Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of Steve Weller himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.
False claims of safety and reckless abandonment of the precautionary principle
by Steve Weller, ORSAA, Australia
Reading the latest blogs on BRHP, and witnessing first hand the rhetoric coming from many government and industry representatives about the safety of 5G, I feel compelled as a custodian of the ORSAA RF research database to provide comment.
Misinformation, disinformation and fake news appear to be the sign of the times and claims of safety in relation to 5G (and I would also include 2G, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE etc.) are not supported by any robust scientific evidence. Using airport screening unit emissions and police radar as examples (as ARPANSA has done on its website https://www.arpansa.gov.au/news/misinformation-about-australias-5g-network) to suggest that 5G is not harmful appears to be a sleight of hand. Firstly, the emissions from these devices are nothing like the signals used by 5G technology. 5G will be using complex modulations that are untested for their implications on human health. I feel it is most important that people realise that it is not necessarily the RF carrier wave that causes all the biological effects noted in RF-EMR research but it is often the complex modulation/pulsing of the carrier wave and the varying intensities these signals operate at that appears to make it more bioactive.
Secondly, the exposures to members of the public to police radar and airport scanners are at best described as acute and rare events and nothing like the chronic exposures that one experiences from an RF facility installed near a home and/or an office.
Thirdly, I am yet to see a single epidemiological study or clinical study looking at chronic exposures to airport screening devices (i.e., airport screening device operators) that demonstrates safety. ARPANSA are also yet to publish supporting studies on their website. In the case of police radar, there is at least one study linking usage by police officers to testicular cancer [Davis RL, 1993]. Also, in the case of airport screening units, if one takes the time to search the internet one will find example stories (anecdotal) of operators, who in close proximity to such equipment for long hours, suffer a variety of symptoms that are best described and attributed to radiation sickness.
Telstra, an Australian telecommunications company, in its submission to a 2020 Australian parliamentary 5G inquiry, along with a New York Times article suggests that the Russians are trying to interfere in the rollout of 5G technology. Nothing like using “the old commie under the bed” trick to get people riled up and helping to motivate support for the rollout of this technology. However, if we take the time to look at how the Russians feel about wireless technology, one only needs to consider what Professor Yuri Grigoriev, head of the Russian equivalent to ICNIRP (i.e., RNCNIRP) and advisor to the WHO, is saying. Children are at risk. The RNCNIRP has even made an official statement, which can be verified on its website, that manufacturers of wireless equipment should inform their customers about the possible risk to children`s health from using a mobile phone. Something ICNIRP is yet to do.
Unfortunately, scientific papers that do suggest risks to health, and there are many, are routinely being ignored or dismissed by ICNIRP, ARPANSA, FCC, FDA etc. Public health and the potential impact on the environment do not seem to be a consideration.
Some readers may remember that a couple of years ago, I wrote a guest blog for BRHP on what best practices for RF-EMR risk management might look like: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2018/06/10/guest-blog-from-steve-weller-australia/. In March this year, ICNIRP published its updated RF Guidelines: https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/rf-guidelines-2020-published.html and as a direct result, Australia followed suite by updating their RF Standard in order to adopt and align to ICNIRPs latest RF Guidelines. As part of the update process, ARPANSA engaged in public consultation on the draft RF Standard (RPS S-1) by inviting public feedback: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/standard-limiting-exposure-radiofrequency-fields-100-khz-300-ghz-rps-s-1. I thought I would further investigate the new draft RF standard and evaluate it against recognised risk management best practices adopted and used quite successfully in the ionising radiation protection.
You will find my submission to ARPANSA’s draft RF Standard here: ARPANSA RPS S-1 Review. It is quite telling, in that both ARPANSA and ICNIRP appear to have abandoned precaution. ICNIRP, in a 2002 philosophy document, was correct in its observation that there may be sensitive and vulnerable people in the community who might not be protected by the RF Guidelines. Roll forward to 2020 and risk management for protecting the public is basically non-existent as it does not feature in either ARPANSA’s draft RF Standard or the latest ICNIRP RF Guidelines. ICNIRP now claims its guidelines protect all people of all health statuses. This could not be further from the truth.
There is no evidence that a proper risk assessment has been performed by either ARPANSA or ICNIRP. Health risks such as cancer, neurodegeneration, cardiovascular disease, infertility, behavioural and developmental problems to name but a few, are not even given a mention. Many of these aforementioned health risks have been identified in RF-EMR research at exposure levels well below currently permitted public limits.
In conclusion, despite what ICNIRP and other industry/military aligned scientists might say about RF science and health, legal judgements have already concluded that chronic mobile phone usage causes brain tumours, specifically acoustic neuroma (Italian Supreme Court ruling). It also important to consider that an appeals tribunal associated with the same case recognized that telephone industry-funded scientists, or members of ICNIRP, are less reliable than independent scientists. Taking all these points of evidence, it is clear the new ICNIRP RF Guidelines and ARPANSA’s draft RF Standard are not fit for purpose.