Material below is from the group: STOP 5G Frome and Surrounding Areas
Say no to roll out of untested 5G and secure much lower electromagnetic radiation (EMR) safety recommendations for 2G, 3G and 4G, as well as all other types of artificial electro-magnetic fields having negative biological and health effects.
Report by the
Christian F. Jensen
suggests that the roll out of 5G may breach the following conventions and directives:
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Art. 2 – the right to life and the positive obligations of the state.
Art. 8 – the right to respect for private and family life.
The UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Precautionary Principle in EU law.
Directive on the conservation of wild birds.
The EU directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
The Bern convention.
Why 5G and smart technology are not ‘green’ and never will be
We wholeheartedly support Bath and North East Somerset Council’s recent resolution to make the local authority carbon neutral by 2030. However, the idea that ‘smart’ technology is a way to achieve this is misguided. The following are examples of how 5G infrastructure is not onlynot green but actively destructive of the environment.
Tree felling: trees apparently interfere with 5G signal and are seen as a major obstacle to the smooth operation of the network. This has been evidenced inresearch by the University of Surrey22 which refers to mast height at tree level as a limiting factor for reach and reliability (p4 article 3.1). Yet, trees are an important carbon sink, and climate change mitigation requires the planting of more trees, not the felling of mature ones! Trees also mitigate the effect of air pollution, another priority for Bath & North East Somerset Council, and provide important habitats for wildlife.
The ‘Things’ required for the Internet of Things:the disposal of old gadgets and appliances creates waste which has a major environmental impact, and the purchase of new ‘smart’ replacements requires raw materials to be extracted and made into consumer items before being transported around the world (all of which uses vast amounts of fossil fuels).
Energy required to power the Internet of Things: this year for the first time, data centres for the Internet (including those for Google and Facebook) and the servers that power them, are set to produce more carbon emissions than aviation23. Bath and North East Somerset council has rightly stated its opposition to the expansion of Bristol Airport, yet supports the even more carbon-intensive expansion of wireless technology!
Deployment of millions of new transmitters: these range from 25 m high towers for rural coverage; to medium-sized small cells on lamp posts, on buildings and under manhole covers; to tiny micro-transmitters embedded in domestic objects. These transmitters contain metals including gold, copper, silver and lithium, all of which have to be mined (mining is the second most polluting industry in the world), often in conflict zones such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Disruption to migration and orientation of birds, insects and marine mammals (please see above under What are the risks to public health and the environment?). Alfonso Balmori, writing in Science of the Total Environment 24 concludes that “At the present time, there are reasonable grounds for believing that microwave radiation constitutes an environmental and health hazard…. Controls must be introduced and technology rendered safe to the environment, since this new ubiquitous and invisible pollutant could deplete the efforts devoted to species conservation.”
Potential harm to the world’s climate systems from microwave radiation: Last December, an article in The Lancet25 stated that: “The potential effects of these anthropogenic electromagnetic fields on natural electromagnetic fields, such as the Schumann Resonance that controls the weather and climate, have not been properly studied”.
5G: a health and environmental hazard
• There is clear evidence to show that existing mobile radiation is harmful to health and is
linked with cancer, particularly heart and brain tumours
• An overwhelming body of evidence in peer-reviewed studies shows harmful bioeffects
from wireless radiation
• The current government and telecoms safety assurances about wireless radiation are
out of date and inadequate
• Studies show that 5G can penetrate the skin and interfere with cell-to-cell
communication, that it can promote the resilience of superbugs, and that it is harmful to
all living things
• 5G is toxic to the environment and has a high carbon footprint
• 5G has not been safety-tested
• 5G is being mandatorily rolled out without public consent
• 5G means blanket coverage and particularly high densities of antennas in urban areas
What is 5G?
• 5G, like 4G, 3G and WiFi, is a mobile network which uses radio waves at the microwave end of
the radio wave spectrum.
• 4G, 3G and WiFi work on frequencies of 6GHz (gigahertz) and below. A gigahertz is a
measurement of electromagnetic wave frequency equivalent to one thousand million cycles per
second. 5G is being rolled out initially at lower frequencies but will use much higher frequency
radio waves of up to 100GHz and beyond.
• 24GHz - 100GHz waves as used for 5G are known as millimetre microwaves (MMWs).
• When discussing health issues wireless radiation is described as ‘non-ionising radiation’ and is
separate from the type of radiation used for nuclear power.
• 5G was originally developed by the military for use with the ADS (Active Denial System) which
uses 95GHz waves to disperse crowds, since aiming the beam causes intense heating of the
skin. 6G technology and above is currently being developed for specific uses such as holograms.
• 5G is being rolled out all over the UK in such a way that every person, particularly in cities, will be
mandatorily exposed to it at all times. 5G will be transmitted across the countryside from large
masts and across towns by urban masts. Because high-frequency waves do not travel far, 5G
radiation will also be transmitted at the level of every house and street by the use of antennas
(some the size of small refrigerators) placed every few houses on every lamppost along with
powerful LED lighting. This can already be seen in operation at some parts of the Downs in
Bristol and in Gateshead, Newcastle where there have been local protests. 5G antennas are also
being placed under every manhole to beam up into the street (TBC).
The cumulative effect of thousands of “small” antennas transmitting microwaves simultaneously is
unknown. Safety standards and testing do not appear to be being applied.
Questions still to answer:
How much do the masts emit? How far does this travel? How much do
the antennas emit?
It was reported in March of this year that ICNIRP are due to vote on relaxing their guidelines
around radio frequency emissions so as to accommodate 5G.
With Elon Musk’s advertised launch of 12 5G satellites into the atmosphere and a further 8K from
three other private companies (including one based at Goonhilly in Cornwall - tbc), if this occurs
there will be nowhere left on the planet without 5G radiation (to answer: how intense will this be?).
Currently several international appeals from scientists, doctors and environmentalists are
underway to stop this enterprise. Astronomers and weather forecasters are also calling for a ban to
Musk’s ‘Starlink’ plan as it will interfere with their work and create ‘space junk’ in Earth’s orbit as
well as obstructing stargazing.
What is 5G for?
The Internet of Things, faster downloads, automated factories, more manufacturing, more virtual
gaming, larger data transfer capacity
Driverless cars, remote surgery are some of the more attractive purported benefits
These outcomes will be accompanied by:
Job losses from automated factories and services
Mining for minerals
Possible destruction of natural resources caused by more manufacture
There may be more addiction to virtual gaming and other forms of online entertainment - already
considered to be a major mental health issue
According to Tom Wheeler, head of the FCC in the USA and one of the main drivers of 5G, the
outcomes are, as yet, unknown, but will be highly lucrative.
According to Professor William Webb, former director of Ofcom and the author of the book The 5G
Myth, the advertised benefits of 5G are in reality unrealisable. Webb recommends better 4G
connectivity in rural areas instead. [Note that Webb is not concerned with the health and
environmental aspects of 5G or 4G; his opinion relates to the actual uses of 5G only].
5G (and existing wireless radiation) and the environment
5G may have been advertised as ‘green tech’ for unsubstantiated reasons. Further research
needed into any actual benefits which may exist? Driverless cars will only be greener if they are
electric, which can be achieved without being driverless; driverlessness requires the deployment of
tens of thousands of antennas.
Bees and other insects
Insects such as bees use magnetic fields to navigate. Existing wireless radiation has been found in
studies to interfere with bee navigation and health and is theorised to be an important factor behind
reduced bee populations:
Behavioural effects (Kumar 2011, Favre 2011)
Disrupted navigation (Goldsworthy 2009, Sainudeen 2011, Kimmel et al 2007)
Decreased egg laying (Sharma and Kumar, 2010)
Reduced colony strength (Sharma and Kumar, 2010, Harst et al, 2006)
Insect decimation & 75% decline in protected areas (Hallmann, Sorg and Jongejans, 2017) full
article at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees.
Cell phone usage is a major public health concern because of potential risk of chronic exposure to
low level of radiofrequency and microwave radiation that pulse off the phone antennae in close
proximity to the head. These concerns have induced a large body of research, both
epidemiological and experimental, in humans and animals. Honeybees are reliable indicators of
environmental status and possess several important ecological, ethological, and morphological
characteristics. They are the best experimental animals to study the effect of electromagnetic
waves because they possess in their abdomen magnetite granules which help the bees in their
orientation flight. Moreover, the integument of bees has semiconductor functions.
Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz
Arno Thielens, Duncan Bell, David B. Mortimore, Mark K. Greco, Luc Martens & Wout Joseph
Scientific Reports 8, Article number: 3924 (2018)
A shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase
in absorbed power between 3–370%. This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology,
and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating. The
studied insects that are smaller than 1 cm show a peak in absorption at frequencies (above 6
GHz), which are currently not often used for telecommunication, but are planned to be used in the
next generation of wireless telecommunication systems
There have been a great many anecdotal reports of mass bird deaths at 5G masts. These reports
have supposedly been debunked as ‘fake news.’ However, we have had a first-hand report of such
an event from an eyewitness which seems to warrant further investigation. This is particularly so
given that the hearts of animals and birds function electromagnetically and that heart palpitations
are also an anecdotally-recorded symptom of electrosensitivity, a condition not yet acknowledged
by the medical establishment but which has found in studies to be cause for further investigation
(see Joel Moskowitz, below, and anecdotal reports under Reference (1)) and which is being
reported in increasingly-large numbers by those who believe that they suffer from it (please see the
evidence-based work of Dr Erica Mallory-Blythe for further information).
A study of 100 trees over a nine-year period has found that the side of trees facing an antenna
sustains damage (Waldmann-Selsam, 2016)
Pine needles and watercress have been demonstrated to age quickly and die when in proximity to
very low frequency radio waves.
5G and trees
Trees partially block 5G radiation pathways. Reports of unprecedented amounts of tree-felling
have been made during the last year around urban areas where 5G infrastructures are being
established. These reports are unsubstantiated but numerous and may warrant further
investigation. Council websites state that trees may be cut down if they are dead, diseased, or for
Carbon footprint: data use increases
An update to a 2016 study from a Huawei analyst: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
John Vidal’s article on the report, ‘A Tsunami of Data’, contains these key points:
• By 2025 the ICT industry could be using up to 20% of the world’s electricity, hampering global
attempts to meet climate change targets.
• 5G will result in vastly increased data transfer which requires huge fuel use.
• Global computing power demand from the projected billions of devices is increasing 20% a year,
consuming roughly 3-5% of the world’s electricity in 2015.
• The report’s author expects industry power demand to increase from 2-300Twh (Terawatts) of
electricity a year now, to 1,200 or even 3,000Twh by 2025.
• Data centres on their own could produce 1.9Gt (or 3.2% of the global total) carbon emissions.
• John Vidal quotes the researcher: The situation is alarming. We have a tsunami of data
approaching. Everything which can be is being digitalised. It is a perfect storm.
• Vidal: US researchers expect power consumption to triple in the next five years as one billion
more people come online in developing countries, and the “internet of things”, driverless cars,
robots, video surveillance and artificial intelligence grows exponentially in rich countries.
• “There will be 8.4bn connected things in 2017, setting the stage for 20.4bn internet of things (IoT)
devices to be deployed by 2020,” says leading internet analyst firm Gartner.
• The industry has encouraged the idea that the digital transformation of economies and large
scale energy efficiencies will slash global emissions by 20% or more, but the scale and speed of
the revolution has been a surprise.
• A 2016 Berkeley laboratory report for the US government estimated the country’s data centres,
which held about 350 million terabytes of data in 2015, could together need over 100TWh of
electricity a year by 2020. This is the equivalent of about 10 large nuclear power stations.
Greenpeace IT analyst Gary Cook says only about 20% of the electricity used in the world’s data
centres is so far renewable.“The good news is that some companies have certainly embraced
their responsibility [to use renewables], and are moving quite aggressively to meet their rapid
growth with renewable energy. Others are just growing aggressively.”
• Architect David Hughes, who has challenged Apple’s new centre in Ireland, says the government
should not be taken in by the promises.“Using renewable energy sounds good but no-one else
benefits from what will be generated, and it skews national attempts to reduce emissions. Data
centres… have eaten into any progress we made to achieving Ireland’s 40% carbon emissions
reduction target. They are just adding to demand and reducing our percentage. They are getting
a free ride at the Irish citizens’ expense,” says Hughes.
• Eirgrid estimates indicate that by 2025, one in every 3kWh generated in Ireland could be going to
a data centre, he added. “We have sleepwalked our way into a 10% increase in electricity
consumption.” Fossil fuel plants may have to be kept open longer to power other parts of the
country and the costs will fall on the consumer, he says. “We will have to upgrade our grid and
build more power generation both wind and backup generation for when the wind isn’t there and
this all goes onto people’s bills.”
• Satellites require huge amounts of rocket fuel to launch (confirm amount - each rocket uses the
equivalent to one million cars for a year?) and Musk’s satellites plus those from other private
companies totalling around 20K satellites in total would need to be relaunched every five years
due to expiry. Requires further research. Some speculative information from a public health
journalist is available from this website which claims that satellites also deplete the ozone layer:
Overall harm to wildlife
The US group Physicians for Safe Technology state that ‘there is convincing emerging scientific
evidence causing great concern for the environment, with harm to mammals, insects and
bacteria...5G technology will also consume significant amounts of energy, contrary to global
EMF Scientist Appeal: Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of
harmful effects to both plant and animal life.
Wireless radiation is being increasingly recognised as an environmental pollutant. https://
Published study ‘Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic
Resistance.’ Soil samples from base stations and from far away from stations: antibiotic resistance
found in microbes near base stations. Conclusion: ‘Mobile tower radiations can significantly alter
the vital systems in microbes and turn them multi drug resistance which is a most important current
threat to public health.’
5G and human health
According to increasing numbers of scientists and health experts, 5G poses a serious, if not
existential, threat to humans as well as the wider biosphere. The type of radio waves used in 5G
(millimetre microwaves or MMWs) have not been tested on human populations and their health
effects over long periods of time are not known; however, there is research to show potentially
profound damage to biological organisms.
Rollouts have been frozen in Brussels, parts of Geneva, parts of Rome, and parts of the US due to
safety concerns/legal action. Legal action is being increasingly taken in the US and Australia and
there are vigorous protests in Switzerland. The Prime Minister of Poland is reported to have signed
the international appeal to ban 5G, the 5G Space Appeal (to be confirmed; there are no reports of
a ban in Poland just yet).
Councillors in Glastonbury have called a halt to the rollout and demanded safety testing by
independent scientists. 5G is currently being vigorously challenged at council levels on the Isle of
David Drew MP for Stroud is now questioning health concerns around 5G.
Evidence of bioeffects from existing WiFi, 3G and 4G wireless radiation
According to some researchers (see more, below), current guidelines from public health bodies
such as Public Health England are based on information which requires updating, particularly in
the light of recent studies.
Early studies ‘mixed’ due to bias:
The World Health Organisation’s Interphone Study of 2010 found ‘suggestions of an increased risk
of glioma [a type of aggressive brain tumour] at the highest exposure levels’, and, after correcting
for bias, an eighty per cent higher likelihood of having a brain glioma for heavy users. The study
found no overall link between mobile phone use and cancer, but note that the study included
several studies, some of which did show a link with tumours, which may disguise the overall result
(2, 3). The study authors wrote that the overall finding was ‘possibly reflecting participation bias or
other methodological limitations.’ Clearly further research was required, yet the study is widely
used by the telecoms industry to claim safety, despite the finding for gliomas.
Industry-funded studies confound the result:
Research has shown that industry-funded studies are less likely than independent studies to show
a link with wireless radiation and health problems (4, 5).
Prasad et al (2017) write: “In our review of the literature and meta-analysis of case–control studies,
we found evidence linking mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours especially in long-term
users (greater than 10 years). We also found a significantly positive correlation between study
quality and outcome in the form of risk of brain tumour associated with use of mobile phones.
Higher quality studies show a statistically significant association between mobile phone use and
risk of brain tumour. Even the source of funding was found to affect the quality of results produced
by the studies.” (6)
A ‘probable carcinogen’?
Mobile phone radiation was classified a class 2B ‘possible carcinogen’ by the WHO in 2011 after
advice from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), along with advice to ban
children from using mobile phones. But in the light of two studies on rats (below), researchers have
called for the classification to be upgraded to ‘probable carcinogen’ (Group 2A) or ‘carcinogenic to
humans’ (Group 1).
New research - three large recent studies:
Tumours in rats:
The US Department of Health National Toxicology Program study (2018) showed a ‘clear link’
between mobile radiation and cancer. When 7000 rats and mice were exposed to mobile radiation
for nine hours a day, DNA strands were damaged in brain cells and male rats developed more
tumours on the heart muscles and, again in males only, incidences of brain tumours were three per
cent higher. There were also lower birth rates and higher rates of infant mortality. The study was
reviewed for accuracy by fifteen external physicians who confirmed the conclusion that mobile
radiation causes cancer. It should be noted that although three per cent is a relatively small amount
proportionally, in real numbers of humans this could translate to millions or even tens of millions of
people globally. (7)
Critics are quick to point out that overall, statistically the exposed rats lived longer than the control
group, since there seemed to be fewer incidences of kidney problems for reasons which are not
clear from the study report. However, this does not detract from the result clearly linking mobile
radiation and cancer.
The Director of the Food and Drug Administration, Jeffrey Shuren, stated immediately: ‘We deny
the conclusions of the report,’ based on the fact that everyday exposure of mobile radiation to
humans is lower than in the tests. However, independently and at the same time, using verifiable
strict standards of laboratory science, cancer researcher Fiorella Belpoggi of Bologna studied 2000
rats exposed to the equivalent amount of radio frequency radiation as humans are over a lifetime
and obtained similar results. (8)
In a 2015 study in Germany, rats grew more tumours when exposed to mobile phone radiation ‘well
below exposure limits for users of mobile phones.’ (9)
Humans and tumours
A Swedish study led by Lennart Hardell suggested that young people who use mobile phones for
making phone calls have a five times higher risk of developing glioma than those who do not; those
who use cordless phones have a four times higher risk. They were also five times more likely to
develop acoustic neuromas, benign tumours which cause deafness. After the age of twenty, when
the brain is fully developed, the risk reduced significantly. Hardell recommended that young people
only use mobile phones for phone calls in emergencies and that they text rather than calling. He
added that most tumours develop decades after the exposure period, and that as mobile phones
are relatively new, it could take many years for the problem to show. (10,11)
In a 2017 article in the International Journal of Oncology, Hardell states: In spite of this, in most
countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health
hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. (12)
Rats and humans: rats have almost identical disease patterns to humans, according to the Human
Genome Project research (13)
Since these two studies, the ICNIRP (see below for more on this group) has declined to update
their guidelines. Professor Ronald Melnick of the National Toxicology Program study has spoken
against the ICNIRP refusal to reassess cell phone radiation exposure guidelines, now 20 years old,
after the US National Toxicology Program’s ‘clear evidence of cancer in experimental animals.’ He
has refuted every point of the ICNIRP document claiming that it has ‘numerous false and
misleading statements.’ His paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research
documents the ‘unfounded criticisms’ of the National Toxicology Program paper. Dr Belpoggi has
also posted comments to say that no bias affected the NTP results or her own Ramazzini Institute
results. ‘We are scientists, our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment.
Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already
proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vinyl
chloride.’ (Ramazzini Institute Statement on ICNIRP Note). (Critique of the ICNIRP Note of Sept 4,
2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies.)
New study: glioma rates have doubled in England
Studies of brain tumour incidence have hitherto shown mixed results. However, a large new study
reveals that rates of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), the specific type of brain tumour associated
with mobile radiation, have doubled. Researchers analysed 79,241 malignant brain tumours over
21 years and found that cases of GBM in England have increased from 1,250 per year in 1995 to
just under 3,000. This is the first study to analyse in detail the different types of tumours; scientists
at the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE) say that the increase of
GMB has until now been masked by the overall fall in incidence of other types of brain tumour,
which could explain the lack of an apparent spike in brain tumours. The researchers concluded that
the increasing rate of tumours in the frontal temporal lobe ‘raises the suspicion that mobile and
cordless phone use may be promoting gliomas.’ Professor Denis Henshaw said ‘Our findings
illustrate the need to look more carefully at, and try to explain the mechanisms behind, these
cancer trends, instead of brushing the causal factors under the carpet and focusing only on
Epidemiologist and Professor Emeritus Anthony Miller says that link with cancer ‘can no longer be
An expert cancer researcher and advisor to the World Health Organization International Agency for
Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has issued his
scientific opinion that radiofrequency (RF) radiation from any source – such as the signals emitted
by cell phones, other wireless and cordless and sensor devices, and wireless networks – fully
meets criteria to be classified as a "Group 1 carcinogenic to humans" agent, based on scientific
evidence associating RF exposure to cancer development and cancer promotion.
‘The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored.’ His
opinion includes recent scientific publications which include the 2017 re-analysis of data from the
Interphone study, the 2014 French National CERENAT Study, several new publications on Swedish
cancer data, and the 2016 results of the National Toxicology Program.
Dr. Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg have published several epidemiological studies that
found increased brain cancer associated with long-term cell phone use and conclude that "RF
radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma." A review of epidemiological
studies by Hardell and Carlsberg (Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014) shows persons
diagnosed with brain cancer had decreased survival rates associated with higher wireless phone
use. Abstract states: Due to the relationship with survival the classification of IARC is strengthened
and RF-EMF should be regarded as human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current
Sperm damage and brain development:
Environmental Health Trust online lists studies including:
Dr. Devra Davis has shown that wireless radiation results in sperm damage and alters brain
Dr. Marc Arazi presented data released by the cell phone radiation test program of the Government
of France, which found that when cell phones are tested in body contact positions, RF radiation
exposure exceeds regulatory limits.
Damage to the blood-brain barrier
It is commonly claimed that wireless radiation does not penetrate the blood-brain barrier, which is
key to protecting the brain from damage. However, a Swedish study from 1997 showed that this is
not the case (15).
“Neuronal damage may not have immediately demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. It
may, however, in the long run, result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by
other later neuronal disease or even the wear and tear of ageing. We cannot exclude that after
some decades of (often), daily use, a whole generation of users, may suffer negative effects such
as autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases maybe already in their middle age”. Dr. Salford,
Dr. Nittby, and Dr. Persson in ‘Effects of Electromagnetic Fields From Wireless Communication
upon the Blood Brain Barrier’ The Bioinitiative Report 2012
This is a condition not yet recognised by the medical establishment; however numbers of people
reporting symptoms anecdotally are growing and at least one study has suggested that this is a
real health condition rather than a psychosomatic one (see Joel Moskowitz’ reference and also
(16)). To be confirmed: the telecoms industry claims that studies exist showing the condition to be
psychosomatic. Anecdotally: I have seen ES sufferers and their symptoms correspond with
measurements taken using a Cornet device. Dr Erica Mallory-Blythe is a doctor and 5G
campaigner who raises awareness about ES. Please see her PHIRE leaflet.
Official US advice on the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) of phones is that this should be 1.6 watts
or less per kg of body weight or 2 w/kg in Europe. SAR levels are not independently tested;
industries can self-report. Moreover, in hot spots ‘realistic mobile phone exposure’ SAR levels can
reach 40 watts per kilo. (17)
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry Dr Martin Pall has extensively studied the way in which
existing wireless radiation has a detrimental impact on health, including DNA damage and
oxidative stress. New research shows mechanisms by which damage from non-ionising radiation
occurs involving calcium channels in cells. The US Federal Communications Commission standard
is based on the thermal effect - how much it heats tissue - but the regulations are 20 years old. Pall
shows how safety studies are based only on thermal effects but that non-thermal effects are
extensively documented and essential to recognise.
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Washington State University Martin Pall (widely quoted as
saying ‘5G is the stupidest idea in the history of the world’) lists four main dangers to humans: 1)
an extraordinary number of antennae are required, 2) high outputs are needed for penetration, 3)
pulsation levels will be very high, and 4) 5G will have an impact on the human body’s cellular
electrical field [more about this]. He warns that pulsed radiation used by 5G satellites is biologically
active and can produce radiation effects deep within human bodies. The voltage sensors within
human cells are sensitive to radiation, and when cells are exposed to radiation, excessively
charged ions flow into the cell. Side-effects may include lowered fertility, neurological damage, cell
apoptosis, DNA damage, free radical damage, hormonal effects, excessive intracellular calcium,
Pall’s paper looking at 23 controlled, scientific studies:
‘Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health.’ Environmental Research,Volume 164, July 2018,
Pages 405-416 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
ABSTRACT: Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes: oxidative stress, sperm/testicular
damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage,
endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to
other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16
reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other
microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the
main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC
activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant
mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include
activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic
magnetoreception mechanism. Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These
are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs
are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; doseresponse
curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs
may impact young people more than adults. These general findings and data presented earlier on
Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study
claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However,
none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. The
tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack
power to make any substantive conclusions. In conclusion, there are seven repeatedly found Wi-Fi
effects which have also been shown to be caused by other similar EMF exposures. Each of the
seven should be considered, therefore, as established effects of Wi-Fi.
It should be obvious, that non-thermal EMFs:
1. Attack our nervous systems including our brains leading to widespread neuropsychiatric
effects and possibly many other effects. This nervous system attack is of great concern.
2. Attack our endocrine (that is hormonal) systems. In this context, the main things that
make us functionally different from single celled creatures are our nervous system and our
endocrine systems – even a simple planaria worm needs both of these. Thus the
consequences of the disruption of these two regulatory systems is immense, such that it is
a travesty to ignore these findings.
3. Produce oxidative stress and free radical damage, which have central roles in all common
4. Attack the DNA of our cells, producing single strand and double strand breaks in cellular
DNA and oxidized bases in our cellular DNA. These in turn produce both cancer and
mutations in germ line cells with germ line mutations producing mutations impacting future
5. Produce elevated levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death), events especially important
in causing both neurodegenerative diseases and infertility.
6. Lower male and female fertility, lowered sex hormones, lowered libido, increased levels of
spontaneous abortion and, as already stated, attacks on the DNA in sperm cells.
7. Produce excessive intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i and increased calcium signaling.
8. Act in the cells of our bodies via 15 different mechanisms to cause cancer.
Martin Pall’s booklet can be downloaded for free online. https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5gemf-
Presentation to the NIH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lulKq3FMGGs
Other expert sources to look into further
Ronald Melnick PhD, retired Senior Toxicologist at the US National Institute of Environmental
Health, has spoken publicly about the threat to health from wireless radiation.
Dr Sharon Goldberg is a radiation researcher and expert witness at legal cases against 5G masts
in the US who states that there is no longer any debate around the harm to health posed by our
existing wireless radiation.
For references for the 1000s of papers:
Some are referenced in this document. Presumably a meta-analysis of all the studies has not yet
been funded (tbc). Dr Erica Mallory-Blythe is a strictly evidence-based doctor in the UK and more
information may be obtained from her; another possible resource would be Sharon Goldberg or a
radiation expert and 5G litigator in the US Sally is in touch with who wishes to remain anonymous.
This litigator states that there are 25K studies showing harm to health (compared with 11K for
Extra risks for babies and children
In 2017 neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey submitted a list of evidence of damage to human health
from WiFi, 3G and 4G to the Westminster Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee for
their Inquiry into Early Years Interventions, which has so far been ignored. A full list of her study
references is available here: https://cdn.website-editor.net/2479f24c54de4c7598d60987e3d81157/
Fte0OSMdQQaSYsFmRfkSNBZMUWpmwGMc-HLdplJndjw (18). Starkey states that current UK
government guidelines do not reflect the evidence base. Children, babies and pregnant women are
of particular concern, since children absorb microwave radiation from, for example, WiFi in the
home, much more readily than adults. (19) In 2013 an independent group called SSITA (Safe
Schools Information Technology Alliance) complained to Public Health England about their failure
to provide precautionary advice on pulsed microwave-emitting technologies other than mobile
phones, particularly the use of wireless networks in schools, based on studies such as those cited
by Dr Starkey.(20)
A limited number of studies in humans, plus substantial evidence from animal studies,
point to wireless radiofrequency signals being able to cause physical damage during
development (prenatally, postnatally, in childhood and adolescence), as well as in
adulthood, which may result in serious negative health, wellbeing or developmental
outcomes. That effects are seen in animal studies indicates that the radiofrequency signals
themselves can have adverse effects, and it is not just children or young people accessing
social media/internet through mobile devices, or time spent looking at screens. Exposures
to wireless radiofrequency signals need to be considered when looking at developmental,
health, behavioural, wellbeing and mental health issues in children and young people. If
children are to be protected from harm, or possible harm, restrictions and regulations need
to be introduced.
Martin Pall’s paper in Environmental Research (as above): Most arguments that have
been made that microwave frequency EMFs may be much more damaging to young
children have centered on the much smaller skulls and skull thickness in young children,
increasing the exposure of their brains to EMFs [60, 61]. However there are other
arguments to be made. EMFs have been shown to be particularly active in producing
effects on embryonic stem cells [62-71]. Because such stem cells occur at much higher
cell densities in children, with stem cell densities the highest in the fetus and decreasing
with increasing age [62, 63], impacts on young children are likely to be much higher than in
adults. The decreased DNA repair and increased DNA damage following EMF exposure, in
conjunction with the increased cell division in young children, strongly suggest that young
children may be increasingly susceptible to cancer following such exposures [62-64, 71].
Two reviews discussed in the next chapter provide further evidence on higher cancer
susceptibility of children. EMF action on stem cells may also cause young children to be
particularly susceptible to disruption of brain development [66,71], something that may be
relevant to autism causation.
Electrosmog versus mobile phones
Mobile phones emit more intense electromagnetic radiation than Wi-Fi systems. However, as
SSITA (Safe Schools Information Technology Information) doctors have written in a complaint to
Public Health England: ‘Failure to promote precaution in the case of other wireless technologies
such as Wi-Fi and smart meters cannot be justified on the grounds that exposures are less than
from mobile phones. This does not take into account the fact that exposure from Wi-Fi in schools
and smart meters is constant whereas mobile phone exposure only occurs during phone
calls. Furthermore, mobile phone exposure is voluntary whereas in the case of Wi-Fi in schools
and smart meters in homes it is involuntary, i.e. people are being forced to be exposed to the
pulsed microwaves and cannot choose to exercise precaution.This is arguably a violation of the
Right to Health Protection as outlined in Section 4 of the article ‘Precautionary Environmental
Protection and Human Rights’ (2007).’ (21)
Base stations and cell towers:
The standard advice from Cancer Research UK is that proximity to cell masts does not increase
cancer risk. The BMJ claims there is no association, based on a study of children whose mothers
lived by base stations during pregnancy, and this is widely-cited by the press and government
Yet this article in the British Medical Journal (https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/
Dr Grahame Blackwell, Independent UK physicist and consultant has summarised six
studies of masts and effects:
“These above six studies are the only studies known of that
specifically consider the effects of masts on people. All six of these
studies show clear and significant ill-health effects. There are no known
studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such illhealth
Professor Santini et al. Pathol Biol (Paris)
“… it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited
closer than 300 meters to populations”
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO)
Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment,and Health, Welfare and Sport found
significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally
-recognised criteria (including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness
etc) from 3G mast emissions well below accepted ‘safety’ levels (less than
1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines)
A British Medical Journal article states that conflicts of interest cloud results when looking at RF
radiation generally; this may also apply to studies of proximity to masts. https://www.bmj.com/rapidresponse/
There have been studies from developing countries showing cancer clusters around masts which
may reflect poor regulation of emissions. Eg:
This study shows adverse effects, particularly within 80 metres:
The RF power density of the exposed individuals was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) when
compared to the control group. The HPBLs were cultured and the DNA damage was assessed by
cytokinesis blocked micronucleus (MN) assay in the binucleate lymphocytes. The analyses of data
from the exposed group (n = 40), residing within a perimeter of 80 m of mobile base stations,
showed significantly (p < 0.0001) higher frequency of micronuclei when compared to the control
group, residing 300 m away from the mobile base station/s. The analysis of various antioxidants in
the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a significant attrition in glutathione (GSH)
concentration (p < 0.01), activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD)
(p < 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls. Multiple linear
regression analyses revealed a significant association among reduced GSH concentration (p <
0.05), CAT (p < 0.001) and SOD (p < 0.001) activities and elevated MN frequency (p < 0.001) and
LOO (p < 0.001) with increasing RF power density.
In 2008 a cancer cluster was reported in the area around a tower in Dudley found to have the
highest levels of radiation in the UK (yet still within safety guidelines).
In 2014 government inspectors are reported to have turned down the erection of a mast due to
potential health issues. https://www.emfacts.com/2014/08/uk-mobile-phone-company-bannedfrom-
In some developing countries there have been reports of cancer clusters: Brazil study ‘Mortality by
neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations’ (Dode, 2011).
A 10-year study by Brazil Health Department and several universities - elevated cancer mortality at
500m or less. After this study almost half of the city antennas were removed and cell phone
companies were sued.
It would seem important to investigate further any bias in BMJ studies and to confirm also
that with 5G masts added to existing stations that radiation levels will be higher.
Health issues specific to 5G microwave radiation:
5G antennas will greatly increase levels of existing wireless radiation.
The UK radiation level limits are already set much higher than in other countries (see chart below,
under ‘ICNIRP’) and in addition the ICNIRP have voted to relax guidelines.
5G will use current frequencies in addition to high millimetre wave and sub-millimetre wave
frequencies of 100GHz and beyond.
Therefore bioeffects from both increased cumulative effects of existing radiation, which may be
synergistic and not just additive (see chart supplied as additional reading; this has been provided
by a postmasters’ in radiation as a guide but is not in peer-reviewed literature) as well as those
specific to high-frequency radiation may be anticipated.
Professor Joel Moskowitz of the University of California
Joel M. Moskowitz is a Professor Emeritus of radiation at the School of Public Health at the
University of California Berkeley and an expert in mobile phone radiation and electromagnetic
fields. He states:
• Millimetre waves such as those in use by 5G are absorbed by the first 1-2 mm of skin and the
eye cornea. Since the skin contains nerve endings and capillaries, bio-effects may be
• Thermal (or heating) effects as used by the military’s ADS system occur when the power density
of the waves is above 5–10 mW/cm2, The maximum permissible exposure that the FCC permits
for the general public is 1.0 mW/cm2 averaged over 30 minutes for frequencies that range from
1.5 GHz to 100 GHz. This guideline was adopted in 1996 to protect humans from acute
exposure to thermal levels of radiofrequency radiation. However, the guidelines were not
designed to protect us from nonthermal risks that may occur with prolonged or long-term
exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
• With the deployment of fifth generation wireless infrastructure (aka 5G), much of the nation will
be exposed to MMWs for the first time on a continuous basis. Due to FCC guidelines, these
exposures will likely be of low intensity. Hence, the health consequences of 5G exposure will be
limited to non-thermal effects produced by prolonged exposure to MMWs [ie high-frequency
millimetre waves] in conjunction with exposure to low- and mid-band radiofrequency radiation
[from existing radiation]. Few studies have examined prolonged exposure to low-intensity
MMWs, and no research has focused on exposure to MMWs combined with other
radiofrequency radiation. It has not therefore been proven safe.
• Biologic effects of low-intensity MMWs have been studied for decades, particularly in Eastern
Europe, study results are often inconsistent because the effects are related to many factors
including the frequency, modulation, power density, and duration of the exposures, as well as the
type of tissue or cells being investigated. Therefore results vary across studies with not all
showing harmful effects.
• MMWs have been shown to induce or inhibit cell death and enhance or suppress cell
proliferation. Some studies found that the radiation inhibits cell cycle progression, and some
studies reported no biologic effects (Le Drean et al., 2013)
• A review of the research in 2010 noted that “A large number of cellular studies have indicated
that MMW may alter structural and functional properties of membranes.” Exposure to MMWs
may affect the plasma membrane either by modifying ion channel activity or by modifying the
phospholipid bilayer. Water molecules also seem to play a role in these effects. Skin nerve
endings are a likely target of MMWs and the possible starting point of numerous biological
effects. MMWs may activate the immune system through stimulation of the peripheral neural
system (Ramundo-Orlando, 2010).
• In 1998, five scientists employed by U.S. Army and Air Force research institutes published a
seminal review of the research on MMWs. They reported:
• “Increased sensitivity and even hypersensitivity of individual specimens to MMW may be real.
Depending on the exposure characteristics, especially wavelength, a low-intensity MMW
radiation was perceived by 30 to 80% of healthy examinees (Lebedeva, 1993, 1995). Some
clinical studies reported MMW hypersensitivity, which was or was not limited to a certain
wavelength (Golovacheva, 1995).”
• It is important to note that, even with the variety of bioeffects reported, no studies have provided
evidence that a low-intensity MMW radiation represents a health hazard for human beings but
they have also not looked at health risks. In view of numerous bioeffects and growing usage of
MMW technologies this research objective seems very reasonable. Such MMW effects as
alterations of cell growth rate and UV light sensitivity, biochemical and antibiotic resistivity
changes in pathogenic bacteria, as well as many others are of potential significance for safety
standards, but even local and short-term exposures were reported to produce marked effects. It
should also be realized that biological effects of a prolonged or chronic MMW exposure of the
whole body or a large body area have never been investigated. Safety limits for these types of
exposures are based solely on predictions of energy deposition and MMW heating, but in view
of recent studies this approach is not necessarily adequate.” (Pakhomov et al., 1998)
• Microbes are also affected by MMW radiation. In 2016 a review of the research on the effects of
MMWs on bacteria was published (Soghomonyan et al., 2016). The authors summarized their
findings as follows: “…bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by
electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high frequency range. These MMW affected Escherichia
coli and many other bacteria, mainly depressing their growth and changing properties and
activity. These effects were non-thermal and depended on different factors. The significant
cellular targets for MMW effects could be water, cell plasma membrane, and genome….The
consequences of MMW interaction with bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different
biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics….These effects are of significance for
understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria in environment; they
might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.”
• “Changing the sensitivity of bacteria to antibiotics by MMW irradiation can be important for the
understanding of antibiotic resistance in the environment. In this respect, it is interesting that
bacteria [that] survived near telecommunication-based stations like Bacillus and Clostridium spp.
have been found to be multidrug resistant (Adebayo et al. 2014).” (Soghomonyan et al., 2016)
• In 1977, N.P. Zalyubovskaya published a study, "Biological effects of millimeter waves," in a
Russian-language journal, "Vracheboyne Delo." The CIA declassified this paper in 2012. The
study examined the effects of exposing mice to millimeter radiation (37-60 GHz; 1 milliwatt per
square centimeter) for 15 minutes daily for 60 days. The animal results were compared to a
sample of people working with millimeter generators. Here is a brief summary of the paper:
studies conducted on humans and animals showed structural alterations in the skin and internal
organs, changes in blood and bone marrow composition, changes in enzymatic activity and
nucleic metabolism. ‘the degree of unfavourable effect of radiation depended on the duration of
the radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.’
• In sum, the peer-reviewed research demonstrates that short-term exposure to low-intensity
millimeter wave (MMW) radiation not only affects human cells, it may result in the growth of
multi-drug resistant bacteria harmful to humans. Since little research has been conducted on the
health consequences from long-term exposure to MMWs, widespread deployment of 5G or 5th
generation wireless infrastructure constitutes a massive experiment that may have adverse
impacts on the public’s health.
A new study (Neufeld & Kuster, 2018) has shown that due to the heating effect of 5G
electromagnetic waves, the exposure times ‘tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures,
highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.’
Environ Res. 2018 May;163:208-216. 2018 Feb 22.
The human skin as a sub-THz receiver - Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?
Betzalel N1, Ben Ishai P2, Feldman Y3.
In the interaction of microwave radiation and human beings, the skin is traditionally considered as
just an absorbing sponge stratum filled with water. In previous works, we showed that this view is
flawed when we demonstrated that the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer is
regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band….The presence of the sweat duct led to a high
specific absorption rate (SAR) of the skin in extremely high frequency band. In this paper, we
summarize the physical evidence for this phenomenon and consider its implication for the future
exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum by wireless communication. Starting from July 2016
the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules for wireless
broadband operations above 24 GHz (5 G). This trend of exploitation is predicted to expand to
higher frequencies in the sub-THz region. One must consider the implications of human immersion
in the electromagnetic noise, caused by devices working at the very same frequencies as those, to
which the sweat duct (as a helical antenna) is most attuned. We are raising a warning flag against
the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible
consequences for public health are explored
Dr Sharon Goldberg: MD in internal medicine, professor, clinical researcher testified at 5G
legislation in Michigan. This testimony can be viewed online. Some notes:
WR has biological effects in all life forms. Clear evidence of cancer in humans now, DNA damage,
cardiomyopathy, neuropsychiatric effects - the science is settled. Unsustainable healthcare
expenditures. We have been sitting on the evidence for decades. Epidemics are linked. Diabetes is
linked according to peer-reviewed literature; the nearer to a cell tower the higher your glucose and
therefore 5G antennas are dangerous. The way to create diabetes in rats in the lab is to expose
them to 2.2GHz. Diabetes causes chronic kidney disease. Mental health epidemic, suicide, violent
crime, opioids - the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed shows clear links which have been glossed
over by the wireless industry; industry-funded studies are not clear but independent studies are
very clear. We need to start measuring how much radiation people are exposed to before we roll
out 5G. US Toxicology Programme study is just one cell phone but we have cell towers, smart
meters, wifi, 4G and so on - many layers. Don’t roll out a new untested technology. The American
Cancer Society saying there is no evidence: this is due to conflicts of interests. In academia 5G is
‘an untested application of a technology we know is harmful from the science. It’s called human
subjects research. You can’t just roll out a research on human beings unless you inform them and
have their approval. We have decades of evidence to show that it is not safe.’
SCHEER (the EU Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) SCHEER
state in their 2018 report that ‘the lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure
guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences’
and include electromagnetic radiation, especially from 5G, along with e-cigarettes, nanoparticles
and other toxins in their list of concerns.
Further resources which contain references to peer-reviewed literature:
http://phiremedical.org/full-overview/ headed by strictly science-based Dr Erica Mallory-Blythe who
is a 5G campaigner and speaker - her leaflet accompanies this document
EMF Appeal https://www.emfscientist.org
Bioinitiative: a group of MDs and professors with a large body of evidence showing harm to living
EH Trust https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/
Anecdotal reports of EMF symptoms from existing 5G areas
UN staff worker Claire Edwards in Vienna where 5G has been rolled out on reports of EMF
poisoning: Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic
symptoms of EMR poisoning: nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue,
vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band
around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and
buzzing internal organs. Other biological effects such as tumours and dementia usually take longer
to manifest, but in the case of 5G, which has never been tested for health or safety, who knows
Coalitions of scientists appealing to freeze 5G
The 5G Appeal Scientists and doctors from 36 countries have signed the Appeal calling for a
moratorium on the roll-out of 5G and the mandatory exposure to wireless radiation this would
impose on humans and the environment.
The 5G Space Appeal Hundreds of scientists from the Appeal state: ‘RF radiation has been proven
harmful for humans and the environment. The deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on
humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.’ With "the
implementation of 5G threaten serious, irreversible consequences for humans," warn more than
400 physicians and scientists.
The EMF Scientist Appeal 230 scientists from all over the world have stated in the Appeal that
‘numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels
well below most international and national guidelines.’
Scientific basis for our common concerns: Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that
EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.
Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic
damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory
deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage
goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant
and animal life.
These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to
encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the
development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and
educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not
taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health
Since there is controversy about a rationale for setting standards to avoid adverse health effects,
we recommend that the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) convene and fund an
independent multidisciplinary committee to explore the pros and cons of alternatives to current
practices that could substantially lower human exposures to RF and ELF fields. The deliberations
of this group should be conducted in a transparent and impartial way. Although it is essential that
industry be involved and cooperate in this process, industry should not be allowed to bias its
processes or conclusions. This group should provide their analysis to the UN and the WHO to
guide precautionary action.
Further info: https://www.emfscientist.org
Claire Edwards can be contacted at email@example.com.
Her colleague Arthur Firstenberg can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org or www.
ICNIRP guidelines on mobile radiation exposure
Current UK guidelines are already comparatively extremely high and are due to be relaxed further:
For more on UK limits see: http://phiremedical.org/safety-limits-and-political-conflicts-of-interest/
The ICNIRP is a small, private, industry-loyal group
The ICNIRP (International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) sets the guidelines for
radiation exposure. Bodies such as the WHO and PHE (Public Health England) as well as the NHS
ultimately take their cue from the ICNIRP.
The ICNIRP is a private non-accountable NGO consisting of six self-selected members and is an
industry-loyal group. The group does not disclose its funding sources.
Journal of Oncology https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/
In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It
turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO,
and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological
effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the
Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on
March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change
the Core Group.
The only proven adverse health effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields cited by ICNIRP is
the heating of the tissue, as occurs at high dosage, as happens with a microwave oven. According
to ICNIRP, after 2 watts per kg of body weight the tissue temperature rises measurably. The
association set the value in 1998 and today’s limits from base stations and mobile phones are
based on that. Critics say that the restriction on the heating effect is arbitrary. High-frequency
beams also produce non-thermal effects in living cells, even when they are low-dose. Biological
processes are always based on electrochemical processes, such as the transmission of nerve
impulses. The members of ICNIRP do not deny that. "We just are not convinced that these effects
have been proven to be harmful to health," explains its chairman, the Dutch biologist Eric van
EMF scientist appeal criticism: It is our opinion that, because the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover
long-term exposure and low-intensity effects [of 4G and 3G], they are insufficient to protect public
Bioinitiative: (https://bioinitiative.org) A report by 29 professors and medical researchers from
eleven countries represent all of the required disciplines such as cancer research, molecular
biology and epidemiology, and they published a counter-report to the ICNIRP position.
"The biological effects of cell phone radiation prevent the body from healing damaged DNA and
reducing its resistance to disease," the authors write, citing more than 1,000 scientific publications.
This could profoundly affect the metabolic and reproductive functions. According to Swedish
oncologist Lennart Hardell, one of the lead authors, studies with several thousand cell phone users
surveyed have "proven that high-frequency electromagnetic radiation increases the risk of brain
Public Health England
In 2013 SSITA (Safe Schools Information Technology Alliance) complained to PHE about their
failure to provide appropriate precautionary advice on pulsed microwave-emitting technologies
other than mobile phones, particularly the use of wireless networks in schools and homes, and
Smart Meters in homes and small businesses. The HPA (previous body similar to PHE) did not
mention studies showing the risks. ‘This is arguably a violation of the Right to Health Protection as
outlined in Section 4 of the article ‘Precautionary Environmental Protection and Human
AGNIR (Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation) the now-defunct government group on nonionising
radiation who advise PHE, conclude that ‘there is no convincing evidence that radio wave
exposures below the ICNIRP guideline levels cause health effects in adults or children.’
However, the SSITA strongly disagrees with this statement, saying that ‘a large body of published
scientific data has found that pulsed radiofrequency microwaves below the guideline levels can
cause biological and adverse health effects, although many of these papers were omitted from the
AGNIR 2012 report...As stated in the Benevento Resolution (2006) from the International
Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, ‘arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect
biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.’
A note on Wikipedia
The entry for ‘mobile radiation and health’ states that there has been found to be no risk from
mobile phones and does not mention the three large recent studies cited at the top of this
document - the two showing glioma in rats and the study showing that glioma rates have doubled.
The entry for ‘mobile phone overuse’ says: ‘Cancer, specifically brain cancer, and its
correlation with phone use, is under ongoing investigation. Many variables affect the
likelihood of hosting cancerous cells, including how long and how frequently people use
their phones. There has been no definitive evidence linking cancer and phone use if used
moderately, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health
Organization said in 2011 that radio frequency is a possible human carcinogen, based on
heavy usage increasing the risk of developing glioma tumors. Although a relationship
has not been fully established, research is continuing based on leads from changing
patterns of mobile phone use over time and habits of phone users. Low level radio
frequency radiation has also been confirmed as a promoter of tumors in mice. Minor
acute immediate effects of radio frequency exposure have long been known such as the
Microwave auditory effect which was discovered in 1962.’
Legal action and councils
The public has not been consulted on whether or not it wants 5G. The rollout of 5G entails
mandatorily subjecting every member of the public to 5G exposure which will be at higher levels in
Currently litigators are working in the US and Australia on behalf of those affected by 5G; in
Australia this is done on the grounds of assault and technological trespass.
In the UK some groups are beginning to look into crowdfunding legal action whilst others are
attempting to hold local councils to account. Councillors claim no obligation but as they contract the
suppliers and the central government has given the responsibility to local councils to contract out,
for example, lampposts, this is not in fact the case. The wording of the Constitution which can be
downloaded online must be looked at.
Communities are being advised on taking Class Actions and public interest challenges whereby
government and local councils are the defendants, for example against a local council, since on
the one hand, it is a commercial partner of companies that develop and operate infrastructure (and
pay for the use of council property and street lights to site base stations and antenna), versus its
obligations to residents as regards human health and environmental protection.
Notices of Liability will be lodged by individual residents and targetting telecoms companies and
FOIs: these have been submitted but in the case of BCC a reply was sent saying that the
questions about masts and proof that 5G has been safety-tested could not be answered.
Signs that the Telecoms companies are aware that medical advice could change:
Shareholders are warned about changing values caused by safety concerns: As Vodafone notes in
the 2017 annual report: "Electromagnetic signals emitted by mobile devices and base stations can
pose health risks with potential consequences, including: changes in national legislation, a
reduction in mobile phone use or litigation." Deutsche Telekom also warns its Shareholders said
there was "a risk of regulatory intervention, such as lowering electromagnetic field limits or
implementing precautionary measures in mobile communications”.
The "legal information” supplied by phone manufacturers advise keeping the phone an inch from
the body. ‘Failure to do so may cause your smartphone to exceed the specified limits.’
Insurance companies will not insure for wireless radiation damage due to ‘high impact risk’
Safe technology alternatives to explore
Fibre optics; cables
WiFi in schools
4G (at a minimum) instead of 5G, using fibre optics
(1)“Electrosensitive Testimonials.” We Are The Evidence. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. http://
(2) Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, Auvinen A, Blaasaas KG, Cardis E, Collatz
Christensen H, Feychting M, Hepworths SJ, Johansen C, Klæboe L, Lönn S, McKinney PA, Muir K,
Raitanen J, Salminen T, Thomsen J, Tynes T (2005) Moblie phone use and risk of acoustic
neuroma: results of the Interphone case–control study in five North European countries. Br J
Cancer 93: 842–848
(3) Hardell L, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M, Påhlson A, Lilja A (2002) Cellular and
cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 11: 377–386
(5) Henry Lai
(7) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf , https://
(8) Belpoggi https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389
(10) Hardell and Carlberg 2009 Int J Oncol. 35: 5-17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
(11) Hardell and Carlberg 2015 Pathophysiology 22: 1-13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
(13) national human genome research institute website - quote from paper in Nature mag
(14) Ref: Journal of Public Health and Environment https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/
(16) “Electrosensitive Testimonials.” We Are The Evidence. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. http://
(19) Morgan, L. Lloyd, Santosh Kesari, and Devra Lee Davis. “Why Children Absorb More
Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences.” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2,
no. 4 (December 2014): 197-204. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
Further reading and resources
Claire Edwards’ report from Vienna: https://www.globalresearch.ca/5g-wireless-technology-is-
Scientists and 5G appeal https://www.5gappeal.eu/the-5g-appeal/
Call for WHO classification to be ugraded:US Dept of Health, 2018; Fiorello Belpoggi, 2018).
Neufeld E & Kuster N (2018). Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G
Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Health Phys Sept 21
IARC ref: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
Jeromy Johnson techie turned health advocate warns of problems Ted x talk https://
Physicians for safe technology: https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/
https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ physicians for safe technology
the science: https://mdsafetech.org/5g-telecommunications-science/
UN staffer Claire Edwards: https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/01/06/
SSITA Safe Schools Information Technology Alliance
comare why do they ignore the safety studies cited by sarah starkey?
Senator Richard Blumenthal, senator for Connecticut, raises concerns: https://www.youtube.com/
Senator Patrick Colbeck: YouTube video about health concerns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Further studies on millimetre waves
Belyaev IY, Shcheglov VS, Alipov ED, Ushakov VD. Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency
microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro—Dependence on physical, physiological, and genetic
factors. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 2000; 48(11):2172-2179.
This finding suggested an interaction of microwaves with cell-to-cell communication. Such dependence on
several genetic, physiological, and physical variables might be a reason why, in some studies, the authors
failed to reproduce the original data of others.
Ramundo-Orlando A. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane - A brief review. Journal of
Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves. 2010; 31(12):1400–1411.
The millimeter waves (MMW) region of the electromagnetic spectrum, extending from 30 to 300 GHz in
terms of frequency (corresponding to wavelengths from 10 mm to 1 mm), is officially used in non-invasive
complementary medicine in many Eastern European countries against a variety of diseases such gastro
duodenal ulcers, cardiovascular disorders, traumatism and tumor. On the other hand, besides technological
applications in traffic and military systems, in the near future MMW will also find applications in high
resolution and high-speed wireless communication technology. This has led to restoring interest in research
on MMW induced biological effects. In this review emphasis has been given to the MMW-induced effects on
cell membranes that are considered the major target for the interaction between MMW and biological
Ryan KL, D'Andrea JA, Jauchem JR, Mason PA. Radio frequency radiation of millimeter wave length:
potential occupational safety issues relating to surface heating. Health Phys. 2000; 78(2):170-81.
Currently, technology is being developed that makes use of the millimeter wave (MMW) range (30-300 GHz)
of the radio frequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum. As more and more systems come on line and
are used in everyday applications, the possibility of inadvertent exposure of personnel to MMWs increases.
To date, there has been no published discussion regarding the health effects of MMWs; this review attempts
to fill that void. Because of the shallow depth of penetration, the energy and, therefore, heat associated with
MMWs will be deposited within the first 1-2 mm of human skin. MMWs have been used in states of the
former Soviet Union to provide therapeutic benefit in a number of diverse disease states, including skin
disorders, gastric ulcers, heart disease and cancer. Conversely, the possibility exists that hazards might be
associated with accidental overexposure to MMWs. This review attempts to critically analyze the likelihood of
such acute effects as burn and eye damage, as well as potential long-term effects, including cancer.
Soghomonyan D, Trchounian K, Trchounian A. Millimeter waves or extremely high frequency
electromagnetic fields in the environment: what are their effects on bacteria? Appl Microbiol Biotechnol.
2016; 100(11):4761-71. doi: 10.1007/s00253-016-7538-0.
Millimeter waves (MMW) or electromagnetic fields of extremely high frequencies at low intensity is a new
environmental factor, the level of which is increased as technology advance. It is of interest that bacteria and
other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high frequency
range. These MMW affected Escherichia coli and many other bacteria, mainly depressing their growth and
changing properties and activity. These effects were non-thermal and depended on different factors. The
significant cellular targets for MMW effects could be water, cell plasma membrane, and genome. The model
for the MMW interaction with bacteria is suggested; a role of the membrane-associated proton FOF1-
ATPase, key enzyme of bioenergetic relevance, is proposed. The consequences of MMW interaction with
bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics.
Novel data on MMW effects on bacteria and their sensitivity to different antibiotics are presented and
discussed; the combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more strong effects. These effects are
of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria in
environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The effects might have applications in
the development of technique, therapeutic practices, and food protection technology.
Torgomyan H, Trchounian A. Bactericidal effects of low-intensity extremely high frequency electromagnetic
field: an overview with phenomenon, mechanisms, targets and consequences. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2013;
Low-intensity electromagnetic field (EMF) of extremely high frequencies is a widespread environmental
factor. This field is used in telecommunication systems, therapeutic practices and food protection.
Particularly, in medicine and food industries EMF is used for its bactericidal effects. The significant targets of
cellular mechanisms for EMF effects at resonant frequencies in bacteria could be water (H2O), cell
membrane and genome. The changes in H2O cluster structure and properties might be leading to increase of
chemical activity or hydration of proteins and other cellular structures. These effects are likely to be specific
and long-term. Moreover, cell membrane with its surface characteristics, substance transport and energyconversing
processes is also altered. Then, the genome is affected because the conformational changes in
DNA and the transition of bacterial pro-phages from lysogenic to lytic state have been detected. The
consequences for EMF interaction with bacteria are the changes in their sensitivity to different chemicals,
including antibiotics. These effects are important to understand distinguishing role of bacteria in environment,
leading to changed metabolic pathways in bacteria and their antibiotic resistance. This EMF may also affect
the cell-to-cell interactions in bacterial populations, since bacteria might interact with each other through
EMF of sub-extremely high frequency range.
Bantysh BB, Krylov AY, Subbotina TI, Khadartsev AA, Ivanov DV, Yashin AA. Peculiar effects of
electromagnetic millimeter waves on tumor development in BALB/c mice. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2018 Sep;
Foster KR, Ziskin MC, Balzano Q. Thermal response of human skin to microwave energy: A critical review.
Health Phys. 2016; 111(6):528-541. (Note: This work was sponsored by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum.
The authors state that MMF had no control over the contents.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Gandhi OP, Riazi A. Absorption of millimeter waves by human beings and its biological implications. IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. MTT-34(2):228-235. 1986. http://bit.ly/2oS3rKD
Wu T, Rappaport TS, Collins CM. The human body and millimeter-wave wireless communication systems:
Interactions and implications. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Jun 2015. https://
The impacts of artificial electromagnetic radiation on wildlife
(EMF/EMR can damage all biological life forms)
Impact Of Electromagnetic radiations of biology and behaviour of Apis mellifera L.
EMF and the Natural World
The impacts of artificial ElectromagneticRadiation on wildlife (flora and fauna).Current knowledge overview: a background document to the web conference (pdf 32 pages)
WEB CONFERENCE The impacts of artificial Electromagnetic Radiations on wildlife (flora and fauna)
Wildlife and Plants
BEES: Important new study on bees
Same on frogs
OTHER ARTICLES BY ALFONSO BALMORI
Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations
Bees, Birds and Mankind Destroying Nature by `Electrosmog´
New U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Reports on EMF and Warnke report on “Bees, Birds and Mankind”
'Hyperalarming' study shows massive insect loss
Environment and Wildlife Effects
EMF/EMR and Wildlife Effects
BEES, BIRDS AND MANKIND Destroying Nature by 'Electrosmog'
Expert Group to study the possible impacts of communication towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees
BEES, BIRDS AND MANKINDDestroying Nature by 'Electrosmog'Ulrich Warnke
Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees
The effects of EMR from wireless devices on wildlife
Lots of links
HUMAN GENERATED RADIATION IS HARMING WILDLIFE
The Effect of Cell Phone Radiations on the Life Cycle of Honeybees
Honey bees navigate using magnetic abdomens
Resonance effects indicate aradical-pair mechanism foravian magnetic compass
Linking magnetite in the abdomen of honey bees to a magnetoreceptive function
Wireless Devices & Wildlife
Wireless and the Bees and Butterflies
A magnetic compass aids monarch butterfly migration
Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping
Effect of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation on Behavior of the Honeybee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)
A cause of the mass death of bees
THE END OF THE BIRDS AND THE BEES
Important new study on bees: MOBILE PHONE-INDUCED HONEYBEE WORKER PIPING
Expert Group to study the possible impacts of communication towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees
How Does Mobile Radiation Affect Honey Bees
Study of Daniel Favre about mobile phones and honeybees
Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping
Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees
Lots of links
Electromagnetic fields from powerlines, mobile phones, mobile phone masts, smart meters and wireless devices also impacts birds, bees, wildlife, plant
Lots of ref.
The effects of EMR from wireless devices on wildlife
Research on Melatonin and more
Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)Clashes with Honey Bees
Electromagnetic Radiation: Influences on Honeybees (Apis mellifera)
Migratory Monarch Butterflies 'See' Earth's GeoMagnetic Field
Part 7 Katie Singer- Electronics in Our Ecosystem: EMF Effects on Wildlife, Birds and Bees
If Cell Phones Are Behind the Bee Decline, What Are They Doing to Humans?
Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations
More links in text
Cellphones threaten bees: Study
Mobile Radiation Affect Honey Bees
Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations
Effect of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation on Behavior of the Honeybee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)
Bees, Butterflies and Wildlife: Research on Electromagnetic Fields and the Environment
Wireless Technology and Electromagnetic Radiation Alters Bee Behavior and Physiology
Dear Mr. Vela & National Park Staf
Cellphone Towers EMR Damaging Biological Systems of Birds, Insects, Humans
Cell Tower Radiation Affects Wildlife: Dept. of Interior Attacks FCC
US Department of the Interior warns: communication towers threaten birds
Environment and Wildlife Effects
Briefing Paper on the Need for Research into the Cumulative Impacts of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife in the United States
Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz
The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on theamphibian decline: Is this an importantpiece of the puzzle
Mobile Phone Mast Effects on Common Frog(Rana temporaria) Tadpoles: The City Turnedinto a Laboratory
Mobile Phone Mast Effects on frogs
Emf Effects on frogs
Emf and the White stork
And it's not just pigeons — have you seen any sparrows or parrots around, since these towers started springing up
A Possible Effect of Electromagnetic Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations on the Number of Breeding House Sparrows (Passer domesticus)
Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations
Birds and Trees of Northern Greece: Population Declines since the Advent of 4G Wireless An Observational Study
Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations
Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phonebase stations
Trees in Bamberg and Hallstadt in the radiation field of 65 mobile phone base stations Examples from a documentation about 700 trees (2006-2016)
Radiation field of phone base stations on trees
Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations
Electromagnetic fields threaten wildlife
LIKE our Facebook PAGE
and get news from us.