Government Ignoring Its Own Wireless Radiation Risks Evidence?

Posted by & filed under , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

⚠️ Join: (35,615+ members) … Follow:

Government Ignoring Its Own Wireless Radiation Risks Evidence?

  2. NASA publication (February 1972)Translation of Russian Research, “INFLUENCE OF MICROWAVE RADIATION ON THE ORGANISM OF MAN AND ANIMALS
  3. Defense Intelligence Agency (March 1976)“BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES”, prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency
  6. Department of the Army – “Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons” (February 1998, declassified Dec. 6, 2006), Addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies Worldwide Study -NGIC 1147-101-98 study) provided through FOIA request
  7. Please also see the attached report on 5G biological risks by Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Washington State University (May 2018):

“5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them”

  1. Also see Dr. Martin Pall’s “List of 170 Reviews on Non-thermal Effects of Microwave/Intermediate Frequency EMFs”. These scientific reviews document the non-thermal effects from Radio Frequency Radiation, citing many thousands of studies.
  2. Finally, last year the NIEHS’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a large $30mm animal study on cancer risks from Radio Frequency Radiation, which found the very same cancers, glioma brain tumors and schwannomas (nerve sheath tumors), previously found in human epidemiology studies and in another recent large animal study published last year by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy. Dr. Ron Melnick, the leader of the team that designed the NTP study, said “The assumption has always been that RF radiation could not cause cancer. Now we know that was wrong.” (Microwave News)

It is a fallacy that the only risk from electromagnetic fields are the thermal effects.

The FCC exposure guidelines today are non-protective of existing cell phone and wireless exposures. They do not take into consideration the large body of science documenting non-thermal effects, including the U.S. government’s own science, nor the reality that the biological effects of our many kinds of exposures these days are additive and cumulative. And, the guidelines are certainly also non-protective from the coming higher frequency and higher pulsation (i.e. more biologically disruptive) millimeter exposures planned for antennas using 5G, that the industry plans to densely place throughout our neighborhoods, on every few utility poles, unless the American people stand up for their right to health.
The U.S. government has terribly failed the American people by not acting on the very serious risks its own science has long revealed. And we are at a disgraceful place where industry’s plans for further antenna densification may put our very species at risk.
Thank goodness Senators Richard Blumenthal and Anna Eshoo are now questioning the safety of 5G in Congressional hearings. Thank goodness for their courage and truth-telling.
Others within the U.S. government have warned before. For example,

  • FDA – 1993 – An FDA internal memo admitted microwaves can accelerate cancer. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biologists concluded that the available data **strongly suggest** that microwaves can **accelerate the development of cancer**. This assessment is in an internal agency memo obtained by Microwave News under the Freedom of Information Act.
  • EPA– 2002– EPA Letter to EMR Network affirmed the following:

This letter from the EPA stated, “The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the IEEE and ICNRP, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations. They are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that may result in tissue heating or electric shock or burn”.

  • Department of Interior Letter –2014–to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce. This letter stated:

“ FCC standards for cell phone radiation are outmoded and no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife.” (Feb 2014)
“Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death. Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges- 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States. However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.
It is highly unusual to have one U.S. Department criticizing another.
And also, we’ve known about risk from an industry-commissioned report, The Ecolog Report, published in 2000 (conducted for T-Mobile Deutsche Telecom). This review of the scientific literature showing non-thermal effects cited evidence for the following:

  1. Gene Toxicity
  2. Impacts on Cellular Processes, Communication and Proliferation
  3. Pathological Effects on:

– Immune system

– Central nervous system, including the Blood Brain Barrier, Neurotransmittors, EEG and Cognitive Functions

– Hormone systems—including stress hormones, melatonin

  1. Evidence for association with Cancer and Infertility

Note some of the Ecolog report’s conclusions:
“Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.”
“Impairment of cognitive functions was found in animal experiments at power flux densities of 2W/m2. In humans, there are indications that brain functions are influenced by fields such as they occur when using a mobile telephone.”
“An epidemiological study of children who had been exposed to pulsed high frequency fields, found a decrease in the capability to concentrate and an increase in reaction times.”
“Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on the central nervous system are proven for intensities well below the current guidelines.”
I hope this information is helpful to all.
If anyone would like to add to this list please be in touch.
Download PDF of this Post


The Conscious Resistance

Derrick Broze breaks down a newly published study which examines the health implications of 5g and why past studies have been flawed. Don’t miss this!
Sources: Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions:

Couple highlights from a study about 5G:

• Non-ionizing radiation (radiation from mobile phone antennas and stations) has a wide spectrum of adverse health effects.• The reason many studies are not showing adverse effects of non-ionizing EMF radiation is because the experiments are conducted in a lab setting with a static frequency instead of the real-life harmful pulsing and modulated signal.• Vast majority of experiments do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli with wireless radiation.• 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, but will have adverse systemic effects, such as chronic illnesses, as well.


“URGENT ACTION REQUIRED” There is an open consultation Closing Date June 12th!!

OFcom are proposing Telecoms self certify against ICNIRP guidelines being changed from “best business practice” to a requirement by Law. We need to inform our councillors we do not want this and lobby them to object to the consultation.Please can you email and ask to zoom with your councillors and inform them about this, they may not know about it.Please can you oppose this until the following questions and issues are addressed.I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you by phone or zoom.

  • The ICNIRP guidelines have been ruled in the Turin court case to not adequately incorporate the results from the NTP and Ramazzini studies which show biological harm and cancerous affects. There are 2 cases being brought against the government which will address this issue, (one led by Michael Mansfield QC see ) Therefore, we do not want adherence to ICNIRP set in law.
  • Why is there not an independent audit process of frequencies, power levels ?
  • The proposal requires Telecoms to self certify their compliance, and only to keep records of that compliance. They are not requiring any audit or checking process at the time of turning on the equipment, this is not adequate to ensure public safety.
  • The proposal suggests its the last company on a shared mast to make sure overall emissions from the mast do not exceed the guidelines. The systems by which this is managed are not defined.
  • Who is checking interference patterns in the environment? The consultation does not reveal any commitment to a programme of testing. Do we need an “electrosmog authority” like we have a “rivers authority”?
  • Ofcom receive money for sale of bandwidth and they are responsible for overseeing adherence to ICNIRP guidelines. This is a conflict of interest.

⚠️ #Science2Stop5G 🦜🦋🌳

⚠️ ICNIRP and/or W.H.O. and/or FCC discussed in any Pro #5G video or MSM articles? 🌐 ‼️ Always add these 21 links (in the description box of the video or in comments below it):

⚠️ Join: (35,615+ members) … Follow:

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Leave a Reply

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments