«First  ‹Previous   Page 3 of 762   Next›  Last» 

The day Don Quixote found his mark
Israel Created: 2 Mar 2021
Challenging powerful regulatory agencies is often like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. A futile attack on an immovable monolith. But sometimes, not often I’ll grant you, the lance finds its mark and the monolith teeters a little. Something like this happened recently in Washington D.C. and it is likely to have ramifications around the world.

On the 25th of January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stood up (figuratively) in the D.C. Circuit of Appeals and blithely claimed that the safety standards governing the exposure of the public to electromagnetic radiation originating from cellphones and wireless were good. The court did not buy it.

The petition, lead by the Environmental Health Trust, an NGO devoted to the collation and dissemination of scientific evidence on our impact on the environment and health with a particular emphasis on Electromagnetic radiation, challenged the right of the FCC to set into regulation the current radiation exposure limits for frequencies of 5G and above. The petition also demanded that the current limits also be reassessed.

The current very generous limits were first set in 1996 (In another post I will lay out the surprising history of exposure standards) and have been constantly challenged in the scientific literature. They now apply to devices that did not even exist back then. Worse still, there is now a solid bank of scientific evidence that cellphone radiation at the levels allowed, does indeed have a negative impact on our health. However, rather than challenge the industry and make them work at biologically acceptable levels, the FCC dismisses the evidence and coddles up to the industry. And they have now been called out on that.

I must be honest here and state that I am on the scientific advisory board of the Environmental Health Trust, a position I take most seriously.

Although the court has not handed down its decision yet, it is clear where the wind is blowing. An excellent Co-ed piece by Dr. Devra Davis in the Washington Post sums it up perfectly :

“In reviewing our case, Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC, the court asked the agency to show what expert advice it had relied on to dismiss the NTP study and thousands of pages of peer-reviewed science. The FCC had invoked the Interagency Radiofrequency Radiation Work Group, but could provide no evidence that this loosely affiliated, unfunded informal federal Work Group has either met or offered the FCC any advice in the past two years.”

The study she is referring to is by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an independent body of the American National Institute of Health, charged specifically with the identification and investigation of toxigenic materials and elements. It is probably the most eminent authority in the world for this kind of research. Succinctly put, the FCC commissioned the FDA who commissioned the NTP. The study was extensive and expensive. They took two populations of rats and mice, isolated them from all radio signals and let them live their lives, eat, breed and sleep. One of the populations was exposed for 10 minutes a day to cell phone transmissions like GSM and LTE at levels similar to those allowed by those same FCC rules. Now the unpleasant bit. At the end of 2 years, the populations were culled. In the animals exposed to the radiation, they found clear evidence of DNA damage and cancer. Anything that causes cancer in rats and mice causes cancer in us. That’s why we use them in animal studies. Now I have read those reports with the eye of a scientist and they convinced me. The experiments were excellent and professionally done. So much so that 2 sets of reviews by independent experts could find no faults. Yet the FCC and the FDA rejected them out of hand.

It goes on:

“The court then asked specifically whether the FDA had sought advice from its own Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee, The FCC was forced to concede that that technical advisory committee has not met since 2016, is next scheduled to meet in fiscal 2021, and has never considered cellphone safety. In fact, that committee chiefly focuses on ensuring that electronic products do not interfere with each other. So you can be pretty sure that your phone will not block your tablet from working, but you have no idea whether either of them might interfere with your heart or cause damage to your DNA.”

In other words, not only did the FCC ignore the scientific evidence to the contrary, including its own, but failed totally to use any advice at all. Yet that didn’t stop it from making a regulation that is so important. It is important. Because without the regulation by the FCC to maintain current dangerous exposure standards for high frequencies, the 5G rollout in the States is virtually illegal. Big money involved here, in the range of trillions of dollars and that is now in danger if the court follows its earlier direction and punishes the FCC for its failure. As the court then pointedly noted,

“The judge noted that agencies get a lot of discretion: “You get a long leash. But, at some point that leash goes too far and becomes unreasonable without a little bit of followup by the FCC — to make… to verify… just to pin down that the information is responsive.”

It doesn’t look good for the FCC.

You can read the full transcript here: https://ehtrust.org/eht-takes-the-fcc-to-court/

What happens in the States has a direct impact on what happens in Europe and here. Already there are a number of European states who have effectively stopped the rollout of 5G pending a comprehensive health assessment. For instance, in Switzerland. The special advisory expert group BERENIS to the Swiss Environmental agency has just issued a report that states that Electromagnetic radiation from cellphones leads to reactive oxidation species in the blood leading to oxidative stress. And this has been linked to illness and to cancers. The ruling of this court case will only accelerate this.

And, who knows? Maybe the monolith will fall and Don Quixote will be triumphant……
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Times of Israel / blogs, Paul Ben Ishai, 26 Feb 2021

Verizon support says you should turn off 5G to save your phone’s battery
USA Created: 1 Mar 2021
This, despite the carrier’s relentless promotion of its 5G network.

Despite its relentless promotion of 5G phones and the fact that it spent more than $45 billion bidding on a new faster spectrum, Verizon support now is advising people on Twitter to turn off their phones’ 5G access to preserve battery life.

In a Sunday morning tweet, Verizon support helpfully suggested that “one way to help conserve battery life is to turn on LTE” if users found their batteries were “draining faster than normal.” That step would, of course, turn off 5G in a phone that has it available. It’s also worth pointing out that you don’t actually “turn on LTE” when doing this step — LTE is always enabled as a fallback for the 5G network. But Verizon is obviously being cautious so as not to actually tell its customers to “turn off 5G”.

Twitter users naturally pointed out that switching to LTE-only would mean turning off 5G (which is available in some newer phones), but the helpful support person said it was important to troubleshoot “steps to find the root cause of any issues with speed,” adding that Verizon is “quickly launching more 5G areas, and making updates constantly to improve speeds.” Verizon’s nationwide 5G network uses a technology called DSS, which in many instances is actually slower than the LTE network it’s trying to replace.

Verizon announced its big 5G plans for 2021 last month, after formally launching its next-gen network in October 2020. One of its top priorities is expanding coverage of its ultra-fast mmWave coverage, which is currently restricted to parts of some cities in the US. It’s also heavily dependent on how close you are to a Verizon 5G site.

Both Verizon and AT&T spent big bucks in the FCC’s Auction 107, bidding on the C-band spectrum. Verizon spent $45.4 billion— twice as much as AT&T’s $23.4 billion. AT&T’s current nationwide 5G network also relies on DSS with speeds close to or lower than 4G LTE.

The new frequencies won’t become available until the end of the 2021 at the earliest, and will be available in limited locations first.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Verge, Kim Lyons, 28 Feb 2021

Why I'm challenging the FCC about antiquated safety standards for wireless devices
USA Created: 24 Feb 2021
Would you let your family fly in a plane or ride in a bus that meets 25-year-old safety standards? Yet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assures us that wireless devices that meet last-century standards can safely be used by infants, toddlers and the rest of us.

During a fascinating hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 25, the FCC maintained that 1996 standards can safely apply to testing devices many of which did not exist when those standards were first established.

The FCC readily concedes it is not a health agency. For health advice, it relies on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 1999, the FDA asked the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government’s flagship testing program, to use standard animal testing protocols routinely used for extrapolation to humans and evaluate the impacts of non-thermal lifetime exposures to cellphone radiation. In 2018, the NTP issued the results of that $30 million state-of-the-art study, finding clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage.

In a remarkable about face, the FDA summarily rejected findings from the very study it had invited, reviewed and approved at several junctures, nonsensically questioning their relevance to humans, living up to its reputation as a captured agency.

In reviewing our case, Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC, the court asked the agency to show what expert advice it had relied on to dismiss the NTP study and thousands of pages of peer-reviewed science. The FCC had invoked the Interagency Radiofrequency Radiation Work Group, but could provide no evidence that this loosely affiliated, unfunded informal federal Work Group has either met or offered the FCC any advice in the past two years.

The court then asked specifically whether the FDA had sought advice from its own Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee, The FCC was forced to concede that that technical advisory committee has not met since 2016, is next scheduled to meet in fiscal 2021, and has never considered cellphone safety. In fact, that committee chiefly focuses on ensuring that electronic products do not interfere with each other. So you can be pretty sure that your phone will not block your tablet from working, but you have no idea whether either of them might interfere with your heart or cause damage to your DNA.

Apple last week admitted that its iPhone 12 needs to be kept off the body — away from any implanted pacemaker that can interfere with its operation. That hot new device sports a MagSafe gizmo so you can attach accessories magnetically and charge wirelessly. Of course, our heart is our natural pacemaker.

So, what’s a safe distance? If you have a pacemaker, more than six inches in normal use and more than a foot if charging wirelessly. But what if you just want to be sure that you will not need a pacemaker or avoid atrial fibrillation or DNA damage?

One judge noted that during the pandemic, the use of wireless radiating devices had flourished as had hours spent with them on our bodies and those of our children. Yet, the FCC was effectively asking the court to infer the absence of any health impacts from wireless radiation, without substantial evidence in the agency record, without having tasked specific designated competent agencies to look at this, and without showing it had made a systematic, rational effort to review submitted information.

The court asked: “You want us to construe, as deliberation, that silence should be construed … that these relevant committees actually deliberated, actually reviewed the record and studies. So you are asking us to infer something that’s significant.” The judge noted that agencies get a lot of discretion: “You get a long leash. But, at some point that leash goes too far and becomes unreasonable without a little bit of followup by the FCC — to make… to verify… just to pin down that the information is responsive.”

The FCC appears to be saying it need not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act requiring assessment of all major federal actions, the Administrative Procedures Act demanding record-based reasoned and rational decision-making, or the Americans for Disability Act requiring accommodations for those with disabling electromagnetic illness.

Instead, in an audacious display of regulatory chutzpah, the FCC relies on the thin evidence provided by a limited FDA review, and rejects advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential dangers to wildlife, the NTP and thousands of studies directly linking exposure to a wide range of illnesses.

Just last month, the Swiss government expert advisory group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation released a stunning new evaluation of the experimental literature — much of which the FDA did not consider. Those experts conclude that EMF exposure, even in the low range, can cause or worsen a number of chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease, and that children, the elderly and those with comorbidities, need special protections.

In 1996, Congress decided the FCC should have the primary responsibility for protecting the public from radiation exposure even though it has no health expertise and typically sides with phone companies rather than citizens. That was a mistake, and something that must be changed. But until then we have to rely on the courts to ensure the FCC fulfills its duty.

• Devra Davis is president of EHTrust.org who served as a Clinton appointee from 1994-99 and was a member of the IPCC Awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Washington Times, Devra Davis, 23 Feb 2021

Is Wi-Fi Sickness a Disability? California Appellate Court Holds That It Is Under FEHA
USA Created: 24 Feb 2021
Is Wi-Fi sickness a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.”

The trial court had sustained a demurrer, granting judgment for the employer, a school district. The appellate court revived the plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court acknowledged that it is likely the first to recognize Wi-Fi sickness as a disability under laws against discrimination. In fact, the court discussed contrary federal court authority, distinguishing those cases by concluding that the definition of “disability” in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is broader than in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Apart from the holding that Wi-Fi sickness is a disability under FEHA, California employers should take note of the facts alleged about the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

After the school district installed a new Wi-Fi system, the plaintiff teacher complained of headaches and other symptoms caused by exposure to the electromagnetic waves. The school district initially tried to accommodate the teacher by turning off the Wi-Fi in her classroom and an adjacent one. The teacher said that her symptoms persisted and asked for additional accommodations. By that point, the school district’s consultant had reported that the Wi-Fi and radio frequencies at the school “evidenced a safe and non-hazardous working environment.” Based on that report, the school district did not grant any further accommodation, and the teacher sued.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Wiley expressed reluctance “about giving any sort of green light to this unprecedented and unorthodox disability claim.” But that’s exactly what the court did.

The decision serves as a reminder of just how easy it is to survive a pleading challenge in California.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Lexology, Dykema Gossett PLLC, 23 Feb 2021

URGENT: Needing A Place To Be ( Roger Moller )
United Kingdom Created: 18 Feb 2021
In 2008 when neighbours refused to turn off their new wireless router I fled for my life with what I could carry. I was homeless for 3 months though I eventually found safe haven in a little valley with no signal in Wales. I have been pleased to accommodate many equally desperate EHS sufferers in the 13 years since. All that time I have been looking for suitable places, not only for myself but for fellow sufferers but have so far been unable to find anywhere available, even temporarily, which I would be able to tolerate.
My life has been threatened for the last 2 years by the prospect of a 4G/ESN mast nearby, I will have to have gone from here before it goes up this year. Most of my things are in storage but in any event my landlady wants her house back and I now find myself in dire need of at least ‘a place to be’.

So it is with great reluctance that I appeal to the ES-UK community in hopes that someone who understands EHS will be willing to offer me safe haven from early March on practically any basis.

Roger Moller - Abergwesyn, Powys 01223 911 893 / (+44) (0) 333 011 5476
email: roger.moller@electricforester.co.uk
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Roger Moller, via ES-UK newsletter, 18 Jan 2021

The No5G Party is now registered as a Federal political party!
Australia Created: 16 Feb 2021
We are the first sole No5G political party in the world, right here in Australia.

We would like to thank all our members for their support in achieving this milestone.

While we already have over 1,000 members, our goal is to make the No5G Party the largest membership based political party in Australia. With your help this can be achieved by sharing this message and recruiting as many people as possible. This will give us a strong and unified voice that cannot be ignored.

It is clear that more people are becoming educated and concerned about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation locally and globally.

If we could recruit just 56,000 members, we would become the largest political party in Australia and with these numbers OUR VOICE WILL BE HEARD.

If this happens, we predict that the major political parties will see us as a threat and therefore they will adopt our policies to reduce the threat. Our goal is to ensure that the precautionary principle will prevail, in that only safe technology that has certainty as being safe to health (human, flora and fauna) and privacy is promoted in this country.

We are really about promoting safe technology and restricting unsafe technology.

Please join our wonderful team, become a member of the No5G Party. Your membership will assist in making our homes, our community, and our planet a much safer place to live.

Why join the No5G Party?

The world is changing and moving at an incredible pace, technology is changing constantly and like most people, we want to make sure it’s safe.

What people may not know is that the current roll out of the 5G telecommunications network, is a massive undertaking being coordinated around the world and pushed by the corporate elite. Engulfing the entire planet via 100 thousand satellites, millions of telecommunication towers, small cells and billions of 5G connected devices flooding the world with invisible electro smog pollution in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

The 5G rollout will increase man-made electromagnetic radiation at unprecedented levels with little to no concern for the safety and wellbeing of the humans who will be exposed to it.

That’s why we have formed the No5G Party to promote legislative schemes, laws and policies to regulate 5G and associated technologies and to ensure independent and thorough studies are conducted. To ensure that the wireless 5G rollout is halted until there is an overall medical consensus proving that electromagnetic radiation is safe for human health, flora, fauna and property.

Join the No5G fight to reform and to ensure that any safety standards adopted by the Australian Government reflect true medical consensus and to ensure that such standards are not biased heavily to industry over our health.

If we don’t do something now it will be too late. Let’s act now to protect life and safeguard our children’s future.

Become a member of the No5G Party!

Let’s work on protecting life and freedom!
Click here to view the source article.
Source: No 5G Party Australia, 05 Jan 2021

Apple wireless Airpod headphone users reporting tinnitus
USA Created: 14 Feb 2021
After using my AirPods for a while, I noticed a high pitched ringing in my ears (that doesn't go away). I didn't know what it was, so I looked it up and it turns out to be tinnitus. Now understand, I don't listen to music, or anything for that matter, loud. As a matter of fact, I carry a pair of earplugs in my pocket, just in case I encounter anything loud that would damage my hearing.

Having said all that, now I notice that when I put my AirPods in my ears and have nothing playing, they emit a high pitched tone that I would say exactly replicates the tone of my tinnitus, leaving me to believe that the AirPods actually caused my tinnitus.

(By time of posting this on Mast-Victims, 725 Apple customer had clicked "I have this question too".)

See Apple support forum thread via source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Apple Support Forum, MacbookProRetinaGuy, 24 Nov 2019

Archbishop Makarios III Hospital, Cyprus Reduces Wi-Fi and Wireless in Pediatric and Neonatal Units
Cyprus Created: 3 Feb 2021
Pilot Program: Reducing Wireless Radiofrequency at Archbishop Makarios III Hospital, Cyprus.

Worldwide Premiere of New Video: Archbishop Makarios Hospital III Removes Wi-Fi:


The Directorate and doctors of Archbishop Makarios III Hospital, taking into account the scientific documentation on the impact of wireless communication on children, and the concerns of the medical world, decided to implement the above project, adopting the Precautionary Principle. This initiative, that has started from the Pediatric Intensive Therapy Unit (PITU), comprises a first step towards “the development of the Archbishop Makarios III Hospital as an international model/pioneer hospital that applies the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, reducing the exposure of children to the radiation of wireless communication»
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EHTrust, 31 Jan 2021

China bans children from using mobile phones at school
China Created: 3 Feb 2021
Children in China are to be banned from using their phones in school, the Ministry of Education has ruled.

Pupils will not be allowed to bring mobiles to school without written parental consent.

The authorities say they want to protect young people's eyesight, improve their concentration and prevent internet addiction.

Schools are being encouraged to find other ways for parents to communicate with children during the school day.

According to one of the country's newspapers, China Daily, there has been heated debate among parents over the whether the ruling is practical.

The vast majority of children and teenagers in China access the internet via their own smartphones - 74% of under-18s, according to the government-affiliated China Internet Network Information Centre.

But the authorities are concerned about how internet use is affecting the health of the nation's youth.

There have been rising levels of nearsightedness among children in China and in 2018, the authorities announced plans to regulate the gaming industry which was partially blamed for the problem. They also cited concerns that gaming addiction was damaging mental health.

The following year a curfew was imposed on under-18s, who were restricted to 90 minutes of gaming on weekdays and three hours on weekends and holidays.
French ban

Many schools in China already restrict the use of mobile phones on their premises. In some extreme cases, phones have been smashed in front of students who have broken the rules.

The topic of a ban has become a major news item in China and on social media, with thousands discussing it on social media site Weibo.

Some 27,000 people voted in an online Sina News poll, with most saying there was no need for the new rules because of the widespread ban during school hours. Some pointed out that children may continue to over-use their phones when not in school.

A plan to stop schools setting homework tasks via phone has also been criticised. One teacher told state broadcaster CCTV that "not allowing phones to contact someone, or to arrange homework, that will take some getting used to. They all get so much homework, so that's been convenient."

French lawmakers voted in 2018 to ban the use of phones in primary and middle schools, ruling that children under 15 have to keep their mobile phones out of sight while on school premises.

A survey conducted in the UK by price comparison site uSwitch last year suggested that just under half of UK parents thought their child's school should ban mobile phones.

The use of phones in the UK is generally left up to individual schools. One head teacher, from Anglesey in Wales, told the BBC that teachers could find themselves spending too much time challenging children for using phones, which took time away from actually teaching them.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: BBC News, Jane Wakefield, 03 Feb 2021

The 5G Morass – tales and tattles or reasons for concern?
Israel Created: 31 Jan 2021
Last week someone sent me a WhatsApp link to an article by Avior Abu in the Calcalist - Quietly, under the cover of our political chaos, an interdepartmental committee is trying to overthrow the right of a municipality to decide where a cell phone antenna will be erected in its jurisdiction. Their reasons being that while we want our cellphone, we don’t want to see their base stations or antennas in our backyard, even as we complain about poor coverage and slow data speeds. In this age of Corona, improved coverage sounds a good thing …. or is it? Will such a power be abused at industry’s whim? During the early 2000 the cellphone companies in Israel routinely exploited a loophole in the law to place cellphone antennas inside apartments. It took a Knesset law to stop that and so one cannot rely on industry playing fair. It is a pertinent question because in the next few years industry is promising us a 5G revolution. And this revolution will demand a massive deployment of antenna infrastructure. And that sort of power is easily abused. All in the name of “progress” so that nothing will stop the deployment of 5G networks here is Israel.

And why the need for such a drastic step to be taken by this committee? Because there is already public opposition to 5G cellular networks and it is increasing difficult to receive municipal planning permission for cellphone towers. The reasons for public concern range from the frankly ridiculous conspiracy theories to a genuine worry about the effect of cellphone radiation on our health.

So, should we be worried about this? Well frankly yes. There are some very real health concerns linked to our love of cellphones and they are being roundly ignored in the mad dash for a Brave New Cellular World.

I am a physicist who specializes in the interaction of matter with radio waves and I have been in this field for more than 20 years. In particular I have studied the interaction of biological systems from cells up to tissues with radio waves and that puts me in a unique position to pick apart the consequences of our love of cellphone communication. I have also come to realize that this story is not just one of pure science, but also one of technological arrogance, economics and social science. I write like a scientist, so there are references at the end of this missive for anyone who wants to know more.

The mobile and cellular industry is full of the promise of a Brave New 5G World, where wireless serves man and machines talk to each other for our comfort. While is technological utopia makes for slick marketing, few question if it is really a boon to the public or a financial boon to the industry. The are some topics that need to be assessed in the cold light of fact, rather than marketing hype:

Does 5G answer the Public need?
Is 5G “Green”, i.e. Environmentally sound?
Is 5G safe for the Public health?

Does 5G answer the Public need?

We, as a public, will all eventually transfer to 5G networks because we will not be given a choice if we want to stay relevant. Yet nobody seems to ask if this is what we want or need? As a public we are being treated as infantile by an industry that is dictating to us what we “want”. A simple internet search looking for information on 5G or cellphones for that matter, reveals very fast that the top search results come from industry sources that lecture to the consumer on the benefits only. However, the insurance and business intelligence websites are more phlegmatic:

A Price Waterhouse consumer report in 2018 [1] found that the average American household wants better connectivity in the home and didn’t find that 5G is an immediate need. Two thirds of the respondents were not willing to pay extra for 5G coverage and, for the consumer, coverage was the key: something more easily obtainable by 4G LTE expansion.
A Global Web Index survey [2] in 2020 found that reliability and speed are of most concern to the consumer and so -at least for now – household broadband is the better option. It also found that consumers are greatly concerned at the increase in price of cellphones for compatibility with 5G, with price hikes of up to 40%. The implementation of 5G networks will cost over $1.3 trillion in the States alone over the next 7 years.
The magazine ‘Politico’ conducted a similar survey [3] and here too, the consumer is concerned with connectivity rather than the promise of IoT (Internet of Things) applications.

So does 5G deliver the 100x download speeds it promotes?

According to the Washington Post [4], 5G is still painfully slow, despite the hype. Slower than 4G networks….
In a technical report submitted in 2017 by the NTCA to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) [5] , the American regulator, the reality of wireless was put in stark light. It can never compete with broadband wired access. The complexity of a 5G MIMO wireless cell design is such that it will be resource intensive for only a fractional improvement. The boasts of 100x faster downloads are a myth. Moreover, its infrastructure depreciation and densification point to it being a labour intensive and very expensive network to maintain.
Forbes found that real world 5G speed in the US are far lower than expected [6].
The Chinese experience is showing that the real world 5G networks are not living up to their promise [7]
An assessment in the Netherlands of 5G performance compared to LTE networks found only a 40% increase in performance [8]
5G networks are easily disrupted by user position, rainfall and topology. [5,6,8]

Despite industry claims, it is clear that 5G does not deliver and in many areas it make no economic sense. Enhanced broadband and a continual evolution of 4G LTE cells would most likely serve the public better.
Is 5G “Green”, i.e. Environmentally sound?

At the moment the only fully operational 5G is in China and they are not happy.

The Chinese experience with 5G densification and energy cost is not positive. The Chinese finance minister, Lou Jiwei, has expressed public concerns. 5G base stations in Luoyang province have be switched off at night to save money [7,9]. In 2020 there were significant increases in energy costs with an increase of 13% for China’s mobile utilities [9]. Estimates for the increases in power consumption range from a two to three fold increase to nine times increases [9,10]. Coupled to the expected densification of the infrastructure, linked to the relatively small cell size for 5G compared to 4G [5] , it is clear that 5G in not a green technology. Its increased energy consumption will lead to increased emissions and a clear environmental impact.

There are very real concerns for the effect of 5G on wildlife and tree life [11–13], especially bees [14,15]. Simulation and real measurement show that the dimensions of these important insects coupled with the wavelength of the radio waves used by 5G will lead to heightened absorption in the insect body. The result of this will be to raise their body temperatures to a point where their vitality will be compromised. The resulting impact on agriculture cannot be underestimated. Yet it is not a concern for the FCC or industry. This represents an example of how blithely our environmental is viewed by industry. With the backing of the regulator, they dismiss any impact as “not their problem”.
Is 5G safe for the public health?

There is a premise underlying the regulation that governs the level of exposure of the public to electromagnetic radiation emanating from wireless, cellphones and their infrastructure. It is based on a belief that there are only thermal effects to consider, i.e. local and minor heating of the flesh. I choose the word ‘belief’ with care. A belief can ignore the facts that might negate it. The regulations governing the level of exposure to low intensity RF radiation (300 Hz – 3 GHz and soon to be extended to 3 THz [16,17]) are derived from the recommendations of the the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) [18], first established in 1996 and virtually unchanged since. This opinion was adopted as regulation by the FCC in America in 1997 [19] then accepted by the rest of the world. However, a growing body of research negates this premise and demonstrates long term impacts on public health arise from exposure. Industry and regulation, including the FCC, prefer the “belief”.

According to the industry and private sector supported extensive database of relevant literature, provided by the EMF-Portal [20], there is currently an inventory of 31,195 publications and 6,724 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields. A recent research review on the health risks of Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR), involving independent verification based on 5,400 studies in the MedLine database, concludes that “the literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about potential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology” and that extant research “should be viewed as extremely conservative, substantially underestimating the adverse impacts of this new technology” [21].

Not the rosy picture we are being painted by the Cellphone Industry or the Ministry of Communications……


1.PricewaterhouseCoopers. Consumer Intelligence Series: The promise of 5G: Consumers are intrigued, but will they pay? PwC https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/library/consumer-intelligence-series/promise-5g.html.

2.Hype aside, what do people actually think about 5G? GWI https://blog.globalwebindex.com/chart-of-the-week/5g-adoption-and-perception/ (2020).

3.The 5G World: What People Care About. POLITICO https://www.politico.com/news/agenda/2020/02/25/poll-5g-what-do-people-really-want-110831.

4.Fowler, G. A. Review | The 5G lie: The network of the future is still slow. Washington Post.

5. 02.13.17 NTCA Submits 2017 Technical Paper, WC 10-90. NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association https://www.ntca.org/ruraliscool/newsroom/filings/ex-parte/021317-ntca-submits-2017-technical-paper-wc-10-90.

6.O’Donnell, B. Real-World 5G Speeds Are Slower Than Expected. Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobodonnell/2019/11/22/real-world-5g-speeds/.

7.Chinese 5G Not Living Up to Its Hype | Voice of America – English. https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/chinese-5g-not-living-its-hype.

8.Oughton, E., Frias, Z., van der Gaast, S. & Berg, R. Assessing the capacity, coverage and cost of 5G infrastructure strategies: Analysis of The Netherlands. Telematics and Informatics (2019) doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.01.003.

9.Clark 11/3/2020, N. A. R. China aims to drive down 5G power cost. Light Reading https://www.lightreading.com/asia/china-aims-to-drive-down-5g-power-cost/d/d-id/765140.

10.DayDayNews. At this stage 5G technology is immature and high operating costs. https://daydaynews.cc/en/technology/860327.html (2020).

11.Balmori, A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology 16, 191–199 (2009).

12.Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H. & Balmori, A. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Sci. Total Environ. 572, 554–569 (2016).

13.Iyyanki, M., Jayanthi, P., Singh, D., Tumula, S. & Megham, P. Poisson and Logistics Regression Analysis on Electromagnetic Field Radiation: A Case of Environmental Pollution. in 1250–1255 (2020). doi:10.1109/ICCSP48568.2020.9182393.

14. Thielens, A. et al. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Scientific Reports 8, 3924 (2018).

15.Thielens, A., Greco, M. K., Verloock, L., Martens, L. & Joseph, W. Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey Bees. Scientific Reports 10, 461 (2020).

16.FCC Maintains Current RF Exposure Safety Standards. Federal Communications Commission https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-maintains-current-rf-exposure-safety-standards (2019).

17.Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies. FCC-19-126A1 (2019).

18.Wireless Devices and Health Concerns. Federal Communications Commission https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns (2011).

19.Russell, C. L. 5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Environmental Research 165, 484–495 (2018).

20.EMF-Portal | Home. https://www.emf-portal.org/en.

21.Kostoff, R. N., Heroux, P., Aschner, M. & Tsatsakis, A. Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters 323, 35–40 (2020).
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Times of Israel, Paul Ben Ishai, 31 Jan 2021

«First  ‹Previous   Page 3 of 762   Next›  Last»