5G lethal radiation

Well, we don't have any reason to agree that  technology is secure, but, will 5G lethal radiation kill us?

The time is coming, however contrary to what some humans say, there can be health risks.

The telecommunications and internet moguls and their professionals have accused many scientists who have researched the consequences of cellular phone radiation of “worry-mongering” over the advent of wireless internet generation's 5G because plenty of the research is publicly-funded. We accept as true with it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us approximately the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the federal communications commission (FCC) these days announced that the commission will soon reaffirm the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the past due nineties. Those limits are primarily based upon a behavioral exchange in rats uncovered to microwave radiation and were designed to shield us from short-time period heating dangers due to RFR exposure.  

But, since the FCC adopted these limits based totally largely on studies from the Eighties, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have discovered harmful biologic or health damage effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause heating.

Bringing up this massive amount of studies, more than 240 scientists have posted peer-reviewed studies on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF), signed the worldwide EMF Scientist Appeal calling for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

5G lethal radiation

“Numerous current clinical courses have shown that EMF influences living organisms at stages properly beneath most worldwide and countrywide hints. The effects consist of expanded cancer danger, cellular stress, an increase in harmful unfastened radicals, genetic damages, structural and practical modifications of the reproductive machine, learning and reminiscence deficits, neurological disorders, and bad effects. Harm goes nicely past the human race, as there is growing evidence of dangerous consequences to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the vast majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC's RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patter and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat's behavior.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC labeled RFR as “probable carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based on the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again once more in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR soon.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC's 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no modification to the current standards is warranted at this time,” and that “NTP's experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest new generation cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves which have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter-wave radiation. 5G also uses new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; large multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique specific challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system, and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new generation technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have widespread evidence about the damaging effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G phones and 5G networks will no longer replace 4G; it's going to accompany 4G for the near future and probable over an extended period. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures many kinds of RFR, our usual risk of damage from RFR may also increase significantly not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G Network, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work, and play?

Should we suffer health risks and side effects for superfast wireless to upload a faster movie?.

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically-based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

Share with friends:


More Stories: