{"id":2044,"date":"2021-05-19T18:00:45","date_gmt":"2021-05-19T22:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theemfguy.com\/?p=2044"},"modified":"2021-05-20T08:58:28","modified_gmt":"2021-05-20T12:58:28","slug":"stopping-5g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theemfguy.com\/stopping-5g\/","title":{"rendered":"Opinion: Stopping 5G Is Not Enough \u2014 All Electro-Pollution Matters"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Yes, there are <\/span>many<\/span><\/i> reasons to be concerned about the roll-out of 5G and how it might impact our health.<\/span><\/p>\n

But in my humble opinion as someone who has been studying EMFs and their health effects full time for several years, the fears over 5G have been distracting activists, the public and the few politicians who actually care about this matter from the <\/span>real<\/span><\/i> issue we\u2019re facing globally:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The irresponsible, reckless way we\u2019ve been rolling out unsafe technologies in the last century, ranging from wireless radiation to simple household electricity.<\/b><\/p>\n

This article will try to illustrate why I hold this opinion which I understand may seem controversial at first.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fact #1: Even Without 5G, You\u2019re Still Exposed to Electro-Pollution Levels a QUINTILLION Times Higher Than Ancestral Levels<\/span><\/h2>\n

I\u2019ve been an advocate for safe technologies for years. I\u2019m completely <\/span>against<\/span><\/i> 5G, and applaud all the efforts I\u2019ve seen put forward to slow down or stop its rollout.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the unfortunate fact is that even if 5G disappears from the surface of the planet\u2026 we\u2019ll still be exposed to previous generations of cellular networks (2G, 3G, 4G-LTE) that are themselves completely unsafe \u2014 and at levels of exposure that are a quintillion times (1,000,000,000,000,000 X) higher than what your great-grandparents were exposed to back in the 1920s.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Image credit: <\/b>Simplified version of a 2012 graphic by the work of Philips and Lamburn.
\n<\/span><\/span>See the original image <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> for a more thorough portrait.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This bears repeating: <\/span>There are no known \u201csafe\u201d levels of electro-pollution.<\/b> In reality, scientists have found biological effects at power levels that are orders of magnitude smaller than what a smartphone or wifi router is routinely emitting.<\/span><\/p>\n

More than 50 years ago, studies like the 1965 <\/span>The Effect of Microwaves on the Central Nervous System<\/span><\/i> [1] <\/b>by W. Bergman had already confirmed that extremely low levels of electro-pollution can have important impacts on biology.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As reported by Professors Johansson and Flydal [2]:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBergman revealed all we need to conclude that radiowaves in the centimeter band influence blood circulation, respiration, temperature control, water balance, albumin and sugar concentration in the cerebro-spinal fluid, and so on.<\/span><\/p>\n

The dosages Bergman considered are significantly below today\u2019s maximum exposure standards. [emphasis mine]<\/b> Even electromagnetic fields (EMF) at levels of only 1\/100,000th (10-5) of what we are regularly exposed to from mobiles, are found to disturb the complex electrical operations taking place at cellular levels, and to cause damage to DNA, proteins, neurons and oxidation processes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span>Fact #2: This Landmark Study Confirmed That <\/span>2G<\/span><\/i> & <\/span>3G<\/span><\/i> Were Already Carcinogenic<\/span><\/h2>\n

In early 2018, the results of a 20 year long saga finally came in. The National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, studied large groups of rats and mice in order to find out if the radiofrequency radiation emitted by cell phones, wifi and Bluetooth devices is carcinogenic\u2026 or not.<\/span><\/p>\n

The conclusion was <\/span>unequivocal<\/span><\/i>: There is \u201cClear Evidence\u201d that these disruptive signals are carcinogenic in rats [3].<\/span><\/p>\n

Unsurprisingly, the FDA \u2014 who had nominated cell phone radiation to the NTP in 1999 \u2014 swept those results under the rug, arguing that \u201cthese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage\u201d and that \u201c[they] believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting the public health\u201d. [4]<\/span><\/p>\n

But here\u2019s the twist: In the NTP study, rats and mice were exposed to older 2G and 3G signals emitted by signal generators \u2014 <\/b>not<\/i><\/b> real cell phones which now emit much stronger, and much more disruptive 4G-LTE radiation.<\/b><\/p>\n

This is especially concerning for two reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n

a) <\/b>This clearly shows us that the speed at which we are able to roll out new unsafe technologies is <\/span>way<\/span><\/i> faster than our ability to study them. By the time we\u2019re able to study 4G, we\u2019ll likely already have been exposed to 5G, 6G and beyond.<\/span><\/p>\n

b)<\/b> It\u2019s well recognized that signals emitted by signal generators (\u201csimulated EMF-emissions\u201d) are much <\/span>less<\/span><\/i> disruptive to biology compared to real wireless devices such as a smartphone.<\/span><\/p>\n

In their 2015 review, Panagopoulos and his colleagues explain that [5]:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhile experimental studies employing <\/span>simulated EMF-emissions present a strong inconsistency among their results with less than 50% of them reporting effects, studies employing real mobile phone exposures demonstrate an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects. [emphasis mine]<\/b> This consistency is in agreement with studies showing association with brain tumors, symptoms of unwellness, and declines in animal populations.<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] We conclude that, in order for experimental findings to reflect reality, it is crucially important that exposures be performed by commercially available mobile phone handsets.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Previous generations of cellular networks are clearly unsafe, and so are all types of wireless devices including wifi routers, Bluetooth-enabled headphones or wearables, \u201csmart\u201d utility meters, and countless others.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n


\nFact #3: Higher Frequencies Are Not Necessarily More Dangerous
\n<\/span><\/h2>\n

There are many reasons to believe that 5G frequencies in the higher \u201cmillimeter wave\u201d range will be just as unsafe as all previous wireless technologies.<\/span><\/p>\n

In her 2018 review \u201c5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications\u2606\u201d [6], Dr. Cindy Russell reviewed the available literature on millimeter waves and concluded:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c[..] The addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome both from both physical and mental health perspectives.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

[…] Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But I also feel that the myopic focus on millimeter waves I\u2019ve seen in a lot of anti-5G articles I\u2019ve read this year has created the false impression that higher frequencies are \u201cvery dangerous\u201d, while lower frequencies are \u201cless dangerous\u201d or even \u201csafe\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is not scientifically correct. As my colleague and top EMF mitigation specialist Brian Hoyer reminded me recently, the visible light spectrum ranges from 375,000 to 769,000 GHz in frequency!<\/span><\/p>\n

As I\u2019ve discussed in length with top EMF engineer Pawel Wypychowski on my podcast \u201cSmarter Tech\u201d [7], what makes certain types of electromagnetic fields more disruptive or stressful than others is not necessarily their intensity (power) or even frequency, but other characteristics that make them completely foreign to our biological \u201csensors\u201d, such as:<\/span><\/p>\n