Doctors call for delaying deployment of 5G due to health risks.

[Guest [ba...]]

Mon Pilote made those comments nearly a year ago.  Let the thread die, please.

[[RS...]]

We should, because the engineering community is already working on 6G!  This will involve even higher frequencies than mmWave.  Think short distance communications between smart devices in the same room, cooperative robot operations, etc.

 

5G is old news now!

 

 

[[Go...]]

This could be very serious for us.

 

re: Frank Clegg Former President of Microsoft Canada: “It’s not been made clear to the public that 5G won’t just be another number and a letter on your cell phone. It requires an entirely new infrastructure of thousands of small cellular antennas to be erected throughout the cities where it’s going to be installed.”

 

What would 5G infrastructure look like? Small cell antennas could be placed as close as every 3rd hydro pole.

 

Scientists from 42 countries are now warning their governments about the emerging health problems associated with wireless radiation, and Canadian doctors and scientists have added their voices.

 

 

^^^^^ ... Luckily for everyone, it’s going to be about as serious as their kitchen’s microwave oven.

 

All is well... 😊

[[Co...]]

This could be very serious for us.

 

re: Frank Clegg Former President of Microsoft Canada: “It’s not been made clear to the public that 5G won’t just be another number and a letter on your cell phone. It requires an entirely new infrastructure of thousands of small cellular antennas to be erected throughout the cities where it’s going to be installed.”

 

What would 5G infrastructure look like? Small cell antennas could be placed as close as every 3rd hydro pole.

 

Scientists from 42 countries are now warning their governments about the emerging health problems associated with wireless radiation, and Canadian doctors and scientists have added their voices.

 

 

^^^^^ ... Luckily for everyone, it’s going to be about as serious as their kitchen’s microwave oven.

 

All is well... 😊

 

The post you quoted is from a year ago. But, yes, I think we have found something upon which we are in total agreement there.

[[Go...]]

And just to clarify/correct something else that was mentioned earlier in this thread...

 

5G WiFi routers at home are not the same as 5G Telecoms Transmission equipment.

 

 

With regards to WiFi routers at home, the 5G part refers to the frequency of transmission which is five gigahertz or abbreviated to 5Ghz.

 

With regards to 5G Telecoms Transmission equipment, the 5G part is simply an abbreviation for ‘Fifth Generation’ design... and it operates on a much higher bandwidth between around about 28Ghz and 39Ghz.

 

One is a just an abbreviated name, the other is an abbreviated frequency figure.

 

The two often get confused with each other.

 

 

Hope this helps... 😊

[[Go...]]

This could be very serious for us.

 

re: Frank Clegg Former President of Microsoft Canada: “It’s not been made clear to the public that 5G won’t just be another number and a letter on your cell phone. It requires an entirely new infrastructure of thousands of small cellular antennas to be erected throughout the cities where it’s going to be installed.”

 

What would 5G infrastructure look like? Small cell antennas could be placed as close as every 3rd hydro pole.

 

Scientists from 42 countries are now warning their governments about the emerging health problems associated with wireless radiation, and Canadian doctors and scientists have added their voices.

 

 

^^^^^ ... Luckily for everyone, it’s going to be about as serious as their kitchen’s microwave oven.

 

All is well... 😊

 

The post you quoted is from a year ago. But, yes, I think we have found something upon which we are in total agreement there.

 

I know... just catching up though... 😉

[[Co...]]

And just to clarify/correct something else that was mentioned earlier in this thread...

 

5G WiFi routers at home are not the same as 5G Telecoms Transmission equipment.

 

 

With regards to WiFi routers at home, the 5G part refers to the frequency of transmission which is five gigahertz or abbreviated to 5Ghz.

 

With regards to 5G Telecoms Transmission equipment, the 5G part is simply an abbreviation for ‘Fifth Generation’ design... and it operates on a much higher bandwidth between around about 28Ghz and 39Ghz.

 

One is a just an abbreviated name, the other is an abbreviated frequency figure.

 

The two often get confused with each other.

 

 

Hope this helps... 😊

 

Yep. There is quite a lot of overlap in the frequencies but they are not the same. I think 5G and 5Ghz causes some confusion. But, as you indicated, 5G does not refer to 5Ghz. Rather, it is the abbreviation for 5th Generation.

[[mo...]]

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0yLfN8PJTGWa1jP2qcFInlBi07SKxtrE5W-C8CR1_f2cc8AGiuGrkSabI

 

Just ran across this today, it’s an article from the Scientific American.

 

 

[[Co...]]

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0yLfN8PJTGWa1jP2qcFInlBi07SKxtrE5W-C8CR1_f2cc8AGiuGrkSabI

 

Just ran across this today, it’s an article from the Scientific American.

 

Not an article. Just a blog opinion piece.

 

But if we are going down that route: conversely, and more convincingly:

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/

 

One of the authors is a physician; the other, a cancer researcher and physicist. Take your pick as to who might be the better authority on the claims of risks of (brain) cancer associated with exposure 5G non-ionizing radiation.

[[Fi...]]

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0yLfN8PJTGWa1jP2qcFInlBi07SKxtrE5W-C8CR1_f2cc8AGiuGrkSabI

 

Just ran across this today, it’s an article from the Scientific American.

 

Not an article. Just a blog opinion piece.

 

But if we are going down that route: conversely, and more convincingly:

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/

 

One of the authors is a physician; the other, a cancer researcher and physicist. Take your pick as to who might be the better authority on the claims of risks of (brain) cancer associated with exposure 5G non-ionizing radiation.

 

I believe if one searches deeper into the potential effects of pulsed microwaves and traumatic brain injury (TBI), one will learn that there may be a causal relationship between pulsed microwaves (WIFI) and TBI:

 

"Abstract

 

When considering safety standards for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and microwave energy, the dominant concerns pertain to a thermal effect. However, in the case of high-power pulsed RF/microwave energy, a rapid thermal expansion can lead to stress waves within the body. In this study, a computational model is used to estimate the temperature profile in the human brain resulting from exposure to various RF/microwave incident field parameters. The temperatures are subsequently used to simulate the resulting mechanical response of the brain. Our simulations show that, for certain extremely high-power microwave exposures (permissible by current safety standards), very high stresses may occur within the brain that may have implications for neuropathological effects. Although the required power densities are orders of magnitude larger than most real-world exposure conditions, they can be achieved with devices meant to emit high-power electromagnetic pulses in military and research applications.

.

.

While the peak power densities used within this simulation study are large, they are achievable with known microwave hardware. For example, to produce a power density of 1 × 106 mW/cm2 at 25 m away from a 40-dBi antenna, a microwave source would require approximately 8 MW of power per pulse. This is within the capabilities of some commercial and military systems, and we therefore consider this as a relevant approximation for the simulations here. However, we also consider some more extreme conditions in the final analysis summary for scaling purposes against known mechanical TBI thresholds."

 

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abd8405

 

"Pulsed Microwave Energy Transduction of Acoustic Phonon Related Brain Injury" (The Havana Syndrome)

 

https://internal-journal.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.00753/full

 

".

.

.

We here have presented physical theory, injury hypotheses and biological findings related to microwave brain damage. These injuries can be explored by exposure of animal models to varying microwave exposure times, power, frequencies, and pulses including magnitude and frequency as compared to controls. Subsequent neurobehavioral testing followed by comprehensive examination of brain tissues including TEM will be needed to uncover ultrastructural damage. Parameters of microwave power thresholds, frequency, duration and pulse characteristics causing specific types of brain injury require varying types of experimental exposures. An initial starting point of 7 kHz repetition rate using 50 μs pulses, the individual pulse power at a murine target of ~1 Wcm−2/duty cycle = ~3 Wcm−2 is suggested. Microwave skull interactions require exploration using pulsed microwave exposure of diploic skull bone or piezoelectric bone surrogates in vitro adjacent to 0.9% isotonic saline. High frequency transducers attached to bone and in adjacent water can be used detect high frequency transduced acoustic waves. Thermoelastic phonon generation mechanism in normal saline solution alone could also be explored using direct microwave exposure to study basic aspects in vitro phonon generation in water. Data thus obtained in vitro can be used to guide initial specific parameters of power, wavelength and pulse frequency likely to cause in vivo microwave brain injury."

 

 

[[Sk...]]

Great. I was hoping there would be one more thing to worry about. 

 

:laugh:

[[Co...]]

I believe if one searches deeper into the potential effects of pulsed microwaves and traumatic brain injury (TBI), one will learn that there may be a causal relationship between pulsed microwaves (WIFI) and TBI:

 

"Abstract

 

When considering safety standards for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and microwave energy, the dominant concerns pertain to a thermal effect. However, in the case of high-power pulsed RF/microwave energy, a rapid thermal expansion can lead to stress waves within the body. In this study, a computational model is used to estimate the temperature profile in the human brain resulting from exposure to various RF/microwave incident field parameters. The temperatures are subsequently used to simulate the resulting mechanical response of the brain. Our simulations show that, for certain extremely high-power microwave exposures (permissible by current safety standards), very high stresses may occur within the brain that may have implications for neuropathological effects. Although the required power densities are orders of magnitude larger than most real-world exposure conditions, they can be achieved with devices meant to emit high-power electromagnetic pulses in military and research applications.

.

.

While the peak power densities used within this simulation study are large, they are achievable with known microwave hardware. For example, to produce a power density of 1 × 106 mW/cm2 at 25 m away from a 40-dBi antenna, a microwave source would require approximately 8 MW of power per pulse. This is within the capabilities of some commercial and military systems, and we therefore consider this as a relevant approximation for the simulations here. However, we also consider some more extreme conditions in the final analysis summary for scaling purposes against known mechanical TBI thresholds."

 

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abd8405

 

Sounds scary. But I guess that's the point of your post. Except, the article models the effects (and details a possible mechanism) for various ill-effects from large microwave sources. Such (unusual) sources are unrelated to 5G. From the same article:

 

Note that the proposed HPM power densities in this study are extremely large and several orders of magnitude larger than power densities typically experienced by the public. As an illustrative example, at around 200 feet from a cell phone base station, a person will be exposed to a power density of only 0.001 mW/cm2 or less (36). This study establishes a testable hypothesis between potential neurocognitive effects and the thermoelastic mechanism from HPM systems. To date, however, adverse effects from HPM systems have not been established in the scientific literature.

 

You will note that the power density (capable of ill-effects) they describe in the article are in the range of 10⁶ mW/cm2 to 10⁷ mW/cm2. That's 1 to 10 billion times the cell phone base station exposure described above.

[[Fi...]]

I believe if one searches deeper into the potential effects of pulsed microwaves and traumatic brain injury (TBI), one will learn that there may be a causal relationship between pulsed microwaves (WIFI) and TBI:

 

"Abstract

 

When considering safety standards for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) and microwave energy, the dominant concerns pertain to a thermal effect. However, in the case of high-power pulsed RF/microwave energy, a rapid thermal expansion can lead to stress waves within the body. In this study, a computational model is used to estimate the temperature profile in the human brain resulting from exposure to various RF/microwave incident field parameters. The temperatures are subsequently used to simulate the resulting mechanical response of the brain. Our simulations show that, for certain extremely high-power microwave exposures (permissible by current safety standards), very high stresses may occur within the brain that may have implications for neuropathological effects. Although the required power densities are orders of magnitude larger than most real-world exposure conditions, they can be achieved with devices meant to emit high-power electromagnetic pulses in military and research applications.

.

.

While the peak power densities used within this simulation study are large, they are achievable with known microwave hardware. For example, to produce a power density of 1 × 106 mW/cm2 at 25 m away from a 40-dBi antenna, a microwave source would require approximately 8 MW of power per pulse. This is within the capabilities of some commercial and military systems, and we therefore consider this as a relevant approximation for the simulations here. However, we also consider some more extreme conditions in the final analysis summary for scaling purposes against known mechanical TBI thresholds."

 

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abd8405

 

Sounds scary. But I guess that's the point of your post. Except, the article models the effects (and details a possible mechanism) for various ill-effects from large microwave sources. Such (unusual) sources are unrelated to 5G. From the same article:

 

Note that the proposed HPM power densities in this study are extremely large and several orders of magnitude larger than power densities typically experienced by the public. As an illustrative example, at around 200 feet from a cell phone base station, a person will be exposed to a power density of only 0.001 mW/cm2 or less (36). This study establishes a testable hypothesis between potential neurocognitive effects and the thermoelastic mechanism from HPM systems. To date, however, adverse effects from HPM systems have not been established in the scientific literature.

 

You will note that the power density (capable of ill-effects) they describe in the article are in the range of 10⁶ mW/cm2 to 10⁷ mW/cm2. That's 1 to 10 billion times the cell phone base station exposure described above.

 

You are wrong about one thing Colin: the point of my post is not to present scary information regarding pulsed microwaves but rather to emphasize, as stated in the article; "To date, however, adverse effects from HPM systems have not been established in the scientific literature." I will will also add that adverse effects from prolonged use (often continuous use by many of us) of lower powered pulsed microwaves such as those emitted from many devices like handheld cell phones have not been established in the scientific literature either. 

[[mo...]]

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0yLfN8PJTGWa1jP2qcFInlBi07SKxtrE5W-C8CR1_f2cc8AGiuGrkSabI

 

Just ran across this today, it’s an article from the Scientific American.

 

Not an article. Just a blog opinion piece.

 

But if we are going down that route: conversely, and more convincingly:

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/

 

One of the authors is a physician; the other, a cancer researcher and physicist. Take your pick as to who might be the better authority on the claims of risks of (brain) cancer associated with exposure 5G non-ionizing radiation.

 

No, the author isn’t just a journalist… but ok it’s more like a ‘news’ article or a ‘blog piece’ in that in and of itself it is not an scientific article.

 

I’ll look at your link at some point God willing.

 

Experts Blast David Robert Grimes for His Failure to Understand Science and Love of Self-Citation

 

While claiming to debunk conspiracies and speak for science, Grimes ignores published research and channels corporate PR.

 

]https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/experts-blast-david-robert-grimes?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0NDA3NTA1NywicG9zdF9pZCI6NDcyNDc1NDIsIl8iOiJSOXAxeCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MjUzMTU3NiwiZXhwIjoxNjQyNTM1MTc2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjY0Mjk5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.hZJ3M3BiJ7u8R6dOulHwreIBHcLg8i3do-dzgEf_eX8]

 

Interesting too that there have been successful moves to halt 5G around airports because of it’s signals potentially throwing off the altimeters of planes.

 

I am using a power switch timer to shut my modem off at night, was about to link to a good inexpensive one that is working but can’t open Amazon app right now on phone because of this reason.

[[Co...]]

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0yLfN8PJTGWa1jP2qcFInlBi07SKxtrE5W-C8CR1_f2cc8AGiuGrkSabI

 

Just ran across this today, it’s an article from the Scientific American.

 

Not an article. Just a blog opinion piece.

 

But if we are going down that route: conversely, and more convincingly:

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/

 

One of the authors is a physician; the other, a cancer researcher and physicist. Take your pick as to who might be the better authority on the claims of risks of (brain) cancer associated with exposure 5G non-ionizing radiation.

 

No, the author isn’t just a journalist… but ok it’s more like a ‘news’ article or a ‘blog piece’ in that in and of itself it is not an scientific article.

 

I’ll look at your link at some point God willing.

 

Experts Blast David Robert Grimes for His Failure to Understand Science and Love of Self-Citation

 

While claiming to debunk conspiracies and speak for science, Grimes ignores published research and channels corporate PR.

 

]https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/experts-blast-david-robert-grimes?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0NDA3NTA1NywicG9zdF9pZCI6NDcyNDc1NDIsIl8iOiJSOXAxeCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MjUzMTU3NiwiZXhwIjoxNjQyNTM1MTc2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjY0Mjk5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.hZJ3M3BiJ7u8R6dOulHwreIBHcLg8i3do-dzgEf_eX8]

 

Hatchet-job nonsense. There is nothing inherently unethical about self-citation if it is relevant to the paper. Since Grimes does not claim irrelevancy, I think it fair to assume that the citations were indeed relevant.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_self-citation_against_the_research_ethics

 

Interesting too that there have been successful moves to halt 5G around airports because of it’s signals potentially throwing off the altimeters of planes.

 

I am using a power switch timer to shut my modem off at night, was about to link to a good inexpensive one that is working but can’t open Amazon app right now on phone because of this reason.

 

And yet, 5G has already been rolled out next to airports in many parts of the world, and with no reported problems. Irrespective, I note that your new 'concern' has nothing to do with the original 'concern'. It is an example of agenda-driven attempts to further muddy the waters with irrelevant claims. The question: is 5G harmful to our health? As it stands, there is no convincing data to support such a claim.

[[Fi...]]

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0yLfN8PJTGWa1jP2qcFInlBi07SKxtrE5W-C8CR1_f2cc8AGiuGrkSabI

 

Just ran across this today, it’s an article from the Scientific American.

 

Not an article. Just a blog opinion piece.

 

But if we are going down that route: conversely, and more convincingly:

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/

 

One of the authors is a physician; the other, a cancer researcher and physicist. Take your pick as to who might be the better authority on the claims of risks of (brain) cancer associated with exposure 5G non-ionizing radiation.

 

No, the author isn’t just a journalist… but ok it’s more like a ‘news’ article or a ‘blog piece’ in that in and of itself it is not an scientific article.

 

I’ll look at your link at some point God willing.

 

Experts Blast David Robert Grimes for His Failure to Understand Science and Love of Self-Citation

 

While claiming to debunk conspiracies and speak for science, Grimes ignores published research and channels corporate PR.

 

]https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/experts-blast-david-robert-grimes?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0NDA3NTA1NywicG9zdF9pZCI6NDcyNDc1NDIsIl8iOiJSOXAxeCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MjUzMTU3NiwiZXhwIjoxNjQyNTM1MTc2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjY0Mjk5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.hZJ3M3BiJ7u8R6dOulHwreIBHcLg8i3do-dzgEf_eX8]

 

Hatchet-job nonsense. There is nothing inherently unethical about self-citation if it is relevant to the paper. Since Grimes does not claim irrelevancy, I think it fair to assume that the citations were indeed relevant.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_self-citation_against_the_research_ethics

 

Interesting too that there have been successful moves to halt 5G around airports because of it’s signals potentially throwing off the altimeters of planes.

 

I am using a power switch timer to shut my modem off at night, was about to link to a good inexpensive one that is working but can’t open Amazon app right now on phone because of this reason.

 

And yet, 5G has already been rolled out next to airports in many parts of the world, and with no reported problems. Irrespective, I note that your new 'concern' has nothing to do with the original 'concern'. It is an example of agenda-driven attempts to further muddy the waters with irrelevant claims. The question: is 5G harmful to our health? As it stands, there is no convincing data to support such a claim.

 

Wasn't the bolded statement used similarly when Chlordiazepoxide (Librium) and Diazepam (Valium) were initially marketed with great success?

[[Co...]]

And yet, 5G has already been rolled out next to airports in many parts of the world, and with no reported problems. Irrespective, I note that your new 'concern' has nothing to do with the original 'concern'. It is an example of agenda-driven attempts to further muddy the waters with irrelevant claims. The question: is 5G harmful to our health? As it stands, there is no convincing data to support such a claim.

 

Wasn't the bolded statement used similarly when Chlordiazepoxide (Librium) and Diazepam (Valium) were initially marketed with great success?

 

I think you will find that the amount of research around 5G in particular, and electromagnetic (ionizing) radiation in general, is completely off the scale compared to the research available about benzpdiazpines up to now, let alone many decades ago when they were "initially" made available. So, you are not comparing like with like. Besides, I think the kind of comparison you make there falls into one of these logical fallacies: argument from ignorance; a red herring; or tu quoque. Or, two of them, or maybe even all three. Maybe a member more steeped in the philosophy of logic would care to comment on this.

[[Fi...]]

And yet, 5G has already been rolled out next to airports in many parts of the world, and with no reported problems. Irrespective, I note that your new 'concern' has nothing to do with the original 'concern'. It is an example of agenda-driven attempts to further muddy the waters with irrelevant claims. The question: is 5G harmful to our health? As it stands, there is no convincing data to support such a claim.

 

Wasn't the bolded statement used similarly when Chlordiazepoxide (Librium) and Diazepam (Valium) were initially marketed with great success?

 

I think you will find that the amount of research around 5G in particular, and electromagnetic (ionizing) radiation in general, is completely off the scale compared to the research available about benzpdiazpines up to now, let alone many decades ago when they were "initially" made available. So, you are not comparing like with like. Besides, I think the kind of comparison you make there falls into one of these logical fallacies: argument from ignorance; a red herring; or tu quoque. Or, two of them, or maybe even all three. Maybe a member more steeped in the philosophy of logic would care to comment on this.

 

"Will 5G Be Bad for Our Health?

IEEE antenna and telecommunications experts address concerns over radio frequency exposure"

 

https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health

 

From the above article & an organization which supports rapid deployment of 5G technology for telecommunications:

 

Waterhouse admits that although millimeter waves have been used for many different applications—including astronomy and military applications—the effect of their use in telecommunications is not well understood. Waterhouse says it's up to regulatory bodies overseeing the telecommunication companies to ensure the safety of 5G. The general perception is that millimeter waves are safe but should still be monitored, he says.

“The majority of the scientific community does not think there's an issue," Waterhouse says. “However, it would be unscientific to flat out say there are no reasons to worry."

 

Personally, the deployment of this technology for mass public use doesn't worry me because it wouldn't do me any good to do so. In other words, it's already a done deal and I'm fairly certain most people will enjoy having ever increasing data transmission speeds for their IoT's.

 

Like most other things, there will be potential benefits, potential risks and potential misuses of 5G's use of millimeter waves. Unlike Waterhouse, personally I don't have a lot of confidence in regulatory bodies, which are often simply used as tools by others, in overseeing the safety of things which are used to advance their own personal profit motivated or other agendas.

 

 

[[do...]]

 

Like most other things, there will be potential benefits, potential risks and potential misuses of 5G's use of millimeter waves. Unlike Waterhouse, personally I don't have a lot of confidence in regulatory bodies, which are often simply used as tools by others, in overseeing the safety of things which are used to advance their own personal profit motivated or other agendas.

 

I was reading an article about how this new 5G is causing major flight cancellations bc the airlines can’t guarantee flight safety with these new 5G towers disrupting signals etc. Someone commented “figure it out bc I’m flying to Cancun in August”

 

And I just had to laugh LOL. 

 

More pertinent info on the subject (for whatever is worth):

https://theprint.in/tech/why-airline-passengers-safety-is-at-risk-when-5g-towers-are-placed-around-airports/807524/

[[mo...]]

This is part of the article I posted to you Colin, maybe others here should be able to read in full and make up their own minds on whether it is “hatchet-job nonsense.”

 

…

 

“Researchers with decades of experience in toxicology and epidemiology are crying foul and calling for retraction of a recent essay in JAMA Oncology written by Grimes, in which the assistant professor of biomedical physics at Dublin City University ignored and dismissed much of the peer reviewed literature and government findings that point to dangers from radiofrequency radiation—scientific evidence that the telecom, IT and power industries find uncomfortable.”

 

https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/experts-blast-david-robert-grimes?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0NDA3NTA1NywicG9zdF9pZCI6NDcyNDc1NDIsIl8iOiJSOXAxeCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MjUzMTU3NiwiZXhwIjoxNjQyNTM1MTc2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjY0Mjk5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.hZJ3M3BiJ7u8R6dOulHwreIBHcLg8i3do-dzgEf_eX8

 

When is scientific “debunking” really just a way to dismiss pesky scientists whose findings trouble corporate interests? For physicist David Robert Grimes, it seems quite often.

 

Researchers with decades of experience in toxicology and epidemiology are crying foul and calling for retraction of a recent essay in JAMA Oncology written by Grimes, in which the assistant professor of biomedical physics at Dublin City University ignored and dismissed much of the peer reviewed literature and government findings that point to dangers from radiofrequency radiation—scientific evidence that the telecom, IT and power industries find uncomfortable. In what has emerged as Grimes’s preferred technique to belittle those he disagrees with, he also heaped scorn on contrary scientific evidence as “fringe science” while exaggerating the importance of his own opinions on “misconceptions and conspiracy theories.”

 

Such rhetoric has been all too common in recent years, and comes from a small community of self-styled experts on “conspiracy theories” whose “debunking” just happens to favor corporate interests. In the past, Grimes also promoted a narrative favored by Monsanto that argued against the science evidence on harm caused by the pesticide glyphosate.

 

“I’m surprised a journal published this,” said Ron Melnick, who continues to teach physicians about the dangers of radiofrequency radiation, after spending almost three decades at the National Toxicology Program. “It’s not a review. It’s an op-ed. To be less generous, it’s an advertisement.”

 

In truth, David Robert Grimes did an advertisement for Vodafone in 2020, where he downplayed any ill health effects from 5G. But in a recent review of the scientific literature, researchers found “no human experimental studies” on 5G and urged research in this area.

 

In a lengthy email, Chris Portier ticked off several faults in Grimes’ analysis. Now mostly retired, Portier spent over three decades at the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) where he led research and designed programs on cancer causing agents, such as the hazards of Agent Orange and the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. Grimes does a very poor job of actually reviewing the evidence, Portier said, because he cherry picks information.

 

“Any positive evidence is treated as coming from a failed experiment, any positive [epidemiological] finding is recall bias, any flaws in negative studies are ignored,” Portier said. “And he loves to cite himself.”

 

Indeed, in 5 of his 36 citations for the essay, Grimes cites Grimes. On examination, none of these 5 references is scientific research that Grimes conducted; they’re just another Grimes’ opinion.

 

When not citing himself, Grimes loves to cite the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and claim it is a “public health body” which it isn’t. In fact, ICNIRP is a small, private nonprofit with close ties to industry.

 

 

A table in Grimes’ essay where he falsely claims that ICNIRP is a “public health body.”

For some years, ICNIRP has been criticized for its close ties to the very industries that rely on scientists finding little harm from radiofrequency radiation including telecom, IT and power companies, as well as the military. In 2008, the Ethical Board at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden concluded that being a member of ICNIRP should be noted as a conflict of interest.

 

Referencing prior scientific scandals with tobacco, asbestos, climate change and pesticides, two Members of the European Parliament published a June 2020 report on ICNIRP and their long history of conflicts of interest that concluded, “ICNIRP pretends to be scientifically neutral, and free from vested interests of the Telecom industry. We show with this study that this is ‘playing with the truth’ or simply a lie.”

 

Pretending that ICNIRP is a public health body just like the Food and Drug Administration is critical for Grimes’ essay. In one example, Grimes cites ICNIRP to dismiss an initial report by National Toxicology Program that observed increased cancer rates in rats exposed to extremely high levels of radiofrequency radiation. What Grimes doesn’t tell readers is that the National Toxicology Program’s final report found “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.”

 

 

A second conclusion of the National Toxicology Program’s final report:

 

 

And Grimes fails to note a later evaluation in 2020 led by American government scientists that evaluated DNA damage from cell phones. “In conclusion, these results suggest that exposure to [radiofrequency radiation] is associated with an increase in DNA damage.”

 

Ignoring critical findings of dangers to construct his thesis is typical Grimes. Here’s a few more findings he failed to explain:

 

After the NTP published their findings, the Ramazzini Institute published a similar study that confirmed “an increase in the incidence of tumors of the brain and heart” in rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation.

Supported by the American Cancer Society, researchers at the Yale School of Public Health found that some people have a higher genetic risk for thyroid cancer from using cell phones.

A recent review in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found that radiofrequency radiation causes genetic damage.

In a systematic review of previously published studies, Korean scientists concluded that evidence linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.

 

In his zeal to debunk published science, Grimes also ignores actions taken by governments around the world to limit potential harm caused by cell phone radiation. In a report released last summer on the evidence for carcinogenic and reproductive health hazards of 5G, the European Parliament noted, “People should be informed of the potential health risks, but also the opportunities for digital development, what infrastructural alternatives exist for 5G transmission, the safety measures (exposure limits) taken by the EU and Member States, and the correct use of mobile phones.”

 

 

“If you have a medical problem, would you ask a medical doctor or a physicist for help?” said Devra Davis, Founder and President of Environmental Health Trust. Davis’ organization is collecting signatures from scientific experts on a letter they plan to send to JAMA Oncology asking them to retract Grimes’ essay. “This so-called review is not a review at all because it ignores thousands of studies clearly demonstrating that current legal levels of wireless radiation are damaging to human health and the environment.”

 

At the bottom of his opinion piece, Grimes discloses that it was funded by the Wellcome Trust. This seems to make sense as Wellcome Trust has holdings in numerous electronics and software companies including Apple, Microsoft, Siemens, and Cisco Systems. An investigation by The BMJ found that Wellcome’s pharma investments overlap kindly with its COVID-19 research efforts.

 

In an interview, Joel Lexchin, professor emeritus of York University’s school of health policy and management in Toronto, told The BMJ that Wellcome “is pursuing their own privately developed objectives without being responsible to anybody but their own boards of directors.” 

 

SURPRISE! GRIMES ALSO FAILS TO GRASP PESTICIDE DANGERS

 

Of course, this is not Grimes’ first blunder out of physics and into an area of science where he has no qualifications or research experience. When evidence began leaking from court cases against Monsanto that the company had lied about the dangers of the pesticide glyphosate, Grimes took to Twitter to berate famed consumer advocate Erin Brockovich for explaining this.

 

 

Despite Grimes’ claims of “no reputable evidence that glyphosate causes cancer” the evidence has long been clear. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Since that finding, a horde of respected scientists have begun documenting the assault on IARC by apologists for the agrichemical industry such as Grimes.

 

In the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, dozens of scientists signed a statement that found criticisms of IARC’s findings on glyphosate to be “unfair and unconstructive.” A group of toxicologists writing in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine added that the criticisms were part of a campaign by economic interests to undermine scientific work. “Such interference does not bode well for the free flow of scientific information that informs and protects the public from risks of cancer.”

 

In critiquing Grimes, Melnick noted a particularly relevant passage where Grimes opined: “For clinicians and scientists in cancer, it is important to understand the current evidence base.”

 

“That applies to him,” Melnick said. “He’s got an agenda.”

 

This commentary has been co-published by The DisInformation Chronicle and The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity (JoSPI).