Independence Day 5G ICNIRP – Flying blind, without brakes? No guardrails? No seat belts? No health codes? No audit? No environmental research?

Reprinted with permission from Articles Dariusz Liszynski, Ph.D., DSC from Finland: 5G Spread: It’s like being in the middle of a forest fire, and the firefighter asks: Do we need any water?

Written by Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., DSC, with Patricia Burke

Wireless communications have been around for several decades already. Radiant base stations are scattered throughout the environment where humans and radio communication users reside.

The International Committee on the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation, the self-declarator of what is safe and what is not, has declared non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted from synthetic devices safe when adhering to the safety guidelines of the International Committee on the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation.

However, not everyone is satisfied with the safety declarations of the International Committee on the Protection of Non-Ionizing Radiation.

Until now, the greatest interest has been how this radiation affects human health. ICNIRP says no at all. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer says it may cause cancer. The industry listens to ICNIRP, because it is convenient, and downplays IARC because it is inconvenient.

Now, that the development of wireless communication will enter a new era of 5The tenth The generation of wireless communication technology, 5G, there is a growing interest in how the radiation emitted from 5G affects other living forms, anything that is not human. And there are a lot of them and… human life depends on what happens to non-human living forms.

So, now we come to the proverbial bushfire and the question of the need for water… We didn’t get water but… Four (4) options… (Enter here a wave of sarcastic laughter).

In June 2021, under the auspices of the European Parliament Committee on the Future of Science and Technology, a scientific review was published on:

Environmental effects of 5G technology: a literature review of the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure for vertebrates, invertebrates, and non-human plants.

… authored Arno TelensUniversity of Ghent, Belgium, and Peer review by Martin Vaca, Masaryk University, Czech Republic and Alan VianUniversity of Angers, Bocuse, France.

For those hasty readers, the review has nothing to do with the impact on human health. It’s all about vertebrates, invertebrates, fungi, and non-human plants. All of these life forms are already exposed to varying degrees of radiation from base stations. However, 5G will significantly increase the density of scattered base stations and radiation exposure to these live forms will become more widespread.


Do we know what is really happening and what will happen?

The simple and straight answer is the big answer No. we do Not I know. As can be seen from the above report, research is scarce and incomplete and we don’t even know the basics to make any predictions. Here is the quote from the conclusions, which shows that we know nothing:

  • Dielectric heating due to exposure to electromagnetic frequencies appears in all classes studied.
  • In the low frequency range (0.45-6 GHz), the majority of the current literature focuses on vertebrates, for which a series of potential effects are being studied. Those studies investigating exposure of invertebrates in the low frequency range to RF electromagnetic frequencies focus on dielectric heating, and developmental, genetic or behavioral influences. The literature on non-insect invertebrates is very limited. Studies of plant exposure in the low frequency band, targeting plant-wide exposure outcomes, show empirical shortcomings. The number of studies in this category is limited compared to those that focus on animals.
  • In the higher frequency range (6-300 GHz), the number of peer-reviewed publications is generally less than in the lower bandwidth. For vertebrates, a series of potential exposure outcomes have been studied, while the literature on invertebrates and plants above 6 GHz is very limited. More research is necessary in this area.”

We, the peoples of the European Union, have four options going forward, and here is the quote:

  • Given the results of this review, four policy options have been formulated.
  • First Policy ChoiceFunding can be for research on the exposure of plants, fungi and invertebrates to frequencies below 6 GHz and for research on non-human vertebrates, plants, fungi and invertebrates at frequencies between 6 and 300 GHz. These studies could form the basis for evidence-based policies regarding EMF-EMF exposure to non-human beings.
  • The second policy optionA call might be for the systematic monitoring of environmental RF-EMFs, as they are the main source of exposure to non-human organisms and this exposure is expected to change over time.
  • A third policy optionIt can be a request to declare information on the operational aspects of radio-electromagnetic frequencies of telecommunication networks. This is again intended to quantify the RF-EMF environmental exposure over time.
  • Fourth policy optionCompliance studies of organisms other than humans may be required when installing base station antennas in a communications network. This would prevent RF-EMF overexposure to non-human beings near these antennas.

Now we need to start the research… which we know will take several years, meanwhile enthusiastic carriers and governments will actually roll out 5G? Where have governments and the European Union been all along when 5G was being developed for deployment and… the European Union, every government, every telecom company”Shouted“Which we know enough that the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection has said so… And anyone who questions the Committee’s views has been vilified and ostracized?

Now is the EU waking up from the pink sleep and boundless confidence in the self-proclaimed and unmonitored by any NGO called ICNIRP?

An eerie moment of silence is needed to understand the conclusions and policy choices we have been given…

Let me be frank, in the midst of 5G deployment, when technology is being rushed into the living environment on the planet, when the telecom industry forces governments to get regulations that will facilitate 5G deployment, we suddenly realize (?) that we don’t know anything about the impact of 5G on Planet life.

If a fire breaks out, we have no idea how to put it out. That we fly blind and hope (!) not to hit anything.

Am I exaggerating or is there an aura of madness in the air? – Dariush Leszczynski

In terms of safety, we are flying blind, as Dariush points out

US Senator Blumenthal raises concerns about health risks of 5G wireless technology at Senate hearing

As I mentioned before Environmental Health FundAnd the

During an exchange with representatives of the wireless industry, Senator Blumenthal asked them if they had supported research on 5G security and potential links between radiofrequency and cancer, and industry representatives acknowledged that they had not.

“If you go to the FDA’s website, there’s basically a quick, shallow quote of the current scientific data saying, ‘The FDA has urged the mobile phone industry to take a number of steps, including supporting additional research on the potential biological effects of radiofrequency fields for a type of cell phone. Signals from cell phones. “I think Americans deserve to know about the health effects, not prejudge what scientific studies might show, and they also deserve an obligation to do research on the outstanding questions,” Blumenthal said. “So my question to you: How much money has the industry committed to supporting additional independent research – I stress – independent research? Is this independent research ongoing? Has any of it been completed? Where can consumers look for it? We are talking about researching the biological effects of this technology new”.

At the end of the exchange, Blumenthal concluded, “So there is no ongoing research. We are kind of flying around here blindly, in terms of health and safety.”

The industry is behaving like a “mafia” or an independent science, so what should we listen to?

Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., DSC is “a scientist with a keen interest in molecular biology research education: DSc Molecular Biology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland (1983); Ph.D. in Biochemistry/Cell Biology, University of Helsinki, Finland (1990); Lecturer in Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland (1992)

Dariusz Leszczynski has a PhD in Radio and Children اللاسلكي

Lecture 2/2017, Association of Parents of Preschool Children in Reykjavik, Icelandic: Association of Parents of Preschool Children in Reykjavik

Watch additional videos of Dariush Here.

Some additional ICNIRP articles by Dariusz here:

See also: Dutch health board Hardell L. and assessment of fifth generation, 5G, wireless communications and cancer risk. World J Clin Oncol 2021; 12 (6): 393-403 [PMID: 34189065 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v12.i6.393]

See also:

You can read the rest of the ‘Independence Day 5G’ series Here

Patricia Burke works with activists across the country and advocates internationally for new biologically based limits on microwave radiofrequency exposure. It is based in Massachusetts and can be accessed at [email protected].

What do you think?

Written by Joseph

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Review: Vizio M-Series 4K’s New Smart TV and Soundbar

Fiona Falkiner reveals that she can’t wear her jeans