver, kidneys, uterus, bladder, testis)
- Trace element disturbances in tissues
- Ocular damage
- Lowered fertility
- Hormonal dysregulation
- Neurological / neuropsychiatric effects
- Sleep disruption
- Memory, motor skill, attention, cognition impairment
- Apoptosis / programmed cell death
- Oxidative stress / free radical damage
- Single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA
- Increased intracellular calcium levels causing chronic effects
- Considering all of the above negative effects of lower intensity electromagnetic radiation already out there, many scientists globally have asked for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the electromagnetic radiation risks associated with this new emerging technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists, but this is falling on deaf ears. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment. Hardell & Nyberg (2020) (3)
- This means that the current situation in the United Kingdom is a violation of Human Rights similar to that which has been tabled to the United Nations Human Rights Council in early 2019 for Australia by S.J. Toneguzzo. (See below UN NGO document link, page 11)
- The deployment of 5G without safety testing in the UK violates over 15 international agreements, treaties and recommendations, including article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and principle 9 of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964. (links listed on page 11 below)
- Wireless carriers have already conceded to U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal that they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on the safety of 5G technologies – see reference 13 below. They are also making misleading comments about the safety of 5G – see comment by Dr Jack Rowley below, page 16).
- Clearly if existing low level EMRs are having damaging biological responses such as those listed in point 4 above, surely untested frequencies such as 5G, should mean that we should be invoking the precautionary principle on 5G, and re-evaluating and revising current safety limits, as well as putting a moratorium on the roll out of 5G? Naren et al. (2020) (23) have stated that 5G should only be deployed after having completed thorough research and well-designed safety testing, as the EMR radiation exposure levels they see with 2-4G are well over the safe limits set by Building Biology, Austrian Medical Association, and the BioInitiative standards which do take into account non-thermal negative biological EMR effects.
- The precautionary principle has already been applied by multiple local city councils in England (Brighton, Hove, Devonshire, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, Frome, Totnes, Wells, Glastonbury, Trafford) as well as other rightly concerned countries like Nigeria, Slovenia, etc. – see URL links 11 and 12 in References for a full list.
- We should be insisting that adequate safety testing is done for 5G, and that current safety limits are re-evaluated in the light of the overwhelming body of current scientific literature which points to non-thermal negative biological responses across multiple species (see Tables 1, 2, 3), not just human beings. (see also letter to House of Commons from Radiation Research Trust requesting safety testing in reference 14 below) Naren et al. (2020) (24) state that “If 5G networks are deployed without careful analysis of expected exposure levels, almost all people in the area of coverage may be exposed to dangerous levels of power flux density, the outcomes of which, in the near future, may turn out to be calamitous.” They strongly suggest that a study similar to theirs be conducted in countries which choose to deploy 5G, by correlating the findings with the Basic Biology Standard, the Austrian Medical Association standard (AMA) and the BioInitiative standard (see Table 4) in order to get a consistent view of radiation exposure in 5G networks as compared to previous generations. This would provide much-needed insight and caution to all countries that are yet to adopt 5G.
- Only after safety testing of 5G had been done by the mobile and broadband industry and by independent non-industry scientists who have no economical allegiance or scientific bias towards such emerging technology, should 5G have even be considered to be deployed in the UK. Any such safety testing data needs to be independently verified by a non-industry scientific committee (see page 10, paragraph 2 below for suitable constituents of such a non-industry committee).
- Right now, we should be consulting and informing constituents of their rights in those parts of the UK, for whom 5G has been rolled out, without safety testing, as well as putting a halt to access to 5G, until we are aware of the full impact of 5G on, not just humans, but also on all species. This is because we now know that existing low level EMR radiation, is already damaging humans as well as less complex species such as plants, insects, birds and lower mammals (see list of articles in Table 1, 2 & 3 and Naren et al. (2020) (24)).
- I have assessed much of the latest data on EMR radiation (see Tables 1, 2, & 3 and References section below) and find that we should be doing all we can, to protect our public from harmful EMR radiation as follows:
-
- Doing safety testing of 5G before we authorise any further roll outs and putting a halt to the operation of existing installations until the safety testing has been verified and approved by not just the mobile and broadband industry but by a non-industry working group of scientists, physicians and members of the public who can assess the data independent of 5G manufacturers
-
- Prioritising and incentivising the use of safer wired fibre optic solutions in our homes, shopping centres, airports, hospitals, workplaces and schools
-
- Encouraging families to protect their future generations by minimising the use of portable devices which produce EMR radiation like mobile phones, tablets, laptops, etc. (see letter requesting the same in reference 14 below)
-
- Suggesting urgent research on the safety and efficacy of shielding methods combined with use of generators emitting weak pulses of similar frequency, intensity, and waveform with the natural atmospheric resonances - see Panagopoulos & Chrousos (2019) (16)
-
- Getting a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the EMR potential challenges to not only a single system but to all our biological systems, in order to improve preventive strategies - see Santini et al. (2018) (17)
-
- Putting in place mobile and broadband industry-independent safety and usage regulations to protect our public (adults and children) and other species and advising appropriate restrictions on the use of EMR emitting mobiles and all portable devices in order to protect the health of all users, i.e. not with respect to only one organ but with respect to our bodies as a whole, as well with respect to the health of the delicate ecosystem around us – see multiple papers in Table 3 which show:
- working memory impairment in human beings with mobile phone use (Kalafatakis et al. 2017)
- strong cancer causality with mobile phone use (Pareja-Peña et al. 2020)
- negative physiological and morphological effects on multiple plants (Halgamuge MN. 2017)
- cognitive and motor damage on insects (Shepherd et al. 2018).
-
- Naren et al. (2020) (24) have done a highly informative study of the exposure to EMR radiation across multiple wireless devices. They havedetermined the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence They have suggested individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that could be undertaken to reduce the risk of EMR radiation absorption but these are not fully protective for Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) individuals, so these can only be looked upon as a non-comprehensive interim measure in an environment where wireless EMR radiation cannot be avoided due to the lack of a wired fibre optic infrastructure.
-
- Barnes & Greenebaum (2020) (25) have also sought to give advice on how governments, mobile and broadband industry and associated regulatory bodies could assemble EMR safety guidelines for individuals, mobile and broadband companies, and system operators. They state that we don’t yet know whether biological effects seen due to lower level, long term EMR exposure are resulting in medical problems for a much larger number of people. Therefore, governments need to investigate long‐term exposure to weak EMRs, and put in place safety guidelines to address this issue.
-
- I strongly urge the UK government to use an independent scientific committee (ISC – see page 19 below for its composition) and PHE, to:
-
- Re-evaluate the body of scientific evidence on extremely low EMRs (continuous and pulsed) which produce non-thermal negative biological responses across multiple species not just humans
-
- Understand and communicate to the public which safety guidelines most closely adhere to protecting our people from any further EMR damage (by evaluating also the rationale of the Building Biology, Austrian Medical Association, and the BioInitiative standards which do take into account non-thermal negative biological EMR effects)
-
- Work together with the scientists of other countries who are assessing their exposure limits prior to rolling out 5G, to understand all the dangers of 2G-5G
-
- Set up UK-specific EMR safety guidelines based on what is found from the above exercise, and not just rely on the currently flawed ICNIRP guidelines (the new guideline could be then used as a gold standard globally)
-
- Set up new individual, worker, manufacturer, public spaces and atmospheric safety guidelines for existing 2G-4G EMR emitting portable and stationary devices, base stations and towers
-
- Use the protective and preventive measures from Naren et al. (2020) (24) in a public information campaign to inform the UK population on the best methods of shielding themselves from existing 2G-4G EMR radiation in the absence of any other consensus (see Table 4 below)
-
- Set up a study similar to the one conducted by Naren et al 2020) (24) in these countries, by correlating the findings with the Building Biology, Austrian Medical Association, and the BioInitiative standards in order to get a consistent view of radiation exposure in 5G networks as compared to previous generations.
-
- Set up new individual, worker, manufacturer, public spaces and atmospheric safety guidelines for existing 5G EMR emitting portable and stationary devices, base stations and towers
-
- Halt the operation of existing 5G installations until safety testing has been verified and approved by not just the mobile and broadband industry but by a non-industry working group of scientists, physicians and members of the public who can assess the data independent of 5G manufacturers
-
- Contact the public in any area where 5G is going to be deployed or already deployed and ask them if they still want to have the greater connectivity of 5G despite the potential long term harms associated with exposed to very high levels of power flex density emitted by 5G EMR radiation. Leave the choice to the public, and where they still want access, ensure that 5G is made available only through wired fibre optic technology thereby protecting those members of the public who prefer not to be exposed, e.g. EHS individuals.
-
- Take action now for all those persons with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) where they have been already subjected to 5G to inform them that the existing 5G masts will be decommissioned and a wired fibre optic technology solution put in to replace 5G masts..
-
- If existing non-5G masts are within a few yards of a property, action should be taken immediately to rectify this as residential buildings and schools should be protected from close by sources of EMR radiation. Safe distances for these masts should be determined by the bodies that have created the Basic Biology Standard, the Austrian Medical Association standard (AMA) and the BioInitiative standard who recognise non-thermal negative biological effects of EMR radiation.
Edited by Jesus is King, 20 December 2020 - 10:23 PM.
