by Art Baner
By now, most of us know that 5G is the fifth generation of cellular communication technology. What many may not know, however, is that 5G is not just one thing. It makes use of a wide variety of frequencies and new signal emitting technologies.
5G incorporates existing 2G through 4G frequencies as well as new much higher frequencies, which are completely unproven for human or ecological safety. 5G requires a totally new infrastructure of millions of antennae to be placed in close proximity to homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses. It also involves a network of tens of thousands of new low-orbiting satellites beaming frequencies to the earth. Some of these, incidentally, are now quite visible in the night sky. All of this will amount to a massive blanket of artificial wireless radiation surrounding the planet.
The problems with this new technology are legion. Thousands of studies on wireless radiation, some going back as far as the 1930s, describe a wide array of biological harm to humans, animals, plants, and microbes. These effects are known by the telecommunications industry as evidenced by a T-Mobile study called the 2000 Ecolog Report. Commissioned in the year 2000 in cooperation with the German company Deutsche Telecom MobilNet, this study concluded the following (direct quotes):
“Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.”
“An epidemiological study of children who had been exposed to pulsed high frequency fields, found a decrease in the capability to concentrate and an increase in reaction times.”
“Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on the central nervous system are proven for intensities well below the current guidelines.”
“Impairment of cognitive functions was found in animal experiments at power flux densities of 2W/m2. In humans, there are indications that brain functions are influenced by fields such as they occur when using a mobile telephone.”
A short article on the 2000 Ecolog Report as well as a link to the report itself can be found here: https://www.artbaner.com/tmobile-2000-emf-health-study.
Of course, this is just one study, but it illustrates clear knowledge of some of the biological impacts of wireless radiation. With the advent of 5G, these effects will be increased by orders of magnitude due to elevated and constant exposure.
If you are relatively new to the issues surrounding 5G, I encourage you to visit www.wa4safetech.com On this site, you will find summaries of key issues along with cited reference materials to further grasp the depth of what is occurring. Under the documentary section, you will find links to two excellent videos: 5G Beware, produced here in Bellingham, and 5G Trojan Horse. Both of these are easy to watch and highly recommended.
New Bombshell Study Released on 5G
The 5G landscape is a rapidly changing one. Towers and antennae are being quickly installed even during this “lockdown” period, and the media is now hyping the high tech society 5G promises to usher in. Meanwhile, many more of us are coming to understand the deeper aspects of this issue.
A significant new study on 5G was published in January 2020 by Toxicology Letters, a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering all aspects of toxicology, especially mechanisms of toxicity. The title of this study is “Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions.”
This is a mainstream, hard-hitting piece and concludes with some powerful statements on the health impacts of 5G. At the end, the authors conclude that “Far more research and testing of potential 5G health effects under real-life conditions is required before further rollout can be justified.” But more on this later …
Highlighting the significance of this study is its inclusion by both pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and Sciencedirect.com websites. The authors of this study include:
Ronald N. Kostoff (Research Affiliate, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia, US);
Paul Heroux (Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism, McGill University, Canada);
Michael Aschner (Molecular Pharmacology, Einstein Center of Toxicology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States); and
Aristides Tsatsakis (Laboratory of Toxicology, Medical School, University of Crete, Voutes and Department of Analytical, Toxicology, Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia).
Needless to say, these individuals are well qualified for the task of assessing 5G health and safety issues, and their opinion should silence many critics who insist that the only concern with wireless radiation is damage from tissue overheating (thermal damage).
Key Points and Conclusions
A link to this full study is available at www.wa4safetech.com and the study url is included at the end of this article. It is well worth taking the time to read it in full, given the implications of what this technology will entail. For our purposes here, I’ll paraphrase some of the authors’ key points and conclusions below:
1. Neither 4G nor 5G technology has been tested for safety in credible, real-life scenarios.
2. Many health concerns have been raised due to the rapidly increasing density of cell towers and wireless radiation. Sources for this radiation include: mobile devices, wireless networks in homes, businesses and schools (including WiFi), automotive radar, and other EMF radiation sources such as “smart meters” and the “Internet of Things.”
3. While many past experiments have shown evidence of harm from EMF, they have not gone far enough in their approach for the following reasons: The studies do not reflect real-world dynamics, in which wireless radiation affects living organisms. They do not include “pulsing and modulation of carrier signals” which is important in studying biological responses to wireless radiation. And, they do not account for how wireless radiation adversely interacts with other toxic factors, such as chemical or biological stressors. The authors discuss these points in detail. They also discuss how experimental results relate to epidemiological studies. They conclude by saying that the above omissions suggest that biological damage from wireless radiation may be much greater than previously believed.
4. In another section, the authors look at the literature published over the last 60 years on radio-frequency radiation (RF) and note that, at levels below FCC guidelines, the following impacts can occur: various cancers, DNA damage, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimers, neurobehavioral problems, autism, reproductive problems, blood-brain barrier disruption, depression, cardiac irregularities, adverse impacts on the circulatory, endocrine, and immune system … and more.
They state definitively, “From this perspective, RF is a highly pervasive cause of disease.” It really doesn’t get much clearer than this, and our elected representatives should take note: Here is a highly credible source with which to support your efforts on behalf of your constituency. But wait, there’s more …
5. The authors further discuss why in some studies there appears to be little or no evidence of harm from wireless radiation. Several causes are discussed for a lack of consensus among certain studies. Among these, most notable is the tendency for conflicting interests to influence how studies are designed and/or interpreted so as to support whichever interest is funding the research.
Quoting from the study (emphasis mine): “For example, studies have shown that industry funded research of wireless radiation adverse health effects is far more likely to show no effects than funding from non-industry sources (Huss et al., 2007; Slesin, 2006; Carpenter, 2019). Studies in disciplines other than wireless radiation have shown that, for products of high military, commercial, and political sensitivity, “researchers”/organizations are hired to publish articles that conflict with the credible science, and therefore create doubt as to whether the product of interest is harmful (Michaels, 2008; Oreskes and Conway, 2011) …
This is an important admission of the problem of scientific corruption coming from an esteemed and mainstream perspective. They go on to state that it is imperative that objective researchers with minimal conflicts of interest play a key role in evaluating safety standards for wireless radiation.
6. Finally, the paper concludes saying that though wireless radiation offers many technological advantages, there is, nonetheless, extensive reliable data showing significant evidence of biological harm. Further, when real life conditions are considered (such as wireless radiation interactions with chemical and biological stressors discussed above), the adverse health impacts increase substantially.
Specifically addressing the addition of 5G technology, the authors state emphatically: “Superimposing 5G radiation on an already imbedded toxic wireless radiation environment will exacerbate the adverse health effects shown to exist. Far more research and testing of potential 5G health effects under real-life conditions is required before further rollout can be justified.”
For those seeking current, scientific confirmation on the health aspect of the 5G conversation, this is a clear and excellent resource. I encourage you to download the whole paper, share it with friends, send it to your elected representatives. Get involved in some good way. It really is that important.
1. www.wa4safetech.com (study link available online).
2. Direct link to this study: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf?fbclid=IwAR09-dq-cIfzsDm4eThv3VVZKZ9OT3pxKuSOgQe7msEbUd_Gj9QlV0LneWA.
Art Baner, LMP CHt, is a practicing hypnotherapist and bodyworker in Bellingham. He is also a certified instructor of Tai Chi Chuan, qigong, and meditation. He has authored numerous articles on personal development and a home study course in qigong fundamentals. He can be reached at www.fullcirclearts.net.