In the race for hyperfast internet speed and connectivity, experts are drawing comparisons between the launch of 5G and the lies told by the tobacco and oil industries.
The structure required to support 5G will place the cellular antenna ports close to your home and workplace, making it nearly impossible to avoid and increasing the risk of excessive oxidative stress that can lead to anxiety, depression, and Alzheimer’s.
It’s important to get involved to help prevent 5G deployment by communicating with local legislators and signing local petitions. Consider taking steps in your home to reduce exposure, recommend the experts.
With millions of people working remotely, the opportunity has been seized for regulators to advance 5G. However, with the expansion of wireless connections, a landmark study by the EMF Safety Network recommends reducing exposure.
“4G” on Steroids
Despite the concern of many experts, implementation is moving forward under the guise of providing a faster and more efficient Internet, at any cost. The term 5G stands for the fifth generation of wireless access, which Jonathon Adelstein, director of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, characterizes as “4G on steroids.” The association represents nearly 200 companies in the telecommunications industry.
However, Adelstein’s characterization of 4G on steroids is not entirely accurate. While the 4G network uses less than 6 GHz in the radio frequency spectrum, 5G will occupy 30 GHz to 300 GHz, which are shorter millimeter wavelengths. The health effects of constant exposure to pulses of these wavelengths have not been thoroughly studied, but initial evidence shows that it is likely dangerous.
If faster speed and reliability are really the end goals, fiber optic connections are a much better and safer way to move forward. It’s not the faster speeds of 5G that scientists are concerned about, but rather the distribution of wireless data when, in most cases, it could be routed more easily and at lower cost over fiber optic cables.
The most recent data confirm the evidence
Following the passage of Bill 522 by the New Hampshire House of Representatives, the New Hampshire Legislative Commission was formed to study the environmental and health effects of the evolution of 5G technology. The commission pledged to “study the health and environmental effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.”
The commission consisted of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, electromagnetic engineering, and a representative from the wireless industry.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ignored thousands of peer-reviewed radio frequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and many other ailments. Why don’t the FCC guidelines take into account the health effects of wireless technology, and why are the FCC RF limits 100 times higher than those in other countries?
Why is the FCC ignoring the World Health Organization’s classification of wireless devices as possible carcinogens, when the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation, nothing was done?
The commission listened to experts, and ultimately everyone except the telecommunications representative recognized that RF radiation from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects, and plants.
The commission wrote: “There is growing evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue and many now say there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument is amplified as millimeter waves are used within the microwave range”.
It´s first recommendation was “an independent review of current RF standards for electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum from 300MHz to 300GHz” to assess the health risks that were related to cellular communications.
The remaining recommendations included those that would reduce an individual’s exposure to the 5G network and increase the public’s knowledge and awareness of their exposure. A shorter minority report written by the trade and industry representative and the telecommunications representative, who disagreed with the majority of experts, was included.
EMF Safety Network wrote: “This minority report repeats the language of the telecommunications industry and sets out its agenda to ignore the science and continue to confuse the public.”
Security takes a backseat after speed
telecommunications, tobacco and leaded gas industries, saying:In the same way that the tobacco industry convinced the public that smoking was not dangerous, so is the telecommunications industry selling speed over safety to the public. In the interview with Greater Earth Media, IT professional Jon Humphrey made the obvious comparison between the stocks of the
“So they know that technology is dangerous and so they are just trying to get as much of it out of it as possible before they are finally held accountable. Sadly, we’ve seen all of this before. We saw it with the big tobacco companies, we saw it with leaded gas and in every case the big corporations did what they always do: they lied and then they paid the politicians and they paid the scientists and they silenced the people and they discredited them and sadly they were thet got away with it and that’s what we need to make sure it doesn’t happen with 5G.”