Pall, Firstenberg and the ‘silent enablers’ are responsible for the current 5G storm

…this is a longer blog, hopefully worth your time to read to the end…

For over 20 years I have been doing hands-on research on the effects of RF-EMF on biological systems and for over 20 years I was arguing that we need better quality research to prove, or to disprove, the possibility of RF-EMF-induced health effects.

There is ample evidence suggesting the possibility, or even probability, of RF-EMF affecting human health but the ultimate proof is still missing. To me it means, and this I was arguing since my first public lecture on the subject in 2001 during the Science Days at the University of Helsinki, that there is a reason to implement precautionary approach when dealing with RF-EMF. Precautionary approach would mean implementation, in some form or shape, of the EU Precautionary Principle and simultaneous push for the targeted health-related research.

Precautionary Principle could/should be used to limit unnecessary exposures whenever and wherever it is feasible and doable and for as long as the scientific evidence is ambiguous.

Targeted research is needed to address specifically questions pertinent to human health, because not all experiments are useful or usable in designing public health policies. In fact, most of to date performed research on RF-EMF is of little use for the health policy.

As long as there is scientific uncertainty, and it is here and now, we should be precautionary and researching.

The debate over how to deal with the issue of RF-EMF and health has been taken over by two small but extremely noisy groups.

One claims RF-EMF is perfectly safe the other claims it will kill all life. Both of these extreme views are interpreting and misinterpreting science to fit their own agendas. They both do their own cherry-picking of the evidence.

In my opinion, neither of these two extreme views and opinions has enough scientific evidence to support the claims of safety or lack of safety of RF-EMF exposures.


The two of the no-health-effects option  groups are of particular importance as they practically set safety guidelines that are recommended either by the WHO or by the US FCC, and then implemented in practice by the telecommunication industry.

WHO recommends what ICNIRP recommends and US FCC recommends what IEEE-ICES recommends. Both, ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES, claim their recommendations are based solely on the science and not affected by any other issues. However, trusting in these assurances is not easy.

The IEEE-ICES is a slam-dunk case for the conflict-of-interest. I have been member of IEEE-ICES for a couple of years and, after I learned how it works, I resigned in 2009 (for some reason IEEE-ICES was not happy about it because they tried to persuade me to stay).

The majority of the members of the IEEE-ICES are engineers employed by the industry. At the time when I was member, some Chairs within the IEEE-ICES were scientists from Motorola or Siemens.

Safety limits developed by IEEE-ICES are designed by engineers working for the wireless telecommunications industry. Voting in this group on proposed safety limits is just a sham because telecom engineers vote on proposal prepared by the same telecom engineers. The telecom engineers always have the majority within IEEE-ICES. So, how trustworthy are these safety limits?

In summary, IEEE-ICES safety guidelines are prepared by industry engineers and approved by industry engineers who later implement them in their own industries as reliable and solely science-based and industry-independent safety guidelines.

More difficult is to determine trustworthiness and reliability of ICNIRP. They claim complete independence of any influence, especially from the industry. Listening to them one get impression that they are “holier than the holy father”. But ICNIRP is a closed private club and with such establishments, having no oversight whatsoever, one can never be sure what is going on.

Firstly, all members of the “all mighty” Main Commission have the same general opinion that RF-EMF can’t cause any health effects if ICNIRP safety guidelines are followed. Having the same opinion by all members helps (sarcasm!) to reach consensus within ICNIRP. And ICNIRP makes no mistake of inviting any scientist who would dissent, that is certain.

However, is it really so that the ICNIRP safety guidelines provide safety? Not necessarily. Just one example. Four case-control epidemiology studies have indicated that person using cell phone for 10 years for 30 minutes every day has an increased (by 40%, by 100%, another by 100% and by 170%) risk of developing brain cancer – glioma. What is of paramount importance, but not much elaborated publicly, all persons enlisted in this research were using regular cell phones that were purchased in shops. It means that each and every phone was in compliance with the ICNIRP safety guidelines (!). However, use of such safety-guidelines-compliant cell phone led to an increased risk of developing glioma. It means that the ICNIRP safety limits do not protect form the health effects of RF-EMF emitted by the phone compliant with safety guidelines. Also necessary to mention that in its new, 2020 updated, safety guidelines ICNIRP completely dismisses the results of these case-control epidemiology studies. Simply put – these results do not exist for ICNIRP.

In one of my blogs ‘Is ICNIRP reliable enough to dictate meaning of science to the governmental risk regulators?’ I wrote this opinion on ICNIRP:


In my opinion the major problems of ICNIRP are:

      • it is a “private club” where members elect new members without need to justify selection
      • lack of accountability before anyone
      • lack of transparency of their activities
      • complete lack of supervision of its activities
      • skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members of the Main Commission and all of the other scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission

I have suggested that the similarity of scientific opinions expressed by the Main Commission members will lead to skewed evaluation of science and I wrote: “…Every expert has opinion. With this opinion he/she comes to work in expert committee. This applies to ICNIRP members too. I hope you are not suggesting that only the scientists of the Main Commission of ICNIRP are able to leave their opinions behind and evaluate the science for its merits alone. However, there is difference between the committee where work scientists with diverse opinions and with the committee where work scientists with very similar opinions. Scientists are humans and act as humans, with all ballasting baggage of pre-existing feelings and opinions. It is certain that the absolute “forgetting” of the pre-appointment opinions is not possible. Thus, scientists with no-effect opinion will easier accept no-effect studies and will look more closely for shortcomings in yes-effect studies. And the same will happen with the scientists having yes-effect opinion. They will easier accept studies showing yes-effect and look more closely for shortcomings in no-effect studies. Here is the problem. If all members of the Main Commission are of the same opinion, the scientific debate will be limited and likely skewed…”

What is strange and disturbing, is that the European States meekly follow whatever advice they receive from the ICNIRP, blindly trusting group of self-appointed to ICNIRP experts, without critically evaluating what kind of NGO it is, what are its interests and Conflicts of Interests and what is its accountability.

This is a very strange way of dealing with the risk assessment from the seasoned bureaucrats and politicians of the European Union.


The big question remains: how reliable are safety guidelines prepared by IEEE-ICES and ICNIRP?

I do not know what IEEE-ICES thinks of their own guidelines, but the current Chair of the ICNIRP, Eric van Rongen, gave a very unconvincing answer. When van Rongen was asked whether the users should trust ICNIRP opinion or the opinion of the 220 scientists who wrote 5G Appeal to the UN, disagreeing with ICNIRP opinion, the Chairman of ICNIRP did not defend at all the validity and correctness of the ICNIRP’s evaluation of science. Instead, Eric van Rongen stated that people can choose what opinion on science they prefer, the opinion of ICNIRP or the opinion of the 220 scientists who signed the 5G Appeal to the UN (video available here).

Fun Fact: guess whom telecom industry has chosen to trust…

What is more, some of the ICNIRP members of the Main Commission would like to have it both ways, “agree with ICNIRP and somewhat disagree in order to be OK with their own consciousness. In recent tweet, the recently elected to the Main Commission Martin Röösli agreed that we should be precautionary because science is never certain, what clearly disagrees with ICNIRP opinion.



The other side of the debate, the other small but, similarly to ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES, noisy group, are the anti-5G activists. They take any smallest shred of evidence suggesting any remote possibility of health effects as proven health effects that in due time will kill all life on earth. This is a mistake as the scientific evidence is available to anyone and their claims can, and are, easy to be fact checked.

Two of the most frequently used examples of the negative health effects of RF-EMF are:

  • Claimed proven damage to the DNA
  • Claimed proven damage to the immune response

While there exists evidence indicating a possibility/probability for such effects, the proof that such effects are indeed induced in cell phone users is still missing.

In my numerous lectures, as recently as in my talk in Nelson, New Zealand, I have presented a slide showing that DNA effects are not proven:

The both, DNA damage and impairment of the immune response rely on the evidence suggesting that RF-EMF causes oxidative stress in cells. However, simply observing increased oxidative stress in tissues and increased levels of short-lived free radicals is not sufficient to prove human health effect.

Cells are not just balls uniformly filled with viscous liquid. They are extensively compartmentalized and movement of molecules between various compartments is very strictly regulated. The oxidative stress needs to appear in a cellular compartment that will allow certain kind of effect. For example, in order to damage DNA, the very-short-living and very-short distance-acting free radicals need to be generated inside the cell nucleus and in close proximity to the DNA molecule. This might be not so easy spatially because access to DNA molecule is limited by the coat of proteins. So, before claiming that RF-EMF damages DNA we also need to show that, at least, the free radicals are indeed generated within the nucleus.

The other problem is the level of the RF-EMF-induced oxidative stress. Is the level comparable with oxidative stress induced by other mediators? Is the level of the oxidative stress sufficient to cause changes to normal physiology? As long as we just know that oxidative stress is induced but we do not know enough about where and how much, claiming that RF-EMF surely damages DNA and surely affects immunity is premature. We can suspect such effects and we should be precautionary but no more than that. For more, we need research.

However, some “scientists” make short-cut and using inadequate scientific evidence claim very far reaching effects. Those “scientists” have done unimaginable damage to the legitimate science-based attempts to push for more targeted research and to push for more science-based safety guidelines that would replace the current ICNIRP & IEEE-ICES safety guidelines that are based on misinterpreted and misrepresented science.

Martin L. Pall and Arthur R. Firstenberg, to name just two very prominent “scientists”, have made claims that are not science based, that are based on misrepresentation of science and are nothing less but conspiracy theories.

Martin L. Pall claims (Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences,; the Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA must be so proud [sarcasm!]):

“5G will produce widespread in most cases universal or near-universal impact:

      • A rapid and irreversible crash in human reproduction to close to zero, based mainly but not solely on the impacts on male reproduction.
      • A rapid (albeit somewhat slower than in 1) crash in our collective brain function produced by massive impacts on human brain structure and function.
      • Very early-onset Alzheimer’s dementia also caused by the human brain impact seen in 2.
      • Autism and ADHD caused primarily by perinatal 4G/5G exposures
      • Massive deterioration in the human gene pool, caused by the DNA effects in human sperm and possibly also on human eggs.
      • Widespread sudden cardiac death in all age ranges caused by the EMF impacts on the pacemaker cells in the sino-atrial node of the heart.

According to Pall, the 5G is already responsible for (when asked he was unable to provide proof of these claims):

      • suicides of ambulance staff in UK
      • fires in South Korea
      • outbreak of coronavirus in Wuhan
      • …and many other “effects”

What is more, the schedule of Pall’s ‘doomsday’ was predicted already in 2018, when he stated that the deterioration of human kind will happen within the next 5 – 7 years…”

Arthur R Firstenberg goes even further than the coronavirus-Wuhan 5G connection championed by Martin L. Pall.

Firstenberg, in his recently distributed writing “IS THE SKY REALLY FALLING?”, claims to have proven that not only coronavirus was caused by the 5G in Wuhan but that also  the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918 was not caused by virus but by EMF (!).

This kind of pseudo-scientific ideas propagated by Pall and Firstenberg and avidly disseminated by their followers, led some activists to act against the wireless infrastructure most visible to everyone, the masts.

This is wrong development.


For years I was warning activists that their claims should be well science based because if not then the other side of the debate will easily poke holes in their arguments and show their incompetence. My latest warning was in my blog published on March 5, 2020 ‘Sounding alarm for activists: To be seriously considered you need to present real science, not ‘fake science’’.

Sadly, at that time I was already well aware of what Martin L. Pall and Arthur R. Firstenberg claim and I was expecting a storm…

… and the storm has come with the news media full of writings condemning the deranged theories of anti 5G activists claiming that the coronavirus is either caused by 5G or that there is no virus at all and people are sick of 5G alone. This, in turn is being used as an easy way to dismiss once and for all (?) any claims that there might be a legitimate health effects caused by the 5G-emitted radiation.

As one of the legitimate scientists involved in push for precaution and for better research on 5G radiation, Joel Moskowitz wrote recently (regretfully he did not act earlier):

“…Those who promote 5G-coronavirus theories based on weak evidence undermine the credibility of scientists and medical doctors who have expressed concerns about 5G safety based on strong evidence (e.g., the 5G Appeal)[this is another 5G Appeal, not the one authored by Firstenberg].

Moreover, during this public health crisis, the Telecom industry can exploit these actions to convince mainstream news media to publish industry propaganda that 5G is safe…”

And telecom industry really exploits this possibility that was provided for them, freely and without asking, by the pseudo-scientists and their followers.

I responded to Joel M. Moskowitz as follows:

“…Joel, it is time to look in the mirror. Pall did what he did because people like yourself or Davis and many others, did not say a word to stop Pall from fearmongering. He was encouraged. I stood up and I was ignored and threatened and trolled and insulted. But I was right. Sadly, we all pay now a heavy price. By association, we all are portrayed as wackos. Read my blogs and wonder why nobody else dared to stand up to Pall speaking utter nonsense. Dariusz…” [i did not receive any response]

I also tweeted:


Besides these two noisy groups there is a large group of the ‘Silent Majority’. Scientists and people interested in the issue but who prefer to be silent and see what happens. The reasons for this silence might be many, and here is no place to elaborate. However, the involvement of the ‘Silent Majority‘ would certainly help in the debate.

In 2013 while working as Visiting Professor at the Swinburne University of Technology in Hawthorn/Melbourne, Australia, I have proposed a Round-Table Initiative to discuss the differences of opinion between ICNIRP and BioInitiative and to, hopefully, come up with a consensus opinion.

In my opening blog post, on the Round-Table Initiative website, I wrote:

“…It is time to stop squabbling who is better expert in reviewing and interpreting science. It is time to reach consensus what the scientific evidence tells us. It is time to agree on international scale whether and how the Precautionary Principle should be implemented. It is time to stop misleading and confusing the general public…”

Sadly, the initiative failed because BioInitiative refused to talk to ICNIRP and because ICNIRP said it didn’t need any advice from BioInitiative. Mike Repacholi and Henry Lai thought it was a good idea… The industry washed their hands by saying they follow ICNIRP and WHO recommendations… (for detailed e-mails see the few posts available on the website).

In the end, when called, everyone involved defended their own sand-box.

That was in 2013… Now, in 2020 things did not get better. In fact they got far worse. Militant pseudo-scientific opinions dominate the debate.

If the industry imagines that their current avalanche of publications claiming 5G safety will silence activists, then they will be sadly mistaken.

The first and the foremost reason being that neither side of the debate has solid science-based arguments to dismiss the claims of the other side.

We need consensus. We need research. We do not need squabble.



69 thoughts on “Pall, Firstenberg and the ‘silent enablers’ are responsible for the current 5G storm

  1. Pingback: Martin Pall’s claims on EMF, VGCC and Alzheimer’s lack scientific evidence of proof or even likelihood | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  2. Pingback: Wi-Fi -

  3. …this comment from jbsptfn was deleted because it was unfounded spread of conspiracy theory…

  4. Your dialog is quite interesting, but I find you are fighting about nit-bits that don’t get us any further.
    First off: I have no qualifications in the medical, biochemistry, or technical department related to this issue. I became engaged and started to research the topic late 2019 when I read that EMF & RF radiation could have much more impact on children. I had no “negative feelings” towards that technology, nobody in our immediate and extended family seems to be EM sensitive. So, like everybody else I thought it is a very convenient technology! In short: I am your regular consumer, albeit a critical one who questions hypes and often takes an alternative route, and yes: our family is environmentally conscious, working to reduce our ecological footprint. Still, I think I tackled the issue more objectively than most, but several facts caught my attention right away:
    – That young children are more negatively affected, and that the onset time can be several years
    – Compared to numerous other jurisdictions Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is inadequate, and the department is stacked with industry insiders, same as FCC, ICNIRP and the likes. I consider their refusal to inform the public, significantly lower the exposure levels, and put a moratorium on 5G as CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.
    – In ref. to Andre’s comment about Russian research on the immunity etc. I read about that as well, but also that Russia and other East-European countries still adhere to other “old” research (that we decided to discard in the Western science world), which must be the reason that their EMF safety levels are many times lower than the above. I think we should welcome that info and not reject it on simple grounds that it is “old”. Old research is not automatically outdated.
    – ICNIRP Professor Paolo Vecchia, head of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection said this in 2008 about using ICNIRP’s technical guidelines:  “What they are not: * Mandatory prescriptions for safety *The “last word” on the issue *Defensive walls for industry or others” So ICNIRP shouldn’t even be the guiding body for the WHO and independent nations.
    – Granted, Firstenberg has some outlandish ideas when he connects some of the dots, and I don’t agree with everything, but he definitely made us think. Don’t forget he is EM Hypersensitive, I think I can understand his more aggressive approach, but also his impatience with corrupt government institutions who stubbornly refuse to sever their connections to the telecoms.
    – The Invisible Rainbow: I read it and I am still impressed by the amount of research he did, dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries. I am also fascinated by some of the never-thought-about info that we are not only biological/chemical beings, but also “run” on electricity. Since our planet and the entire solar system is submerged in a certain NATURAL level of radiation, this makes total sense to me. Therefore, it makes sense that electricity and any radiation is affecting us in some ways – good or neutral to some, bad for others. BUT, it must also be clear to anybody looking into this (it’s perfectly clear to me!) that “quintillion” times more radiation – never mind what kind of “benign low-level ” radiation it may be – tested only in short intervals for a limited time on questionable subjects & objects – cannot be neutral anymore.
    Ok, no one has “proven” any absolute negatives, but we might as well consider that it also affects the immune system, together with probably every other “system” in our body (and why not the natural world as well). It would depend on the individual’s inert weaknesses what organs or systems get affected and how much. Why is that so difficult to agree on???
    I am not talking about the industry – we know why they will never voluntarily agree on it. But you guys – the “EXPERTS”. For goodness sake, get a grip on yourself and STOP all this squabbling.
    We have to flood all these darn arrogant institutions, from ICNIRP and WHO to Health CANADA & ISED with the same SIMPLE message: With the amount of evidence for possible harm (NEVER MIND THE KIND OF HARM) and the lack of proof that there is no harm – the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE has to be applied!!!
    The dangerously high level of exposure as allowed in Safety Code 6 dictates pretty much everything happening on the telecom frontier, including unacceptable levels of wi-fi exposure in schools, as well as idiotic wi-fi gadgets exposing toddlers and even babies. How stupid have we become?
    I started on this journey hoping to find “proof” that this technology is safe. Instead I am totally alarmed by what I find, especially the lack of common sense and accountability from public institutions, but also from segments of the scientific community.
    We must do better.
    PS I agree 100 % with Deborah Rubin. Thank You for being so clear.

  5. Pingback: CLASSIC (back by popular demand): 5G and COVID-19: Fact or Fiction? – Let's Think About That A Bit More

  6. @Jan Ligthart: Sweeping generalisations like “Engineers do not have the faintest idea about the basics of life.” are not really constructive.

    As with many engineers and scientists, I found/find the idea of creating something which benefits mankind in some way, however minor, to be a positive goal. Having worked on both narrow and broadband communications systems (amongst other things), the benefits have been clear (e.g. this blog wouldn’t be useable without them) but I for one was very wary of my first 2G mobile phone and never used it without a headset (and even now I do not use a mobile except in emergencies).

    I believe I have a few ideas about the basics of life.

    Man is mostly a well-intentioned creature but we cannot possibly foresee all the negative outcomes of the things we create or do. We test for problems within the systems we create and we try to test for negative interactions outside those systems. However, when you’re dealing with human biology, a hugely complex system in itself, which is simultaneously being affected by existing medical conditions and then a hoard of “contaminants” which we might be consuming, inhaling or coming into contact with, the chance of realistically proving one source as detrimental is probably quite low. Try finding a control person who has never been exposed to RF and then try ruling out all the other influences that might be in play.

    If we choose not to move forward until we’ve found all of the “corner cases” then we’ll never move forward. But to ignore the risks that may be there is also folly, hence the need for thorough “up-front” research/analysis/testing for new technologies and for existing ones, the precautionary principle and more research to identify what mechanisms exist to account for EHS etc.

    Keep up the good work Darius.

  7. If you would bother and read my CV you would know my credentials. Think and read before writing nonsense.

  8. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Very entertaining evening. Where did my other comment go?

    @Jan Ligthart: The world has some grey scales, not only black and white. Dariusz does the best he can to serve the public. And he does it well. He is not paid for sharing his insights and knowledge. He does that out of responsibility, because he is one of the view people in the world with enough understanding of the topic to have response ability. Pall and Firstenberg are saying what people want to hear. That is not science. And it does not serve humanity well. Unfortunately.

  9. dear mister darius,

    Some engineers do not understand the biological basis of life which mentality is detrimental to life on earth. Engineers do not have the faintest idea about the basics of life.

    Do you have any idea or expertise in that field?!?

    In stead of arguing about your scientific morale and principles it could serve mankind to dedicate your time to solve the EMR problems mankind is facing all over the globe as a result of the space X elon musk program to microwave every square centimeter on the face of the globe which in itself is supercriminal.

    I do not want to serve a science ideology, I do want to serve humanity in solving a big growing problem and as well dr Martin Pall as Arthur Firstenburg are serving humanity.

    It could be your command to follow them in their venture to save humanity.

    It is your choice either serving industry and mammon or serving humanity.

  10. @ jan ligthart:

    “Excellent science should be simple and aiming at solving real world problems.” Unfortunately not.
    In fact, there is no simple answer in science. Actually, one is well advised to mind the over-simplified stories as you mind the gap when getting of a train or bus.

    There is a view among some philosophers of science that science is a discipline with an accepted and uncontroversial methodology. It tests hypotheses by gathering empirical data to discover general laws that make the world more predictable. This approach assumes a certainty to scientific knowledge, and often values data collection above theorising.

    Yet this view of science is challenged within science itself. For example, theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli offers an alternative position: science is not about certainty. The methodology of science is not “written in stone”, and its conceptual structures have changed over time. In fact, Rovelli states the core of science is continuous uncertainty and “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms.

    Knowledge in science has changed fundamentally over hundreds of years. Science is an integral part of the modern world, and we understand more about the world through scientific endeavours. But there is much we don’t understand. Sound science requires not just careful methods, but also conceptual clarity about what is being measured. And that, as Dariusz criticises in his blog articles, has not fully been the case in research on EHS. Which again means we need more research.

    The biggest challenge in the complex topic around non-ionising radiation, biological effects, health effects, etc. is the making of meaning. And yes, when the data collection went bad, the analysis is not comprehensive, or the chosen method does not comply with the scientific model of how the experiment is performed we still need to collect more data to be able to make meaning. And that is the status quo of where we are in research at the moment.
    For sure science is not perfect, but is still much better than shouting out baseless opinions that sound like a confession of believe in a church. And that is what Pall and Firstenberg did, when claiming that COVID 19 and 5G would have any links.

    “Science is simple if you understand science methodology.”
    No it is not. Or would you say it is a simple process to design a precise, unbiased provocation study?
    If so, then go ahead and do it. And after conducting the study, go and convince the WHO! I would love to see the big mass of EHS people being visible and heard world wide.

  11. dear mister Darius,

    Your two short two messages are clear, you do not intend to go into my short explanation on what the aim of real science should be, It seems to me you are not interested in solutions.

    Those who are onto the side of industrial interests has better back off without any pretences but it seems to me you do not back off.

    That is industry interest and that is the money game which is about to destroy humanity.

    Good luck.

  12. 1. read all my blogs on Pall. If you don’t understand then I can’t help you.
    2. I have conflict of interest in my CV 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  13. dear mr darius, I do agree with your argument to apply the precautionary principle. I disagree with your argument to judge martinpalls and arthur firstenbergs work as not complying with your science methodology standards. Please give a reference by which we can evaluate the backing of your claims regarding these scientists with good intention.

    One of my favourite metafores is the internal combustion engine. When I hear a strange sound or behaviour I start looking for causes and scenarios causing the sound or strange behaviour. It can take many hours to find the cause. Every intervention I apply is based on scenario and knowledge about the way the engine is built. There is no science in this troubleshooting but I will not stop until I have solved the noise or strange behaviour I have observed.

    Real science will always start with observation. Persons who have trouble because of EHS electrosensitivity can be observed and they indicate a serious problem. I do not care if we have a scientifically approved pathway that is scientifically proven to explain the EHS problem.

    I just want to solve the problem.

    It seems to me you have a conflict of interest on the basis of your CV.

    Your target clients seem to have difficulty in accepting the observation that some pioneer people suffer from EMR. Maybe that is why you are taking this intermediate position.

    In Holland we had a science journalist on the radio who stated that there was no scientific evidence of the moons influence on earth!! He should talk with his wife and observe the low and high tide of the moon. For some phenomena we do not need scientific evidence.

    For some statements and observations we do not need science. Everyday cars are repaired without any scientific rigidity including the internal combustion engine. Ask your car engine mechanic how he or she achieves a practical result. Science is not the goal. A healthy environment, maybe without your ultra high scientific standards is the goal.

    Science nowadays sometimes seems the same as mediaeval discussions about how many angels fit on the top of a needle.

    Science should solve observed problems. Science should not serve as a means for scientists to earn eternal income by not coming to definitive conclusions and results.
    Please give me some backing references by which we can evaluate your negative science methodological statements on the EMR work of dr martin pall and arthur firstenburg.

    I once had as a consultant a professor asking 100.000 dollar for research for my governmental client. After finishing his study he could not reach a definitive conclusion. He asked for another 100.000 dollar for a follow up research.
    We came in and solved the problem for 10.000 dollar. We provided a clear indication for adequate action and our client was persuaded to test our advice. After the test we were proven to have given the right indication. Of course we could have been wrong.

    In case of 2345G the only thing we have to do is start experiments in comparable areas long term to see what happens to peoples health. I am interested in pathways but above all I am interested in solving problems in a provable way. There are many ways to design a succesfull field experiments but one way or another I cannot escape the impression the powers that be including their servant engineers do not like to bring the possible simple solutions to the overall tests among city rural and suburban areas.

    Excellent science should be simple and aiming at solving real world problems.

    When I have a problem in my cars engine I solve it whatever effort it may take. I have to solve it. The science behind the solution does not interest me at all after all. Of course we analyse the problem over and over. In the end we do not write a report. We just solve it.

    Now back to EMR electromagnetic radiation which is a big problem. We just have to test it with plants, with microbes, with trees, with children, with growing children with adults with communities singing in a church, with people under the many imaginable circumstances and then we will find out what solves the sicknesses of these people.

    Science is simple if you understand science methodology.

    The evidence of 2345G damage on the whole of nature is all around us.

    If somebody is insisting on real or more scientific evidence I fear and suspect he or she is asking for eternal income by eternal researching what is for years already evident to the sensitive observer.

    Science has become a high priest venture without ends to be achieved.

    We had better get our feet onto the ground again.

  14. @Zeitgeister: I answer you, because you seem genuinely interested in learning.

    1) The judgement is a philosophical question. And in my opinion you cannot weigh one against the other. It depends on the question you want to answer, the method you use, and the field of science you are in.
    Here is a paper that gives hints about the judgement process:

    From your name I suppose that you can read German:

    If that is not the case then please let me know.

    If you want to dig further on evidence, here is a good start

    2) If it still exists the amount of people reporting issues will be the evidence. So if you are one of them then join forces with others to become visible. Research cannot do anything at the moment to understand more about cancer and EMFs, etc. Dariusz also writes about the short-comings of EHS research and that actually the wrong questions might have been posed. A lot of those papers have methodological flaws, especially the ones with nocebo-effect conclusions.

    3) You are trying to proof what you say isn’t necessary in (2). Does it really matter to have a valid model? Are you really able to judge the quality of models with your knowledge?
    The biggest scientific arguing is around the thermal vs. non-thermal effects. And the researchers criticise each other by pointing on bias, lack of balance and high selectivity of analysing data. And many researchers have been taken to courts for decades who did research on non-thermal effects. Now in Germany the one researcher who brought court cases upon several colleagues is the one to judge the effects of 5G on human health. He is convicted for libel and defamation. Still the radiation protection agency trusts in him. I am not sure what to make out of that. My conclusion is that every researcher who voices their insights and knowledge in public like Dariusz does has to be very brave. And even Dariusz paid a prize for being involved in the classification of RF-EMFs as possibly carcinogenic in 2011. You can help those researchers by calling in public for more research, by supporting their messages.

    4) Exactly the point why Dariusz calls for the following:

    “The first and the foremost reason being that neither side of the debate has solid science-based arguments to dismiss the claims of the other side.
    We need consensus. We need research. We do not need squabble.”

    We indeed need more research that specifically targets the gaps in the knowledge and is really designed to clarify some of the uncertainties.

  15. Dr JBR, thank you for your commentary, I appreciate it.

    I agree with you that science is more than ‘weight of evidence’ and ‘weight of falsifying’, and I agree with you that accurate chains of arguments are needed in science. I agree we need to understand mechanisms of effect from EMFs better. I also agree that correlation doesn’t equal causation. I agree we need to factor biases, and I also agree that politicians are making decisions in uncertainty.

    Okay so plenty of agreement, and a number of things to respond to.

    1) neither you nor Dariusz has answered which approach (‘weight of evidence’ or ‘weight of falsifying’) you consider to have more validity. Bringing up all these other matters just shifts the attention. Perhaps you can both provide a direct answer?

    2) I’m not going to defend Pall’s VGCC hypothesis or Firstenberg’s claim of induced hypoxia via disregulation of electron transport chains and mitochondria function. The latter makes more sense to me, but if you want to say they are both wrong or we don’t understand it well enough, I can’t argue against that as I don’t know enough. What I will say though is that just because we don’t understand a mechanism for how something works, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Most people don’t understand how an internal combustion engine works, yet their car just works right. Which gets us to the next point.

    3) Of-course correlation doesn’t equal causation, and there may be a common tendency among some to jump to wrong conclusions just based off of that. But if we do see consistent correlation for something, we certainly can’t ignore it. And it certainly could be implying causation, even if we don’t understand the causal pathway perfectly. My sense is that the models which suggest harm from non-ionising radiation, although they may lack evidence to an extent, do still demonstrate better explanatory power than the models which suggest no harm, or only possible harm. Particularly, if other variables have been eliminated from the equation, as has been suggested by Firstenberg throughout his book. For example, studies in zoo’s of animals where diets, lifestyle, and other environmental conditions appeared to be consistent, except for EMF changes.

    Good sense-making and science is also about holistic thinking to some extent. Contrary to the education of most scientists which is very specialised and often fails to draw relevant conclusions from other fields, or even from within their own field, but a different camp. This is actually a sense-making edge that a non-expert can have over an expert. For example, Becker describes in his work how Russia and the US took very different pathways as far as EMF research. The former tending to take things much more seriously, and the latter tending to ignore things and frankly put their head in the sand. We can also note the large discrepancy between safety standards of the two countries. Which takes us to the next point.

    4) Bias is a problem, and as I have raised I am deeply concerned about the politics and economics of EMFs negatively impacting the science. This seems to be a point that both you and Dariusz would agree with. Feel free to clarify though. So this means my ‘baloney detection’ meter is sounding alarm. And it also brings us full circle because the weight of evidence approach that many scientists may favor (such as those part of the WHO working group to define safety classification, or the organisations that the WHO defers to such as ICNIRP etc), have been potentially corrupted by government or business interests. So how can a member of the public trust their admonitions? That politicians are making decisions with uncertainty compounds the problem because it reduces our capacity to do proper studies today on health effects when the entire environment has been changed and there isn’t a square foot of the earth which isn’t being bathed by this artificial pollution. It also makes this all much more consequential for everyone, not just scientists, because the precautionary principle is not being followed.

    5) Dariusz you judge it ‘funny’ that a non-scientist can side with various interpretations. Well I must apologise if you get the impression that I don’t respect the dedication of scientists like yourself who have put in significant time in understanding the field well. Me taking the time to sense-make this issue better by commenting on *your* blog is because I am genuinely interested in your answering all of my questions. If you wish to point me to any books or scientific papers, please do. Telling me not to read your blog just means I am potentially building in a blind-spot in my thinking right? So that never really helps anyone when that occurs.

  16. Yes, it was to that person. Funny, he has no background in science but judges which scientist’s science interpretation is better or even correct 🤣

  17. Was that advice to Zeitgeist? Because I love your blog and the way you clarify the status quo. Thank you for that! I wish there would be more sound scientific debate around the topic. Today I wandered off and wrote here. Maybe better back to just ignore it for a while longer while preparing and doing what I can do for the topic …

  18. When two quantities, events, etc. correlate then we have not found any proof or evidence yet that one causes the other. They could have a joint cause. Or they could just behave in the same way by chance.

    For employing correlations when generating evidence, as it is done in medicine, psychology, etc. the correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation alone cannot be used as evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. It is one of the most abused types of evidence, because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.

    Dariusz criticises exactly that type of argumentation and reasoning in Firstenberg’s “IS THE SKY REALLY FALLING?”. There is no established link between a EMF-pollution and viruses causing pandemics. And to establish the chain of clear links to go from one to the other it takes more than a simple correlation of data!

    Plus we would also need to get rid of biases, such as the observer bias when collecting the data.

    People who do not reflect at all about such fallacies and difficulties when doing research missed and important part of scientific training!

  19. Thank you, but credentials in and of itself do not necessarily interest me. What most interests me is who seems to have a genuine desire to get to the bottom of something. The essence of good sense-making is having an earnest desire to know. In many cases that will trump who has a better looking CV, no disrespect. Also, sad to say, science is heavily corrupted today. We mostly have post-academic, industrial science as people like John Ziman have written about. So I don’t trust established scientists just at face value. I’m willing to hear out outsiders. You say Firstenberg is uneducated, but what I see is a man who has dedicated at least as much time as you seem to have in understanding this issue.

    You dismiss him, but you haven’t offered any substantial critique of his views. Nor confirmed or denied if you have properly understood his overall thinking, such as by reading his book. Of-course you don’t have to do that, but reading an article or two of his out of context and then calling him uneducated, amateur-like, and a spreader of conspiracies doesn’t seem overly fair or reasonable, if that is the case. You emphasise “correct interpretation” of science, but do you actually know what his interpretation is?

    And may I ask, what is the conspiracy theorising that he apparently is doing? Is it the 5G-COVID talk? … Reading his book, I wouldn’t interpret it as him “conspiracy theorising” by mentioning the apparent lack of history of this illness happening on a yearly reoccurring basis prior to the emergence of electrical infrastructure in the world. And then showing the subsequent emergence of influenza pandemics (or increased rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc) coinciding/ correlating with mileposts of large-scale changes to earth’s electromagnetic environment. Isn’t that just him presenting evidence that EMF’s could be playing an important overlooked role?

    The general sense that I get from reading Becker and Firstenberg is that the human organism is bioelectric in nature. Our entire biology from our organs, tissues, cells etc is mediated and regulated by electrical impulses, and we exist in harmony with the larger biosphere which is also tuned to us electromagnetically. There is a delicate play of balance here, and artificial EMF’s too easily put it into disequilibrium. This basic perspective also seems to marry up very well with eastern thinking on the human being and the planet. Yet, somehow I get the feeling that you would disagree with all this. So please, what is the big change that needs to be understood here?

  20. Following up on the comments below:
    Science is more than ‘weight of evidence’ and ‘weight of falsifying’.

    A very important core element of scientific work is to create a chain of arguments. And every link in the chain must work (including the premise)—not just most of them.
    Here I cite the “Fine Art of Baloney Detection” – Carl Sagan.

    Click to access Sagan-Baloney.pdf

    As for the chain of arguments: We cannot establish all the links yet between the research and what is going on with RF-EMFs in human bodies. Therefore the classification is “possibly carcinogenic”. We would probably need to know a mechanism to go further. There are many possible mechanisms, none of them is established with full evidence. One reason is that there is no research funding to continue with the research pointing towards those carcinogenic risks to create the evidence. Another reason is that results from rodents and mice studies cannot directly be transferred to humans. And this is where both of the above mentioned people do not communicate in a reflected way as I would expect it from a good scientist.
    Even though there is a huge body of evidence, the scientific “models” for thoughts it provides are not consistent enough for final, definitive conclusions.
    Science is an iterative process. A scientist runs experiments, learns from them and then refines the experiment. And sometimes there are more open questions than definitive answers that come out in the process.

    We still need to refine the understanding of the topic of biological effects of RF-EMFs on people (i.e. the thought models we can build from the available data by collecting better data), because there are a lot of links in the chains of arguments that are unclear, uncertain and not well understood. And that is how the conclusion for now came about that the possible existence of non-thermal interaction is not disproved, but the plausibility of the non-thermal interaction mechanisms so far seems very low. But then, one could have gone into more detail with some research, ask better questions, build better methods and generate more/better data to answer some of the open questions related to the non-thermal mechanisms to better judge.

    And so we live at the moment with assumption that “there are only thermal effects” that people need to be protected from. I wish that Pall and the like would really inform the general public about the strength and the short comings of their mechanism models the share with everybody. But most of the time people are just happy when I grasp a tiny little bit of knowledge of what is going on in our bodes. Science is about reasoning not about believing. It is about understanding the models behind arguments and then see the gaps. And sometimes we have a very complex question, as for example the one with the possible mechanisms of athermal effect, that is challenging to dissect into smaller components and still get concise answers. I couldn’t bare these claims of “the calcium channels are the explanation for the mechanism”, but to claim that there is a connection to the corona virus is just outrageous. Nothing scientific about it.

    Zeitgeister: When you know the subject deeply you will understand that there are too many gaps in our current knowledge for a final answer. So politicians are actually deciding under uncertainty, especially uncertainty about the long term effects on our health.

    Dariusz, would very much welcome your feedback on what I wrote.

  21. Correct interpretation of science is of importance, no overstating no trivializing. Firstenberg is not educated scientist. He amateurishly overstates and exaggerates and spreads conspiracy theories.
    My experience comes from over 20 years of hands-on research on RF. See my CV, if interested.

  22. I’m not an academic expert on the EMF subject, but I am a member of the public who has a keen interest in science and sustainability, and has made what I would consider quite a reasonable attempt to sense-make this issue and evaluate claims of health impacts. I’ve read a whole bunch of different scientific papers, listened to numerous podcasts, and recently read two books back to back, they being The Body Electric by Robert Becker, and The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg. Overall, I’ve probably dedicated 6 full months to continuous study of this subject. I probably know more then what the majority of the population is willing to invest into this subject, yet I am very skeptical of the dominant claims of the so called experts who say that there isn’t enough evidence to consider artificial EMF’s as dangerous to health. Or in more official terms, that it should be classified as a probable or known carcinogen.

    This blog suggests that the claims made by the likes of Firstenberg shouldn’t be taken seriously. After reading the book and based on what I know, I wonder what this expert knows that I must be missing? I genuinely want to understand this issue well, and I am concerned that the politics and economics of the issue is clouding the truth. How well does the author of the blog who dismisses Firstenberg understand his perspective -not just with respect to EMF’s and influenza, but in general? Firstenberg in his book cites 150 pages of references. Are we to surmise that all these scientific studies are useless? Or just imbalanced? This sort of gets into a philosophy of epistemology question with science in that some scientists will see more legitimacy with a ‘weight of evidence’ approach, whereas others will take a Popperian approach (giving more ‘weight’ to falsifying evidence rather than confirmatory evidence). Where does the author sit with respect to this?

  23. Pingback: Letter of 15 EU Member States on EMF and 5G disinformation | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  24. I am not a scientist, nor an expert in any of the fields. Hence Pall almost convinced me by his claims. However, I learned to be careful when evaluating claims that are not well documented. So I started looking for counter-arguments to Pall’s claims and found this blog. Thank you.

  25. Unfortunately, Pall’s musings are presented as knowledge and not as speculations. Please, read his articles…

  26. I feel as though Pall’s concern and predictions are taken out of context to an extent then used against him. He admits that these are his speculations, so he should be held as saying they are hard science, just what he sees as a possibility upon his reading of the literature.

  27. As I mentioned several times, VGCC hypothesis is interesting but remains unproven. Pall didn’t perform any experiments to prove it but, at the same time, he seems to present this unproven hypothesis as a fact. Not good but happens…

    The wacko part begins with other Pall claims, concerning e.g. 5G links with covid19 or fires in South Korea.

    Pall should first, find a way to prove his hypothesis before starting baseless and grandiose speculations on what might follow. This is the wacko part of Pall going beyond logic and into scaremongering.

  28. Yes I agree, today’s 20-40 year old’s are phone zombies that are mentally affected by the gamma rays.

  29. Funny, complaints about e.g. ICNIRP you consider to be fair. Complaints about Pall and Firstenberg you consider as unfair.
    Both sides refer in their opinions to peer-reviewed studies.
    Conclusion: commenting should be also fair but you seem to forget it.

  30. I appreciate your detailed exposition of who is who in the organizations “responsible” for monitoring the effects of wireless on health. This business of not knowing the risks involved with 5G is a red flag in and of itself. We should know before moving forward with a grid that will saturate every square inch of space on our planet and up into our atmosphere. You are not as detailed about the science or logics that Pall and Firstenberg use or their claims, dismissing them wholesale with the conspiracist and crackpot label, easy to hurl around, and the same for anybody that reads their work or ascribe to their evaluations. I would appreciate a more respectful and serious engagement with the details of their claims and the research they quote, because they do quote bonafide, peer review studies. And finally, I would much rather see all of you really smart people working together to curb this tide of radiation – do we need 5G really? As far as links to Corona Virus, there is peer reviewed science that suggests these type of viruses shed when there is an upsurge in atmospheric radiation, natural or man made, also what the cell mechanism is that gets affected. Firstenberg’s book is worth the read, just to engage this research. It’s good to get the discussion going but ultimately it has got to be fair…

  31. Dear Ron, whoever you are…
    1. I am assuming that you are an activist, not a scientist…
    2. No, NTP animal toxicology study does not prove that RF causes cancer in humans. It strenghtens evidence suggesting that it happens but it is not proof…
    3. There is a difference between an activist reviewing hundreds of studies and a scientist reviewing hundreds of studies… If there wouldn’t be then every scientist is wasting time to academically educate herself/himself
    4. I am not sitting on fence. If you read my blog, my statements like support for re-classification of carcinogenicity to class 2A or statements indicating that EHS certainly exist but research was done improperly to prove it, hardly indicate “sitting on the fence”
    5. Many enjoy my blog, many do not. Nevertheless, I will be going on for the foreseeable future…

  32. So, we know that the NTP proved that wireless radiation causes cancer. The study was extensive and well designed. We also know that no study will be perfect enough to be accepted by ICNIRP and WHO. Yet, the sane and reasonable person would draw a line and say – ”shut up you fence sitters, the proof has been there for decades, stop throwing doubt. Throwing doubt enables more funding for fence sitters”. I have reviewed hundreds of studies, enough to see through your farce Dariusz of throwing doubt just like the cooked up industry. Enough, we know Microwave Radiation at the current and proposed levels sickens people and nature. Enough, proof enough. We knew this decades ago. Please close your doubt throwing blog – enough, enough harm has been caused by Microwave radiation already.

  33. Pingback: 5G: Science vs Dogma – Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services

  34. Just adding another piece of information. This is Huawei Europe’s article to explain “safety”.

    Their points copied below:

    • The design of modern 5G antennas actually reduces the average exposure of individuals in a given area.
    • The radiation of a 5G base station radiation is less than 1/8000 of the sunlight radiation.
    • Most frequencies currently assigned to 5G occupy existing low frequency and Wi-Fi bands, involving no new risks, while higher frequencies also mean lower penetration in the body, and are associated with lower emitted power. Let me add that the use of high frequency bands will not start immediately, leaving more time for additional research.
    Comparing to sunlight. Oh boy. What are natural sources of microwave radiation? Not many. Thank you.

  35. Pingback: Brief, and Bold, Statement from David O. Carpenter on RF-EMF and Immune Response | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  36. Thank you Dariusz. As much as I dislike going against 1-2 people, it really annoys me how unreflected so many people as part of the general public around me suck up the ideas that are spread by the people you mention above. The only explanation I have for this is that they can not live with the uncertainty of the status quo in science, so they grasp for some seemingly understandable statements about the topic. I wish we can bring the topic and the urgent need for more research to European awareness soon! Best wishes from Germany.

  37. Thank you Darius for your recent well penned comment. I ask for your indulgence in one final comment by me to respond to Mr. Whitney’s Orwellian DOUBLESPEAK because his comment gets to the crux of the problem.

    Mr. Whitney, the industry’s position before the public and our representatives has not been “we are not required to do pre-market safety testing and therefore we can not say with certainty whether this product is safe or harmful”. The industry consistently positions itself, irrationally and not scientifically proven, as “our product is safe because we comply with FCC standards”. These are two different statements. The first is correct and in line with Darius’s blog. The second is pure K Street high paid consulting PR.

    It is NOT irrational to question 5G safety. It is not accurate to proclaim that ALARA is achieved by your APC.

    In the US, our fiduciary is the FCC. In 2012 our GAO told the FCC to do a formal reassessment of RF emission guidelines through GAO audit GAO-12-771. The FCC agreed and issued Docket 13-84 and a NOI. On February 6, 2019 in a “Race to 5G” hearing, industry told Congress that their 5G complies with FCC guidelines and therefore safe. In addition they stated that there were no ongoing studies on 5G that they were aware of. Somewhere in between Feb 6 and March 3, 2019 the GAO closed out their audit recommendation from GAO-12-771 stating “Not Implemented. Despite many years of consideration, FCC still has no specific plans to take any actions that would satisfy our recommendations. Accordingly, we are closing the recommendations as not implemented.” Our fiduciary, the FCC, blew off the GAO.

    Now I ask you – why did they spend 7 years playing “delay and deflect” as opposed to just setting up a committee with all appropriate parties (which should include industry) and just do the dam assessment IF what you wrote is indeed true and supported by science (“there are no quantifiable adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current cell phone exposure limits”)? And for the 3rd time I ask – where are the so called US health agencies substantive comment letters to the issues raised by the NOI and public in Docket 13-84?

    I could go on with more but my message is this- this 5G conversation is VERY important because industry has gone beyond “let the buyer beware”. Industry has paid off the local, state and federal legislators, as well as our fiduciary (FCC) to demand access to our properties without the consent of the people, with NO scientific evidence of safety. THIS IS A MAJOR CONCERN THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY. STAY OFF OUR LAWNS.

  38. This is a rational argument. I hope it has a positive effect on those expressing irrational opinions.

    5G is a transitory network concept – not a frequency band! And as such, is simply not classifiable with respect to potential health hazards. Networks will employ various frequencies from 600 MHz to 30 GHz, and possibly beyond. Since different bands possess different characteristics, they need to be discussed separately. Some research has been done on these frequencies in the context both of disease diagnosis and treatment, and in telecommunications applications. And more studies are ongoing.

    Nobody is arguing that our knowledge is complete, but our current knowledge indicates that there are no quantifiable adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current cell phone exposure limits. Of course this not proof of safety – and conversely – not proof of harm!

    A word about the Precautionary Principle: A regulatory limit on exposure is an application of this! Furthermore, ALARA is achieved by Adaptive Power Control (APC) – a technical feature which limits cellphone output to no more than needed to maintain a good quality connection to the network.

  39. I am not a scientist but I am a logic-based person who has been fighting the crazy on social media. Much of it due to Pall. Very happy to have found your blog that demonstrates the clear middle ground that both further sciences and health.

  40. Accustomed to moving between official organisms, Dariusz has been too concerned with marking distances with the movement against electromagnetic contamination, to be a reliable reference at all times. Perhaps the frustration of not seeing his academic aspirations fulfilled, now at the end of his career, is making his voice higher lately.
    It is true that it sounds exaggerated to say thousands of investigations demonstrate, but what do you want, that the reality, to the scandal of the gods who from heaven contemplate the excess that the operators are doing with the health of humans, with their complicity, everything must be said. If in emf portal there are thirty thousand researches on emf, how many we can consider that they are not related to health-related effects ? Perhaps thirty percent, there are remain twenty-thousand. And as Dariusz himself recognized, they are not all. Of those possible twenty thousand, thirty-five forty percent find adverse effects, that leave a result of seven or eight thousand, at least. Of course, even if thousands are the correct number, I prefer to speak of hundreds, because for the public unaware of the matter, it is more credible.

    I agree with Dariusz, in his criticism of the 5G stop movement regarding conspiracy theories about the causal link between 5G and coranvires. These theories are based on false data and do not have scientific support to hold them. The 5G exposure is still incipient, it does not correlate with the places -all- where the epidemic has occurred, and in fact regarding the frequencies it is not different from the radiation of the 4G or 3G network. I do not share, however, that there is no scientific documentation to say that 5G is harmful to health. Although not many, there are specific investigations, but above all there are aspects common to all radiofrequency exposure to be certain that 5G impairs biological function.
    Finally, for not taking too long, it is sad that a reference like Martin Pall gets carried away by cospiranoic speculations and tries to put his research as evidence of the 5G and coronavirus relationship. However, speaking of these common harmful effects of all radiofrequency, Pall’s investigation of calcium channels, which is neither original nor exhaustive, points to one of the basic mechanisms of why oxidative stress occurs.
    We wish that the good man of Dariusz does not lose his strength like the uncorked champagne, and continue distributing sword to right and left for many years, if possible with a little more calm, judgment and justice than he has been doing for a while now.

  41. Dearest Mr. Whitney.
    I read this the day it came out.
    You deflected on my questions – where is the letter where the FDA tells the NTP they are doing their study wrong? Where are the FDA substantive comments on FCC Docket 13-84?
    Who wrote that Feb 2020 FDA document? Is it proper and common for scientists not to sign their work?
    Bridge the gap for me Mr. Whitney from the FDA’s 1999 statements in their letter to the NTP and their statements in the Feb 2020 unsigned document? Or are the 1999 statements still valid, as Darius suggests, “that little was known about the possible health effects of repeated or long-term exposure to low levels of RFR of the types emitted by such devices”? And if little is still known about important things like long term chronic exposures to these types of RFR than what does that say about our FIDUCIARIES? 35 years and we are still in the same place. Why? Who do we hold accountable?

  42. Tom Whitney-
    Sorry, forgot to include that those first two quotes come from the May 19, 1999 FDA nomination letter to the NTP, many years AFTER the current guidelines were approved.

  43. Dearest Tom Whitney – I must have just misunderstood, is that your claim?

    “There is currently insufficient scientific basis for concluding either that wireless communication technologies are safe or that they pose a risk to millions of users. A significant research effort, involving large well-planned animal experiments is needed to provide the basis to assess the risk to human health of wireless communications devices.”

    “FDA concluded over five years ago that little was known about the possible health effects of repeated or long-term exposure to low levels of RFR of the types emitted by such devices. However, some scientific articles suggest a potential cancer risk may exist. While some other studies did not find evidence of carcinogenicity for RFR, data from long-term animal studies with a multi-dose exposure paradigm are unavailable. “

    You fail to mention the NTP’s study conclusions of clear evidence of cancer, why? You fail to mention that the study was carefully designed to control that no heating occurred (thermal effects) and was testing the hypothesis that there are no non-thermal effects, why?

    I suggest you do some things to improve YOUR understanding. Read/View Dr. Melnick’s (the chief designer of the study) many statements/interviews about how toxicology studies are designed and what the studies were designed to test. Provide me with the document that the FDA wrote somewhere between 1999-2016, after the NTP updated the FDA on how their study was being designed, whited alerted the NTP to their concerns that the study design was over-exposing rats and would have no use, because quite frankly, my audit NEVER uncovered such documentation.

    Mr. Whitney, the public has had it with the Thank You For Smoking war-gaming parading as scientific dogma. My audit revealed VERY CLEARLY that both the FDA and the EPA clearly felt that there were many IMPORTANT unknowns about this technology and the so called FIDUCIARIES did NOTHING to resolve those open issues in THIRTY FIVE EFFING YEARS. Did they beef up scientific staffing? NO, they decreased the staffing in the US. Did they increase scientific research funding? No. It has been non-existent AND the one study they do they IGNORE and WAR-GAME.

    While you are looking for support, actual evidence for your position, please find the substantive comments made by either the FDA or the EPA on FCC Docket 13-84 addressing both the NOI questions and the public’s comments. I can’t seem to find them but the FCC has stated many times before Congress, the press AND the public that they do not have health expertise and rely on the health agencies for guidance. My FOIA’s did not yield such evidence. In fact the FDA’s radiological group has a TWO year backlog on FOIA’s. I wonder why?

    The NTP study provided a basis for assessing risk to human health. It should have resulted in a slow down of further cell installations based on its conclusions and that of the Ramazzini study. This “Race to 5G” is CRIMINAL and unwarranted. Let the Chinese have their internet connect toaster first. I’ll wait.


  44. I have commented long ago (but not for a long time) and repeatedly on DL’s philosophical and fundamental errors and problems of orientation. For example, it makes no sense to talk about precaution. Maybe “postcaution”? We’re way past the point where it makes any sense to harp on precaution. Now even “ALARA” is of little use, for what in crazy context is as low as “reasonably achievable”, without prejudicing in favour of wireless use in some way, not to mention that there is no consistent linearity to “e-smog” toxicity?

    DL fails to appreciate that his stance assumes preferentially in favour of wireless altogether. This is a completely extra-scientific position. It were a more scientific position to, for example, take to demanding extensive zones of extremely low “electro-smog” so research could continue with proper controls, for instance (not to mention safeguard the innumerable people who clearly suffer from such exposures, from mildly to gravely). Even animals experimented on may have developed as have people increased reactivity to manmade EMR over the decades, skewing ability to compare and replicate. (See also Firstenberg’s incisive criticism of the NTP study as well). What does it take to have simple logic penetrate among people in DL’s field and generally, that as Johannson is wont to say, safe = zero, at least as saner point of departure for discussion?

    DL treats the overall situation as basically one requiring interminable research before committing to policy position. He seems to favour his own narrower field that is likely to have little or no direct bearing on public policy. He has apparently suffered from withdrawal of funding resulting in curtailment of his own intrinsically valuable research, yet manifests quite the naive attitude about ultimate string-pullers affecting who does and does not get funding. It is supposed that a certain docility is required that such researchers are trained to, to achieve whatever they have in the first place, and this is so very hard to dislodge.

    I recall looking into DL’s run-in with prevailing industry hack type scientists, one of whom is a lead scientist at my country’s federal “health” department on e-exposure. This was I think in mid-2000s when DL was (wrongly) taken to task I think it was for following up intelligently certain particular aspects that might result in suggestion of harm, when his criticizers’ (all too typical) approach was to average everything together and thus out.

    As for Pall, he has done important work in logically piecing together matters from copious extant published research material that had not been put together in such a way, re calcium efflux, calcium blockers and so on. What on earth is so objectionable? “Overstepping” into policy prescription, which DL does just as much – and surely far far worse – through basically counselling inaction? If the extent of harm is closer to as professed by some, incl. myself, then far better to have creaturely protection than protection of e-smog perpetrators and abettors which is the effective result of DL’s position, even were he to able to continue his research!

    As for Firstenberg, I saw his mass email about this virus and it nowhere makes any “wacko” claim, further I responded to it myself in a mass email. His work is to be greatly appreciated – where else for example can anyone find such a highly suggestive and interesting compendium such as in his book which one should be glad to see is coming out in paperback, so justly popular has it become. Such is DL’s irritation that it has apparently impeded his reading and interpretive ability. His rhetorical enemy should rather be those who defunded his and others’ cognate work that risked leading to important evidence that in sane policy would curtail the reach and extent of wireless mania.

    “5G” and this virus are indeed connected, not in a medical way (except insofar as any and all artificial e-exposures must be considered as detrimental to health maintenance and thus a co-morbid factor**). That in China there is a sped-up 5G development in the wake of being struck by this virus, and likewise in the West to apparently not be outdone by the Chinese (relaxing rules to the point of ridiculousness, eg in Israel a single day of being open to public comment), this kind of thing has only the naive and uninformed think there is no connexion.

    ** Since the vast, vast majority of people who succumb to this virus have been as with regular seasonal flus elderly with multiple other co-morbid factors – making it very often unclear whether these unfortunate die of or with the virus – I think of what happened in our advocacy experience with long term care facilities around 2010 when they deployed wifi for nurses. Right away we witnessed symptoms in the helpless residents. One we were close to broke out in (rare until proliferation of mob phone infrastructure late 90s) bullous pemphigoid which abated right after wifi was shut off after our complaints. (Would DL wait for scientific study to verify causality there were it his loved one? It would be similar to waiting for scientific study aspects of human digestion before daring to eat breakfast.) The issue was subsequently ineptly studied by local public health and facility people, fortunately leading to extended shut off of the wifi. The administrator undertook to mitigate and study exposure patterns. Then one day shortly after admin would no longer speak to the issue and completely reneged after we got a hand-delivered letter from the government ministry involved assuring that wifi was going ahead no matter what. “5G” is set – as it stands, “‘no matter what” – to spread various new co-morbid factors abroad.

  45. Marilynne Martin – You have either not read the NTP studies or have misunderstood them. The FCC maximum permitted whole-body human exposure is 0.08 W/kg. But the maximum exposure of the NTP studies was 10 W/kg – 125 times the FCC maximum! The very high rodent exposures were nothing like human exposure from domestic wireless devices. The study authors made the point that the exposures were higher than people experience and that the study results are difficult to extrapolate to humans. They used high power levels in the experiment to determine if it was at all possible to induce adverse health effects. Studies at lower power levels have had ambiguous results.

    The NTP results indicate some excess carcinogenic activity in male rats only. Results for female rats and for male and female mice showed no statistically significant results. And found no clinically significant results for humans! More studies to fill in the gaps are planned for the future.

  46. You are a sane voice in an insane world and I thank you for your work.

    However, what we really need is GOOD FIDUCIARIES.
    The FCC and ICNIRP are guilty of GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
    Until proper internal controls are put in place over the issuance, monitoring and maintenance of RF emission guidelines, no amount of consensus or research will resolve this issue.

    To the industry reading this blog:
    Stay off my effing front lawn!
    The fact that you and our regulators have brought us from nothing wireless to everything wireless in the past 35 years AND still have much unresolved controversies and research gaps is a sign that you can not be trusted. Good fiduciaries of the public health would not have allowed that to happen.

    The importance of the NTP study can not be minimized. The fact that the majority of studies to date that everyone cites (on both sides) is on RF exposure that does not reflect what the public is ACTUALLY EXPOSED TO is well, the crime of the century. One of the goals of the NTP study was to use actual exposures. For hundreds of billions of dollars to be brought into the US Treasury through spectrum auctions over the past 35+ years and zero be allocated to resolving the controversies (unknowns) is just plain CRIMINAL.

    We don’t need more congressional hearings or review of the science. We need a formal independent review of the FIDUCIARIES. That review will speak volumes.

    Again industry, stay off my property. My name is real, I live in Venice, FL and I am a retired CPA with significant internal control expertise. If we applied COSO principles, you fail miserably.

  47. Nice article Dariusz.

    We both know that exposure guidelines were reached in a relatively short term, partly from a reality that no one has the funds, or patience, to do long-term studies to reach equitable exposure guidelines, while the body drop count increases. The sad reality is that one of those “bodies” could be mine, IF I am not a reasonable person and do not exercise sufficient precaution to reduce my chances of “dropping.” If I only knew what “sufficient precaution” was . . .

    Issuing suggestions of a Precautionary Principle, while appearing harmless on the surface, may give the appearance of a darker reality with lots of risk, and involve concerns of liability (or loss of credibility, and thus funding) from the entity suggesting the use of precaution. Thus the short appearance, at the WHO, and its quick vanishing act.

    In North America, the residential electrical system is in reality a commercial one, but receiving no maintenance, it becomes either a fire hazard, or complicit in sharing substantial current (and accompanying magnetic field) between and among neighbors. To prevent the fire hazard (instead suggesting protection from lightning), the electrical codes enforce interconnections between neighborhood shared metallic systems (water piping, cable, etc.), ensuring the multiplicity of possible source of magnetic fields. The use of two polarities in this system, with pervasive use of Romex (cable simply covered in plastic), introduces alternating electric field stress. Typical residential levels are much much lower than the Maximum Permissible Exposures (at 60 Hz), yet both magnetic and electric fields appears to be associated with leukemia. Leukemia is a rare disease. Double its possible occurrence, and it’s still a rare disease. But for those to whom this becomes a certainty, conventional electrical arrangements are no longer acceptable.

    The studies linking effect to exposure, appear, and then vanish, and are sometimes hotly contested. I treasure finding relevant documents I can use to support the truth. However, truth, anymore, is what you make it. Yet, if that truth happens to you, you become a small minority, and mostly vanish from the landscape, because your credibility also vanishes.

    My little corner of the world involves educating the consumer, in their place of perceived safety, about the various environmental issues and whether they are relevant. A concern by a Dr about a smart meter, turned to revelation, when DECT phones were found in the bedroom and kitchen, being there for over a decade, and broadcasting continuously, compared to emissions from the 50’-(15m)-distant smart meter every 30 seconds or so. The “green” or “energy efficient” drive is an Achille’s heel when Romex wiring is used (as in most of North America), causing the Harmonics to exist in free space, whose frequencies have strong biological relevance. A few sensitives I’ve met were even irritated by power system harmonics, on their electric system ground, even with all power off. I can quantify those signals and give validity to that sensitivity, fortunately, or not.

    And then there’s people like Arthur who states on his 5G appeal:

    Donations in any amount are welcome and are used where most needed to support the global effort to stop 5G. This includes paying for lawyers, expert witnesses, web designer, web developer, email services, computer time, office supplies, phone bills, printing costs, and other necessary expenses. Sufficient funds would also pay for publicity for our cause and for clerical help, which are much needed.

    I wonder how much of any donation really supports stopping 5G.

    In the emails I receive from him and some of his enablers, he asks for donations giving the false impression that he is going to be able to stop 5G . . . if enough donations are received. In fact, I perceive, the donations will serve to pay the rent first, and then to support more fear mongering to entice more donations.

    The conflicting statements from the opposing parties, and the misinformation campaigns, have opened the gates for myths, and a lot of “lucky charms,” being marketed as solutions. But No, we’re not going to roll over and die because of 5G. No, 5G is not 5 GHz. No, we’re not going to die because they’re installing smart meters. No, installing “dirty electricity filters” will not stop “dirty electricity,” yours or your neighbors.’ No, installing a little mineral chip on your smartphone will not make it harmless, any more than installing a triangular magnet on your breaker panel will eliminate “EMFs.” The list goes on, and on, and on . . .

    As I heard W.C Fields once say: A sucker is born every minute.

    Many consumers are overwhelmed by the technical “noise,” and are suckered into a very false sense of safety by these simple myths and cheap amulets, causing me to try to have them unlearn what they think they know, and then provide a repeatable measure of reality, taking more time, and as you know time is money. But I get paid by the hour . . .

  48. You’re now mixing different things. In your article, you claim that “Firstenberg claims to have proven that (…) coronavirus was caused by the 5G in Wuhan”, pointing to his article “Is the sky really falling ?”. But in this article, F. clearly states that the link is “not direct”. I respect your work and I’d be happy to read arguments from you, not amalgams… Proper arguments may wipe out conspiracy theories. Amalgams, on the contrary, may stenghten them.

  49. He just disseminated conspiracy theory as a sure thing… And he didn’t say that he got idea from someone else. So, it was his conspiracy theory and disseminated as sure thing = proven.

  50. Firstenberg never “claimed” he had “proven” anything.
    Please don’t project your thoughts on what you read.

  51. Ditto to what was written by this woman: Deborah Rubin on April 8, 2020 at 22:18 said:
    Martin Pall and Arthur Firstenberg are certainly not responsible for the current 5G storm. It’s the telecom’s, the regulators–redundant, surely, as you say–and their global agenda of or trend toward mass surveillance, surveillance capitalism, digital evolution–I’m not even sure we know what the point is: financial, political, all of the above,something else altogether–regardless of the health science. That is the conflict. Couple that to the mostly unsuspecting, conditioned, addicted, technology-enmeshed public who can’t get enough of the stuff, and frankly can’t get around society now without it–despite the research– and we have a storm brewing. It’s been brewing for decades. …For entire blog see above. (ME: Why are we blaming each other…or blaming Pall and Firstenberg. These pissing contests do not strike me as objective at all but as emotional, childish displays of fake objectivity so obvious that children of four can often see that the Emperor has no clothes. I might entirely revise my opinion on this but the article by L was snipped off the screen so I haven’t yet been able to read it… but the blogger’s response hit home for me regarding so many other scientific researchers who’ve had thinly disguised ties to the wireless industry. People are dying or living in torture while they all going on pontificating and “being objective” about everything but reality itself.)

  52. Hi Dariusz. Many thanks for this article- really useful. I am interested to read of your distinction between ‘evidence indicating a possibility / probability of damage to health’ and ‘proven damage to health eg to DNA etc’. As a non-scientist, I do not fully understand the difference. I understand that the quality of some experiments may be better than others but, at this moment in time, would you say that no health effects have been scientifically proven? Thank you, Kind regards, David

  53. Mark, thank you for your kind words. Getting some positive feedback, instead of trolling, is nice.
    WHO EMF Project in 2004 or 2005 presented the idea of applying the Precautionary Principle and it was even published on their website. However, it vanished very fast and things returned to “normal”. It was kind of glitch in thinking of Repacholi and Kheifets duet. You may search for more on this issue in Microwave News (MWN, M/A03 and M/J03). Dariusz

  54. Darius, you remain a prominent voice of reason. Well done!
    An excellent article.

    The question that I have is this: why doesn’t the WHO take more responsibilty for pushing the use of the precautionary principle?

    I’ve been an electronics engineer/physicist for thirty odd years now. For the last ten years I’ve become a “turncoat” and now try to help EHS sufferers to protect themselves from some aspects of the technology I and colleagues designed and promoted. I’ve tried over the years to raise peoples’ awareness of the potential problems with RF, mostly to little avail. Preaching to the converted (the “echo chamber”) only pampers the ego and elsewhere, the vast majority of people are so reliant on their smartphones and happy with the associated convenience, that they simply don’t want to hear about the possible drawbacks. Die-hard smokers ignore the graphic health warnings on cigarette packets, why should other groups be any different?

    Frustration has led me to wonder how we can realistically go forward and who (no pun intended!) should be responsible for our well-being. Theoretically it should be the WHO. But as we’ve seen this week (re. corona virus), their funding is heavily controlled by the very people who are lobbied by the industries from which they need to protect us. How can this work? The CTIA, for example, have a lot of influence on governments around the world and probably won’t be impressed with efforts to further curtail their business. They could even take an active part to discredit the true science approach by supporting the “wacko” theorists. It wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened in the world.

    So where does that leave us?
    As a starting point, a multi-disciplinary round-table is an absolute must and you were right to suggest it. You and the likes of Lai and Repacholi etc. really should revisit that idea.
    Its about time that the various parties stopped defending their own sand-boxes and started working together like responsible human beings.

  55. Dear Hugo, unfortunately the EHS persons have helped the propagation of voodoo science of Firstenberg and Pall. I understand that the EHS people feel desperate because the EHS science is not being properly done. In their desperation, EHS people turn to anyone who is supportive and who claims to know things. This way they were seduced by the voodoo-scientists Pall and Firstenberg. Pall lecturing is not at the universities or science conferences because his voodoo would not withstand peer review at such places. Pall lectures at events organized by EHS persons where he finds audiences with inadequate scientific education that welcomes his voodoo ideas. The same goes for Firstenberg, a med school dropout pretending to be scientist. At this point in time I have no laboratory to continue research where EHS could be diagnosed. I am only able to lecture… Best, Dariusz

  56. Thanks very much for this very clear article, Dariusz.
    Thanks again Fernando Andreoli

  57. In my opinion, it is unreasonable to blame one or two people for the actions of another. That’s quite a leap. Despite what you believe, many us do think critically for ourselves, considering all information and opinions. Most activists are not blind followers of anyone by nature. What is the real nature of this problem? And which scheme really is wacko?

  58. With all due respect, Pall and Firstenberg are responsible because their crackpot wacko ideas, disseminated by many others, brought upon us this 5G storm

  59. Martin Pall and Arthur Firstenberg are certainly not responsible for the current 5G storm. It’s the telecom’s, the regulators–redundant, surely, as you say–and their global agenda of or trend toward mass surveillance, surveillance capitalism, digital evolution–I’m not even sure we know what the point is: financial, political, all of the above,something else altogether–regardless of the health science. That is the conflict. Couple that to the mostly unsuspecting, conditioned, addicted, technology-enmeshed public who can’t get enough of the stuff, and frankly can’t get around society now without it–despite the research– and we have a storm brewing. It’s been brewing for decades. Many users are unwilling and/or incapable of understanding the health risks, the science, and most are blissfully unaware just how much science even exists, have no desire to become aware, still, despite your 20 years of hard work and the work of many others you may approve of. But some of us are aware. Scientific research and protocols are not really advancing the science in public policy. You can’t get ahead of the curve for whatever reason. Maybe it is mainstream science’s approach that isn’t effective, that is enabling. RF levels have increased exponentially over the last 50 years, maybe again the last 10. I believe the research is important, certainly, but the ones who should be taking it seriously, carefully considering it across fields, are the public health experts and regulators who for the most part are not. Rather they swallow and obfuscate the science, go with the flow of a “consensus” that no one really ever agreed on. Maybe no one can even substantiate. If they did their jobs, I can’t believe they would not see the hazards. Someone knocking down a tower does not allow the policy makers to disregard the science they never properly considered in the first place. The first place. Even some of your statements can be/have been taken to suggest there is no evidence of adverse effects, whether or not that is what you intend. I don’t allege that is what you truly believe and mean, but others have exploited that “uncertainty of science”. The PR firms use the same language to create doubt and leeway. Most governments do not adhere to the Precautionary Principle, so no action there. The real disinformation campaign is and always has been carefully controlled by the telecoms, energy co’s, governments, militaries, press [and often all these things are one giant machine] and their big PR firms that purposely mislead the public into a false sense of security. They manipulate, exploit and ignore the Science. And their own public health principles. Most lay people don’t even know there is something to investigate other than brain tumors, another careful misdirection of the PR firms. Otherwise, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be giving RF devices to their toddlers, etc. Still, you’d think even the possibility of brain tumors might give them pause….but, no. I don’t blame Martin Pall and Arthur Firstenberg for saying what they truly believe, based on what they do know and their consciences. I am thankful to them. Whether they are right or wrong, is it improper to take a position, to theorize what may happen or may be happening? To warn people? The real deception lies with the deployers and their kind who insist wireless radiation is safe by way of no evidence of harm. And that’s where I think you part ways with them, if I understand you, in that your position is that while there is not adequate evidence harm, we need precaution due to indications in the peer reviewed science? Please correct me if I am wrong, this is not an accusation, I am just trying to understand. If so, you must realize that the gov’s, telecom and their press twist that stance a bit and then also exploit it. Because that is what they do. Like they exploit everyone else. Some scientists and many activists believe there is evidence of harm and the unsuspecting public should be informed because they have been purposefully uninformed, even misinformed. But they are up against a very strong counter force. Barring a catastrophic event, this force is probably unstoppable. Even by “adequate science some odd years from now.” We are deploying in space, very aspect of our lives is digital. It won’t be reversed for good will. Or good science, barring a miracle or a disaster. I just don’t see the impact of these 50+ years of good, extensive scientific research into emf health effects on public policy and exposure levels. Instead we see an exponential increase of the radiation levels and technology into every aspect of life, Earth and space.

  60. Dear Dariusz, I read your blog with much appreciation, as usual. Yes, ICNIRP and IEEE only serve the electrical industries by cherry-picking in the scientific literature; and yes, Arthur Firstenberg and his disciples have live a lively fantasy (thanks to Arthurs history of EMF health hazards); and yes, Martin Pall is presenting nonsense connections between EMF caused health effects (I had a hard conservation with him when he recently visited the Netherlands). This makes you hoping on a ‘/silent *majority*/’ to bring truth in scientific data and make them trustworthy. Yet, there is also a ‘/silent *minority*/’ of people who are behind this uproar: the electrical hypersensitives (EHS). Members of this group are not heard by most physicians or other health officials, due to the suppressive terror of ICNIRP. They are desperate to survive under the increasing RF pressure of 3/4G transmitters, and hate plans for additional 5G implementation. They fear the absolute lack of any research on possible health effects of frequencies to be used in a few months time. It is not the long term cancer promoting effect of high intensity RF fields, it is the influence of EMFs of intensities several orders of magnitude below ICNIRP limits. These EHS people develop EHS symptoms of variable nature, but there is no accepted diagnostic effect that helps physicians to raise interest and offer effective help of advice. It is essential that a diagnosis is developed, however formulated, and perhaps technically beyond the scope of a regular physician’s instrumental outfit. Therefore, science is needed to provide any physiological, biochemical or genetic tool helpful for developing a effective diagnostic tool. So, any suggestion as to the type op research that may lead to easy (?) recognition of EHS symptom will be appreciated. You lectured and published on this requirement several times and gene-modified protein synthesis is just one of the signs of EMF influence to follow up. But perhaps there are easier approaches to study, approaches that may be easier or sooner to apply in routine physicians’ clinical laboratories. I will communicate any of your suggestions by through my own series of EHS blogs, published on my website (in Dutch, sorry). Respectfully, Hugo Schooneveld Advisor to the Dutch EHS Foundation April 4, 2020

    Op 8-4-2020 om 14:28 schreef BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place: > > dariuszleszczynski posted: “…this is a longer blog, hopefully worth > your time to read to the end… For over 20 years I have been doing > hands-on research on the effects of RF-EMF on biological systems and > for over 20 years I was arguing that we need better quality research > to prove, ” >

  61. André, no, with all due respect, I do not agree with Oleg’s conclusions. It is too old research to be considered sufficiently reliable. It should be replicated with current biomedical technologies before it can be really accepted. Too early for such conclusions… Dariusz

  62. Thanks very much for this very clear and provoking article, Dariusz. I will quote it soon and maybe translate it altogether in French.

    Concerning immunity, I take it you agree with Yuri Grigoriev’s conclusions? … it can be concluded that long-term RF exposure at low intensity (50 μW/cm2) results in auto-allergic reactions … Analysis of the results of our study on RF effects on immune system allowed conclusion that data used in 1976 for development of RF standards in the USSR that are still in action in Russia were reasonable. A vailable data allow the conclusion that the immune system is a critical system for evaluation of the effect of RF at low intensity and should be taken into consideration for development of standards. Thanks again André

  63. Pingback: Compilation of blog posts on incompetence and harm caused by Martin Pall | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  64. Pingback: Internationale grænseværdier for mikrobølgestråling -

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.