5G Risks and advice on how to effect positive change
GDocs Version (best to read); Public Blog Entry .
Below are a few ideas for a mate who’s been sharing 5G risks co-joined to Coronavirus conspiracies on his FB account. I think he might have more success and achieve better results if he keeps the conspiracy angle to a minimum…==>
Hi mate,
Regarding some of your links to Corona and 5G… firstly, kudos for having the democratic spirit to share ideas which resonate with you with your social network.
I didn’t look at the video as it seemed too ‘out there’ for my tastes and I’m suspicious of these docos. I think they’re put out there by the power-interests to push people over the edge and come across a little paranoid, thereby losing all legitimacy for what is otherwise a genuine and valid concern.
My 2-cents on these matters is that it is better to focus on the scientific facts and allow people to join the dots themselves. These facts are best found in the medical literature much of which is published free, for instance on medical journal sites like pubmed.gov or science direct. See examples in table 1 below.
So, in simple terms:
One: determine if 5G is bad for you?
Answer: More than likely, just as 2G,3G,4G was and is still. See table 1 and links: the scientific evidence is increasingly clear and many legitimate medical practitioners are sounding the concerns (per table 1).
Why are these researchers not being given mainstream air time so we are all aware of these matters? Rather than speculate I think it is probably better simply to focus on what we do or can know with a high degree of legitimate certainty (the medical research). The pressing concern and what matters is to know and share the research which indicates that 5G is likely significantly harmful to biological systems, reduces immune function and increases the chance of dying of colds and infections – all of them, not just Coronavirus – all viruses, all possible pathogens which cause infection (see table 2 for evidence of this).
Two: clarify and specify the degree of risk both at the individual level and the group level.
If there is a danger to health, which seems likely (table 1 below) then this danger needs to be separated down into its specific risk categories or components. Is the following table A a reasonable risk breakdown? If not, how best to frame the risks?
Table A – risk / harm breakdown.
|
Risk category or environmental aspect of use: |
What is the risk/harm? |
Can it be quantified? I.e. years taken off life? |
Is it worth it? |
|
Individual using device alone – phone held to ear/head |
Is this question answered by the authors in table 1? Elsewhere? |
How many years does this technology, when used this way, take off my life? Can it be quantified? Do we have research that can answer this question? |
Am I happy to accept the risks? How much value does the technology bring me vs possible years taken off my life? Is ignorance bliss? Am I simply happy to ignore the problem and live with a ‘let it be’ philosophy?
|
|
Family level – i.e. powerful wifi modem in lounge room – broadcasting radio waves around the home |
Dito above. |
Dito above. |
Dito above. |
|
At the society level – are radio towers broadcasting enough radiation across the suburbs 24×7 that it is likely to adversely affect the health of the citizens? |
Dito above – do we have research on these questions? |
Dito above – do we have research on these questions? |
Dito above – do we have research on these questions? |
Three: What to do about it?
Answer: So here it gets complicated. Assuming you care about you and your children’s health then we probably shouldn’t just ‘let it be’. Every evil that ever was would like us to live our life by a ‘let it be’ philosophy. So assuming we ignore that immoral albeit appealing and easy lay down message of ignore it all, there are probably two main things we can do:
3.1 The personal level
On a personal level a precautionary approach would mean we should limit these technologies in person and in our home. Simply don’t buy devices which possess 5G functionality and wait until more research comes to light. Per table 1 below people need to weigh the research thus far and think about the faith/believability in the authors research and their associated conclusions. If a person does decide to take on the risk of using 5G they can then adopt further mitigation techniques if they so choose: i.e. by keeping the devices off their body, use hands free as much as possible and so on. For those who think the risks are too significant they can avoid purchasing and using these technologies altogether.
3.2 The group level
To impact the group level you’ll need a significant consensus which forms around the idea that the 4G/5G towers themselves are inherently dangerous to wider society. That is gathering up research (which is most likely perceived by average people as cogent and legitimate) which suggests that mass broadcasting of radio waves across the urban areas are likely to provide enough of a radiation dose to be damaging to a large number of people and hence impose a significant health burden across the population. This is where you’ll need to get a few people together and pool resources to not only collect the best (most legitimate) of the research but then to create an activist group and attempt to become democratically significant in order to effect policy change.
Following are a few ideas to get you started:
You’ll need to collect evidence that low level radiation from mobile phone towers is going to penetrate through home walls and create a significant adverse impact to thymus-immune function or other health issues. I found a few which suggest general risks but imply this occurs on a personal level. But less so at the society wide level. So possibly your group will need to advocate that parliament direct some of the public spending budget into research in this area. This is an important topic (community health) so if the research is lacking then it is sensible that the group advocate to direct further funding and research in this area.
Below is what I found in the university library databases (table 1 and 2) along with a few links in non-academic journals which raise concerns in these matters (table 3).
Summary
I think what is needed now is to digest these ideas and think about whether the risks are so significant that they justify taking the effort to form an activist group in order to attempt to sway policy through the democratic process. None of this is easy, very time consuming and expensive. It involves giving up leisure time and/or work time to build the group and generate widespread social interest. It means asking people to go against Lennon and his powerful message. A message which mutes the little activist in all of us, which, on a good day at least, wants to see good social outcomes and good health for all. So, with Lennon’s message hanging around like the cosmic background radiation, the question remains, is it worth it?
If you decide to move forward for my bit I can help review the documentation in a few weeks but won’t bother unless there is some collective interest. I suggest you start to review and also run by your social network and inquire as to their ‘gut feel’ on whether or not this issue is so concerning as to justify the effort of policy activism. Maybe they’re all Lennon fans through and through, and won’t so much as bat an eyelid at your concerns, let alone join any activist group. I also can’t join you if there’s any fandangled conspiracy documentaries or other ideas suggesting grand conspiracy. There may well be but we don’t need to invoke those types of ideas (which invariably incur associated smearing from the wider community) in order to reach positive health outcomes for ourselves and wider society.
The default and easiest position is of course to let it all roll along and simply take whatever early death results from the widespread use of these technologies, in one’s stride. The good news is that you’ll die having enjoyed viewing movies on your phone in plus 4K. Imagine what the ANZACs would have given to be part of it!
I hope you can maintain discipline and give the below research a solid review. I’ll touch base with you in a few weeks to see how you are getting on.
Regards,
V.
Notes
Table 1- medical researchers raising concerns on 2G/3G/4G/5G
|
Screenshot of article heading and link to online source |
Relevant quote and or notes |
|
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463917308143?via%3Dihub (this article is paywalled by I’ve saved a pdf copy for you in the drive folder).
|
Conclusions Evidences about the biological properties of RF-EMF are progressively accumulating and, although they are in some case still preliminary or controversial, clearly point to the existence of multi-level interactions between high-frequency EMF and biological systems, and to the possibility of oncologic and non-oncologic (mainly reproductive, metabolic, neurologic, microbiologic) effects. Biological effects have also been recorded at exposure levels below the regulatory limits, leading to growing doubts about the real safety of the currently employed ICNIRP standards (Habauzit et al., 2014; Redmayne, 2016; Starkey, 2016). Particular concerns derive from the wide (and rapidly increasing) density of wireless devices and antennas (also in view of the forthcoming 5G networks), from the increased susceptibility to RF-EMF in children (Meo et al., 2015; Redmayne, 2016; Redmayne and Johansson, 2015; Sangun et al., 2015), and from the effects of RF-EMF at a cellular and molecular level, in particular regarding the ability to promote oxidative processes (Friedman et al., 2007; Kazemi et al., 2015; Kesari and Behari, 2012), DNA damage(Duan et al., 2015; Solek et al., 2017), alterations of gene expression (Chen et al., 2014; Habauzit et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2017a; Le Quement et al., 2012; Le Quement et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2016; Millenbaugh et al., 2008; Soubere Mahamoud et al., 2016) and to influence the development of stem cells (Chen et al., 2014; Eghlidospour et al., 2017; Shahbazi-Gahrouei et al., 2016). Will need to read the associated research noted in above paragraph! |
|
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2006.07.012
|
On studying the prevalence of neurological complaints among exposed subjects and controls, headache, memory changes, tremors, dizziness, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance were significantly higher among exposed (23.5%, 28.2%, 9.4%, 18.8%, 21.7% and 23.5%, respectively) than controls (10%, 5%, 0%, 5%, 8.8% and 10%, respectively) (P < 0.05). These results agree with Santini et al. (2002) who found that the frequency of headache, loss of memory, irritability, dizziness, depression and sleep disturbance was significantly higher among people living near cellular phone base stations (25.4%, 27.6%, 4.5%, 4%, 9.2% and 4.1%, respectively) than controls (P < 0.05). Also, Frey (1998) and Leif (2003) observed various complaints mostly of sleep disturbance, irritability, depression, headache, vertigo and concentration difficulties among people living near mobile base stations. |
|
A list of journal articles – hopefully they answer the questions raised above! https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qQ16dMgnJTvPDaWhv-l2Ud1RusLFQJXP?usp=sharing |
|
How or in what way is 5G bad for you?
I think there is plenty of evidence (table 1 above and 2 below) suggesting that both ionizing and non-ionizing doses of radiation can damage the body’s DNA which increases the chance of cellular mutations which increase chance of cancer. Further, there is evidence that the body’s thymus is crucial for protecting against a range of diseases (the body’s primary immune mediator organ). Anything which increases damage to the thymus (i.e. radiation) is likely to compromise the immune system which in turn leads to greater probability of dying due to an infection or cancer. That is to say without a strong thymus, lifespan is shortened.
Evidence: again search pubmed for terms like “thymus and aging” or “thymus and immune function” etc. For an example and key quote see table 2 below, with relevant quotes from the medical researchers:
See table 2 below.
Table 2
|
Screenshot of article heading and link to online source |
Relevant quote and or notes |
|
N.B. The sources in table 1 cover dangers of 5G. This table focuses on sources which document specific dangers to compromised immune function. |
|
|
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/8/1883
|
“Here, combining data from immunology and epidemiology, we show that many of these dramatic age-related increases in incidence [i.e. cancer/infection] can be modeled based on immune system decline, rather than mutation accumulation. In humans, the thymus atrophies from infancy, resulting in an exponential decline in T cell production with a half-life of ∼16 years, which we use as the basis for a minimal mathematical model of disease incidence. Our model outperforms the power law model with the same number of fitting parameters in describing cancer incidence data across a wide spectrum of different cancers, and provides excellent fits to infectious disease data. This framework provides mechanistic insight into cancer emergence, suggesting that age-related decline in T cell output is a major risk factor.” |
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5505072/
|
Taken together, these data indicate that exposure to even low-dose radiation is sufficient to result in decreased thymic function many years after exposure. |
|
Immune deficiency, together with its associated risks such as infections, is becoming an increasingly important clinical problem owing to the ageing of the general population and the increasing number of patients with HIV/AIDS, malignancies (especially those treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy) or transplants (of either solid organs or haematopoietic stem cells). Of all immune cells, T cells are the most often affected, leading to a prolonged deficiency of T cells, which has important clinical consequences. |
|
Table 3
These are non-academic sources constructing an argument against 5G, they purport to point to academic sources – needs to be checked. May be useful in generating ideas on how to position the argument as to society wide dangers of 5G.
|
Link: |
Relevant quote and or notes |
|
|
Has many hyper links to purported research. Needs to be validated and checked. Overall authors very concerned. Link to at least one legitimate pubmed journal: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254861/
|
|
|
|
|
Authors have solid credentials |
End
Vasaire 