 |
"There is a catch, though: the Internet of Things will
require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G technology, thus “massively
increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a
petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000
peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialled
scientists in the radiation research field”, according to Joel Moskowitz, the
director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of
California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like
mobiles, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market
safety testing."
Enquanto o Mundo se prepara para a trasinção global da
tecnologia G5 nos telemóveis e novos mastros estão a ser instalados a
companhias escondem o aumento acentuado de perigos para a Saúde Pública que
esta tecnologia implica. Ler artigo do Guardian em baixo.
OVOODOCORVO
Why 5G Cell Towers Are More Dangerous
All cell towers emit
Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation. This is what makes them dangerous. Plans to
transition to the new 5G around the world is already underway. Soon every city will be retrofitted with this
technology. Mini cell stations will be placed all throughout our neighborhoods
and cities. They will be installed on the sides or tops of buildings and on
street light poles.
5G cell towers are more dangerous than other cell towers for
two main reasons. First, compared to earlier versions, 5G is ultra high
frequency and ultra high intensity. Second, since the shorter length millimeter
waves (MMV) used in 5G do not travel as far (or through objects), with our
current number of cell towers the cell signal will not be reliable. To
compensate many more mini cell towers must be installed. It is estimated that
they will need a mini cell tower every 2 to 8 houses. This will greatly
increase our RF Radiation exposure.
1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G
uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of
the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is
to living organisms.
With RF Radiation, how close the source is to our physical
bodies, is more important than the power level (or wattage) of the radiation.
RF Radiation dissipates with distance. In other words, a low powered exposure
right next to someone, is more dangerous than a more powerful exposure a long
ways away. Also the longer the exposure time is, the more dangerous it is. 5G
will be the worst of both worlds. We will have more sources around us, and
closer to us. And they will be more powerful and continuous emissions.
In the below video I explain in a bit more detail why 5G is
more dangerous than previous technologies. I apologize for looking so beat in
this video. I really should not have tried to do a video when I was so tired.
This is a video I will be re-doing. However the information is very good and
super important. It is a short video and very much worth watching.
The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones
We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health –
but is that because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt
by the industry?
Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie
Sat 14 Jul 2018 15.00 BST Last modified on Mon 23 Jul 2018
12.48 BST
On 28 March this year, the scientific peer review of a
landmark United States government study concluded that there is “clear
evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer, specifically, a
heart tissue cancer in rats that is too rare to be explained as random
occurrence.
Eleven independent scientists spent three days at Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, discussing the study, which was done by the
National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services
and ranks among the largest conducted of the health effects of mobile phone
radiation. NTP scientists had exposed thousands of rats and mice (whose
biological similarities to humans make them useful indicators of human health
risks) to doses of radiation equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime
exposure.
The peer review scientists repeatedly upgraded the
confidence levels the NTP’s scientists and staff had attached to the study,
fuelling critics’ suspicions that the NTP’s leadership had tried to downplay
the findings. Thus the peer review also found “some evidence” – one step below
“clear evidence” – of cancer in the brain and adrenal glands.
Not one major news organisation in the US or Europe reported
this scientific news. But then, news coverage of mobile phone safety has long
reflected the outlook of the wireless industry. For a quarter of a century now,
the industry has been orchestrating a global PR campaign aimed at misleading
not only journalists, but also consumers and policymakers about the actual
science concerning mobile phone radiation. Indeed, big wireless has borrowed
the very same strategy and tactics big tobacco and big oil pioneered to deceive
the public about the risks of smoking and climate change, respectively. And
like their tobacco and oil counterparts, wireless industry CEOs lied to the
public even after their own scientists privately warned that their products
could be dangerous, especially to children.
Outsiders suspected from the start that George Carlo was a
front man for an industry whitewash. Tom Wheeler, the president of the Cellular
Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), handpicked Carlo to defuse
a public relations crisis that threatened to strangle his infant industry in
its crib. This was back in 1993, when there were only six mobile subscriptions
for every 100 adults in the United States, but industry executives foresaw a
booming future.
Remarkably, mobile phones had been allowed on to the US
market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some
customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January
1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America company, claiming that his wife’s NEC
phone caused her lethal brain tumour. After Reynard appeared on national
television, the story gained ground. A congressional subcommittee announced an
investigation; investors began dumping mobile phone stocks and Wheeler and the
CTIA swung into action.
A week later, Wheeler announced that his industry would pay
for a comprehensive research programme. Mobile phones were already safe,
Wheeler told reporters; the new research would simply “revalidate the findings
of the existing studies”.
Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfil Wheeler’s mission. An
epidemiologist with a law degree, he had conducted studies for other
controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had
declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical
industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical
behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began
directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR),
whose eventual budget of $28.5m made it the best-funded investigation of mobile
safety to date.
Neutralising the
safety issue has opened the door to the biggest prize of all: the Internet of
Things
However, Carlo and Wheeler eventually clashed bitterly over
WTR’s findings, which Carlo presented to industry leaders on 9 February 1999.
By that date, the WTR had commissioned more than 50 original studies and
reviewed many more. Those studies raised “serious questions” about phone
safety, Carlo told a closed-door meeting of the CTIA’s board of directors,
whose members included the CEOs or top officials of the industry’s 32 leading
companies, including Apple, AT&T and Motorola.
Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on 7
October 1999, reiterating that WTR’s research had found the following: the risk
of “rare neuroepithelial tumours on the outside of the brain was more than
doubled… in cellphone users”; there was an apparent correlation between “brain
tumours occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the
right side of the head”; and the “ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna
to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive”.
Carlo urged the CEOs to do the right thing: give consumers
“the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this
unknown risk they wish to assume”, especially since some in the industry had
“repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers
including children”.
The very next day, a livid Wheeler began publicly trashing
Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo
that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies
you mention”, an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the
lawsuits that had led to Carlo being hired in the first place. Wheeler charged
further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals,
casting doubt on their validity. His tactics doused the controversy, even
though Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry
officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon
be published.
In the years to come, the WTR’s findings would be replicated
by numerous other scientists in the US and around the world. The World Health
Organisation in 2011 would classify mobile phone radiation as a “possible”
human carcinogen and the governments of the United Kingdom, France and Israel
issued warnings against mobile phone use by children. Nevertheless, the
industry’s propaganda campaign would defuse concern sufficiently that today
three out of four adults worldwide have mobile phones, making the wireless
industry among the biggest on Earth.
The key strategic insight animating corporate propaganda
campaigns is that a given industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument
about safety to prevail – it only has to keep the argument going. Keeping the
argument going amounts to a win for industry, because the apparent lack of
certainty helps to reassure customers, fend off government regulations and
deter lawsuits that might pinch profits.
Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making
it appear that not all scientists agree. Towards that end, and again like the
tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war-gamed”
science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science
involves playing offence as well as defence – funding studies friendly to the
industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing
industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies such as the World Health
Organisation and seeking to discredit scientists whose views differ from the
industry’s.
Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most
important tactic, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community
truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer
or genetic damage – as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study
did in 2010; and as the US government’s NTP did earlier this year – the
industry can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree.
A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When
Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington,
analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he
discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone
radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai
recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different
picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological
effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings
were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which
concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely
than independent studies to find health effects.
One key player has not been swayed by all this
wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. In our reporting for this
story, we found not a single insurance company that would sell a
product-liability policy that covered mobile phone radiation. “Why would we
want to do that?” one executive asked with a chuckle before pointing to more
than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a
total of $1.9bn in damages.
The industry’s neutralisation of the safety issue has opened
the door to the biggest prize of all: the proposed transformation of society
dubbed the Internet of Things. Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth,
the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones
and computers but will also connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and
appliances, even their baby’s nappies – all at speeds much faster than can
currently be achieved.
There is a catch, though: the Internet of Things will
require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G technology, thus “massively
increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a
petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000
peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialled
scientists in the radiation research field”, according to Joel Moskowitz, the
director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of
California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like
mobiles, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market
safety testing.
Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does
not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in
selling this logical fallacy to the world. The upshot is that, over the past 30
years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a
public-health experiment: use a mobile phone today, find out later if it causes
genetic damage or cancer. Meanwhile, the industry has obstructed a full
understanding of the science and news organisations have failed to inform the
public about what scientists really think. In other words, this public health
experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects,
even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.
Mark Hertsgaard is an author and the environment
correspondent for the Nation, which published a different version of this
article. Mark Dowie is an author and investigative historian based near Willow
Point, California
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário