Why does Australia’s radiation standard allow the Australian public to be exposed to much more wireless radiation than the Russian standard does? Why doesn’t our radiation standard give us adequate protection against 5G radiation? Lyn McLean talks to Australian physicist Vic Leach who explains the limitations of Australian and international standards and what we need to know about 5G radiation.
There needs to be independent, well-funded research on the effects of non-ionizing radiation on human and other life forms. The parallels with the tobacco industry are thought-provoking.
A new study from Greece sheds light on how electromagnetic fields (EMFs) affect health and raises questions about whether researchers have been looking for answers in the right places all this time.
A trio of researchers have compiled a report saying the widespread installation of cell towers and antennas is generating electromagnetic fields — EMFs for short — that could be physiologically harmful.
Aluminum is key to everything at stake here. First, it burns into reflective aluminum oxide, or alumina, which could turn into an unwitting geoengineering experiment that could alter Earth’s climate. And second, aluminum oxide could damage and even rip a new hole in the ozone layer. Let’s look at each threat separately and try to figure it out.
demonstrates arrogance and incompetence. The potential harmful effects of radiation from mobile networks cannot be reduced by engineers to frequency and average intensity. To evaluate and mitigate EMR exposure’s impacts to health and wildlife, we need comprehensive scientific study with due diligence, humility and caution.
The industry claims that 5G will pave broadband highways for our ever-increasing data traffic at faster speed. It claims that 5G will reduce carbon emissions. Are these claims true? Before we deploy 5G, don’t we need to evaluate its environmental footprint and sustainability with due diligence?
I am an engineer, not a biologist. Yet, I realize wildlife and biodiversity are the Earth’s greatest treasures and need to be protected. In previous letters, I discussed large-scale 5G networks’ energy consumption and climate impacts. I proposed more sustainable alternatives to 5G public networks. Today, I will report how 5G threatens ecosystems and biodiversity.
A panoply of dazzling new IoT applications is a given, it would seem, with all the potential benefits one might expect from a step-change in wireless connectivity. But what about the environmental footprint?
There is no debate that automotive, airline, and tobacco safety requirements, once bitterly fought by major manufacturers, have saved millions. We are at the same juncture now with radically evolving telecom technology.
All over the world, scientists, governments, corporations and consumers are collaborating to turn the Earth into a giant computer, fulfilling the warning predictions of the great Swedish physicist and Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén. Written under the pen name Olof Johannesson, his 1966 science fiction novel Sagan om den stora datamaskinen (The Tale of the Great Computer) predicted smart phones, the internet, fitbits, artificial intelligence, chip implants enabling direct human-to-computer communication, the colonization of Mars, and ultimately the replacement of humankind entirely by computers, which regarded human beings as just one step on the evolutionary path to themselves.
any people ask “Where is the scientific evidence? How do you know that 5G and the deployment of small cells (which usually is 4G) is not safe? Why do you say it is harmful?” The answer is that an ever growing and large body published research has found adverse effects from wireless radiation. Effects have been found at levels that are legal and permissible. 5G will use frequencies that are currently in use as well as higher frequencies never used in any widespread way.
A Meta-Integrative Qualitative Study on the Hidden Threats of Smart Buildings/Cities and Their Associated Impacts on Humans and the Environment
mentally.” The paper also focuses on e-waste and energy consumption.
U.S. Appeals Court rules against FCC in favor of wireless safety advocates on radio frequency exposure limits
Today the dam of denial has begun to crack. A Federal appeals court ruled against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in favor of wireless safety advocates, This ruling represents a victory in the decades-long fight to get our government to adopt wireless radiation exposure limits that protect our health and the environment.
Safe ICT Wellington Newsletter July 2021. Main Article: It was Yuri Grigoriev that founded the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP).This organisation, with 38 scientists and two representatives from the Russian Ministry of Health, is responsible for setting the standards in Russia. Their standards, unlike most of other countries, take into account actual chronic exposure, and are based on measurable effects on the nervous and immune systems; not simply six minutes of thermal effects.