Last year, in 2020, when virus pandemic was rapidly spreading all-over the world, equally well was spreading on social media another pandemic of posts linking virus spread and 5G technology spread.
Stories linking virus and 5G emitted radiation were, plainly, garbage.
I have written about this issue and I have condemned on BRHP some of the pseudo scientists that used virus pandemic to spread lies about 5G-emitted radiation.
The same condemnation of the baseless link between 5G-radiation and virus appeared in the mainstream news media.
However, while I was complaining from the standpoint of an independent scientist that spent 25 years of scientific life studying in wet-lab health effects of wireless radiation, the mainstream media was stimulated to write about this issue by the telecom umbrella organizations like Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) and GSM Association (GSMA) The 5G and virus linking condemning stories, made by the mainstream news media, were then efficiently disseminated on social media like LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and many others, by the MWF and GSMA.
This was, of course, good use of news media by telecom umbrella organizations.
However, there is no good activity by MWF and GSMA without, some dose of self-propaganda about the 5G. So, the articles condemning 5G and virus link were also full of praise how revolutionary, miraculous and super-duper technology 5G is and how irresponsible it is to try to slowdown deployment of 5G.
This way 5G industry got two birds with one shot – condemning falsehood on virus (good) and overexciting salesman pitch for 5G technology (not so good).
The “not so good” part refers to overblown accolades for 5G. Reading what is written and spoken about 5G one gets to know that it is sort of panacea for all humanity problems. 5G will help to achieve green-technology for the climate change. 5G will help to deliver clinical healthcare to the whole planet, no matter location. The same goes for industry and agriculture that will be made more efficient thanks to 5G. With 5G our businesses will thrive, and deliver not only what people need but will also pay lots of taxes that governments will use for the good of all humanity. And so on and so on. Virtually there is no part of our life on this planet that will not profit from 5G, and not only monetary profit in mind, even democracy will spread more efficiently with super-fast 5G.
However, some pesky people, including myself and my BRHP blog, dare to complain that 5G might not be such goodie for us.
Recently, David Zarnett’s story in Canadian MACLEAN*S news has very elegantly presented the major problems, and I mean MAJOR problems, with the 5G and earthy life. Story comes from Canada, but it applies to all of the world. The globally valid 5G problems were listed as:
- security of the networks, hugely expanded by the internet-of-things
- increase in electricity use causing that 5G might not be so green as claimed
- lack of knowledge whether any health problems will appear because sufficient research has not been done
- deployment of very dense 5G infrastructure, not only outdoors, as Zarnett wrote, but also indoors because some of the 5G frequencies (mm-waves) don’t penetrate walls of the buildings
As Zarnett concluded:
“…5G revolutionaries promise a lot, and perhaps they will deliver. But, in light of the technology’s track record and mounting evidence of its potential costs, there are good reasons to be wary. 5G raises a number of concerns that require concerted public and policymaker attention…”
We should be vigilant and ask a lot of questions from the telecom industry. However, asking these questions is made very difficult by the mainstream news media.
It is the “hidden in plain sight censorship”.
It is not the censorship of some sentences in the text before publication. Such censorship is not exercised because authors could openly complain and this would be not good public relations issue for the mainstream news media.
The hidden in plain sight censorship refers to simply common ignoring news stories that are negative for the 5G.
It is understandable that, following the 5G + virus hullabaloo, news media are wary of stories on 5G submitted by readership. However, there should be difference in treating stories from experts and non-experts. At least I thought so. How naïve of me.
I thought that the news media might be receptive for the opinion of expert, myself, who:
- did research on wireless radiation and health for the last 25 years (1996 – now)
- published peer-review studies that got attention of his peers
- worked in capacity of visiting professor at Harvard, Zhejiang and Swinburne
- was appointed to the group of 30 experts that in 2011 at IARC classified wireless radiation as possible carcinogen
- was invited and testified before Committee of the US Senate
- was invited and testified before a Committee of the Parliament of Canada
These few examples from my long CV (available on this blog site) demonstrated that I have extensive experience and it is valued and recognized by my peers, scientists and politicians.
So, I am expert, no matter what news media think and 5G is an important and globally valid technology that should be openly and thoroughly debated.
But not… I was apparently “wrong” in my opinion (sarcasm intended)…
Here are few examples of the “hidden in plain sight censorship” that I have personally experienced.
Finland, the land of Nokia, the current maker of 5G technology, should be interested in potential problems with 5G. But not in the Finnish news media.
Helsingin sanomat (HS)
I have written opinion on 5G and submitted it to the major newspaper in Finland, Helsingin sanomat. The polite response from one of the opinions editor was that at the time HS will not publish my text. I inquired whether the Finnish language of my text was too poor or whether the topic of 5G was unwanted. I did not receive any reply. Of course they might be too busy (again sarcasm intended). Similar experience I have had also earlier with HS.
Therefore, I have written to the three top editors of HS asking the same, is my story too lousily written or is the topic unwanted. They got my message but I did not get reply.
I have also, not a long time ago, inquired with the tiede (=science) section of Helsingin sanomat – either not interested or no reply at all.
Yle tiede – science section of Finland’s TV and Radio broadcaster
We are following each other on twitter. Using this opportunity I contacted @yletiede with proposal of doing story on 5G and health. There was some hope that it might happen as the person who responded was receptive, to some degree. However, weeks passed fast and the “receptive” person changed place of work and… the next @yletiede responding person was no more interested in 5G and health issue.
Clearly, no reply at all is the most convenient way to “respond” – no need to explain anything that could be later used against the newspaper or broadcaster. It is not direct censorship that influences submitted text but this is the censorship in plain sight that censors, without consequences, certain topics. In my case it was 5G and health.
I have also tried the international science news but was only once successful, and it was several years ago.
The Conversation is web publisher with, as they say “Academic rigour, journalistic flair”. It is published in different countries. I had contact with version in the UK and in Australia.
I was lucky to be able to publish my opinion in the UK version of The Conversation, science + technology section, on Aug. 8, 2016:
This story was read over 43000 times. However, as I was informed by the editor, he has made “exception” for my story. Namely, The Conversation is funded by different universities. Priority in publications have scientists from the supporting universities. At that time, in 2016, no university in Finland was part of The Conversation. Hence, my “exception”.
After that story I have suggested for the Australian version of The Conversation, opinion in response to opinion published by Rodney Croft and Sarah Loughran (among others). I did not get past the editor. I was outsider of The Conversation system. The same happened several times with UK version. No response and no interest on 5G or sensitivity to wireless radiation.
Here comes the censorship in plain sight by The Conversation. When scientists from the university sponsoring The Conversation write an opinion and it is published, scientist from the university outside of The Conversation circle is being unable to post competing opinion. No published other view opinion, no need to explain what and why. It is censorship in plain sight when opinion is easily rejected on technicality. In my case, of opinions on 5G or on sensitivity to EMF, the technicality was that I am not from the Conversation sponsoring university. Easy…
So, if anybody naïvely wonders why there are published so many stories in the mainstream news media about the miracle of 5G, do not wonder anymore.
This is because of the censorship in plain sight of 5G-critical opinions.
As society we have become blinded by the vision of miraculous eldorado and heaven on earth (sarcasm intended) that will be brought to humanity by the 5G of the wireless communications industry. We, as society, do not think that we are flying blind.
Anyone who contests the 5G becomes pariah.