Why exactly is 5G such a concern

The urgency of concern comes from a multitude of angles. 20,000 satellites are authorized to be deployed into the lower and middle atmosphere of Earth, to broadcast the very high radio frequency radiation of 5G. This particular frequency range has not been safety tested for biological and environmental effects, but radio frequency radiation at levels currently used for 4G and 3G networks, cell phones and wifi (which are far lower frequencies than 5G will be), has consistently demonstrated adverse effects on all biological life.

The main purpose of these 20,000 satellites will be to blast radiation into the wild places, the far corners of the earth, which are currently “off-grid” and have the most teeming abundance of wildlife. Their selling point on this is to “increase connectivity in rural areas,” which can be accomplished much more effectively and safely, and with far lower energy consumption, with municipal broadband/fiber optic cables.

The implications of radiating these pristine, currently untouched areas could be devastating to all life on earth.

Another significant danger of filling the Earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere with tens of thousands of new satellites, all transmitting high frequency radiation, is potential effects on the Earth’s entire ecosystem. The Earth, the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere all form what’s called the “global electric circuit,” which is the natural electromagnetic environment we live in. It is well established that the biological rhythms of all life – humans, other mammals, birds, insects, plants and even microbes – rely on the stability of this environment for their health and well-being.

src


WHO ==
World Health Organization
or
World Harm Organization

Throughout society, the wireless telecoms industry is distorting the scientific facts, corrupting governments, harming citizens and violating human rights. What possible justification can WHO have for being a part of this travesty?

Ignoring the scientific facts on EMFs and their bio-effects

When 190 renowned scientists from 39 countries around the world submitted an appeal to WHO in 2015, calling for immediate action to address the scientifically proven dangers of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), you did nothing. You did not reply. You did not even acknowledge receipt. You completely and deliberately ignored the irrefutable science submitted to you by some of the best scientific minds in the world. As if it didn’t happen. As if millions of people around the world were not being harmed by the radiofrequency/microwave radiation that has been known since the early 1920s to cause adverse biological effects—the same radiation that has been used since the 1950s as a military weapon.

src – Setting The Standard For a Wireless World Of Harm by Olga

Industry is not interested in your health. They want the network to work properly.
—Emilie van Deventer


♦ Lester and Moore (1982) This study of 92 active Air Force bases operational between 1950-1969 found that counties with an active base had significantly higher incidences of cancer mortality compared to counties without. The authors hypothesized that the chronic, low intensity microwave exposure to peak pulse patterns characteristic of radar (microwave radiation) at the bases could damage immunity and account for the high cancer mortality in military counties. [34] Numerous other reports of community sickness from radar installations have come to light in the last thirty years. Recent reports include: an epidemic of sickness and mental retardation suffered by people in Taiwan who live close to Doppler weather radar stations [35] and an ongoing investigation of a childhood cancer cluster near eight military-grade radar towers in Herkimer County, New York State. [36] In addition to police, weather and military radar pollution which blankets the US, the upcoming V2V and driverless car/truck systems are slated to additionally smother the population with new and universal systems of ground-level radar pollution. Ask John Krafcik, CEO of Google’s self-driving car division, or Elon Musk of Tesla Motors if they give a hoot!

♦ Kolodynski & Kolodynska (1996) This study found that school children living near a radio location station in Latvia suffered reduced motor function, memory and attention span. [37]

♦ Magras et al. (1997) Researchers reported a decrease in reproductive function of mice exposed to cell tower radiation and irreversible sterility was documented in fifth generation offspring. [38]

♦ Hecht & Balzer (1997) A review of hundreds of Soviet Russian studies documented a vast array of health effects, including insomnia, brainwave aberrations, cardiovascular problems and increased susceptibility to infections in people who lived or worked near RF/microwave antenna transmission sites. [39]

♦ Colorado Department of Health Audits of Lookout Mountain Broadcast Towers near Golden, Colorado: State audits conducted in 1999 and 2004 found a statistically significant brain tumor incidence in populations living closest to and in direct line-of-sight to TV/FM radio towers on Lookout Mountain. Some affected populations were irradiated with broadcast radiation at levels 100 times or more lower than the FCC’s non-ionizing radiation limits. [40]

♦ Santini et al. (2002) 530 people living near mobile phone masts in France reported headaches, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss and concentration problems. These effects were more pronounced the closer people lived to the mast. The researchers concluded that the minimal distance of people from cell tower antennas should not be less than 300 meters. However, this recommended minimal distance pertains only to the antennas affecting people in this particular study and does not necessarily pertain to other antenna installations, which may be more far-reaching due to power density, or more acutely bio-intensive due to various frequencies emitted. [41]

♦ Santini et al. (2003) This was the second part of the above Santini study, and it confirmed results of the 2002 study. It also showed that people irradiated for five years or more suffered significantly increased irritability, compared to those exposed to a shorter duration. Also, older people were documented to be more sensitive to the radiation. Homes that faced antennas, particularly within 100 meters, were documented to be the worst locations for certain debilitating symptoms. [42]

♦ Navarro EA et al. (2003) This study, conducted in Spain, found that the greater the power density of microwaves in the home, the more severe were complaints of depression, fatigue, sleeping disorders, concentration problems, headaches, irritability, memory problems, loss of appetite, nausea, audio and visual dysfunction, dizziness and cardiovascular problems. The researchers concluded: “There is a large and coherent body of evidence of biological mechanisms that support the conclusion of a plausible, logical and causal relationship between RF exposure and neurological disease. Hence, it is probable that cell sites are causing many adverse health effects. Public health surveys of people living in the vicinity of cell site should be being carried out now, and continued progressively over the next two decades. This isbecause prompt effects such as miscarriage, cardiac disruption, sleep disturbance and chronic fatigue could well be early indicators of the adverse health effects.” [43]

♦ Roosli (2004) This Swiss survey study reported that out of 429 questionnaires returned, 394 people reported symptoms from cell tower exposure. Fifty eight percent of these symptomatic people suffered headaches, 19% nervous stress, 18% fatigue, while concentration difficulties were the most common complaint. “Two thirds of complainants had taken some action to reduce their symptoms. The most common measure was to avoid exposure if possible.” [44]

♦ Eger et al. (2004) This study, commissioned by the German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, compiled medical histories between 1994-2004 of people living in Naila, Germany. The study found a threefold increase in malignant tumors for people exposed for five years or more to cell tower antennas within 400 meters, compared to people living further away from the antennas. [45]

♦ Wolf and Wolf (2004) A Tel Aviv University study of 622 people living in Netanya, Israel, revealed an overall four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer among residents living within 350 meters of a mobile phone mast for a time period of between three and seven years. Among women in the 350-meter group, the increase in cancer was 10 times the norm,compared to people living in other areas of the city: “The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell phone transmitter station.” [46]

♦ Bortkiewicz et al. (2004) This Polish study confirmed that residents living close to mobile phone masts reported “various complaints mostly of the circulatory system, but also of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo. The performed studies showed the relationship between the incidence of individual symptoms, the level of exposure, and the distance between a residential area and a base station. This association was observed in both groups of persons, those who linked their complaints with the presence of the base station and those who did not notice such a relation.” [47]

♦ California study (2004) A pilot medical study, conducted by Dr. Gunnar Heuser of Agoura Hills, California, focused on neurological symptoms of six firefighters who had been working for up to five years in stations with cell towers on premises. Their symptoms included: slowed reaction time, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, severe headaches, anesthesia-like sleep, depression, tremors and toxic encephalopathy, involving brain damage to frontal and temporal lobes, as confirmed by SPECT brain scans. In 2004, citing this study, the US and Canadian membership of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) passed a resolution opposing the siting of cell tower antennas on or adjacent to fire stations. [48]

♦ Waldman-Salsam et al. (2004) Medical doctors in Oberfranken, Germany, evaluated the medical complaints of 356 people exposed to cell tower radiation and in-home wireless devices. This irradiated population reported these symptoms: sleep disturbances, tiredness, forgetfulness, nose bleeds, vision and hearing problems, frequent infections, blood pressure abnormalities, hormonal and heart disturbances, nausea and night-time sweats. This information was presented to the German prime minister in a now-famous document known as the Bamberg Appeal, signed by 114 German physicians. [49]

♦ Hutter et al. (2005) 365 people living near 10 different mobile phone masts in both urban and rural areas of Austria were studied. Reported symptoms of antenna radiation included: headache, vertigo, tremors, cold hands and feet, loss of energy, exhaustion, difficulty concentrating, feelings of strain and the urge for sleep. These people were irradiated at levels of 0.2 to 0.4 volts per meter, which is hundreds of times lower than legal US exposure standards of 47 to 61 volts per meter. The higher the voltage exposure, the higher the percentage of health complaints. The researchers concluded: “The results of this study indicate that effects of very low but long lasting exposures to emissions from mobile telephone base stations on well-being and health cannot be ruled out.” [50]

♦ Citizens Initiative Kempton West (2006-2007) Anticipating the installation of a T-Mobile transmitter station in a neighborhood, 25 participating residents living between 15 to 300 meters from the new cell tower volunteered for blood sampling before the antennas were turned on. These volunteers removed all DECT phones and Wi-Fi systems from their homes for the test period. This study was part of a German-wide medical investigation into the effects of cell tower radiation on human health, led by Dr. Hans Scheiner in Munich. The study focused mainly on blood levels of the mood hormone serotonin and the sleep hormone melatonin, both created by the pineal gland. A healthy person creates serotonin by day for alertness and energy, melatonin by night for deep restorative sleep and protection from DNA damage. After the antennas were turned on, follow-up blood tests revealed this:

1. Fifty-six percent of volunteers suffered a fairly steep reduction of night time melatonin and 28 percent showed a more gradual decline, leading to considerable sleep disturbances, daytime exhaustion and immune deficiencies due to sleep deprivation.

2. Eighty-four percent of volunteers suffered a steep decrease in day time serotonin levels, resulting in depressive mood disturbances, lethargy, appetite abnormalities, agitation and general reduction of quality of life.

Signed by three medical doctors this study concluded: “Since the medically conducted tests carried out on residents living in the vicinity of the….mast prove a dramatically increased health risk, immediate action by political and regulatory authorities…are demanded.” [51]

♦ Abdel-Rassoul, et al. (2006) Residents living beneath or adjacent to a long-established mobile phone mast with numerous antennas in Egypt reported significantly higher occurrences of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance than did a control group. [52]

♦ Oberfeld et al. (2008) The Austrian Department of Health uncovered a higher risk of cancer among people living 80-200 meters from a mobile phone antenna tower which operated for a car phone service between 1984 and 1997. The study concluded that the cancer risk increased with the length of exposure, reaching 8.5 times the norm for people most highly exposed. The study reported: “The incidence [of cancer] was particularly pronounced for breast and brain tumors.” [53]

♦ Eger et al. (2009) The Bavarian town of Selbitz conduced a health survey of 251 residents exposed to cell tower radiation at no more than 1 volt per meter. The study found a significant correlation, depending on dose exposure, for: insomnia, depression, cerebral symptoms, joint illnesses, infections, skin changes, heart and circulation disorders, disorders of vision/ hearing and problems of the gastrointestinal tract. [54]

♦ Balmori et al. (2009) Researchers exposed tadpoles of the common frog to cell tower radiation from several antenna installations 140 meters from the study site. Control tadpoles were protected from the radiation by a shielded Faraday cage. The irradiated tadpoles were exposed for two months and suffered low coordination of movements, asynchronous growth (abnormally large and small tadpoles) plus a 90% mortality rate. The non-irradiated controls developed normally and suffered only a 4.2% mortality rate. The report concluded: “This research may have huge implications for the natural world, which is now exposed to high microwave radiation levels from a multitude of phones masts.” [55]

♦ Dode et al. (2011) University and municipality officials cooperated to document a striking connection between cell tower antennas and cancer deaths in Brazil’s third largest city, Belo Horizonte. The study looked at 7191 deaths by cancer in the city between 1996 and 2006. The highest rate of deaths from cancer was found among those who had lived within 500 meters of cell phone antenna towers. The highest rates of cancer were also found in the central-southern area of the city, which had the most cell towers. There were high rates of prostate, breast, lung, kidney and liver cancer among the victims living closest to tower antennas. [56]

♦ Buchner et al. (2011) In this study conducted in Bavaria, Germany, urine samples of 60 study participants were analyzed for their adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine, and phenylethylamine (PEA) levels before and after the activation of a new GSM cell tower. After the activation of the antennas, the stress hormone levels increased significantly during the first six months while dopamine and PEA levels decreased substantially. Even after one and a half years, the initial normal hormone levels were not restored. Sleep problems, headaches, allergies, dizziness, and concentration problems were common. The highest exposure group was only 100 µW/m2, and only 60 µW/m for the lowest exposure group. (These power density readings equate to .1 volts per meter squared to .2 volts per meter squared.) This study indicates that radio frequency transmitters induce radical changes in human stress hormones and set up the classic stress syndrome of adaptation followed by biological exhaustion, as established by Hans Seyle in the 1950s. The researchers stated that the effects of cell tower radiation “showed a dose-response relationship and occurred well below current limits for technical RF radiation exposures. Chronic dysregulation of the catecholamine system has great relevance for health and is well known to damage human health in the long run.” [57]

♦ Yakymenko et al. (2011) A team of Ukrainian scientists titled their overview of cell tower radiation “Long-term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidences from Radars and Mobile CommunicationSystems.”These researchers concluded: “It is now becoming increasingly evident that assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory bodies…requires urgent reevaluation….We also emphasize that the everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on precautionary principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure.” [58]

♦ Christopher Anthony and Daniel Chen (2011) As part of a science curriculum project, these two fourteen-year-olds conducted a survey study at their school in Johannesburg, South Africa, regarding the health effects of a cell tower on their school campus. They additionally enrolled students at two other schools, also with cell towers on those campuses. Students who participated in the questionnaire study reported 21 different symptoms including: skin rash, muscular pains, heart palpitations, extreme fatigue, stomach problems, swollen lymph nodes, tinnitus, allergic reactions and metallic taste in the mouth. Seventy-nine percent of the students who participated reported some of these symptoms, thirty percent reported more than four symptoms, five percent suffered more than 10 symptoms and one percent suffered from up to 14 symptoms on the list. School officials at the boys’ school reportedly initiated proceedings to have the cell tower removed from their particular campus. [59]

♦ Eskander, et al. (2012) This study followed volunteers who were exposed to microwave radiation from either mobile phones or cell tower antennas over a time period of six years. Blood tests were used for assessment. The study showed a significant decrease in volunteers’ ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels. Researchers concluded that “high RFR (radio frequency radiation) significantly affects the pituitary-adrenal axis.” [60]

♦ Hassig et al. (2012) Scientists documented eye abnormalities in calves exposed to cell tower radiation: “We examined and monitored a dairy farm in which a large number of calves were born with nuclear cataracts after a mobile phone base station had been erected in the vicinity of the barn. Calves showed a 3.5 times higher risk for heavy cataract if born there compared to Swiss average. All usual causes such as infection or poisoning common in Switzerland could be excluded.”[61]

♦ Cy et al. (2012) This Taiwanese study focused on childhood neoplasms (tumors) in relation to RF exposure from cell towers erected between 1998 and 2007. Researchers calculated the annual power emitted by all 71,185 cell towers in Taiwan and compared the calculated exposure of populations in each irradiated township: “This study noted a significantly increased risk of all neoplasms [abnormal growths, especially as a characteristic of cancer] in children with higher-than-median RF exposure to MPBS [mobile phone base stations].” [62]

♦ Gomez-Peretta et al. (2013) This study in Spain was a re-analysis of the data collected for the Navarro study (2003). The researchers reported that pathological symptoms reported by irradiated people were validated once again. Exposure levels suffered by study participants were reported at only .2 volts to .6 volts per meter [compared to US maximum public exposure limit of 61 volts per meter]. [63]

♦ Shahbazi et al. (2014) This Iranian study was conducted on 250 randomly-selected people living near cell towers. Statistically significant symptoms included: nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbances, memory loss and lack of libido among people living within 300 meters of the cell tower antennas,compared to those living further away. [64]

♦ Ghandi et al. (2014) This case-control study evaluated genetic damage in individuals living in the vicinity of cell towers. The blood of irradiated subjects showed significantly elevated DNA damage compared to non-irradiated control subjects matched for gender, age and other factors. Especially affected by cell tower DNA damage were females. The researchers warned: “The genetic damage evident in the participants in this study needs to be addressed against future disease-risk, which in addition to neurodegenerative disorders, may lead to cancer.” [65]

♦ Shiniyo et al. (2014) This Japanese study, peer-reviewed by a German medical team, documents the myriad serious health effects suffered by condominium inhabitants living under rooftop antennas in Japan. This study is important because it documents a long list of illnesses suffered by the condo inhabitants during their years of exposure and compares the improved health status of survivors after the antennas were deactivated. The symptoms ascribed to microwave radiation by this study include: numerous and painful neurological dysfunctions, eye damage, severe fatigue and tumors. [66]

♦Adebayo et al. (2014) Nigerian scientists investigated the effects of cell tower radiation on disease-causing bacteria isolated from the environment within range of that radiation. They discovered that various gram negative bacteria showed major effects from the radiation and they confirmed that microwave radiation appears to make certain of these pathogens antibiotic-resistant. [67]

♦ Cammaerts Tricot et al. (2015) Two renowned European scientists conducting this study found that water cress seeds would not germinate in a room infiltrated with cell tower radiation from two antennas about 200 meters outside the windows of the room. Measurements showed that the antennas were propagating 900 megahertz and 1.8 gigahertz directly into the room. The power density of the radiation impacting the seed trays was only .1 volts per meter2. This is a power density hundreds of times lower than that approved for US public exposure to microwave radiation in the gigahertz range. Identical but radiation-protected seed trays in the same room germinated normally: “When removed from theelectromagnetic fields, seeds germinated normally. The radiation was, thus, most likely the cause of the non-occurrence of the seeds’ imbibitation and germination.” [68]

♦ Sultan Ayoub Meo et al. (2015) This study recruited students in Saudi Arabia for blood testing (ages 12 to 17) attending two comparable schools. Students in the school infused with the highest cell tower radiation suffered a higher rate of diabetes than the students less irradiated: “It is concluded that exposure to high RF-EMRF generated by mobile phone base stations is associated with elevated levels of HbA1c and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.” [69]

♦ Waldmann-Selsam (2016) Using mathematical calculations of microwave power flux density, this field-monitoring study examined the effects of cell tower radiation on trees in two German cities: “Statistical analysis demonstrate that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees. These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually starts on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.” [70]

♦ Golati et al. (2016) The objective of this study was to evaluate human genetic damage caused by radiation from mobile tower antennas and to ascertain whether that damage might be dependent upon the aberrant GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes. Scientists studied 116 persons exposed to radiation from mobile towers and 106 control subjects. All were genotyped for polymorphisms in the GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes by the multiplex polymerase chain reaction method. The researchers looked for DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes using alkaline comet assay and micronucleus assay in buccal (mouth tissues) cells. They found no evidence that the two particular genes were involved in promoting that DNA damage among the subjects. But they did find significant DNA damage among cell tower subjects as compared to the non-irradiated control group: The report states: “…There was a significant increase in BMN [micronucleus assay in buccal cells] frequency and TM [tail moment] value in exposed subjects (3.65 ± 2.44 and 6.63 ± 2.32) compared with control subjects (1.23 ± 0.97 and 0.26 ± 0.27)…” [71]

♦ Siersma et al. (2016) As a pilot run for future and larger studies, medical scientists from Denmark and Sweden launched an electronic questionnaire posted to special interest websites. The questionnaire requested feedback on symptoms suffered by people exposed to cell phones, Wi-Fi, occupational radiation, energy-saving light bulbs and cell towers. Of sixty respondents, significant associations were noted for both chronic exposure to Wi-Fi and for cell tower exposure. Symptoms associated with tower antennas included: cognitive, head, eye, body and skin problems. The report noted: “Mobile phone towers seem to be the most problematic of the various EMF exposures.” [72]

♦ Romero-Ortega et al. (2016) University of Texas researchers confirmed that amputees exposed to cell tower radiation, at a power density equivalent to that encountered at a distance of about 39 meters from the average local antenna site, may be induced by that radiation to suffer abnormal sensations and neuropathic pain in peripheral nerve bundles that form after the nerve injury of amputation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are nearly two million amputees in the United States and many of them suffer from chronic pain. [73]

♦ Zothansiama et al. (2017) This study, conducted in India by a government-sponsored university, evaluated DNA damage and antioxidant status of people living in the vicinity of cell towers (within 80 meters compared to healthy controls who lived further away from microwave antennas. The blood of cell tower victims showed significant DNA damage, and they suffered notable deficits in serum antioxidants (cancer fighting substances) compared to the less-irradiated control group. [74]

♦ Falcioni et al. (2018) The Ramazzini Institute in Italy published results of its large study in which animals were abused with exposure to 1.8 gigahertz representative of cell tower antenna emissions. This study reports a significant number of schwann cell malignancies (schwannomas) in exposed animals, compared to controls and therefore it strongly supports the findings of the federal NTP studies (USA 2016). Schwann cells are found in most organs of the body, both human and animal. Schwann cells play a key role in the nervous system where they form the myelin sheath and help conduct electrical impulses. The researchers who completed this study are among the many experts demanding that IARC update its radiofrequency designation commensurate with the documented potential of microwaves to induce and accelerate cancer in animals and humans: “The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users. These experimental studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans.” [75]

♦ Meo et al (2018) A team of scientists in Saudi Arabia reported in the American Journal of Men’s Health a study of two hundred seventeen male students ages 13-16 registered at two different schools, both located within 200 meters of cell tower antennas. One school area was imbued with about 2 volts of microwave radiation per meter and the other school with approximately 6 volts per meter. Students were exposed to their towers 6 hours a day, five days a week over a period of two years. The students in both schools were ultimately evaluated for cognitive functioning. The study reported that students in the school with the higher exposure showed a “decrease in fine and gross motor skills [essential to activities of everyday life] and spatial working memory and attention in school adolescents compared to students who had been exposed to low[er] RF-EMF…..It is believed that nothing should be compromised over health. MPBSTs [mobile phone base station towers] must be installed away from thickly populated residential zones particularly in or near the school buildings or there must be some system to shield human beings from RF-EMFR.” [76]

src – Antenna Sickness Is Everywhere Now

By: |02/09/2019|categories: /