Here are slides of my lecture at the Rutherford House Lecture Theatre 1 (RHLT1), Pipitea Campus, Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington, Nov. 27, 2019 (Leszczynski New Zealand Lecture Wellington November 2019).
In my lectures, I am presenting science with all its limitations. I am trying to educate listeners that not every peer-reviewed study is a good quality study. That the design of the study may, and will, pre-determine the outcome of the study. Also, I am often pointing out that not every study is useful, or of value, for determining human health policies.
However, I found it interesting that there are listeners, who come to me after lectures, and complain that my opinions are not good ones because some other scientist(s) think differently and claim that there is plenty of studies proving health harm. Hence, in the listener’s opinion, my opinions, claiming lack of sufficient evidence to prove health harm due to exposures to wireless radiation, are incorrect.
However, when I ask these listeners what education and expertise they have to scientifically judge which of the expert opinions is the correct one, they are often offended.
But this is a simple fact life. How, non-scientist with no education in this area of research, can decide which scientific expert opinion is correct? It seems that the only way the non-scientists make judgement is based on whether scientist’s opinion fits/agrees with their existing already belief what the heath hazard is, instead of listening with the open mind.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Pingback: Possible ‘censorship’ and certainly ‘cherry-picking’ of science in ‘Helsingin sanomat’, the major Finnish newspaper | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
There may not be the *perfect* set of human volunteer studies yet to show that 5G hurts everybody. But the Russian studies obtained already decades ago by the CIA are good resources to learn from (the review was published in 1977 I think); why are these studies being ignored? Additionally, why are millimeter waves used by multiple governments as weapons and or for crowd control? Because these EMFs affect people, negatively.
And:
I wasn’t aware that I really felt the 3 and 4G and other electropollution. Until a few months ago, I was walking at least 1.5h in our neighborhood every day, and one day my body crashed. Eye balls hurt, sleep became impossible (4-5h per night in pieces), my face skin felt hot and cold and numb. My face’s skin and underlying tissues appeared to be pulled back over my skull whenever I was anywhere close to a smart meter, dimmer or the refrigerator. I have become sensitive to EMF radiation.
Several days after these terrible symptoms started, I saw antennas in an alley where I previously noted a T Mobile crew come out. I also noticed the big 5G antennas along the road in front of our house. I can’t walk outside any more as I used to as my eye balls start hurting fast and whenever I need to drive on the local high ways which are peppered with 5G antennas, I can forget about sleeping well that night as well.
So, in the case of ‘insufficient’ research on the health effects on human volunteers, you have to add such reports to the balance.
Some information on effects of exposures to eye in vivo from 3rd edition of Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields.
https://bit.ly/2Rp2uKQ
Thank you, Dave! And I would like to add one thing: while everyone is debating whether non-ionizing radiation causes cancer, which is a long-latency disease, the ecosystem is dying. It does not take 20 years for insect, amphibian and bird species to be wiped out, and the fact that we have seen declines of around 30% of bird populations, 50% or more of amphibian populations, and 75% of insect populations should be telling us that we–and the earth we live in–are in mortal peril. For me, the cancer debate is way, way down the list. When the ecosystem dies, we die.
@Tom Whitney Phones being independently tested in FCC accredited/other foreign government testing labs are reporting devices are measuring FAR, FAR above the SAR limits and much closer to the 6 W/kg (sometimes above that) where you just stated ‘minimally significant’ signals of harm are showing. Therefore, thank you, for proving the point that precautionary principle should be applied.
Tom Whitney, there are so many more immediate effects than cancer. Arguing whether these biological effects that are agreed to be consistently demonstrated are adverse or benign is where we are now after 50 plus years. This is where we need some common sense to be applied. It’s becoming a farce.
Dave Ashton “…harmful effects of RF radiation at non-thermal levels are absolutely beyond dispute…” ?? Current exposure limits are based on research that has looked for any harm that could result from RF-EMF exposure. This includes those where mechanisms of action are known (the thermal effects), but also research that has made no assumptions about mechanisms of action. Cancer is a good example of the latter type, where a huge investment has been made to determine whether there is a relationship between RF-EMF exposure and cancer, with no assumptions made about whether such an effect is feasible. That is, the research has been entirely empirically driven, merely asking such questions as ‘is mobile phone usage related to cancers in the general population’, and ‘does the RF-EMF from mobile phones cause cancer’. From this research, the ‘lowest’ RF-EMF exposure levels found to be relevant to health have been used to derive the limits. These were based on thermal effects, merely because no other effects were found to occur at lower exposure levels. So, although it is often said that the current regulatory limits are only based on thermal effects, this is not true – it is merely that the lowest exposure levels found to cause harm are thermally mediated. However, cancer has not been found to be caused by RF-EMF exposure, even at far higher exposure levels than those known to cause thermally-mediated adverse health effects. In the recent highly vaunted NTP studies, minimally significant signs in male rats was only found at whole-body 6 W/kg exposure – 75 times higher than the FCC limit of 0 .08 W/kg! Nothing significant in female rats and nothing significant in male or female mice at 10 W/kg – 125 times the FCC maximum permitted exposure This is ‘gold standard’ science?
Speaking as a non-scientist,, perhaps I can attempt to articulate the frustration that many of us feel with a scientific community which at times seems to be more concerned with being at war with itself (and non-experts, such as me) than it is about examining the available scientific evidence without fear or favour, and then providing sound and impartial advice to the outside world.
Let me give an example. Even a non-scientist such as me knows that international guidelines that dictate how much non-ionising radiation I can be exposed to are set on a thermal basis – i.e. if an acute exposure to RF radiation does not heat my bodily tissues by a significant degree over a short period of time, then it is deemed to be safe, and a further assumption is made that no harmful non-thermal effects can ever arise from longer exposure to the radiation from wireless technologies and devices. The Industry assumes this, Governments assume this, health and protection agencies assume this, and many other official organisations and NGOs assume this. It is very convenient to make this assumption, for those with vested interests.
Presumably, most independent scientists actively researching in this area know this assumption to be false, and long ago discredited. And yet, here we are, with 5G being rolled out worldwide, along with radiation-emitting smart meters, and an ever-expanding ecosystem of other RF radiation-emitting gizmos and infrastructure.
As a layman, I find it incomprehensible that we appear to have so much evidence of harm at non-thermal levels stretching back over so many years, and that the ‘gold standard’ of toxicology research, the National Toxicology Program in the US, has found that non-thermal exposure to RF radiation (2G and 3G signals) promotes DNA damage and cancer, at least in rodents. And yet here we are, carrying on as if nothing has changed.
Whilst scientists are splitting hairs over mechanisms and what the ‘weight of evidence’ shows, and some are even denying that we even have a problem in the first place, many people are being harmed right now. We are all lab rats, and many of us are being tormented by technologies that have never been proven to be safe, but which are being rolled out at an ever-increasing rate.
From my viewpoint, scientists urgently need to wake up to the reality that the current ‘safety standards’ are not protecting us, and that we have ample proof of immediate harm – even if, as I believe is still the case with smoking, not everything is yet known about how this harm is done.
If scientists can agree on nothing else, please can they agree that harmful effects of RF radiation at non-thermal levels are absolutely beyond dispute, and that a co-ordinated way needs to be found of finally, and belatedly, puncturing myths to the contrary?